The true reason for 'equal representation'

Now some of you may read that title and instantly think that I'm going to talk about racism or sexism. Actually, I am not. I am going to talk about the push to have children see an equal number of storybooks in which Prince marries Prince, in which Princess remains single, or in which any other sort of non-standard romantic/sexual relationship or family ensues. There are generally two groups who are letting this in: the group that is pushing for it and the group who figures it's only fair to accommodate them. I am going to be speaking of the first group, a much smaller set, who are pushing for much more than is immediately apparent. They would prefer to completely remove the depiction of heterosexual married couples and parents, and they have a very important reason for it.

Numerous studies show what is already self-evident to many of us. Children do best in every part of their life with a mother and a father married to each other. You can take some cherry-picked examples of the best non-traditional families stacked up against the worst of the abusers in traditional families, but when given a fair shake, non-traditional families fail to measure up.

You see, I read an article some time ago about 'failure of feminism', written by someone on the hardcore side of feminism about the increasing numbers of upper-class women deciding to become full-time homemakers. A paragraph in that article clued me in.

By contrast, a common thread among the women I interviewed was a self-important idealism about the kinds of intellectual, prestigious, socially meaningful, politics-free jobs worth their incalculably valuable presence. So the second rule is that women must treat the first few years after college as an opportunity to lose their capitalism virginity and prepare for good work, which they will then treat seriously. - http://www.alternet.org/story/28621?page=4

Notice what this means. Women are finding intellectual, prestigious, socially meaningful, politics-free jobs worth their incalculably valuable presence as homemakers. Therefore, to prevent them from being homemakers, we must teach them that they must set this ideal aside and prepare themselves for the jobs that will not make them as happy. You must keep them from knowing that a better way exists, or they will take it, and feminists' goal of 'liberating' women from their preferred sphere of influence will never happen.

Kids want a mom and dad. Kids want their mom and dad to be married. Consider the theme in movies and books prior to this present day. Consider an old Disney movie called 'Parent Trap'. When people write books and movies to mirror real life rather than to set an agenda, you see child after child in one of these non-traditional families wishing they were in a traditional one. However, traditional families are not formed by the guiding principle of groups seeking to push non-traditional depictions for children, and that is the principle of sexual freedom.

See the correlation? People who believe that women should not be homemakers seek to hide from women the choice of a meaningful, politics-free solution to their desires, because that will work against the principle of feminist 'liberation'. People who believe in sexual freedom will seek to hide from children the ideal of a traditional family, because as long as they know it is possible they will wish it for themselves and do their best to implement it for their children. The key here is to think, "We want them to do it our way, so we must not let them know that a better way exists."

Of course, the hardline feminists and 'sexual freedom' advocates aren't exactly thinking "a better way exists." At least, that's not what they say. Generally it's that a "way exists that seems better to the unenlightened masses." They're the intelligent ones, the thinking people, the educated elite. (The fact that they have been steeped in four to eight or more years of heavy propaganda in liberal extremist colleges means that they must be 'critical thinkers' for following the liberal extremist viewpoint to a T.)

Eliminating mention of the traditional family will not actually improve the fortunes of non-traditional families. It will simply give the impression that such fortunes are improved, the same way that you may think 25mpg is excellent for a car when you do not know of the 50mpg European minis, or you may think malnutrition is normal if you simply never see the fortitude of a man well-fed.

Note again that I am not speaking of everyone who favors letting children in school know that some children don't have fathers or mothers, that some live with their grandparents, etc. I personally favor this. It includes children from non-traditional families and prepares children from traditional families for dealing with them without meanness. Neither do I intend to bash people who are in non-traditional families and doing their best. A lot of single parents agonize over whether their struggle is going to hurt their children, and I don't mean to add to that. My problem here is with those who would try to hide from us the better choice, the choice that we tend to prefer, that we tend to feel deep inside is the right one, in order to glorify their favorite alternatives.