Is the sarcasm clear enough yet?

At this degenerate point in our nation’s history, women have more rights than ever before. It may prove difficult to change people’s minds that this is an unfortunate thing in this day and age, but here is a valiant effort to do just that. It has become necessary to consider revoking the privileges women have heretofore received. The beginning of the end was women’s suffrage and it was all rather downhill from there.

This is not to bash women as a whole. Women have a place and their unique skills are necessary. However, people have become misguided as to where these skills may be best put to work. For instance, women are wonderful at raising children. The maternal instinct that women can have is astounding, far surpassing that of paternal instincts, in some ways. Women ought to be educated, if only for the purpose of being able to raise well-educated, strong, independent children so that the up-and-coming generation is one of which to be proud.

However, thinking that women ought to be educated so that they can go into a career is a different story. When women have careers, even after getting married, or if not then even after having children is really unnecessary. For the former, women are taking jobs that men could have.  Men can and should be the providers, so once a woman marries there is really no need for her to maintain a job. Should she keep her job even after marrying, there is absolutely no reason she ought to consider doing so after inevitably having children. Children do best with a parent in the home, especially in their early development. While some may argue that should that prove necessary, the father or mother could fulfill that role, well… reconsider. It is simply an evolutionary fact: women make better parents to children, since they are the mother. The term “maternal instinct” is well known for a reason. Men were hunters and providers and women were gatherers and homemakers. What that means in today’s society is that men are providers insofar as they have a job and women should be homemakers still.

There is an argument that even if one wishes to do these things, she may. The point of women’s rights is so that they have choices. Now, this sounds very nice. However, if all women are naturally supposed to be one way, why fight against nature?

Women may have jobs before they get married, but surely when taking characteristics into account, it makes sense for men to take certain jobs and women to take on more feminine, maternal jobs. Take politics, for example. A person in politics needs to be firm, charismatic and stoic — a true leader.  Now, this is not to say that is who ends up in politics, but certainly it is something for which to hope and strive to have embodied in a political leader. Men, by nature, have the more commanding voice, presence of mind and are less emotional than their feminine counterparts. It is not that women could not be educated enough and charismatic enough to seem to fulfill the necessary role. It is just that when push comes to shove, a leader must stand strong and think logically. This is simply not within a feminine capacity to achieve.

Now, women are complementary, necessary members of society. That is true. However, our nation’s ills, worries and concerns could be alleviated to a large degree if we had women taking on the roles they are naturally meant for and not striving to be something they are not. By reconsidering women’s rights, the natural order may still be reinstated. At first it may appear that having an independent, well-educated woman, with all her skills and gifts, may be a wonderful person to have voting and working in society. However, natural biology tells a different story and perhaps it is time America listens with their head and not their heart.

Mad Marshmallow is indeed a “mad marshmallow” studying English, philosophy and the art of extreme sarcasm at Xavier University. She grew up in Marsh Land and is a copy editor for the Newswire.