Jacinda’s ‘modern’ family is not progressive enough

Jacinda Ardern, Clarke Gayford and their baby daughter

  • Unmarried mother… tick
  • High powered career woman… tick
  • Planning on putting career before baby… tick
  • Male partner going to give up his career to stay at home and care for the baby… tick
  • Photo op with baby’s daddy wearing a cardigan from an op shop… tick

You would think that Jacinda Ardern would tick all the boxes for a ‘progressive modern’ family but she still has fallen short. Dismantling every aspect of the traditional family is a priority with so-called progressives and there is one more thing that needs to be discarded that Ardern has failed to do.

There has been an ongoing attack on the importance of a father in a child’s life by the left, whose ultimate goal is for children to be raised or at least funded by the state, as it is much easier to brainwash them that way.

Marriage is despised for the framework of stability and commitment it provides for the raising of children. Men are now offered a package where little is required from them. They are not required to formally commit to the mother of their children. They are not even expected to provide for their children and the mother of their children. They have become little more than glorified sperm donors and can be easily discarded and can (equally) easily discard their partner and children.

The very wise Jordan Peterson has explained how taking on responsibility is what makes men happy and is what is good for them. I hardly think that most manly, masculine men will find happiness discarding their careers to take on the very feminine and nurturing role of motherhood because let me be very clear. Staying at home with a baby is not being a Dad, it is being a Mum. Yes, I am talking about gender roles.

But I digress, back to the topic at hand. How have Jacinda Ardern and her ‘partner’ failed to dismantle the traditional family group to the satisfaction of the progressive police? All is revealed in a Stuff opinion piece.?Quote:

Feeling concerned, I wrote to Jacinda Ardern to check what?surname?her (then unborn)?baby would?have. Her press people said it would probably be Gayford, “but she’s planning on getting her name in there somewhere”.??Well, they were right. But why, when Jacinda and Clarke symbolise such a modern approach to family life, the traditionalism?

We’re not keeping hold of this naming tradition because it’s cool, like passing on a great grandmother’s whiskey butter recipe. It’s steeped in very uncool coverture laws from the middle ages that our great grandmothers fought against. Pre-suffragette days, when a woman married everything she possessed went immediately to the husband along with her?surname. If she was widowed, then, when her eldest son came of age he had authority over everything she possessed (money, property), including her. Daughters were automatically assigned the father’s?surname?and were his property until they married, changed their?surname?and became the property of the new guy. That’s why it’s called the maiden name.

[…] This is not a tradition I feel proud to explain to my children. Well, darlings, years ago women weren’t free, they were either owned by their dads or husbands, and when they married they became one with the man like a grafted Granny Smith and Braeburn tree, and couldn’t branch out on their own.[…]

Gay couples have no rules when it comes to children’s?surnames. They take his, or his, or hers, or hers depending on what sounds best, what’s in need of being passed down or kept alive for other reasons. They’ll have both names in there, or (the less popular) hyphen, or make up an entirely new name from both?surnames.End of quote.

There you go then. Minority Gay couples are so much more progressive and cool than boring majority heterosexual couples with their silly traditions and culture passed on over many generations. Jacinda should have shacked up with a woman and then her daughter wouldn’t have had to acknowledge her cultural heritage or the sperm donor that helped create her at all.