Makes intact families and non-employed mothers illegal!

You can't make this stuff up, but these two professors take the gold medal in social nuttery: Families are Unfair!

Professors Adam Swift of the University of Warwick and Harry Brighouse of the University of Wisconsin, Madison, think they’ve found the root source of inequality in society: the family. 

... “If the family is this source of unfairness in society,” says Swift, “then it looks plausible to think that if we abolished the family there would be a more level playing field.” 

Now happily, Swift and Brighouse recognize that abolishing the family altogether would be going overboard. So their alternative is to hobble intact families—especially those with means—by prohibiting private school, inheritance, summer camp, and other “purely economic means” of conferring advantage on children.

And while we are at it, the Australians weigh in by insisting "It should be illegal to be a stay-at-home mum."

It’s the topic of stay-at-home mums. More specifically, the release of any data or analysis that dares recommend Australian women should get out of the living room/kitchen/nursery and back into the workforce.

So the outcry has been predictable in the wake of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD) recent report which had the audacity to suggest stay-at-home mums would be better off putting their skills to use in paid employment.

“One of the areas of greatest untapped potential in the Australian labour force is inactive and/or part-time working women, especially those with children,’’ concluded the landmark study. “There are potentially large losses to the economy when women stay at home or work short part-time hours.’’ ...

Rather than wail about the supposed liberation in a woman’s right to choose to shun paid employment, we should make it a legal requirement that all parents of children of school-age or older are gainfully employed.

"It's for the children," we assume.

Update: It gets even stupider: "If babies were randomly allocated to families would racism end?" by Howard Rachlin, Emeritus Research Professor of Psychology at Stony Brook University, and Marvin Frankel, professor of psychology at Sarah Lawrence College.

Imagine a world in which all the babies born each day were randomly redistributed among the biological parents. The infant assigned to any given set of parents could be white, black, Asian, Hispanic, Native American, or any combination thereof (and that’s just the US); the baby could be perfectly healthy or grossly deformed. Parents would know only that their child was not their biological child. Let us call this social mixing.

But it's just a thought experiment, ya know?