| |
| ▲ | Buttons840 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | That sounds like the ideal situation we have decided to make unrealistic. | |
| ▲ | AnthonyMouse an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Wait a minute… that sounds like… The child tax credit. | |
| ▲ | Spivak 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Okay but you do understand that what you're suggesting costs the full salary a woman (because of course it would never be men asked give up their careers) could earn for the family and the economic gains that come with it. Back of the napkin calculation is three trillion dollars of value lost annually. And that's before the knock-on effects of such a massive recession. Household income will drop by 30-40% across the board because you're daft if you think men will be getting a raise. So there goes the demand side too. Then there's the small issue that women's liberation happened and there's no reason to believe it wouldn't happen again given the conditions would be the exact same. Women won't be put back into financial captivity without a fight. In some ways I understand why men idealize this era of the past, but women were not having a good time. | | |
| ▲ | svieira an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | It doesn't cost the fully salary of the woman, it redirects it to something that can't be captured by large scale economics. Which, if you're trying to break the backs of the uber wealthy, is an excellent way to do it. > Women won't be put back into financial captivity without a fight This, along with the language of the supposedly "pro-male" camp ("why shackle yourself to someone who will just rough you over for most of your paycheck later and leave") are both approaching marriage wrong. If you're trying to achieve a good that cannot be had individually (a happy marriage) then both sides have to freely give 100% of what the shared good requires. Marriage cannot work as a Mexican standoff between two parties who are trying to take as much as possible from it without giving anything in return. Dangerous? Yes. It's the most dangerous thing you can ever do, to take yourself in your own hands and offer yourself to another. | |
| ▲ | an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | Wowfunhappy an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The other way to interpret GP is that we could implement long-term government-funded parental leave, especially if (!) the cost was comparable to universal child care. This could go to either parent, not necessarily the mother. | |
| ▲ | watwut an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I mean, that is an advantage to people who push for that. That way the woman is made completely dependent on man and cant leave no matter how bad the situation gets. If you want men to be head of households then lack of female employment is an advantage. Of course men to get simultaneously resentful over having to work while women done and spend their money each time they buy something, are not super thankful all of the time cause people are not, but that is not concern to those people either. | |
| ▲ | nathanaldensr an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | kelseyfrog an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | > The burden of proof is on feminists to prove why things they believe and optimize for are necessary and good, not the other way around. Simple question, but what evidence would change your mind? | |
| ▲ | watwut an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > We need fathers to protect and provide. Protect from what? Themselves and other men? Why do they have to provide while women are being made helpless and dependent? > Things worked this way for thousands upon thousands of years and led to our species being amazingly resilient It led to high domestic violence against women. Even normalized one where being the wife was considered just being a man. These are very much correlated with lack of opportunities for women to get earn and live independently. Too many men were using the "protection" as an excuse for being the primary danger in their women's lives. | |
| ▲ | tastyface an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | What the fuck, dude? Bud, "your" people are "getting replaced" because they’re not fucking enough. Pounding your chest about "low-IQ" immigrants and masculinity won't help: they still won't fuck until they feel they can afford the lifestyle they want, regardless of who you feel the "burden of proof" is on. Enjoy seeing -- gasp!! -- a whole lot more brown faces with scary names in the future. (As always, the kids will be alright, regardless of whatever scornful glances they might catch from insecure adult "men".) Want to raise the next generation of humans in a healthy, humanistic way? Then you go fucking do it, Mr. Big Man. Otherwise, let us do the sensible thing of having universal child care and go back to your racist rat hole. Someday your woke kids will read your comment and will be mortified. |
|
|
|
