Should it be illegal to be a stay-at-home mom?
Liberal progressiveism gone nuts. A woman can have a choice to abot her baby or not, but can't have a choicd to raise her children by staying home or not. Even if the choice is not forced until the children are school age, the lack of choice is astounding!
Everyone has the right to choose what they do and how they do it (unless criminal). So the LP's make staying home illegal.
Everyone has the right to choose what they do and how they do it (unless criminal). So the LP's make staying home illegal.
Quoting Sanders, "Every other major country on Earth [says]" people should do XYZ. Maybe it's not true and other countries actually tell their citizens to do ABC. The issues is the gov't telling the people what to do, not what it tells them to do.
I have one. Of course, I do. Everyone has an opinion.
Mine? Let's have a people keep their noses out of other people's business law.
Yes. They're like an anatomical feature.
Over the next decade, companies were 6 percent less likely to hire women of childbearing age compared with men, 37 percent less likely to promote them and 45 percent more likely to dismiss them, according to a study by Daniel Fernández-Kranz, an economist at IE Business School in Madrid, and Núria Rodríguez-Planas, an economist at City University of New York, Queens College. The probability of women of childbearing age not being employed climbed 20 percent. Another result: Women were more likely to be in less stable, short-term contract jobs, which are not required to provide such benefits.
Another case of cutting off their nose to spite their government "face". Needing more reguulation and rules to say you cannot discriminate against said women, which then throws the costs and burden onto business, which then goes out of business. An Ayn Rand story if ever I have heard one...
thought and twentieth-century Protestantism. Arthur Calhoun stated in 1919, “The fondest wish of Utopian writers was coming true, the child was
passing from its family into the custody of community experts.”6 The power to shape children’s futures was taken from their parents and put into the hands of the government. Starting in this era, as John Swett, the founder of public education in California, stated, schoolchildren belonged not “to the parents, but to the State, to society, to the country.”7
7. Quoted in Rothbard, “The Progressive Era and the Family.”
Theodore and Woodward Andrew P. Napolitano
Harper Collins Christian 2012
It has been downhill ever since.
Another weak generalization is that "liberal progressives believe this (or that)" when clearly, some do, while others do not. In the Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx said that capitalism destroys the natural role of a woman to be a mother, forcing her to work. Yet, when they won their revolution, the Bolsheviks insisted on a woman's right to work -- and to roles traditionally given to men, such as being an engineer or doctor.
The third problem is taking the words of one idiot and extending them. Apparently, Shaquille O'Neal believes that the Earth is flat. What group do you want to put him in so that you can excoriate them all?
Finally, tying all of that together, the generalizations all fail at the individual level. In our 35 years of marriage, my wife has always been the primary wage earner; I have always had the second income, even as I earn twice her hourly rate. I was always the one to take the kid to school. (My wife took the kid to the doctor.) I adjusted my work to meet the needs of the home. We can discuss further how that came out. Just to note in closing: Some long months ago here in the Gulch, I said that I had not seen a large increase in retail prices despite the inflation of the money supply. One woman here quipped, "Who does the shopping" and got some thumbs up for that. But the fact is that I do the grocery shopping.
Generalizations fail at the individual level.
I think you hit the nail on the head with this group stuff. It's at best empty calories to divide people into groups and then point out how your group is superior.
"might be putting up with a cost, rather than enjoying a benefit."
It seems like only a cost to me. If people who have an agreement have change where one side can't provide what they used to, e.g. the employee cannot do the same work or the employer cannot provide the same level of paychecks, they have to sit down and see if they can still work together. If they cannot make it work, it's better that they go their separate ways. I am fortunate to work with really good people who I believe would do their best within reason to accommodate if the paychecks stopped or to accommodate if someone couldn't provide the same service because of a life change of some sort. I don't see how a bureaucratic rule is helpful. It's not just that I do not believe in gov't interference. It's I don't understand the mechanics of how it would work. If for some reason we couldn't make payroll, I would expect people quickly to find a place that can make payroll reliably. I wouldn't want charity. People can try to be helpful and accommodating, but when the rubber meets the road no one can make money grow on trees.
And the idiots call conservatives "fascist"? Beware those who would legislate your life, they are further down the road to tyranny than the rest...
It's easy to see that all this crap is an outright war on Conscious Human Beings, and existence itself...something I've been writing about for a long time.
There are already too damn many laws.
Ayn Rand's whole philosophy is an answer to such evil.
If anything should be illegal - again, nothing in this context should be, but for the sake of emphasis - it should be the practice of allowing anyone other than an actual parent to raise a kid, or worse, to put a kid into a "day care center" so that he or she is essentially being "raised" by a mob of fellow-toddlers. For details, I recommend an essay titled "The Comprachicos."