Is free childcare for women really a good idea?

Truth is THIS is what many fantasise about


Not a companion not a co worker in maintaining a home but a cheap slave - a “trad wife”

 

If they “**** off” then isn’t that better than those same parents parking the kids in the car outside a casino?? Childcare also gives opportunities to ensure some is assessing how well the child is cared fir.

 

many women and even some men would love to stay home and take care of the house and children vs work 40 hours a week

 

What does "free" mean?
What does "childcare" mean?
What does it mean to decide to bring a person into the world? What responsibilities does it imply?
Egoism weighs heavily on us.

 

Everything Democrats do, they do to increase dependence upon government. This is just another example. They sell it as benevolent compassion, but use it to tighten their grip of control on you.

 

Childcare is already free for people who qualify for welfare. It is an IMPORTANT benefit for the poor, who want to work themselves towards independence---because childcare will take your entire income if you make low wage.

But we shouldn't create dependence across our population. Having children carries responsibility and turning a responsibility into an entitlement is never good. Families are able to work out things according to their situation--whether it be a parent staying home while the other brings in the income, or both parents working lower paying jobs to make ends meet. Nothing wrong with parents figuring out, on their own, how to make things work. Plus, they get Earned income and child credits during tax season, which is in itself a form of welfare.

Plus, pushing for both parents to work is a form of social engineering I don't agree with. A parent raising their own children is a good thing. Good for the children, for the neighborhood and good for schools as stay at home parents are more involved with their school and children's activities.

More and more-men are staying at home as women are advancing more in their careers. That is how it was in my family (I stayed home til kids were school age and hubby stayed home afterwards). I've worked with several women who bring home the bacon and husbands raised the children. Personally---I think women are better at being a stay at home mom---but any parent raising their children is better then strangers.

 

I'd be willing to be flexible.
Maybe something like help pay for 50% of the cost of childcare, or just give you 35% if you do it yourself (and it can somehow be verified that you actually are looking after your own children during that time).

Maybe there could also be a limit, like only provide the subsidy for the first two children the person has, but not for any children after that.

If she wants subsidized child care for the third kid, she better get her tubes tied.

 

Why not him having a vasectomy? Vasectomy is a smaller operation than tubal ligation

 

Might sound "logical" superficially, but you're not thinking about how that would work in reality.

The woman is seen as the caretaker. Assuming casual sex, the man is likely not going to directly care too much whether childcare is paid for.
Even if we assume the couple are in a marriage, the woman could cheat (with another man), and then if she gets pregnant, it will very likely be her husband helping to take care of the child.
The children are kind of going to follow the woman.

I suppose there might be some sort of more creative arrangement to allow the man to get a vasectomy instead of the woman, but it wouldn't be a simple "either him or her" issue.

I suppose, theoretically, we could apply a half credit each to both the biological father and the woman, but that might end up being unfair to mothers who don't know who the father is, or are unable to prove who the father is. And the system I described would not be viable (or fair) if we automatically just gave these women (the most vulnerable women, in fact) the benefit of the doubt and gave them the full child credit.

Also, even on top of that, there tends to be a lot of situations where one man goes around impregnating numerous women. This would not be good for the women because the man's childcare credits would quickly run out, and then all these women would only be left with a half credit, even if they only ever had one child.

 

What a load of twaddle! You are assuming

a) Women will cheat
B) women are sluts because they cheat
C) A woman cannot know or find out who the father of a foetus is…. And I am NOT exploring THAT one further
D) and what is the rubbish about one man “impregnating all the women” - not going to be a factor if he has a vasectomy

 

Some will. And your proposed variation of the law would be unfair to those men, or be unworkable.
Well, maybe unless the man has to agree to signing away his child credit.

Apparently you've never watched the Maury show.

Searching for father of her child, woman brings in 6 different men to be tested. None are the father

 

So? Still not an excuse for MEN to take at least some responsibility. And unless the woman is a prostitute the vast majority do not “sleep around” to that extent. Plus have you ever thought this may be a case of rape? Plus this is based on a Tik Tok story

And mate I have warned you about altering my quotes

 

The point was, under one variation of my proposal, the woman would have to get her tubes tied before getting an additional child credit. You countered by saying there should be an option for the man to get a vasectomy, instead of the woman, so the two can be able to get that additional child credit.

Well then, there is the natural question how do we prove that the man getting the vasectomy is actually the father of the baby who will be given the childcare credit?
I mean, naturally we would expect a woman might just find some other man, who either already has, or was already planning to get a vasectomy soon, and then claim he is the father. It would be too expensive and impractical to run DNA tests all the time to verify this.
So what is you counter proposal that would modify my plan but still allow it to work and do its intended function, without creating easy loopholes to bypass it?

 

My plan of making it only apply to the woman would not prevent men from taking responsibility, if they wanted.

I'm not exactly sure what real logical reason you could have to object to it.

 

I have repeatedly told you that I do not alter your posts. I only respond to parts of it, and do not quote the entirety of your long posts.

Since I am not doing it in a dishonest way, you seem to be being petty.

 

Don’t care - what is good for the goose…..

May be moot anyway - sperm counts are falling worldwide and microplastics have been found in testicular tissue.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health...m, brain,reproductive organs are no exception.

I will refrain from making puns about plastic balls……

 

Any time the quote is altered you are misrepresenting the total

 

I see no specific evidence of that. I understand your argument, but are you really demanding I have to quote your entire post (however long it might be) just to respond to part of it? What about a multi-quote with separate responses specifically towards different things you wrote in one post?

It seems absurd to me.

 

Why have you made this about women specifically? Men need childcare for their children too.

 

Because it's a type of situation that's generally true for women specifically. Stop obsessing over gender and semantics.

 

It's a situation generally true for anyone who has kids and and wants government help to pay for raising them.

 

Government already pays $18,000 per child per year to help raise children, with the public school system. (average in the U.S.)

 

That does not address what I wrote. I asked you why target women speifically. Men also need child care for their children.

 

Obviously women would not be targeted specifically. I just asked you to stop obsessing over the use of gender words. I used the word "women" because it is usually the woman.

You can also see my discussion with Bowerbird above where I do explain why there may be reason to treat women differently.
(If you are referring to that, then you need to clarify. Otherwise I will assume you are not)