It's a stupid idea, especially in an economic crisis. You don't pay your worst people to be even more useless.
Regardless, this is like President Trump deciding in 2024 "Actually, I like Build Back Better" and passing a bill that is identical to Biden's failed one.
He was elected specifically to not do this. He was elected on fiscal conservatism and anti-feminism, not rushing off the same cliff of trying to appease women for "muh birth rate" as his predecessor.
Megalia are still not locked up, the military service requirement is still present, and government spending has risen.
Feminism is about "liberating" women from the duties of motherhood
More generally, from biology.
I don't know how to explain that to you in a way you will understand.
You cannot argue someone out of a position by reason when he did not arrive at the position by reason.
He has some issues. Either bad experiences with the womans, paranoid personality disorder, or maybe he got trapped in an online echochamber where he heard only horrorstories about the womans (also a leading cause of female radicalization into feminism).
Paying women to make babies has literally never succeeded in raising the birth rate of any society that tries it. It only creates more fatherless children by incentivizing even more women to kick the father out of the home and replace him with the state as their breadwinner. There is nothing anti-feminist about it.
It's bad form to bring up issues you have with people on unrelated threads.
But alright, I'll bite. Just because you managed to convince yourself that Ukraine is pure and saintly, doesn't mean everyone else has to. In fact, Western-backed "human rights" organizations and media have pointed out Ukraine's targeting of civilian areas in Donetsk - which they continued without a hitch as soon as Russia started the war.
There was also nothing to "continue" after Russia "started" (resumed) the war. Just go back to Patrick Lancaster's channel and see all the parades in Donetsk after February, and the frontlines (just outside the city, including in the suburbs) practically didn't change and they're still in artillery range of every kind and caliber (plus missiles, and aircraft). They're being hit there by artillery and missiles alright (notably with HIMARS), but it's never on these crowded parades (crowds of soldiers, but also crowds of civilians) or anything remotely civilian, but just on purely military targets. The only mass casualty event was from fragments of a shot down missile.
If they only wanted, they could easily massacre hundreds or even thousands (including many soldiers, and even top commanders and other leaders) during any of these parades and other mass events (both nowadays and during all these years). Again, look at these parades. This is your "human shields" right there. And it works, makes these crowds of troops and leaders untouchable.
But you for some reason came to believe the silly lie according to which they target and "terrorize" the civilians in particular. Just because someone lied to you on the internet. Or was it also Russian mass media? Or was even Putin personally?
Just like he personally lied to Oliver Stone when he showed him the famous American footage from Afghanistan as a Russian footage from Syria. Makes just you as guilible this demented boomer. Sad. (But would be funny if you got your "info" from Stone, too. He's made a "documentary" about it, I heard.)
So, who was it who easily convinced you so about something that never happened? Please, tell me.
It's not "pure and saintly" (they're just humans), but there was nothing to "point out" after February 2015 when large battles (offensives by either side, and there were only Russian ones after August '14) ended and there was only low level hostilities in the trenches, occasionally and less and less (and practically nothing since Zelensky was elected, no one on either side killed or injured on an average day). These are the facts.
Maybe actually go and check out what "Western-backed "human rights" organizations and media have pointed out" for 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016, because you just didn't.
The last big attack on a civ area outside of battle (and the last battle was for Debaltsevo ending in Feb '15, and it wrecked the city) was when the Russians rocketed Mariupol in January of that year just as they officially ended the Minsk-1 ceasefire (to attack Debaltseve full-scale): https://press.un.org/en/2015/sgsm16485.doc.htm (there was no revenge attack for that, and there were no such incidents after 2015 at all.
It's a stupid idea, especially in an economic crisis. You don't pay your worst people to be even more useless.
Regardless, this is like President Trump deciding in 2024 "Actually, I like Build Back Better" and passing a bill that is identical to Biden's failed one.
He was elected specifically to not do this. He was elected on fiscal conservatism and anti-feminism, not rushing off the same cliff of trying to appease women for "muh birth rate" as his predecessor.
Megalia are still not locked up, the military service requirement is still present, and government spending has risen.
He's failed on everything.
Feminism is about "liberating" women from the duties of motherhood. What he is doing is both anti-feminist and pro-family.
If there are no babies born then there isn't a country to govern. I don't know how to explain that to you in a way you will understand.
More generally, from biology.
You cannot argue someone out of a position by reason when he did not arrive at the position by reason.
He has some issues. Either bad experiences with the womans, paranoid personality disorder, or maybe he got trapped in an online echochamber where he heard only horrorstories about the womans (also a leading cause of female radicalization into feminism).
Paying women to make babies has literally never succeeded in raising the birth rate of any society that tries it. It only creates more fatherless children by incentivizing even more women to kick the father out of the home and replace him with the state as their breadwinner. There is nothing anti-feminist about it.
You just have to make it a requirement that the mother and father are together to earn the money.
Proof?
Imp heard South Korea having an "Incel Revolution" (his words) and instantly codified it as truth.
Speaking of which, so what's about you being told about "terror shelling" and it becoming your dogma just because someone told you?
It's bad form to bring up issues you have with people on unrelated threads.
But alright, I'll bite. Just because you managed to convince yourself that Ukraine is pure and saintly, doesn't mean everyone else has to. In fact, Western-backed "human rights" organizations and media have pointed out Ukraine's targeting of civilian areas in Donetsk - which they continued without a hitch as soon as Russia started the war.
Of course, I can't persuade you, because Poland.
There was also nothing to "continue" after Russia "started" (resumed) the war. Just go back to Patrick Lancaster's channel and see all the parades in Donetsk after February, and the frontlines (just outside the city, including in the suburbs) practically didn't change and they're still in artillery range of every kind and caliber (plus missiles, and aircraft). They're being hit there by artillery and missiles alright (notably with HIMARS), but it's never on these crowded parades (crowds of soldiers, but also crowds of civilians) or anything remotely civilian, but just on purely military targets. The only mass casualty event was from fragments of a shot down missile.
If they only wanted, they could easily massacre hundreds or even thousands (including many soldiers, and even top commanders and other leaders) during any of these parades and other mass events (both nowadays and during all these years). Again, look at these parades. This is your "human shields" right there. And it works, makes these crowds of troops and leaders untouchable.
But you for some reason came to believe the silly lie according to which they target and "terrorize" the civilians in particular. Just because someone lied to you on the internet. Or was it also Russian mass media? Or was even Putin personally?
Just like he personally lied to Oliver Stone when he showed him the famous American footage from Afghanistan as a Russian footage from Syria. Makes just you as guilible this demented boomer. Sad. (But would be funny if you got your "info" from Stone, too. He's made a "documentary" about it, I heard.)
So, who was it who easily convinced you so about something that never happened? Please, tell me.
It's not "pure and saintly" (they're just humans), but there was nothing to "point out" after February 2015 when large battles (offensives by either side, and there were only Russian ones after August '14) ended and there was only low level hostilities in the trenches, occasionally and less and less (and practically nothing since Zelensky was elected, no one on either side killed or injured on an average day). These are the facts.
Maybe actually go and check out what "Western-backed "human rights" organizations and media have pointed out" for 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016, because you just didn't.
The last big attack on a civ area outside of battle (and the last battle was for Debaltsevo ending in Feb '15, and it wrecked the city) was when the Russians rocketed Mariupol in January of that year just as they officially ended the Minsk-1 ceasefire (to attack Debaltseve full-scale): https://press.un.org/en/2015/sgsm16485.doc.htm (there was no revenge attack for that, and there were no such incidents after 2015 at all.
You were fooled. What now?