Like all "women's issues" this one boils down to the shitty men they pick. If they chose financially stable men instead of letting deadbeats raw dog them this would be a nonissue.
No, this is also false. If you spend enough time watching women's actions and even talking to women, you'll understand that women's materialism and desire for "more" is just too high. I'd say the average woman believes her husband needs to be earning about $300k/yr for her to have her optimal 2.7 children.
Pretty much all women can afford to have 2.7 kids now. Indians in India shitting in the streets, living in shanties still manage to survive with 10 kids. Yet Western Women, the richest and most privileged women in the world, can't afford kids? LMAO LMAO LMAO LMAO.
The problem is that the women want too much. Their expectations are way out of this world. Trying to tax people and redistribute it to mothers still won't satiate women's desire for more. Your average woman thinks she deserves a multi-millionaire husband.
No average nice guy with a good paying job can ever meet a woman's demand for what she wants in life.
The problem is women's materialism. Women need to stop consuming so much. We need to take money away from women not give them more money. When we banned women from working and made them 100% reliant on men for survival, that was the right idea. Doing this would probably increase child births because men would want to have kids just to give their wife something to do to keep her from being too bored. It's easy to afford kids right now. The problem just comes down to most people wanting too much.
We know that women are are gold diggers and this is part of their grift. I agree with your solution to that problem as well. My point is that this doesn't stop them from letting Tyrone the jailbird knock them up despite the lack of monetary reward. Part of that is because they can obtain that monetary reward elsewhere (Uncle Sam, a beta she cons into paying for her bad choices, etc), which is why your solution to the problem is a good one. The other part is that they're just biologically wired to sexually select the worst men, which is why we need social and legal structures to mitigate against that.
Remove women's ability to collect any monetary compensation from the government or the man who knocked her up; unless she was married when she became pregnant. Then remove no at fault divorces and implement marriage contracts with actual enforceable contractual obligations. If a woman violates her contractual obligation, she can be punished or the man can leave her without owing her any money and she may owe him money for damages in breaking her contract. Also, all child custody defaults 100% of custody to the man. The woman only gets custody if the man wants to give it to her.
Change the rules to that and watch the social structure change immensely.
I agree with Imp on this point. If you want kids, you pay for them. If someone else doesn't want kids, why is that person expected to pay for yours?
And as it already, people are disproportionately paying for other people's kids, from paying into welfare systems (which are more heavily used by single parent families) and having to pay into school systems even if your kids don't go there (or, worse, getting double-billed by having to pay for the mediocre-at-best public schools plus private school tuition and/or homeschooling resources if you don't want your kids propagandized).
Ignoring the fact that there are many ways to help ensure the survival of society way more effective than taking increasingly large chunks of money out of people's paychecks, how does giving yet more money to some poor, inner-city single mom whose getting knocked up by her third or fourth boyfriend help society? It doesn't. It actively hurts hurts society. That's the systemic issue that needs to be addressed.
Like all "women's issues" this one boils down to the shitty men they pick. If they chose financially stable men instead of letting deadbeats raw dog them this would be a nonissue.
No, this is also false. If you spend enough time watching women's actions and even talking to women, you'll understand that women's materialism and desire for "more" is just too high. I'd say the average woman believes her husband needs to be earning about $300k/yr for her to have her optimal 2.7 children.
Pretty much all women can afford to have 2.7 kids now. Indians in India shitting in the streets, living in shanties still manage to survive with 10 kids. Yet Western Women, the richest and most privileged women in the world, can't afford kids? LMAO LMAO LMAO LMAO.
The problem is that the women want too much. Their expectations are way out of this world. Trying to tax people and redistribute it to mothers still won't satiate women's desire for more. Your average woman thinks she deserves a multi-millionaire husband.
No average nice guy with a good paying job can ever meet a woman's demand for what she wants in life.
The problem is women's materialism. Women need to stop consuming so much. We need to take money away from women not give them more money. When we banned women from working and made them 100% reliant on men for survival, that was the right idea. Doing this would probably increase child births because men would want to have kids just to give their wife something to do to keep her from being too bored. It's easy to afford kids right now. The problem just comes down to most people wanting too much.
We know that women are are gold diggers and this is part of their grift. I agree with your solution to that problem as well. My point is that this doesn't stop them from letting Tyrone the jailbird knock them up despite the lack of monetary reward. Part of that is because they can obtain that monetary reward elsewhere (Uncle Sam, a beta she cons into paying for her bad choices, etc), which is why your solution to the problem is a good one. The other part is that they're just biologically wired to sexually select the worst men, which is why we need social and legal structures to mitigate against that.
Remove women's ability to collect any monetary compensation from the government or the man who knocked her up; unless she was married when she became pregnant. Then remove no at fault divorces and implement marriage contracts with actual enforceable contractual obligations. If a woman violates her contractual obligation, she can be punished or the man can leave her without owing her any money and she may owe him money for damages in breaking her contract. Also, all child custody defaults 100% of custody to the man. The woman only gets custody if the man wants to give it to her.
Change the rules to that and watch the social structure change immensely.
No arguments here.
I agree with Imp on this point. If you want kids, you pay for them. If someone else doesn't want kids, why is that person expected to pay for yours?
And as it already, people are disproportionately paying for other people's kids, from paying into welfare systems (which are more heavily used by single parent families) and having to pay into school systems even if your kids don't go there (or, worse, getting double-billed by having to pay for the mediocre-at-best public schools plus private school tuition and/or homeschooling resources if you don't want your kids propagandized).
Ignoring the fact that there are many ways to help ensure the survival of society way more effective than taking increasingly large chunks of money out of people's paychecks, how does giving yet more money to some poor, inner-city single mom whose getting knocked up by her third or fourth boyfriend help society? It doesn't. It actively hurts hurts society. That's the systemic issue that needs to be addressed.