Seriously, what is this fascination with taxing the productive to pay for the reproductive?
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (28)
sorted by:
This is a load of bullshit and you know it. Women's wealth has never been so high and they still don't have kids. They only have kids when they want to trap some sucker for the juicy payoff - which is morally unjustifiable, but at least I can stay out of it.
Policy like this drags the entire male population who are already heavily discriminated against by women in power positions, into bailing out the extremely wealthy female population with money that would be best used elsewhere. The only way to make it justifiable is to pay for it by taxing women's sanitary products, divorce settlements and OnlyFans earnings. That way it would be a transfer of cash from the wealthy childless female population to the wealthy female population with children.
If you want patriarchal values to return, you should want women to have a lot of children.
Patriarchal values were a product of their time. We can't go back, we have to shape a new future.
If people genuinely want this natalist economic policy, it should be funded by money taken from women.
We absolutely can go back. Females do not and will never have a monopoly of violence, it's just a matter of when the last straw hits.
More women worked in the 20s than in the 50s. Any idea why?
They kept jobs they stole from dead men during WW1.
I literally shared a feminist-leaning article that admitted that feminists knew and supported this for female advancement as part of my Women's History Month posts.