Quote:
Originally Posted by calculoso
Staying at home is not working? Seriously? Or do you mean not being paid to work (which these tax changes would actually address)?
I have no problem with encouraging women to work, but at the same time if they are truly ever going to have independence and equality then they have to have valid options and choices to do whatever they so choose.
Want to be an engineer? Sure
Want to be a nurse? No problem.
Want to be President of the USA? Knock yourself out, you have my support.
Want to run a daycare and take care of all of your neighbors' kids? Be my guest, just make sure you're registered and are paid.
Want to be a stay at home mom? NO.. NO NO.. this is bad. Don't ever choose this, no matter how much you want it, no matter how much work it is, no matter how good/bad it could be for the kids and your husband/wife.. just no.
Give me a break.
|
It's not about individual anecdotes. It's about what the tax policy promotes at the population level. It's fine if it works for you, but no one (or no family) is an island.
If you accept that, a) gender inequality exists, and b) that economic inequality between genders is a root cause; then it stands to reason that making incentives to discourage women from working will increase gender inequality.
Maybe you don't believe that points "a" and "b" exist.