All costs of child rearing should be borne by men.

Post Reply New Topic

If I'm reading this correctly, OP is talking about taxing all men, whether they have children or not, and this money would go to women who have children to help with the cost of raising a child?

I sure hope this is satire or trolling

Hm. It was my understanding that the polymer is more like a filter than a plug, but I'll admit I havent examined potential side-effects more than superficially.

I don't know whether the OP is being a troll or what but I think I understand where they are coming from.

Until the 1960s, at least in US society, once a woman got married, they usually removed themselves from the workforce and the man was the sole breadwinner. This meant that 100% of the financial support of the children was usually done by the husband. Now, women did enter the workforce, even in those days, usually spinsters, women who has children out of wedlock (but those children were usually put up for adoption), women whose husbands abandoned them, or if the husband became disabled. However, even in these cases, the family usually ended up in poverty. What the OP missed however is 2 things:

1) The women also had many responsibilities within the family. She was required to be a home economist and make sure that the family did not spend more than the husband earned. She was required to cook most of the meals at home rather than eat out. She also had to raise the children and make sure they behaved and learned moral values. That was the contract for the sole support of the husband.

2) When a couple is together, the expenses are shared, even if there is only one breadwinner. In the case of a split up, this now causes the expense of 2 households to be considered rather than 1. It makes no sense to make it so that a person is homeless (and cannot even get to work) to extract more child support than the person can reasonably afford while having to keep up a separate household. That is the reality.

Finally, even if we were to institute a tax, what would happen if men refused to pay and refuses to work to make the money to be expropriated? Do we put them in prison? Do we execute them? That really would not solve the problem and create other issues.

Unfortunately, society had changed. The simple solutions will not work, we need real solutions that solve many of the problems at once. To force someone into homelessness to extract more money to be given to another for support of a child (and with no method to make sure the funds are being spent in support of the child) is obviously not working and has created its own issues.

Women already have far too much leverage, at least in the US, as it pertains to divorce and custody of children. It's not uncommon for women to hold children over the head of men who want to do the right thing, but cannot do anything but what they are told or the legal system will leave them destitute.

And let me guess, you probably oppose abortion too huh?

And even if what you suggested was enacted, a safety net of some kind would still be required. How many men would just disappear, just like they do now when required to pay child support? Or work for cash and have nothing to garnish? Or go to jail and earn nothing. Or how many would just off themselves leaving no one to pay? If there was no public assistance, you'd be left with a lot of mothers who are in way worse situations than they are even now. And how about cases where the father is unknown?

Why should men shoulder the entire burden? I mean, unless the woman was raped, she consented. So why does she have zero responsibility?

As much as you, and some others want to, we're never going backwards on gender roles. That only goes one direction and it's picking up speed. Better get used to it. I mean it's not altogether uncommon today for a woman to have the career and the man stay home and take care of the kids. If the woman has skills that enable her to earn more, why would she not be the primary source of income for a family?