The Trump administration is drafting a proposal to direct about $9,000 annually for each child of married stay-at-home parents using existing federal child care funds. One can debate the utility of such pronatalist policies. Indeed, results from countries trying to raise fertility rates are mixed, at best.
Read more Where’s the reason in that?
For the sake of discussion, let’s presume the ramifications of this government handout “are different this time,” particularly when it comes to the potential for massive fraud (which seems inevitable). The idea of forking out $9000 per child annually to a married, stay-at-home parent, regardless of their gender, seems half-cocked. For reasons outlined below, men are needed now more than ever in the workplace transformed by AI. Where possible, they should be discouraged from staying at home.
Whether a mother is a “birthing person,” a “gestating person,” or some other peculiar leftist contrivance, she is still more important in the early years of a child’s life.
By comparison to the mother:
- How is a father going to suckle his voracious newborn?
- How is a father, compared to a proper mother, going to rest an upset child’s head in his soft, cozy bosoms for comfort and reassurance?
- How is a father going to sing a sweet, soothing lullaby to a crybaby with the same sensitivity as the mother could?
- How is a father going to softly coddle the distraught infant the way a mother can?
You see, women do all that much better. Nature has configured them to be nurturing, so if they are to receive a handout for doing what should come naturally, they should get more than men.
Now then, once the child is old enough to have some real fun, that’s when the father takes over by indulging in various outdoor activities, games, and sports. Even then, the mother should be keeping home and hearth warm and cozy, attentive to their needs upon return from various adventures.
Here’s the upshot of it all: pink-clad, Clancy-supporting feminists notwithstanding, children are our most precious resource. If we are to increase female fecundity by paying a married parent to stay home to care for children (a dubious idea to begin with), it needs to be more layered. Especially in the early years, mothers deserve a premium compared to fathers. If they are to receive $9000 per year annually, a stay-at-home father probably warrants about $6000, give or take.
Read more Will the ‘Live Free or Die’ state submit to socialism?
Undoubtedly, some busybody lawyer will raise “equal rights and protection” concerns, but there is an additional side benefit to a more nuanced payment schedule. AI is threatening female-dominated jobs much more than male-dominated ones. Though misguided young women place a priority on careers over family, secular economic trends are making their work contributions less crucial, relatively speaking. Particularly in office and administrative roles, which AI handles much more efficiently, and without constant whining about work-life balance.
By contrast, males dominate in labor-intensive jobs that even agile robots running the best algorithms cannot substitute for. Not just manual labor, but architecture, engineering, military, innovating, and other STEM-related occupations.
Women are always complaining about pay discrepancies (without taking into account all the leg-ups we give them and the inordinate time off they take), so let’s give them one in their favor. If they stay home and lovingly nurture their children, they should get paid more than a man attempting the same thing (presuming the policy is implemented).
Now that AI is taking over their jobs disproportionately, and given our dearth of all-American babies, an American woman’s place is back in the home. Embrace it. A sense of purpose and long-term satisfaction awaits.
Read more Hoaxes and the media who sell them
Image: PxHere