Actually, "incredibly stupid" doesn't even begin to describe this one. Apparently, feminists have come to the conclusion that mothers aren't rejoining the "work force" and leaving their children in daycare enough. Hence, Harvard Professor Alberto Alessina and U. of Bologna Professor Andrea Ichino suggest that the way to "fix" this problem is to tax women's income at a lower rate than men's.
One hardly knows where to start in ridiculing this idea. One would figure that Italians (with the lowest birth rate in Europe) might know something about what happens when a nation encourages women to ignore their maternal instincts. One might also figure that they might be aware of their proposal's likely influence in breastfeeding, daycare, and institutional schooling--and that these effects are all negative. One might also figure that they'd be able to hazard a guess about what the effects of this idea would be on marriage--more or less making a husband less valuable to the wife.
And no, this Hahvid prof isn't alone; witness this column by Linda Hirshman, nicely mocked here. To Hirshman's credit, she doesn't propose differing tax rates for men and women, but she still has the idea that a woman should disregard her maternal instincts and get back on that career ladder.
Methinks gender feminists like Hirshman and Alessina need to remember Wallace's words:
"The hand that rocks the cradle, is the hand that rules the world."
What a shame that feminists are so eager to cast away the God-ordained influence of women in return for a cubicle.
Podcast #1047: The Roman Caesars’ Guide to Ruling
-
The Roman caesars were the rulers of the Roman Empire, beginning in 27 BC
with Julius Caesar’s heir Augustus, from whom subsequent caesars took their
nam...
11 hours ago
8 comments:
(BB, your second sentence isn't. You may delete this comment.)
You may be surprised by this, but Dennis Prager has an interesting perspective on breastfeeding: If it's going to detract from the beauty of the breast, it's a bad thing, since they are for our enjoyment.
Another point: if women weren't in the workforce, men/husbands would be paid enough to support the family -- simple supply and demand. But, I've said this before. :^/
I'll have to disagree with Prager's logic. We might just as well argue that since childbearing may reduce a woman's beauty, a woman ought to refrain from having children. That is, of course, in blatant conflict with Malachi 2:14-15, which states clearly that a central purpose of marriage is the production of "Godly seed."
For that matter, given that sex generally produced children in Biblical times (since the condom was still 18 centuries in the future), Prager's logic more or less says that a man ought to refuse to make love to his wife. (in blatant conflict with Genesis 2:24 and 1 Corinthians 7)
And at this point I am reminded of the Def Leppard song "Photograph." Who knew that a heavy metal band would know more on this subject than a national talk show host?
Wow, that Prager comment is weird. You should ignore the obvious, created, biological purpose of something because you think that another created purpose is the "real" purpose for it?
Anyhow, I came across the taxation proposal in my own paper the other day and found it bizarre. Quite apart from the social/spiritual damage inflicted by the policy, one has to wonder WHY it's anyone's business to restructure economic realities so as to encourage people to make a different economic choice than the one they're currently content with. If it were a matter of providing economic means from people who were without them, it would be one thing. But that doesn't seem to be what's going on here.
Besides, the thing that always mystifies me is that childcare and domestic maintenance are fixed needs. If you send all those women out into the workforce, someone still needs to care for the children, do the laundry, etc. Have we really gained all that much simply because more people are getting paychecks, but the amount of time and labor needed to care for children and homes is still being expended? It sounds like a game where people pass around a dollar bill in a circle, and every time it passes through their hands, they think they've earned another dollar.
What's the Def Leppard allusion? I know the song, but have missed your point.
More on Prager's attitude, it would make a barren favorite wife seem to be not such a curse as was typically mentioned in the Bible, no?
Pretty simple on the song; the song's about the frustration of a man who falls in love with a photograph. Just like Prager's idea, that picture will never get old, wrinkled, or fat, but just as certainly, all that beauty is useless without a practical (marital) application.
And well said on passing the buck around, Pentamom!
Well, when you pass the buck around, the current possessor must throw 0-30% or so into a trash can to simulate taxes, thus making the game more realistic.
(Going back to check up on the commenting that I've been involved in seems to be helping me understand your more current subject matter!)
Or you can see the government as one of the hands getting the buck. Either/or.
Post a Comment