2 ms·
They are suggesting that women should receive funds on the condition that they are women. (I did not intend to infer that women are disabled, but for the argume
by monksy 11y ago
They are suggesting that women should receive funds on the condition that they are women. (I did not intend to infer that women are disabled, but for the argument that they're trying to justify is that the person should recieve money because they have a condition, not because they did something).
----
"Breaking out of traditional work roles" So that means that you're asking a handout to change social roles in a society?
- comrh 11y agoI suggesting we give funds to people who raise children, who are traditionally women, because they preform a very important role in society without any financial compensation. And the article suggests this can (or has) lead to worse gender imbalances. It is certainly a job and rewarding it wouldn't be a "handout". The quote I even referenced included "and other caregivers". This isn't "let's just pay women cause they're women" even if people want to get all up in arms about that and make a strawman. I'm thinking you didn't even bother to read the article.
- dllthomas 11y ago"They are suggesting that women should receive funds on the condition that they are women." This is not the case. Did you read the article? It is calling for a universal basic income, not one contingent on gender. It says: "It’s an odd kind of reparations, you may object, that goes to fathers as well as mothers, the unattached as well as those with family responsibilities. But entertain this radical proposition: The universal basic income is a necessary condition for a just society, for it recognizes the fact that most of us — men, women, parents and nonparents — do a great deal of unpaid work to sustain the general well-being."