> Society expects women to do this work, and devalues men who do it By "society", you men "women", right? The reality is that as much as men like young, fertil

> Society expects women to do this work, and devalues men who do it By "society", you men "women", right? The reality is that as much as men like young, fertile, nurturing women, women as well like dominant, successful men (speaking of heterosexuals at least). The so called "choreplay" doesn't lead to more sex, as it turns out. [1] (With the obvious disclaimer that it's just one not-the-most-scientific study, and there's also the other perspective of men now wanting women who earn more... my point is though, that it's not some oppressive "society" boogeyman, but pretty clear (average hetero-)sexual preferences of actual people.) > The reality is that having children is important Is it? For whom? Maybe for society, but probably not for Amazon. Why should then Amazon pay for it. As it turns out, Amazon can afford it, but your run-of-the-mill garage startup can't. I think that if the government/society wants to support people having children (which I think is a good idea, at least as long as we claim immigration to be a good idea), then they should also structure incentives appropriately. For example, they could pay for maternity/parental leave, and even reward companies whose employees have newborns (that would also neatly take care of the problem where incentivizing childbirth has the least effect on the smartest cohorts of the population; if the benefits are proportional to salary, you'll incentivize smart ambitious hard-working people to procreate). [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/magazine/does-a-more-equal-marriage-mean-less-sex.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/magazine/does-a-more-equa...