4 ms·

I am not upset women aren't staying home to take care of children. I'm upset that women have so willingly been trapped in fighting for their rights to be part

by hirako2000 5y ago

I am not upset women aren't staying home to take care of children. I'm upset that women have so willingly been trapped in fighting for their rights to be part of the Labour force, and in the end have to work full time without the ability to afford child care. At least you got a few things right. Yes, women have been working "more" and it has created the difficulty to get their children proper care. It's rather logical. You can add to that it is not just women's problem. It's men's too. It is our problem : we have a model that cannot solve an absolute road block: if women work, and get equal pay, then childcare become out of reach to a large portion of the population. Unless you increase the kids to carer ratio of course, or build robots as carer. I think the issue with the work arounds are rather obvious. Or maybe not since I've only commented with simple logical critics but many won't cease to conceive a society with women taking care of their children until a proven solution comes along. I don't have a plan to fix that problem, no. That's why I blame the dogma that introduced the problem in the first place. And I refer to the previous model that worked for millenia, which is a gender based role system. It doesn't have to be that way, but sure let's consider any way, but I don't see why criticising today's model and referring to one that worked is useless.

danShumway 5y ago
So I guess same question as I ask below. Are you happy with the current labor shortage, do you see it as a good thing? It seems like it's directly addressing a problem you have with the current state of child-rearing, and that in order to move to the model you prefer, businesses necessarily need to get used to the fact that fewer people are going to apply for jobs and that they'll have to pay workers more. This should be a good thing as far as you're concerned, right?
- hirako2000 5y ago
  I'm sorry there is no labour shortage, there is inadequate training. Unaffordable universities mostly not delivering on their promise. That was meant to create what looks like a labour shortage. Train, and increase wage, suddenly you will find more workers to fill those jobs. Yes. A higher pay would put back women at home and in community participation which is what a good portion past 30 would much prefer. A couple to work less and take care of children rather than chasing affordable childcare services, it won't happen in a taxed market in economy that paying for a full time service would work unless for those who earn significantly more of course.

danShumway 5y ago

So I guess same question as I ask below. Are you happy with the current labor shortage, do you see it as a good thing? It seems like it's directly addressing a problem you have with the current state of child-rearing, and that in order to move to the model you prefer, businesses necessarily need to get used to the fact that fewer people are going to apply for jobs and that they'll have to pay workers more. This should be a good thing as far as you're concerned, right?

hirako2000 5y ago
I'm sorry there is no labour shortage, there is inadequate training. Unaffordable universities mostly not delivering on their promise. That was meant to create what looks like a labour shortage. Train, and increase wage, suddenly you will find more workers to fill those jobs. Yes. A higher pay would put back women at home and in community participation which is what a good portion past 30 would much prefer. A couple to work less and take care of children rather than chasing affordable childcare services, it won't happen in a taxed market in economy that paying for a full time service would work unless for those who earn significantly more of course.