/r/MGTOW banned

submitted by Vulptex from reddit.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Amongstclouds 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

They were inferring it was by virtue of being women which is why I asked about the childcare portion. I can't read it so I have to go based on their word. If a bunch of it was childcare then it would make sense. A society would want to make sure children have what they need to grow up and not be monsters.

[–]Vulptex[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

It doesn't make sense because:

  • Not all women raise children

  • Some men raise children

Therefore it is not fair to afford it to all women and no men for this reason. If benefits are given they should be given to those who it's supposed to be supporting. In this case, those who are raising children.

[–]Amongstclouds 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

I mean, the numbers they cited were an average. So maybe on average women get more but probably they are the caregivers 80% of the time so the math works out...I don't know. Hence the question. You saying men should be paid to not work didn't make sense in the context of the question.

[–]Vulptex[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

So maybe on average women get more but probably they are the caregivers 80% of the time so the math works out

The 20% it doesn't work out for is 1 in every 5 people which is pretty significant. Even if it's 0.1% there's no reason to go by the wrong statistic. It's a pretty obvious excuse to give in to our primal urge to take care of women more than men.

You saying men should be paid to not work didn't make sense in the context of the question.

I never said that. I said women shouldn't be getting paid to not work, especially if men aren't.