No one ever said it was *deliberately* unfair. Which is why people are or should be looking at ways to rectify it.
I also think that a biological difference is not a good argument, since there is no biological reason women should pay more tax (on average) than men.
When men can carry babies, I will be lining up for them to get the baby bonus too. And I think men being able to carry babies will be fantastic! I do wonder about the men who would like to be fathers and yet never get the same chance to do it alone the same way women do. I'd love for John to be carrying this pregnancy. But since men as a whole have such a lack of interest in protecting their right to procreate (the male pill is just a complete flop cos no man will take it) then I fail to see that many men leaping to actually go through an entire pregnancy.
However, I think that if the prime minister wants to encourage births, then giving away money is a nice step in that direction. It's about as penalising for your examples as is the fact women who are SAHM don't get paid as much as couples who work. So I don't think your example applies. Single/childless/whatever people have different benefits. And $4K is nothing in the costs of raising a child.
What the article is really talking about is how women already have it hard, and their value is de-valued further because, in a society in which the almighty $$ is the *only* way to show your value, we get less, keep less, and are worthless as working halves in a marriage.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-05-04 10:35 am (UTC)From:I also think that a biological difference is not a good argument, since there is no biological reason women should pay more tax (on average) than men.
When men can carry babies, I will be lining up for them to get the baby bonus too. And I think men being able to carry babies will be fantastic! I do wonder about the men who would like to be fathers and yet never get the same chance to do it alone the same way women do. I'd love for John to be carrying this pregnancy. But since men as a whole have such a lack of interest in protecting their right to procreate (the male pill is just a complete flop cos no man will take it) then I fail to see that many men leaping to actually go through an entire pregnancy.
However, I think that if the prime minister wants to encourage births, then giving away money is a nice step in that direction. It's about as penalising for your examples as is the fact women who are SAHM don't get paid as much as couples who work. So I don't think your example applies. Single/childless/whatever people have different benefits. And $4K is nothing in the costs of raising a child.
What the article is really talking about is how women already have it hard, and their value is de-valued further because, in a society in which the almighty $$ is the *only* way to show your value, we get less, keep less, and are worthless as working halves in a marriage.