On Career and Child Minding

Okay I’ve been reticent to jump in and blog without tons of research(some of which is coming btw) but here is a post by someone I’ve run into before over at – an excellent blog btw, particularly the lively comments section.  He goes by the name ‘Kirk’ and here is his comment:

‘I was recently at a debate where a woman argued that any woman who sacrifices her career in order to take care of a husband and children should be given alimony for life. She argued that if a woman stays home to take care of her family, she gives up any chance at having a career so she should be compensated. She also said that being a stay-at-home wife and mother is worth at least $100,000 a year in U.S. dollars.

I responded by asking if she paid her nanny at least $100,000 a year. I also asked if she provided health care coverage or a retirement plan for the nanny who took care of her two children. Furthermore, I asked her that if her nanny ever leaves her employ, should that nanny get alimony or “nanimony” for the rest of her life? After all if a mother and wife deserves a lifetime stream of income for taking care of her OWN children and husband, then why shouldn’t a nanny/childcare worker/housekeeper deserve a lifetime stream of income for taking care of someone else’s family?

While I was asking these questions, there was a mixed reaction – some were stunned, a few applauded, some gasped, others booed.

The woman responded by saying that most women weren’t making $100,000 a year so they couldn’t pay a nanny that much money. Besides, nannies chose that career so they should be aware of the pay and pursue other options if they are not happy with being a nanny.

I responded by saying that most men don’t make $100,000 a year so why would they be required to pay alimony to their ex-wives for choosing to stay home with the kids? Besides, stay-at-home moms choose to stay home. If they are not happy with that choice, they should go back to their paid jobs.

I told her that if raising children and taking care of a household deserve a lifetime stream of income, than all people who engage in that occupation should get a lifetime stream of income – wives, husbands, grandmothers, grandfathers, aunts, uncles, babysitters, nannies, childcare workers, maids, butlers, etc.

And then I also mentioned how a man loses out when a woman stays home to take care of the children. He loses her income. He loses time with his children. Should he be reimbursed for that? And what if men decided to stay at home to take care of the children? Should they get a lifetime stream of income from women for raising the children? Does this apply to gay couples? Or is this just an outmoded hetero-centric way of thinking – the man must pay for the choices of a woman?

She responded by stating that while I bring up some important issues, this was not the forum for this discussion. This was a discussion about families, not domestic employees. I responded by saying that in many cases domestic employees are like families to the children. It’s pretty common for children to refer to child-care workers and nannies as “mommy.”

That’s the problem with the feminist culture today. It’s all about compensating women for their choices but they refuse to take responsibilities for their choices. Feminists want wives and mothers to be compensated for what they do for the family but they ignore the contributions that husbands and fathers make to the family and they create an underclass of underpaid nannies and child care workers to take care of the family.

So feminists say that they don’t need men. They just need their money, the taxpayers’ money and an underclass of poor working women to scrub the toilets and wipe their baby’s behinds. Furthermore, they demand that employers and co-workers accommodate them so they can take care of the children and still be promoted even when they are not as productive as they should be.

It’s amazing how many people in society have to sacrifice just so women can have it all according to feminists.’



… We live in an age saturated with victim mentality but this comment woke me up on this issue at least. Re-reading Ayn Rand’s work helped to clarify the cost of that victim mentality and while I’m not quiet ready for a debate on socialism vs capitalism in all it’s minutiae I will say that feminism greatly contributes to that delusion. It is not enough to sit on your laurels and sympathize with ‘the victim’ anymore. Women are not victims nor do they deserve special treatment, especially when they are agreeing with that statement and then slipping their hand into the tax payers wallet when no one is looking. This Evil victim empire has to stop and seeing it for what it is, is a great start.


Thank you Kirk.



4 thoughts on “Articles

  1. Another element:

    Your kids aren’t entitled to your care once they’re adults and have finished high school. They can emancipate themselves earlier, if you’re really bad at parenting, or the state can remove them. Regardless, your kids don’t get to come back to you, without your consent, and demand another 20 years of caretaking from you.

    Women can put their children up for adoption, and abandon them without any ongoing cost (unlike men, who will have 2 decades of obligation). Why should a woman whose family breaks up, then be entitled to ongoing support? Certainly a woman that deliberately abandons her family and boots the spouse out shouldn’t expect that her decision is paid for by someone

    I thought women were independent and competent. Guess not.


    1. It is very much subjective or ‘substantive’ equality as feminists call it. You are a man and therefore you owe them something by accident of birth. ‘I can do anything a man can do’ only applies when there isn’t a crisis such as a burning building or an accusation of Domestic Violence. The fact is there are sex differences but feminists seem only interested in ignoring them where money is involved.


  2. Trying to talk to women with logic and pragmatism (I know, I know, NAWALT-Not All Women Are Like That..only 99% of them are) is like trying to remove the stink from a hunk of shit. You’ll only end up getting your hands dirty.


    1. I don’t agree actually. I think women are more than capable of being grown adults and responsible for their actions. I think the problem lies in selfishness(Though in regards to Feminists & logic I get your point). The law entitles women to essentially destroy a man in so many ways and so when it becomes convenient they do so because they don’t see a downside as they may have in the past. A woman in an article I read recently openly stated that she’d ditched her second husband(with whom she’d just had another child) for the child support money. He’d lost his job and wasn’t the father of her first so one might consider that he’d already made a huge mistake but then that is the point of this website, for men to help educate each other over the pitfalls of such things and to try to move in a direction where they don’t get fleeced financially or emotionally just for falling in love. As regards the way the law is now however that’s largely impossible and I also think you’ll be hard pressed to find a woman who doesn’t know exactly what she’s getting from a marriage; men on the other hand can be woefully ignorant and idealistic.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s