The Government should pay housewives

I apologise, I think you misunderstood part of my last argument. Women on maternity leave, As I mentioned before, Are not housewives, As they don't choose to leave work. Their child is born, And so they get a few weeks off. This isn't usually something that'll happen more than two or three times in a woman's lifetime, And in this specific situation, Being paid by the government could be an option, Though this should be the employer's job. These women have a job. These women are employed. These women are not stay-at-home-mums. Someone who agrees with me on that, Funnily enough, Would be the writers at gallop polls, The source you mentioned. You didn't provide a link but I found the article regardless. For the definition of housewives they wrote:" "Stay-at-home moms" are defined as women who are not currently employed and have a child younger than 18 at home. " Women on maternity leave may not be working right now, But they are currently employed. It's clear that they don't fit the housewife profile. These women indeed plan on going back to work. No, When I talk about housewives I'm talking about the women who stay at home to care for their child that has long been born. Be it a toddler, A young child, A teenager. These mothers chose to stay at home, Maybe they thought that being there for their children would give them a better childhood. That is a valid thing to think. But just because they work in the household doesn't mean we should use our tax dollars to pay them. As for the article, It is indeed true that according to it, Housewives experience higher levels of stress, Sadness, And depression, But it also states that employed mums experience the same amount of stress as employed women without children. This signifies that the cause of higher stress, Sadness, And depression levels, Isn't necessarily caused by having to take care of children (as employed mums have to do this too. ) but rather by being unemployed. It seems that being unemployed causes things like this, Be it because of the worry of not having a stable income, Or because of the lack of a daily routine, The lack of guaranteed leaving the house every day, At the end of the day the cause of higher stress levels comes from the unemployment, Not from the children. Which brings me back to one of my previous arguments. In a family where both parents work, The children don't take care of themselves. The parents still have to do it. This responsibility of raising a child lands on top of the parents' employment. And, According to your article, Being employed takes a lot of stress of the parents shoulders. The article also stated that low-income mums, Whether they were employed or not, Experienced the highest level of stress. As the article doesn't provide a reason as to why this would be, We can't say anything for sure, But to me it is clear that I am indeed guessing correctly. Now if I could return to one of the things you stated in your argument, Which honestly quite shocked me. "Men cannot take care of babies or maybe even toddlers because when we are young we imprint on our mothers, As they give birth to us. " Obviously a mother has to be present at childbirth, Because, You know, She is the one birthing the child. There is literally no other way. But in a healthy relationship, Who is the one holding the mother's hand as she goes through labour? Who helps to hold the baby immediately after it's been born? The father. (Or, If you're a progressive family it might even be the other mother. ) Point is that just because the father didn't give birth to the child, Doesn't mean he can just be discarded for a few years and only invited back when the child has passed the toddler stage. If you and your partner raise a child together, It has to be /together/ you get me? Saying that fathers can't raise babies and toddlers is incredibly small-minded. Of course there are families where children are raised by a single parent, But in the majority of childbirths both parents are there. Imagine the mother has to run some errands around lunchtime, Who's gonna feed the child? According to you, Not the father, Because you say father's can't raise children. Sure, A father can't give birth to the child. A father can't breastfeed. But a father can be there. A father can encourage them. A father can teach them new things. A father can take them to the park, Teach them how to ride a bike, Accompany them on their first school day. A father can take them shopping, Watch a movie with them, Read them stories. A father can perfectly raise a child, So if you decide to pay housewives, Why not decide to pay househusbands. I'm not saying I agree with your proposal, Because I don't. I'm merely pointing out the flaw in only wanting to give mothers this privilege. Article you used: https://news. Gallup. Com/poll/154685/stay-home-moms-report-depression-sadness-anger. Aspx