The Government should pay housewives

I going to start off by saying that I never wrote that women on maternity leave are housewives. I simply said that they should also be paid by the government because it would benefit both them and employers. You also said that they are employed, But this is only a technicality. Employed is defined as having a job working for a company or another person (https://dictionary. Cambridge. Org. . . ). While a woman is on maternity leave, They are not working, So they are not employed. And usually, They do not have a stable income during this time. The notion that they are employed is only a promise that she can return to her same position after maternity leave. You say that "Women on maternity leave may not be working right now, But they are currently employed", But this sentence contradicts itself. If someone is not working, Then they are not employed. You stated that the study I gave came to the conclusion that working actually relieves stress from mothers. And this is true. But the study is missing some important information. The survey looked a three different groups; working mothers with kids, Working mothers without kids, And unemployed mothers with kids. When only looking at these three, It would be easy to assume that being unemployed is what causes the stress for stay-at-home mothers, As the two groups that work had less stress than the ones who do not. However, They do not include information from unemployed mothers who do not have children. This would truly show if children cause stress. Because of this, The study is sadly invalid in both your and my arguments. I however, Have another study that reinforces the point that children indeed cause stress. In Daniel Hemermesh's study, Financial stress wasn't the most prevalent kind of stress: time was. Simply being around their children caused parents to be less happy. Not only do children cause stress, But for the mothers the amount of stress created is much greater than for the fathers. This stress did not disappear quickly-which would indicate that mothers are only stressed near childbirth-but it stayed for many years (https://www. Smh. Com. Au. . . ). Now lets tackle this issue of men not taking care of children. You seem to think that I am a misandrist, And while I can't stop you from thinking that way I can give you facts. According to psychotherapist Miriam Chachamu, " toddlers choose their mums because they spend more time with them, Including nine months in her uterus. " The fact is that children like their mothers better when they are young. Why are you going to make fathers stay at home when it is more advantageous to have the mother do it? Am I saying that fathers are worthless? The answer is no. Chachamu also says that mothers can slowly accustom their children to their husbands by showing that he is someone that she trusts and supports (https://www. Telegraph. Co. Uk. . . ). You say that I said that "fathers cannot raise children", But I didn't say that. I said that they cannot raise toddlers and babies. That is a specific age range that consists of humans from age zero to age three. Children continue up to age 18. Don't accuse me of something I didn't do and use the incorrect terminology. The fact that some fathers hold the mothers hand and holds the baby doesn't transform them into some insane caretaker. It is also economically beneficial to have mothers stay at home instead of the fathers. Because of the well-known wage gap, Women make less than men. In a situation where the father stays at home instead of the mother, The family will probably make less money then in a situation where the two people swapped places. And if both stayed at home, There wouldn't be a guaranteed paycheck unless the family was lucky enough to find an employer that pays maternity leave. So yes, Stay-at-home mothers should be the only ones (along with mothers on maternity leave) that get this privilege.