Topic: We should subsidize stay-at-home dads
the more stay-at-home fathers, the more chances women have to show their abilities in work and that is an important step in reaching social equality.
the parents who stay at home tell us that what is hardest happens in the home, anyone can not do it
the popes who stay at home in the same way performs an arduous task in the chores, and the care of the children
the presence of a father at home is of utmost importance to their development and there should be subsidized for stay-at-home dads.
the public should not be made to pay for other peoples lifestyle choices
the public should not have to pay for other peoples life style choices
the state can not add to its cats a subsidy to unemployed parents because it would damage society by causing the family to stop working and dedicate themselves to procreate
the state does not choose when parents try for children and it is the individual responsibility of the parents to make sensible choices that they can afford and it's not the state's place to fund their choices
the subsidy could help lift families out of poverty
the subsidy would put a financial strain on an already thinly stretched budget
The suggestion that men deserve payment for what has traditionally been women's unpaid work is problematic; it sends the message that only men's labor has value.
there are better uses of money than to subsidize non working men.
there are perfectly trained people to attend to household matters, both spouses must take an active part in the construction of society instead of being an unjustified burden.
there is no need to subsidize stay at home dads because the public should not have to pay for the choice these men made to stay home.
there is still a lack of paid maternity leave and paternity leave and that should be the main focus
there's no way they deserve a subsidy more than stay-at-home moms do.  moms have done it for eons for free and with no accolades.  don't make men superior in this too.
they don't need the special treatment because we don't know the full situation like if the mother works full time instead
they have exactly nine months to prepare for it so any subsidizing in stay-at-home dads is just wrong.
They must subsidize because it is a job to raise their children and take charge of maintaining a healthy home for society
they should be compensated for the household work and child raising tasks that they preform.
they should get pay because they usually earn the higher income for the family
They should not subsidize, because this is to support that many parents want to take advantage of not wanting to work
they usually earn more money so they should get an income
they work very hard, and raising kids really is a full time job
this is an unaffordable luxury for the goverment.
this is ridiculous. don't have children if you can't afford to stay home or pay for childcare.
too many fathers are gone most of the time working.  if we subsidize stay-at-home dads then they can provide a more of male presence to the children.
too many subsidies given away makes the country broke