No one needs to take responsibility anymore, live life to the full, have sex with 200 people, take drugs and experiment, and eventually at 40 try and have a child with IVF because at that point that’s your only shot. If you don’t like who you had it with after 5 years, just leave them, it’s fine. Oh and then pass off your children’s moral social education to bad schools.

That’s also not a good plan. Neither is the one you talked about, but society definitely needs to find a golden middle ground, because something is really bad right now. The progressive liberal path really doesn’t work in the long run.

A more equitable solution than socialized childcare that recognizes that homemaker is a valuable job that lots of women (50% of those with children) would prefer to do would be to increase the refundable child tax credit. Then you could use that money for hired childcare or to "hire yourself" as a caretaker according to your preference (obviously men could also be the homemaker if that's what the couple wants).

People in general like the addition economic freedom from making more money. Even starting at WWII women started working in huge numbers in the US and that number has increased ever since. The sending the money back in tax credits barely works in a single income house because the otherside in the massive increase of available workers in the US is the massive inflation of assets. When one person works solely to afford a house, the other person can't take a break to have a child. Now add in the out of control costs of healthcare tied to your job no one in the younger generation is going to want to have a child.

> Despite efforts to promote gender equality in occupations and professions, many women still choose to stay at home or work part-time. In the United States, for example, a 2015 Gallup survey found that more than half of women with children under age 18 would prefer to stay at home over working outside the home. Also, nearly 40 percent of women without children under age 18 indicated that they preferred the homemaker role.

Let the phrasing sink in. Despite efforts, women still prefer that role. It's quite clear from context that their preference is wrong.

As far as economics goes, people wildly overstate how unachievable it is. Having a stay-at-home parent is not something reserved for the 1%, and in fact many poorer people do it for economic reasons. People have been taught not to want it, so they don't try to figure out how to make it work.

[0] https://archive-yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/more-women-stay-...

That said, women are still almost 2x likely to prefer homemaking[1] even with the social engineering, and I suspect women's preferences are stronger than men's (e.g. I think it would be nice to be a SAHD, and I'd prefer it over outside work, but we probably wouldn't be together if my wife weren't the SAHM). So as a man you have to be prepared to accept that that's how the world is. Someone has to bring in money, and it'll probably be you.

[0] https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/08/03/almost-1-...

[1] https://news.gallup.com/poll/267737/record-high-women-prefer...

i think breastfeeding is still a significant factor for the first year at least. working while breastfeeding can be a challenge.

It isn't a valuable job, economically speaking. It's an anachronism and essentially a luxury for couples where one parent makes enough to support the entire household. Not only this, but it essentially puts all of the pressure on the working parent to economically hold up the household

The cases where it economically makes sense are practically nonexistent in 2023

Honestly I don't know how you could even make an economic statement about it that doesn't boil down to a tautology unless you're also willing to say e.g. teachers aren't an economically valuable job.

[0] https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/08/03/almost-1-...