Your comment is the epitome of social-justice dogma.
> marvel at the unchecked support for the idea that women should be stay-at-home mothers.
Learn the difference between positive and normative. There is a huge difference between "mothers should be stay-at-home mothers", and "widespread celibacy will cause societal instability"?
> women only stay in relationships because they require a partner's income to survive
Obviously, taking GP's point to an absurd (strawman) and then dismissing that isn't a reasonable debate strategy. People get married for a whole load of reasons. Many women, if their partners lose their jobs, will divorce them. No, that doesn't mean they're abused victims. (is that parody?)
Turning an interesting question based on trends into a moral outrage, and hijacking the conversation, is infinitely puerile. Please don't do that.
Parent claims that women would divorce their partners on a scale large enough to be a threat to civilization if women were to receive UBI, because they would no longer need male providers.
Do you have some explanation for why this might be the case, other than "the need for a male provider" being (in parent's view) the only thing holding those at-risk relationships together?
>Many women, if their partners lose their jobs, will divorce them.
Preferring to be in a relationship with a well-employed men is very different from needing a male provider as a condition of well-being or survival.
>Turning an interesting question based on trends into a moral outrage
Fear and dismay at the proposition that women might stop needing male providers is morally outrageous, particularly when you consider that people who believe women receiving income threatens civilization are likely in a position to influence the hire/no hire decision on female candidates in our industry.
> marvel at the unchecked support for the idea that women should be stay-at-home mothers.
Learn the difference between positive and normative. There is a huge difference between "mothers should be stay-at-home mothers", and "widespread celibacy will cause societal instability"?
> women only stay in relationships because they require a partner's income to survive
Obviously, taking GP's point to an absurd (strawman) and then dismissing that isn't a reasonable debate strategy. People get married for a whole load of reasons. Many women, if their partners lose their jobs, will divorce them. No, that doesn't mean they're abused victims. (is that parody?)
Turning an interesting question based on trends into a moral outrage, and hijacking the conversation, is infinitely puerile. Please don't do that.
reply