Shoutout to mithrawnudo for throwing me this link.
First, behold this video.
I was going to do a long, in-depth rant, but this is a short one. Mith gave my main argument, so again, I have to credit him with this. Suppose I have 2 employees. 1 of them, I have to, by force of government law, guarantee 3 months of money for a certain kind of vacation. The other, I do not, because they can’t take this vacation ever. If there were no government gun pointed at my economic head to hire employees like type 1 (once my business grows to over, I believe, 15 employees) AND guarantee them a QUARTER-YEAR absentee pay, there is no way in hell that I, as a business owner, would bother hiring them at all, unless their contribution to my bottom line was big enough to justify it. It makes no sense; I’m in business to make money.
It is telling that it requires government force to make employers pay women to be away and pregnant (By the way, the military already does this). This implies several things: For one, the market, if left alone, would not skew towards paying people who aren’t producing output, be they male or female. It also implies that women, on average, don’t outperform men enough to justify maternity leave, because, again, if they did, the money would ultimately overrule the prejudice (one must respect the power of Mammon to make folks overrule even their worst prejudices). But no, here we have yet another bunch of folks crying for the government to intrude into private business even more, all in the name of being “progressive”, which, in this era, translates to: “But everyone else is doing it…”. Newsflash: if you, in this day and age, have to ask the government to force people to do it, it probably isn’t worth doing, as our government is already very involved in all aspects of people’s lives and work in one way or another.
But that’s just the superficial. The real thing to take from this is that this is yet another cry for the government to usurp the role of the father in America. That’s what marriage and pair bonding is for. The man takes care of the woman more intensively while she is pregnant and thus more vulnerable and less productive. It is not Uncle Sam’s job to be an economic husband, but since so many folks have decided not to do things right (and the most efficient way, as well, via the 2-parent family), they move, instead, to shift the cost of caring for pregnant women (who are bringing life into this world, something which no one can place a finite value on) from men individually, i.e. fathers (married and, yes, unmarried too), to men collectively, that is, the government.
For those confused on why I would call the government “men collectively”, it is because men pay the lions’s share of taxes (I will do an empirical proof of this in an upcoming post) and receive less in benefits from the government than women do, as the modern social safety net is, effectively, a replacement provider for women and children, which, again, is what Dad should be doing. This is why single-motherhood is up, and will continue to rise, until we collectively decide to kick Uncle Sam the Usurper out of the provider role and put fathers back into their rightful place. I ain’t holding my breath, though.