zlacker

>>toomuc+(OP)
This is fantastic! I hope they succeed and there is no abuse or other issues, because it will show how much an economy can grow when women are allowed to work to their full potential. Families who were previously in poverty because the mom would struggle to pay for childcare to work can now have assurance kids are ok while the mom can pursue jobs, start her own small business (huge chunk of businesses are small businesses ran by women) and prosper. If you pose your child’s safety vs another dollar, most parents would vote for their children. But if the children are taken care of, parents can give the economy their best and the taxes paid and GDP gained will pay back for the expense manyfold.

>>dzink+Y6
Why the sexist word "women"? Do you really mean to imply that men/fathers should not be stay at home dads? I know several stay at home dads who by all reports do a very good job of raising their kids while mom works. (granted the vast majority of stay at home parents are mothers). Fathers are people too, and they should be treated like the great parents they can be (until proven otherwise).

>>bluGil+Yh
>> when women are allowed to work to their full potential

> Why the sexist word "women"? Do you really mean to imply that men/fathers should not be stay at home dads?

That's... not even remotely what the sentence said? Or are you offended because you believe childcare obligations have historically prevented men from working their full potential?

>>datafl+Lj
Women was used in several different places. Each is offensive, because in each case a man could do the same work, and the work could be done. I have no opinion on if a man or woman should be caregiver - I've seen both cases work well - every situation must be taken case by case.

What does full potential even mean? If someone wants to do something, but they have to do something else or they would starve (that is play vs work) which is living up to their full potential - what they want to do, or what they must do?