CreateDebate


Debate Info

20
18
Well, yes!! WHAT? NO!
Debate Score:38
Arguments:29
Total Votes:41
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Well, yes!! (14)
 
 WHAT? NO! (13)

Debate Creator

Joel_Mathews(2284) pic



Housewives should be paid for their work?

The role of women in the family and the workplace has been an issue of great change and even greater implication throughout recent history. Changing social constructions of gender roles and family roles has led to a debate over the role of women in the home and the value or lack thereof placed upon it. If the role of women is no longer always in the home should there be some compensation for those who do still agree to remain housewives (or very occasionally househusbands) in return for the work they do? The debate over housewives being paid for their work is one of entitlement, economics and social engineering.  

Although this is a primarily a principled debate, one possible skeleton model for this case would be to propose that all housewives would be given equal salary from the government fund that is funded through tax payer dollars. This would be carried out in the form of tax exemptions and tax rebates that would be doled out via the institutions and processes currently in place for tax returns, auditing etc. An example of this would be the Internal Revenue Service in the United States or the Canada Revenue Agency in Canada.

Well, yes!!

Side Score: 20
VS.

WHAT? NO!

Side Score: 18
2 points

This would be carried out in the form of tax exemptions and tax rebates that would be doled out via the institutions and processes currently in place for tax returns, auditing etc.

We have this now. It is a good idea. A married couple making 100k should pay less than a single person making 100k.

Side: Well, yes!!

If men get paid to work in their offices, shouldn't women who do harder work get paid much more??

Side: Well, yes!!
Orsutin(22) Disputed
1 point

I don't work in an office, I work in one of my countries busiest ports as a machine operator. It's cold in winter and hot in summer, there are chemicals and hazards all around. Since I have been there we have averaged one fatality a year and numerous incidents of life changing injuries.

We try to be safe as best as we can, but the nature of job is such that we are using large machines (Cranes & Heavy plant) to move large amounts of cargo on a daily basis.

You do realise that to maintain a modern civilisation requires much more than somebody pushing paper in an office.

The infrastructure needs to be built and maintained.

The logistics have to be planned and exectued.

Power stations must function, sewage plants, cargo must be shifted, materials harvested. Modern civilisation requires more than people in offices.

Side: WHAT? NO!
Cuaroc(8829) Disputed
1 point

and that's all irrelevant to the point he was making. He was talking solely about men working in an office not manual laborers.

Side: Well, yes!!

For all the work that they are doing, they should be paid more than the guys who work nowadays... WATCH THE VIDEO.. Then you will understand what I am talking about...

Appreciate Mothers
Side: Well, yes!!
Orsutin(22) Disputed
1 point

Miners

Loggers

Dockers

Soldiers

Mercenaries

Labourers

Sewer Cleaners

Street Sweepers

Steel Worker

Long Distance Lorry Driver

Oil Driller

Ice Road Trucker

Mariner

To name but a few working class jobs, dominated by men that you seem to think are a cakewalk compared to doing some housecleaning.

Sure, being a stay at home mother is not without it's challenges, but you can't seriously compare hard manual graft and grueling shifts in manual grade work, the type of which makes the world go around to cleaning up after kids and getting them to their clubs on time.

And on a related matter, when feminists complain about male dominated jobs, why is it always the CEO and manager positions they are referring to and never the aforementioned?

This argument is flat out ridiculous and people who maintain it should be soundly refuted and then mocked if they don't abandon it. Absolute tosh.

Side: WHAT? NO!
1 point

Miners

Loggers

Dockers

Soldiers

Mercenaries

Labourers

Sewer Cleaners

Street Sweepers

Steel Worker

Long Distance Lorry Driver

Oil Driller

Ice Road Trucker

Mariner

All these jobs do not have them working 24 hours. Mothers/ Housewives have to provide for their families, keep the house clean, do the clothes and iron them, water the garden, cook for the family and much more that I have not listed down.. When the baby cries, it is the mother that tends to the baby.. I don't think the dad wakes up to comfort the crying the baby.

Side: Well, yes!!

Why is no one responding or debating about this video.... Unless you know that the video is true and you have nothing to say bout it..

Side: Well, yes!!
4 points

Well the problem with this is that housework isn't a necessity in the extreme since (I understand there are circumstances that can render a house as being hazardous but those are extreme cases). So for tax dollars to go to something that is really a preferential and/or considerate option, and only effects the person living in that home, would be nonsensical and economically deleterious.

(As an aside: if one thoroughly cleans the entire house on Monday, it will not be a hassle to repeat the process everyday to the point of rendering it an actual exhaustive duty.)

I understand fundamentally what you are suggesting in terms of theory, but this idea this wouldn't bode well in practice.

I will say that because there should be a law that requires women (or men if the woman is debilitated) to stay at home and (personally) take care of their child for the first 5 years (or until they enter school); and since some women are single mothers and the biological father may have a low paying job thus low child support; I would be open to considering a sort of government funding for those (single mother) women in that particular situation.

Side: WHAT? NO!
Atrag(5666) Disputed
1 point

I will say that because there should be a law that requires women (or men if the woman is debilitated) to stay at home and (personally) take care of their child for the first 5 years (or until they enter school); and since some women are single mothers and the biological father may have a low paying job thus low child support; I would be open to considering a sort of government funding for those (single mother) women in that particular situation.

You can seriously believe that? What effect do you think it would have on the child to be forced to be with someone everyday that would rather not be there? Forced to be with a prisoner going stir crazy. Its an insane idea.

Side: Well, yes!!
Harvard(666) Disputed
3 points

I would argue then that that woman is not a suitable mother and therefore should not have the child in her custody. Any mother who views taking care of their child (a living responsibility) as being torturous is an unfit mother.

Side: WHAT? NO!
Troy8(2433) Disputed
1 point

What effect do you think it would have on the child to be forced to be with someone everyday that would rather not be there?

That's an affront to mothers.

Side: WHAT? NO!

I think husbands should be benevolent and appreciate their wives who stay at home and tend to all of the household affairs because it is no easy endeavor. I don't believe the Government should get involved but the husband should appreciate what his wife is doing and reward her in a monetary fashion for all the hard work she is doing.

Side: WHAT? NO!
Joel_Mathews(2284) Clarified
1 point

But that is not what is happening nowadays.. Maybe in the earlier days.. Mothers should be more appreciated..

Side: Well, yes!!
1 point

Absolute nonsense where is the billions of dollars to be found for this the breadwinner will be effectively paying his spouse for work they may or may not do,

Why should someone else fund this idea, imagine a job where you get paid with no timescale no-one to check wether work has been done the whole idea is balderdash and poppycock

Side: WHAT? NO!
1 point

No.

1. Housewives/ husbands are being compensated in the fact that their spouses are grafting in order to make sure everything is paid for. It's perfectly reasonable that the person not working instead takes care of domestic duties and is compensated in return by having their bills paid, food, shelter and entertainments financially taken care of.

2. Skim more from my earnings in order to pay money towards somebody who themselves have the freedom of choice to work in a job or not. I do not have that luxury, I must work, if I do not work, nothing is paid for. nobody is offering to work so that I can run the household, if they did offer that to me, I would take it happily without pay.

Absolutely ridiculous, Tax the worker more in order to pay a wage to those who are housewives, there is no wacky idea that feminists won't dream up and try to get taken seriously.

Side: WHAT? NO!