The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

The Government should pay housewives

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/22/2018 Category: Economics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,213 times Debate No: 118667
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




Lets start off with what the topic, "The Government should pay housewives", Is about. Basically, Women who do not working order to look after children or a household should be compensated by the government. This includes women on maternity leave. About 50% of all employers do not pay women during this time. Shifting the responsibility from the employers to the government is beneficial for the employers-they don't have to pay money-and it is also beneficial for the women as they are guaranteed pay. This would potentially solve the wage gap because the biggest factor that contributes to it is women not getting paid during maternity leave/taking care of kids instead of working.
My first debate on this site, Please be gentle.


Coincidentally this is also my first debate, So I guess that way we're both newbies. Welcome!

As in introduction to my argument I would like to question your definition of "housewives". You state that, When deciding which women should be payed by the government, Women on maternity leave should be included. To me, This doesn't make sense. Housewives, I believe, Are women who stay at home instead of working, To take care of the kids, Clean the house, Do menial tasks; etc. . . Women on maternity are not housewives. They have a job, But are taking a break from their job to care for their newborn child. When this period is over, They will go back to that job. Women on maternity leave are working women, And in this scenario I agree that shifting the pay during this period from employer to state would certainly diminish employer's hesitance to hire women, Despite that they may have various qualifications, This is however, An entirely different debate.

When it comes to actual housewives, I do not believe they should be paid by the government. This because a stay-at-home-mum chose to stay at home. Some political groups believe in the state supporting those currently going through a rough patch, By providing them with a minimum loan to get back on their feet while they are hired. Housewives do not fall into this category. Again, It was their decision to stay at home. They are not doing any work beneficial to society, A company, An organisation, No. They work in the household because they believed that would be better for their family. They aren't going through a rough patch, And have no intention of getting a job. While, Of course, They have to take care of their home, Any household has to take care of its home. In a family where both parents work, This responsibility is stacked on top of the parents' jobs. A housewife doesn't have any of the responsibilities that come with employment, So why should we compensate them as if they did?

The answer is: we shouldn't. On top of the concept being poorly justified, It might motivate women to become housewives, Because why work when you could just do some laundry and get paid anyways? This would bring us back to older times where women not working was the standard, And further magnify the gender inequality activist groups have spent so long diminishing.

Aside from promoting (misogynist) sexism, It would also enforce a different kind of sexism: misandry. This because you are advocating only for women's privilege. Because being paid for staying at home is not a right, It is a privilege. This would be unfair to men. Can men not stay at home? Are men not allowed to spend time with their kids? It seems to me by making the state pay housewives you are sending a message. A message that says: "Men are useless with kids anyways, They don't even deserve to be at home. "

From my point of view, While paying housewives may on the surface seems like a way to lessen women's disadvantage, It would actually manifest in various other disadvantages, Both for women and men, And further deepen the inequality this measure is trying to solve.
Debate Round No. 1


It is true that women on maternity leave choose to leave work in order to take care of their child. However, We have to look at the definition of the word choice in another context-as a working woman who has to leave work in order to take care of a child. In this case the mother has to "choose" between staying at her job or taking care of their child. Note that women on maternity leave aren't women that decide to leave, But are women that either pregnant or nursing. These women cannot stay in work while in their final months of pregnancy, Or bring their children to work with them. There is no choice because the only option is for them to leave work, Not "take a break". Another point that you made was that they are not doing any work, And this is true. However, According to Gallup Polls, Stay-at-home mothers-or housewives-reportedly have had higher levels of stress, Depression, And sadness. This kind of mental state doesn't come from some office job, But from mothers that just stay home. This is because taking care of a child is a job. You have to feed them ever 2-3 hours (as a baby), Clean up after them, Nurse them, Teach them, And many more. The list of things that mothers have to do is maybe even comparable to an office job, And yet produces monumentally more amounts of stress. You also say that housewives have no intention of getting a job, But this is not true. According to the research firm Reach Advisers, 57% of mothers plan on going back to work.

The second point that you made was that implementing a system like this would promote misogynist views, But that is simply not true. The reason that women are the ones that sometimes have the option of maternity leave is because babies have to be nursed-given milk or breastfed-for 6 months up to 2 years after they are born. Men cannot take care of babies or maybe even toddlers because when we are young we imprint on our mothers, As they give birth to us. You also mentioned that this system would encourage women to become housewives. Why? If a system like this were implemented in the US, Surely women would get paid far less than a 6-figure job. This is because the portioning of tax money would not allow women to make high amounts of money from just staying at home.


I apologise, I think you misunderstood part of my last argument. Women on maternity leave, As I mentioned before, Are not housewives, As they don't choose to leave work. Their child is born, And so they get a few weeks off. This isn't usually something that'll happen more than two or three times in a woman's lifetime, And in this specific situation, Being paid by the government could be an option, Though this should be the employer's job. These women have a job. These women are employed. These women are not stay-at-home-mums.

Someone who agrees with me on that, Funnily enough, Would be the writers at gallop polls, The source you mentioned. You didn't provide a link but I found the article regardless. For the definition of housewives they wrote:" "Stay-at-home moms" are defined as women who are not currently employed and have a child younger than 18 at home. " Women on maternity leave may not be working right now, But they are currently employed. It's clear that they don't fit the housewife profile. These women indeed plan on going back to work.

No, When I talk about housewives I'm talking about the women who stay at home to care for their child that has long been born. Be it a toddler, A young child, A teenager. These mothers chose to stay at home, Maybe they thought that being there for their children would give them a better childhood. That is a valid thing to think. But just because they work in the household doesn't mean we should use our tax dollars to pay them.

As for the article, It is indeed true that according to it, Housewives experience higher levels of stress, Sadness, And depression, But it also states that employed mums experience the same amount of stress as employed women without children. This signifies that the cause of higher stress, Sadness, And depression levels, Isn't necessarily caused by having to take care of children (as employed mums have to do this too. ) but rather by being unemployed. It seems that being unemployed causes things like this, Be it because of the worry of not having a stable income, Or because of the lack of a daily routine, The lack of guaranteed leaving the house every day, At the end of the day the cause of higher stress levels comes from the unemployment, Not from the children.

Which brings me back to one of my previous arguments. In a family where both parents work, The children don't take care of themselves. The parents still have to do it. This responsibility of raising a child lands on top of the parents' employment. And, According to your article, Being employed takes a lot of stress of the parents shoulders.

The article also stated that low-income mums, Whether they were employed or not, Experienced the highest level of stress. As the article doesn't provide a reason as to why this would be, We can't say anything for sure, But to me it is clear that I am indeed guessing correctly.

Now if I could return to one of the things you stated in your argument, Which honestly quite shocked me. "Men cannot take care of babies or maybe even toddlers because when we are young we imprint on our mothers, As they give birth to us. " Obviously a mother has to be present at childbirth, Because, You know, She is the one birthing the child. There is literally no other way. But in a healthy relationship, Who is the one holding the mother's hand as she goes through labour? Who helps to hold the baby immediately after it's been born? The father. (Or, If you're a progressive family it might even be the other mother. ) Point is that just because the father didn't give birth to the child, Doesn't mean he can just be discarded for a few years and only invited back when the child has passed the toddler stage. If you and your partner raise a child together, It has to be /together/ you get me? Saying that fathers can't raise babies and toddlers is incredibly small-minded. Of course there are families where children are raised by a single parent, But in the majority of childbirths both parents are there. Imagine the mother has to run some errands around lunchtime, Who's gonna feed the child? According to you, Not the father, Because you say father's can't raise children.

Sure, A father can't give birth to the child. A father can't breastfeed. But a father can be there. A father can encourage them. A father can teach them new things. A father can take them to the park, Teach them how to ride a bike, Accompany them on their first school day. A father can take them shopping, Watch a movie with them, Read them stories.
A father can perfectly raise a child, So if you decide to pay housewives, Why not decide to pay househusbands. I'm not saying I agree with your proposal, Because I don't. I'm merely pointing out the flaw in only wanting to give mothers this privilege.

Article you used: https://news. Gallup. Com/poll/154685/stay-home-moms-report-depression-sadness-anger. Aspx
Debate Round No. 2


I going to start off by saying that I never wrote that women on maternity leave are housewives. I simply said that they should also be paid by the government because it would benefit both them and employers. You also said that they are employed, But this is only a technicality. Employed is defined as having a job working for a company or another person (https://dictionary. Cambridge. Org. . . ). While a woman is on maternity leave, They are not working, So they are not employed. And usually, They do not have a stable income during this time. The notion that they are employed is only a promise that she can return to her same position after maternity leave. You say that "Women on maternity leave may not be working right now, But they are currently employed", But this sentence contradicts itself. If someone is not working, Then they are not employed.

You stated that the study I gave came to the conclusion that working actually relieves stress from mothers. And this is true. But the study is missing some important information. The survey looked a three different groups; working mothers with kids, Working mothers without kids, And unemployed mothers with kids. When only looking at these three, It would be easy to assume that being unemployed is what causes the stress for stay-at-home mothers, As the two groups that work had less stress than the ones who do not. However, They do not include information from unemployed mothers who do not have children. This would truly show if children cause stress. Because of this, The study is sadly invalid in both your and my arguments. I however, Have another study that reinforces the point that children indeed cause stress.

In Daniel Hemermesh's study, Financial stress wasn't the most prevalent kind of stress: time was. Simply being around their children caused parents to be less happy. Not only do children cause stress, But for the mothers the amount of stress created is much greater than for the fathers. This stress did not disappear quickly-which would indicate that mothers are only stressed near childbirth-but it stayed for many years (https://www. Smh. Com. Au. . . ).

Now lets tackle this issue of men not taking care of children. You seem to think that I am a misandrist, And while I can't stop you from thinking that way I can give you facts. According to psychotherapist Miriam Chachamu, " toddlers choose their mums because they spend more time with them, Including nine months in her uterus. " The fact is that children like their mothers better when they are young. Why are you going to make fathers stay at home when it is more advantageous to have the mother do it? Am I saying that fathers are worthless? The answer is no. Chachamu also says that mothers can slowly accustom their children to their husbands by showing that he is someone that she trusts and supports (https://www. Telegraph. Co. Uk. . . ). You say that I said that "fathers cannot raise children", But I didn't say that. I said that they cannot raise toddlers and babies. That is a specific age range that consists of humans from age zero to age three. Children continue up to age 18. Don't accuse me of something I didn't do and use the incorrect terminology. The fact that some fathers hold the mothers hand and holds the baby doesn't transform them into some insane caretaker. It is also economically beneficial to have mothers stay at home instead of the fathers. Because of the well-known wage gap, Women make less than men. In a situation where the father stays at home instead of the mother, The family will probably make less money then in a situation where the two people swapped places. And if both stayed at home, There wouldn't be a guaranteed paycheck unless the family was lucky enough to find an employer that pays maternity leave. So yes, Stay-at-home mothers should be the only ones (along with mothers on maternity leave) that get this privilege.


aquariumkind forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


In conclusion I would like to present a summary of my points and counter arguments.

Housewives should be paid by the government because they experience higher amounts of stress than women who work, Being near children for mothers causes three times as much stress than fathers, And they need to have a wide skill-set for something they are not paid for.

For clarification, I do not believe that women on maternity leave are housewives.

Women on maternity leave should also be included because it would benefit both them and their employers. It could also help towards the wage gap, As employers pay women less because they can just leave work when they are pregnant. They also have no choice but to leave work-they are forced into a situation where they may or may not receive pay.

If a system like this were implemented, They would not receive wages like an employee, But as compensation. I am not suggesting they do this but because of tax money portioning, Being a stay-at-home mother isn't going to just rake in money.

Women are better suited financially, Physically, And emotionally (the baby wants the mother not the father) to stay at home and take care of the children than the fathers.

Fathers can take care of their children, However at the early stages of life, It would be against the point to do so.

The End.


aquariumkind forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by tgrab 3 years ago
In a system where the government redistributes wealth to housewives, It would also be necessary for a female to apply for and receive a license (permission) to have children. This would be necessary to curb abuses of having way too many children. A system, Unchecked, Would simply run out of money very quickly. China does this and it produces many unwanted and neglected children as parents drop them off, Anonymously, At orphanages. This is a net loss to society as these kids face development challenges instead of being enriched in a loving family. So, You're not going to be able to get knocked up or rely on the government to fund your family. . . . You are going to ask for permission - and probably be denied as you do not have the means.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.