Reform wants women barefoot and pregnant

[Sweetiedarling7]

Reform candidate Matt Goodwin wants women to have children early in life and introduce extra taxes as punishment for anyone who chooses not to have children.

Misogyny in plain sight.

How long till they ban abortion too?

Women voting Reform may want to consider if they are turkeys voting for christmas.

I think the biggest drop is in people having 3 or more children, and because in any population some people will have no children, you need the 3 or more families to just maintain stasis.

One of the reasons that people have fewer children is that they start to have children later. Many women will be perfectly happy with this state of affairs.

Leaving aside whether this is a problem, the thing that annoys me is the 'We must tell women what to do" approach.

Does it not occur to men that they they could have something to do with this? That perhaps they need to raise their game?

These things are all true, but they are major social changes. Having a differernt type of career path for women who want kids younger would be really good for many, and very practical given our long lifespan now. But people won't see it, they don't have enough imagination.

He suggested a tiny element - tax breaks for young families - and look how people here on MN have responded - apparently that means trying to force women to have kids, and wanting them barefoot. If he's suggested changing the expectations in working life and progression for women, what do you think people would have said?

The big issues with this are housing and childcare, and I think it's very valid to say that without addressing those, trying to encourage people to have kids younger is just tinkering. But I don't think you can blame him for not suggesting that people completely change the way they think about the working life cycle, MN's head would probably explode.

Like some sort of sub-class of workers that do the jobs we cant be arsed to do? Dubai of the North.

We dont mind the ones that contribute more than they take out and support themselves though. I thought that was the point of a good immigration policy

An excellent point.

It's depressing. Reform voters will be the downfall of us all

No sectarian politics will. Far more dangerous.

From what she wrote I didn’t think it was through a tax incentive. What an overreaction

well without raising wages - which reform will not do and they've already gone back on the £20k tax allowance - its not possible for many families to have a spouse partner stay home to look after the children, its not affordable.

Hungary would not be a great example to follow. They’ve created these policies but, despite that, have a lower birth rate than the UK.

I think they're totally going to copy a lot of the worst 'ideas' from across the pond.

They won't be able to use the 'Jesus is sad if you have an abortion' argument here, but I'm sure they'll pull some line about selfish women not having babies and reduce bodily autonomy and copy the idea that's being pushed in the US to financially penalise women for not being (heterosexually) married with a baby by 30 (yes, that is a thing).

Reform is all based on the idea that everything was better years ago (it wasn't) and the way to make things better is to go back to how it was years ago.

Sorry, I'm not sure if I am understanding you, do you think I'm over-reacting? I'm not really upset, but I do think that the OPs post was really rather dishonest. It's a topic with a lot of good discussion points but you have to present the policy idea accurately.

I’ve read the thread, i haven’t found one single contextual link that clearly shows him saying that people who don’t have children will have to pay more tax. Ideas are being discussed to look at what we can do to encourage young people to have more kids and not rely solely on immigration. And no, I’m not advocating a Hungarian system, I just mentioned it as they are trying it out as there as birth rate is also falling. I’m not a reform voter, although I do find Matt Goodwin interesting, he does back up his arguments with stats, and he’s not stupid. Tbh I wouldn’t vote for any of them at the moment. They are all pretty terrible.

The poster is being disingenuous - the proposal is tax breaks for those with children. And yes, the higher rate of tax will be paid by all childless workers - men and women.

I checked and he has said he wants to tax people who don’t have children. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/reform-matt-goodwin-children-tax-gorton-denton-b2914817.html His previous comments also indicate a distaste for women in academia and a belief (shared with others in the manosphere) that women in workplaces creates a negative (read not pro-men) culture.

I’m not sure why, to be supportive of families and children, we have to punish people who don’t have them, or denigrate working mothers or women. You might not be intending to do that, but Goodwin is.

No my original point was just that I don’t consider twenties young because I had my first at 16 so having my second at 24 felt really old, to me personally. Then someone asked how I supported myself, I think when you have your first kid as young as I did people assume your parents did everything for you, but not in my case.
I was very mature for my age it’s not for most people

At what agge did Dr Goodwin have children?

I've found the good men will be good whatever the circumstances. Deadbeat Dads and Peter Pan pillocks will be like they are regardless.

These are the delightful people campaigning for Mr Goodwin. Holocaust downplayers, anti-semites, Britain First members…

https://manchestermill.co.uk/goodwins-gang-meet-the-reform-team-in-gorton-and-denton/

And how would having their kids younger help with that? It wouldn’t… in fact they’d have less money to use for staying at home.

What's "sectarian politics" it seems like the new extreme right buzzword, another deflection from their extremely worrying politics or a way to encourage the electorate to be bored and disgusted by politics, to ensure they stay at home and do not vote as this is useful to a party like Reform.

Yes, if you follow the OP's link, it's all there. He suggests that the major problem with universities is "childless women."

In an academic career of 40 years my main problem has been arrogant and dickhead men, generally with children (although also generally divorced and shacked up with a postgrad student they were supervising).

And yes, he's said that childless women should be taxed more.

I would think that reform voters are the type to be of the "why should I pay tax for schools when I don't have any children" view. The idea that those without children should pay more tax ... well that will go down like a cup of cold sick surely?

I think that sadly more than a few men would run a mile from this. Their identities and manhood are too bound up with their work life, or they love working, or it's "women's work" and hence beneath them.
Some would countenance it, of course, but others would (perhaps rightly) feel ridiculed, belittled, or simply thought less of in often-toxic workplaces.
(But women still get it in the neck from all sides. "Why is she bothering to have kids and then paying someone else to look after them?" Very common.
Along with sneers about being 'a career girl' - i.e. not a real woman.)
I used to work in an ostensibly non-sexist company and atmosphere. But these attitudes persisted strongly, even if they were not always voiced.

I think it's the case that no policies implemented by governments to incentivize child bearing have been successful. I can't see this being any different.
I think governments will end up having to offer women a full-time wage in return for being a stay at home mother. Even then many women will feel they can have a more interesting and fulfilling life if they have a career that isnt being a stay at home mother.

Yep, and I bet a US-style system is exactly what Reform would aim for eventually. It fits perfectly with the idea that everyone must be economically active and not burdening the state.

Over there, you’re lucky to get 12 weeks off, usually unpaid. Most women are back at work before the baby can even roll over because they have no choice. It’s the ultimate business first model, wouldn’t surprise me at all if that’s the direction they want to take us.