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.

Exactly. Reform does what it says on the tin.

He's tying women's economic value and their overall value to motherhood. There's no twisting that, it's literally what he's doing. Effectively charging women for not having children is a financial punishment.

Firstly, your title and the actual text don't match. Suggesting women have children earlier is not the same as wanting them all 'barefoot and pregnant'. I think there's a reasonable argument in either direction (and also for not having children at all).

But Secondly, how do you explain Laila Cunningham as Reform party's mayoral candidate?

Or Sarah Pochin as MP? Suella Braverman?

Obviously they're not opposed to women making a career out of politics, which rather precludes being 'barefoot and pregnant' all the time.

As usual pretty lazy attempt to smear Reform.

I'm not saying they're good but at least address real things in depth and not some made up monster that doesn't pass the sniff test. By doing this you're only sending more people their way, because one thing the UK populace in general wants, it's fairness.

I feel the 'Reform are the baddies' schtick is getting rather tired these days.

Nazi Germany had some of the earliest animal welfare laws! Better let people torture animals, might become Nazis otherwise!!!

Do you hear yourself?

https://www.thenational.scot/news/25833148.matt-goodwin-proposed-tax-women-no-children/

A lazy attempt to smear Reform 🤣 They don't need any help, they are racist, xenophobic, insular parochial misogynistic pricks who do it all by themselves.

Should find some way to charge men for not contributing to the next generation too. I find men are more of the problem in this regard anyway

A lot of people seem to be voting for them in the hope they'll reverse the trend of unmanaged immigration from cultures with terrible human/women's rights records. Cultures where the men are 3x more likely to commit a sex crime when arriving in this country and where the majority of them state homosexuality should be illegal when surveyed.

If it was dealt with properly then we wouldn't have this sledgehammer/nut scenario where people take desperate measures.

But we're apparently not allowed to talk about this...

Exactly. The model Reform have in mind is for women to become entirely dependent financially on a man, and for the man to shoulder 100% of the financial pressure- without help from the state . They want a small state. That means women are then exclusively relegated to the role of carers - for elderly relatives and children - without any opportunities to develop in other areas. Show me a woman who truly thinks that's the way to go. It's also no magic wand to fix existing economic pressures.

If this is the case it seems counterintuitive that they'd give tax breaks to women with children.

I also had my children in my 20s and early 30s but don't believe that is the 'right' age for everyone. Many couples can't afford to support a family until they're well into their 30s, some people don't meet they're partners until they're in their 30s and some couples can't/don't want to have children at all.
Having a family is a personal not political decision!

Do you hear yourself - endorsing the Nazis for the animal welfare laws!

What do you mean, you're not allowed to talk about it? You lot are constantly talking about it all the time

People pointing out that you are wrong doesn't equate to silencing you.

Anyone who votes for Reform because of some jumped up claim that they care about women's rights or gay rights etc is beyond stupid. It would be idiotic to vote for one bunch of homophobes and misogynists simply because you perceive another bunch of people to be misogynistic and homophobic as well.

So to avoid extra taxes men can just get a woman pregnant to tick that box and then abandon them?
Are they going to make the men properly pay for the child?
Will only married couples be entitled to lower taxes to stop that happening?
Who gets the lower taxes in step families where the birth parent isn't around and the step parent is bringing up 2+ children so doesn't go on to have any of their own?

They are entirely deluded then. Homegrown misogynistic and regressive views are just as loathsome as imported ones. In fact... come to think of it, much of what the Reform/populist right parties are saying IS IMPORTED anyway. A voter hoping to fix issues affecting women, girls and vulnerable minorities should not turn to Reform if they seriously want to address them.
I am against extremisms of any kind, from any religion or political ideology. That's why I'll avoid Reform like the plague.

If he removes the tax for women with 2+ children, then who is going to pay for the shortfall in tax revenue? It doesn't take a genius to realise it will be those without the required amount of children. So extra taxes for those who choose not to have children or to stop at 1.

What you mean if we vote in Reform we can feel confident in the belief that they will be championing the rights of women to bodily autonomy and reproductive freedom? Oh, hang on...

This 💯 and privatise health care. They’ll dismantle workers rights as well. A party fined by billionaires to press for free markets - on the back of those in society who are vulnerable, will only benefit the richest. If you’re not a landowner or living off your asset derived income then you are working class and will pay the price Reform demands.

lol you seem to misunderstand my point here

Just because the Nazis had some sort of similar policy doesn’t actually negate the policy itself. Again, Nazis had some of the earliest animal welfare laws, nobody would suggest we NOT have those because the Nazis …

You should judge things by their own merits.

Women with more than two children. How many children do you think women can sustain alongside earning enough to support them all without a partner?

I mean, the kind of men who do that are not the type to pay taxes …

In plain sight.

How is that counterintuitive? They want a small state and propose to give tax breaks to the 'right kind' of woman (leading to less tax intake for the state). It'll logically mean much less public services and the obligation for families (well, women in the family) to look after their relatives young and old. It's a very regressive model.

And what it'll mean anyway is less women in the workforce.

This is just clickbait really. It's also written in a clearly biased fashion.

He's not saying we should implement a specific tax for childless women as people are implying. He's saying that everybody should pay more tax to improve public welfare (a common leftist view) and those that take on the additional burden of having two or more children should receive a tax break to remove barriers for people who would like to have children but can't afford it.

He's literally said it's like child benefits and that you'd not expect a childless person to bemoan the fact they don't receive child benefit.