I'm definitely not doubting how bad government is at enforcing household law. It's quite terrible.
My whole point wasn't very clear. If women must work, I'd argue that they should only be able to do so after marriage, and that signing up for a job with her SSN puts her family in the "dual income" category, out of competition with families where only men work. Women have time to find a husband during education. Some women might work under the table, but they are risk-averse enough to deter this, it seems.
Of course, the ideal is women not working but instead helping and being helped by the other White mothers and grandmothers raising children in a multi-generational household passing down the family's unique and timeless heritage, traditions, stigmas, and customs. This after their fathers arrange their marriages as virgins to good men.
We’re on very different pages I think. Nobody should even have an SSN, never mind categories your SSN or personal circumstances might place you. Remove all that and families become a natural necessity again. Divorce wasn’t big in the Middle Ages cos it usually meant all involved would starve, and not cos of laws or SSN categories. When people have to provide for themselves and their own they do and will. When people are provided for, what happens?
>When people live off big brother's teat or rent-seeking, what happens?
Absolute disregard for society happens. Look at single mother sheboons or retired Florida White boomers with a stock market portfolio. Neither takes issue with their Indian physician replacement.
(post is archived)