Why are feminists trying to reinforce gender roles? That's exactly what they are doing, and I doubt they realize that, but more on that later.

Wouldn't a movement focused on achieving equality for women want to eliminate sexist policies that discourage financial independence? For example: A mother can choose to either raise her family and get 0% allowance rather than work, or raise her family and get a 10% allowance rather than work. The former scenario will result in more women choosing to work, and the latter scenario will result in more women choose to stay at home. Given that feminists want to increase the proportion of female breadwinners, you'd think they'd want to come up a different sexist, male-discriminatory policies that encourages women to work instead. For feminists advocating for an equality of results, this is what they should be advocating.

A clever policy that they could put forth would be to give men a 10% allowance instead, thus giving them an incentive to stay at home and increase the proportion of female breadwinners.

Regardless, any policy like this is ludicrous if it's not gender balanced... and even then, it's pretty stupid. It's fraught with legal problems that are disproportionately harming men. Many of these problems are common even in the West in the form of child support, which is exactly what this is. Those feminists who are for equality of opportunity should be appalled at such a Mommy salary policy.

Furthermore, I was talking to someone about this, who I consider to be very educated and liberal, and they suggested that women in Africa don't have it like women in the West. They don't have the standard of living, and safety net that poor women do in the West, nor are their societal expectations of women as modern [aka, men are the ones that should do the work that brings in money for the family]. Now, that sounds very reasonable to the uninformed, but upon further reflection, there was clearly a very dangerous idea lurking here.

In a society where overpopulation contributes to the deaths of millions of malnourished children, you would hope that policies that reduce fertility would be embraced. However, such policies that reduce fertility in a more primitive society are likely to reduce the influence women have with men. It seems reasonable to me that a man is more willing to be the worker of the family if there are children involved... Thus, women with children are more likely to not be forced into a situation where they must take on financial responsibilities. Ultimately, in a more primitive society, sexual partners are inevitably going to end up with multiple babies because of the lack of birth control.

On the other hand, what if women are overtly discriminated from holding jobs and/or achieving financial independence? Well, could it be more likely that it's just the reality? When a society doesn't condone birth control, or doesn't have it, it is going to end up with unexpected pregnancies. Given the physical burden of repeated unwanted pregnancies and nursing, it's understandable that there is a serious lack of financially independent women in such a more primitive society. In addition, physical strength is more essential in such places, further downplaying the potential contribution from a woman, especially pregnant ones.

So, in light of all this, it's clear that a more primitive society is relentlessly going to push women into the maternal role. There's no patriarchy, it's how it is in such circumstances. There's a reason why there are zero societies that developed in historical times that differed in the family construct.

Now, with respect to this salary proposition, the policy will actually be an unnatural policy set up to push women into the maternal role. The physical hardships of work, of pregnancies, and the lack of birth control, all play pivitol roles in pushing women into the maternal role in primitive societies. Now feminists want to actively and financially encourage women to start families and not achieve financial independence. There is zero reconciliation with the reality that such a policy plays in direct contradiction with their ideology. They themselves are the ones imposing a so-called patriarchal policy upon women. Irony of the finest breed.

Historical society may have invariably enforced gender roles that modern day women find oppressive, but I don't think it started up as a man made agenda... It became tradition, and I would argue that it was only an unfair tradition until after the day that reliable birth control became widely available... So we're only talking about very recent history and for a very brief duration.

So, in summary, it appears that feminists are unintentionally reinforcing gender rules, and discouraging financial independence amongst women. On the other hand, they are intentionally advocating for the implementation of a law that gender discriminates against men. Not only would the policy encourage men to be the breadwinner, but it implements a child support payments that will take money away from the man regardless of the circumstance. 2 examples: A women would be encouraged to birth children for multiple fathers, or she could actually be financially independent whilst the man is not, both of which occur in modern societies too.

Why are feminists doing this? My guess is that the philosophy of feminism is conflicted with a few ideologies that are often advocated in conjunction despite their incompatibilities under many circumstances. The first one is gender equality by equality of results, the second one is gender equality by equality of opportunity, and the last one is a victimization perspective. The first 2 are self-explanatory, however, the last ideology is fraught with problems. I believe that gender equality may be the supposed goal for Mommy salaries but there is absolutely none of it [in fact it will cause more gender inequality which will financially harm fathers, discourage fathers from being the at-home parent, benefits male job seekers, and harms women for all the reasons that I've already mentioned], but it is sold to the public nonetheless behind an emotional victimized front.

I feel that the victimized culture of feminism has hijacked any intellectual discussion within their ranks.

In short, the philosophy of mainstream feminism is as followed: Women are suffering [by their definition], something must be done! Well, let us take money away from their oppressors [by their definition]... that'll help alleviate their suffering!