One of the public opinion chewing gum during the week was the government's timid idea to consider whether the maternity leave period could not be shortened (which in our country is 2 years compared to under 1 year in other European countries), after ensuring, of course, enough places in nurseries and other childcare institutions. And human rights watchdogs immediately jumped in. The loudest, of course, were the troubadours of the “democratic community“. The loudest for no other reason than because they were left out of the bandwagon in the last elections and for that reason they hate the ruling party again.
Actually, that's what interests me. Not how long the maternity leave will be. I don't understand much (which doesn't mean at all!) about social policy and I don't follow this sector, which is why the movements in it are somewhat indifferent to me. But I found it funny how those who call themselves the "urban right" jumped to defend social benefits, when there are many other topics on which the benefits in question directly depend. A typical leftist approach - to stare at the symptom without examining the disease. And that's exactly why I said this week:
„T. The so-called "democratic community", which defines itself as "the right", groans most pitifully when any left-wing measure is attempted.
And immediately I was confronted by one of the leaders of the "democratic community", one of the most emblematic spokesmen of the "right", saying:
"Motherhood is not a left-wing measure. For a country in such a demographic crisis, stimulating motherhood is common sense."
I replied, as any normal and meek person in my place would have replied: "For left-wing people, left-wing measures are common sense," and the leader insulted me ad hominem and retreated back to where he had come from.
And here is the true right-wing view of the issue. Excessive social care destroys the quality of the workforce. It is not only the quantity of the workforce that is important, but also its quality, that is, its qualifications. The lack of qualifications throughout the industrial world is one of the main reasons for youth unemployment. A young woman, cut off from her professional environment, loses not only qualifications but also elementary adequacy with each passing year. All the while, the employer pays her a ridiculous salary, and when she finally returns, he looks for a way to fire her and keep her replacement, who has just started working. The solution? Specialized state, municipal and private forms of raising young children. In this way, the mother continues to be competitive on the labor market, while at the same time new jobs are opened and added value is created in specialized childcare facilities. This is the right-wing point of view.
Because if there were, then since motherhood in our country is more than twice as long as the European average, then the birth rate must also be more than twice as high, if this is the key to the shack, isn't it?
The problems with demography will not be solved with social measures. I'm even ashamed of those who think so. Demography will not be fixed by turning motherhood into a profession for minorities.
As we said, motherhood in Bulgaria lasts two years. In the first year, the mother receives 90% of the average daily gross wage or the average daily social security income on which social security contributions have been paid or are due, i.e. practically her entire salary. In the second year, the compensation is much lower – currently it is 398.81 €, and has not been increased due to the lack of budget laws. There are incentives for early return to work, in which case the mother receives 50% of her salary along with the compensation.
That is, a woman with a certain cultural predisposition and attitude can find a job somewhere and at the end of the first year start giving birth. 10 children is normal for such a woman, which means 20 years of motherhood. And if half of these children are girls, their lives can develop in a similar way. And their children and their children's children will not relieve the social system, but will burden it additionally. They will not increase economic growth, but will slow it down. They will not increase the quality of the workforce, but will reduce it. Is this what we want, is this the purpose of the lesson?
Look at how two main types of mothers emerged:
In both cases, the overall benefit is lost, the strategic horizon is blurred in some amorphous haze.
Pay attention to another very curious and instructive moment. It turns out that in Bulgaria it is a widespread practice for women to work while on maternity leave. That is, they are ready to have and have children, regardless of social policy.
There are several types of working beneficiaries:
Those who return to their workplace in the first or second year of motherhood. In the first year, they receive 50% of their maternity benefit, even their regular salary, and in the second year this part is smaller, but they still pay it.
Women work en masse while they are on maternity leave, in freelance professions, civil contracts, as well as participating in family businesses, working remotely or running their own businesses.
It is also common for municipal councilors and mayors to continue to perform their public functions during maternity leave. Company managers - as well. Not to mention lawyers and private tutors.
And how does all this fit into the concern for demography, into “common sense”? Has anyone bothered to calculate how the birth rate and population growth move with different types of social assistance for maternity leave? How many months, how many years was motherhood a few generations ago, when families had a dozen or fifteen children?… Obviously, the “key to the shed“ is elsewhere.
Stop beating the family.
Stop tolerating sexual deviations.
Stop promoting contraception and abortion.
A “philosophy“ is spreading in the liberal world, according to which man is a speck on the face of the earth, a cancer that kills “mother planet” with its metastases, and in this case, brainwashing should go in the direction that more children are undesirable. Unfortunately, this philosophy does not reach those with really many children and with uncontrolled reproduction, but poisons the minds of our youth, who are educated from school on how not to get pregnant. We do this and at the same time scream that the nation is melting and disappearing.
Instead, the family should be returned to the list of basic values. If you don't want a creed, find some other way to explain to children that the family is a duty that requires parents to sacrifice entertainment, amusements and pleasures. Explain to them that it is a sacrament and this gives it a more special moral meaning. Explain to them that children are a prototype of immortality.
Peoples have a soul. They sometimes call it “folk psychology“. The attitude towards the family and children directly affects the soul of the peoples. The consequences of the left-liberal attitude towards children for nations like ours are aging, poverty of the elderly (consider how many pensioners one worker supports), low-quality generations, fit only to be blue-collar workers or service personnel, and I also include prostitutes in the latter.
The result - no respect from other nations, and this comes back and makes the picture even more hopeless.
If you want women to stay at home and take care of the children and the household - something that many women would choose for themselves - create a society in which men earn enough to support their families. Or if you don't care about discovering hot water, look at how it was until 1944, when the hegemonic class came to power and women won their fight to be proud workers and to "realize" themselves. equal to man in the responsibility of providing for the next generation. Furthermore, I think Carthage should be destroyed.