On the housework thing: How is a single parent (through adoption) going to get paid for raising his/her kids, maintaining his/her home. I do think if one partner is taking care of all the housework/childrearing, then the other partner is sponging off of them. Sponging can be a two way street. I've already stated its more equal of both partners work and share housework/child rearing responsibilities.
What you're saying is, effectively, that folks should disregard comparative advantage because otherwise people are sponges. And even more bizarrely, we apparently wind up with situations where each party is sponging off the other, which really makes no sense whatsoever.
Can you please, slowly and deliberately, explain why if the members of a marriage say, "You know what would be great is if one of us made most of the money and the other did most of the housework," this is a bad thing? Can you explain why consenting adults should not come to an agreement on finances and housework that they each feel is mutually beneficial? Because you haven't thus far, despite repeated attempts to get you to do so.
The idea that it's a misguided ideal that's been beaten into our heads since marriage was first instituted? That it might not be a good thing, we just think it is. That, in the end, one may be misguided into that belief and go into relationships expecting just that. Ex - Woman knows that she only has to have marginal skills in cooking/cleaning and tolerable skills with kids and ensare that man with a decent paycheck because she thinks that's how it works. I can see quickly, how the sponging/parasitic symbiosis can be true. There is the ability to construe that comparative advantage to a parasitic outcome. You're saying that the people are coming to a mutual agreement, but are you certain that it is completely mutual? There comes the idea that one person begins to feel that they're putting more on the table, so to speak, than the other person and it reeks of the stench of viral infection. Or that one isn't getting all that they bargain for.
I mean, despite his cynical attitude, you can't argue that he's wrong when there's a 50/50 shot of marriage working nowadays. People are doing something wrong and his theory isn't far from plausible.
So you've never had a serious adult relationship with anyone.
This is sort of like a virgin saying that sex is overrated.
Cliff - it's not rational for you to have such strong negative feelings for something you have never experienced.
So if someone were to jump in and agree with him, who has had a long relationship, would this entire thing go to him?
No, because we're talking about the rationality of his perspectives and opinions.
You don't need to necessarily have experienced something to derive a plausible conclusion, though. His opinion may be rational just from observation, which is what the scientific method is about.
Why do you qualify them as "girlfriend/boyfriend" relationships?
My others have been friends with benefits style, which has worked out much better for me.
Also no ones answered how the single parent, or hell single person in general gets paid for maintaining their own house.
They don't. Hence the advantage of being a couple that divides the duties. Christ, the question practically answers itself. The sad thing is several people missed the obvious and talked about welfare or having lots of savings. All your demonstrating is that couples have an advantage over single parents. Doesn't mean single parents can't do a good job, it's just harder for them. Duh.
On the housework thing: How is a single parent (through adoption) going to get paid for raising his/her kids, maintaining his/her home. I do think if one partner is taking care of all the housework/childrearing, then the other partner is sponging off of them. Sponging can be a two way street. I've already stated its more equal of both partners work and share housework/child rearing responsibilities.
What you're saying is, effectively, that folks should disregard comparative advantage because otherwise people are sponges. And even more bizarrely, we apparently wind up with situations where each party is sponging off the other, which really makes no sense whatsoever.
Can you please, slowly and deliberately, explain why if the members of a marriage say, "You know what would be great is if one of us made most of the money and the other did most of the housework," this is a bad thing? Can you explain why consenting adults should not come to an agreement on finances and housework that they each feel is mutually beneficial? Because you haven't thus far, despite repeated attempts to get you to do so.
The idea that it's a misguided ideal that's been beaten into our heads since marriage was first instituted? That it might not be a good thing, we just think it is. That, in the end, one may be misguided into that belief and go into relationships expecting just that. Ex - Woman knows that she only has to have marginal skills in cooking/cleaning and tolerable skills with kids and ensare that man with a decent paycheck because she thinks that's how it works. I can see quickly, how the sponging/parasitic symbiosis can be true. There is the ability to construe that comparative advantage to a parasitic outcome. You're saying that the people are coming to a mutual agreement, but are you certain that it is completely mutual? There comes the idea that one person begins to feel that they're putting more on the table, so to speak, than the other person and it reeks of the stench of viral infection. Or that one isn't getting all that they bargain for.
I mean, despite his cynical attitude, you can't argue that he's wrong when there's a 50/50 shot of marriage working nowadays. People are doing something wrong and his theory isn't far from plausible.
So you've never had a serious adult relationship with anyone.
This is sort of like a virgin saying that sex is overrated.
Cliff - it's not rational for you to have such strong negative feelings for something you have never experienced.
So if someone were to jump in and agree with him, who has had a long relationship, would this entire thing go to him?
No, because we're talking about the rationality of his perspectives and opinions.
You don't need to necessarily have experienced something to derive a plausible conclusion, though. His opinion may be rational just from observation, which is what the scientific method is about.
I think a part of the problem is that he is trying to apply the scientific method to marriage. I don't apply the scientific method to, say, my breakfast. It's a matter of what I want to eat. Some things are like that, you know.
On the housework thing: How is a single parent (through adoption) going to get paid for raising his/her kids, maintaining his/her home. I do think if one partner is taking care of all the housework/childrearing, then the other partner is sponging off of them. Sponging can be a two way street. I've already stated its more equal of both partners work and share housework/child rearing responsibilities.
What you're saying is, effectively, that folks should disregard comparative advantage because otherwise people are sponges. And even more bizarrely, we apparently wind up with situations where each party is sponging off the other, which really makes no sense whatsoever.
Can you please, slowly and deliberately, explain why if the members of a marriage say, "You know what would be great is if one of us made most of the money and the other did most of the housework," this is a bad thing? Can you explain why consenting adults should not come to an agreement on finances and housework that they each feel is mutually beneficial? Because you haven't thus far, despite repeated attempts to get you to do so.
The idea that it's a misguided ideal that's been beaten into our heads since marriage was first instituted? That it might not be a good thing, we just think it is. That, in the end, one may be misguided into that belief and go into relationships expecting just that. Ex - Woman knows that she only has to have marginal skills in cooking/cleaning and tolerable skills with kids and ensare that man with a decent paycheck because she thinks that's how it works. I can see quickly, how the sponging/parasitic symbiosis can be true. There is the ability to construe that comparative advantage to a parasitic outcome. You're saying that the people are coming to a mutual agreement, but are you certain that it is completely mutual? There comes the idea that one person begins to feel that they're putting more on the table, so to speak, than the other person and it reeks of the stench of viral infection. Or that one isn't getting all that they bargain for.
I mean, despite his cynical attitude, you can't argue that he's wrong when there's a 50/50 shot of marriage working nowadays. People are doing something wrong and his theory isn't far from plausible.
Did you just compare marriage to a viral infection?
So you've never had a serious adult relationship with anyone.
This is sort of like a virgin saying that sex is overrated.
Cliff - it's not rational for you to have such strong negative feelings for something you have never experienced.
So if someone were to jump in and agree with him, who has had a long relationship, would this entire thing go to him?
No, because we're talking about the rationality of his perspectives and opinions.
You don't need to necessarily have experienced something to derive a plausible conclusion, though. His opinion may be rational just from observation, which is what the scientific method is about.
ahahaha
oh my
we have another robot
look kid, we don't have time to explain how these human "feelings" work to you also
So you've never had a serious adult relationship with anyone.
This is sort of like a virgin saying that sex is overrated.
Cliff - it's not rational for you to have such strong negative feelings for something you have never experienced.
So if someone were to jump in and agree with him, who has had a long relationship, would this entire thing go to him?
No, because we're talking about the rationality of his perspectives and opinions.
You don't need to necessarily have experienced something to derive a plausible conclusion, though. His opinion may be rational just from observation, which is what the scientific method is about.
The scientific method is about testable hypotheses and tightly controlled experimental observations.
So you've never had a serious adult relationship with anyone.
This is sort of like a virgin saying that sex is overrated.
Cliff - it's not rational for you to have such strong negative feelings for something you have never experienced.
So if someone were to jump in and agree with him, who has had a long relationship, would this entire thing go to him?
No, because we're talking about the rationality of his perspectives and opinions.
You don't need to necessarily have experienced something to derive a plausible conclusion, though. His opinion may be rational just from observation, which is what the scientific method is about.
Except that in scientific method you don't jump from observation to conclusions. There are a whole bunch of rigorous stages in between.
You would know this if you had taken high school science.
Perpetual on
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Then tell me something that makes your girlfriend happy.
(don't answer either in the context of relationship activity)
Edit - By that I mean, don't say "sex" or "making out" or whatever.
In addition to me not letting you off the hook 'til you answer those, I want you to tell us if you want children or not.
The answer could help us understand your position a bit more (in that you're ignorant of what it means / what it takes), or it could make your position way the hell more bizarre.
The few girlfriend/boyfriend relationships I've had have been either incredibly short or ill-defined and wonky.
I definately don't want kids.
On the housework thing: How is a single parent (through adoption) going to get paid for raising his/her kids, maintaining his/her home. I do think if one partner is taking care of all the housework/childrearing, then the other partner is sponging off of them. Sponging can be a two way street. I've already stated its more equal of both partners work and share housework/child rearing responsibilities.
Answer the first two questions (what makes you happy / what makes her happy), please. I'm not interested in your semantic definition bullcrap.
A single parent, like mine, can work from home. States also grant money to people who adopt to aid in the child's raising. Any other silly questions?
On the housework thing: How is a single parent (through adoption) going to get paid for raising his/her kids, maintaining his/her home. I do think if one partner is taking care of all the housework/childrearing, then the other partner is sponging off of them. Sponging can be a two way street. I've already stated its more equal of both partners work and share housework/child rearing responsibilities.
What you're saying is, effectively, that folks should disregard comparative advantage because otherwise people are sponges. And even more bizarrely, we apparently wind up with situations where each party is sponging off the other, which really makes no sense whatsoever.
Can you please, slowly and deliberately, explain why if the members of a marriage say, "You know what would be great is if one of us made most of the money and the other did most of the housework," this is a bad thing? Can you explain why consenting adults should not come to an agreement on finances and housework that they each feel is mutually beneficial? Because you haven't thus far, despite repeated attempts to get you to do so.
The idea that it's a misguided ideal that's been beaten into our heads since marriage was first instituted? That it might not be a good thing, we just think it is. That, in the end, one may be misguided into that belief and go into relationships expecting just that. Ex - Woman knows that she only has to have marginal skills in cooking/cleaning and tolerable skills with kids and ensare that man with a decent paycheck because she thinks that's how it works. I can see quickly, how the sponging/parasitic symbiosis can be true. There is the ability to construe that comparative advantage to a parasitic outcome. You're saying that the people are coming to a mutual agreement, but are you certain that it is completely mutual? There comes the idea that one person begins to feel that they're putting more on the table, so to speak, than the other person and it reeks of the stench of viral infection. Or that one isn't getting all that they bargain for.
I mean, despite his cynical attitude, you can't argue that he's wrong when there's a 50/50 shot of marriage working nowadays. People are doing something wrong and his theory isn't far from plausible.
Yes, marriage is not a guarantor of Arcadian perfection and bliss. At the same time pretending that someone who only has marginal skills at cooking/cleaning/child-rearing and who sacrifices their potential earnings and career path to exert them has garnered $0.00 in earned compensation in the event of a divorce solely because they didn't get a paycheck for those acts is still ridiculous.
Also, the scientific method doesn't work too well in the soft sciences. People are squishy, irrational, and complicated.
So you've never had a serious adult relationship with anyone.
This is sort of like a virgin saying that sex is overrated.
Cliff - it's not rational for you to have such strong negative feelings for something you have never experienced.
So if someone were to jump in and agree with him, who has had a long relationship, would this entire thing go to him?
No, because we're talking about the rationality of his perspectives and opinions.
You don't need to necessarily have experienced something to derive a plausible conclusion, though. His opinion may be rational just from observation, which is what the scientific method is about.
While this is true, it's only really an issue because he doesn't seem to understand that people can have motivations other than the financial, and seems to take as a base assumption that anyone whose motives are anything other than financial are being taken advantage of.
He was outright dismissive of the idea that a person might derive happiness simply from being with another person. It's things like that that are causing people to question whether his opinions on relationships can be taken seriously, because he seems to have an understanding of what a relationship is that could charitably be described as idiosyncratic.
japan on
0
Options
Powerpuppiesdrinking coffee in themountain cabinRegistered Userregular
On the housework thing: How is a single parent (through adoption) going to get paid for raising his/her kids, maintaining his/her home. I do think if one partner is taking care of all the housework/childrearing, then the other partner is sponging off of them. Sponging can be a two way street. I've already stated its more equal of both partners work and share housework/child rearing responsibilities.
What you're saying is, effectively, that folks should disregard comparative advantage because otherwise people are sponges. And even more bizarrely, we apparently wind up with situations where each party is sponging off the other, which really makes no sense whatsoever.
Can you please, slowly and deliberately, explain why if the members of a marriage say, "You know what would be great is if one of us made most of the money and the other did most of the housework," this is a bad thing? Can you explain why consenting adults should not come to an agreement on finances and housework that they each feel is mutually beneficial? Because you haven't thus far, despite repeated attempts to get you to do so.
The idea that it's a misguided ideal that's been beaten into our heads since marriage was first instituted? That it might not be a good thing, we just think it is. That, in the end, one may be misguided into that belief and go into relationships expecting just that. Ex - Woman knows that she only has to have marginal skills in cooking/cleaning and tolerable skills with kids and ensare that man with a decent paycheck because she thinks that's how it works. I can see quickly, how the sponging/parasitic symbiosis can betrue. There is the ability to construe that comparative advantage to a parasitic outcome. You're saying that the people are coming to a mutual agreement, but are you certain that it is completely mutual? There comes the idea that one person begins to feel that they're putting more on the table, so to speak, than the other person and it reeks of the stench of viral infection. Or that one isn't getting all that they bargain for.
I mean, despite his cynical attitude, you can't argue that he's wrong when there's a 50/50 shot of marriage working nowadays. People are doing something wrong and his theory isn't far from plausible.
Putting aside a great deal of shenanigans, let's talk for a second about the stuff I put in big font there. If we are completely certain that for one specific case, between two specific people, it is completely mutual, the parasitic possibility is not true, then would you agree that it is a good thing?
If it's a good thing for one specific case, can we then generalize and say it's plausible it is a good thing for many specific cases? Isn't the burden then on the other side to argue that these things that are possible are in fact a problem?
Even if they do successfully make that argument, isn't the solution to make sure it's completely mutual, and have the two people come to an agreement? Isn't that much better than to decide no agreement is possible and anything that approaches the comparative advantage ElJeffe mentioned is wrong, and there's no place for it in a marriage?
I mean, despite his cynical attitude, you can't argue that he's wrong when there's a 50/50 shot of marriage working nowadays. People are doing something wrong and his theory isn't far from plausible.
Source this please. This claim gets bandied around a lot but I want to see it backed up. What kind of statistics are you talking? Is this based on the ratio of annual marriage rate/divorce rate? That's clearly not going to give you an accurate picture. What about serial spouses? Is this worldwide, or is it in the US, which IIRC has the highest divorce rate of any country?
On the housework thing: How is a single parent (through adoption) going to get paid for raising his/her kids, maintaining his/her home. I do think if one partner is taking care of all the housework/childrearing, then the other partner is sponging off of them. Sponging can be a two way street. I've already stated its more equal of both partners work and share housework/child rearing responsibilities.
What you're saying is, effectively, that folks should disregard comparative advantage because otherwise people are sponges. And even more bizarrely, we apparently wind up with situations where each party is sponging off the other, which really makes no sense whatsoever.
Can you please, slowly and deliberately, explain why if the members of a marriage say, "You know what would be great is if one of us made most of the money and the other did most of the housework," this is a bad thing? Can you explain why consenting adults should not come to an agreement on finances and housework that they each feel is mutually beneficial? Because you haven't thus far, despite repeated attempts to get you to do so.
The idea that it's a misguided ideal that's been beaten into our heads since marriage was first instituted? That it might not be a good thing, we just think it is. That, in the end, one may be misguided into that belief and go into relationships expecting just that. Ex - Woman knows that she only has to have marginal skills in cooking/cleaning and tolerable skills with kids and ensare that man with a decent paycheck because she thinks that's how it works. I can see quickly, how the sponging/parasitic symbiosis can betrue. There is the ability to construe that comparative advantage to a parasitic outcome. You're saying that the people are coming to a mutual agreement, but are you certain that it is completely mutual? There comes the idea that one person begins to feel that they're putting more on the table, so to speak, than the other person and it reeks of the stench of viral infection. Or that one isn't getting all that they bargain for.
I mean, despite his cynical attitude, you can't argue that he's wrong when there's a 50/50 shot of marriage working nowadays. People are doing something wrong and his theory isn't far from plausible.
Putting aside a great deal of shenanigans, let's talk for a second about the stuff I put in big font there. If we are completely certain that for one specific case, between two specific people, it is completely mutual, the parasitic possibility is not true, then would you agree that it is a good thing?
If it's a good thing for one specific case, can we then generalize and say it's plausible it is a good thing for many specific cases? Isn't the burden then on the other side to argue that these things that are possible are in fact a problem?
Even if they do successfully make that argument, isn't the solution to make sure it's completely mutual, and have the two people come to an agreement? Isn't that much better than to decide no agreement is possible and anything that approaches the comparative advantage ElJeffe mentioned is wrong, and there's no place for it in a marriage?
I'm not taking sides, I'm just offering points. I never made a concrete statement or fact other than saying "Hey, marriages are failing terribly, why is this guys point so wrong?".
To what you said initially - I'm not 100% certain it is a good thing but I would venture a guess that yes it is a good thing. Which your second statement makes sense. It is this guy's task to show WHY it is a bad thing when other people say it is a good thing. I think what you're getting at is to try to make it mutual and make it work instead of giving up. I agree.
Except that in scientific method you don't jump from observation to conclusions. There are a whole bunch of rigorous stages in between.
You would know this if you had taken high school science.
Yes, true, but it's also a fundamental principle that can be used in the most general of cases. But it also falls upon the individual to disprove the theory they have, which is where the rigorous testing comes into play. But those "Stages" can be simply gotten by looking on the computer and just getting results like the failed marriages and prenup agreements and constant custody battles. He's not wrong if the biggest hassles of divorces IS monetary and divorces are common amongst marriages, occuring repeatedly within people.
The scientific method is about testable hypotheses and tightly controlled experimental observations.
It has nothing to do with this thread.
Again, in its most GENERAL FORM, it does. Good lord, people in psychology and fucking communications use these methods to derive how people think and feel. Don't brush a way one of the most common mechanisms of thinking in this argument. It has everything to do with debate and discourse. Where else do you get your proof?!!
ahahaha
oh my
we have another robot
look kid, we don't have time to explain how these human "feelings" work to you also
Ha. I'm not trying to be robotic, I'm just being devils advocate, so to speak.
Did you just compare marriage to a viral infection?
My brain just asploded.
Whatever example works. You can use any metaphor and you would be offended, honestly.
I mean, despite his cynical attitude, you can't argue that he's wrong when there's a 50/50 shot of marriage working nowadays. People are doing something wrong and his theory isn't far from plausible.
Source this please. This claim gets bandied around a lot but I want to see it backed up. What kind of statistics are you talking? Is this based on the ratio of annual marriage rate/divorce rate? That's clearly not going to give you an accurate picture. What about serial spouses? Is this worldwide, or is it in the US, which IIRC has the highest divorce rate of any country?
o_O Take out repeated divorces from an individual and let's focus on the US. It doesnt' make my point any more wrong. Marriages are not immaculate, and far from it. I would actually state that unless marriages have a 80% success rate or above, it's far from perfect. Look, don't take offense to that statement. i'm not saying marriage is a joke or something terrible. I don't mean to insult it, I'm saying people are bringing down those stats.
Yes, true, but it's also a fundamental principle that can be used in the most general of cases. But it also falls upon the individual to disprove the theory they have, which is where the rigorous testing comes into play. But those "Stages" can be simply gotten by looking on the computer and just getting results like the failed marriages and prenup agreements and constant custody battles. He's not wrong if the biggest hassles of divorces IS monetary and divorces are common amongst marriages, occuring repeatedly within people.
So your line of thought goes like this:
1. A lot of marriages fail
2. Therefore there is something wrong with the idea of marriage
I mean, despite his cynical attitude, you can't argue that he's wrong when there's a 50/50 shot of marriage working nowadays. People are doing something wrong and his theory isn't far from plausible.
Source this please. This claim gets bandied around a lot but I want to see it backed up. What kind of statistics are you talking? Is this based on the ratio of annual marriage rate/divorce rate? That's clearly not going to give you an accurate picture. What about serial spouses? Is this worldwide, or is it in the US, which IIRC has the highest divorce rate of any country?
o_O Take out repeated divorces from an individual and let's focus on the US. It doesnt' make my point any more wrong. Marriages are not immaculate, and far from it. I would actually state that unless marriages have a 80% success rate or above, it's far from perfect. Look, don't take offense to that statement. i'm not saying marriage is a joke or something terrible. I don't mean to insult it, I'm saying people are bringing down those stats.
I'm not offended. But if you're not prepared to back the stat up, you probably shouldn't post it.
I mean, despite his cynical attitude, you can't argue that he's wrong when there's a 50/50 shot of marriage working nowadays. People are doing something wrong and his theory isn't far from plausible.
Source this please. This claim gets bandied around a lot but I want to see it backed up. What kind of statistics are you talking? Is this based on the ratio of annual marriage rate/divorce rate? That's clearly not going to give you an accurate picture. What about serial spouses? Is this worldwide, or is it in the US, which IIRC has the highest divorce rate of any country?
o_O Take out repeated divorces from an individual and let's focus on the US. It doesnt' make my point any more wrong. Marriages are not immaculate, and far from it. I would actually state that unless marriages have a 80% success rate or above, it's far from perfect. Look, don't take offense to that statement. i'm not saying marriage is a joke or something terrible. I don't mean to insult it, I'm saying people are bringing down those stats.
No, marriages are not immaculate. Similarly they are not legalized and socially acceptable forms of prostitution.
moniker on
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
I'm not taking sides, I'm just offering points. I never made a concrete statement or fact other than saying "Hey, marriages are failing terribly, why is this guys point so wrong?".
Because the point doesn't have to do with marriages failing?
I mean, despite his cynical attitude, you can't argue that he's wrong when there's a 50/50 shot of marriage working nowadays. People are doing something wrong and his theory isn't far from plausible.
Source this please. This claim gets bandied around a lot but I want to see it backed up. What kind of statistics are you talking? Is this based on the ratio of annual marriage rate/divorce rate? That's clearly not going to give you an accurate picture. What about serial spouses? Is this worldwide, or is it in the US, which IIRC has the highest divorce rate of any country?
Its a really old stat that traditional types like to chuck around when berating everyone for not being married enough. The divorce rate even in America is the lowest its been in a while, and varies very very noticeably with socioeconomic status and age of marriage. It approaches 40-something% percent in uneducated poor folk, and is as low as 17%, last I read, in college-educated people who waited until their mid to late twenties at least to marry. Such marriages also last longer as I recall. And most interesting to me, those marriages tend to be more egalitarian. Cliff's crew of robots are being complete idiots about devaluing domestic labour, but its quite apparent that significant income and role imbalances create a great deal of stress in long-term partnerships.
Now, that should be obvious to anyone who stops and thinks for five minutes, but if anyone needs more evidence they take a look at all those studies showing that marriage benefits men financially and emotionally while doing the opposite for women. Really, if anyone should be arguing that traditional marriage is a bad thing, its the ladies. Cliff doesn't have a leg to stand on.
I mean, despite his cynical attitude, you can't argue that he's wrong when there's a 50/50 shot of marriage working nowadays. People are doing something wrong and his theory isn't far from plausible.
Source this please. This claim gets bandied around a lot but I want to see it backed up. What kind of statistics are you talking? Is this based on the ratio of annual marriage rate/divorce rate? That's clearly not going to give you an accurate picture. What about serial spouses? Is this worldwide, or is it in the US, which IIRC has the highest divorce rate of any country?
o_O Take out repeated divorces from an individual and let's focus on the US. It doesnt' make my point any more wrong. Marriages are not immaculate, and far from it. I would actually state that unless marriages have a 80% success rate or above, it's far from perfect. Look, don't take offense to that statement. i'm not saying marriage is a joke or something terrible. I don't mean to insult it, I'm saying people are bringing down those stats.
No, marriages are not immaculate. Similarly they are not legalized and socially acceptable forms of prostitution.
Yeah, but they pretty much were until quite recently in human history, and remain so anywhere women's access to the public sphere remains restricted. There's cultural baggage here that needs to be acknowledged.
I mean, despite his cynical attitude, you can't argue that he's wrong when there's a 50/50 shot of marriage working nowadays. People are doing something wrong and his theory isn't far from plausible.
Source this please. This claim gets bandied around a lot but I want to see it backed up. What kind of statistics are you talking? Is this based on the ratio of annual marriage rate/divorce rate? That's clearly not going to give you an accurate picture. What about serial spouses? Is this worldwide, or is it in the US, which IIRC has the highest divorce rate of any country?
Its a really old stat that traditional types like to chuck around when berating everyone for not being married enough. The divorce rate even in America is the lowest its been in a while, and varies very very noticeably with socioeconomic status and age of marriage. It approaches 40-something% percent in uneducated poor folk, and is as low as 17%, last I read, in college-educated people who waited until their mid to late twenties at least to marry. Such marriages also last longer as I recall. And most interesting to me, those marriages tend to be more egalitarian. Cliff's crew of robots are being complete idiots about devaluing domestic labour, but its quite apparent that significant income and role imbalances create a great deal of stress in long-term partnerships.
Now, that should be obvious to anyone who stops and thinks for five minutes, but if anyone needs more evidence they take a look at all those studies showing that marriage benefits men financially and emotionally while doing the opposite for women. Really, if anyone should be arguing that traditional marriage is a bad thing, its the ladies. Cliff doesn't have a leg to stand on.
Why would you throw away a man's opinion that so coincided with your own?
To me, every time I read this thread and half-write out a response, it always ends up being when the marriage fails the woman will be screwed. The notion that one person stays home and takes care of the kids is a patriarchal view. Enormously so.
I'm a dude. It'd be so great if I made SO MUCH MONEY that I could have a sexy dame stay at home and handle all that feminine stuff. As a man, that works in the private sector, if my marriage falls apart (through divorce or death) I'll be pretty okay. My (non-existent) wife though, who takes care of the kids and keeps home, is so screwed. She has a huge gap in her resume, has been relying on me for money. What's her recourse? The law? I wouldn't want to rely on that.
In the end, I would want to be in a relationship with a strong partner. Someone who could call me a doushbag when warranted. But a 1950's stereotype wife, what could she possibly say to me? If we get divorced, she's screwed. So if I'm a terrible husband, she might put up with it. Which is a terrible and disgusting state to be in for both of us.
Cliff's angle may be against house-wives, or something, but think about what advantages those women would have if they had their own income and savings. All the sudden maybe they'd start "making marriage work," because of love and expectation that their future relationship will be good. Instead of "I need someone to pay the bills."
In order to be a whole person, you need a foot in the sphere of enterprise. Little discrepancies in income can be glossed over with love and affection, but if you make no money you're a slave to who pays the bills.
It's really stunning how you keep missing what Cliff's saying Loklar.
Druhim on
0
Options
VivixenneRemember your training, and we'll get through this just fine.Registered Userregular
edited May 2010
I don't recall women being singled out as the sponging individual here, the Cat. I'm pretty sure it's when EITHER partner is making significantly more than the other.
I appreciate that more women stay at home instead of work and that's probably what you are addressing, but bringing "women" specifically into this discussion doesn't seem all together relevant when you're talking strictly about value added to a relationship.
I don't recall women being singled out as the sponging individual here, the Cat. I'm pretty sure it's when EITHER partner is making significantly more than the other.
I appreciate that more women stay at home instead of work and that's probably what you are addressing, but bringing "women" specifically into this discussion doesn't seem all together relevant when you're talking strictly about value added to a relationship.
Yeah, in my relationship my gf makes quite a bit more than me. We'll be moving in together soon and we definitely see this as a long term relationship. By Cliff's own words, I'm sponging off her simply because I don't pay as much as she does. Not because of my gender, simply because of the income disparity. Although it's entirely possible that Cliff looks down on me even more because I'm a man who's "sponging" off a woman.
Druhim on
0
Options
VivixenneRemember your training, and we'll get through this just fine.Registered Userregular
edited May 2010
to his credit Cliff at least didn't seem to single out women; he's reiterated that the partners could be of any gender, not necessarily that women are the ones who stay-at-home
it's everyone else who keeps using women as the "sponger" example; his OP, in context, was him addressing a specific situation in which the partner of concern just happened to be a woman
to his credit Cliff at least didn't seem to single out women; he's reiterated that the partners could be of any gender, not necessarily that women are the ones who stay-at-home
it's everyone else who keeps using women as the "sponger" example; his OP, in context, was him addressing a specific situation in which the partner of concern just happened to be a woman
I think reasonable people can see through the obvious to what the genders tend to be. I could sugar-coat rape and say "date rape is a horrible thing," and pretend that it's an equal opportunity affair. Or I could be realistic and say "men who use force to get sex are horrible people," and be much more precise.
But if words make you happy then i'll be non-specific and PC and say things like "it is very important that no-person buys roofies."
In any event, of course it's wrong no matter which gender is being violent. I just use specific gendered nouns for clarity.
to his credit Cliff at least didn't seem to single out women; he's reiterated that the partners could be of any gender, not necessarily that women are the ones who stay-at-home
it's everyone else who keeps using women as the "sponger" example; his OP, in context, was him addressing a specific situation in which the partner of concern just happened to be a woman
Only in response to specific mothers being discussed. Otherwise its typically 'homemaker' or similar. Also, nobody seems to be suggesting that one partner working full time while the other puts in 0 hours of paid employment is some sort of Platonic ideal; simply that it doesn't disqualify a relationship from existing. Well, that and just compensation for time spent and earning potential lost in the event of a divorce.
Personally I'm hoping to find a professional lady and that one of us stays home with the kids until they hit pre-school at which point I/she returns to at least part-time employment. Given my field it'll quite likely end up being me since my hours should be more flexible. Then again, when you make plans the devil laughs.
I mean, despite his cynical attitude, you can't argue that he's wrong when there's a 50/50 shot of marriage working nowadays. People are doing something wrong and his theory isn't far from plausible.
Source this please. This claim gets bandied around a lot but I want to see it backed up. What kind of statistics are you talking? Is this based on the ratio of annual marriage rate/divorce rate? That's clearly not going to give you an accurate picture. What about serial spouses? Is this worldwide, or is it in the US, which IIRC has the highest divorce rate of any country?
Its a really old stat that traditional types like to chuck around when berating everyone for not being married enough. The divorce rate even in America is the lowest its been in a while, and varies very very noticeably with socioeconomic status and age of marriage. It approaches 40-something% percent in uneducated poor folk, and is as low as 17%, last I read, in college-educated people who waited until their mid to late twenties at least to marry. Such marriages also last longer as I recall. And most interesting to me, those marriages tend to be more egalitarian. Cliff's crew of robots are being complete idiots about devaluing domestic labour, but its quite apparent that significant income and role imbalances create a great deal of stress in long-term partnerships.
Now, that should be obvious to anyone who stops and thinks for five minutes, but if anyone needs more evidence they take a look at all those studies showing that marriage benefits men financially and emotionally while doing the opposite for women. Really, if anyone should be arguing that traditional marriage is a bad thing, its the ladies. Cliff doesn't have a leg to stand on.
Why would you throw away a man's opinion that so coincided with your own?
To me, every time I read this thread and half-write out a response, it always ends up being when the marriage fails the woman will be screwed. The notion that one person stays home and takes care of the kids is a patriarchal view. Enormously so.
I'm a dude. It'd be so great if I made SO MUCH MONEY that I could have a sexy dame stay at home and handle all that feminine stuff. As a man, that works in the private sector, if my marriage falls apart (through divorce or death) I'll be pretty okay. My (non-existent) wife though, who takes care of the kids and keeps home, is so screwed. She has a huge gap in her resume, has been relying on me for money. What's her recourse? The law? I wouldn't want to rely on that.
In the end, I would want to be in a relationship with a strong partner. Someone who could call me a doushbag when warranted. But a 1950's stereotype wife, what could she possibly say to me? If we get divorced, she's screwed. So if I'm a terrible husband, she might put up with it. Which is a terrible and disgusting state to be in for both of us.
Cliff's angle may be against house-wives, or something, but think about what advantages those women would have if they had their own income and savings. All the sudden maybe they'd start "making marriage work," because of love and expectation that their future relationship will be good. Instead of "I need someone to pay the bills."
In order to be a whole person, you need a foot in the sphere of enterprise. Little discrepancies in income can be glossed over with love and affection, but if you make no money you're a slave to who pays the bills.
Again, why is monetary success the only worthwhile barometer of - what are you calling it here? - "strength"? A partner can be strong without contributing very much to the family income.
I mean, despite his cynical attitude, you can't argue that he's wrong when there's a 50/50 shot of marriage working nowadays. People are doing something wrong and his theory isn't far from plausible.
Source this please. This claim gets bandied around a lot but I want to see it backed up. What kind of statistics are you talking? Is this based on the ratio of annual marriage rate/divorce rate? That's clearly not going to give you an accurate picture. What about serial spouses? Is this worldwide, or is it in the US, which IIRC has the highest divorce rate of any country?
Its a really old stat that traditional types like to chuck around when berating everyone for not being married enough. The divorce rate even in America is the lowest its been in a while, and varies very very noticeably with socioeconomic status and age of marriage. It approaches 40-something% percent in uneducated poor folk, and is as low as 17%, last I read, in college-educated people who waited until their mid to late twenties at least to marry. Such marriages also last longer as I recall. And most interesting to me, those marriages tend to be more egalitarian. Cliff's crew of robots are being complete idiots about devaluing domestic labour, but its quite apparent that significant income and role imbalances create a great deal of stress in long-term partnerships.
Now, that should be obvious to anyone who stops and thinks for five minutes, but if anyone needs more evidence they take a look at all those studies showing that marriage benefits men financially and emotionally while doing the opposite for women. Really, if anyone should be arguing that traditional marriage is a bad thing, its the ladies. Cliff doesn't have a leg to stand on.
Why would you throw away a man's opinion that so coincided with your own?
To me, every time I read this thread and half-write out a response, it always ends up being when the marriage fails the woman will be screwed. The notion that one person stays home and takes care of the kids is a patriarchal view. Enormously so.
I'm a dude. It'd be so great if I made SO MUCH MONEY that I could have a sexy dame stay at home and handle all that feminine stuff. As a man, that works in the private sector, if my marriage falls apart (through divorce or death) I'll be pretty okay. My (non-existent) wife though, who takes care of the kids and keeps home, is so screwed. She has a huge gap in her resume, has been relying on me for money. What's her recourse? The law? I wouldn't want to rely on that.
In the end, I would want to be in a relationship with a strong partner. Someone who could call me a doushbag when warranted. But a 1950's stereotype wife, what could she possibly say to me? If we get divorced, she's screwed. So if I'm a terrible husband, she might put up with it. Which is a terrible and disgusting state to be in for both of us.
Cliff's angle may be against house-wives, or something, but think about what advantages those women would have if they had their own income and savings. All the sudden maybe they'd start "making marriage work," because of love and expectation that their future relationship will be good. Instead of "I need someone to pay the bills."
In order to be a whole person, you need a foot in the sphere of enterprise. Little discrepancies in income can be glossed over with love and affection, but if you make no money you're a slave to who pays the bills.
Again, why is monetary success the only worthwhile barometer of - what are you calling it here? - "strength"? A partner can be strong without contributing very much to the family income.
Next.
Because money pays rent. Money can be saved. When you're on the street you can't buy food with how-awesome a mom you were.
Edit: If you're going to argue that women should be paid for carrying a child to labour and nursing, then we can find room to agree. But I have a feeling that you're going to be against paying women to do that. Double edit: and it's extremely difficult to find a job when "home-maker" is the last 10 years on your resume. It's a flooded market that doesn't require education.
I mean, despite his cynical attitude, you can't argue that he's wrong when there's a 50/50 shot of marriage working nowadays. People are doing something wrong and his theory isn't far from plausible.
Source this please. This claim gets bandied around a lot but I want to see it backed up. What kind of statistics are you talking? Is this based on the ratio of annual marriage rate/divorce rate? That's clearly not going to give you an accurate picture. What about serial spouses? Is this worldwide, or is it in the US, which IIRC has the highest divorce rate of any country?
Its a really old stat that traditional types like to chuck around when berating everyone for not being married enough. The divorce rate even in America is the lowest its been in a while, and varies very very noticeably with socioeconomic status and age of marriage. It approaches 40-something% percent in uneducated poor folk, and is as low as 17%, last I read, in college-educated people who waited until their mid to late twenties at least to marry. Such marriages also last longer as I recall. And most interesting to me, those marriages tend to be more egalitarian. Cliff's crew of robots are being complete idiots about devaluing domestic labour, but its quite apparent that significant income and role imbalances create a great deal of stress in long-term partnerships.
Now, that should be obvious to anyone who stops and thinks for five minutes, but if anyone needs more evidence they take a look at all those studies showing that marriage benefits men financially and emotionally while doing the opposite for women. Really, if anyone should be arguing that traditional marriage is a bad thing, its the ladies. Cliff doesn't have a leg to stand on.
Why would you throw away a man's opinion that so coincided with your own?
To me, every time I read this thread and half-write out a response, it always ends up being when the marriage fails the woman will be screwed. The notion that one person stays home and takes care of the kids is a patriarchal view. Enormously so.
I'm a dude. It'd be so great if I made SO MUCH MONEY that I could have a sexy dame stay at home and handle all that feminine stuff. As a man, that works in the private sector, if my marriage falls apart (through divorce or death) I'll be pretty okay. My (non-existent) wife though, who takes care of the kids and keeps home, is so screwed. She has a huge gap in her resume, has been relying on me for money. What's her recourse? The law? I wouldn't want to rely on that.
In the end, I would want to be in a relationship with a strong partner. Someone who could call me a doushbag when warranted. But a 1950's stereotype wife, what could she possibly say to me? If we get divorced, she's screwed. So if I'm a terrible husband, she might put up with it. Which is a terrible and disgusting state to be in for both of us.
Cliff's angle may be against house-wives, or something, but think about what advantages those women would have if they had their own income and savings. All the sudden maybe they'd start "making marriage work," because of love and expectation that their future relationship will be good. Instead of "I need someone to pay the bills."
In order to be a whole person, you need a foot in the sphere of enterprise. Little discrepancies in income can be glossed over with love and affection, but if you make no money you're a slave to who pays the bills.
Again, why is monetary success the only worthwhile barometer of - what are you calling it here? - "strength"? A partner can be strong without contributing very much to the family income.
Next.
Because money pays rent. Money can be saved. When you're on the street you can't buy food with how-awesome a mom you were.
a) You can when you get alimony and child support. Also you may not even have to live in the street!
b) I didn't ask you what you thought a divorced homemaker would be reduced to if alimony and child support didn't exist, I asked you why you think "strong partner" means "equivalent wage earner."
Edit: If you're going to argue that women should be paid for carrying a child to labour and nursing, then we can find room to agree. But I have a feeling that you're going to be against paying women to do that. Double edit: and it's extremely difficult to find a job when "home-maker" is 10 years on your resume. It's a flooded market that doesn't require education.
I think this is the thread that might finally cause my head to explode.
If you're going to argue that women should be paid for carrying a child to labour and nursing, then we can find room to agree. But I have a feeling that you're going to be against paying women to do that.
No, but in the event of a divorce she should receive just compensation in the form of alimony and/or child support due to services rendered and lost earning potential. Why do you disagree with that?
If you're going to argue that women should be paid for carrying a child to labour and nursing, then we can find room to agree. But I have a feeling that you're going to be against paying women to do that.
No, but in the event of a divorce she should receive just compensation in the form of alimony and/or child support due to services rendered and lost earning potential. Why do you disagree with that?
How do you filter out good-housewives from bad ones? Who deserves more money, a neglectful addict, or one who keeps everything spic and span?
Because money pays rent. Money can be saved. When you're on the street you can't buy food with how-awesome a mom you were.
a) You can when you get alimony and child support. Also you may not even have to live in the street!
b) I didn't ask you what you thought a divorced homemaker would be reduced to if alimony and child support didn't exist, I asked you why you think "strong partner" means "equivalent wage earner."
Edit: If you're going to argue that women should be paid for carrying a child to labour and nursing, then we can find room to agree. But I have a feeling that you're going to be against paying women to do that. Double edit: and it's extremely difficult to find a job when "home-maker" is 10 years on your resume. It's a flooded market that doesn't require education.
I think this is the thread that might finally cause my head to explode.
And with the case of death?
Re: Strong partner - I think most people would agree that someone with lots of money could have almost every need of their's met. Food, Security, Health. It's not a secret that money makes things easy. Money can motivate a doctor to help you, or a professor to train you. I think you'd have to put your head pretty far in the sand to think that money didn't make almost all human interactions easy.
If you're going to argue that women should be paid for carrying a child to labour and nursing, then we can find room to agree. But I have a feeling that you're going to be against paying women to do that.
No, but in the event of a divorce she should receive just compensation in the form of alimony and/or child support due to services rendered and lost earning potential. Why do you disagree with that?
How do you filter out good-housewives from bad ones? Who deserves more money, a neglectful addict, or one who keeps everything spic and span?
Posts
No, because we're talking about the rationality of his perspectives and opinions.
The idea that it's a misguided ideal that's been beaten into our heads since marriage was first instituted? That it might not be a good thing, we just think it is. That, in the end, one may be misguided into that belief and go into relationships expecting just that. Ex - Woman knows that she only has to have marginal skills in cooking/cleaning and tolerable skills with kids and ensare that man with a decent paycheck because she thinks that's how it works. I can see quickly, how the sponging/parasitic symbiosis can be true. There is the ability to construe that comparative advantage to a parasitic outcome. You're saying that the people are coming to a mutual agreement, but are you certain that it is completely mutual? There comes the idea that one person begins to feel that they're putting more on the table, so to speak, than the other person and it reeks of the stench of viral infection. Or that one isn't getting all that they bargain for.
I mean, despite his cynical attitude, you can't argue that he's wrong when there's a 50/50 shot of marriage working nowadays. People are doing something wrong and his theory isn't far from plausible.
You don't need to necessarily have experienced something to derive a plausible conclusion, though. His opinion may be rational just from observation, which is what the scientific method is about.
They don't. Hence the advantage of being a couple that divides the duties. Christ, the question practically answers itself. The sad thing is several people missed the obvious and talked about welfare or having lots of savings. All your demonstrating is that couples have an advantage over single parents. Doesn't mean single parents can't do a good job, it's just harder for them. Duh.
Man what the hell are you talking about.
I think a part of the problem is that he is trying to apply the scientific method to marriage. I don't apply the scientific method to, say, my breakfast. It's a matter of what I want to eat. Some things are like that, you know.
Did you just compare marriage to a viral infection?
My brain just asploded.
ahahaha
oh my
we have another robot
look kid, we don't have time to explain how these human "feelings" work to you also
The scientific method is about testable hypotheses and tightly controlled experimental observations.
It has nothing to do with this thread.
Except that in scientific method you don't jump from observation to conclusions. There are a whole bunch of rigorous stages in between.
You would know this if you had taken high school science.
Answer the first two questions (what makes you happy / what makes her happy), please. I'm not interested in your semantic definition bullcrap.
A single parent, like mine, can work from home. States also grant money to people who adopt to aid in the child's raising. Any other silly questions?
Yes, marriage is not a guarantor of Arcadian perfection and bliss. At the same time pretending that someone who only has marginal skills at cooking/cleaning/child-rearing and who sacrifices their potential earnings and career path to exert them has garnered $0.00 in earned compensation in the event of a divorce solely because they didn't get a paycheck for those acts is still ridiculous.
Also, the scientific method doesn't work too well in the soft sciences. People are squishy, irrational, and complicated.
You still haven't answered this wild claim of yours:
While this is true, it's only really an issue because he doesn't seem to understand that people can have motivations other than the financial, and seems to take as a base assumption that anyone whose motives are anything other than financial are being taken advantage of.
He was outright dismissive of the idea that a person might derive happiness simply from being with another person. It's things like that that are causing people to question whether his opinions on relationships can be taken seriously, because he seems to have an understanding of what a relationship is that could charitably be described as idiosyncratic.
Putting aside a great deal of shenanigans, let's talk for a second about the stuff I put in big font there. If we are completely certain that for one specific case, between two specific people, it is completely mutual, the parasitic possibility is not true, then would you agree that it is a good thing?
If it's a good thing for one specific case, can we then generalize and say it's plausible it is a good thing for many specific cases? Isn't the burden then on the other side to argue that these things that are possible are in fact a problem?
Even if they do successfully make that argument, isn't the solution to make sure it's completely mutual, and have the two people come to an agreement? Isn't that much better than to decide no agreement is possible and anything that approaches the comparative advantage ElJeffe mentioned is wrong, and there's no place for it in a marriage?
Source this please. This claim gets bandied around a lot but I want to see it backed up. What kind of statistics are you talking? Is this based on the ratio of annual marriage rate/divorce rate? That's clearly not going to give you an accurate picture. What about serial spouses? Is this worldwide, or is it in the US, which IIRC has the highest divorce rate of any country?
I'm not taking sides, I'm just offering points. I never made a concrete statement or fact other than saying "Hey, marriages are failing terribly, why is this guys point so wrong?".
To what you said initially - I'm not 100% certain it is a good thing but I would venture a guess that yes it is a good thing. Which your second statement makes sense. It is this guy's task to show WHY it is a bad thing when other people say it is a good thing. I think what you're getting at is to try to make it mutual and make it work instead of giving up. I agree.
Yes, true, but it's also a fundamental principle that can be used in the most general of cases. But it also falls upon the individual to disprove the theory they have, which is where the rigorous testing comes into play. But those "Stages" can be simply gotten by looking on the computer and just getting results like the failed marriages and prenup agreements and constant custody battles. He's not wrong if the biggest hassles of divorces IS monetary and divorces are common amongst marriages, occuring repeatedly within people.
Again, in its most GENERAL FORM, it does. Good lord, people in psychology and fucking communications use these methods to derive how people think and feel. Don't brush a way one of the most common mechanisms of thinking in this argument. It has everything to do with debate and discourse. Where else do you get your proof?!! Ha. I'm not trying to be robotic, I'm just being devils advocate, so to speak.
Whatever example works. You can use any metaphor and you would be offended, honestly.
o_O Take out repeated divorces from an individual and let's focus on the US. It doesnt' make my point any more wrong. Marriages are not immaculate, and far from it. I would actually state that unless marriages have a 80% success rate or above, it's far from perfect. Look, don't take offense to that statement. i'm not saying marriage is a joke or something terrible. I don't mean to insult it, I'm saying people are bringing down those stats.
So your line of thought goes like this:
1. A lot of marriages fail
2. Therefore there is something wrong with the idea of marriage
Yeah, okay mate.
I'm not offended. But if you're not prepared to back the stat up, you probably shouldn't post it.
I'm not offended - the problem is that your example DOES NOT work.
No, marriages are not immaculate. Similarly they are not legalized and socially acceptable forms of prostitution.
Because the point doesn't have to do with marriages failing?
Because marriage legally makes you both one person? But even then it's not entitlement.
Its a really old stat that traditional types like to chuck around when berating everyone for not being married enough. The divorce rate even in America is the lowest its been in a while, and varies very very noticeably with socioeconomic status and age of marriage. It approaches 40-something% percent in uneducated poor folk, and is as low as 17%, last I read, in college-educated people who waited until their mid to late twenties at least to marry. Such marriages also last longer as I recall. And most interesting to me, those marriages tend to be more egalitarian. Cliff's crew of robots are being complete idiots about devaluing domestic labour, but its quite apparent that significant income and role imbalances create a great deal of stress in long-term partnerships.
Now, that should be obvious to anyone who stops and thinks for five minutes, but if anyone needs more evidence they take a look at all those studies showing that marriage benefits men financially and emotionally while doing the opposite for women. Really, if anyone should be arguing that traditional marriage is a bad thing, its the ladies. Cliff doesn't have a leg to stand on.
Why would you throw away a man's opinion that so coincided with your own?
To me, every time I read this thread and half-write out a response, it always ends up being when the marriage fails the woman will be screwed. The notion that one person stays home and takes care of the kids is a patriarchal view. Enormously so.
I'm a dude. It'd be so great if I made SO MUCH MONEY that I could have a sexy dame stay at home and handle all that feminine stuff. As a man, that works in the private sector, if my marriage falls apart (through divorce or death) I'll be pretty okay. My (non-existent) wife though, who takes care of the kids and keeps home, is so screwed. She has a huge gap in her resume, has been relying on me for money. What's her recourse? The law? I wouldn't want to rely on that.
In the end, I would want to be in a relationship with a strong partner. Someone who could call me a doushbag when warranted. But a 1950's stereotype wife, what could she possibly say to me? If we get divorced, she's screwed. So if I'm a terrible husband, she might put up with it. Which is a terrible and disgusting state to be in for both of us.
Cliff's angle may be against house-wives, or something, but think about what advantages those women would have if they had their own income and savings. All the sudden maybe they'd start "making marriage work," because of love and expectation that their future relationship will be good. Instead of "I need someone to pay the bills."
In order to be a whole person, you need a foot in the sphere of enterprise. Little discrepancies in income can be glossed over with love and affection, but if you make no money you're a slave to who pays the bills.
I appreciate that more women stay at home instead of work and that's probably what you are addressing, but bringing "women" specifically into this discussion doesn't seem all together relevant when you're talking strictly about value added to a relationship.
Yeah, in my relationship my gf makes quite a bit more than me. We'll be moving in together soon and we definitely see this as a long term relationship. By Cliff's own words, I'm sponging off her simply because I don't pay as much as she does. Not because of my gender, simply because of the income disparity. Although it's entirely possible that Cliff looks down on me even more because I'm a man who's "sponging" off a woman.
it's everyone else who keeps using women as the "sponger" example; his OP, in context, was him addressing a specific situation in which the partner of concern just happened to be a woman
I think reasonable people can see through the obvious to what the genders tend to be. I could sugar-coat rape and say "date rape is a horrible thing," and pretend that it's an equal opportunity affair. Or I could be realistic and say "men who use force to get sex are horrible people," and be much more precise.
But if words make you happy then i'll be non-specific and PC and say things like "it is very important that no-person buys roofies."
In any event, of course it's wrong no matter which gender is being violent. I just use specific gendered nouns for clarity.
Only in response to specific mothers being discussed. Otherwise its typically 'homemaker' or similar. Also, nobody seems to be suggesting that one partner working full time while the other puts in 0 hours of paid employment is some sort of Platonic ideal; simply that it doesn't disqualify a relationship from existing. Well, that and just compensation for time spent and earning potential lost in the event of a divorce.
Personally I'm hoping to find a professional lady and that one of us stays home with the kids until they hit pre-school at which point I/she returns to at least part-time employment. Given my field it'll quite likely end up being me since my hours should be more flexible. Then again, when you make plans the devil laughs.
Again, why is monetary success the only worthwhile barometer of - what are you calling it here? - "strength"? A partner can be strong without contributing very much to the family income.
Next.
Because money pays rent. Money can be saved. When you're on the street you can't buy food with how-awesome a mom you were.
Edit: If you're going to argue that women should be paid for carrying a child to labour and nursing, then we can find room to agree. But I have a feeling that you're going to be against paying women to do that. Double edit: and it's extremely difficult to find a job when "home-maker" is the last 10 years on your resume. It's a flooded market that doesn't require education.
a) You can when you get alimony and child support. Also you may not even have to live in the street!
b) I didn't ask you what you thought a divorced homemaker would be reduced to if alimony and child support didn't exist, I asked you why you think "strong partner" means "equivalent wage earner."
So can you answer my actual question this time?
I think this is the thread that might finally cause my head to explode.
No, but in the event of a divorce she should receive just compensation in the form of alimony and/or child support due to services rendered and lost earning potential. Why do you disagree with that?
How do you filter out good-housewives from bad ones? Who deserves more money, a neglectful addict, or one who keeps everything spic and span?
And with the case of death?
Re: Strong partner - I think most people would agree that someone with lots of money could have almost every need of their's met. Food, Security, Health. It's not a secret that money makes things easy. Money can motivate a doctor to help you, or a professor to train you. I think you'd have to put your head pretty far in the sand to think that money didn't make almost all human interactions easy.
They both deserve more than $0.00 regardless.