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?
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?
For the love of god...
Building a life together involves a few things:
- Income / Money
- Housework
- Caring for children (sometimes)
When you enter into a relationship, you generally divvy up these tasks however it best suits your particular union. You compromise. You come to an agreement together on how all the above things should be handled. The income that goes into that union is as important as all the manual labor that goes into the union. They are interchangeable. Whoever provides whichever is up to the partners involved in the relationship.
Some wage-earners are total assholes. Some just buy whatever the fuck they want and leave the rest of the family to starve. It has happened and it is as likely as someone being a "bad housewife." Just because a person earns money doesn't mean that money is being put into the relationship, or the life that relationship should be trying to build together.
Also, if you marry someone who turns out to be an addict, do you really think a court is going to grant custody to that person? Do you really think they are going to be granted alimony?
Come on.
Drez on
Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
0
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
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?
They both deserve more than $0.00 regardless.
Agreed. But how much?
Seems like something to be settled in divorce proceedings.
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.
Let me ask you this:
Let's say you earn $180,000 - $240,000 a year as an investment banker. As an investment banker, you have to work 80-100 hours a week.
If you were a single parent with the above job, are you going to be able to:
- Provide income for the family
- Do every bit of cooking, cleaning, and other housework that needs to be done
- Take care of and raise your child
Obviously, the income part is A-OK. But the rest? No. It's not going to be possible. Not on your own.
So I contend that a homemaker's labor is worth exactly the same to a relationship as the earnability of the "breadwinner." Both partners are equally "strong" if they are able to contribute in their different ways to a healthy and happy life together.
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?
For the love of god...
Building a life together involves a few things:
- Income / Money
- Housework
- Caring for children (sometimes)
When you enter into a relationship, you generally divvy up these tasks however it best suits your particular union. You compromise. You come to an agreement together on how all the above things should be handled. The income that goes into that union is as important as all the manual labor that goes into the union. They are interchangeable. Whoever provides whichever is up to the partners involved in the relationship.
Some wage-earners are total assholes. Some just buy whatever the fuck they want and leave the rest of the family to starve. It has happened and it is as likely as someone being a "bad housewife." Just because a person earns money doesn't mean that money is being put into the relationship, or the life that relationship should be trying to build together.
Also, if you marry someone who turns out to be an addict, do you really think a court is going to grant custody to that person? Do you really think they are going to be granted alimony?
Come on.
This is exactly why everyone needs to be able to make money of their own. Because people die, or go crazy, or get depressed, or fall out of love, or end up being doushes.
If you make no money you're stuck. I never want to be with someone who's with me because she has to.
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.
Let me ask you this:
Let's say you earn $180,000 - $240,000 a year as an investment banker. As an investment banker, you have to work 80-100 hours a week.
If you were a single parent with the above job, are you going to be able to:
- Provide income for the family
- Do every bit of cooking, cleaning, and other housework that needs to be done
- Take care of and raise your child
Obviously, the income part is A-OK. But the rest? No. It's not going to be possible. Not on your own.
So I contend that a homemaker's labor is worth exactly the same to a relationship as the earnability of the "breadwinner." Both partners are equally "strong" if they are able to contribute in their different ways to a healthy and happy life together.
With that much money I could pay for daycare and a housekeeper.
Unless you're about to argue that single investment bankers are unfit parents? This is evidence for my point.
Depends on the context and innumerable other complicating factors. Which is why they typically involve a judge and lawyers to hammer things out. Strange how you seem to support Cliff's assertions in spite of them being the exact opposite of this, though.
@Newblar: Just because something is optional or not applicable to you doesn't mean you can't critcize it. I can critcize a conman even if some people buy into his con and I don't.
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?
For the love of god...
Building a life together involves a few things:
- Income / Money
- Housework
- Caring for children (sometimes)
When you enter into a relationship, you generally divvy up these tasks however it best suits your particular union. You compromise. You come to an agreement together on how all the above things should be handled. The income that goes into that union is as important as all the manual labor that goes into the union. They are interchangeable. Whoever provides whichever is up to the partners involved in the relationship.
Some wage-earners are total assholes. Some just buy whatever the fuck they want and leave the rest of the family to starve. It has happened and it is as likely as someone being a "bad housewife." Just because a person earns money doesn't mean that money is being put into the relationship, or the life that relationship should be trying to build together.
Also, if you marry someone who turns out to be an addict, do you really think a court is going to grant custody to that person? Do you really think they are going to be granted alimony?
Come on.
This is exactly why everyone needs to be able to make money of their own. Because people die, or go crazy, or get depressed, or fall out of love, or end up being doushes.
If you make no money you're stuck. I never want to be with someone who's with me because she has to.
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.
Let me ask you this:
Let's say you earn $180,000 - $240,000 a year as an investment banker. As an investment banker, you have to work 80-100 hours a week.
If you were a single parent with the above job, are you going to be able to:
- Provide income for the family
- Do every bit of cooking, cleaning, and other housework that needs to be done
- Take care of and raise your child
Obviously, the income part is A-OK. But the rest? No. It's not going to be possible. Not on your own.
So I contend that a homemaker's labor is worth exactly the same to a relationship as the earnability of the "breadwinner." Both partners are equally "strong" if they are able to contribute in their different ways to a healthy and happy life together.
With that much money I could pay for daycare and a housekeeper.
So then you fully agree and fully admit that a homemaker provides profound value to the union - value that has measurable monetary value - thus invalidating your entire argument, right? Check. Thanks. Bye.
Unless you're about to argue that single investment bankers are unfit parents? This is evidence for my point.
Nope. I'm arguing that someone who works 80-100 hours per week is not able to "build a life" in the same way a person who works 100, 80, or even 40 hours per week and has a partner that takes the lion's share of housework.
Depends on the context and innumerable other complicating factors. Which is why they typically involve a judge and lawyers to hammer things out. Strange how you seem to support Cliff's assertions in spite of them being the exact opposite of this, though.
This is the argument of the rich. You're fooling yourself if you think most people can afford a lawyer. All of us here can, probably, but not everyone; probably not even most people.
Nope. I'm arguing that someone who works 80-100 hours per week is not able to "build a life" in the same way a person who works 100, 80, or even 40 hours per week and has a partner that takes the lion's share of housework.
This is the argument that single-parents are il-equipped.
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?
how about the couple figures that out for themselves? the point of this thread was Cliff saying any partner that benefits from the largesse of their partner's higher earning power is a parasite and therefore marriage is inherently a sham because emotions are fleeting and therefore trivial according to him. In trying to defend what he's saying, you're pretending he's making an entirely different case than he actually is.
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
Eh, sometimes I make the effort to fool with the pronouns, but honestly, it seems disingenuous in this discussion, its applying a false equivalency. The existence of a small subset of middle-class dudes in non-traditional careers* doesn't even come close to negating the fact that the vast, vast majority of people vulnerable enough to need post-divorce income protection are female. This will remain the case for quite a while because of demographic lag. We're not just talking about people our own age, but women born up to 60+ years ago.
Depends on the context and innumerable other complicating factors. Which is why they typically involve a judge and lawyers to hammer things out. Strange how you seem to support Cliff's assertions in spite of them being the exact opposite of this, though.
This is the argument of the rich. You're fooling yourself if you think most people can afford a lawyer. All of us here can, probably, but not everyone; probably not even most people.
You still agree that compensation is warranted, though. So what are your thoughts on all this:
@Newblar: Just because something is optional or not applicable to you doesn't mean you can't critcize it. I can critcize a conman even if some people buy into his con and I don't.
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?
how about the couple figures that out for themselves? the point of this thread was Cliff saying any partner that benefits from the largesse of their partner's higher earning power is a parasite and therefore marriage is inherently a sham because emotions are fleeting and therefore trivial according to him. In trying to defend what he's saying, you're pretending he's making an entirely different case than he actually is.
Yeah. Loklar, you and I are making a sensible argument for both partners to have one foot in the world of paid work (and hopefully relatively equal contribution to domestic labour and caring work). Cliff... isn't.
Nope. I'm arguing that someone who works 80-100 hours per week is not able to "build a life" in the same way a person who works 100, 80, or even 40 hours per week and has a partner that takes the lion's share of housework.
This is the argument that single-parents are il-equipped.
Nope, it's not. Two people that are able to share the work involved in building a life together will have an easier time building a life and raising a child than one person. It's simple algebra. A single parent has 144 hours of life to contribute per week. Two people can contribute 288 hours.
Any single parent would tell you that. I never said a single parent COULDN'T build a happy and healthy life for him/herself and his/her child. And certainly a single parent that earns enough COULD hire maids and babysitters and shit like that, but if you think you can argue that one parent will always be able to do the work of two parents that are committed to the union, then you are wrong, and no single parent is going to argue that point unless they are a complete silly goose.
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?
how about the couple figures that out for themselves? the point of this thread was Cliff saying any partner that benefits from the largesse of their partner's higher earning power is a parasite and therefore marriage is inherently a sham because emotions are fleeting and therefore trivial according to him. In trying to defend what he's saying, you're pretending he's making an entirely different case than he actually is.
I have nothing against free people figuring it out for themselves. If someone wants to be kept, that's a choice. I'm trying to agitate people to say that it is a poor choice. But really I'm just some dude on a forum.
You seem to not be disagreeing with me, instead you're upset that my point isn't the same as Cliffs. Well, we have different points. Do you agree with mine, or The Cat's or what? The point of this is to change minds, argue our brains out, and find common ground. At least I think it is.
Nope. I'm arguing that someone who works 80-100 hours per week is not able to "build a life" in the same way a person who works 100, 80, or even 40 hours per week and has a partner that takes the lion's share of housework.
This is the argument that single-parents are il-equipped.
Nope, it's not. Two people that are able to share the work involved in building a life together will have an easier time building a life and raising a child than one person. It's simple algebra. A single parent has 144 hours of life to contribute per week. Two people can contribute 288 hours.
Any single parent would tell you that. I never said a single parent COULDN'T build a happy and healthy life for him/herself and his/her child. And certainly a single parent that earns enough COULD hire maids and babysitters and shit like that, but if you think you can argue that one parent will always be able to do the work of two parents that are committed to the union, then you are wrong, and no single parent is going to argue that point unless they are a complete silly goose.
So you say that 2 people have more time and for the family unit, but then say that I'm wrong in my judgement of your argument that single parents (who have less time) would be less equipped... That's... interesting to say the least.
Nope. I'm arguing that someone who works 80-100 hours per week is not able to "build a life" in the same way a person who works 100, 80, or even 40 hours per week and has a partner that takes the lion's share of housework.
This is the argument that single-parents are il-equipped.
Nope, it's not. Two people that are able to share the work involved in building a life together will have an easier time building a life and raising a child than one person. It's simple algebra. A single parent has 144 hours of life to contribute per week. Two people can contribute 288 hours.
Any single parent would tell you that. I never said a single parent COULDN'T build a happy and healthy life for him/herself and his/her child. And certainly a single parent that earns enough COULD hire maids and babysitters and shit like that, but if you think you can argue that one parent will always be able to do the work of two parents that are committed to the union, then you are wrong, and no single parent is going to argue that point unless they are a complete silly goose.
So you say that 2 people have more time and for the family unit, but then say that I'm wrong in my judgment of your argument that single parents (who have less time) would be less equipped... That's... interesting to say the least.
...you didn't say less equipped, you said ill equipped. Those are two very different statements.
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?
how about the couple figures that out for themselves? the point of this thread was Cliff saying any partner that benefits from the largesse of their partner's higher earning power is a parasite and therefore marriage is inherently a sham because emotions are fleeting and therefore trivial according to him. In trying to defend what he's saying, you're pretending he's making an entirely different case than he actually is.
Yeah. Loklar, you and I are making a sensible argument for both partners to have one foot in the world of paid work (and hopefully relatively equal contribution to domestic labour and caring work). Cliff... isn't.
I missed this response on my last barrage of replys.
I am *so happy* that a crazy feminist (like The Cat) and I have found common ground. I am sure we'll disagree in the future. But yeay!
Nope. I'm arguing that someone who works 80-100 hours per week is not able to "build a life" in the same way a person who works 100, 80, or even 40 hours per week and has a partner that takes the lion's share of housework.
This is the argument that single-parents are il-equipped.
Nope, it's not. Two people that are able to share the work involved in building a life together will have an easier time building a life and raising a child than one person. It's simple algebra. A single parent has 144 hours of life to contribute per week. Two people can contribute 288 hours.
Any single parent would tell you that. I never said a single parent COULDN'T build a happy and healthy life for him/herself and his/her child. And certainly a single parent that earns enough COULD hire maids and babysitters and shit like that, but if you think you can argue that one parent will always be able to do the work of two parents that are committed to the union, then you are wrong, and no single parent is going to argue that point unless they are a complete silly goose.
So you say that 2 people have more time and for the family unit, but then say that I'm wrong in my judgement of your argument that single parents (who have less time) would be less equipped... That's... interesting to say the least.
I'm saying that my argument isn't that single parents are "ill-equipped" which means "not equipped" or "barely/badly equipped."
"ill-equipped" does not mean "less equipped" and even "less equipped" is not the point I was making. Single parents aren't (necessarily) less equipped than every couple out there to build a life for themselves and a child. However, it is EASIER for two parents to build a life than a single parent. Again, no single parent would argue that. And in fact no set of two parents would argue that it is easy to raise a child. Even your richest couples of any configuration wouldn't say that.
What I'm saying is this: When you have TWO people contributing to a relationship then the labor that goes into the relationship is equivalent, whether that labor is "wage-earning" or that labor is "home-making." Both functions have equal importance. You cannot just have one. You cannot have a family focused solely on home-making. And you cannot have a family focused solely on wage-earning. You need both. Having two members in the union gives you the ability to compromise and spread out the duty more than if you are a single person trying to build a life for yourself or for yourself and your child.
You seem to be arguing that wage-earning is the be-all-end-all to building a life, and it isn't. It's true that you can hire servants to take care of the home-making aspect of building a life together, but that just supports my claim that home-making has very real, tangible monetary value. I think that thinking of things strictly in terms of monetary value is a poor method of looking at the value of all duties that relate to building a life with someone, but as you and others seem hell-bent on doing so, there you have it. Time is money. Labor is money. No, I don't think the wage-earner should pay the home-maker because the wage-earner is contributing 50% to the relationship while the home-maker is contributing the other 50%. There are multiple responsibilities in building a life with someone, and raising children. How those responsibilities get divvied up, I suppose, dictates the relative "worth" or "value" of that individual's contribution to the union.
Yeah. Loklar, you and I are making a sensible argument for both partners to have one foot in the world of paid work (and hopefully relatively equal contribution to domestic labour and caring work). Cliff... isn't.
I missed this response on my last barrage of replys.
I am *so happy* that a crazy feminist (like The Cat) and I have found common ground. I am sure we'll disagree in the future. But yeay!
Yeah, Loklar, what you are arguing is completely different from what Cliff is arguing. Your argument is that it's a bad decision to completely pull out of the workforce, in case something in your current arrangement goes bad. Cliff's argument was that women who pull out of the workforce are making no contribution to the marriage other than sex, and that if one partner makes more money than the other, it's stupid/wrong for that person to pay for anything for the other.
Yeah. Loklar, you and I are making a sensible argument for both partners to have one foot in the world of paid work (and hopefully relatively equal contribution to domestic labour and caring work). Cliff... isn't.
I missed this response on my last barrage of replys.
I am *so happy* that a crazy feminist (like The Cat) and I have found common ground. I am sure we'll disagree in the future. But yeay!
Yeah, Loklar, what you are arguing is completely different from what Cliff is arguing. Your argument is that it's a bad decision to completely pull out of the workforce, in case something in your current arrangement goes bad. Cliff's argument was that women who pull out of the workforce are making no contribution to the marriage other than sex, and that if one partner makes more money than the other, it's stupid/wrong for that person to pay for anything for the other.
I try to see the best in people. Cliff seems like a good guy; has a crazy idea that everyone is shitting on him for. Maybe he's figuring it out as he goes along. Like we all do.
I thought I could find some common ground with him. So I'm here to do that. If you think it's completely different, fine. I think we're riffin' off each other though.
Dude admitted to being depressed online. That's serious man. We should be more welcoming. We probably can't help, but like... let's try.
Yeah. Loklar, you and I are making a sensible argument for both partners to have one foot in the world of paid work (and hopefully relatively equal contribution to domestic labour and caring work). Cliff... isn't.
I missed this response on my last barrage of replys.
I am *so happy* that a crazy feminist (like The Cat) and I have found common ground. I am sure we'll disagree in the future. But yeay!
Yeah, Loklar, what you are arguing is completely different from what Cliff is arguing. Your argument is that it's a bad decision to completely pull out of the workforce, in case something in your current arrangement goes bad. Cliff's argument was that women who pull out of the workforce are making no contribution to the marriage other than sex, and that if one partner makes more money than the other, it's stupid/wrong for that person to pay for anything for the other.
I try to see the best in people. Cliff seems like a good guy; has a crazy idea that everyone is shitting on him for. Maybe he's figuring it out as he goes along. Like we all do.
I thought I could find some common ground with him. So I'm here to do that. If you think it's completely different, fine. I think we're riffin' off each other though.
Dude admitted to being depressed online. That's serious man. We should be more welcoming. We probably can't help, but like... let's try.
I've been properly diagnosed and medicated. Depression never goes away, but it isn't a hindrance to my life anymore.
@Cat: Actually I've suggested that both partners should have a proffessional occupation and split housework/child rearing. I've also stated several times my position is gender nuetral. I am not concerned about the genders of the partners involved.
You've also claimed a homemaker's work has 0 monetary value. So you're not exactly saying anything coherent.
Quid on
0
Blake TDo you have enemies then?Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life.Registered Userregular
edited May 2010
Cliff, the big problem I can see with your argument is that you can't apparently marry someone who earns more (or less from the other perspective) than you.
Hypothetically cliff for you, if you find your bizzaro dream partner who earns the same amount as you and you get married, if they go back to school and get a better paying job, or just gets a pay rise or hell wins lotto are you then morally obliged to divorce?
I try to see the best in people. Cliff seems like a good guy; has a crazy idea that everyone is shitting on him for. Maybe he's figuring it out as he goes along. Like we all do.
I thought I could find some common ground with him. So I'm here to do that. If you think it's completely different, fine. I think we're riffin' off each other though.
Dude admitted to being depressed online. That's serious man. We should be more welcoming. We probably can't help, but like... let's try.
You are speaking from the point of view of a relatively rational person (and by rational, I mean someone who is able to balance logical reality with emotional reality).
Cliff I think is getting beaten around in here because he will not actively support his point of view or his claim. People have asked many questions about how his view would apply in certain scenarios, but he hasn't responded to any of them.
It's pretty much a surefire way to convince people that no, you haven't actually thought this through, you're more concerned with being snide and elitist than you are with sharing your views with people. It's not that his views are crazy and out there... it's that he has been completely disinterested in discussing or justifying them in any real or meaningful way.
And if you'd then argue that he doesn't HAVE to justify his views to us, then why the hell did he make a thread for us to discuss those views in?
Cliff, the big problem I can see with your argument is that you can't apparently marry someone who earns more (or less from the other perspective) than you.
Hypothetically cliff for you, if you find your bizzaro dream partner who earns the same amount as you and you get married, if they go back to school and get a better paying job, or just gets a pay rise or hell wins lotto are you then morally obliged to divorce?
I've said before, you can marry someone in a higher earning bracket without using their money. I've also said I don't want to marry for reasons unrelated to this thread, so the second point is moot.
It shouldn't have to carry value. I find it odd that everyone is simply trying to shoehorn everything into his standard of what marriage should and should not be, instead of pointing out that his standard of someone who doesn't even want to get married is stupid.
The trying to apply the idea of complete independence and 100% return on investment to marriage is a flawed perspective.
I'd still like to know what actually makes the work a stranger does worth money and the work a spouse does not.
The stranger doesn't get to enjoy the benefits of their labor, didn't help create the kids. Maids also generally clean more than one house a day. People who work at daycares look after multiple family's children.
Again, I don't advocate housework/childrearing being the responsibility of only one partner. If the duties are split, there's no need to dicuss compensating anyone with money in the first place.
I'd still like to know what actually makes the work a stranger does worth money and the work a spouse does not.
The stranger doesn't get to enjoy the benefits of their labor, didn't help create the kids. Maids also generally clean more than one house a day. People who work at daycares look after multiple family's children.
Again, I don't advocate housework/childrearing being the responsibility of only one partner. If the duties are split, there's no need to dicuss compensating anyone with money in the first place.
The stranger gets to enjoy the benefits of their labor vis a vis getting paid. The spouse gets to enjoy the benefits of their labor vis a vis having a clean home. Both are inarguably tangible benefits.
I'd still like to know what actually makes the work a stranger does worth money and the work a spouse does not.
The stranger doesn't get to enjoy the benefits of their labor, didn't help create the kids. Maids also generally clean more than one house a day. People who work at daycares look after multiple family's children.
Again, I don't advocate housework/childrearing being the responsibility of only one partner. If the duties are split, there's no need to dicuss compensating anyone with money in the first place.
Except the homemaker isn't just cleaning up their own mess. They're cleaning up after their spouse and children the spouse would have to clean up after if there wasn't someone doing it for them. Homemakers also often do things and run errands for their spouses that in no way directly benefit them.
Quid on
0
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
It shouldn't have to carry value. I find it odd that everyone is simply trying to shoehorn everything into his standard of what marriage should and should not be, instead of pointing out that his standard of someone who doesn't even want to get married is stupid.
The trying to apply the idea of complete independence and 100% return on investment to marriage is a flawed perspective.
No we've pointed out that it's silly. We just need him to clarify a lot of things and answer questions.
Henroid on
0
VivixenneRemember your training, and we'll get through this just fine.Registered Userregular
Cliff, the big problem I can see with your argument is that you can't apparently marry someone who earns more (or less from the other perspective) than you.
Hypothetically cliff for you, if you find your bizzaro dream partner who earns the same amount as you and you get married, if they go back to school and get a better paying job, or just gets a pay rise or hell wins lotto are you then morally obliged to divorce?
I've said before, you can marry someone in a higher earning bracket without using their money. I've also said I don't want to marry for reasons unrelated to this thread, so the second point is moot.
He said "hypothetically" which means the "you" is the general "you." That does not make it moot. What he's looking for is CLARIFICATION, which you have been woefully bad at offering this entire time.
He wants to know, based on your principle about income sharing, what would someone who follows that principle do?
Cliff, the big problem I can see with your argument is that you can't apparently marry someone who earns more (or less from the other perspective) than you.
Hypothetically cliff for you, if you find your bizzaro dream partner who earns the same amount as you and you get married, if they go back to school and get a better paying job, or just gets a pay rise or hell wins lotto are you then morally obliged to divorce?
I've said before, you can marry someone in a higher earning bracket without using their money. I've also said I don't want to marry for reasons unrelated to this thread, so the second point is moot.
He said "hypothetically" which means the "you" is not you personally but is the general "you." That does not make it moot.
He wants to know, based on your principle about income sharing, what would someone who follows that principle do?
Stop dodging questions and answer them for once.
Ok, they would just keep paying for themselves as usual.
Posts
Agreed. But how much?
For the love of god...
Building a life together involves a few things:
- Income / Money
- Housework
- Caring for children (sometimes)
When you enter into a relationship, you generally divvy up these tasks however it best suits your particular union. You compromise. You come to an agreement together on how all the above things should be handled. The income that goes into that union is as important as all the manual labor that goes into the union. They are interchangeable. Whoever provides whichever is up to the partners involved in the relationship.
Some wage-earners are total assholes. Some just buy whatever the fuck they want and leave the rest of the family to starve. It has happened and it is as likely as someone being a "bad housewife." Just because a person earns money doesn't mean that money is being put into the relationship, or the life that relationship should be trying to build together.
Also, if you marry someone who turns out to be an addict, do you really think a court is going to grant custody to that person? Do you really think they are going to be granted alimony?
Come on.
Seems like something to be settled in divorce proceedings.
Let me ask you this:
Let's say you earn $180,000 - $240,000 a year as an investment banker. As an investment banker, you have to work 80-100 hours a week.
If you were a single parent with the above job, are you going to be able to:
- Provide income for the family
- Do every bit of cooking, cleaning, and other housework that needs to be done
- Take care of and raise your child
Obviously, the income part is A-OK. But the rest? No. It's not going to be possible. Not on your own.
So I contend that a homemaker's labor is worth exactly the same to a relationship as the earnability of the "breadwinner." Both partners are equally "strong" if they are able to contribute in their different ways to a healthy and happy life together.
This is exactly why everyone needs to be able to make money of their own. Because people die, or go crazy, or get depressed, or fall out of love, or end up being doushes.
If you make no money you're stuck. I never want to be with someone who's with me because she has to.
With that much money I could pay for daycare and a housekeeper.
Unless you're about to argue that single investment bankers are unfit parents? This is evidence for my point.
Depends on the context and innumerable other complicating factors. Which is why they typically involve a judge and lawyers to hammer things out. Strange how you seem to support Cliff's assertions in spite of them being the exact opposite of this, though.
I'm going to quote that last one again just for good measure.
You don't even remotely comprehend the topic.
So then you fully agree and fully admit that a homemaker provides profound value to the union - value that has measurable monetary value - thus invalidating your entire argument, right? Check. Thanks. Bye.
Nope. I'm arguing that someone who works 80-100 hours per week is not able to "build a life" in the same way a person who works 100, 80, or even 40 hours per week and has a partner that takes the lion's share of housework.
This is the argument of the rich. You're fooling yourself if you think most people can afford a lawyer. All of us here can, probably, but not everyone; probably not even most people.
This is the argument that single-parents are il-equipped.
how about the couple figures that out for themselves? the point of this thread was Cliff saying any partner that benefits from the largesse of their partner's higher earning power is a parasite and therefore marriage is inherently a sham because emotions are fleeting and therefore trivial according to him. In trying to defend what he's saying, you're pretending he's making an entirely different case than he actually is.
Eh, sometimes I make the effort to fool with the pronouns, but honestly, it seems disingenuous in this discussion, its applying a false equivalency. The existence of a small subset of middle-class dudes in non-traditional careers* doesn't even come close to negating the fact that the vast, vast majority of people vulnerable enough to need post-divorce income protection are female. This will remain the case for quite a while because of demographic lag. We're not just talking about people our own age, but women born up to 60+ years ago.
*but, notably, still working outside the home.
You still agree that compensation is warranted, though. So what are your thoughts on all this:
:?:
Yeah. Loklar, you and I are making a sensible argument for both partners to have one foot in the world of paid work (and hopefully relatively equal contribution to domestic labour and caring work). Cliff... isn't.
Nope, it's not. Two people that are able to share the work involved in building a life together will have an easier time building a life and raising a child than one person. It's simple algebra. A single parent has 144 hours of life to contribute per week. Two people can contribute 288 hours.
Any single parent would tell you that. I never said a single parent COULDN'T build a happy and healthy life for him/herself and his/her child. And certainly a single parent that earns enough COULD hire maids and babysitters and shit like that, but if you think you can argue that one parent will always be able to do the work of two parents that are committed to the union, then you are wrong, and no single parent is going to argue that point unless they are a complete silly goose.
I have nothing against free people figuring it out for themselves. If someone wants to be kept, that's a choice. I'm trying to agitate people to say that it is a poor choice. But really I'm just some dude on a forum.
You seem to not be disagreeing with me, instead you're upset that my point isn't the same as Cliffs. Well, we have different points. Do you agree with mine, or The Cat's or what? The point of this is to change minds, argue our brains out, and find common ground. At least I think it is.
So you say that 2 people have more time and for the family unit, but then say that I'm wrong in my judgement of your argument that single parents (who have less time) would be less equipped... That's... interesting to say the least.
...you didn't say less equipped, you said ill equipped. Those are two very different statements.
I missed this response on my last barrage of replys.
I am *so happy* that a crazy feminist (like The Cat) and I have found common ground.
I'm saying that my argument isn't that single parents are "ill-equipped" which means "not equipped" or "barely/badly equipped."
"ill-equipped" does not mean "less equipped" and even "less equipped" is not the point I was making. Single parents aren't (necessarily) less equipped than every couple out there to build a life for themselves and a child. However, it is EASIER for two parents to build a life than a single parent. Again, no single parent would argue that. And in fact no set of two parents would argue that it is easy to raise a child. Even your richest couples of any configuration wouldn't say that.
What I'm saying is this: When you have TWO people contributing to a relationship then the labor that goes into the relationship is equivalent, whether that labor is "wage-earning" or that labor is "home-making." Both functions have equal importance. You cannot just have one. You cannot have a family focused solely on home-making. And you cannot have a family focused solely on wage-earning. You need both. Having two members in the union gives you the ability to compromise and spread out the duty more than if you are a single person trying to build a life for yourself or for yourself and your child.
You seem to be arguing that wage-earning is the be-all-end-all to building a life, and it isn't. It's true that you can hire servants to take care of the home-making aspect of building a life together, but that just supports my claim that home-making has very real, tangible monetary value. I think that thinking of things strictly in terms of monetary value is a poor method of looking at the value of all duties that relate to building a life with someone, but as you and others seem hell-bent on doing so, there you have it. Time is money. Labor is money. No, I don't think the wage-earner should pay the home-maker because the wage-earner is contributing 50% to the relationship while the home-maker is contributing the other 50%. There are multiple responsibilities in building a life with someone, and raising children. How those responsibilities get divvied up, I suppose, dictates the relative "worth" or "value" of that individual's contribution to the union.
Yeah, Loklar, what you are arguing is completely different from what Cliff is arguing. Your argument is that it's a bad decision to completely pull out of the workforce, in case something in your current arrangement goes bad. Cliff's argument was that women who pull out of the workforce are making no contribution to the marriage other than sex, and that if one partner makes more money than the other, it's stupid/wrong for that person to pay for anything for the other.
I try to see the best in people. Cliff seems like a good guy; has a crazy idea that everyone is shitting on him for. Maybe he's figuring it out as he goes along. Like we all do.
I thought I could find some common ground with him. So I'm here to do that. If you think it's completely different, fine. I think we're riffin' off each other though.
Dude admitted to being depressed online. That's serious man. We should be more welcoming. We probably can't help, but like... let's try.
Oh you crazy feminist you!
I've been properly diagnosed and medicated. Depression never goes away, but it isn't a hindrance to my life anymore.
@Cat: Actually I've suggested that both partners should have a proffessional occupation and split housework/child rearing. I've also stated several times my position is gender nuetral. I am not concerned about the genders of the partners involved.
you're still not convincing anyone that you know what the fuck
Hypothetically cliff for you, if you find your bizzaro dream partner who earns the same amount as you and you get married, if they go back to school and get a better paying job, or just gets a pay rise or hell wins lotto are you then morally obliged to divorce?
Satans..... hints.....
You are speaking from the point of view of a relatively rational person (and by rational, I mean someone who is able to balance logical reality with emotional reality).
Cliff I think is getting beaten around in here because he will not actively support his point of view or his claim. People have asked many questions about how his view would apply in certain scenarios, but he hasn't responded to any of them.
It's pretty much a surefire way to convince people that no, you haven't actually thought this through, you're more concerned with being snide and elitist than you are with sharing your views with people. It's not that his views are crazy and out there... it's that he has been completely disinterested in discussing or justifying them in any real or meaningful way.
And if you'd then argue that he doesn't HAVE to justify his views to us, then why the hell did he make a thread for us to discuss those views in?
I've said before, you can marry someone in a higher earning bracket without using their money. I've also said I don't want to marry for reasons unrelated to this thread, so the second point is moot.
The trying to apply the idea of complete independence and 100% return on investment to marriage is a flawed perspective.
The stranger doesn't get to enjoy the benefits of their labor, didn't help create the kids. Maids also generally clean more than one house a day. People who work at daycares look after multiple family's children.
Again, I don't advocate housework/childrearing being the responsibility of only one partner. If the duties are split, there's no need to dicuss compensating anyone with money in the first place.
The stranger gets to enjoy the benefits of their labor vis a vis getting paid. The spouse gets to enjoy the benefits of their labor vis a vis having a clean home. Both are inarguably tangible benefits.
Except the homemaker isn't just cleaning up their own mess. They're cleaning up after their spouse and children the spouse would have to clean up after if there wasn't someone doing it for them. Homemakers also often do things and run errands for their spouses that in no way directly benefit them.
No we've pointed out that it's silly. We just need him to clarify a lot of things and answer questions.
He said "hypothetically" which means the "you" is the general "you." That does not make it moot. What he's looking for is CLARIFICATION, which you have been woefully bad at offering this entire time.
He wants to know, based on your principle about income sharing, what would someone who follows that principle do?
Stop dodging questions and answer them for once.
Ok, they would just keep paying for themselves as usual.
So far I haven't seen many upsides to his ideas.