Explain to Me Being a Non-WOH No-Kid Wife

[TammyS]

 I do wish some people would understand that when values don't function to protect or serve, it's perfectly normal to change those values and to investigate the social phenomena that lead to success and what the values are that back those up.

 

.

 

I think you've got that backwards.  Values aren't supposed to function to protect and serve.  Values tell us what is worth protecting and serving.

[Guest]

Only the best ever. Hold onto your butts..

 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zplc4Ienkws

Country music. It isn't subtle!!

[bolt.]

The trouble is, family law to an ever-increasing extent treats marriage as a contract. So those who view it covenantally are seriously legally disadvantaged relative to those who don't.

I expect the courts to only deal with the contractual obligations that surround the other (moral, emotional, metaphysical) aspects of marriage -- they are really only involved when marriages are being dissolved anyways. It's all about division of property/assets, custody of children, and any ongoing financial obligations. These are the 'contract' aspects of the thing, not the covenant aspects.

 

But I don't understand how those who view marriage covenantaly are becoming disadvantaged?

 

(Surely no one expects a court to 'hold' a spouse to the moral, emotional, or metaphysical aspects of marriage covenants? There's something here that I am missing.)

 

Is it a problem based on the aversion to prenuptial agreements? A marriage licence without a prenup is an agreement to abide by the "default" way of dissolving a marriage. If a couple believes that "default" isn't in keeping with their view on marriage, why don't they go the "custom" route instead? Anyone can get a prenup.

[Katy]

...

 

 Is there a standard of wife you have to meet?

 

...

 

No, it's more a matter of marrying someone who loves you and is capable of supporting you, rather than marrying a selfish jerk or someone who is otherwise incapable. This may be one of those things that is difficult to find until you realize it exists, and then you see it everywhere.

 

I think you've got that backwards.  Values aren't supposed to function to protect and serve.  Values tell us what is worth protecting and serving.

 

This.

[Carol in Cal.]

 

(Surely no one expects a court to 'hold' a spouse to the moral, emotional, or metaphysical aspects of marriage covenants? There's something here that I am missing.)

 

 

Courts used to hold people to the obligations of the covenant, and they don't anymore.  Not everyone's thinking has caught up with this, and it's a weird thing to have a covenant POV but also have to be able to switch to playing contract defense if your spouse does not.  We see that here at the hive all the time.

[Sun]

I am just going to leave the sentence above to prove that my computer is literally causing me to type backwards! How is that possible? Speaking of fixing one's own things. Anyway. How bizarre.

 

I am happy for those who have inner peace about what they have received.

 

I have heard the comments and I have accepted them. I have realized that it really is about love--not the love between husband and wife, per se, because I knew they loved one another--

 

but the love that causes one to want another person to be well off. To be happy. To be comfortable.

 

I never really distinguished my love for my family, my community, and humanity, not in that sense. I didn't view that as anything special, but a basic duty to humanity.

I suspect you do distinguish between the love for your family and for humanity in general. Do you really love your kids only as much as you love the rest of humanity? For example, do you feed your children daily, and do you also feed every homeless person you see daily? I care deeply about people outside my family, and I have a volunteer position each week where I work to help others. However, I absolutely put my own family first, and I have no shame in doing so. I can afford to feed my family and donate money and time for others, but I am still prioritizing my own family. It is similar for why my husband supports me and our nuclear family.

 

So when I decided, "Probably people think I'm doing this for kicks, this is not really what I was supposed to be doing" I kind of left out the other kinds of giving love as well. Like a husband giving to his wife.

 

But now I realize they were just laughing because I was giving to people far away. People I didn't know. It makes sense.

But who was laughing? Random people on the internet? People in real life? I can not even imagine someone laughing at someone else for helping others, near or far. That is completely foreign to my experience. I can understand thinking that some people have made economic choices that they may later regret, such as majoring in liberal arts, working at a relatively low-paying job for a non-profit organization, and finding it difficult to make a higher salary later. That doesn't mean that I think the person who did the above is worthy of mocking or derision. I just recognize that as life's circumstances change, a person can end up wishing they'd made different choices.

 

A lot of life is out of our control. You've asked what we teach our children. We teach our child to think about the financial consequences of his choices and to work hard. We teach him to ask for help from people (teachers, employers, service people, etc.) when needed. We teach him to think about the kind of person he wants to be and about the kinds of people he wants to be around. We talk about what makes a good friend, which by extension leads to the characteristics that make a good spouse. There is no set of rules that one can follow and be guaranteed success, so we try to teach him to be flexible and resourceful, while also being kind and true to his values.

 

 

Only love those who are close by in blood or in space. That makes sense to me.

It's not that. Love others. Not doing so turns one into a hardened shell of a person. But recognize that we can not solve all of the world's problems or even all of the problems of the people we know. Recognize that loving your immediate family more than others is not a sin; it is normal.

[gardenmom5]

Tsuga it sounds like you have had things really rough with lots of shady people that didn't support you. I'm very sorry if I'm misinterpreting that and if I'm not I'm VERY sorry for everything you've been through. I have been exposed to crappy people with crappy personalities and I try hard not to let it affect it. Just because my father was a P.O.S. and said I was worthless doesn't make it so. Just b/c my father abused us and said the world would be a better place if I'd never been born doesn't make it so. Just b/c other girls had loving, devoted fathers doesn't make them better daughters than I was. It doesn't make them more worthy of love than me. It doesn't mean I somehow deserved what I got or that I didn't "earn" love. I didn't deserve it. He was a sick man with issues that had nothing to do with me or my family. I AM worthy. I AM a good person and I don't let his attitude bring me down. You can't let other people's prejudices and attitudes write the story of how you value yourself and see life. I know that's easier said than done. I STILL struggle with this. I find myself falling apart and apologizing for "being worthless and everything is my fault" if dh and I have one of our rare fights. I don't let myself stay there though. Every day, every year I get better and better at keeping his voice out of my head. I hope you can find peace and get those awful voices out of your head.

 

(Again if I'm way off base here I'm terribly sorry but my understanding of the comments you've made sounded like you have internalized all sorts of nasty comments about what you are worth and whether or not you have value as a human being just for being you.....  And regardless of what they said  YOU DO :001_wub: )

 

 

Even in Nazi Germany when everywhere they turned the value of people was basically nothing beyond their work contribution and their blue eyes - there was a solid underground working at threat of their own lives to thwart that "rule" of how to live to get ahead.

 

I don't think we are quite so awful a social system as tsuga seems to think.

 

I think we easily could be. I think any society easily could be.

 

Vigilance is always paramount to preventing that.

 

And even if it was. it wouldn't change a thing about my insistence that it's wrong and my refusal to live by those rules.

 

 

I'm still out of likes (sniff)  - but I really wanted to like these.

 

Bear in mind that what Tsuga is describing is not especially widespread. There are at least 3, and I think 4, people who live in the same county as Tsuga posting on this board and aren't sharing her views. I've been in Seattle or close by most all of my life and I wouldn't say this outlook is dominant here. It's also an area with a lot of public and private social services for those in need, formal and informal.

 

at least four.   - if anyone from the seattle area is here besides me, lucystoner, jean in  Newcastle and tsuga - please stand up.  enquiring minds want to know.    :)

 

and three of us can say this isn't a common attitude here.

 

Yeah. I'm more than a contractual obligation to my husband. If that is all I was going to be, I wouldn't even want that much.

 

That's a seriously messed up view of what a marriage should be and really has nothing to do even with who is working or not.

 

want to like . .

 

 

 

 

Who is "THEY"?  Who are these people you are so bitter about? 

 

yes, that would be a very helpful question to have answered.   who are "they"?  

[bolt.]

Courts used to hold people to the obligations of the covenant, and they don't anymore. Not everyone's thinking has caught up with this, and it's a weird thing to have a covenant POV but also have to be able to switch to playing contract defense if your spouse does not. We see that here at the hive all the time.

How did they do that? What 'obligations of covenant' could you possibly be imagining family courts enforcing?

 

I imagine such things to be impossible, and if they did have such enforcement, I imagine I would at least know about it, even if it was before my time.

 

Did they have "love police" to check tor kind words, back rubs and birthday cakes? Did they give lie detector tests and ask, "Do you love him/her?" -- what did they do if it showed that they did not? Did they make cutting remarks illegal? Did they monitor tea frequency and temperature? Did they make sleeping separately or living separately into a crime?

 

Did family courts get involved in enforcement of 'covenant obligations' other that through divorce processes? If so, when, and how? If not, how could it be called "enforcing the covenant" if it was simultaneously dissolving the covenant?

 

We must be talking past each other (using the same words but meaning different things) because I just can't see this as a truly possible scenario. What am I missing?

Edited May 27, 2016 by bolt.

[eternalsummer]

Possibly she means that adultery used to be illegal, and a legal divorce required a fault.

[gardenmom5]

How did they do that? What 'obligations of covenant' could you possibly be imagining family courts enforcing?

 

I imagine such things to be impossible, and if they did have such enforcement, I imagine I would at least know about it, even if it was before my time.

 

Did they have "love police" to check tor kind words, back rubs and birthday cakes? Did they give lie detector tests and ask, "Do you love him/her?" -- what did they do if it showed that they did not? Did they make cutting remarks illegal? Did they monitor tea frequency and temperature? Did they make sleeping separately or living separately into a crime?

 

Did family courts get involved in enforcement of 'covenant obligations' other that through divorce processes? If so, when, and how? If not, how could it be called "enforcing the covenant" if it was simultaneously dissolving the covenant?

 

We must be talking past each other (using the same words but meaning different things) because I just can't see this as a truly possible scenario. What am I missing?

adultery

broken engagements (they were taken much more seriously than today)

[bolt.]

Possibly she means that adultery used to be illegal, and a legal divorce required a fault.

Possibly, but I don't really see how the refusal to legally recognize a marriage that was over in every non-contractual sense can be though of as 'holding people to a covenant', or upholding a covenantaly view of marriage.

 

On the contrary, in seems to be much more on the 'contract' side of things -- to legally require people to continue in their contracted obligations of a form of marriage (in the absence of any affection, etc) unless they meet legal criteria to be permitted to dissolve the legal relationship between them. That's a contract, and the law was dealing with its contractual aspects... The law was still ignoring all the other aspects (as it should).

[ElizabethB]

I grew up in the Seattle area very near Jean. Not common, and I lived in a working poor neighborhood and then went to a high school that was a mix of working poor, many free lunch (some free lunch at my elementary) and middle class with a few rich kids. So, I met a broad spectrum of folks. My track team especially ran the economic gamut, as did my basic classes.

 

In fact, my entire neighborhood growing up was mostly stay at home wives and moms, but some moms worked and no one judged either. There are now a few stay at home dads, too, in that area, that was not as common when I was growning up. Cost of living has gotten high there, though. There are probably more dual income people on the coasts because of cost of living issues, it is easier to survive on one income in low COL areas.

[Sun]

This thread is weird.

 

I'm never moving to Seattle, the people sound hideous!! I can list a hundred ways my small, poor Midwestern hometown has helped people that you claim society doesn't give a shit about.

 

If you don't want to come to Seattle, don't, but deciding that based on this thread would be a bit extreme. I've never met anyone in the Seattle area who expresses these kinds of ideas. I'm not really sure why one strange thread would lead someone to think the people in an entire metropolitan area are "hideous."

[ElizabethB]

I don't know if I agree, but here is a chart showing the "hidden rules among classes," something to add into the mix, I have seen it referenced somewhere before.

 

I think there are definite regional differences in what people value having moved around a lot and lived in dozens of states and in Germany for 4 years. Los Angeles and DC were quite different in what people valued from the middle of the country, and different emphasis between the two. The south is different, and Texas similar to the south but also unique, and the Midwest has its own values and norms that are a bit different.

 

It also varies by what type of employment industry you are in, not just class or region. And, people are individuals, too, but there are definite average differences by region and industry.

 

https://www.gwu.edu/~umpleby/mgt216/Mgt%20216%20Payne%20on%203%20Classes.ppt

Edited May 27, 2016 by ElizabethB

[TammyS]

The trouble is, family law to an ever-increasing extent treats marriage as a contract.  So those who view it covenantally are seriously legally disadvantaged relative to those who don't.

 

Oh,I know.  Which is why I would prefer the gov't just get out of it altogether.  Then they can allow people to contract whatever legal agreements they want, and then actually enforce the contract like other contracts are enforced.  But don't call it marriage.

 

[Guest]

How did they do that? What 'obligations of covenant' could you possibly be imagining family courts enforcing?

 

I imagine such things to be impossible, and if they did have such enforcement, I imagine I would at least know about it, even if it was before my time.

 

Did they have "love police" to check tor kind words, back rubs and birthday cakes? Did they give lie detector tests and ask, "Do you love him/her?" -- what did they do if it showed that they did not? Did they make cutting remarks illegal? Did they monitor tea frequency and temperature? Did they make sleeping separately or living separately into a crime?

 

Did family courts get involved in enforcement of 'covenant obligations' other that through divorce processes? If so, when, and how? If not, how could it be called "enforcing the covenant" if it was simultaneously dissolving the covenant?

 

We must be talking past each other (using the same words but meaning different things) because I just can't see this as a truly possible scenario. What am I missing?

 

Here's what I think Carol is talking about; Carol, please feel free to straighten me out if I have missed or misrepresented your point. 

 

The problem with the contractual marriage, even in a community property state, is that if things end in divorce and property is split 50-50, that is done at a specific point in time.  But it often does not reflect the fact that Spouse #1 has been on a career track, and is fresh while Spouse#2 has stayed home and has essentially got to start over again...older, with a lower starting pay.  Today, many people get child support (if they *receive* it, well...) but the concept of "alimony" has gone by the boards.  So Spouse#2 might get money to retrain and so on, but almost certainly will start at an entry level job.  My dh and I (who are in a stable marriage, so don't read into this) play as a team.  We are equals in education and earning power.  But as I have been out of the high-tech field for 20 years, I could not re-enter at par, whereas my dh has been out for only a short time, and could re-enter at a high salary.  Well, if we split, we split the assets, but going forward, he is monetarily much better off, much more secure.  He has earned more retirement, as well--and yes, this sometimes is split. 

 

I think that kind of thing, which we read about all the time on these boards, is what Carol was referring to.  

 

In a "covenant split" the law would recognize both the past and the future represented in the relationship and in the *continuing* division of assets.

 

A better lawyer can help in this, but the fact that the law's view of marriage has become more contractual has not been good for women, who are usually Spouse #2 in my scenario.  Divorce results in a much greater likelihood of poverty for women and children--but not for men.  

 

I'm getting rambly  here, but I guess the nut of what I am saying is that a proper division at divorce would recognize a required contribution from the future earnings of Spouse #1, as Spouse #2 was part of what made that salary happen, and decisions were made that reflected the expectation that both would share in the benefits provided by each.

 

[TammyS]

Not to continue the politics bunny trail, but every time I open this thread the name Ayn Rand runs through my head.  And I don't find it pleasant. ;)

 

I've been thinking the same thing, but I can't put my finger on why.  Perhaps it's the utilitarian view of marriage?

[eternalsummer]

Possibly, but I don't really see how the refusal to legally recognize a marriage that was over in every non-contractual sense can be though of as 'holding people to a covenant', or upholding a covenantaly view of marriage.

 

On the contrary, in seems to be much more on the 'contract' side of things -- to legally require people to continue in their contracted obligations of a form of marriage (in the absence of any affection, etc) unless they meet legal criteria to be permitted to dissolve the legal relationship between them. That's a contract, and the law was dealing with its contractual aspects... The law was still ignoring all the other aspects (as it should).

 

 

I don't know anything about covenant marriage; I'm not religious.  I was just guessing based on how the legal situation re: marriage has changed in the last couple of generations.

 

I think possibly, and I am really guessing, that the covenant of marriage was not historically considered (and maybe is not religiously considered?  not sure) to be reliant on mutual affection.  There were always criteria that allowed divorce but they were more stringent than simply "don't want to be married anymore."

 

All of that said, I really don't know much about the difference between a covenant of marriage and what was traditionally considered the social contract of marriage.

[gardenmom5]

I stumbled upon this article If You Read to Your Kids You Are Unfairly Disadvantaging Others (from 2015) and was like :001_huh:. Of course I had to look into this more, he couldn't possibly have said what they quoted, right? So I found his comments on the article. And this article is apparently where it all started. I thought about starting a spin-off thread, but didn't think it justified it. It did give me the opportunity to kind of see what Tsuga is thinking. 

 

 

 

 

 

So maybe I'm making connections that aren't there. Perhaps I'm seeing a parallel because inequality is at the root of this thread.

Why does she get something and I don't?

If you read the rest of the ABC interview, he resolves the inequality problem with the idea that really the only way to be sure everyone is raised equally is to get rid of families all together. Of course that's ridiculous. We're entering dystopianville. However, that is what this line of thinking gets you. There is no possible way for everything to be completely equal. Given the same amount of money, opportunities, housing, education and so on, people are still different and will make things unequal. 

 

this is sooooo bassakwards . . . . the way to get rid of 'inequality' is to help dysfunctional families become healthy. then, children can be reared in a loving home, because all kids do deserve that - even though many are not.

[Guest]

I don't know anything about covenant marriage; I'm not religious.  I was just guessing based on how the legal situation re: marriage has changed in the last couple of generations.

 

I think possibly, and I am really guessing, that the covenant of marriage was not historically considered (and maybe is not religiously considered?  not sure) to be reliant on mutual affection.  There were always criteria that allowed divorce but they were more stringent than simply "don't want to be married anymore."

 

All of that said, I really don't know much about the difference between a covenant of marriage and what was traditionally considered the social contract of marriage.

 

I'm not really using the word "covenant" in a religious sense, but to distinguish it from being a business contract.  (Although on some days, that is what any marriage can feel like!) 

 

I don't know the better word but am willing to use it if there is one.

 

In my own world. I would call it a sacrament, but that is a whole nother topic, which engulfs more than I mean by "covenant."

[purplejackmama]

It sounds like that because that's exactly it.

 

I can't believe someone doesn't have to work and that's a socially acceptable option that someone would blithely mention at work as if it were not something shocking. That's why I'm asking, I'm saying, I have a negative impression of this and I'd like to improve my impression so please explain how it works, what is the value in this.

I think if you want to get at the core of this, it's jealousy for you. You are jealous that she seems to get this "free pass" that she doesn't deserve. You're jealous that you have to work and still things don't turn out the way you had wanted/hoped. You sounded jealous of the possible housing move, is this an area you wish you could live? Edited May 28, 2016 by purplejackmama

[Scarlett]

If you want advice to give your kids tsuga, advise them to marry rich. Seek out wealthy ppl, court them. Marry them with a bulletproof prenup.

 

I mean, that is not invalid advice.

 

Otherwise, what? If that seems trite or unconsvionable advice, then just tell them whatever you feel like telling them. Which is what everyone ends up doing any way.

 

Iow, your kids are going to do whatever they are going to do. The best anyone can do is model their own personal values, be honest abouy where they have struggled, and be there in whatever capacity they are able to muster when their kids struggle.

 

Youre not going to figure out some amazing life altering advice that is garunteed to steer your children through all their options toward a life of ease.

 

Unless you want to go FULL REBA and tell them "just be nice to the gentlemen...and theyll be nice to you."

I LOVE that song. My mom is horrified by it.

[Guest]

I LOVE that song. My mom is horrified by it.

So do i. One of ky parentsnhas vhs home video of pre-pubescent me singing it over and over again, replete with rewinding the casette hahaha

[Scarlett]

I think if you want to get at the core of this, it's jealousy for you. You are jealous that she seems to get this "free pass" that she doesn't deserve. You're jealous that you have to work and still things don't turn out the way you had wanted/hoped. You sounded jealous of the possible housing move, is this an area you wish you could live?

I totally get the jealousy thing. My best friend....I grew up with her.....same life growing up.....well she had a dad and I didnt but we were both poor etc....her first husband was a serial cheater.....blah blah blah.....her second marriage? Yeah he is awesome I every way. And totally stinkin wealthy.

 

I get jealous sometimes......how did she get that deal and not me.......shrug. Life isn't fair.

[Scarlett]

If you don't want to come to Seattle, don't, but deciding that based on this thread would be a bit extreme. I've never met anyone in the Seattle area who expresses these kinds of ideas. I'm not really sure why one strange thread would lead someone to think the people in an entire metropolitan area are "hideous."

I have a great friend who lives in Seatle. She is a SAHM, homeschooling. I doubt she ever goes to work.

[Guest]

If I am hideous, I brought that with me to Seattle.

 

I do think there are personalities to different cities bit they are not deterministic as to what one values. The personality is sort of the milieu in which one lives.

 

And by the way, as you might expect, when we say We live in Seattle, it is the greater metropolitan are in the top left corner of the continental US. I don't live in Seattle REALLY. Just in case there are any pedants reading this.

 

I think it is a teeny bit interesting that we have owned three houses here, all within 1/1000th degree of the same longitude line. Our likely next move will totally screw this up.

[Jaybee]

Tsuga, I hope you read my long post in this thread   :D I spent a lot of time typing that sucker up LOL 

 

 

I just want to add another thing - lots of us have rushed to list the things the wife probably does or give her reasons for being a sahw.

 

I just want to say that even if she does not actually do a whole lot of anything & even if she doesn't have a reason & even if she isn't ill or invisibly disabled or anything all, I think it's still ok for the man to love and adore and treasure her.

 

Just for being.  

 

If they love each other and she's home when he gets home and he can talk to her and she can ease his burdens and share his life and listen to his stories or whatever it is that they like then that's ok too. In my books she doesn't need to pay the bills or have hot meals ready or volunteer....

 

 

 

Yes. As I have puzzled through this thread, I keep thinking that while it is true she may have reasons to not work that may not be visible, it may also be that they simply prefer this arrangement (whoever the 'they' may be). And that's just fine too. 

 

Another thing I find myself wanting to protest is those who are listing all the things she may be doing at home. What if they decide they want to live this way and she doesn't bake her own bread, garden, sew, keep chickens, etc., etc.? It almost seems like we're doing the same thing from a backward angle if we think she has to do all those things to justify her staying at home. From that angle, maybe I should only be a SAHM if I homeschool, or if I homeschool and write my own curriculum and keep chickens...

[ebrindam]

I don't really see this as any different than a SAHM who doesn't return to work once her kids are grown or in school all day. If it works for them, who cares? 

[ebrindam]

I did not say she was "tyrannical", I said I don't get it at all, that it boggles my mind.

 

 

I also did not say he was helpless.

 

What I am asking is what is the deal here, how does it work, what are the values that people have that make this seem okay?

 

My values are very, very working class. You work, you eat. You no work, you no eat. It is literally that simple. There is a high value on work, there is a high value on self-sufficiency, there is a low value on being provided for as a gift.

 

He seems quite happy which is why, though I admit I judge (because no work, but eat, but get your way, for me does not compute), I'm not trying to tell him how to live.

 

I'm asking why people live that way. That's different. Not completely innocent but not the same as saying "I know this is wrong."

 

If someone is not "working class" they may not see money in this way at all. They have enough, she's happy, he's happy...and I don't see any issue with her choosing where they live. She's there most of the time!

[SKL]

My mom used to compare our situation with my dad's friend's family.  Despite comparable blue-collar work, friend made 2x as much money (high school diploma vs. dyslexic).  Friend's wife was always SAH while my mom worked.  Friend went bankrupt buying everything his wife wanted without a plan to pay for it; then they moved to a bigger, brand-new house and started fresh (with help from a family member).  Friend's wife will get more social security than my mom, even though my mom is the one who paid in.  Oh, and friend's wife is skinny on top of all that.  :P  Yeah, a mixture of judgment and jealousy.  My mom tended to feel inferior or to feel that others thought her inferior.  I guess that came from her very abusive childhood.  So many things were colored by it.  So yes, her friend had some unfair advantages, but her slim figure and spotless house may have been her main offenses.

 

Then again, it can be hard to put things in perspective when you're exhausted from working and raising kids and running a house and being the strong person in the marriage.

[Garga]

I do agree though that should my dh ever decide to ditch me for whatever reason, legally I'm at a disadvantage bc the courts attribute little or no value to me as a sahm and view it mostly as a stupid decision on my part.

 

I feel like I understand what Tsunga is saying, and what she is saying is exactly what you said above: the courts (and therefore society at large) attribute little or no value to me as a sahm and view it mostly as a stupid decision on my part.

 

People have said something along those lines in the past here on the boards: if a woman doesn't have her own education and way to make money, then she's very unwise. Granted they are ok with stopping working to raise the family, but the RULES are clear and you ignore them at your own risk:

 

Rule: If you don't earn money, it is viewed as a stupid decision by courts.

Rule: So, you need to have a way to earn money just in case.

 

 

The problem with the contractual marriage, even in a community property state, is that if things end in divorce and property is split 50-50, that is done at a specific point in time. But it often does not reflect the fact that Spouse #1 has been on a career track, and is fresh while Spouse#2 has stayed home and has essentially got to start over again...older, with a lower starting pay. Today, many people get child support (if they *receive* it, well...) but the concept of "alimony" has gone by the boards. So Spouse#2 might get money to retrain and so on, but almost certainly will start at an entry level job. My dh and I (who are in a stable marriage, so don't read into this) play as a team. We are equals in education and earning power. But as I have been out of the high-tech field for 20 years, I could not re-enter at par, whereas my dh has been out for only a short time, and could re-enter at a high salary. Well, if we split, we split the assets, but going forward, he is monetarily much better off, much more secure. He has earned more retirement, as well--and yes, this sometimes is split.

 

.... Divorce results in a much greater likelihood of poverty for women and children--but not for men.

 

I'm getting rambly here, but I guess the nut of what I am saying is that a proper division at divorce would recognize a required contribution from the future earnings of Spouse #1, as Spouse #2 was part of what made that salary happen, and decisions were made that reflected the expectation that both would share in the benefits provided by each.

Here's another example of what I think Tsunga is talking about. If a woman gets divorced unexpectedly later in life and doesn't have an ongoing career, then from society at large it's "too bad. Proverty for you." It's how society is set up. It IS set up that way.

 

So another rule of society, so that you are not plunged into poverty is:

 

Rule: Do not stop working for any length of time.

 

Another thing I find myself wanting to protest is those who are listing all the things she may be doing at home. What if they decide they want to live this way and she doesn't bake her own bread, garden, sew, keep chickens, etc., etc.? It almost seems like we're doing the same thing from a backward angle if we think she has to do all those things to justify her staying at home. From that angle, maybe I should only be a SAHM if I homeschool, or if I homeschool and write my own curriculum and keep chickens...

This. I've been thinking this, too. I read in the same thread both, "you have value just by being alive" and "here are the things she could be doing to be valuable; baking bread, sewing, etc.". I don't like it that people had to come up with things that women must do to be valuable.

 

 

 

So. Tsunga has seen some of the rules I listed above. She has seen what happens when you break the rules. If you don't have a job that earns enough money (or any job at all), then when you are ditched by your husband, you will be poor. And there will be people who will have known all along that a woman who stays home and doesn't earn money will be poor. Those women staying at home not earning money should have known the rules. Perhaps they did, but now they are suffering the consequences of not following the rules.

 

Tsunga then sees a woman not following the rules and wonders why someone would do this? Is there some other set of rules out there that makes it ok? Isn't what this woman doing very, very risky? Why would someone take that risk if there weren't children involved who needed care? Does she know of some loophole around the Rules?

 

 

I also wonder if Tsunga has been reading comments on various political articles. I can 100% see that if there was an article about SAHSs being plunged into poverty if their husbands leave that people would comment, "Why didn't she make sure she had an income of her own??" "She should have been working." "She shouldn't have expected someone else to take care of her!"

 

Maybe those people are trolls, sure, but they're out there and I'm thinking Tsunga has run into them. And maybe they're not trolls. They just absolutely believe that if a person doesn't work, then what can they expect?? Of course they'll be poor if their funding (spouse) leaves them. They would believe it would be obvious and would clearly say so in the comments.

 

And maybe even IRL. Perhaps Tsunga ran into some of them. They are certainly out there. And not in teeny tiny numbers.

Edited May 28, 2016 by Garga

[gardenmom5]

I feel like I understand what Tsunga is saying, and what she is saying is exactly what you said above: the courts (and therefore society at large) attribute little or no value to me as a sahm and view it mostly as a stupid decision on my part.

 

People have said something along those lines in the past here on the boards: if a woman doesn't have her own education and way to make money, then she's very unwise. Granted they are ok with stopping working to raise the family, but the RULES are clear and you ignore them at your own risk:

 

So. Tsunga has seen some of the rules I listed above. She has seen what happens when you break the rules. If you don't have a job that earns enough money (or any job at all), then when you are ditched by your husband, you will be poor. And there will be people who will have known all along that a woman who stays home and doesn't earn money will be poor. 

 

other things can happen besides divorce.  death, disability, or unemployment are very real possibilities.  my father died when I was 12, dh's when he was 20.  it very adversely affected our standards of living - despite both of our mothers working the entire time. dh had periods of unemployment.  I did encourage my girls to get a *marketable* education (there are many degrees out there that won't pay squat) so they could support their family if needed.  both do.  1dd is single - but has a comfortable lifestyle and owns her own home in a high cola. 2dd currently makes more than her dh. (they bank her salary.)

 

however - both want to have kids and plan to stay home with them.  

 

eta: I am one of those who believe they have value by virtue of being a person - not how much they can make in income.  but we live in the real world, and it takes money to pay the bills.  with an education - they have more options.  

Edited May 28, 2016 by gardenmom5

[Carol in Cal.]

What Patty Joanna said, which was better developed than what I was thinking along the same lines.

 

Generally, in this thread we have been saying that marriage is a covenant in the sense that it is a permanent commitment that involves each party giving 100% without reservation.  And yet the fact that the courts no longer assign fault to whomever lets that down illegally and no longer expect parity in lifestyle to be granted to the 'injured party' means that it is more risky to do that 100% giving without some reservation in the back of your head.

 

And switching from thinking covenantally to negotiating your dissolution like a business deal is extremely difficult, as we have seen time and time again on these boards.

[madteaparty]

nm irrelevant to thread

Edited May 28, 2016 by madteaparty

[Garga]

other things can happen besides divorce.  death, disability, or unemployment are very real possibilities.  my father died when I was 12, dh's when he was 20.  it very adversely affected our standards of living - despite both of our mothers working the entire time. dh had periods of unemployment.  I did encourage my girls to get a *marketable* education (there are many degrees out there that won't pay squat) so they could support their family if needed.  both do.  1dd is single - but has a comfortable lifestyle and owns her own home in a high cola. 2dd currently makes more than her dh. (they bank her salary.)

 

however - both want to have kids and plan to stay home with them.  

 

eta: I am one of those who believe they have value by virtue of being a person - not how much they can make in income.  but we live in the real world, and it takes money to pay the bills.  with an education - they have more options.

 

  

What Patty Joanna said, which was better developed than what I was thinking along the same lines.

 

Generally, in this thread we have been saying that marriage is a covenant in the sense that it is a permanent commitment that involves each party giving 100% without reservation.  And yet the fact that the courts no longer assign fault to whomever lets that down illegally and no longer expect parity in lifestyle to be granted to the 'injured party' means that it is more risky to do that 100% giving without some reservation in the back of your head.

 

And switching from thinking covenantally to negotiating your dissolution like a business deal is extremely difficult, as we have seen time and time again on these boards.

 

 

I think these two comments back up with Tsunga is saying. I think they hit the nail on the head.

 

Of course, I don't know what Tsunga is saying for sure because I'm not her, but as I read her posts, that's what I got from them. We say marriage is a covenant and we say that people who don't work have value...

 

...until something rips that marriage away (divorce, death etc) and then the un-working partner in the marriage should expect to be in poverty and really should have been working or something to prepare for that.

 

 

(I have a high school diploma and have been out of the workforce for 14 years. I do worry about what would happen to me if my dh was gone for any reason. I know that what I'm doing is risky. I know I'm not following "the rules." I am being unwise. My dh loves me and cares for me...but without him, society isn't going to "value" me. If America valued people who stayed home, we'd have things like actual maternity leave.)

[bolt.]

I thing if these things more like a flow chart than as "rules" -- you can follow or not follow rules, but you are always somewhere on a flow chart. A flow chart held you make calculated choices, but rules only constrain you.

 

I know that my non-workforce choice has some probability of resulting in poverty if my marriage suffers a tragedy. I don't think I've broken rules or been stupid. I've just taken a risk because it's within my risk tolerance. I've also got some 'hedge my bets' investments in my own name, house in both names, etc.

 

Do courts really say that non-work spouses have made stupid choices? Or simply that they made a choice that pleased their values at the time, and the court isn't obligated to do anything about mitigating the results of that choice? Not all choices that turn out poorly were stupid in the first place... I don't really get this perspective at all, and I'd be surprised to find gratuitous personal insults in a courtroom (from a judge).

[JoJosMom]

I stumbled upon this article If You Read to Your Kids You Are Unfairly Disadvantaging Others (from 2015) and was like :001_huh:. Of course I had to look into this more, he couldn't possibly have said what they quoted, right? So I found his comments on the article. And this article is apparently where it all started. I thought about starting a spin-off thread, but didn't think it justified it. It did give me the opportunity to kind of see what Tsuga is thinking. 

 

 

 

 

 

So maybe I'm making connections that aren't there. Perhaps I'm seeing a parallel because inequality is at the root of this thread.

Why does she get something and I don't?

If you read the rest of the ABC interview, he resolves the inequality problem with the idea that really the only way to be sure everyone is raised equally is to get rid of families all together. Of course that's ridiculous. We're entering dystopianville. However, that is what this line of thinking gets you. There is no possible way for everything to be completely equal. Given the same amount of money, opportunities, housing, education and so on, people are still different and will make things unequal. 

 

 

this is sooooo bassakwards . . . . the way to get rid of 'inequality' is to help dysfunctional families become healthy. then, children can be reared in a loving home, because all kids do deserve that - even though many are not.

 

I've seen those articles, which are, IMO, the logical consequence of focusing on equality of result, rather than equality of opportunity. And what keeps coming to my mind is this, not Ayn Rand.

[Bluegoat]

Complete BS.

Conservatives are not jerks for believing that one way of running a society is better than another way.

 

Elizabeth Warren does not give all but 1% of her income to the poor in Africa.  If you are claiming that the Left is morally correct because they believe in more social welfare and higher taxes - that is to say, the standard of moral correctness is how much you are willing to support other people in society to whom you are not related - then liberals fail your standard just as surely as conservatives.  You fail your own standard!

 

I think that is a real misunderstanding of that post.  Reading a lot of partisan media can really start to affect anyone's viewpoint, and people begin to lose perspective.  It's important to at least try and read different kinds of things, or IMO going on a media fast can be even better.

[gardenmom5]

I've seen those articles, which are, IMO, the logical consequence of focusing on equality of result, rather than equality of opportunity. And what keeps coming to my mind is this, not Ayn Rand.

 

I agree, it should be equality of opportunity.   but I do still believe all kids deserve a loving home - even though many don't.  (I  came from a dysfunctional home.  I made the best of it.)

[Bluegoat]

With regard to the covenant vs cosntract thing:

 

I wouldn't use the word covenant myself, I would also I think prefer the word sacrament.  But I think what it comes down to is this - the contract view of marriage makes it essentially a kind of business agreement, that people can enter or leave on those terms.  Whatever private emotional issues are attached are just that - private, not part of the substance of the thing.

 

In the other view, even though emotional love isn't in some cases seen as the center as in the romantic view of modern marriage, it is absolutlt not like a business arrangement.  It is the creation of a family, a new entity with its own identity and unity.  Your husband, you in-laws, are not your business partners, in qualitative terms they are like your parents or siblings, who even in the worst cases you maintain a very basic biological connection to.

 

So - a family is not two people who are essentially individual who have agreed to share certain things, it is a unity that operates as such.  A body with organs, rather than separate creatures sharing space. 

 

The legal side these days seems to deal better with the business partner view, though, to the point where it neglects the other, even undermines it.

[OneStepAtATime]

With regard to the covenant vs cosntract thing:

 

I wouldn't use the word covenant myself, I would also I think prefer the word sacrament.  But I think what it comes down to is this - the contract view of marriage makes it essentially a kind of business agreement, that people can enter or leave on those terms.  Whatever private emotional issues are attached are just that - private, not part of the substance of the thing.

 

In the other view, even though emotional love isn't in some cases seen as the center as in the romantic view of modern marriage, it is absolutlt not like a business arrangement.  It is the creation of a family, a new entity with its own identity and unity.  Your husband, you in-laws, are not your business partners, in qualitative terms they are like your parents or siblings, who even in the worst cases you maintain a very basic biological connection to.

 

So - a family is not two people who are essentially individual who have agreed to share certain things, it is a unity that operates as such.  A body with organs, rather than separate creatures sharing space. 

 

The legal side these days seems to deal better with the business partner view, though, to the point where it neglects the other, even undermines it.

I like that!  That actually makes more sense to me.  My parents, brother and I were definitely more like different organs supporting the main body than functioning like some sort of business arrangement that can be dissolved later.

 

When DH and I married his family became part of my family and vice-a-versa.  It feels more like we are all parts of the same whole, even when those parts don't always function well together, rather than separate businesses that have come together at least temporarily to honor some sort of contractual arrangement.

[SparklyUnicorn]

I don't really see this as any different than a SAHM who doesn't return to work once her kids are grown or in school all day. If it works for them, who cares? 

 

I think there is a difference, but I'm with you on the "who cares" part.

[SKL]

Re whether the court values the work of a SAHW, it varies from state to state, but I don't see how that relates to Tsuga's concern.  She seems to feel the SAHW has an unfair advantage, but in divorce this would be an unfair disadvantage.  So it is a trade-off.  She sacrificed her career potential and took the risk.  An economist could come up with a substantial value for that investment that she made.  Whether it's something I'd recommend to my daughters or not is another question.  But AFAIK the SAHW entered the arrangement willingly and at an age when she understood there were pros and cons.  She trusted her husband enough, or she has her own safety net, or she had no better option.  Or possibly she has another plan (e.g., online education for a new career) that Tsuga doesn't know about.

Edited May 28, 2016 by SKL

[gardenmom5]

I think that is a real misunderstanding of that post.  Reading a lot of partisan media can really start to affect anyone's viewpoint, and people begin to lose perspective.  It's important to at least try and read different kinds of things, or IMO going on a media fast can be even better.

 

my brother has been reading what seem to be conspiracy sites - oh, and wrapping wires around his wrist to connect him to the ground so he can get protons? neutrons?  don't really remember - don't care.  but - he's an engineer!  I have been just boggled some of the stuff that has come out of his mouth. I thought he'd have more sense. but, he's been reading this carp now for several years.  (theme from twilight zone plays . . . .)

 

one of my favorites was  the link to the "scientist from CERN" 'posting' a report he's writing' to various websites (including youtube) about how they opened a window to another dimension and now they are running from sinister gov't forces in fear for their lives . . . . dear brother - this is someone's (really bad) sci-fi novel in progress. he never mentioned that one to me again.

 

I could probably poke holes in all of them - but frankly, I don't have that kind of time.

 

from some of what I've read - people who are very lonely, are more likely to buy into this stuff.

[katilac]

<snip>

I know that my non-workforce choice has some probability of resulting in poverty if my marriage suffers a tragedy. I don't think I've broken rules or been stupid. I've just taken a risk because it's within my risk tolerance. <snip>

Do courts really say that non-work spouses have made stupid choices? Or simply that they made a choice that pleased their values at the time, and the court isn't obligated to do anything about mitigating the results of that choice?  <snip>

 

Agree and agree. 

 

I agree, it should be equality of opportunity.   but I do still believe all kids deserve a loving home - even though many don't.  (I  came from a dysfunctional home.  I made the best of it.)

 

All kids having a loving home still wouldn't remove advantage and disadvantage. Even if incomes were the same, some parents, while very loving, aren't going to read to their kids much, or trek them to the zoo and the museum and 4-H and robotics club, or provide healthy meals. We can work towards equality of opportunity at the community level, and do a great deal of good, but there will never be complete equality of opportunity, particularly at the family level. 

 

 

Re whether the court values the work of a SAHW, it varies from state to state, but I don't see how that relates to Tsuga's concern.  She seems to feel the SAHW has an unfair advantage, but in divorce this would be an unfair disadvantage.  So it is a trade-off.  She sacrificed her career potential and took the risk.  

 

 

Bolding by me. This, exactly. Everything has a cost and everything has a risk. If they divorce, and the SAHW is not independently wealthy, she will be at a severe economic disadvantage.  

 

Everything has a cost. Spouses who stay home aren't doing so at no cost; they are 'paying' in career potential, retirement savings, and many ways other than the immediate paycheck. 

 

Tsuga, regarding the ugly and judging comments from other people, I'm going to channel Taylor Swift for a moment and advise you to shake it off. Haters gonna hate, y'know? Haters can find the bad in any situation. If you don't work, financial issues are all your fault.  If you do work, any issues your kids have are due to you not being at home. If you don't buy a new car, you're cheap. If you do buy a new car, you're extravagant. 

 

Those people aren't worth space in your brain! There aren't steadfast rules that will produce a given result in any situation. You have to continually decide how you want to live your life, based on your own values and risk tolerance. Dance on your own, make up the moves as you go, because while you've been getting down and out about the rules and the lies and SAHWs of the world, you could've been getting down to this. sick. beat.  :lol:

Edited May 28, 2016 by katilac

[Callie]

Yes. As I have puzzled through this thread, I keep thinking that while it is true she may have reasons to not work that may not be visible, it may also be that they simply prefer this arrangement (whoever the 'they' may be). And that's just fine too. 

 

Another thing I find myself wanting to protest is those who are listing all the things she may be doing at home. What if they decide they want to live this way and she doesn't bake her own bread, garden, sew, keep chickens, etc., etc.? It almost seems like we're doing the same thing from a backward angle if we think she has to do all those things to justify her staying at home. From that angle, maybe I should only be a SAHM if I homeschool, or if I homeschool and write my own curriculum and keep chickens...

I listed all the things I do at home in reply to Tsuga saying she only has 10 minutes of housework a day.  I really cannot believe that as she also stated she gardens, makes jelly, they eat home cooked meals and their house is always clean.  Along with working 45 hours per week and volunteering.  I do not see how it is reasonable to believe she can do all that stuff in her home in 10 minutes per day.

[OneStepAtATime]

I listed all the things I do at home in reply to Tsuga saying she only has 10 minutes of housework a day.  I really cannot believe that as she also stated she gardens, makes jelly, they eat home cooked meals and their house is always clean.  Along with working 45 hours per week and volunteering.  I do not see how it is reasonable to believe she can do all that stuff in her home in 10 minutes per day.

Agreed.  

 

I don't think most people posting about what they do at home or might do at home was to say you HAVE to do those things to have value in a marriage or a partnership or whatever.  I think it was examples of things that people might do or they themselves do that are easier to do if they are not working full time, plus some were in response to the OP implying she could do all of those things in 10 minutes, which seems incredibly optimistic to me.

[MrsWeasley]

I have a friend who doesn't have kids, but she isn't working due to caretaking for parents, including one with terminal cancer. (To be fair, though, she lost her job and then as caretaking for her parents became more time intensive, it sounds like she just stopped looking. I don't think long-term they plan to have her out of the workforce.)

[EMS83]

Well, I think for me the house would be cleaner, dinner would be better, and our garden would be way bigger.  I might also have more livestock.  DH and I got married with pretty much zero intention of me ever working.  Although we did acknowledge that I'd be raising the kids "someday" (that happened way sooner than expected!).  Volunteering is another common past-time for people who don't work.  What you describe in the OP sounds a lot more like a perspective issue on her part, not a situation issue.  But I'll also play the other side and say that the value you give to your spouse is being in their life and vice versa.  There are practical details, of course, but I don't see marriage as a "value added" sort of scenario.  We took each other "to have and to hold" regardless of the details.

[HS Mom in NC]

It should read, "If you don't read to your children you're putting them at a disadvantage."