Posts
Let’s see. Somehow or other the husband of this Reddit writer has gotten the idea that both spouses should contribute equally to the household. This means, they should not contribute sums that are proportional to their incomes, but they should contribute the same each. After all, isn’t that what equal means? And aren't we all in favor of equality?
This is obviously a reductio ab absurdum, a ridiculous conclusion drawn from bad ideas. In today’s world, people have learned that the ultimate indignity for a woman is to be dependent on her husband. She must have her own career, her own income, her own wealth, her own possessions.
She should be independent and autonomous, fully equal in all senses of the word. I doubt that I could find five people who would dispute this article of secular dogma.
And yet, when you put it into practice, in a couple where each individual is a self-defined and self-contained human monad, you have a problem. What if the husband makes considerably more money than wife, but refuses to contribute proportionally to the household? Because he believes in equality. For every dollar-- in this case pound-- that he contributes, he wants her to contribute exactly the same.
In truth, this fulfills the terms of the dogma. And yet, in practice the woman is suffering. Wouldn’t you know it-- when feminist fairy tales become reality women suffer.
Anyway, here is the letter that the disgruntled wife has sent to Reddit:
Venting her frustrations, the woman wrote: 'We both earn good salaries in the same industry. He’s been working full time about 10 years longer than I had (grad school) and makes about $100,000 more than I do because he’s more senior at the company.
'We split all vacations, rent, dinners out, groceries about 50/50. We spend the same amount on each other for holidays, etc. I took pride in it because he complained carrying extra weight for his ex who made way less than him took a toll on him, and I felt proud I could provide more to shared expenses.
'However recently I proposed splitting bills by %. So for example, if we combine incomes and his makes up 80 per cent he covers 80 per cent of expenses and I cover 20 per cent. He said this would be unfair because he busted his butt to get his high salary over many years and why should he be punished for making more?
'He says he made sacrifices to save and get to this income level (even before we were together), and he and also doesn’t think it’s fair he should have to contribute more than me because I made my choices to go to grad school and I would be earning more if I didn’t.
'He stands to inherit millions while I will inherit nothing so I want to save more for my own financial security and peace of mind. I have decent savings (no debt) but still feel this would be more fair. He says it’s all “our money” anyways, so why does it matter if it’s in his account or my account - I asked him the same thing? So Reddit what’s fair?'
Obviously, most commenters sympathize with the wife. And yet, no one asks how they would divide the family income if she has a baby and decides to stay at home. Should she be forced to go back to work? What if he refuses to pay a disproportionate share of childcare?
I have not read all the comments-- life’s too short-- but clearly defining each spouse in a marriage as a self-contained, self-involved, self-obsessed, independent and autonomous human monad leads to no good.
8 comments:
I'm hearing a faint Tammy Wynette singing D I V O R C E.
A better solution would be for her to ask - not demand - that she be gifted a certain amount to be put into her retirement fund.
That's assuming that the money she used for graduate school wasn't taken from him.
In any case, a properly set-up retirement account for her should be maxed-out, particularly if her employer matches contributions. She should take charge of her own retirement, perhaps asking for her husband's advice (men do like that).
After taxes, a well-planned IRA shouldn't reduce her take-home pay very much.
Before making a judgement on either of them, I'd suggest they talk to a financial planner - either separately or together, and look at:
- Current expenses - can she cut down on HER purchases to enable her to save more?
- Joint expenses - can they agree to pay independently for expenses that only ONE of them benefits from (I'm thinking she is trying to get him to cover more of her spending)
- Insurance/estate planning - does he have responsibilities from a previous marriage who would get part of his estate? He (AND she) should both take out insurance that would replace their income for an extended period of time, in the event of an early death. They need to sit down and discuss just what will be available for the living spouse in the event of death, and come to agreement on that.
Linda Fox has good common-sense suggestions. I will also say, "Why are they even married?"
This is not a marriage. It is a roommate situation. Where is the 'caring?'
This is not a marriage. It is a roommate situation. Where is the 'caring?'
In my book, marriage is an institution that was created for the purpose of having children. If a couple can't do that, for example because they are lesbian, or homosexual, or too old, then the woman should not be conferred with the title "Mrs." Leftists try to argue that marriage is a civil contract. But it's not. It's purely a sacred agreement between two qualified people. The State has no right to define marriage, or to regulate who may or may not get married. In England, people no longer say "husband" and "wife". That's a Marxist attempt to strip marriage of its moral significance. According to the British government, "Partners" are people who share the financial responsibility of running a home. Married couples aren't motivated by such things as "love" and "parenting" because that would fall outside the domain of the State. So "shared financial interest is the next best thing."
Above all, the government does not want parents to instill particular values into the children. That's why "diversity" is the primary value. But the term means nothing. To believe in diversity is to say that you believe in everything. So even loveless marriages which are financial arrangements for couples who aren't going to bear and raise their own children qualify as a legal contract. Marriage is now a political term.
To fix the problem, Marriage is a term which should be restricted to young married couples who are starting a family. Not lesbians, or old people. And it must be seen as a sacred contract which may not be legislated by the State. And also, it must be for only a man and a woman, because of the obvious fact that children need both a Mom and a Dad. And they also need the extended family connections of cousins, uncles, aunts, and nieces and nephews. A real family has dozens of members.
Marriage is a general partnership. Each partner is not only equivalent to the other, but non distiguishable. So you damn well better be all in, and think only in terms of the partnership.
“ We both earn good salaries” If this is true, then she’d still be suffering if they both earned the same, because her desires would exceed their ability to pay.
She’s not complaining she’s impoverished by equality, she’s complaining she isn’t being kept up to the life style she fantasizes.
Middle class dinks not good enough for her—cry me a river.
Let her divorce her husband and marry a poor man. We’ll see how she feels about sharing then.
Post a Comment