[quote]angry chicken wrote:
That’s some feminist BULLSHIT cool-aide you’ve been drinking, brother…[/quote]
No, it’s basic economics, like 101 level.
Take your issues up with the likes of Sowell.
[quote]Pearsy92 wrote:
It is not the hardest or most valuable of work[/quote]
lmao…
Yeah, just curious, how many kids have you raised as a stay at home parent? How many houses have you kept?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Pearsy92 wrote:
It is not the hardest or most valuable of work[/quote]
lmao…
Yeah, just curious, how many kids have you raised as a stay at home parent? How many houses have you kept?[/quote]
My mother worked a full time job and took care of three kids. She never tried to imply her 8 hour a day job plus raising kids was in any way as valuable or hard as my dads working very long hours in a factory. You cite Thomas Sowell, he has great things to say about the free market, I highly doubt he would support the Government artificially inflating a woman’s labour value in a marriage for essentially carrying out the same labour as a maid, who last time I looked get paid very very modest wages.
I just wanted to say I like your posts on here Countingbeans and I agree with a lot of what you say but I am really struggling to understand your position on this one, especially because your overall posts about economics and the like are very good and seem at odds with this one issue here.
I am totally open for convincing on this and if you can give me a good justification for why the government should be able to come in and regulate something like a divorce and render an artificial non voluntary separation payment of half, despite market factors for the same role the wife played being a tiny fraction of a payout of half on the free market.
[quote]Pearsy92 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Pearsy92 wrote:
It is not the hardest or most valuable of work[/quote]
lmao…
Yeah, just curious, how many kids have you raised as a stay at home parent? How many houses have you kept?[/quote]
My mother worked a full time job and took care of three kids. She never tried to imply her 8 hour a day job plus raising kids was in any way as valuable or hard as my dads working very long hours in a factory.[/quote]
So your answer is zero then?
Okay…
full stop.
Actually read some shit he has written, because I basically quoted him word for word and got called a bullshit feminist.
Where the fuck did I say a single word about government, regulation or any other strawman you are building here? Where? Where in my response specific to a stay at home spouse did I evoke this bullshit you are trying to spin?
lmao…
Because I understand basic fucking economics means you’re having trouble connecting the dots?
The less resources one spouse has to spend at home or on the kids, the more resources they can spend on their career. If the second spouse invests in the home, that second spouse is in turn freeing up the resources of the first spouse to increase their earnings, by taking care of the shit that has to get done at home. Both spouses contribute to the family by way of basic division of labor and take advantage of competitive advantages.
[quote] I am totally open for convincing on this and if you can give me a good justification for why the government should be able to come in and regulate something like a divorce and render an artificial non voluntary separation payment of half, despite market factors for the same role the wife played being a tiny fraction of a payout of half on the free market.
[/quote]
Again, you’re problem is this strawman you’ve constructed “government” where I said not a damn thing about them.
[quote]Pearsy92 wrote:
My mother worked a full time job and took care of three kids. She never tried to imply her 8 hour a day job plus raising kids was in any way as valuable or hard as my dads working very long hours in a factory.
[/quote]
Who took care of the kids in the 9-10 hours that your mother was away from the house five days a week?
Response to counting beans.
First of all I responded to you with nothing but respect and without insulting you. You have chosen to respond by being quite disrespectful and rude and claim the reason I don’t agree with you is because I don’t understand economics.
You asked me how many houses i had kept I told you the personal story of my upbringing where my mother worked and raised kids, you replied with a short reply basically saying, so you have kept none.
Your words:
“just curious, how many kids have you raised as a stay at home parent? How many houses have you kept?”
This reply is an emotionalist argument, not one based on sound economic theory, the value of someones labour is not measured by how hard it is, it is measured by the the value that labour accrues. Being a coal miner is doggedly hard, does this mean they should earn as much as an NBA star? No because their labour does not produce as much profit for the employer, so the wage is less.
Your words again:
“Again, you’re problem is this strawman you’ve constructed “government” where I said not a damn thing about them.”
When a court finds a house wife entitled to half of the husbands wealth, the government is artificially raising the value of the house wives labour. Take Kobe Bryant. His fortune was an estimated 150 million, his wife of 10 years and mother of his two children was given 75 million in assets.
The value she put into a marriage was that of 10 years of domestic work, having children is not a job it is a function of humanity. So 10 years as a house wife (lets pretend she did any cooking and cleaning) is around 10 years of minimum to low wage work.
However that is not the point, she wasn’t a maid, she had no job, she married a successful guy and the idea of a free market is you can choose to work for what someone is willing to pay you, you can choose to employ who you want based on how much the want and the economic viability of paying them what they want.
A free market perspective would not be to say, you voluntarily got married and didn’t work and now when you are getting divorced, you can argue that your non work in a marriage where there was no agreed work, wage or employee or employer is deserving of some arbitrary wage because of its deemed subjective value by the courts.
No one is entitled to anything but their rights, their rights not to be infringed and whatever they work for and earn. Arguing a woman who is getting divorced is entitled to anything is simply against the free market notions of well, freedom.
It might be nice to give her some money to get back other feet, it might be nice to help her out financially if you can, but that should have no legal force, charity is a voluntary thing, forced charity is not charity it is strong arm robbery.
[quote]kpsnap wrote:
[quote]Pearsy92 wrote:
My mother worked a full time job and took care of three kids. She never tried to imply her 8 hour a day job plus raising kids was in any way as valuable or hard as my dads working very long hours in a factory.
[/quote]
Who took care of the kids in the 9-10 hours that your mother was away from the house five days a week?
[/quote]
When I was first born my mother was obviously on maternity leave, she then went back part time until I was a few years old. After that she went back to work full time as an accountant for a building firm. My dad worked very long hours at a factory and so I would be at school clubs, I would be at grandparents, I would be at aunts and uncles, or after school child minders with other kids.
My mum was a great person and her parents instilled in her a sense of pride in being independent and not having to rely on anyone to be able to provide for yourself or your kids. She did not see being a mother to her kids as a job, or deserving of money, she saw it as the natural and right thing to do, to have kids, to love them and to raise them, without feeling entitled to compensation for it.
Any woman who feels it is ok to set the example to their kids that they shouldn’t have to go out and work after a divorce but rather should rely on other is a terrible role model in my opinion. I think this sort of stuff is part of the new generation of entitled and lazy youth who feel like the world owes them a living. I also think the current whore epidemic is a direct result. Find a man, fuck him for a certain number of years, never work again. The Chinese watch Keeping up with the Kardashians and say
Sroon they will be too lethargic to fright bwack 
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
That’s some feminist BULLSHIT cool-aide you’ve been drinking, brother…[/quote]
No, it’s basic economics, like 101 level.
Take your issues up with the likes of Sowell. [/quote]
Basic economics? Hardly. Look, I’ve never questioned you on a financial issue, but allow this time to be the first.
What “VALUE” does a stay at home wife provide?
Sex once a week? That’s $600 a month.
Cleaning/laundry? That’s $400 a month.
Cooking/meal prep? That’s $800 a month.
So the BEST CASE scenario with a wife that fucks you, cleans the house and cooks all your meals is only an $1800 a month value add. That’s only $21,600 a year… And that’s ASSUMING that she actually DOES these things. There are plenty of entitled bitches that don’t.
On WHAT PLANET is that worth HALF? If I make 280K a year and I separate from my (imaginary) wife, I’d have to pay her about 4K a month in alimony and give her half my shit, but SHE doesn’t have to give me pussy, clean the house or cook anymore…
How the FUCK is THAT basic economics 101? There’s nothing “basic” or “economical” about it! That’s EXTORTION 101 if you ask me…
Stop drinking the feminist cool-aide, bro. I get it that you’re pro marriage, pro family and all that. I respect you as the outstanding individual that you are - and I’m not blowing smoke, I truly mean that. You’ve got a lot to be proud of and a lot to be thankful for. But you’ve got rose colored glasses when it comes to a few issues and this is one of them.
^^
I have to agree with angry chicken on this one. Although his costings are pretty high. With judicious use of obedience training a girlfriend/wife can be conditioned to perform these tasks on cue. And don’t call me sexist for saying that. Women are masters at obedience training themselves. Women tend to use the relationship and model-rival methods whereas men use the dominance and Koehler methods.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
^^
I have to agree with angry chicken on this one. Although his costings are pretty high. With judicious use of obedience training a girlfriend/wife can be conditioned to perform these tasks on cue. And don’t call me sexist for saying that. Women are masters at obedience training themselves. Women tend to use the relationship and model-rival methods whereas men use the dominance and Koehler methods.
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_training[/quote]
As the late and great Patrice O’neal used to say, a happy man is a happy woman, a happy woman is a miserable man. Now obviously this is a joke but it encapsulates a very real dynamic in relationships.
I have found most women are happiest when you take the reigns. The more power you give a woman the more unhappy she becomes.
You see it in guys who are indecisive, who play the I don’t know where do you want to go out game and the shared decisions on everything guys. Their girlfriends are never happy and they are always moaning. Those same guys become decisive and proactive in taking charge of a relationship and those same women become content.
When I left high school I dated a very liberal woman a few years older than me, I fell into the habit of being too understanding and too indecisive and she was constantly moaning and constantly bitching. I hit a point I started saying we are doing this today or going here and when she moaned would say fine move on and with a few weeks she was the happiest I had ever seen her.
I think for the most part, not always but usually, women just want you to be a man and be their man. I also understand I am liable to be graded a foaming at the mouth misogynist for saying that.
[quote]Pearsy92 wrote:
As the late and great Patrice O’neal used to say, a happy man is a happy woman, a happy woman is a miserable man.
I have found most women are happiest when you take the reigns. The more power you give a woman the more unhappy she becomes.
[/quote]
I agree to some extent. But the dominance method of obedience training is only really relevant in relation to competition for scarce resources - eg, being an Alpha Male is going to get you the hottest women but trying to be overly dominant in a relationship can foster resentment.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Pearsy92 wrote:
As the late and great Patrice O’neal used to say, a happy man is a happy woman, a happy woman is a miserable man.
I have found most women are happiest when you take the reigns. The more power you give a woman the more unhappy she becomes.
[/quote]
I agree to some extent. But the dominance method of obedience training is only really relevant in relation to competition for scarce resources - eg, being an Alpha Male is going to get you the hottest women but trying to be overly dominant in a relationship can foster resentment.
[/quote]
It isn’t dominance or control, it is just being a man, it does not mean being over bearing or being macho or unaffectionate it just means easing a relationship between equal but different partners.
Have you ever known a wife who calls the shots in a marriage or relationship who was happy? I can honestly say I have not.
Sigh
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Basic economics? Hardly. Look, I’ve never questioned you on a financial issue, but allow this time to be the first.
What “VALUE” does a stay at home wife provide?
Sex once a week? That’s $600 a month.
Cleaning/laundry? That’s $400 a month.
Cooking/meal prep? That’s $800 a month.
So the BEST CASE scenario with a wife that fucks you, cleans the house and cooks all your meals is only an $1800 a month value add. That’s only $21,600 a year… [/quote]
You’re completely shorting yourself by thinking economic value = $. Economics is about more than simply measuring in dollars. It is much broader, and includes looking at human behavior.
The value a stay at home spouse provides:
- They keep a home, not a place to live, not a house, not a flat, but a home
- They raise children, not a daycare provider, and they perform the functions that these children need, that would otherwise take the working spouse away from their ability to earn more money for the family.
- The provide the opportunity to use a division of labor
- They take advantage (when the woman stays home) of competitive advantage. The man doesn’t need maternity leave, nor does he need the flex time to cover pre & post birth necessitates for doctors etc. A man’s earning potential isn’t interrupted by children, where a woman’s is, due to the biological fact they carry the baby. So therefor the uninterrupted service the man has can lead to higher earning potential than a woman who will have gaps in her career due to leave, and the need for flex time.
These are hard to put a single dollar value on, and really don’t need to have one placed on it. The advantages of a two parent house hold are plainly obvious in any statistical evidence produced anywhere around the world that looks into the correlation between single parent households and the fact they product criminals.
Yes, your bias against women and you’re criteria for their value being based on how often they have sex with a man is well documented.
Nothing I’m talking about here, however, is based on sexual activity.
In what post on the topic did I say it was? In fact I didn’t. I didn’t build the strawman, you and the other dude are.
Again, argue with Sowell. He’s the one that enlightened me to the situation, quite impressively I might add.
You might want to drop this line here, considering it was the feminist movement, coupled with financial need, that ENDED the traditional role of a stay at home spouse.
Look, we get it, you don’t particularly like women if they aren’t fucking you. But you’re really not speaking about feminism at all here. Because again, it was the feminist that said “women shouldn’t be stay at home mom’s”.
The feeling is mutual.
[quote]Pearsy92 wrote:
Your words:
“just curious, how many kids have you raised as a stay at home parent? How many houses have you kept?”
This reply is an emotionalist argument,[/quote]
No. In fact it is a question. It isn’t an argument at all.
It is also cute, and quite convenient you are ignoring the very specific portion of your post I cut out and asked the question about. You’re doing this so you can (continue to) build your strawman, and knock that shit right down.
You haven’t even began to address my point, but rather points I didn’t make at all.
Again, quote me, in my original response to your drivel where I said a single word about value. Please god, show me where I spoke a single word about value.
If you want me to be civil then stop building strawmen and actually address what I say. It’s frustrating and I’m working too many hours to be calm about it.
[quote]Your words again:
“Again, you’re problem is this strawman you’ve constructed “government” where I said not a damn thing about them.”
When a court finds[/quote]
So… I point out your strawman, and what do you do? Continue to knock it the fuck down.
Please show me where I said anything about courts. Please.
[quote] a house wife entitled to half of the husbands wealth, the government is artificially raising the value of the house wives labour. Take Kobe Bryant. His fortune was an estimated 150 million, his wife of 10 years and mother of his two children was given 75 million in assets.
The value she put into a marriage was that of 10 years of domestic work,[/quote]
lol, not even remotely close to addressing the points I made. Feel free to continue to piss away bandwidth.
Says the person who’s raised zero kids. lmao.
Again, you are ignoring basic economics here and making some convoluted appeal to the free market. Until you actually address what I said, and you won’t because you’ll have to admit I was right, there is zero chance of this conversation actually moving into the territory you keep trying to bring it with straw man.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Pearsy92 wrote:
Your words:
“just curious, how many kids have you raised as a stay at home parent? How many houses have you kept?”
This reply is an emotionalist argument,[/quote]
No. In fact it is a question. It isn’t an argument at all.
It is also cute, and quite convenient you are ignoring the very specific portion of your post I cut out and asked the question about. You’re doing this so you can (continue to) build your strawman, and knock that shit right down.
You haven’t even began to address my point, but rather points I didn’t make at all.
Again, quote me, in my original response to your drivel where I said a single word about value. Please god, show me where I spoke a single word about value.
If you want me to be civil then stop building strawmen and actually address what I say. It’s frustrating and I’m working too many hours to be calm about it.
[quote]Your words again:
“Again, you’re problem is this strawman you’ve constructed “government” where I said not a damn thing about them.”
When a court finds[/quote]
So… I point out your strawman, and what do you do? Continue to knock it the fuck down.
Please show me where I said anything about courts. Please.
[quote] a house wife entitled to half of the husbands wealth, the government is artificially raising the value of the house wives labour. Take Kobe Bryant. His fortune was an estimated 150 million, his wife of 10 years and mother of his two children was given 75 million in assets.
The value she put into a marriage was that of 10 years of domestic work,[/quote]
lol, not even remotely close to addressing the points I made. Feel free to continue to piss away bandwidth.
Says the person who’s raised zero kids. lmao.
Again, you are ignoring basic economics here and making some convoluted appeal to the free market. Until you actually address what I said, and you won’t because you’ll have to admit I was right, there is zero chance of this conversation actually moving into the territory you keep trying to bring it with straw man. [/quote]
Seeing as you flat out refuse to take on board any points from anyone on this and open posts by starting with SIGH, it is pretty obvious you have no desire to have an open discussion on the issue but rather to just attack anyone who disagrees.
I will just address your points on Thomas Sowell, who I very much admire.
Here is what Thomas Sowell says about it:
[quote] Wives, for example, typically invest in the family by restricting their own workforce participation, if only long enough to take care of small children. Studies show such differences still persisting in this liberated age, and even among women and men with postgraduate degrees from Harvard and Yale.
In the absence of marriage laws, a husband could dump his wife at will and she could lose decades of investment in their relationship. Marriage laws seek to recoup some of that investment for her through alimony when divorce occurs.
Those who think of women and men in the abstract consider it right that ex-husbands should be as entitled to alimony as ex-wives. But what are these ex-husbands being compensated for?
And why should any of this experience apply to same-sex unions, where there are not the same inherent asymmetries nor the same tendency to produce children? [/quote]
While this might be anathema to libertarians who would like to see private sector marriage contracts not state mandated regulations on two consenting adults being married, Thomas Sowell here is not supporting the currently existing laws or the scope of them.
He argues for a recoup of lost labour, the current laws allow former waitresses wife of movie stars to get 50% of his estate for a decade of marriage. How exactly was a waitress going to make millions? The current divorce laws are disgusting and reprehensible and their legitimacy is about the same as the legitimacy of prohibition in the eyes of the public.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Pearsy92 wrote:
if I spent 20 years building a multi million dollar company and my wife was a house wife or worked a part time job just because she wanted to work, the notion I should just give her half of everything I built and " lick my wounds" is madness.
[/quote]
I stopped here, and will read on after this. But you are out of your god damn mind here. It is beyond fucking ludicrous to envision the imaginary tale that your stay at home spouse wasn’t invested in your career. She certainly was.
Unless we are talking about a trophy wife that did nothing but sit by the pool and fuck the cabana boy all day, this is insane. If she is taking care of your home (cooking, cleaning, kids, shopping, cloths, etc) she is investing in your career, period. [/quote]
Now, this ^ is what you wrote, Beans. Short and sweet. You replied to a post about men being forced to give a housewife HALF. You replied implying that said housewife DOES indeed invest in a man’s career by maintaining the home, etc… You then state “period”, again implying that HER work is just as important as a MAN’S work, by which we can infer (based on the implication of what you wrote in the context of a woman getting HALF) that she therefore somehow DESERVES half, and since no man in his right mind would ever GIVE a woman half, we can only assume (based on what you inferred) that you support a court of law taking half a man’s shit and giving it to a woman.
Now when we reply to you making these assumptions, you start crying “STRAWMAN”… “please tell me where I wrote that”… Etc…
Seems a bit disingenuous to me, bro…
And if I wanted to cry “strawman”, I’d point out that in my examples, I never once mentioned anything about kids, parenting, etc… Yet when you replied to me, several of your examples had to do with children and child rearing. Again, that’s YOU building a strawman…
Take kids out of the equation for a minute (we can put them back in later). Is a stay at home WIFE worth HALF?
If a wealthy man who can afford to pay for a maid, a chef and a butler marries a hot young thing and spoils her, if she want’s to get divorced after a few years, SHOULD SHE GET HALF?
Cuz THAT shit happens, bro…
She hasn’t invested SHIT into his career. She has basically served only to meet his sexual / companionship needs and hasn’t contributed to anything else. Do you HONESTLY think that’s worth half? If his net worth is 10MM, should she REALLY get FIVE MILLION DOLLARS cuz she fucked him a few times a week?
C’mon, bro…
[quote]Pearsy92 wrote:
Seeing as you flat out refuse to take on board any points from anyone on this and open posts by starting with SIGH, it is pretty obvious you have no desire to have an open discussion on the issue but rather to just attack anyone who disagrees.
[/quote]
Not even remotely close to the truth, but feel free to convince yourself of this nonsense.
I am just waiting for someone to either refute my assertion that a stay at home spouse invests in the working spouses career, or agree to it. Then, and only then will I address the rest of the points you all keep trying to race to ignoring this basic fact.
Not a single one of your or AC’s posts have even began to address my assertion on its face, but rather a whole bunch of shit that comes after we establish if that assertion is true or not.
Stop assuming shit about me or my position. Address my point.
And then, you completely fail to do so… Awesome
[quote] who I very much admire.
Here is what Thomas Sowell says about it:
Holy shit, you mean… I wasn’t lying? Wow.
[quote][quote]if only long enough to take care of small children. Studies show such differences still persisting in this liberated age, and even among women and men with postgraduate degrees from Harvard and Yale.
In the absence of marriage laws, a husband could dump his wife at will and she could lose decades of investment in their relationship. Marriage laws seek to recoup some of that investment for her through alimony when divorce occurs.
Those who think of women and men in the abstract consider it right that ex-husbands should be as entitled to alimony as ex-wives. But what are these ex-husbands being compensated for?
And why should any of this experience apply to same-sex unions, where there are not the same inherent asymmetries nor the same tendency to produce children? [/quote]
While this might be anathema to libertarians who would like to see private sector marriage contracts not state mandated regulations on two consenting adults being married, Thomas Sowell here is not supporting the currently existing laws or the scope of them.[/quote]
Again, I’m not talking about laws (however I will when you fucking address my original assertion at some point in the future before I die of old age.)
[quote] He argues for a recoup of lost labour, the current laws allow former waitresses wife of movie stars to get 50% of his estate for a decade of marriage. How exactly was a waitress going to make millions? The current divorce laws are disgusting and reprehensible and their legitimacy is about the same as the legitimacy of prohibition in the eyes of the public.
[/quote]
Jesus. You say you’re going to address my point, and don’t. You continue to address things I haven’t even said.
Awesome.
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Now, this ^ is what you wrote, Beans. Short and sweet. You replied to a post about men being forced to give a housewife HALF. You replied implying that said housewife DOES indeed invest in a man’s career by maintaining the home, etc… You then state “period”, again implying that HER work is just as important as a MAN’S work, by which we can infer (based on the implication of what you wrote in the context of a woman getting HALF) that she therefore somehow DESERVES half, and since no man in his right mind would ever GIVE a woman half, we can only assume (based on what you inferred) that you support a court of law taking half a man’s shit and giving it to a woman.[/quote]
Fine. Fair enough. There was no implication intended I support “half”.
My assertion remains the same.
[quote]Now when we reply to you making these assumptions, you start crying “STRAWMAN”… “please tell me where I wrote that”… Etc…
Seems a bit disingenuous to me, bro…[/quote]
No disingenuous, I was replying to a lot more than a single word in the post. And this was not done intentionally. Maybe I should have been more clear.
My assertion still stands.
No, not at all. It is me clearly outlining the cases in which an investment is made.
I’m not using the kids to refute anything you said, I’m using the children as a clear example of when an investment is made.
I’m not trying to use the kids to say your wrong. I’m outlining my position on the matter, and the consistent inclusion of the children is on purpose. That purpose isn’t to try and knock down your argument.
Once we agree that basic economic theory is correct, and a stay at home spouse is in fact investing in the career of the working spouse, you’ll likely find I tend to agree with a lot more of your statements in this thread.
Fine, but we’re no longer addressing the same thing as before.
[quote] Is a stay at home WIFE worth HALF?
If a wealthy man who can afford to pay for a maid, a chef and a butler marries a hot young thing and spoils her, if she want’s to get divorced after a few years, SHOULD SHE GET HALF?
Cuz THAT shit happens, bro…
She hasn’t invested SHIT into his career. [/quote]
The bolded part, which I agree with in your hypothetical based on facts given, should make my opinion on this particular situation fairly clear.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Now, this ^ is what you wrote, Beans. Short and sweet. You replied to a post about men being forced to give a housewife HALF. You replied implying that said housewife DOES indeed invest in a man’s career by maintaining the home, etc… You then state “period”, again implying that HER work is just as important as a MAN’S work, by which we can infer (based on the implication of what you wrote in the context of a woman getting HALF) that she therefore somehow DESERVES half, and since no man in his right mind would ever GIVE a woman half, we can only assume (based on what you inferred) that you support a court of law taking half a man’s shit and giving it to a woman.[/quote]
Fine. Fair enough. There was no implication intended I support “half”.
My assertion remains the same.
[quote]Now when we reply to you making these assumptions, you start crying “STRAWMAN”… “please tell me where I wrote that”… Etc…
Seems a bit disingenuous to me, bro…[/quote]
No disingenuous, I was replying to a lot more than a single word in the post. And this was not done intentionally. Maybe I should have been more clear.
My assertion still stands.
No, not at all. It is me clearly outlining the cases in which an investment is made.
I’m not using the kids to refute anything you said, I’m using the children as a clear example of when an investment is made.
I’m not trying to use the kids to say your wrong. I’m outlining my position on the matter, and the consistent inclusion of the children is on purpose. That purpose isn’t to try and knock down your argument.
Once we agree that basic economic theory is correct, and a stay at home spouse is in fact investing in the career of the working spouse, you’ll likely find I tend to agree with a lot more of your statements in this thread.
Fine, but we’re no longer addressing the same thing as before.
[quote] Is a stay at home WIFE worth HALF?
If a wealthy man who can afford to pay for a maid, a chef and a butler marries a hot young thing and spoils her, if she want’s to get divorced after a few years, SHOULD SHE GET HALF?
Cuz THAT shit happens, bro…
She hasn’t invested SHIT into his career. [/quote]
The bolded part, which I agree with in your hypothetical based on facts given, should make my opinion on this particular situation fairly clear.
[/quote]
So first you claimed you supported Sowell on the issue, who does not support a woman getting half, but rather a woman getting compensated for lost labour, commensurate to what she could earn each year she was married in a job attainable for someone with her qualifications and experience.
Now you are saying a woman should receive half in certain situations. Unless they created half they should not be entitled to it. Unless you support huge tax brackets and wealth distribution too, I don’t see what angle you are taking on this position?
Is it a religious one? Is it based on your family values?
Your position is not the same as his, your position is the exact same as the feminist position outlined in the feminist paper future child by Carbone Junior.
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
…
While relationships may not be a business deal, state-sanctioned marriage is. That’s what you get by going down to City Hall and applying for a marriage license. You’ve agreed to let the State insert itself into an eventual break-up in exchange for tax breaks, social recognition of the union, etc.
…
[/quote]
This point is spot on. As a Christian I believe that marriage is a relationship established by God. State marriage is not the same thing. In fact, at the risk of starting yet another tangent, I believe that the state should not be in the business of defining marriage in any form or fashion. If we as a people want to give tax breaks to any combination of co-inhabitants, then great. If Christians like myself want to have marriage as we believe it is defined then we should just do so outside of any government definition. We just go with the state definition because it is the cultural norm and gives us tax breaks. As I did. So yes, I am a hypocrite.
Cheers,
Needa