patrick.net

Dan8267 says

I think you were implying that people who work long hours do so because they are less productive. In my observations this is never the case. The people who work long hours are always the most productive people. There are people who work to live and people who live to work. It's a personal value judgement which is better and only each individual can make that tradeoff for himself or herself.

You know, I don't really know anyone that works 90 hours a week. I know people who work 60 though and don't accomplish any more than I do at 40 but they think that being "butt in chair" they will be more favorable to their boss. This is the behavior that I want to change and I think it will solve the time poverty problem that women in the workforce have. I don't disagree with your experience though, it's just that I don't really have any way to validate it and to me, it doesn't seem that common (and i do work in STEM).

jessica says

Doesn't a pre-nup solve all your problems though? Or even a post-nup?

If only they were iron-clad. Many get thrown out for ridiculous reasons. But they are a good start. Ideally income though could be viewed as separate throughout marriage with one partner benefiting from the other making more money as long as the marriage lasts. Once it's over, the time spent on having/raising children is covered via child support, so why alimony? I would add alimony with removing no-fault marriage, so that the party initiating the divorce will either have to pay alimony (if making more) or forfeit alimony pay (if making less) - unless there's proven domestic abuse, incessant cheating or other rare exceptions. No-fault divorce took out the skin in the game and that never works (gets abused).

jessica says

Comments

The reality of the matter is that men were by law responsible for the actions, including crimes, spending and debts, of their wives, BUT men had no lawful means of keeping their wives from disobeying their instruction or general wishes. Likewise, women had the right to upkeep by their men, but there was no law that said that women had to reciprocate. Hence women owning men.

Those Wikipedia articles contain lots of dishonest and inaccurate characterizations of what really happened throughout history. But one thing Wikipedia got right: The Married Women's Property Act of 1872 (England)

"The Married Women's Property Act 1870 (33 & 34 Vict. c.93) was an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom that allowed married women to be the legal owners of the money they earned and to inherit property."

That's right. A wife did not have to contribute her wages to the upkeep of her husband. It is the old day version of "what is his is ours and what is mine is mine" (as spoken by a wife). So much for equality.

Persons interested in what was really going on in the 1800s should read some Ernest Belfort Bax. Here is an article/chapter about various aspects of marital rights.

https://ernestbelfortbax.com/2014/01/25/3-matrimonial-privileges-of-women/

Heh, that old book already contains the phrase “All yours is mine, and all mine’s my own.”

jessica says

Women couldn't have credit cards until 1974.

There you go with your lies again.

https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/487lo5/til_that_before_1974_women_couldnt_legally_have_a/d0hrxir/
What really happened was that banks would deny or approve credit cards based on the creditworthiness of the applicant. If a woman was not credit-worthy, she would not get a card, unless perhaps she could get another creditworthy person (cough, the husband, cough) to cosign and be on the hook for any unpaid debt she, the woman, incurred.

Look, jessica, you are just another propagandist parroting the lies spread by feminists, and by women's studies departments at universities, all over the country and the world. There is no substance to most of the claims you make. I doubt you are genuinely interested in truth, but if you are, get skeptical and get educated.

Dan8267 says

There is absolutely nothing about capitalism, the control by owners over production and the distribution of revenue from production, that has even a tenuous relationship with economic productivity or the wealth of most individuals in a society. People who think capitalism is the mechanism responsible for prosperity simply do not know what capitalism is. Capitalism is NOT commerce, banking, currency, the creation of corporations or other economic units, payment for services render, trade, investment, enterprise, innovation, or free markets. Absolutely none of those terms have anything to do with capitalism. Hell, free markets and capitalism are mutually exclusive.

Capitalism is one and only one thing: control by owners over production and the distribution of revenue from production. This is a very specific mechanism. It is not a mechanism necessary for any of those other things I mentioned, not even investment. And it is not a mechanism that maximizes productivity, wealth ...

Dan,

Do you believe in evolution?

Who do you believe own the goods in North Korea? How about the capital goods (goods that can produce consumer goods) in North Korea? "The people" or the dictatorship? Goods are always owned; those who decide on how to utilize capital goods are the real owners of the capital goods.

Since capital goods have many alternative uses . . . do you think individual private owners competing with each for best returns would result in more efficient use of the limited supply of capital goods, or do you think bureaucratic managers making those resource allocation decisions on behalf of a mute "The People" would do better? How about bureaucrats consolidated into a party-state as those bureaucratic monopolies always eventuate?

If you believe in evolution, why do you think economic lives (enterprises) should be designed by committees instead of by individualized owners in charge of discrete chunks of limited resources and competing against each other?

Shut up piggy. Capitalism isn't like evolution. And capitalism is a centralized system, dumb ass. It concentrates power in the hands of the few. Capitalism also eliminates competition.

Furthermore, communism isn't the only alternative to capitalism. Those two economic systems are virtually identical to each other.

Now go back to fucking goats, piggy.

"Communism" is only a euphemism for Monarchy. Nothing more than that. Marx simply substituted "divine right of king" with "dictatorship of the proletariat," which means a tyrant dictator ruling in the name of the "proletariat" too dumb to realize what's going on or too cowered to speak up.

What Marx called "Capitalism" was actually a relatively free market place (much less centralized than today's "Western Democracies"), where/when people (in the 19th century) had sound money and exercised much more control over their own lives than most of us do today.

What we have today is similar to plantation slavery back then: free education, free food (EBT cards), free medicine, free housing, etc. etc. for the slaves, all at the discretion of slave masters running the plantation via a plantation scrip that the plantation owner could devalue at will. "Free" means you don't get to decide priorities (by deciding where to put your own money) but your slave masters do. Out of the 10 planks in Karl Marx' Communist Manifesto of 1848, 8 of them are already implemented in today's western society.

jessica says

You've just described how it's equal. If both parties agree that one person should stay home, then they should be compensated via alimony. Consider it severance pay.

Here's an idea: Give the kids to the father and get yourself out in the workforce / education system after a divorce. Then when you get laid off you'll find there is a huge diff between severance pay and alimony / palimony.

jessica says

Women couldn't have credit cards until 1974.

And now look at the consumer debt problem we have. Almost every single woman I know needs to go to credit card rehab, but won't admit it to themselves.

jessica says

If he gained his success after they were married, then I think it's reasonable to assume that she did support him in many tangible ways

No. That's just a stupid assumption. She could have been a horrible bitch to him for years and he may have become successful nonetheless. This is not rare.

anonymous says

There is a solution to the problem: co-parenting with with men who can afford to pay for multiple children, instead of marriage,

That sounds a lot like how things work in a Muslim country under Sharia law. Is your head exploding from the incoherency of your views, "anonymous"?

anonymous says

There is a solution to the problem: co-parenting with with men who can afford to pay for multiple children, instead of marriage,

That sounds a lot like how things work in a Muslim country under Sharia law. Is your head exploding from the incoherency of your views, "anonymous"?