Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, figure out the difference between two SINGLE people in a relationship, and two people as part of a couple.
Two single people, both working, are responsible for their food, their housing (including utilities) their own vehicles and insurance....also any child care they might need--since both are working. Child care costs can easily be a few thousand dollars a year.
Two people in a couple SAVE by living in the same house...splitting that cost...but will still have to pay out for all those other expenses. If one of the two stay HOME...there is no need to continue to pay out for a second vehicle, or for childcare. So if the lesser paid person isn't making much more than the cost of those expenses, it makes no sense for the lower paid person to work.
Maybe one person could go out and get a second job? I've worked two jobs many times in my life...even when I was single.
So naturally you can see how annoying it is to be single and taxed higher because tax breaks were given to people who needed them less?
I'm just pointing out the squeeze put on middle class folks to support caviar habits of wealthy ambition. It's as if commerce and govt colluded silently in an arrangement that benefited only them, but ultimately is destructive to our society. We work harder, longer hours, less benefits, and who is winning here?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKramar
She gets every penny I earn. Of course, that mainly goes towards paying the necessary bills...but it also pays for her car insurance and gas.
I'm not bashing stay at home moms. Each life has it's place. Just pointing out how vulnerable that leaves your family to live that way. Ultimately we all pay the price for our choices with our very lives. I can only say whats right for me, not anyone else. I'm glad you two are happy and respectful of one another as individual contributors to the whole. The divorce statistics of failure are what needs attention, not people who are happy.
blessings to you and yours.
The only problem with matriarchal societies is that they tend to collapse from intertia. This is a historical fact -- unless one believes that the evolution of human society has been in reverse.
The existing examples are in extremely isolated, remote and primitive parts of the world, like Kerala, of South India, Bolama in Guinea-Bissau, and the remote Mosuo areas of Sichuan, China.
"We can see from the article which Syed Zubair Ahmed wrote about the Khasi in New York Times February 18, 1994 "What do men want" that the matriliny continues among this 800,000 strong people. According to the article, a men's right organization was founded. It says that women are overbearing and dominating. Men complain: "We are sick of playing the roles of breeding bulls and baby-sitters." "We have no lines of succession. We have no land, no business." The husband of the youngest daughter moves into the family house. Women say that they prefer to marry outsiders because their own tribesmen tend to be irresponsible in family matters. A Khasi child takes the surname of the mother."We Khasis tend to underestimate the contributions of our fathers to the family. Our fathers do a lot, but the credit goes to the mothers.""
So naturally you can see how annoying it is to be single and taxed higher because tax breaks were given to people who needed them less?
I'm just pointing out the squeeze put on middle class folks to support caviar habits of wealthy ambition. It's as if commerce and govt colluded silently in an arrangement that benefited only them, but ultimately is destructive to our society. We work harder, longer hours, less benefits, and who is winning here?
I'm single, but I'm the sole income provider for my girlfriend and I. Do you have any idea how nice it would be to be permitted to take her exemption on my taxes? But I can't...we're not married. Matter of fact, we never will be. But the married person SHOULD get that extra exemption and lower taxes so SHE can stay home, especially if there are kids.
Similar situation with gays or common law type marriages from other religions beyond christendom scope- definately favoritism going on, but beefing about tax structures is about 500 threads all unto itself. The more they try to legislate the worse the unintended consequences- on that subject I tend to agree with libertarians. Whole proffessions are built around avoiding taxes, and whole proffessions are built around creating new taxes. It's nutty to join that merry circle.
Your situation, like many other folks- why should the govt be imposing its definition of what a union is/isn't when that can really only be decided by the two parties involved? What was traditional isn't working for lots of people anymore. Why? Reality.
I do blame women more than men for the situation. Yes, real wages are stagnant...but the feminists have tried everything to "equalize" men and women...attempting to remove a housewife's right to social security, etc. Feminists have done all they could to ensure that women MUST work; they see themselves as liberators of the housewife. What they didn't think of is that if the wife is working, then who will be the 'wife' to the family? And what of the women who don't view marriage and staying home as a 'prison'?
I grew up in a dysfunctional household where both parents worked. Over all I was happier when neither of them was around. I could do schoolwork, fix parts of the amusement park my stepfather owned (I was a skilled mechanic when I was 10), run around in the woods, hunt rats at the dump and otherwise amuse myself. When they were around my mother was being abused and my stepfather was a very confusing and violent drunk. Life was easier when they were not around.
Many years, and one shooting war and several employers, later, I still prefer, along with the company of my wife, to spend time alone.
Any woman contemplating children should be able to afford to raise them by herself. Our current economy and most of the men of this generation are not reliable enough to be trusted to be a sole supporter of a woman and her children.
And who would be the decision maker to decide if a man is reliable enough? Isn't that up to the woman to determine if a man would make a suitable husband?
A father and mother should both be present to lessen the financial burden and provide a suitable upbringing. Not everyone makes a great parent...but I find that most people turn out to be decent ones.
"We can see from the article which Syed Zubair Ahmed wrote about the Khasi in New York Times February 18, 1994 "What do men want" that the matriliny continues among this 800,000 strong people. According to the article, a men's right organization was founded. It says that women are overbearing and dominating. Men complain: "We are sick of playing the roles of breeding bulls and baby-sitters." "We have no lines of succession. We have no land, no business." The husband of the youngest daughter moves into the family house. Women say that they prefer to marry outsiders because their own tribesmen tend to be irresponsible in family matters. A Khasi child takes the surname of the mother."We Khasis tend to underestimate the contributions of our fathers to the family. Our fathers do a lot, but the credit goes to the mothers.""
Does this sound familiar to you in any way?
It sounds like America, circa 2025.
And if Gloria Steinem is still alive, she will say that women are opprressed.
We are wanting to start a family, but we have to be able to do it with only 1 salary, because I do not want a day care worker to see my child more than I do. It really is a shame, I know that there are women who really just want to have careers and that is fine for them, they should be able to go for it, but for women such as myself, that's not my goal, I want to be able to have a child and be there to raise it.
I think that the financial neccesity of a 2 working parent household has really done damage to our society, latchkey kids that feel they know it all because they have sort of had to raise themselves and parents that feel guilty for working so much they try to buy their kids affections with gadgets and toys.
As a woman who left the workforce over 10 years ago in order to stay home to care for my family, I understand and agree 100%.
Yes, LLL, I agree with many things in that thread, but it was just so damned weird that it was all the womans fault, when this IS a patriarchal society (meaning men do run things, so as leaders, can't blame others as much who aren't controlling the world).
Women were blamed for divorce rates, with neglecting children, with competing for HIS job, global warming, all of these things. BUT- if you look at all these statistics lined up perfectly on a timeline from 50's, things really started going wrong when CEO salaries trended above the average worker in the company at a steady significant disproportional rate. CEO's started out at 20% higher, today salary variations are 500% or better. There's your 2 for the price of 1 complaint, and look who got the money difference?
SO, the real villains are those vested in killing middle class wages & as secondary byproduct- the american families, not women. Yet women get blamed for the whole world being f*cked up. Remarkable mindset people have to justify misery.
This is also in part to a response of LLL in the previous posting to this reply as well.
For starters, I wouldn't blame this on women, in fact I'm not sure it was or wasn't some intended thing. However in WWII when Rosie the riveter was in the factoring making the tools of war that Bob the soldier was going to use, it set in motion a series of unintended consequences that may or may not have later been noticed and taken advantage of.
Upon returning from war, men entered back to work and took back their jobs and wages were such that a single income could finance an entire household. I think it should also be noted that during this time there were far fewer "trappings" and extra's that needed to be paid for. There were generally smaller homes, one car per family, no cell phones, no cable bills, etc... A television was considered a large luxury expense.
At this same time women began to question their role more and more and both sexes slowly began to see the benefits that one could accrue if both were to work. Slowly as time went on, more and more women entered the work force, in fact faster than wages could increase. They often took jobs in offices and were at the forefront of what I would consider the "office revolution" where America's paperwork began to grow exponentially to keep up with its production of "things".
The surplus labor pool that entered during the very late 50's and picked up speed during the 60'a and 70's simply kept the need for higher wages at bay. The long term result of this was that by the late 70's and through the 80's, the majority of American households ended up with both husband and wife working and household luxuries exploded. Remember the term, DINK- dual income, no children? After several decades of this, it dawned on people that a household more often that not, now needed both to work in order to maintain the lifestyle that Americans had become accustomed to. Now it seems almost a necessity for survival that both spouses work in order to just get by and make it.
What I think started out with the best of intentions and the empowerment of women, ended up being taken advantage of by our finely tuned economic system that by its very nature is intended to maximize profits in any way possible. Corporations used the large labor pool to its best advantage in order to keep shareholder profits up by keeping labor costs down.
I'm not even taking into account all the social and family aspects of their evolution as I am not sure how accurately it could be quantified but one thing is certain, the American family isn't the same family of yesteryear.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
