"Paid" Stay At Home Moms?
- Thread starter SadAndTired
- Start date
Janibel
New member
Interesting article. I have mixed feelings about this issue. On the one hand it's good that "housewifery" is recognized as a true profession and those who take it seriously enough to set high standards are financially rewarded.
The more old-fashioned me still feels this is and should be a labor of love ...
As usual only the very rich need to be concerned as this does not apply to most of us out there.
Perhaps it represents a more honest approach to marriage - which is nowadays, reduced to a business transaction.
The more old-fashioned me still feels this is and should be a labor of love ...
As usual only the very rich need to be concerned as this does not apply to most of us out there.
Perhaps it represents a more honest approach to marriage - which is nowadays, reduced to a business transaction.
LovingFather32
New member
I Didn't read the full article but I assume they mean stay at home parent.
I did read the article, and the way that these people (they're all upper-class women, no SAHDs) are paid for their work strikes me as demeaning. If two people have kids, one of them is in the paid workforce and the other is staying home full-time with children, I have no problem with the idea that the SAH should be salaried out of the money earned by the spouse in the workforce. Pay the SAH a wage over and above the moneys used to run the household, for his/her exclusive use, and invest some of it into RRSPs and other assets, just like you would do with an outside-the-home job. I think this would bring a degree of economic equality and realism into marriages, not to mention making things a heck of a lot easier to figure out should the marriage end.
But this article was all about women receiving "wife bonuses" from their wealthy husbands - payments at the husbands' discretion based on how well the husbands deem that the wives carried out their homemaking and child-rearing functions. If they do anything other than be the perfect housewife, they don't get the bonus. That just creates far too much hierarchy and puts the husband in the driver's seat, in what should be an equal partnership. Not to mention that these women are S-C-R-E-W-E-D if the marriage ends. It's not truly valuing the unpaid work that SAHs do, it's putting them into a situation of dependence on the whims of their spouses. Yech.
But this article was all about women receiving "wife bonuses" from their wealthy husbands - payments at the husbands' discretion based on how well the husbands deem that the wives carried out their homemaking and child-rearing functions. If they do anything other than be the perfect housewife, they don't get the bonus. That just creates far too much hierarchy and puts the husband in the driver's seat, in what should be an equal partnership. Not to mention that these women are S-C-R-E-W-E-D if the marriage ends. It's not truly valuing the unpaid work that SAHs do, it's putting them into a situation of dependence on the whims of their spouses. Yech.
You realize SS means nobody gets more screwed due to marriage and divorce. That is EXACTLY the point of SS.
I don't think marriage must be an equal partnership though. It depends on each relationship. I believe people should have the freedom to negotiate the relationships they have with others from conception to termination.
I might marry a super rich woman if she pays for my expenses with the condition that she chooses where we live and I have no say what she spends on for example... nothing wrong with that.
The real problem is that there family law policy that all marriages are by principle 50/50 which they aren't.
I don't think marriage must be an equal partnership though. It depends on each relationship. I believe people should have the freedom to negotiate the relationships they have with others from conception to termination.
I might marry a super rich woman if she pays for my expenses with the condition that she chooses where we live and I have no say what she spends on for example... nothing wrong with that.
The real problem is that there family law policy that all marriages are by principle 50/50 which they aren't.