OT: How much baggage will you accept?

[CA renter]

[quote=Blogstar]I tried the monetarization idea on very hard. For example the making of my kids
Halloween suit and taking him out to a party until 9 while my wonderful, but exhausted from her weeks work , wife went home to care for and catch up with the other two boys and relax. She also did not monetarize the time she spent with blogstar jr’s 1&2 which is a big help for both of us.

My conclusion it that FOR ME, monetarization CHEAPENS everything that has to do with the personal growth , emotional and physical support for my family.

If I started charging my wife for lovemaking I think the best parts would disappear and that would really be hard to live with.

And if by chance, I get kicked to the curb in a vulnerable state of unemployment I can deal with that, my future is not in dire jeopardy .[/quote]

Again, it’s not about what you do personally, nor is it about one job (wage earner vs unpaid labor) being more important than the other. The relative values would be different for every family, and it would fluctuate over time even within those individual families.

The point I’m trying to make is that we value different kinds of labor based on a patriarchal system of values where the value of caregiving and other types of “women’s work” have been intentionally undervalued because of the imbalance of power (and the desire of those in power to keep it that way).

If we had to imagine an economic system that was not market based, but based on the value of one’s contributions to society, things would look very different. Wall Street financiers and other middlemen would be paid very little, while people doing hard labor, nurses, doctors, caregivers, teachers, and scientists would be some of the wealthiest people. Without “women’s work” (childbearing, child rearing, cleaning, shopping, meal preparation, etc.) nobody would be here today; we would all be extinct. And even if one were to suggest that scientists, doctors, etc. were the most important people in the world (which I would largely agree with), it is usually women who give birth to them, raise them, develop their character, and educate them — at least through childhood. Is this really worth nothing to society?

This is what I’m talking about:

“A revaluation of women’s work will thoroughly challenge the present conventions. If women’s work is accurately reflected in national statistics, it will shatter the myth that men are the main breadwinners of the world. Areas where women in most of the world are presently treated as economic non-entities – property rights, terms of divorce settlements, collateral requirements for bank credit – will be completely changed. It will provide information about women’s contributions to society, which will establish their entitlement to human, legal, welfare, economic, civil and social rights. Valuing unwaged work will raise the value of all work, including waged work. And will, according to the Beijing Platform for Action,”…contribute to a better sharing of responsibilities” between the genders.

The case for counting unwaged work was bolstered by the release of the 1995 U.N. Human Development Report. It estimated that unwaged and underwaged work is worth $16 trillion internationally. Over two-thirds of this, or $11 trillion, is the non-monetized, invisible contribution of women. The report clearly linked the devaluation of women’s work to women’s poverty and lowered status in all regions of the world.”

http://www.feminist.com/resources/artspeech/work/value.htm

———–

This is the kind of feminism that I can relate to; not BG’s kind of feminism that insists that we all conform to the patriarchal system that will always leave women in a more vulnerable position.

[CA renter]

Some other links to explore:

Do we undervalue the economic and social contributions of women who do “women’s work”?

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/calculating-the-true-value-of-womans-work-2009-12-08

Why the value of “women’s work” needs to be reevaluated:

Unpaid and Undervalued Care Work Keeps Women on the Brink

A comparison of the economic impacts of caregiving in Poland and Italy:

http://ftp.iza.org/dp5771.pdf

[NotCranky]

I am not jumping back in the ring on this one CaRenter.

I’d like to know why Brian or other approximately 40 yo men should or shouldn’t include divorcees in the women considered available for marriage.

What do you think?

[scaredyclassic]

[quote=Blogstar]I am not jumping back in the ring on this one CaRenter.

I’d like to know why Brian or other approximately 40 yo men should or shouldn’t include divorcees in the women considered available for marriage.

What do you think?[/quote]

By age 40 things are different. You are an old dog. Placement is trickier.

[scaredyclassic]

[quote=CA renter]Some other links to explore:

Do we undervalue the economic and social contributions of women who do “women’s work”?

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/calculating-the-true-value-of-womans-work-2009-12-08

Why the value of “women’s work” needs to be reevaluated:

Unpaid and Undervalued Care Work Keeps Women on the Brink

A comparison of the economic impacts of caregiving in Poland and Italy:

http://ftp.iza.org/dp5771.pdf%5B/quote%5D

2nd link talks about caregiver tax credits. Maybe it is a good idea. Why is the working world so great. What the hell are we doing but ruining the earth. He’ll give families a 10k a year tax credit to hang out with their own dawn kids

[CA renter]

You don’t need to jump back into the ring…there is no ring. We should be able to discuss these issues without making personal attacks. It’s not a fight, but a desire to find out more about something we know relatively little about. Even the “experts” who study this are in the early stages of their research.

READ THE LINKS, even if you never want to discuss it here, just for self-education.

————-

As for divorcees…I think that a person who doesn’t want (any more) children should seriously consider divorced mates. If the divorcee’s kids are nearly grown, even better, as they both can indulge in DINK-style pursuits, and they would be less likely to have to deal much with former spouses; though men tend to do better with this than women.

Divorced people also tend to have far more realistic expectations of their mates, since the “fairy tale” nonsense should have worn off by then.

OTOH, if a man wants to have biological or adopted children of his own — and wouldn’t be satisfied with helping to raise step-children — and if he doesn’t have a previous marriage and/or children under his belt, I think it’s best if like marries like. No steps, no former spouses, no finances intertwined with other people, and every experience can be a new experience for both members of the couple, if that matters to them.

Just my 2 cents.

[NotCranky]

Not the best metaphor “the ring”

Thanks for the suggestion on reading the links. I read a few and am done. My response will not add to the discussion.

[scaredyclassic]

[quote=CA renter]You don’t need to jump back into the ring…there is no ring. We should be able to discuss these issues without making personal attacks. It’s not a fight, but a desire to find out more about something we know relatively little about. Even the “experts” who study this are in the early stages of their research.

READ THE LINKS, even if you never want to discuss it here, just for self-education.

————-

As for divorcees…I think that a person who doesn’t want (any more) children should seriously consider divorced mates. If the divorcee’s kids are nearly grown, even better, as they both can indulge in DINK-style pursuits, and they would be less likely to have to deal much with former spouses; though men tend to do better with this than women.

Divorced people also tend to have far more realistic expectations of their mates, since the “fairy tale” nonsense should have worn off by then.

OTOH, if a man wants to have biological or adopted children of his own — and wouldn’t be satisfied with helping to raise step-children — and if he doesn’t have a previous marriage and/or children under his belt, I think it’s best if like marries like. No steps, no former spouses, no finances intertwined with other people, and every experience can be a new experience for both members of the couple, if that matters to them.

Just my 2 cents.[/quote]

I have a woman friend who married a widower dude with someolder teenagers and she kinda forced them out and sucks up all his attention.

I hate that.

divorced dudes should never put some new woman way before their kids.

[CA renter]

[quote=scaredyclassic]

I have a woman friend who married a widower dude with someolder teenagers and she kinda forced them out and sucks up all his attention.

I hate that.

divorced dudes should never put some new woman way before their kids.[/quote]

I’ve seen a lot of that, more than one would ever imagine. And it goes for both sexes, too. I’ve seen divorcees who started living as though they were 21 again, much to the detriment of their kids.

As we’ve both noted, kids really do suffer, often greatly, as a result of their parents’ divorce.

[CA renter]

I’ve always thought it was odd that we should want to push caregivers into the paid workforce when we already have a saturated labor market and everyone is struggling to find a job; and even if they find one, they still struggle to make ends meet because of the high supply of labor/low wages. Makes no sense at all.

Don’t think we need caregiver tax credits, but the contributions of caregivers, and the sacrifices they make WRT permanently impaired income earning potential, not to mention loss of consortium (compensatory damages?) for older women, should definitely be taken into consideration in legal matters.

[FlyerInHi]

47. I meant no one whose parents are divorced (as scaredy suggested). No low-class family because of the drama associated. No step kids wanted, also because of the drama with new extended relatives.

Divorcee is OK if an heiress. That will make becoming a house-husband easier, with imputed income and such.

Otherwise, I don’t mind someone 20 years my junior. Should be well brought-up know to play the piano. Maybe the daughter of a tiger mom.

Or the advice of “if you’re not married, stay unmarried” works too.

[zk]

[quote=FlyerInHi]47. I meant no one whose parents are divorced (as scaredy suggested). No low-class family because of the drama associated. No step kids wanted, also because of the drama with new extended relatives.

Divorcee is OK if an heiress. That will make becoming a house-husband easier, with imputed income and such.

Otherwise, I don’t mind someone 20 years my junior. Should be well brought-up know to play the piano. Maybe the daughter of a tiger mom.

Or the advice of “if you’re not married, stay unmarried” works too.[/quote]

Fascinating. You must really consider yourself quite a catch, Brian. I don’t mean that sarcastically or as a put down. You very much could be quite a catch. I don’t know. Or maybe you’re kidding about heiress or 20 years younger.

Your thought process is so vastly different from mine that I frequently can’t figure out where you’re coming from. There’s another thread right now about the Myers-Briggs personality test. I’d be fascinated to know what your personality type is.

http://www.16personalities.com/free-personality-test

[CDMA ENG]

[quote=scaredyclassic][quote=CDMA ENG]Right now…

I am listening to some beautiful Gaberial Era Genesis… Feeling the nice ocean breeze through my home…

And laughing at you guys for wasting such precious time on incredibly long and unwinnable debates…

I suggest you laugh at yourselves… Drink some nice wine and listen to something beautiful of you own choice…

We will all be dead soon enough and to waste time trying to convince one another of each other view point is worthless…

CE

As the human torch says “Flame on!”[/quote]

wasting time? this is the whole point of living!

Dialectic (also dialectics and the dialectical method) is a method of argument for resolving disagreement that has been central to European and Indian philosophy since antiquity. The word dialectic originated in ancient Greece, and was made popular by Plato in the Socratic dialogues. The dialectical method is discourse between two or more people holding different points of view about a subject, who wish to establish the truth of the matter guided by reasoned arguments.[1]

The term dialectics is not synonymous with the term debate. While in theory debaters are not necessarily emotionally invested in their point of view, in practice debaters frequently display an emotional commitment that may cloud rational judgement. Debates are won through a combination of persuading the opponent; proving one’s argument correct; or proving the opponent’s argument incorrect. Debates do not necessarily require promptly identifying a clear winner or loser; however clear winners are frequently determined by either a judge, jury, or by group consensus. The term dialectics is also not synonymous with the term rhetoric, a method or art of discourse that seeks to persuade, inform, or motivate an audience.[2] Concepts, like “logos” or rational appeal, “pathos” or emotional appeal, and “ethos” or ethical appeal, are intentionally used by rhetoricians to persuade an audience.[3]

The Sophists taught aretē (Greek: ἀρετή, quality, excellence) as the highest value, and the determinant of one’s actions in life. The Sophists taught artistic quality in oratory (motivation via speech) as a manner of demonstrating one’s aretē. Oratory was taught as an art form, used to please and to influence other people via excellent speech; nonetheless, the Sophists taught the pupil to seek aretē in all endeavours, not solely in oratory.[citation needed]

Socrates favoured truth as the highest value, proposing that it could be discovered through reason and logic in discussion: ergo, dialectic. Socrates valued rationality (appealing to logic, not emotion) as the proper means for persuasion, the discovery of truth, and the determinant for one’s actions. To Socrates, truth, not aretē, was the greater good, and each person should, above all else, seek truth to guide one’s life. Therefore, Socrates opposed the Sophists and their teaching of rhetoric as art and as emotional oratory requiring neither logic nor proof.[4] Different forms of dialectical reasoning have emerged throughout history from the Indosphere (Greater India) and the West (Europe). These forms include the Socratic method, Hindu, Buddhist, Medieval, Hegelian dialectics,[/quote]

Best entry yet in this thread…

+1

CE

[FlyerInHi]

Kidding, but mostly serious.

I’m thinking rationally here.
I’ve seen my friends and colleagues marry below them and the results are not pretty. I’m sure they’re fine, but looking in from my vantage point, I don’t see the upside. They are not getting richer despite the spouses’ imputed incomes.

I don’t want a divorcee who can’t make kids, is set in her ways, and is bossy. But if I work as a house-husband with income to go along, then I’m willing to please my “employer” and earn my salary. If the “employer” can’t pay, then she’s useless to me.

I can offer someone 20 years my junior a fairly good lifestyle. And as CAr said, she can offer her youth and beauty in exchange. Fair trade.

Pretty much all my peers have gone the way of Val Kilmer. I’m still the Tom Cruise. So, yeah, I think I’m a catch.

The Myers-Briggs test doesn’t really apply to me. I’m kinda extroverted (I will talk and make friends with all my neighbors), I make decisions quickly, but that doesn’t mean I’m impatient and rash (e.g. never get upset with restaurant service). I actually have supreme patience and I’ve practiced being very calm and zen. One can change to be what one wants to be.

My real personality is closer to INTP, I think. But I can adjust pretty easily. That’s why I believe I’d do well with the daughter of a tiger mom. A strong person who can deal with the realities of the world.

[CA renter]

[quote=FlyerInHi]Kidding, but mostly serious.

I’m thinking rationally here.
I’ve seen my friends and colleagues marry below them and the results are not pretty. I’m sure they’re fine, but looking in from my vantage point, I don’t see the upside. They are not getting richer despite the spouses’ imputed incomes.

I don’t want a divorcee who can’t make kids, is set in her ways, and is bossy. But if I work as a house-husband with income to go along, then I’m willing to please my “employer” and earn my salary. If the “employer” can’t pay, then she’s useless to me.

I can offer someone 20 years my junior a fairly good lifestyle. And as CAr said, she can offer her youth and beauty in exchange. Fair trade.

Pretty much all my peers have gone the way of Val Kilmer. I’m still the Tom Cruise. So, yeah, I think I’m a catch.

The Myers-Briggs test doesn’t really apply to me. I’m kinda extroverted (I will talk and make friends with all my neighbors), I make decisions quickly, but that doesn’t mean I’m impatient and rash (e.g. never get upset with restaurant service). I actually have supreme patience and I’ve practiced being very calm and zen. One can change to be what one wants to be.

My real personality is closer to INTP, I think. But I can adjust pretty easily. That’s why I believe I’d do well with the daughter of a tiger mom. A strong person who can deal with the realities of the world.[/quote]

If you want to be a househusband, then you have to give something in return…like children, your youth, beauty, and you have to do lots of housework! You’re too old to give them your youth and beauty, and unless you’re a hermaphrodite (with a complete set of female reproductive organs), you probably don’t have a uterus. And doing housework and all of the related domestic chores for just two people (no kids) doesn’t really justify having a SAH spouse. Sorry, brian. 😉

[Author]

Posts