Anne Romney Hasn't Worked A Day in Her Life

[Ronja]

Damn this could have been an interesting thread to take part in. But I won't. Too much Coito: before I started to type this, 74 of 210 posts in this thread were by CES. More than every 3rd post... that starts to feel creepy and obsessive to me, and that is a major turn-off.

IMO, when a general thread (as opposed to a "news about my life" type of thread, which has every right to be centered on one or only a few members' posts) has more than 20 % posts by just one member, it's no more a discussion. To me, discussion implies listening, attempting to take in the other person's viewpoint = empathizing and not dominating the scene.

I'm really sorry. My apologies to hades and kiki, especially, but I don't want to even try with threads like this. You two are better and more courageous human beings than I am.

[kiki5711]

Damn this could have been an interesting thread to take part in. But I won't. Too much Coito: before I started to type this, 74 of 210 posts in this thread were by CES. More than every 3rd post... that starts to feel creepy and obsessive to me, and that is a major turn-off.

IMO, when a general thread (as opposed to a "news about my life" type of thread, which has every right to be centered on one or only a few members' posts) has more than 20 % posts by just one member, it's no more a discussion. To me, discussion implies listening, attempting to take in the other person's viewpoint = empathizing and not dominating the scene.

I'm really sorry. My apologies to hades and kiki, especially, but I don't want to even try with threads like this. You two are better and more courageous human beings than I am.

Ronja, I'm getting pretty sick of it too. Especially talking to a man about raising kids and having to work from a working mother's point of view.
Coito seems to throw some left/right shift government stuff into it and it has no bearing on the real subject.

I expect he'll be the first one to reply to this thred now.

good night!

[Coito ergo sum]

Damn this could have been an interesting thread to take part in. But I won't. Too much Coito: before I started to type this, 74 of 210 posts in this thread were by CES. More than every 3rd post... that starts to feel creepy and obsessive to me, and that is a major turn-off.

Why don't you fuck off? You want a turn-off? Look in the mirror.

I started this thread, so screw you.

I'm really sorry. My apologies to hades and kiki, especially, but I don't want to even try with threads like this. You two are better and more courageous human beings than I am.

That's not saying much, as you're not much of a human being at all.

[Coito ergo sum]

Damn this could have been an interesting thread to take part in. But I won't. Too much Coito: before I started to type this, 74 of 210 posts in this thread were by CES. More than every 3rd post... that starts to feel creepy and obsessive to me, and that is a major turn-off.

IMO, when a general thread (as opposed to a "news about my life" type of thread, which has every right to be centered on one or only a few members' posts) has more than 20 % posts by just one member, it's no more a discussion. To me, discussion implies listening, attempting to take in the other person's viewpoint = empathizing and not dominating the scene.

I'm really sorry. My apologies to hades and kiki, especially, but I don't want to even try with threads like this. You two are better and more courageous human beings than I am.

Ronja, I'm getting pretty sick of it too. Especially talking to a man about raising kids and having to work from a working mother's point of view.
Coito seems to throw some left/right shift government stuff into it and it has no bearing on the real subject.

I expect he'll be the first one to reply to this thred now.

good night!

I'm a working father, and your sexism is showing. "talking to a man about raising kids and having to work..." -- join the fucking club.

If you don't like this thread, go to another.

[kiki5711]

BINGO! I win!!

[hadespussercats]

By that logic, anyone married to someone of means is "getting paid."

Well. Not precisely.

Let's reverse the sex roles in a hypothetical scenario-- you and your wife have twins. Before they were born, you both had jobs outside the home. But they take a lot of time and attention, and for various reasons you've discussed between the two of you, you decide they shouldn't go into daycare when they're so small (maybe they were born a little early, being twins... whatever. You get the idea.)

For various reasons, you guys decide that trying to breastfeed two little twins is more trouble than it's worth, so you decide to bottle-feed. This frees your wife to go back to work, full-time. Maybe she's been offered a promotion she'd like to take. You decide between the two of you that you will stay home with the twins until they're in school.

You need new shoes. Who pays for them? You need to pay for your share of the family's lodgings (rent, mortgage, whatever)-- your wife pays for all of it. You want a new laptop. Your wife pays for it.

Is this all just generosity on your wife's part towards you? Some, maybe, but not all, right? You're taking care of important, labor-intensive, time-intensive work your family must have. Aren't you getting paid for your time?

And if not, shouldn't you be?

[Warren Dew]

Damn this could have been an interesting thread to take part in. But I won't. Too much Coito: before I started to type this, 74 of 210 posts in this thread were by CES. More than every 3rd post... that starts to feel creepy and obsessive to me, and that is a major turn-off.

Why don't you fuck off? You want a turn-off? Look in the mirror.

I started this thread, so screw you.

I'm really sorry. My apologies to hades and kiki, especially, but I don't want to even try with threads like this. You two are better and more courageous human beings than I am.

That's not saying much, as you're not much of a human being at all.

Relax, Coito. Take it as a compliment that Ronja isn't "courageous enough", as she put it, to post in your thread. It just means you post challenging threads.

[Warren Dew]

By that logic, anyone married to someone of means is "getting paid."

Well. Not precisely.

Let's reverse the sex roles in a hypothetical scenario-- you and your wife have twins. Before they were born, you both had jobs outside the home. But they take a lot of time and attention, and for various reasons you've discussed between the two of you, you decide they shouldn't go into daycare when they're so small (maybe they were born a little early, being twins... whatever. You get the idea.)

For various reasons, you guys decide that trying to breastfeed two little twins is more trouble than it's worth, so you decide to bottle-feed. This frees your wife to go back to work, full-time. Maybe she's been offered a promotion she'd like to take. You decide between the two of you that you will stay home with the twins until they're in school.

You need new shoes. Who pays for them? You need to pay for your share of the family's lodgings (rent, mortgage, whatever)-- your wife pays for all of it. You want a new laptop. Your wife pays for it.

Is this all just generosity on your wife's part towards you? Some, maybe, but not all, right? You're taking care of important, labor-intensive, time-intensive work your family must have. Aren't you getting paid for your time?

And if not, shouldn't you be?

I think nonworking spouses are generally contributing even if the couple doesn't have kids - cooking meals, doing most of the shopping, doing more to take care of the household, etc. It's not as much work as taking care of five boys, I'm sure - I can't even imagine how much work that would be - but very few people are just out partying on their spouse's dime all day.

[Coito ergo sum]

By that logic, anyone married to someone of means is "getting paid."

Well. Not precisely.

Let's reverse the sex roles in a hypothetical scenario-- you and your wife have twins. Before they were born, you both had jobs outside the home. But they take a lot of time and attention, and for various reasons you've discussed between the two of you, you decide they shouldn't go into daycare when they're so small (maybe they were born a little early, being twins... whatever. You get the idea.)

For various reasons, you guys decide that trying to breastfeed two little twins is more trouble than it's worth, so you decide to bottle-feed. This frees your wife to go back to work, full-time. Maybe she's been offered a promotion she'd like to take. You decide between the two of you that you will stay home with the twins until they're in school.

You need new shoes. Who pays for them? You need to pay for your share of the family's lodgings (rent, mortgage, whatever)-- your wife pays for all of it. You want a new laptop. Your wife pays for it.

Is this all just generosity on your wife's part towards you? Some, maybe, but not all, right? You're taking care of important, labor-intensive, time-intensive work your family must have. Aren't you getting paid for your time?

No.

Surely, in your example, my wife isn't doing "nothing" when she comes home. Maybe she helps with the dishes, cooks the occasional meal, does some work around the house to "pitch in" even though I am the main homemaker. We get in some fights here and there, because she's not "helping out" enough at home, from time to time -- that sort of thing. Yet, we don't deduct any "pay" from what I get, because she's pitching in on the house and child care. There is no hourly pay assigned to these homelife tasks. It's a division of labor around the home. In our case, in the example you gave, we chose to have twins, and we opted for one of us to not be gainfully employed.

The basic gist of it is -- there are no hours being clocked. All that is being done is what we choose to do with our lives.

And if not, shouldn't you be?

"Should" is a tricky word sometimes. Should or shouldn't I be paid for my time in doing the things I choose to do. Cleaning the house. Cooking. Doing the laundry. Changing diapers. Etc.

Well, if my wife and I were of a mind to doing that, I don't think there is anything wrong with it. I.e., if my wife and I agreed that we'd assign an hourly rate for my work, and I'd give weekly progress reports to her to make sure I'm not goldbricking, and that sort of thing, and then she'd pay me, and that's the money I have to work with, I guess there is nothing "wrong" with that.

That being said, to make a legal requirement of it is really ludicrous. One, in a marriage, when one person works and earns money, that money is legally BOTH of theirs. If my wife and I filed for divorce, anything accumulated or earned during the marriage would be as much mine as hers. Just because my wife brings home the bacon doesn't mean I can't legally spend it without her permission. The idea of a spouse paying another spouse implies that the spouse who earns the wages in the outside work has a greater right to that money than the stay at home spouse, and the stay at home spouse is only being allocated some of it based on some agreed upon metric. That isn't the case. In my view, when two people are married, if one works and makes $100,000 and the other makes $100,000 the two of them have $200,000. If one makes $100,000 and the other makes $50,000, then they both have $150,000. If one makes $100,000 and the other makes $0, then they both have $100,000. They divvy up the house work and child care as they see fit, as they arrange between themselves.

Lastly, I assumed you meant that I should be paid by my wife, which I obviously disagree with. If there is someone else that you're suggestion should pay the wages, I'll address that to.

[Tyrannical]

Why pick on Anne Romney when........

I remember this episode of wife swap (wife watches it, not me!) where the husband was some well-off wall street type with a wife, three kids, and three nannies! They had a nanny for the children morning, noon, and night so the parents didn't have to do any of the work. The wife didn't work either, but she did spend four or five hours at the gym exercising everyday.

[Coito ergo sum]

Why pick on Anne Romney when........

I remember this episode of wife swap (wife watches it, not me!) where the husband was some well-off wall street type with a wife, three kids, and three nannies! They had a nanny for the children morning, noon, and night so the parents didn't have to do any of the work. The wife didn't work either, but she did spend four or five hours at the gym exercising everyday.

Well, if I'm working and bringing home the bacon, and paying for nannies, and the wife just stays home and enjoys herself, she better damn well be in that gym....

[hadespussercats]

By that logic, anyone married to someone of means is "getting paid."

Well. Not precisely.

Let's reverse the sex roles in a hypothetical scenario-- you and your wife have twins. Before they were born, you both had jobs outside the home. But they take a lot of time and attention, and for various reasons you've discussed between the two of you, you decide they shouldn't go into daycare when they're so small (maybe they were born a little early, being twins... whatever. You get the idea.)

For various reasons, you guys decide that trying to breastfeed two little twins is more trouble than it's worth, so you decide to bottle-feed. This frees your wife to go back to work, full-time. Maybe she's been offered a promotion she'd like to take. You decide between the two of you that you will stay home with the twins until they're in school.

You need new shoes. Who pays for them? You need to pay for your share of the family's lodgings (rent, mortgage, whatever)-- your wife pays for all of it. You want a new laptop. Your wife pays for it.

Is this all just generosity on your wife's part towards you? Some, maybe, but not all, right? You're taking care of important, labor-intensive, time-intensive work your family must have. Aren't you getting paid for your time?

No.

Surely, in your example, my wife isn't doing "nothing" when she comes home. Maybe she helps with the dishes, cooks the occasional meal, does some work around the house to "pitch in" even though I am the main homemaker. We get in some fights here and there, because she's not "helping out" enough at home, from time to time -- that sort of thing. Yet, we don't deduct any "pay" from what I get, because she's pitching in on the house and child care. There is no hourly pay assigned to these homelife tasks. It's a division of labor around the home. In our case, in the example you gave, we chose to have twins, and we opted for one of us to not be gainfully employed.

The basic gist of it is -- there are no hours being clocked. All that is being done is what we choose to do with our lives.

And if not, shouldn't you be?

"Should" is a tricky word sometimes. Should or shouldn't I be paid for my time in doing the things I choose to do. Cleaning the house. Cooking. Doing the laundry. Changing diapers. Etc.

Well, if my wife and I were of a mind to doing that, I don't think there is anything wrong with it. I.e., if my wife and I agreed that we'd assign an hourly rate for my work, and I'd give weekly progress reports to her to make sure I'm not goldbricking, and that sort of thing, and then she'd pay me, and that's the money I have to work with, I guess there is nothing "wrong" with that.

That being said, to make a legal requirement of it is really ludicrous. One, in a marriage, when one person works and earns money, that money is legally BOTH of theirs. If my wife and I filed for divorce, anything accumulated or earned during the marriage would be as much mine as hers. Just because my wife brings home the bacon doesn't mean I can't legally spend it without her permission. The idea of a spouse paying another spouse implies that the spouse who earns the wages in the outside work has a greater right to that money than the stay at home spouse, and the stay at home spouse is only being allocated some of it based on some agreed upon metric. That isn't the case. In my view, when two people are married, if one works and makes $100,000 and the other makes $100,000 the two of them have $200,000. If one makes $100,000 and the other makes $50,000, then they both have $150,000. If one makes $100,000 and the other makes $0, then they both have $100,000. They divvy up the house work and child care as they see fit, as they arrange between themselves.

Lastly, I assumed you meant that I should be paid by my wife, which I obviously disagree with. If there is someone else that you're suggestion should pay the wages, I'll address that to.

I wan't saying anything at all about what your wife does or doesn't do when she comes home. Sure, people take care of their homes and families when they're not at an out-of-the-home job. I'm talking about the 8+ hours a day you are on duty while she's out.

As for legal requirements, what do you think alimony is?

Within a marriage, do you think one partner should have to ask another if it's okay to buy something? what determines who does the asking, and who gives permission (this is inside a marriage-- I'm not talking about legalities here.)

Are new shoes different from a house? And if your wife keeps an account in her name only, in which she puts all her earnings, you may have legal right to that money, but how do you get it, without having to ask for it (or getting a lawyer?) Should you have to ask her if you can get new shoes for you and the kids? (for example?) Isn't that degrading?

Why do you think conventional legal marriage makes the partners an economic unit?

[Pappa]

Damn this could have been an interesting thread to take part in. But I won't. Too much Coito: before I started to type this, 74 of 210 posts in this thread were by CES. More than every 3rd post... that starts to feel creepy and obsessive to me, and that is a major turn-off.

Why don't you fuck off? You want a turn-off? Look in the mirror.

I started this thread, so screw you.

I'm really sorry. My apologies to hades and kiki, especially, but I don't want to even try with threads like this. You two are better and more courageous human beings than I am.

That's not saying much, as you're not much of a human being at all.

Coito, you were reminded about our personal attack rule and to play nice on 9th March, you were part of a general reminder on March 11th, you were warned regarding personal attacks and not playing nice on 19th April, you were part of a general reminder on 23rd April and you were reminded about personal attacks on 1st May. Your post quoted above is in breach of our play nice rule. If you continue your account will be temporarily suspended for a duration to be decided by the staff.

[Coito ergo sum]

Damn this could have been an interesting thread to take part in. But I won't. Too much Coito: before I started to type this, 74 of 210 posts in this thread were by CES. More than every 3rd post... that starts to feel creepy and obsessive to me, and that is a major turn-off.

Why don't you fuck off? You want a turn-off? Look in the mirror.

I started this thread, so screw you.

I'm really sorry. My apologies to hades and kiki, especially, but I don't want to even try with threads like this. You two are better and more courageous human beings than I am.

That's not saying much, as you're not much of a human being at all.

Coito, you were reminded about our personal attack rule and to play nice on 9th March, you were part of a general reminder on March 11th, you were warned regarding personal attacks and not playing nice on 19th April, you were part of a general reminder on 23rd April and you were reminded about personal attacks on 1st May. Your post quoted above is in breach of our play nice rule. If you continue your account will be temporarily suspended for a duration to be decided by the staff.

Really? My response to Ronja was characteristically worse than her unprovoked personal attack on me? Why would a moderator (isn't Ronja a moderator) attack a member? If I was breaking the rules, she could warn me or suspend me, or point out a rule to me. But, her outburst toward me, and it isn't the first at all, was uncalled for.

I would like Ronja warned or cautioned as well, please.

[Hermit]

Lemme see: Remarking that posting 74 of 210 posts in this thread starts to feel like creepy and obsessive behaviour to Ronja, and is a major turn-off to her, constitutes an unprovoked personal attack?