|
ColoRuleSoft(kinky male)
|
5 years ago •
Aug 17, 2020
5 years ago •
Aug 17, 2020
Depends on the nature of the relationship. If I were sole breadwinner, I feel I'd have to be given significant say about financial aspects of our shared life together and I would expect the person who stays at home to be busy, otherwise I would agree, I'd feel the same as the OP does. However, there has been one study that makes the argument that the value of a "stay-at-home" person can be very high (they cite $160K), since if you were to actually try to pay a person to do all the things a good homemaker does, it would very quickly become very expensive. Now, I'm not totally sure about their methodology, but I could see that. Cleaning and coupon clipping themselves can be very valuable to do. Add caring for children and then it becomes more like a job.
Maybe those latter points mean I shouldn't be given privileges, especially as my current income is significantly below that mark. However, just because you are doing the job, doesn't mean you're automatically good at it, nor that you have as much work as that study was assuming. Their big assumption, a 96 hour work week, is... maybe not the most realistic, nor would it be fair to say I only work during the 40+ hours I work in a normal week, as I obviously do stuff at home too. If we convert their per year rate to a per hour rate, we get about $32 an hour, which, I think, is probably a fairer rate to compare to. Then, yeah, if your working some 9-5 job making a nominal 64K a year and your at home partner isn't working all 8 hours that you do every day, then maybe it's fair to say that you might not be getting a fair shake.
If a person accepts that their job is to maintain a house, or indeed wants that, and is actually trying to spend their whole day do doing chores, I honestly couldn't fault them though, even if my income were significantly higher. Different people have different wants and abilities. I think honest effort with proven capability is what people should be looking for in such a relationship. Now, most people aren't going to want to be house-makers for the rest of their lives. Most people want to feel as though they are achieving things in their life that make them out to be a little more significant as a person. However, as I said, if people are happy doing it, why take that away from them?
Then again, many of the people who posted to this thread (though that may just be bias to agree with people) say that they always felt like they were being taken advantage of in these sorts of relationships. Maybe I have a rose-tinted view of things since my mother was stay-at-home and so my siblings and I benefited a lot from that, and I'm still single. My parents didn't have and still don't have a very good marriage. I can't really say why, since they both blame each other. I'd like to think that it's a case where people are not mutually recognizing or respecting what the other is doing, but I really can't say conclusively.
Lastly, the notion of a "traditional" relationship being man, breadwinner; woman, stay-at-home is probably wrong too. Yes, in 1920s or 1950s America, that might have been the ideal that people were told they should strive for, but I don't know if it's actually what happened, nor that the couples themselves wanted it. I think it's probably the best thing most regular people can do for their kids. Having a parent at home who can help them prepare for school, go to the school immediately if their kid has a problem, and who can be there when they get home to ask them about how school was. All that is valuable for building trust and helping a child have a good home life.
|