Marriage Contracts

[cwes99_03]

He would not be able to work 90 plus hours a week if there were kids at home and no wife. Thereby his fabulous income would be reduced greatly. It is the value the wife gives him which allows for the 90 hours a week.

I dont' disagree. Adversely, it is the husbands income that allows the wife to stay at home and take care of the kids and the (hopefully) beautiful home she lives in, meaning that it is an equal partnership.

What you are pointing out is the feeling of unimportance because all that they do is take care of things around home with little to no impact on the working world. This is hubris, or the lack of it that you are complaining about.

 

Yeah, I read those numbers too and found them to be light. A friend explored having a housekeeper come in once a week last summer to help out after surgery. $20 an hour.

Quite the opposite. They are inflated. I currently work with the assistance of two others and together we manage all the computers (500+) and most of the networking for a city that serves 70,000 people and some say better than any other city in Illinois.

Each of us only gets paid about $19/hour. If you can't find a housekeeper who will work 40 hours/week for $10-15/ hour then you are in trouble. It is simple work as is evidenced by the fact that billions of people around the world are capable of it. I'm not saying it isn't important, just that it is simple (which I suspect is the real underlying issue as pointed out above.)

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by cwes99_03

Not to mention on that list you have housekeeper, laundry operator, janitor, facilities manager, and household CEO which are all the same position. I'd like to be paid 5 times for doing the same job.

 

 

I do not know what you do for a living but in every job I have ever held, the above were seperate positions for the most part. There are the cases where persons are starting their own business and hold a few of the above positions themselves and its alot of work with little time for self and yet most do not succeed. As soon as possible they hire additional help (or get married) which then puts the above into seperate positions.

 

They were separate because it was a professional business that managed many different houses. You could not justify the number of positions if you only maintained one household. Thus a woman, or a man, who stays at home, cannot justify paying themselves 5 salaries for the same duty. They cannot justify 90 hours a week unless they receive no help, when help could be supplied.

 

What about the kids doing housework as well? During the first couple of years (which someone alreday pointed out above) it may be harder on the stay at home parent, but once the kids have grown up a bit, the work load greatly reduces, if you are raising your kids well.

[TheBigDog]

When you add us never-marrieds, separated and those whose spouse died very young I suspect the stay marrieds are a minority.

Divorce and "breaking up" are completely different because married and dating or living together are completely different. Having your spouse die is also not divorce. Taking the vows and living up to them is far different from knowing that the door is open, but choosing not to leave. It is called public and legal commitment, and it makes a marriage significantly different that any non binding relationship.

 

You should be proud of the relationship that you have and your personal success and happiness there in, but it falls short of promising publicly and legally commitmenting for life - ie marriage.

 

The fact that others divorce does not erode my promise and its meaning to me, my wife and my children. It only erodes it for people who are looking for an escape from responsibility.

 

Bill

[Cedars]

If you can't find a housekeeper who will work 40 hours/week for $10-15/ hour then you are in trouble. It is simple work as is evidenced by the fact that billions of people around the world are capable of it. I'm not saying it isn't important, just that it is simple (which I suspect is the real underlying issue as pointed out above.)

 

They were separate because it was a professional business that managed many different houses. You could not justify the number of positions if you only maintained one household. Thus a woman, or a man, who stays at home, cannot justify paying themselves 5 salaries for the same duty. They cannot justify 90 hours a week unless they receive no help, when help could be supplied.

 

From this website:

http://www.co.ho.md.us/OCS/ChildSrvcsChildCareCtr_InHomeCare.htm

 

Cost of In-Home Child Care

 

Nanny...

The cost of care varies greatly by what is needed by each family. A basic guideline to go by is:

Part-time averages $10.00 - 15.00 per hour

Full-time averages $350 - $500 per week

 

Au-pair...

Average cost is $260 per week (and you supply their room).

 

This is child care. They dont do windows, your laundry, entertain your guests, yard work, errands, taxes, balance the checkbook, make calls on your behalf, doctor appointments, sleep with you (well generally) etc.

 

From this website:http://www.payscale.com/salary-survey/vid-64432/fid-6886

 

A Nanny/Au Pair in Illinois makes (median) $ 24000

 

From this website: http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm

 

Maids and Housekeeping Cleaners - Median Income - $18,180

Cooks, Private Household - Median Income - $23,250

Child Care Workers - Median Income - $18,180

 

Now the above does not include all the other stuff a stay at home mom/partner does. You can look up what your idea of a wifes job encompasses to see what the average yearly worth would be. I also assume you would not hire the lowest paid person you can find to care for your children, cook your food, clean your house, you would be looking for the best you can afford, food that wont make you sick and a housekeeper that wont be pocketing stuff of value while your not looking.

 

The point is the marriage contract is finally being applied equally when you calculate all that a woman does/gives up for the household. While you are correct that this job encompasses a bunch of part time positions, you would be very stressed to find someone to come into your home for 2 hours of one job per day and 6 hours of another job, so to do that you have to pay more per hour, besides who wants 10-15 strangers a month coming into your home (if they show up as scheduled).

 

Btw, you get paid per hour even if the computers are running well, right?

[cwes99_03]

Btw, you get paid per hour even if the computers are running well, right?

Indeed. During the time that I'm not repairing somone's screw up, I am constantly at work on something else on a long list of future things (preparing new computers for deployment, preparing for technology changes within the network structure, finding new homes for old computers, etc. But I do find time on some days to visit Hypography :) .

Are you suggesting that a stay at home parent does not have time to sit down and watch tv during the day? Even if not sitting down, the still have watching tv, listening to the radio, not driving through 2 hours of wall to wall traffic to get back and forth to work.

My suggestion was a paid position that was paid for the 8 hours a day that I myself was not home to do all those things that a spouse would do during that time. Now you are stuck to $400 - $500 / week. I make more than that because the work I do is a bit more complex and there are a limited number of people with my abilities. At least that is how capitalism is supposed to work. Would you prefer some other system?

 

A stay at home parent is worth about $500/week. They have a problem with this because they think/know that they could be doing something else and get paid more or enjoy the work more.

If my (hypothetical) wife were capable of earning more money than me, then I would have no problem with staying home and taking care of my (hypothetical) children.

If, however, I was not nearly qualified to take care of said children and raise them right, but my wife was, then my wife would have to stay home to do so because we made a decision to have children and do our best to raise them.

[HydrogenBond]

One thing most people forget in the equation of household value is the affects of self interest. If someone has to care for another's child, that is work. If you have to care for your own children, instinct helps out giving more personal satisfaction. If you have to clean a neighbors house, that is work. Cleaning for yourself, so you can a nice place to call home can create personal satisfaction The satification that comes with self interests lowers the cost of doing business.

 

If one was a gigilo or call girl, having sex with a stranger is considered work that requires fair compensation. If you are with the one you love the joy of intimacy is often pay enough. Often one will do something special for the other as though it is negative work. I know women who are natural born mothers who really love children. It is more of an efford for them to be away from their chidren than to be with them. Many older mothers are like that and try to participate in their adult children's life even when their services are not required. They love that job enough to almost pay to do it with baby sitting. The prices quoted are for mercenaries and not for loving people who are able to substract, due to personal satisfaction.

[Rebiu]

Divorce and "breaking up" are completely different because married and dating or living together are completely different. Having your spouse die is also not divorce. Taking the vows and living up to them is far different from knowing that the door is open, but choosing not to leave. It is called public and legal commitment, and it makes a marriage significantly different that any non binding relationship.

Boy I'll say. It is like marriage attempts to replace integrity with legally binding commitments. Recipe for disaster.

 

You should be proud of the relationship that you have and your personal success and happiness there in, but it falls short of promising publicly and legally commitmenting for life - ie marriage.

I guess to someone who puts so much stock in tradition it would seem that way. The reality is that legal commitment falls short of a relationship to two trustworthy participants.

 

The fact that others divorce does not erode my promise and its meaning to me, my wife and my children. It only erodes it for people who are looking for an escape from responsibility.

The marriage contract is antithetical to the promise of which you speak. Marriage says I am legally bound not I will be responsible. Your promise is separate from your marriage so of course others divorces will not erode the promise.

 

If marriage were not available to you would you not establish a relationship just the same as you have now?

[cwes99_03]

The reality is that legal commitment falls short of a relationship between two trustworthy participants.The marriage contract is antithetical to the promise of which you speak. Marriage says I am legally bound not I will be responsible. Your promise is separate from your marriage so of course others divorces will not erode the promise.

 

If marriage were not available to you would you not establish a relationship just the same as you have now?

 

That's not right. Rebiu, not attacking you. I'm curious what you base your knowledge of marriage off of.

I myself have 15 sets of aunts and uncles, numerous great aunt's and uncles, hundreds of very close married friends, and many years of theological study of which the marriage contract is a part.

 

You are devolving marriage to a simple legal contract. TBD seemed to me to be equating marriage to a binding verbal contract that does not need to be upheld by any court of man, because once entered upon is a contract for life regardless of the hardships.

"thus a man will leave his parents...and they will become one flesh".

Forget the laws of the land regarding these things, marriage to me and I suspect to him is more than just some piece of paper signed by a magistrate, which may or may not be dissolved by a court.

[Cedars]

Are you suggesting that a stay at home parent does not have time to sit down and watch tv during the day? Even if not sitting down, the still have watching tv, listening to the radio, not driving through 2 hours of wall to wall traffic to get back and forth to work.

My suggestion was a paid position that was paid for the 8 hours a day that I myself was not home to do all those things that a spouse would do during that time. Now you are stuck to $400 - $500 / week. I make more than that because the work I do is a bit more complex and there are a limited number of people with my abilities. At least that is how capitalism is supposed to work. Would you prefer some other system?

 

A stay at home parent is worth about $500/week. They have a problem with this because they think/know that they could be doing something else and get paid more or enjoy the work more.

 

No I wasnt at all suggesting a stay at home mom doesnt have some time to sit down and relax but I also wasnt suggesting a moms job isnt full time either. How many breaks a day do you get on the job? I used to get 3. That didnt count the down time when my work was caught up and I could visit, take a longer lunch etc. My point was you dont work 8 hours a day either but you consider it full time. I am saying that women are finally getting recognized for the job they do, which is more than 8 hours a day, they are on-call 24/7 so men dont have to get up with sick kids, feed the baby during the night, miss work for appointments, etc. You get paid when computers are working well and mom gets paid when the house is already clean.

 

And you would be hard pressed to find an employee who would be willing to go that far (on call 24/7), for $500 a week, to raise your children/keep up the house/and all the other stuff men get when a wife agrees to stay with them. Her time is an investment in the husbands current and future value.

 

I think your really trying to be fair but I dont think you have a grasp of what the real value is that a mother provides to a household. I made right around $500 a week doing data entry.

 

As far as your job being more 'complicated' bah... I schooled for Network Tech and did it part time for awhile.

 

I never had an employee throw up on me, crap their pants, whine for food, throw food on the floor, play in the kitty litter, fall off bikes/out of trees, wake up with the flu and require me to take their tempature or a host of issues that I had to deal with as a mom, sometimes when they cant even speak the language yet.

 

And I wont even get into the additional burden a husband inflicts on peace and quiet and the end of 'moms' work day.

 

I will take a crabby 50 year old who just needs to learn how to open their email/word/print to the right printer anyday over a fevered 1 year old at 2am. Being a good mom and household caretaker was by far the most difficult and challenging job I have held to date.

[Freddy]

My parents generation is made up of people who have been married about 50 years. Of all my friends growing up there are very few whose parents have divorced. When I look at the court actions the people getting divorced are usually married from 1 year to 25 years. My feeling is when all of the older generation is gone the percentage of divorces will go up significantly. The divorce rate is highest among the younger generations.

[Rebiu]

That's not right. Rebiu, not attacking you. I'm curious what you base your knowledge of marriage off of.

The same as yours is, my observations of married and unmarried people.

I myself have 15 sets of aunts and uncles, numerous great aunt's and uncles, hundreds of very close married friends, and many years of theological study of which the marriage contract is a part.

Sound pretty suspicious. Your one of those decline in family values types eh?

 

You are devolving marriage to a simple legal contract.

TBD seemed to me to be equating marriage to a binding verbal contract that does not need to be upheld by any court of man,

No no it is you who are doing this.

because once entered upon is a contract for life regardless of the hardships.

The existence of legal divorce suggests you are mistaken. Furthermore all absolutes are self-contradicting. Your Theological study leaves you poorly equipped to understand real world complexity.

"thus a man will leave his parents...and they will become one flesh".

Forget the laws of the land regarding these things, marriage to me and I suspect to him is more than just some piece of paper signed by a magistrate, which may or may not be dissolved by a court.

Then why does he sign the paper? You are supporting my position.

[cwes99_03]

No no it is you who are doing this.

How so? How did I equate marriage to a simple legal paperwork contract? Infact I said it was more than that below to which you replied:

Then why does he sign the paper? You are supporting my position.

He signs it so as to obey the laws of the land, which is also a requirement found in the Bible if you follow its advice. Which position are you taking, by the way?

The existence of legal divorce suggests you are mistaken. Furthermore all absolutes are self-contradicting. Your Theological study leaves you poorly equipped to understand real world complexity.

And what is with the personal attack? Or are you just attacking all people who feel that their is a religious reason for things such as marriage?

 

Let me restate and see if you catch my full view.

 

1) Marriage is a lifelong contract between a man and a woman who are supposed to be supportive of and faithful to each other.

2) Marriage between a man and a woman only needs to have legal paperwork binding the two, because the law of the land states it is so (state and or federal law). Thus is the reason why common law marriage is not recognized in some states and is challenged regularly in the courts during estate probation.

3) Laws regarding marriage and divorce in the US, and other countries, only deal with the legal contract.

All legal contracts in the US are subject to end if both parties are in agreement, or it can be determined that the contract was broken. All contracts unless otherwise stated have some reasonably assumed portion of responsibility, (which changes with societal views). Unless otherwise stated by a prenuptial agreement, infidelity on the part of one spouse breaks the legal contract of marriage, or at least it used to.

But US law allows for many more ways to break a marriage contract, including, neither party wants to be married anymore. This is IMHO wrong.

[cwes99_03]

Ok, Cedars. I accept that a mom is on call 24/7 and technically I am too, though I rarely get called. I can have vacations canceled by my boss, but he has never been that mean.

A stay at home on the other hand is a boss of their own boss to a minor extent. They have the ability to teach their kids how to properly act and show respect. They can't keep them from getting sick, but I have always expected that each spouse share the resonsibility to the extent that they can.

How hard is it to take care of scraped knees, dirty faces, dirty dishes? Does it require an advanced degree? I guess I might be over reaching a bit here, because there are plenty of people who obviously cannot take care of their own household or their own children, but I contest that it is not because they don't know how, but because they choose to be lazy.

On the other hand, to maintain a computer, you had to take classes. You learned how to do it only through schooling (not that all people have to learn this way, as I have never taken a computer class other than keyboarding years ago in HS.) It is simply not a skill that every human being should possess.

Even some grownups with Downs syndrome have most of the basic concepts down, though I do believe they need some supervision if they choose to have a child. I work with 500 plus computer using employees, most of which couldn't figure out how to use this website.

[Chacmool]

How hard is it to take care of scraped knees, dirty faces, dirty dishes? Does it require an advanced degree? I guess I might be over reaching a bit here, because there are plenty of people who obviously cannot take care of their own household or their own children, but I contest that it is not because they don't know how, but because they choose to be lazy.

:confused:

Words fail me right now.

[Zythryn]

How hard is it to take care of scraped knees, dirty faces, dirty dishes? Does it require an advanced degree? I guess I might be over reaching a bit here, because there are plenty of people who obviously cannot take care of their own household or their own children, but I contest that it is not because they don't know how, but because they choose to be lazy.

 

LOL, just a bit. Ok, let's see, instead of 'how hard is it to take care of scraped knees, dirty faces, dirty dishes' let's try:

How hard is it to take care of the inquisitiveness of children, balancing positive reinforcement without letting the child(ren) get away with things they shouldn't and instill a good ethical foundation so the kid(s) can become productive, happy citizens.

 

An advanced degree would not be sufficient in many cases. For people that have good examples from their own parents, it is most likely only extremely trying. For those that have bad examples (abused as children, disfunctional homes as children) I would posit it is magnitudes more difficult.

[cwes99_03]

LOL, just a bit. Ok, let's see, instead of 'how hard is it to take care of scraped knees, dirty faces, dirty dishes' let's try:

How hard is it to take care of the inquisitiveness of children, balancing positive reinforcement without letting the child(ren) get away with things they shouldn't and instill a good ethical foundation so the kid(s) can become productive, happy citizens.

 

An advanced degree would not be sufficient in many cases. For people that have good examples from their own parents, it is most likely only extremely trying. For those that have bad examples (abused as children, disfunctional homes as children) I would posit it is magnitudes more difficult.

 

Ok, but let's separate this out. Cedars and I have been discussing the basic requirements of a stay-at-home parent. While I agree that there is much more than just the scraped knees and such, my point was that those type of things are not hard and do not require being paid $20/hour or more to do them. Thus her earlier post of the price of a stay-at-home mom was greatly inflated in my opinion.

The things you speak of are quite important and perhaps difficult. But do not put extreme levels on them either. While some may in life attain a degree, even a Ph.D in child psychology, men and women for thousands of years have been rearing wonderful children without the aid of these child psychologists. Thus it has not required an advanced degree.

 

I'm not saying that women can't choose to not stay-at-home, but in a marrital relationship a discussion of the benefits must take place and an agreement must be come to. I still hold to the old ways that it is ultimately a mans decision, but also that it would be next to criminal for a man to ignore the thoughts and feelings of his wife in these situations. Thus the old way of marriage (and if you must you may call it the old marriage contract) is just fine and worked wonderfully for the most part, for thousands of years.

[CraigD]

Thus the old way of marriage (and if you must you may call it the old marriage contract) is just fine and worked wonderfully for the most part, for thousands of years.

While, nearing my 20th wedding anniversary, I’m an enthusiast of conventional marriage for reasons too numerous to begin mentioning in this post, I’m skeptical that the marriage tradition I’ve enjoyed much resembles the tradition of the same name a couple of hundred years in the past, let alone thousands of years.

 

A couple of hundred years ago, in most of the western world, a husband controlled not only his wife’s property, but certain of her rights, such as the right to petition a court for a divorce. Although multiple social forces, such as churches and neighbors, encouraged husbands to treat their wives with respect and consider their wishes and opinions as highly as their own, a husband could to a large extent treat his wife much like his livestock – in a very real if limited legal sense, she was his property, marriage an institution of slavery.

 

A thousand year ago, monogamy was not a widespread norm.

 

These “old contracts” provide limited help in understanding my marriage contract. Viewing them as having worked better than marriage works today based only on a much higher present divorce rate strikes me as nostalgic, and akin to viewing 19th century American slaves as having had wonderfully comprehensive employee benefits.

[cwes99_03]

Yes, but in Biblical times, slaves did have a lot of benefits. So much so that a slave would be willing to put his ear against a post to have his ear pierced and thus make himself a permanent slave of his master, instead of an indentured servant for a time. This also extended to his family becoming slaves. Of course we would see the type of relationship they had as similar to a farm family that continues to work for the parent until that parent died, because of their love.

 

You again waxed nostalgic for the improper marriage contract put in place by government officials not the much higher version of the contract I hold myself to. I could care less about the government's laws about who owns what. I only care that I follow them as long as they don't conflict with the laws of the higher power.