Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm happy that works for you PP. Seriously. You both seems to have a good arrangement that works for you.

What's disgusting about your posts is that you are criticizing and demeaning other people who don't follow the same philosophy that you have. Women (and it seems to be only women, you know, the ones with the vaginas) are moochers, being subsidized, greedy assholes because they don't account to the penny and do a balance sheet every month. You are degrading households that come from a different perspective.

Look, good for you. It works for you (obviously). Shut up about how other people are choosing to live. Both perspectives are valid. I think the push back you're getting is from your "why do women feel entitled" bullshit. Many families live with shared household incomes. Many families don't.

actually if you read the thread its ME that was attacked ad hominem first

and I wasn't getting any rational reasons for the argument being made.

The one where you slam stay at home moms and then refer to your way as the "modern approach" thereby implying that other approaches are outdated? That one?

I never addressed SAHMs. I think that is a unique scenario that deserves its own consideration.

However, in the world of working parents, women's lib, and equality - equal expenses and labor is the only logical thing. And no one has made a cogent argument to the contrary.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm happy that works for you PP. Seriously. You both seems to have a good arrangement that works for you.

What's disgusting about your posts is that you are criticizing and demeaning other people who don't follow the same philosophy that you have. Women (and it seems to be only women, you know, the ones with the vaginas) are moochers, being subsidized, greedy assholes because they don't account to the penny and do a balance sheet every month. You are degrading households that come from a different perspective.

Look, good for you. It works for you (obviously). Shut up about how other people are choosing to live. Both perspectives are valid. I think the push back you're getting is from your "why do women feel entitled" bullshit. Many families live with shared household incomes. Many families don't.

actually if you read the thread its ME that was attacked ad hominem first

and I wasn't getting any rational reasons for the argument being made.

The one where you slam stay at home moms and then refer to your way as the "modern approach" thereby implying that other approaches are outdated? That one?

I never addressed SAHMs. I think that is a unique scenario that deserves its own consideration.

However, in the world of working parents, women's lib, and equality - equal expenses and labor is the only logical thing. And no one has made a cogent argument to the contrary.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm happy that works for you PP. Seriously. You both seems to have a good arrangement that works for you.

What's disgusting about your posts is that you are criticizing and demeaning other people who don't follow the same philosophy that you have. Women (and it seems to be only women, you know, the ones with the vaginas) are moochers, being subsidized, greedy assholes because they don't account to the penny and do a balance sheet every month. You are degrading households that come from a different perspective.

Look, good for you. It works for you (obviously). Shut up about how other people are choosing to live. Both perspectives are valid. I think the push back you're getting is from your "why do women feel entitled" bullshit. Many families live with shared household incomes. Many families don't.

actually if you read the thread its ME that was attacked ad hominem first

and I wasn't getting any rational reasons for the argument being made.

The one where you slam stay at home moms and then refer to your way as the "modern approach" thereby implying that other approaches are outdated? That one?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm happy that works for you PP. Seriously. You both seems to have a good arrangement that works for you.

What's disgusting about your posts is that you are criticizing and demeaning other people who don't follow the same philosophy that you have. Women (and it seems to be only women, you know, the ones with the vaginas) are moochers, being subsidized, greedy assholes because they don't account to the penny and do a balance sheet every month. You are degrading households that come from a different perspective.

Look, good for you. It works for you (obviously). Shut up about how other people are choosing to live. Both perspectives are valid. I think the push back you're getting is from your "why do women feel entitled" bullshit. Many families live with shared household incomes. Many families don't.

actually if you read the thread its ME that was attacked ad hominem first

and I wasn't getting any rational reasons for the argument being made.

Anonymous wrote:I'm happy that works for you PP. Seriously. You both seems to have a good arrangement that works for you.

What's disgusting about your posts is that you are criticizing and demeaning other people who don't follow the same philosophy that you have. Women (and it seems to be only women, you know, the ones with the vaginas) are moochers, being subsidized, greedy assholes because they don't account to the penny and do a balance sheet every month. You are degrading households that come from a different perspective.

Look, good for you. It works for you (obviously). Shut up about how other people are choosing to live. Both perspectives are valid. I think the push back you're getting is from your "why do women feel entitled" bullshit. Many families live with shared household incomes. Many families don't.

Anonymous wrote:What if she lost her job PP? What then?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SAHMs:

We know what the value is for a SAHM because there is a market for the replacement of them - nannys.

You can have an experienced live in nanny for $40-50k. Housekeeper once a week for another $7500 per year.

So SAHM: your value to the household is around $60k MAX.

So please please please stop acting like its the "hardest job in the world" or that the value is some incalculably high number, it just isnt.

and btw folks, just because you are married doesn't mean everything has to be shared 100%. my wife and I keep separate bank accounts. we receive our paychecks and then contribute a fixed amount to the joint account. we retain the rest for use as we see fit.

I make 3:1 so naturally I get to retain a lot more.

We contribute 50/50 to household duties and have a nanny+housekeeper.

this is the modern approach

that why the modern day divorce rate is so high

you are saying that divorces happen because the woman could be expected to pay for half the expenses?

isn't feminism about equality?

as in EQUAL

?

I already explained that I assumed greater duties during pregnancy and early childhood to balance things out in terms of labor and lack of sleep etc. So what other reason could there be? Other than women are just DUE it?

I agree this poster is just kind of weird about the whole pregnancy thing. But you're making something a gender thing that's more an income thing. I would be answering this the same way if the higher income earner was the wife, which obviously happens with great frequency, especially around here. That's why your vagina comment makes you an idiot, by the way.

So what other reason could there be? Maybe you actually like your spouse? And maybe you want to be a united family instead of a quasi-business? Maybe some spouses just want to be nice to their spouse and don't see as something that's OWED? Yeah, that might be it. You seem to think there's a literal price of admission into the household, and not in the Dan Savage sort of way.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, no troll.

I'm the 50/50 guy.

Wife and I split all household duties 50/50 and all expenses 50/50

Seriously, please tell me why I am a piece of shit because of this??

How is 50/50 for everything "weird?"

We believe in equality in our household, equal work and equal share of expenses.

It's not 50/50. It's 3:1 as you said. It's not really "yours" though, unless you have a prenup.

yes all expenses are calculated and then we each contribute 50% of the expenses to the joint account.

how is that not 50/50?

mine is mine, hers is hers, and ours is ours

we are a married couple keeping separate and distinct banking and savings with a written agreement to share all joint expenses 50/50. a judge looking at that in a divorce scenario would be hard pressed to declare spousal support or anything else another than a division of the assets we have already declared bilaterally as jointly held, such as a home if we were to purchase one together.

Why the women on here think this makes me a terrible person is beyond me. Wife has no interest in claiming my income as her own because she is her own equal person with a right to work and secure her own income and assets.

we jointly pay for a nanny and a housekeeper , and jointly contribute to household duties.

Please tell me where the inequity is? Where does the outrage come from?

It's a percentages issue. If you came here and said we both contribute 25% of our income to such and such, that would be more fair. But for her to reach 50% of your joint household expenses, it takes more of a percentage of income to reach that. That's not equal. You yourself said you're banking 3:1 to her. I get that you earn more so in your tit for tat world, good for you. But part of why she's not banking more is that she actually contributes more percentage-wise to your household than you do. But hey, if all's well in your house, and you do in fact see eye to eye on money issues, this wasn't exactly applicable to the OP, where they don't see eye to eye.

no, what you are describing is more favorable to the woman. the food bill is $100. we each contribute $50. Why should I contribute $75 to her $25?

She would never even think to ask me to do that anyhow. I just simply don't understand what drives the female perspective you are putting forth.

Seems to me its the old adage - whats hers is hers and whats mine is hers.

What you are describing is not equality it is a subsidy. Its communist actually. To each according to their need and from each according to their ability. Right?

Failing to realize that our situation is actually true equality really hammers home how feminism isn't about equality but about favoritism for women.

Well, in your nickle and diming world, why don't you just set up a vending machine in your house and only eat what you directly pay for. In my house, my husband consumes way more than I do. Why should I have to pay for that? The answer? Because we have an actual partnership. What's ours is ours.

still no good answer really.

sure I eat more of the daily groceries, but she drinks wine whereas I do not, and we buy that together. She also funds her daily work lunches from the account and I bring mine. And she likes nice cheeses whereas I like simply foods. It generally balances out.

Hell, we even do our own laundry while nanny does child's.

So still pretty sure its all equal.

In fact, I even pay for more of the housing expense because I use more of the space than she does (children from previous marriage) - but that is again based on clear lines of consumption - this one of those being "my" expense and not a joint one.

And yet still, not a good answer as to why a woman should pay less than her half.

God, you really live like this? Do you just walk around all day with one of those scanners from the store so you can make sure you don't miss a single penny of divvying everything up?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SAHMs:

We know what the value is for a SAHM because there is a market for the replacement of them - nannys.

You can have an experienced live in nanny for $40-50k. Housekeeper once a week for another $7500 per year.

So SAHM: your value to the household is around $60k MAX.

So please please please stop acting like its the "hardest job in the world" or that the value is some incalculably high number, it just isnt.

and btw folks, just because you are married doesn't mean everything has to be shared 100%. my wife and I keep separate bank accounts. we receive our paychecks and then contribute a fixed amount to the joint account. we retain the rest for use as we see fit.

I make 3:1 so naturally I get to retain a lot more.

We contribute 50/50 to household duties and have a nanny+housekeeper.

this is the modern approach

that why the modern day divorce rate is so high

you are saying that divorces happen because the woman could be expected to pay for half the expenses?

isn't feminism about equality?

as in EQUAL

?

I already explained that I assumed greater duties during pregnancy and early childhood to balance things out in terms of labor and lack of sleep etc. So what other reason could there be? Other than women are just DUE it?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, no troll.

I'm the 50/50 guy.

Wife and I split all household duties 50/50 and all expenses 50/50

Seriously, please tell me why I am a piece of shit because of this??

How is 50/50 for everything "weird?"

We believe in equality in our household, equal work and equal share of expenses.

How much did you pay her for the physical toll of carrying your children and birthing them? I hear surrogates and donor eggs can run into 6 digits, whereas sperm donation costs just a few hundred dollars. I hope you appropriately compensated her for that so your marriage could remain "modern" and "equal".

Did she breastfeed? That's at least a 2-3 hour day a job. Not to mention more physical toll.

Point is- it's impossible to keep things "equal" in a marriage even in these modern times. I'm glad I'm not married to you pp, you sound like a pita.

She did breastfeed. And during that time period I certainly contributed more on the other items in the house like shopping, cooking, cleaning.

certainly you aren't suggesting that women only provide child and breastfeeding for financial renumeration?

Or that the joy of being a mother and the unique relationship it creates with the child especially from breast feeding isn't a reward in its own right?

No I'm suggesting that your definition of equal is in fact unequal given the different biological responsibilities in regards to having a child.

right - so you want to be compensated for child birth and breast feeding? this is your rationale as to why you should have to pay less than 50% of the joint expenses for the entire marriage?

In your marriage where everything is split down the line? And emphasis is you not spending a dime more than you owe? Yes. In your marriage I want renumeration for birthing your child including the opportunity cost of being pregnant, maternity leave, pumping and inability to travel. Otherwise I might make more than I do.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, no troll.

I'm the 50/50 guy.

Wife and I split all household duties 50/50 and all expenses 50/50

Seriously, please tell me why I am a piece of shit because of this??

How is 50/50 for everything "weird?"

We believe in equality in our household, equal work and equal share of expenses.

It's not 50/50. It's 3:1 as you said. It's not really "yours" though, unless you have a prenup.

yes all expenses are calculated and then we each contribute 50% of the expenses to the joint account.

how is that not 50/50?

mine is mine, hers is hers, and ours is ours

we are a married couple keeping separate and distinct banking and savings with a written agreement to share all joint expenses 50/50. a judge looking at that in a divorce scenario would be hard pressed to declare spousal support or anything else another than a division of the assets we have already declared bilaterally as jointly held, such as a home if we were to purchase one together.

Why the women on here think this makes me a terrible person is beyond me. Wife has no interest in claiming my income as her own because she is her own equal person with a right to work and secure her own income and assets.

we jointly pay for a nanny and a housekeeper , and jointly contribute to household duties.

Please tell me where the inequity is? Where does the outrage come from?

It's a percentages issue. If you came here and said we both contribute 25% of our income to such and such, that would be more fair. But for her to reach 50% of your joint household expenses, it takes more of a percentage of income to reach that. That's not equal. You yourself said you're banking 3:1 to her. I get that you earn more so in your tit for tat world, good for you. But part of why she's not banking more is that she actually contributes more percentage-wise to your household than you do. But hey, if all's well in your house, and you do in fact see eye to eye on money issues, this wasn't exactly applicable to the OP, where they don't see eye to eye.

no, what you are describing is more favorable to the woman. the food bill is $100. we each contribute $50. Why should I contribute $75 to her $25?

She would never even think to ask me to do that anyhow. I just simply don't understand what drives the female perspective you are putting forth.

Seems to me its the old adage - whats hers is hers and whats mine is hers.

What you are describing is not equality it is a subsidy. Its communist actually. To each according to their need and from each according to their ability. Right?

Failing to realize that our situation is actually true equality really hammers home how feminism isn't about equality but about favoritism for women.

Well, in your nickle and diming world, why don't you just set up a vending machine in your house and only eat what you directly pay for. In my house, my husband consumes way more than I do. Why should I have to pay for that? The answer? Because we have an actual partnership. What's ours is ours.

still no good answer really.

sure I eat more of the daily groceries, but she drinks wine whereas I do not, and we buy that together. She also funds her daily work lunches from the account and I bring mine. And she likes nice cheeses whereas I like simply foods. It generally balances out.

Hell, we even do our own laundry while nanny does child's.

So still pretty sure its all equal.

In fact, I even pay for more of the housing expense because I use more of the space than she does (children from previous marriage) - but that is again based on clear lines of consumption - this one of those being "my" expense and not a joint one.

And yet still, not a good answer as to why a woman should pay less than her half.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, no troll.

I'm the 50/50 guy.

Wife and I split all household duties 50/50 and all expenses 50/50

Seriously, please tell me why I am a piece of shit because of this??

How is 50/50 for everything "weird?"

We believe in equality in our household, equal work and equal share of expenses.

How much did you pay her for the physical toll of carrying your children and birthing them? I hear surrogates and donor eggs can run into 6 digits, whereas sperm donation costs just a few hundred dollars. I hope you appropriately compensated her for that so your marriage could remain "modern" and "equal".

Did she breastfeed? That's at least a 2-3 hour day a job. Not to mention more physical toll.

Point is- it's impossible to keep things "equal" in a marriage even in these modern times. I'm glad I'm not married to you pp, you sound like a pita.

She did breastfeed. And during that time period I certainly contributed more on the other items in the house like shopping, cooking, cleaning.

certainly you aren't suggesting that women only provide child and breastfeeding for financial renumeration?

Or that the joy of being a mother and the unique relationship it creates with the child especially from breast feeding isn't a reward in its own right?

No I'm suggesting that your definition of equal is in fact unequal given the different biological responsibilities in regards to having a child.

You also hopefully have a unique relationship with your child which didn't come at the cost of many physical factors. How is your pelvic floor pp? Also anyone who calls breastfeeding a "reward in its own right" needs to acquaint themselves with the pain and exhaustion that being someone's sole food supply is as well as the newborn latch. Breastfeeding is a gift to the child not a reward for the mother. You sound more ignorant with every post.

I'm starting to wonder if you actually have a wife/child or if this is your plan for the future that you are test driving on DCUM.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, no troll.

I'm the 50/50 guy.

Wife and I split all household duties 50/50 and all expenses 50/50

Seriously, please tell me why I am a piece of shit because of this??

How is 50/50 for everything "weird?"

We believe in equality in our household, equal work and equal share of expenses.

How much did you pay her for the physical toll of carrying your children and birthing them? I hear surrogates and donor eggs can run into 6 digits, whereas sperm donation costs just a few hundred dollars. I hope you appropriately compensated her for that so your marriage could remain "modern" and "equal".

Did she breastfeed? That's at least a 2-3 hour day a job. Not to mention more physical toll.

Point is- it's impossible to keep things "equal" in a marriage even in these modern times. I'm glad I'm not married to you pp, you sound like a pita.

She did breastfeed. And during that time period I certainly contributed more on the other items in the house like shopping, cooking, cleaning.

certainly you aren't suggesting that women only provide child and breastfeeding for financial renumeration?

Or that the joy of being a mother and the unique relationship it creates with the child especially from breast feeding isn't a reward in its own right?

No I'm suggesting that your definition of equal is in fact unequal given the different biological responsibilities in regards to having a child.

right - so you want to be compensated for child birth and breast feeding? this is your rationale as to why you should have to pay less than 50% of the joint expenses for the entire marriage?