HereAndGone
5hr ago
Thanks for the clarification, there have been so many cases and accusations I get muddled.
I do think the 34 FELONIES thing is disingenuous because it refers to one over-arching crime. The impression it is intended to leave is that Trump has committed all these BIG SERIOUS CRIMES in a series of BIG SERIOUS CRIMES, but it's really THIS ONE CASE.
I think most people laugh at it, though.
HereAndGone
5hr ago
I hope so, though "dummies get degrees in English" makes me go 😐 as a wordcel (granted, I have no degree in anything, so what do I know?)
HereAndGone
12hr ago
a stable marriage resulting in 4-6 kids?
Do men want six kids? Think about it: you have to be able to earn enough to keep yourself, wife, and six kids in our modern economy. You have to be able to help raise those kids (and I don't mean "change their nappies", I mean "be involved as a parent forming their characters and guiding them"). Some men do complain that "now we have kids, my wife has less time for me and clearly values the kids more than me" which puts strain on a marriage and may break it up. "We have six kids, but when I come home from work I disappear into the shed and do my own thing and she has full responsibility for every thing to do with the kids" is also a way to break up a marriage.
It takes two to tango, as the saying goes. If you want stable marriages with six kids, then men as well as women have to be prepared to be spouses and parents in that relationship.
HereAndGone
12hr ago
There is that census category "White Hispanic", so I think some people might be classed as "Hispanic" or "White" depending on different times they were labelled or what their view of their identity is.
Also, FistfullOfCrows, you saying Spaniards are not white? 😀
HereAndGone
12hr ago
I think you can say "In my view, X is illegal" and that's free speech. What this video seems to be doing is stating (by implication?) "X is illegal and moreover you should disobey orders to do X" which I think is going beyond their authority when it's addressed to members of the military specifically and not the general public at large.
HereAndGone
12hr ago
they would have run this past the lawyers before running the ad.
One would hope, but if someone has a Bright Idea and can persuade other squirrels that this is a great notion to win votes and position themselves so as to survive any intra-party purges once the fighting over who will steer the ship, the moderates or the progressive wing, is done - then they're likely to have leaped at the chance before asking advice of sober heads.
HereAndGone
12hr ago
Oh, the Letitia James case. The 34 FELONIES!!! case. I've always disliked Trump, but the way his political rivals and enemies have gone after him is just ludicrous.
The solemn, po-faced repetition (which I have encountered elsewhere just recently) that he committed 34 FELONIES!!! is risible. "Okay, what did he do?" "Mortgage fraud!" "Okay, that's one crime, and the other 33?" "Mortgage fraud!"
34 charges for one offence are not at all the same as 34 different and separate crimes. Murdering one person is wrong, but it's not the same as murdering thirty-four people, but this is the equivalence they are trying to make. I'm not even sure that it is a crime as such, since Wikipedia calls it the "New York business fraud lawsuit" which sounds more like a civil than criminal case, and this bit confuses me:
Investigators stated that the "focus of the subpoena, and the investigation, is Mr. Trump's statement of financial condition," alleging that Trump's financial statements were used to secure more than $300 million in loans, and that these "were generally inflated as part of a pattern to suggest that Mr. Trump's net worth was higher than it otherwise would have appeared".
So they charged him with... lying about being richer than he was in fact? And that turned into 34 FELONIES!!!!?
Or am I completely wrong and the 34 FELONIES!!! is the "paying hush money to the porn star" campaign finance case? Even so, the same applies: 34 charges for one offence not the same as 34 different offences in different crimes.
HereAndGone
13hr ago
Yeah, that's what is so tiresome about it. It's not really about appealing to the military, whom they probably think are a bunch of ignorant white rednecks, but to signal to their own side that they are La Résistance, vote for us in the upcoming elections, we take all your concerns seriously because look, we're repeating your talking points.
I was somewhat amused that in that glowfic quoted in a different post on here because of course, naturellement, ICE are Le Ebil. Le big grand monstrous eeeeevuuuulll. Not a bunch of guys doing their jobs in a government department, nope, Big Evil. That is the attitude amongst the Bay Area Rationalist glowfic writers who are going to vote straight Democrat in the midterms, and that's the constituency this kind of video is appealing to: the military are being forced to follow illegal orders by the evil moustache-twirlers in power, and if they don't raise their consciousness enough to realise this is what is going on, well you and your views about the boots on the ground grunts have been proven to be justified.
HereAndGone
13hr ago
Are you saying that their assertion (that under US law, as a soldier or whatever you are allowed to or even obliged to ignore illegal orders) is false? Because if it isn't,
No, it's not. But that's not what they're arguing. They're arguing "whatever orders you are getting are illegal because the administration is illicit/Not My President/it's mean if you do these things against our favoured groups/do what we tell you not what they tell you".
HereAndGone
13hr ago
As stated above, THEY ARE HEDGING AGAINST THE WRONG RISK. The risks associated with picking the wrong guy who abandons you in middle age (which can be mitigated!) are significantly smaller than the risks of delaying picking a partner at all.
It's still a risk that is higher for the wife than the husband. I've come across plenty of cases where "couple splits up, guy takes up with new partner, who if she isn't already pregnant soon becomes pregnant, guy is too involved with new family to do much about kids he's left with former partner".
And for Mackenzie Bezos, the attitude I wish to point out was that she did nothing, contributed nothing, so had no right to a fair share of Jeff's money. If it's demonstrably an attitude by the men who will be the future husbands that "marry me and be a full-time homemaker, and I will consider that the work in the home and family you do is nothing and isn't real work and isn't worth a monetary value". Do you really think a woman with any prudence will go into a marriage where she knows the view is "being a stay-at-home wife is being a leech on your husband" and leave it up to his good will as to whether he'll continue to support her should he decide greener pastures lie elsewhere? Having your own job and means of earning a living is security, quite apart from the modern pressure that both partners in the couple must be working and earning to have any kind of chance at home ownership, avoiding debt, etc.
HereAndGone
13hr ago
Okay, you want some performative abasement?
Oh mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa! Let me beat my breast in penitence!
Happy now?
I'll apologise to the person I offended, but let me remind you of this from Chesterton:
It takes three to make a quarrel. There is needed a peacemaker. The full potentialities of human fury cannot be reached until a friend of both parties tactfully intervenes.
HereAndGone
1d ago
No idea how old any of them are, but it really is a very young woman's view of emotional reactions. Or maybe I'm just insufficiently Bay Area to get it and people really do melt into puddles of awwww! all over the place there.
HereAndGone
1d ago
Sorry, it's the whole "pfft, caring for kids is so easy-peasy even the stupidest woman (but I repeat myself) can do it!" thing that is not making "hey, being a wife and mother is indeed an important work that should be allocated a higher status than it is". If you're trying to fight decades of "staying at home and having kids is wasting your talents, your value and your life" teaching, then repeating "child care is unskilled labour any fule can do" is not gonna help.
Long excerpt follows:
The outlaws grumbled and scuffed, kicking at stones. A hoarse voice bawled from a safe shadow, “Na, Willie, sing us a true song. Sing us one about Robin Hood.”
"Who said that?” Cully’s loosened sword clacked in its sheath as he turned from side to side. His face suddenly seemed as pale and weary as a used lemon drop.
“I did,” said Molly Grue, who hadn’t. “The men are bored with ballads of your bravery, Captain darling. Even if you did write them all yourself.”
…An aging rogue in tattered velvet now slunk forward. “Captain, if we’re to have folk songs, and I suppose we must, then we feel they ought to be true songs about real outlaws, not this lying life we live. No offense, Captain, but we’re really not very merry, when all’s said —”
“I’m merry twenty-four hours a day, Dick Fancy,” Cully said coldly. “That is a fact.”
“And we don’t steal from the rich and give to the poor,” Dick Fancy hurried on. “We steal from the poor because they can’t fight back—most of them—and the rich take from us because they could wipe us out in a day. We don’t rob the fat, greedy Mayor on the highway; we pay him tribute every month to leave us alone. We never carry off proud bishops and keep them prisoner in the wood, feasting and entertaining them, because Molly hasn’t any good dishes, and besides, we just wouldn’t be very stimulating company for a bishop. When we go to the fair in disguise, we never win at the archery or at singlestick. We do get some nice compliments on our disguises, but no more than that.”
…“And as for righting wrongs and fighting for civil liberties, that sort of thing,” Dick Fancy said, “it wouldn’t be so bad—I mean, I’m not the crusader type myself, some are and some aren’t—but then we have to sing those songs about wearing Lincoln green and aiding the oppressed. We don’t, Cully, we turn them in for the reward, and those songs are just embarrassing, that’s all, and there’s the truth of it.”
...He opened his eyes. Most of the outlaws were chuckling and tapping their temples, glad of the chance to mock him. Captain Cully had risen, anxious to pronounce that part of the entertainment ended. Then Molly Grue cried out in a soft, shaking voice, and all turned to see what she saw. A man came walking into the clearing.
He was dressed in green, but for a brown jerkin and a slanting brown cap with a woodcock’s feather in it. He was very tall, too tall for a living man: the great bow slung over his shoulder looked as long as Jack Jingly, and his arrows would have made spears or staves for Captain Cully. Taking no notice at all of the still, shabby forms by the fire, he strode through the night and vanished, with no sound of breath or footfall.
After him came others, one at a time or two together, some conversing, many laughing, but none making any sound. All carried longbows and all wore green, save one who came clad in scarlet to his toes, and another gowned in a friar’s brown habit, his feet in sandals and his enormous belly contained by a rope belt. One played a lute and sang silently as he walked.
“Alan-a-Dale.” It was raw Willie Gentle. “Look at those changes.” His voice was as naked as a baby bird.
Effortlessly proud, graceful as giraffes (even the tallest among them, a kind-eyed Blunderbore), the bowmen moved across the clearing. Last, hand in hand, came a man and a woman. Their faces were as beautiful as though they had never known fear. The woman’s heavy hair shone with a secret, like a cloud that hides the moon.
“Oh,” said Molly Grue. “Marian.”
“Robin Hood is a myth,” Captain Cully said nervously, “a classic example of the heroic folk-figures synthesized out of need. John Henry is another. Men have to have heroes, but no man can ever be as big as the need, and so a legend grows around a grain of truth, like a pearl. Not that it isn’t a remarkable trick, of course.”
It was the seedy dandy Dick Fancy who moved first. All the figures but the last two had passed into the darkness when he rushed after them, calling, hoarsely, “Robin, Robin, Mr. Hood sir, wait for me!” Neither the man nor the woman turned, but every man of Cully’s band—saving only Jack Jingly and the captain himself—ran to the clearing’s edge, tripping and trampling one another, kicking the fire so that the clearing churned with shadows. “Robin!” they shouted; and “Marian, Scarlet, Little John—come back! Come back!” Schmendrick began to laugh, tenderly and helplessly.
Over their voices, Captain Cully screamed, “Fools, fools and children! It was a lie, like all magic! There is no such person as Robin Hood!” But the outlaws, wild with loss, went crashing into the woods after the shining archers, stumbling over logs, falling through thorn bushes, wailing hungrily as they ran.
Only Molly Grue stopped and looked back. Her face was burning white. “Nay, Cully, you have it backward,” she called to him. “There’s no such a person as you, or me, or any of us. Robin and Marian are real, and we are the legend!”
Then she ran on, crying, “Wait, wait!” like the others, leaving Captain Cully and Jack Jingly to stand in the trampled firelight and listen to the magician’s laughter.
HereAndGone
1d ago
Thank you, kind person!
While we're on the tangent of Tolkien's works, what finally clicked for me about the difference between GRRM and JRRT is this part from "The Last Unicorn", which I only thought about today, where Schmendrick the incapable magician is captured by a band of outlaws. Their leader, Captain Cully, aspires to the whole 'Robin Hood and his Merry Men in the greenwood' trope but in an ironic/deconstructionist way: he wants to write his own 'folk ballads' about the heroic Captain Cully and his dearest ambition is to have them collected by a travelling folklorist and included in something like the famous Child Ballads. The other members of his band point out the disconnect between the folkloric Robin Hood and the reality of being outlaws in the woods.
So far, so grubby realism GRRM: there are no heroes, all the stories are fantasies, the reality is mud and violence and grinding poverty and trying to scrape by, and the ones who claim to be the noble heroes as of old are liars and fantasists.
But then Schmendrick manages to pull off some real magic, without intending it, without knowing what will happen. And he evokes Robin and Marian and the Merry Men, and the outlaws run after them, calling them to stop and come back. Cully tries to bring it all back down to the grubby reality which is the only reality they can have, but Molly Grue tells him no. People want the fantasy and the heroism. In a sense, that is what is truly real, not the grubbiness of his petty ambitions. So far, so JRRT 😁
HereAndGone
1d ago
Interesting story, but is it written by a teenager? Because "Evelyn is possibly, maybe, internally melting into a puddle of awwwwwwwwwwwww" is not generally how women in their forties who are foster parents react (I say this as a woman older than forty).
Or historically, for middle-class men, long engagements were the rule. Some careers wouldn't allow you to marry, or put impediments in the way of marriage: can't bring your wife (if you have one) out to India with you, can't marry locals, have to wait ten years to get leave back to Britain and then marry a suitable woman there:
Early marriage was seen as an impediment to a young man’s career and marriage was forbidden in the ICS before the age of thirty and made very difficult in the Indian Army. A marriage allowance was not paid until an Indian Army officer was twenty-six, and it was customary to seek the Colonel’s permission to marry. He could refuse, and mostly did, until the young officer had achieved the rank of Captain. In The Officer’s Wife, an angry Gerald recites to Daisy the military’s informal rule: subalterns cannot marry, captains may marry, majors should marry, colonels must marry.
Others involved lack of economic advancement for the man, e.g. the stock figure of the poor curate waiting for a living of his own before he could marry, see the Pre-Raphaelite painting of the long engagement.
And other men simply did not wish to marry 'early' (before the age of thirty*); there's a fair amount of fiction where a forty year old man ends up marrying an eighteen to twenty year old woman simply because now at last he's found 'the one'/he's ready to settle down since it's time he was married and had an heir or her family consider it an advantageous match where he's financially established, and it's nothing to do with emotional attraction.
*From a collection of ghost stories published in 1927, where the tale is set in 1905, so clearly this kind of attitude was socially acceptable since neither the narrator nor the audience feel the need for him to justify why he's not married beyond "I wasn't ready":
‘It’s twenty years ago, 1905, exactly twenty years, in the winter. I was very hard-working, very absorbed and very successful for a youngster. I had no ties and a little money of my own, I’d taken all the degrees and honors I could take, and I’d just finished a rather stiff German course in Munich — physical chemistry — and I was rather worn out.
‘I had not begun to practice and I decided to rest before I did so.
‘I recognized in myself those dangerous symptoms of fatigue, lack of interest in everything and a nervous distrust of my powers. And by nature I was fairly confident, even, I daresay, arrogant.
‘While I was still in Munich a cousin I had almost forgotten, died and left me a house and furniture.
‘Not of much value and in a very out-of-the-way place.
‘I thought the bequest queer and paid no attention to it; of course I was rather pleased, but I decided to sell.
‘I meant to live in London and I had not the least intention of an early marriage, nor indeed of any marriage at all.
‘I was nearly thirty and sufficiently resolute and self-contained.
HereAndGone
1d ago
Eh, back in the Good Old Days, women were getting married early and still having babies into their forties. See Queen Victoria: married at twenty-one, first child nine months later, last pregnancy aged thirty-eight, widowed at forty-two. My own mother had her last child aged forty-two, and she only got married in her early thirties.
Yes, it gets harder to get pregnant the longer you put it off, but I have half a notion modern difficulty is due to prolonged use of hormonal birth control. You spend twenty years tricking your body into permanent sterility, you are not going to get it to turn on a sixpence after you decide "okay now baby" and stop the pill for six months.
HereAndGone
1d ago
Of course, the risks of early marriage are significant, if they pick the wrong guy things can blow up and backfire.
And the risk is genuine, even if it's small. Get married in early 20s, be a housewife and mother, raise the kids, support his career (so he can work those crazy long work weeks to get the promotions and not have to worry about cooking meals, clean clothes, nice house to invite the boss back to for the networking dinner parties, bringing the kids to the doctor, etc.) and then you hit your forties and he trades you in for a newer, younger model and you're left with no independent income of your own, no career, no job history or one that is long out of date, and probably custody of and responsibility for the kids (if they're not adults by then).
Pretty much what happened to Mackenzie Bezos, except the new model wasn't younger, and pretty much the majority opinion on here was "why the hell does this leech expect to extract all that money from her poor husband who grew the fortune while she did nothing" (supporting him by working when he was trying to get Amazon off the ground, then being wife, mother, and homemaker for the rest of the marriage counts as 'nothing').
You see why women would want to be sure they have financial independence?
HereAndGone
1d ago
caring for babies may be arduous but is not particularly skilled work
Okay, so a big brain skilled guy like you should easily be able to handle a room full of six month old kids with no prior training or instruction, yeah? So easy that you'd like to give up your current demanding job and take on this easy, soft, job for money for jam?
I work in a place that is a childcare centre (not as a childminder myself) for ages 12 months to four years old. It's a hell of a lot tougher than shooting from the hip comments like this imagine. There are even, gasp!, government standards to hit for each developmental phase!
HereAndGone
1d ago
It is only the man whose intellect is clouded by his sexual instinct that could give that stunted, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped, and short-legged race the name of the fair sex
I know nothing about ole Artie there, but this is sounding very strongly gay. Have to go run off and look up "Schopenhauer sexuality" which is not a Google search I thought I'd be doing today:
Despite his later celebration of asceticism and negative views of sexuality, Schopenhauer occasionally had sexual affairs—usually with women of lower social status, such as servants, actresses and sometimes prostitutes. In a letter to his friend Anthime he claims that such affairs continued even in his mature age and admits that he had two out-of-wedlock daughters (born in 1819 and 1836), both of whom died in infancy. In their youthful correspondence Arthur and Anthime were somewhat boastful and competitive about their sexual exploits—but Schopenhauer seemed aware that women usually did not find him very charming or physically attractive, and his desires often remained unfulfilled.
Huh. So maybe more sour grapes than gayness there: "that bitch turned me down, well I don't care, women are all ugly in fact and stupid and dumb and don't care about important things like me and my guy friends do and they're smelly poopy-heads, why won't the girls give me a chance, I'm a nice guy! why can't I get a hot upper-class girlfriend instead of having to pay for sex?"
I get the distinct impression he would approve of the phrase "riding the cock carousel".
HereAndGone
1d ago
New jobs created in the wake of AI displacement, as we're being assured! Employment options in the world of finance-cum-custodianship-cum environmental initiatives: goat poop cleaner-upper!
HereAndGone
1d ago
And the fact that she was only able to kill the Witch-king through a linguistic loophole is particularly galling.
No? I think it's both funny and clever, and in the traditional vein of "devilish contracts are foiled by word-play" stories. There's always a catch to the genie's gifts, and the gifts of Sauron are no exception. The Witch-king, by this view, may in part have surrendered to the lure of his ring through "I will be truly immortal and no-one will be able to kill me", and then the loophole smacks him in the face.
That he is taken down by a woman and a hobbit is completely in harmony with how the demons are foiled in Hindu mythology. They perform penances to gain boons from the Supreme Trinity, immortality is not possible, so they ask for elaborate conditions ("nobody can kill me except...") and think they have gained because this particular set will never come to pass.
See, for example, Ravana: he asks for immunity to all except from men, because in his arrogance and pride he doesn't think those creatures are ever going to be strong enough to fight him, and he ends up killed by Rama, the human avatar of Vishnu, with the assistance of Hanuman, the monkey-avatar of Shiva.
The most elaborate probably has to do with the avatar of Vishnu as Narasimha, the man-lion, to kill the demon-king who had received a boon with a list of accompanying conditions:
According to Hindu texts, Hiranyakashipu, the elder brother of Hiranyaksha—who was killed earlier by Vishnu's Varaha avatar—received a boon from the creator god Brahma that made him nearly invulnerable. The conditions of the boon prevented his death by man or beast, indoors or outdoors, during day or night, on earth or in the sky, and not by any weapon. Empowered by this, Hiranyakashipu persecuted Vishnu’s devotees, including his own son Prahlada. To circumvent the boon, Vishnu incarnated as Narasimha—neither man nor animal—and killed Hiranyakashipu at twilight, on a palace threshold, placing him on his lap and tearing him apart with his claws.
Eowyn being "No living man am I" is in response to Shakespeare's "Macbeth", where the condition there is 'Macbeth thinks he can be killed by no man born of woman; Macduff is born of a woman who died in childbirth/born via Caesarean section so that technically fulfils the condition'.
HereAndGone
1d ago
The full quote is more helpful, I think:
‘Your duty is with your people,’ he answered.
‘Too often have I heard of duty,’ she cried. ‘But am I not of the House of Eorl, a shieldmaiden and not a dry-nurse? I have waited on faltering feet long enough. Since they falter no longer, it seems, may I not now spend my life as I will?’
‘Few may do that with honour,’ he answered. ‘But as for you, lady: did you not accept the charge to govern the people until their lord’s return? If you had not been chosen, then some marshal or captain would have been set in the same place, and he could not ride away from his charge, were he weary of it or no.’
‘Shall I always be chosen?’ she said bitterly. ‘Shall I always be left behind when the Riders depart, to mind the house while they win renown, and find food and beds when they return?’
‘A time may come soon,’ said he, ‘when none will return. Then there will be need of valour without renown, for none shall remember the deeds that are done in the last defence of your homes. Yet the deeds will not be less valiant because they are unpraised.’
And she answered: ‘All your words are but to say: you are a woman, and your part is in the house. But when the men have died in battle and honour, you have leave to be burned in the house, for the men will need it no more. But I am of the House of Eorl and not a serving-woman. I can ride and wield blade, and I do not fear either pain or death.’
‘What do you fear, lady?’ he asked. ‘A cage,’ she said. ‘To stay behind bars, until use and old age accept them, and all chance of doing great deeds is gone beyond recall or desire.’
Eowyn is trapped by a sense of futility, and her culture valorises 'death in battle' as the most fitting, and perhaps only fitting, end to a life. So she sees no way out for her but death, and the best death she can get is death in battle, and that to her seems the only thing she can control: the manner of her death - to go out in a blaze of glory rather than remain trapped in that cage for years more.
It wasn't common for the women of the Rohirrim to go to war:
Then the prince went from his horse, and knelt by the bier in honour of the king and his great onset; and he wept. And rising he looked then on Éowyn and was amazed. ‘Surely, here is a woman?’ he said. ‘Have even the women of the Rohirrim come to war in our need?’
‘Nay! One only,’ they answered. ‘The Lady Éowyn is she, sister of Éomer; and we knew naught of her riding until this hour, and greatly we rue it.’
Gandalf explains her situation - trapped in what seems hopeless, in a world where the domestic work and work of service is not regarded, and with intelligence, strength, and ambition that is relegated to 'stay in the background and stay quiet':
[Aragorn says] '...When I first looked on her and perceived her unhappiness, it seemed to me that I saw a white flower standing straight and proud, shapely as a lily, and yet knew that it was hard, as if wrought by elf-wrights out of steel. Or was it, maybe, a frost that had turned its sap to ice, and so it stood, bitter-sweet, still fair to see, but stricken, soon to fall and die? Her malady begins far back before this day, does it not, Éomer?’
‘I marvel that you should ask me, lord,’ he answered. ‘For I hold you blameless in this matter, as in all else; yet I knew not that Éowyn, my sister, was touched by any frost, until she first looked on you. Care and dread she had, and shared with me, in the days of Wormtongue and the king’s bewitchment; and she tended the king in growing fear. But that did not bring her to this pass!’
‘My friend,’ said Gandalf, ‘you had horses, and deeds of arms, and the free fields; but she, born in the body of a maid, had a spirit and courage at least the match of yours. Yet she was doomed to wait upon an old man, whom she loved as a father, and watch him falling into a mean dishonoured dotage; and her part seemed to her more ignoble than that of the staff he leaned on.
‘Think you that Wormtongue had poison only for Théoden’s ears? Dotard! What is the house of Eorl but a thatched barn where brigands drink in the reek, and their brats roll on the floor among their dogs? Have you not heard those words before? Saruman spoke them, the teacher of Wormtongue. Though I do not doubt that Wormtongue at home wrapped their meaning in terms more cunning. My lord, if your sister’s love for you, and her will still bent to her duty, had not restrained her lips, you might have heard even such things as these escape them. But who knows what she spoke to the darkness, alone, in the bitter watches of the night, when all her life seemed shrinking, and the walls of her bower closing in about her, a hutch to trammel some wild thing in?’
No, I don't say mine carry more weight. People who blow up their marriages for stupid reasons, no matter their sex, are in the wrong.
But if a possible mate is saying "Look, I think whatever work you do in the home if we marry is not valuable", then why would I marry them? Why would I give up a job and career on the assumption "my dear husband will appreciate what I do to support his career and raise our children in the years when I am no longer the hot 20 year old he bagged"?
The unfortunate reality is that very few men are going to marry women rich enough to support them if they give up their job and become house-husbands, while for women it's in general the opposite. Love may be blind, but there's an increasing trend towards pre-nuptial agreements even among those not wealthy or upper-class, simply out of mutual distrust: the men, that they will be 'divorce raped', the women, that they will be abandoned post-divorce. Or even in an amicable mutual separation, what happens to joint property? There's really an attitude of "what's mine is mine and what's yours is yours".
And even if you both trust one another, the pragmatic thing is "what happens if I become a widow? with young kids? what do I do then?" Granted, not so much a likely outcome as in the past, but still a possibility.
More options
Context Copy link