4 ms·

> All of the work in a traditional mother's role, well it's usually uncompensated too. Sure it's a "labor of love" but it's also just a huge amount of work, for

> All of the work in a traditional mother's role, well it's usually uncompensated too. Sure it's a "labor of love" but it's also just a huge amount of work, for decades. An argument could be made that the entire capitalist system is built upon uncompensated labor. Just ask your mom. I mean the key difference here is the obvious one, which is that spouses have complete access to the other's money. period. If Lola had been the equivalent of the mother and the mother the father, Lola wouldn't need to ask the mother for money -- she could just go to the bank with her marriage certificate and take it herself. My wife and I live in California, a community property state. At the moment we married, everything that is mine became hers and vice versa. Right now, for various reasons, she's not working and she does a lot of the housework. She's hardly a slave though. Firstly, if I didn't give her enough money to live on, she could just go to the bank. Secondly, if I hid my accounts from her, she could sue me for neglect. Thirdly, if I were to take on a mistress, she could sue me again for spousal neglect. Of course, the same would apply if the situation was reversed. Let's not compare marriage to slavery. The entire institution of marriage is meant to prevent one spouse from controlling the other by simply making ownership joint. Show me a system of slavery where the slaves own the entirety of their master's estate, and I'll show you justice.

achou 9y ago
Consider what happens if one spouse loses a job and is forced to take one with half the pay. The spouse doing the work at home suddenly has to make do with less, even though their work has not really changed. My point is not really about slavery, it is about how this example shows how much work there is and how difficult it is, and how we don't seem to account for it even in normal life.
vanderZwan 9y ago
I understand your defensiveness over feeling that what I'm sure is a loving and nurturing union between you and your partner is being compared to forms of slavery, and you raise good points why a direct comparison would be overblown. However, I would be more careful with your choice of words here: > The entire institution of marriage is meant to prevent one spouse from controlling the other by simply making ownership joint. The way this particular point is phrased makes it sound like this was always the case. However, it is a very recent change in how the laws work, as a direct result of mainly women fighting for their rights. It used to be the case in many countries that only the men can decide to end a marriage, and I'm sure that is still the case in many places. Maybe the legal framework of modern marriage in California is decent at guaranteeing equality, but that is not something to be assumed to be the general way marriage works, let alone something to be taken for granted. And I'm sure you'll agree that the institution of marriage is important enough that it deserves critical examination.
JeffL 9y ago
> My wife and I live in California, a community property state. At the moment we married, everything that is mine became hers and vice versa. This is not correct according to my understanding. Community property is anything that is acquired after marriage (not including inheritance), any house that you both live in, or any accounts that become commingled during the marriage. If you have an investment account before marriage that you don't use to pay for stuff and don't add to with salary, then it remains individual property, even in California. I think being a community property state just means that community property is mandated to be split 50/50, not that all property becomes instantly community.

achou 9y ago

Consider what happens if one spouse loses a job and is forced to take one with half the pay. The spouse doing the work at home suddenly has to make do with less, even though their work has not really changed. My point is not really about slavery, it is about how this example shows how much work there is and how difficult it is, and how we don't seem to account for it even in normal life.

vanderZwan 9y ago

I understand your defensiveness over feeling that what I'm sure is a loving and nurturing union between you and your partner is being compared to forms of slavery, and you raise good points why a direct comparison would be overblown. However, I would be more careful with your choice of words here: > The entire institution of marriage is meant to prevent one spouse from controlling the other by simply making ownership joint. The way this particular point is phrased makes it sound like this was always the case. However, it is a very recent change in how the laws work, as a direct result of mainly women fighting for their rights. It used to be the case in many countries that only the men can decide to end a marriage, and I'm sure that is still the case in many places. Maybe the legal framework of modern marriage in California is decent at guaranteeing equality, but that is not something to be assumed to be the general way marriage works, let alone something to be taken for granted. And I'm sure you'll agree that the institution of marriage is important enough that it deserves critical examination.

JeffL 9y ago

> My wife and I live in California, a community property state. At the moment we married, everything that is mine became hers and vice versa. This is not correct according to my understanding. Community property is anything that is acquired after marriage (not including inheritance), any house that you both live in, or any accounts that become commingled during the marriage. If you have an investment account before marriage that you don't use to pay for stuff and don't add to with salary, then it remains individual property, even in California. I think being a community property state just means that community property is mandated to be split 50/50, not that all property becomes instantly community.