4 ms·

But to follow your analogy, 'keeping the partnership amicable' was traditionally seen as falling more to the person not out bringing money into the business. Di

But to follow your analogy, 'keeping the partnership amicable' was traditionally seen as falling more to the person not out bringing money into the business. Divorce was much rarer when single-income arrangements were the norm, there may be some uncertainty as to causality but the two went hand in hand. If it's in someone's job description to keep the family together and they fail to do that - well granted, sometimes they were up against impossible odds, but it seems like the stay-at-home partner is getting the best of two eras, modern responsibility for keeping the marriage together and earlier responsibility for contributing financially.

satyrnein 5y ago
If two parties agree to something, it doesn't fall to only one of them to make sure everything works out, regardless of the behavior of the other party. Divorce was indeed lower when women typically had no way of supporting themselves, and therefore were often forced to stay in a marriage. That hardly seems like the better end of the deal.
- SuoDuanDao 5y ago
  >If two parties agree to something, it doesn't fall to only one of them to make sure everything works out, regardless of the behavior of the other party. Sure, that's why I stipulated 'sometime you're up against impossible odds'. But I don't see how there can be talk of an equal partnership when one party is expected to bring in all the money and do half the emotional labour, and typically a good chunk of the housework in the process.