3 ms·

> Motherhood is a full time job. I assume one with no pay or health insurance/benefits. Bills must be paid, and they never seem to get any cheaper.

dottjt 3y ago
Correct, but you're describing the problem.
geraldwhen 3y ago
A naive analysis. Health insurance and “pay” comes from the husband, naturally. Whether you like this or not is irrelevant. It is the only future that will exist.
- silverquiet 3y ago
  Makes you quite vulnerable to a layoff if an entire family is riding on one person's employer. No thanks to that.
  - Hamuko 3y ago
    And obviously vulnerable to your husband if he controls your entire financial future.
    - Jensson 3y ago
      Basically every first world country already fixed that by forcing ex husbands to pay after the divorce in some way.
      - AdrianB1 3y ago
        And the result is a huge drop in marriage rates. The problem did exist for millennia, but the modern laws destroyed marriage without bringing a net positive outcome.
        badpun 3y ago
        Women equality destroyed marriage. Before women could work in attractive jobs, a marriage was often only way for a woman to a middle class lifestyle. The husband was a neccessity. Now, women can just get a job that provides such lifestyle, so they marry for love and not for money.
        AdrianB1 3y ago
        "marry for love" does not last. It makes the marriage a chronometer for infatuation. Not saying marrying for money is better, marrying for long term family partnership is neither of these.
  - hagbard_c 3y ago
    That's what unemployment insurance is there to take care of, the idea being that there is another job to be had. Of course I'm speaking from a European - Swedish and Dutch specifically - perspective so things may not be as 'easy' in countries where there is no such thing. Do mind though that unemployment insurance should be time-limited and there should be incentives to find alternative employment to avoid the system becoming a replacement for paid employment which leads both to dependency on the side of the unemployed as well as eventual insolvency of the insurance system.

dottjt 3y ago

Correct, but you're describing the problem.

geraldwhen 3y ago

A naive analysis. Health insurance and “pay” comes from the husband, naturally. Whether you like this or not is irrelevant. It is the only future that will exist.

silverquiet 3y ago
Makes you quite vulnerable to a layoff if an entire family is riding on one person's employer. No thanks to that.
- Hamuko 3y ago
  And obviously vulnerable to your husband if he controls your entire financial future.
  - Jensson 3y ago
    Basically every first world country already fixed that by forcing ex husbands to pay after the divorce in some way.
    - AdrianB1 3y ago
      And the result is a huge drop in marriage rates. The problem did exist for millennia, but the modern laws destroyed marriage without bringing a net positive outcome.
      - badpun 3y ago
        Women equality destroyed marriage. Before women could work in attractive jobs, a marriage was often only way for a woman to a middle class lifestyle. The husband was a neccessity. Now, women can just get a job that provides such lifestyle, so they marry for love and not for money.
        AdrianB1 3y ago
        "marry for love" does not last. It makes the marriage a chronometer for infatuation. Not saying marrying for money is better, marrying for long term family partnership is neither of these.
- hagbard_c 3y ago
  That's what unemployment insurance is there to take care of, the idea being that there is another job to be had. Of course I'm speaking from a European - Swedish and Dutch specifically - perspective so things may not be as 'easy' in countries where there is no such thing. Do mind though that unemployment insurance should be time-limited and there should be incentives to find alternative employment to avoid the system becoming a replacement for paid employment which leads both to dependency on the side of the unemployed as well as eventual insolvency of the insurance system.