3 ms·

None of that stuff really seems that difficult or time consuming. I think the danger of being in the position of a stay-at-home mom is that your partner can aba

None of that stuff really seems that difficult or time consuming. I think the danger of being in the position of a stay-at-home mom is that your partner can abandon you at any time and leave you with the full burden and no financial support. I think the problem really stems from a lack of suitable men rather than the role itself

eszed 29d ago
> your partner can abandon you at any time and leave you with the full burden and no financial support. Yes, absolutely. Or that a financially-dependent partner (I'm deliberately not applying gender), even without kids (though children massively raise the stakes), can become trapped in an abusive relationship. I'm going to wade into political waters, by pointing out that this is a wider problem that can be addressed at the societal level. When the full burden of all poor outcomes is placed upon unsupported individuals, then individuals in aggregate respond by making more-cautious decisions - whether that's to stay in an abusive relationship, avoid having children, have fewer children, or avoid relationships altogether. The same could be pointed out for the choice between, eg, choosing corporate employment vs trying entrepreneurship. A society that insulates its citizens against some downside risks allows individuals more agency over their own lives.
graemep 29d ago
> I think the danger of being in the position of a stay-at-home mom is that your partner can abandon you at any time and leave you with the full burden and no financial support. Really? Where do you live? Here in the UK if a married couple splits in that situation the stay at home mum (or dad for that matter) would get either half the assets plus spousal maintenance, or (and the courts prefer this to give a "clean break") more than half the assets to make up for the reduced income. The assets include all "marital assets" such as a house, pension funds etc. regardless of whose name they are held in. On top of that there is child maintenance until children are 18. The spouse looking after the children would usually get the marital home until they grow up (after which it might be sold and the proceeds split). That is not true for unmarried couples (although the government is considering changing the law). However as the article uses the word "wife" I am assuming married. This is really the main reason marriage is a legal status rather than being only a religious or social one.

eszed 29d ago

> your partner can abandon you at any time and leave you with the full burden and no financial support. Yes, absolutely. Or that a financially-dependent partner (I'm deliberately not applying gender), even without kids (though children massively raise the stakes), can become trapped in an abusive relationship. I'm going to wade into political waters, by pointing out that this is a wider problem that can be addressed at the societal level. When the full burden of all poor outcomes is placed upon unsupported individuals, then individuals in aggregate respond by making more-cautious decisions - whether that's to stay in an abusive relationship, avoid having children, have fewer children, or avoid relationships altogether. The same could be pointed out for the choice between, eg, choosing corporate employment vs trying entrepreneurship. A society that insulates its citizens against some downside risks allows individuals more agency over their own lives.

graemep 29d ago

> I think the danger of being in the position of a stay-at-home mom is that your partner can abandon you at any time and leave you with the full burden and no financial support. Really? Where do you live? Here in the UK if a married couple splits in that situation the stay at home mum (or dad for that matter) would get either half the assets plus spousal maintenance, or (and the courts prefer this to give a "clean break") more than half the assets to make up for the reduced income. The assets include all "marital assets" such as a house, pension funds etc. regardless of whose name they are held in. On top of that there is child maintenance until children are 18. The spouse looking after the children would usually get the marital home until they grow up (after which it might be sold and the proceeds split). That is not true for unmarried couples (although the government is considering changing the law). However as the article uses the word "wife" I am assuming married. This is really the main reason marriage is a legal status rather than being only a religious or social one.