4 ms·

Was the 1950's logic fundamentally wrong? If one partner is not working, should they not contribute more to the house?

by sliverstorm 13y ago

0xdeadbeefbabe 13y ago
And is 1950's logic different than logic?
- throwawayXYZ83 13y ago
  The second definition is being used here: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/logic http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/logic
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
aneisf 13y ago
Maybe not, but in this case both partners are working. In fact, the wife could very well be working more and still earning less.
dsrguru 13y ago
1950s logic (at least in the US) was not that if one partner is not earning money, they should contribute more to the house. 1950s logic was that the male partner earns the money, and the female partner should be satisfied with housework, regardless of whether or not she prefers it. This logic cyclically resulted from, and resulted in, many parents only putting their male children through college.
- kcanini 13y ago
  Interesting that you're concerned about whether the woman preferred the role she was assigned, but fail to consider the man's preferences.
georgemcbay 13y ago
IMO the part where the full-time worker was expected to do less at home than the one with no job was not wrong, the wrong part came in the form of the assumption that the person working would be the man, and that other than in exceptional cases he would be the only one working. Also, assuming both partners are working roughly equally, I don't think it is fair to split the household contributions based on money earned. eg. If I'm a software developer making $150,000 and I'm married to a teacher who is making $50k and we both work full-time, it makes no sense for me to expect her to contribute 2/3rd more effort at home -- her job is probably more stressful, draining and in most ways "harder" than mine.
- eru 13y ago
  At these income levels you should probably just hire a maid.
  - sliverstorm 13y ago
    Haven't you heard, $200k household income is barely scraping by

Was the 1950's logic fundamentally wrong? If one partner is not working, should they not contribute more to the house?

0xdeadbeefbabe 13y ago

And is 1950's logic different than logic?

throwawayXYZ83 13y ago
The second definition is being used here: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/logic http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/logic
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

aneisf 13y ago

Maybe not, but in this case both partners are working. In fact, the wife could very well be working more and still earning less.

dsrguru 13y ago

1950s logic (at least in the US) was not that if one partner is not earning money, they should contribute more to the house. 1950s logic was that the male partner earns the money, and the female partner should be satisfied with housework, regardless of whether or not she prefers it. This logic cyclically resulted from, and resulted in, many parents only putting their male children through college.

kcanini 13y ago
Interesting that you're concerned about whether the woman preferred the role she was assigned, but fail to consider the man's preferences.

georgemcbay 13y ago

IMO the part where the full-time worker was expected to do less at home than the one with no job was not wrong, the wrong part came in the form of the assumption that the person working would be the man, and that other than in exceptional cases he would be the only one working. Also, assuming both partners are working roughly equally, I don't think it is fair to split the household contributions based on money earned. eg. If I'm a software developer making $150,000 and I'm married to a teacher who is making $50k and we both work full-time, it makes no sense for me to expect her to contribute 2/3rd more effort at home -- her job is probably more stressful, draining and in most ways "harder" than mine.

eru 13y ago
At these income levels you should probably just hire a maid.
- sliverstorm 13y ago
  Haven't you heard, $200k household income is barely scraping by