Back in the day this gentleman would have been called "pussy whipped". (Yes I did just say that knowing there might be consequences...).
See now there you go. I say "back in the day this would be called..." and automatically I get downvoted as if that is what I call it (either now or back in the day). And yes I purposely said it in a way knowing that this might be the reaction (as an experiment).
In typical fashion, pitchforks for free speech. Walking on HN eggshells.
Phrases like 'pussy whipped' have absolutely no place in a civilized society or on a civilized message board. They never have and they never will.
Once again wrong. Not what I meant. By not padding it in an apologetic way, [1] I knew it would get a certain reaction. In my book, nothing wrong with that. I am tired of people always having to apologize when no apology is necessary. Also consider that people of different age groups who were raised differently might see things differently as well and that is ok.
[1] Meaning "I apologize deeply if anyone finds this offensive but.."
Your book applies to what you do alone on your property.
When you act in a social context, other people's books also matter. That your philosophy treats other people's opinions as somehow irrelevant to your interactions with them is definitely of a piece with your "pussy whipped" framing.
Note also that you're creating a false choice between a disingenuous "apology" and speaking the truth. A fake apology isn't actually respectful of other people; it's just a way to camouflage your disrespect. The choice you're eliding is for you to actually understand why people object to that phrase and respect their views, whether or not you agree with them.
The reason you don't, of course, is because you'd sound ridiculous if you actually expanded your implicit views. E.g.: "I understand that most people today see men and women as equals, and I respect their right to believe it. But personally I disagree, and I think their mistake is not seeing that things were better back in the day when men had both legal and social dominance such that wives had neither control over family assets nor even the expectation that they might have a voice in the decision. I hope everyone comes to see the merit in my views, and that we together return to the legal and social structures that held prior to the adoption of the 19th amendment."
In a civilized society, we have respect for our significant others and run all major decisions by them. Basic human respect does not deserve to be disparaged.
And do you really think that $560 is "a large amount of money" and needs to be talked over?
This indicates you have your family's assets set up so you separate categories of money that you can exclusively spend from. Many people don't do that and, if you don't do that, it makes sense to ask before spending a significant amount of money from the join category.
> Do you really think that $560 is a "large amount of money"
That is more than half what we pay for rent, so yes.
"Well then that depends on the relationship that you have as well as who you are married to, doesn't it? "
I don't need to ask either, but I find the idea that someone would be considered "pussy whipped" if they have a different arrangement to be, well, moronic.
You are not considering the downside of all of this. (Since I get paid for negotiation let me give you my thoughts.) By "giving the other person a chance" you are giving them power over you. Which they could use to extract something from you in exchange for your agreement. Now this may or may not matter depending on the person you are with, but I will point it out so you know that in some cases there could be a downside by "running something by the other party". And yes, there is negotiation in relationships as there is in business.
It's largely been this way from the start, and has only become more so with time. I couldn't fathom wanting to spend my life with someone I was in a constant power struggle against, or who felt she was in such a struggle against me.
I really don't understand why someone would publicly admit that they don't have control of their own money. I see people admitting to it regularly as if it's something that can't be helped, but it just makes them look weak. Like they are lowering their social standing on purpose.
This arrangement seems extremely sensible to me. I know it's not for everybody, but in our case we trust each other completely and share a similar outlook on financial things, so it makes perfect sense to just share.
Since we're in it together, we run big purchases by each other just as an additional check. This helps soften irrational impulses, lets us suggest alternatives to each other, and just keeps us up to date with what's going on.
Please tell me, how does this mean that I "don't have control of [my] own money"? In what way does it make me "look weak"? Why should I keep this a secret? And why should I care about my "social standing" in the eyes of people who think this means anything important?
As mentioned in my other comment I was relating a phrase that was quite common "back in the day" for editorial purposes. This is what I don't like about the current world. There is no difference between saying someone yourself and relating either history or what someone else might say.
The other way of looking at it (and the way your comment came across) is that you're using 'back in the day' as a means to say what you feel, under the veneer of not actually saying it yourself. After all, if it didn't reflect what you thought, why would the phrase come to mind - and why take the trouble to call it out?
Underscoring this is that it's not actually "back in the day" at all. It's still a term that's commonly used.