Comment by scarface74 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by scarface74 | Hacker News Reader

Why the focus on married women earning less than single women instead of focusing on household income?

Even if the single woman earns more than a married woman. For the most part, a married couple should have more disposable income after living expenses than her single counterpart. Married couples have a greater per capita net worth than their single counterpart.

In our case, because of choices we made together, my wife earns a little over 10K less than she did when she was single 5 years ago, but because I could depend on her to carry health insurance and she has more flexible schedule, that helps our family, I was able to switch jobs aggressively and I earn roughly $50,000 more than I did before we got married. We are both better off.

https://www.forbes.com/2006/07/25/singles-marriage-money-cx_...

https://www.google.com/amp/www.today.com/amp/money/why-marri...

Once they are married, the couples also are able to take advantage of economies of scale – anything from buying just one dishwasher to relying on one another’s health insurance. That allows them to build wealth more quickly than their peers who are single, divorced or living together romantically.

For example, a married man may be able to work 12 hours a day to please his bosses and get promoted, because he and his wife can divide household duties so he can get ahead. That’s not as much of an option for a single parent.

I think that money are simple and crude measure of achievement and social approval. E.g. If part of your motivation is competitiveness or passion for your profession, she is losing after each child. My husbands higher salary won't make up for my missed promotion or less interesting project, it won't make me proud of my skills, basically.

The article however was about men primary. Which I found interesting, because perspective of male who would prefer different tradeoff is rarely available.

Isn't that a lifestyle choice that spouses make together - whether to have kids, devote more time to each other, pursue their careers, etc.?

Depends on the couple, I guess. Optimally yes. But oftentimes both partners have different assumptions about what is fair contribution and how much free time is fair, don't talk about it really and resentments later on ensures. Like both of them believing they do too much simultaneously.

Other times one of them (can be also a women) takes advantage of the situation and the other one does not have much choice subsequently or figures it out only after a while maybe when it is too late. (If women hates her job, it is easier for her to claim that kids need mom longer/more to stay out of workforce longer which puts more pressure and stress on husband. If stereotypical geek claims that it is just not possible not to stay late, he can avoid some of boring housework. )

In other cases, the choice is made by tradition and peer/family pressure which prescribe proper roles (like in case of deeply conservative catholics I know - roles are strict and given by god end of discussion).

When you are married AND have kids, one thing that can happen is that the parent who is most concerned about the welfare of the kids has no choice but to simply buck up and do what is necessary for their sake. Quibbling with another grown adult about "fairness" and "equality" can be a great way to see the kids get shortchanged.

So, once there are children involved, it is not unusual for the wife to just suck it up and do what the kids need at personal cost to her. It often makes little sense to try to hold hubby's feet to the fire and insist on him doing his fair share at home or whatever.

This is not man-bashing. I am a woman and former homemaker. I do a lot of even-handed writing that tries to consider both sides of the picture. But this is a reality in many marriages. I do not self-identify as a "feminist" in part because, to me, "feminism" is about women wanting careers and to hell with any other considerations. This ongoing argument about equality of the sexes seems to mostly leave out the critical detail of the welfare of the children.

Unless and until we start talking about what works for the family as a whole, including kids, and society as a whole, including families with legal minors, this entire argument about men vs. women and so-called equality will continue to be sick and twisted and will tend to continue to crap on any parent that actually cares deeply about the welfare of their kids, regardless of gender.

>to me, "feminism" is about women wanting careers

Second-wave feminism lasted from 1960s to 1980s.

I don't know what relevance that has to anything I said. Aside from the cherry picking aspect of how you (mis)quoted me, I was a homemaker for a lot of years. I am 51 years old. I deal routinely with women who look down upon me because they chose to put their careers first. In some cases, they chose to not have children at all. In their eyes, I absolutely am not their equal and unequivocally not deserving of any real respect.

Dealing with such women is usually a worse experience for me than dealing with most men. Such women are typically pretty toxic.

Because these choices are very personal and people are very insecure about them. Does you staying home and being alright with it really means she is bad egoistic mother? Does some women liking staying home signify that world is moving back to homemaker side? Does me staying at home (and having to fight changes situation push on you) really means I am naturally lazy or less capable as conservatives like to suggest?

In a sense, no one talks about these considerations openly, ever. So it comes out indirectly through attitudes.

Everyone is supposed to be motivated only by positive things, you are supposed to stay because you are caring and loving not because you are sucking it up. That idea insults people. You are supposed to work because you love career, not because you don't want to be the lazy nagging stereotype - which you are pretty sure you would turn into if forced to stay at home.

I have plenty of hypotheses of my own as to why other women do this sort of crap to me. In the end, I don't think it matters. If you want to talk about making the world a better place and "equality for all," then shitting all over me because I made different lifestyle choices from you and this hits some nerve of yours -- well, get therapy and quit making it my problem that you aren't actually happy with the lifestyle choices you made.

If you want to call yourself a feminist and talk about getting equal rights for women, then I don't want to hear your crap about how your ideals only actually apply to women like you but still exclude large groups of women.

I think these are just bitter people who felt "It's a man's world and the least worst option for a woman is to not have children."

That's not an idealistic solution. That is not about making the world a better place. That is not about expecting more of the world. That is basically saying "No point in fighting evil. You can't win."

Turning around and shitting on me because you gave up years ago makes you part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Feminism had always many competing branches.

Your anecdote seems to confirm the dynamic described in TFA? You're making more money "aggressively", your wife is making less, etc.? You seem happy about it, but lots of men and women are not...

And I've seen the situation play out differently. I just left a job that basically had a 100% work from home policy. It paid slightly less than average for our geographic area, but the men chose to sacrifice maximizing their income to work from home because their spouses had jobs that required them to work late or travel frequently.

I would assume that most well functioning couples work together to optimize their career ambitions, lifestyle choices, and family relationships.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com