Or maybe, and I’m just spitballing here, individuals who aren’t reliably making enough money to support a family should be awarded some sort of supplemental benefit. Something that guarantees that people universally get the basic amount of income they would need for themselves and their family to survive, if only at a subsistence level.
And we could call it…
Hmm. A name doesn’t immediately jump to mind.
Wait, I’ve got it!
The “Boosting Attractiveness of Potential Spouses Thus Increasing Fertility Benefit”
Sooo… this is a weird thing to contemplate if you are a reasonably mentally and emotionally healthy man, but there’s a distressingly large contingent of men out there who think their attractiveness is directly tied to their income, because to them income has surpassed hunting ability for proving one’s mating fitness.
Single women encounter this with dates who blurt out their salary before they even mention their hobbies (I once moaned to a friend that if a company wanted to do an income survey for a given city, they should just go on dates).
And woe betide the woman who makes a decent salary, because the “rule” is the man has to make more.
While there certainly are women looking for a sugar daddy, speaking for myself and the single women I know, we just want to find someone who can support themselves. So these men’s concerns are not that reality-based.
I thought the idea was to ensure that the best men had all the sex? A sort of social darwinism meets eugenics meets pervitin meets what the frakking frak ideology.
It’s an example of how toxic masculinity harms men too. They’ve been conditioned to think that their value is tied up in ‘providing’ for a wife and children. How pathetic, to think you have no worth unless you’re paying all the bills.
I think of several couples I know, where the wife makes significantly more money, but the husband truly does at least 50% of the house and child care…those women wouldn’t trade their husbands for any amount of money.
In the spectrum of racist subtext, to racist text, to Hitler, Lovecraft, or Dylan Roof, where does this fit?
White supremacists are pushing the idea that if white people hold stolen land, and then lose predominant power, then white people will be killed. KILL OR BE KILLED…
Was just telling my sister that Im so sick of dealing with men who have this fragility around their income and so cannot engage in a rational discussion about Home finances. I really could care less about how your ego comes wrapped in your paycheck. I just want to look at a list of bills, the money coming in, our plans for the future, and then make decisions. Does that man exist?
Or the alternative I’ve experienced: only they get to see the full financial picture. My ex knew my savings account to the penny. I never got to see his. And joint account? What’s a joint account?
Could have been worse. Some women have to give all their money over and then get an allowance back.
I’ve only been in one serious relationship, and the fact that she had more money than I did become a problem, but I don’t think it was so much the idea of not being a provider as it was the difference in attitude towards money. Having money, she was a spender; coming from more modest means, I’m very careful with my bank balance.
If that were the only thing, I think we could have gotten past it (it’s her money anyway, and my attitude towards money is “as long as it doesn’t run out to the point where I can’t be comfortable, I don’t care about accumulating it”), but it was just one way among a dozen others in which we just weren’t compatible.
Geoists: But make sure the landlords and other rent-seekers can’t just pocket it.
Big-R Republicans: We could just donate to the job creators, and replace all the entitlements and other job-consumer handouts with negative welfare payments to pay for it.
