Oddbean new post about login | logout I am convinced that home economics under a hard money system should work differently than under fiat. Y'all aren't ready to hear this, but there it is.
elaborate?
End child support and alimony, bring back dowries and separate property for wives, and make the core of that property be Bitcoin.
make it so
I think we've all been grossly discounting how much of womens' time and fertility is being wasted on maintaining an income stream or professional qualification, as insurance against bad husbandry. I'm going to call it "defensive careerism".
grossly is a pretty apt term. The situation is indeed pretty gross.
I've been hearing women talk in this "defensive careerism" manner my entire life, without digesting what they were REALLY saying. And without considering why I don't feel the need to do likewise (I own my own appreciating property and he regularly buys me more.) It's a societal noise that is destroying the marital signal, but this is something Bitcoin really could fix.
Athing that I think may be true: The problem with living from a position of defensive anything is that it leads to pernicious narcissism. The issue is that in defensive posture everything is processed through the lens of threat to self. It values securing self above everything. Makes relationships very hard to navigate on both sides and almost impossible if both partners are so afflicted.
Yup. 💯 I'm too much of an engineer to just say "Stop being afraid," tho. Why should they stop, if the situation that incited the fear didn't change?
thats why they are stuck is my guess.
Then I suppose it's a good thing that I'm a single dad.
hahaha thats one way to look at it. Priorities are well aligned anyway.
According to @Laeserin I'm misogynistic. So... I don't know! 🤷♂️🤣
I dont even wanna know what you did lol
https://i.nostr.build/jYLPG.gif
How much attention do you need?
LOL run out of arguments, I see.
This character and the human are both my kryptonite. I actually cried when she had throat surgery. weird I know but Mary bin my girl from short pants days
I loved her in The Sound of Music, but Mary Poppins was also fantastic.
the filming technique they used to create the cartoon world immersion was lost until recently. It makes green screen look primitive. eg. you can see background clearly through her sheer head scarf. cool trick with a prism and using a yellow soda light.
I actually rewatched it a couple of weeks ago and it's quite impressive, I agree.
I wonder what the insurance against bad husbandry was 200 years ago? 🤔
Many poor women didn't marry (that hasn't changed). They lived in service. Family businesses and especially farms offered an appreciating investment that middle-class women (or their children) maintained access to. And there was social pressure to financially support wives indefinitely, even if you wanted to schtupp the maid, and it was difficult to marry that maid. Wealthy women had jewels, real estate, property their male relatives held in trust, etc. And, of course, your male relatives were a threat, legal and physical, in their own right. What has changed is the overemphasis on salaried income. Particularly future salaried income.
Interesting points. I'm not familiar with all that specific data. So the main theory is that women being more financially independent makes them more likely to get and stay married? And that women were more financially independent 200 years ago than they are today, which is why marriage is less common and less successful now than in the past?
I don't know if they were more personally independent, but they had property rights and access to durable goods other than a house, and they could hold these in title. (Or on behalf of minor children: a lot of the fuss is about securing inheritance for your own children through something other than a will, rather than letting The New Girl move in and steal or sell their stuff.)
Modern housewives often own nothing but access to his income stream, and that is a right has been legally eroded (through no-fault divorce and rampant male remarriage, for instance ) and he can more easily cut her off from it or simply protest by ending the pursuit of income. No differently than before, she can best gain access to that stream by simply living with him and lying with him, which leads to "feeling trapped". Middle class women are being asked to reduce or abandon their income stream (which would raise their fertility and their husbands' income) and rely on his, but he usually doesn't offer compensation for her risk, so she clings to that stream.
Agree with everything except the suggestion regarding dowries. But that's, no doubt, a purely subjective matter for each individual couple.
Ha ha. That is an incredibly misogynistic statement. You do you.
Lol. I meant the part about dowries. ONLY dowries. Women can own as much separate property as they want. 🤣 Why would I ever be against that?
The dowry is her insurance against being left barefoot and pregnant.
Lol! 🙄🤣 Alright then... let's try this again. I said it was a subjective matter for each individual couple. If I marry a woman after which she gets pregnant two years later, then I'll just give her money and a portion of my assets to have for her own. I don't need a dowry for that. Then we get divorced eight years later when our child is eight years old. She'll have millions of dollars of worth of assets of her own. I'll never let her starve! Apologies, but "barefoot and pregnant"? Are you insane?! 🤨 I didn't even marry my daughters mum and she's doin' just fien thanks to me.
It's always subjective. The point of a dowry is to appeal to prudent women, who have some future time-orientation. They're the ones balking most at getting knocked up by Mr. Trust-Me-Baby, but they're the ones who will keep up the mean IQ.
Not the case for everybody. But... ok.
A woman who wouldn't receive a dowry is low-value, by definition. I mean, there's a reason you didn't put a ring on it...
My daughter is high-value! No doubt! Her mum was not! She proved that time and time again by refusing to see her! Of course, there was a reason I didn't put a ring on it.
I thought historically a dowry was paid by a bride’s family to the husband’s family?
It is, but it's become synonymous with "dower".
Another term is "bride price", which went from the groom to her family.
Still served a similar purpose too, as the dowry was a way to attract a “higher quality” mate. It also meant the bride’s family was picky about who she courted.
We're sort of max-regarded now, as the groom is often expected to spend a ton of money on a fancy wedding and honeymoon. It's still true signaling, but it's basically just burning a pile of cash. People are dropping over 0,5 Bitcoin on one party and it's like... Or just give her the Bitcoin, bro. Or maybe I'm just a spoilsport. 😂
Where I’m from traditionally a bride’s parent’s foot the bill for the wedding. Many couples are jointly paying for their own weddings now. But I’ve never seen a groom expected to pick up the whole tab for a wedding.
Not the entire tab, but they're increasingly paying themselves and financing with debt and his generally higher-income often leads to him footing more of the bill (which is fair). Also, you have to look at the precise breakdown, as bride's family only cover the dress and the main wedding party. Engagement party and ring, wedding ring, transport, rehearsal dinner, honeymoon, etc. is usually on him.
My point is more that people are underestimating how much money goes into getting married. Taking a portion of that and handing it over in Bitcoin (rather than a big rock in the ring, for instance) would maybe be more sensible. There's a lot of "wealth signaling" that doesn't contribute to lasting wealth.
I’m so ok with eloping and putting money towards areas to help build a life with your spouse. My partner doesn’t have to spend 2 months salary on a ring. I’d rather make those decisions together. Honestly I’ve seen too many people go almost crazy with stress planning a wedding. I’d rather build and plan for a life than focus on one day.
On the other hand, I think a lot of this spending serves some concrete purpose, like a dowry-effect. It shows what the bride is worth, basically, and that the groom isn't a pauper. I think this is why my husband resisted my "let's just have a chili cookout in the backyard" idea. I sometimes appear so poor that it attracts men who think I'm unloved and being neglected.
I’ve had men tell me that they felt like the engagement ring is more of a signal to other men. I’ve seen engagement rings I wouldn’t wear swimming cause you’d just sink right to the bottom.
😂 Yeah. I originally said I didn't need one and he was like nope, you're getting one. And it did have a tangible, immediate effect on other men.
What do you think of a 2 of 3 multisig wallet both are paying into? The third key is held by someone both trust and agree on. If the husband runs away the moneys goes to the wife. If it turns out that the kids father is not the husband the money goes to the husband. You could also hand the third key to a "notar" and make a contract to spell things out. I believe that such a set up is an additional incentive for a marriage well lived.
Yes, I've thought about that. Bitcoin really is the best sort of property for this sort of thing. Multisig also prevents her from blowing it all on a shopping spree or giving him access in response to physical threats. It's supposed to be a sort of trust fund, and trusts are often sealed by a lawyer, notary, etc.
You could also add clauses for money being added to the wallet, like on the consummation of the marriage, the birth of a child, wedding anniversary, as a % of any income increase the family has (since she indirectly helped generate that increase), etc. Not the least because German law says that if something is given to a spouses, explicitly as a present, the recipient owns it outright and it doesn't become joint property. (That's why I receive gold coins for Christmas, birthdays, etc., where they are given in front of other people and come in a present box.) You would probably have to tie the amounts according to some deflation rate, tho. The price of housing or electricity, or something.
I'm basically advocating for a "prenuptual contract" culture, I guess, rather than reliance on family law. Happier marriages often naturally settle into this sort of thing, over time, but making it tradition is more effective across the population. Away from lavish weddings, McMansions, and megadiamonds, toward sensible financial planning and addressing common concerns in advance, with the help of advisors and templates. People think this is tawdry, since we're supposed to be romantic and trusting, but I see it as prudent and sensible. And a solid financial foundation gives romance more room to bloom.
Yes! Already living in that world ✅.
The lavishness used to proof of that solid foundation.
used to be that to join families both would have to show proof of worth. hence dowries separate properties etc.
This is often still the case, if the families are well-established and attentive.
Yah ... Just not enough good looking families still have those values in tact. Kek
I know. I had a lavish wedding in a castle with a designer gown, and etc. But we didn't pay for that! 😱 That would have bankrupted us. Only thing the groom paid for were the rings and the honeymoon. Everything else was our parents.
It's not proof of a solid foundation, if you go broke paying for it. The foundation is that your parents are wealthy (or the groom is). You don't spend dowry money on a party. 🤦♀️
Haha, that last line 😅💯
If she doesn't know how to hold keys, she's not a keeper
I'm a f**king agnostic liberal/libertarian , therefore I appreciate your Christian conservative perspective so much. 🙏
