Author
|
Topic: de-privileging marriage
|
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 01 October 2004 08:57 AM
But the point is, Sinistral, for those plans that allow a married or common-law person to include their spouse in their benefits, this person is arguing that you should be able to confer your benefits on anyone, whether you live with them or not. So I could give my spousal benefits to, say, my aunt, even if I live alone (which I do). This made me laugh: quote: Marriage, as we've said in one form or another before in these pages -- usually in the context of same-sex marriage -- is just not something the state should have an interest in anymore. We certainly don't think churches ought to feel constrained about putting restrictions and requirements on their various versions of interpersonal bonding, whether it's that both people have to be of the same faith, of a different sex or of complementary genetic backgrounds. They already believe in fairies and zombies and supernatural heroes and villains, so why the hell not?
The only problem I see with such a plan is this: say I decide to put my roomie on my benefits package plan from work. What happens if I decide that I don't want to live with my roommate anymore and move out? Can that roommate now sue me for support, citing the fact that I supported him or her with my benefits package? I don't think you should even have to declare that you "love" someone or share a bond with them in order to share your benefits. Because then I think you open up the door to support/alimony lawsuits. After all, if a husband or wife can sue you for alimony, why couldn't a friend or relative? Also, what about benefits for children? Doesn't that discriminate against people who choose to remain childless? What if we decided that people could confer their child benefits (I get both spousal and child benefits through work and only use the child benefits for my son) on any child in their family instead of their own children so as not to discriminate against people who choose to be childless? I have a small cousin who is very dear to me - he's 12 years old, and has always been poor, always lived in public housing, parents always on assistance, etc. Oh wait, I guess that means his benefits are covered. Never mind. But what if I didn't have a child, but had a niece or nephew who desperately needed benefits? Or, say I had 10 nieces and nephews who desperately needed a benefits package? If my co-worker has 10 kids, they get benefits for all 10 of them. Why should I get less benefits because I'm childless, when I love my nieces and nephews dearly as members of my family? Or even kids not related to me but perhaps living in the same house, if I've got a roommate with three kids. [ 01 October 2004: Message edited by: Michelle ]
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478
|
posted 01 October 2004 09:11 AM
I'm a bit confused about context here. The article starts out talking about government employees and seems for some time to be talking mainly about extending the definition of beneficiaries. But by the end, are we talking about all Canadians? That would be nice in theory, except that nowhere near all Canadian workers are getting benefits that they can pass on to others/another. So we need some clarity here, and more than just revisions to tax legislation or the definition of a beneficiary. That said, I am 100 per cent in favour of extending the definition of beneficiary. I know a number of people who have lived as partners for decades, or who have cared for someone else at heroic expense to themselves, and yet been forbidden access to the benefits a married partner would have had.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478
|
posted 01 October 2004 09:15 AM
Michelle, about children: all those questions you raise just emphasize, to me, how vital it is that we think in terms of socialized benefits to children, many of whom are not going to have access to all kinds of things any other way.Whether or not one has children is utterly irrelevant, I think. No one "owns" his/her children, and children remain vitally important to the childless, as to everyone else, so the issue of children is quite separate, I think, from how we work towards fairness for partners, among adults.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 01 October 2004 09:25 AM
Oh, you have absolute agreement from me there, skdadl. I think all children should have free medical, dental, drugs, and eye care. Hell, all PEOPLE should have it, never mind just children.My son has been to the dentist ONCE in his life (he only goes if something is disastrously wrong, and the one time he went, it was because he bashed a tooth so hard it started to turn black - luckily he has very healthy teeth). My benefits start this month, and he'll be going once a year now. ALL children should be going to the dentist once a year, not just those children whose parents can afford it. ALL children should have access to the antibiotics and other various drugs they need when they get sick. It has been a real struggle over the last five years paying for that sort of thing when sudden emergencies came on like that with my little one. It's such a relief to be able to put him on my work plan now. And I recognize that it shouldn't just be people who get a job with an employer progressive enough to offer benefits packages to their employees whose minds are at ease regarding their own health and that of their children.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
kukuchai
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6215
|
posted 03 October 2004 01:56 PM
It's too bad women have to prostitute themselves through marriage to receive dental and other benefits for themselves and their children.It's too bad women have to prostitute themselves through marriage to receive respect and security for themselves and their children. It's too bad that, still, a smart single mom with kids is not treated as well as a stupid married woman. Don't mean to sound bitter, but "them's the facts".
From: Earth | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448
|
posted 03 October 2004 02:54 PM
What lagatta said. quote: It's too bad women have to prostitute themselves through marriage to receive dental and other benefits for themselves and their children.
The blond guy has been self-employed for much of his working life. I, on the other hand, have held several jobs where benefits were included. Hey, maybe the blond guy prostituted himself to get my benefits... If I really wanted benefits that badly, I guess I could have stayed on. However, our concern now is, that as a pair of self-employed parents, the only coverages we can access are darned pricey. It isn't just the single parents that don't have access to benefits. [ 03 October 2004: Message edited by: Zoot ]
From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
kukuchai
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6215
|
posted 03 October 2004 02:58 PM
I didn't say all married women are stupid and certainly didn't intend to insult anyone. There are smart and stupid single moms and there are smart and stupid married women. I meant that, in general, single moms (even smart ones) are labelled and not given the same respect and regard as married women (whether stupid or smart).
From: Earth | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478
|
posted 03 October 2004 03:18 PM
Um. We have some realities to deal with here.I didn't marry for securities or benefits either, but it is deeply true that I would be in deep shit right now without the superior financial opportunities available to a man of another generation, boy. Mind you, the marriage to me, I like to think, has not been without benefits to him, either. Mainly, that's not how I like to think of it; but if someone is calling in the forensic accountants, I can defend myself, vomiting all the way. [ 03 October 2004: Message edited by: skdadl ]
From: gone | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478
|
posted 03 October 2004 03:24 PM
I'm sorry, you guys. I can't have these conversations without crying too much, so I'm leaving now.I know that you all know what happens if we go on sheer crying jags: we get sick. I can't do that any more. I do hope that people will listen to kukuchai, though. She is confronting us quite rightly. It doesn't matter how kukuchai puts it; in financial terms, she is right. Women are not liberated; we are not equal; we do not have equal earning power; and that is just the way it is. It is insulting, in human terms, to pretend that most women could just rise up on their hind legs and pull themselves and their children out of poverty by an effort of individual will. [ 03 October 2004: Message edited by: skdadl ]
From: gone | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478
|
posted 03 October 2004 03:46 PM
Zoot, I agree. The first great feminist legal victory in this country was to defeat the view that wives had contributed nothing to their marriages if they hadn't contributed money. I think that all feminist discussions should recognize that context as we attempt to move forward. Married women are not "fucking for a living." Until everyone recognizes what a fundamental victory that was, we can't go any further. At the same time: we all know that huge numbers of women -- and their children -- have no obvious way out of poverty except by searching desperately for someone who can support them -- and mainly, that means men. When someone in that situation says that to us, however she says it: we are going to deny its truth?
From: gone | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Hailey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6438
|
posted 03 October 2004 04:39 PM
quote: It's too bad women have to prostitute themselves through marriage to receive dental and other benefits for themselves and their children. It's too bad women have to prostitute themselves through marriage to receive respect and security for themselves and their children.It's too bad that, still, a smart single mom with kids is not treated as well as a stupid married woman. Don't mean to sound bitter, but "them's the facts".
What a wonderful characterization of marriage. Who could doubt that the feminist movement is not respectful of marriage, staying at home and family life? How could I ever have doubted that??!! Silly me. Suffice to say - I am not a prostitute. If you want to refer to yourself as that that's incredibly sad but it's your right to do. It's pretty insulting to characterize all married women that way.
From: candyland | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534
|
posted 03 October 2004 04:52 PM
Hailey, kukuchai is the only person here who said that, and the rest of us nasty feminists (married or not) took her to task for an inappropriate comment. "Feminism" is not to blame for the situation. On the contrary, the problem is the persistance of inequality in terms of access to income and job security. My mum was widowed when we were kids. (Not that my dad was any great "provider" either, but...). Women who find themselves alone as the head of households rarely have access to the earning power required to lift themselves and their children out of poverty. That is one of the reasons I vowed never to have any, but I doubt very much that is what you would advocate! In any case, it is a personal solution, and could never be a solution for a society, which does have to ensure its own reproduction in some way or another.
From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478
|
posted 03 October 2004 05:13 PM
Hailey, and anyone else still insensitive to the situation: kukuchai is obviously writing out of a particular situation, and anyone with half a brain would cut her some slack, ok?lagatta and I lived through a strange time. We took part in exhilarating political battles, but as women we coped with many paradoxes. We outnumbered our male contemporaries, so marriage was no easy out for many of us. We insisted that we believed in women's equality, but overnight that meant that any number of idiots expected us to be equally qualified and earning as much as our male contemporaries. So here we are, eh, lagatta? Old, and poor, and talking to a lot of younger feminists who just can't quite figure out why we aren't all that gung-ho for value-neutral discussions of equality.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hailey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6438
|
posted 03 October 2004 05:34 PM
quote: Hailey, piss off with your feminist baiting. Or at least read the rest of the thread.
I'd call referring to another woman as a prostitute a dictionary definition of baiting but...you are the moderator...I'll defer to your interpretation. quote: That is one of the reasons I vowed never to have any, but I doubt very much that is what you would advocate!
I respect everyone's right not to have kids if that is their vision for their life. If you don't want them then you should certainly not involve yourself in pregnancy, childbirth, rearing etc. That's perfectly respectable. quote: Hailey, and anyone else still insensitive to the situation: kukuchai is obviously writing out of a particular situation, and anyone with half a brain would cut her some slack, ok?
I'd prefer you not suggest that those who have a competing point of view do not have "half a brain". Sorry for being insensitive when I questioned someone's right to call me a prostitute. I'm dropping out of the discussion on this thread.
From: candyland | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
khrisse-boy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3632
|
posted 04 October 2004 10:07 AM
Very interesting, and obviously somewhat tense, discussion. Recognizing and supporting relationships other than romantic ones is in line with the recommendations made by the Law Commission of Canada on the subject a few years ago. The report is available on their webpage at www.lcc.gc.ca. I personally think that being able to designate someone other than a romantic partner as recipient of your benefits (if you have access to them) is an excellent idea and in line with the reality in many of our lives that we do not build our lives around a two-person monogamous coupling. If the most important person in our lives (or the one most in need of benefits) is a parent, an uncle or aunt, a close friend, a sibling, etc, I think it would be really cool to be able to designate them as recipient of your benefits. Widening the range of those who can recieve benefits is also a good way to support us in building and maintaining our families. It does introduce another wrinkle though... is the government discriminating by not allowing us to designate more than one person as recipients of our benefits? On the children front, I'd say that special benefits for families with children is fine with me. Children are a public good... they're the continuance of our society and as such I think we need to as a society support them and their families... in fact we should be doing way more than we do now. And I say this as a queer guy who is not likely to have children of his own. On the marriage as prostitution front, I'll preface my comments by saying that I do believe, of course, that many of us enter into marriage because of love and not for the benefits. Historically though, is it not true that for many women marriage represented security for them and their kids? Is it not still true that given the fact that women still earn somewhere around 70 cents on the male dollar on average that marriage still represents security for a lot of women? I don't mean to be offensive when I say this, but I think that prostitution, in a broad sense, is central to capitalism. Unless we're independently wealthy, we all sell ourselves to make a living, whether it's sexual labour or some other form of labour. Many women historically did it through marriage... the old giving sex and housekeeping for love and security deal. Some women still do. Many men since the industrial revolution did it through waged labour. Now women are able to do it on more or less the same terms as men (though it tends to be not as lucrative for them). In my view, we're all whores in a sense. It's not an aspect of capitalism I'm particularly happy about, but it's undeniably there in both marriage and waged labour, and taking offense at that being pointed out is counterproductive in my view. Yes, many people marry for love. Yes, many people do particular jobs because they love the work. That does not change, however, the structure we operate within.
From: Ottawa, ON | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Sine Ziegler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 225
|
posted 04 October 2004 02:49 PM
Someone once told me that single people are a lot more productive than those who are married/living together.. dating... etc. Sometimes I wonder what I would be doing if I were living single. Would I be more sucessful in my career? Would I be happier? Don't get me wrong, I am head over heels. I used to laugh at my friends who went from single, wild partying, career ambitious college women to staying at home and making dinner, lunches and doing laundry for their co-habitating boyfriends. I never ever thought I would ever do a man's laundry or ironing. Now I do those things for my spouse. Mostly because it makes sense. He does it when he has time, and I do it when I have time. The sad thing is that a lot of men have the types of jobs where they need to stay at work late, and the woman is at home, so she ends up doing the chores to make his life easier., and hence her life too. It comes back to "making the home harmonious". Women seem to flock to that behaviour. BLAH. I can't speak for being a single mom, or even growing up in that situation. We can only speak from our own.
From: Calgary | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|