The myth of witch burning lives on. The Salem witch trials was basically small town vigilant justice, rather than true just. Only once the trials moved to Boston did justice get served and no woman got convicted. In fact for much of history just to survive both the husband and wife had to work just to support their family. It is only because of the wealth of modern times that women didn't have to work and could stay at home if they chose to, but before the industrial revolution it was a case of work or die.
What you call it is irrelevant to the women who were unjustly accused and murdered. And I was actually thinking of Tudor England when I wrote that post. Specifically, Anne Boleyn. One of the charges against her was witchcraft, and the usual method of execution was burning. But Henry VIII decided to be merciful and have her head lopped off instead, since it was quicker and she wouldn't suffer as much. It never occurred to him that she might actually be innocent of all those charges, and he should have just admitted that he wanted to get rid of her for not bearing him a living son.
She's only three and already does chores around the house and really loves helping out so I can see she already has a strong work ethic. And before you say anything about making a 3-year-old do chores, it was actually my wife that got that started as I am of the philosophy of letting kids be kids and enjoy their childhood.
What chores can a 3-year-old do beyond "pick up your toys"? I will admit that this was about the extent of what my mother expected of me, since she figured I'd just break anything I touched or hurt myself. Then a few years later, she wondered why I hadn't magically absorbed the knowledge of how to do the things she hadn't let me do earlier.
...the post you are responding to with this statement was written under the assumption that I eventually cave to her wishes. If I did that, then I would be both the financial provider and the one doing all the housework. If that were to occur, she would pretty much be a useless lump who is just spending all the money. That is a situation I absolutely refuse to allow. I am not going to completely take care of a fully-grown, able-bodied adult so they can just sit around and do whatever they please all day.
Okay, but it wasn't clear that you were speaking of a hypothetical future situation. It sounds as though you consider her a child right now.
My wife has repeatedly stated if we end up getting divorced she would take our daughter and move back in with her parents. Now, she has a father and an uncle that are sex offenders and their offenses are related to sexual misconduct with minors. So my wife has pretty much admitted to me that she would willingly put her daughter in the same house with a sex offender and just a few miles away from another one that would have access to her. If the court doesn't see that as being an unfit parent, well...then I seriously doubt the judgment of that court.
Presumably her father and uncle are not allowed to have contact with children. If they did, wouldn't they be in trouble?
Well, if I do end up having to divulge the existence of this account, I wouldn't want her lawyer to know exactly what to look for in the accounts, now would I?
It's amazing what can be found out or guessed from forum posts. Of course it's also amazing how that can be twisted.
Are you referring to my wife or daughter here? In either case, no I would not try to take whatever money either one of them make. In fact, I have always told my wife that if she ever does get a job, then I don't care what she does with her money as long as she makes a fair contribution towards the bills. The same would go for my daughter, with exception to the contribution to the bills part. That wouldn't kick in until she is an adult and only of she is still living at home.
Your daughter, obviously. I assume your wife is not between the ages of 11-18 years (typically the years during which girls take babysitting jobs).
But I did wonder if you do, or will, give your daughter an allowance and if so, what she would have to do to earn it. I got an allowance during the years when my dad and I lived with his then-girlfriend, but that stopped when we moved in with my grandparents. They didn't believe in allowances, so any spending money I had as a teenager came from babysitting and working in the school library. I had chores around the house - dishwashing, vacuuming, mowing the lawn, dog walking, helping to shovel the snow, and taking out the garbage.
Agreed, but it doesn't really pay the bills now does it? If we didn't have any money, the landlord isn't going to care how spotless my wife keeps the apartment; if we can't pay the rent then we are out.
My point is that housework is work. It just is. If she didn't do it, you'd have to do it yourself, teach your kid to do it, or hire someone.
She's not stupid, but she's not exactly the resourceful type either. Couple that with the fact that she is not technically-inclined at all and I go to great lengths to hide my presence online and the chances are pretty slim that she would be able to find all of my online activity. I also make her think that I can't hide anything from her by letting her catch me in a few minor lies. That makes her confident that she knows everything I'm up to and dissuades her from prying any further into my activities.
So you see nothing wrong with lying to your wife. Wow.
The way it works is she usually tells me how much she would like for the day and tells me what she needs it for. If we have the money available I usually give it to her without further questioning. Although I never give it to her in cash, I just transfer it to the joint account so she uses the debit card and I can see that she is actually spending the money on what she says she is going to spend it on. I do keep her appraised of our current financial situation in terms of what all of our monthly bills are and how much is owed, as well as how much money we still have available for the month. If I make a major purchase, I'll tell her about it (with major being defined as anything over $50); minor ones I won't. I do ask for her opinion on major financial decisions, she just doesn't have any actual decision-making authority when it comes to money.
So she's not allowed to handle cash? Really? What if some purchase she wants to make is one where the business won't take a debit card (if the purchase is below the minimum amount some businesses require)? What if there's something that's really needed and she couldn't buy it because the store's debit card machine wasn't working?
Why don't you just microchip her and get it over with?
As an aside: I do find it a bit odd that you seem so certain as to what constitutes a "real loving husband" when you have never been married yourself. If you've never been married all you have to go on are theories and anecdotes since you have never experienced the realities of being married to another person. It just seems to me you are taking what you believe constitutes a loving husband and trying to pass that off as objective fact.
Uh-huh. Like never having been married somehow disqualifies me from discussing topics to do with marriage. Naturally, the rest of you recuse yourselves from talking about women's issues because you're not female. Oh, wait...
I've had several decades of observing various marriages in my family and among friends and acquaintances. The most successful of them are those where both parties are honest with each other. My mother was divorced twice. My youngest aunt was divorced once. Another aunt went through several marriages. My dad never remarried after divorcing my mother, but he lived with a succession of girlfriends, and the last one lived in a trailer on our property (and made life hell for my grandmother and me for more years than I care to remember).
My grandparents, on the other hand, stayed married for 1 day shy of 52 years (my grandfather died the day before their 52nd anniversary). He and my grandmother had mutual respect and honesty. She hadn't worked at an outside job for several decades before he died, but he didn't have an "I give you a roof over your head and food on the table, so get busy with the cooking and cleaning and I won't trust you with the finances or even let you have cash" attitude. He didn't sneak around on her, and even if he was the one who actually made most of the major purchases, she at least had input into them, knew what was going on, and he expected her to be able to step in and handle things if he got sick or died (which is what happened).
Obviously men are stronger, only if/when they have more muscle mass. That is exactly what I said. 
.
and/or start whatever thread you want, or deem appropriate 
