I think it’s fair to call that model the traditional model.
We’re not talking about the arrangement when the man works and the woman keeps house. We are talking about a man giving permission to his wife to have a baby in return for him not being bothered with house chores. A quid pro quo of sorts.
We’re not talking about the arrangement when the man works and the woman keeps house.
No, that’s the effect of what we are talking about. It one of the models you can end up when it’s the woman’s goal to raise children and the man’s goal to pursue outside projects.
When I say: “agree” I mean that both parties talk about and understand there mutual values and then come to a conclusion that optimizes those.
The good that this post might do is that it helps someone to be more clear about his values. I did use a game theoretic frame to talk about the exchange, but that’s just a frame. A way of talking about the issue.
I certainly don’t advocate that you should specifically pay attention to optimize game theoretic advantages to win against your partner.
...when it’s the woman’s goal to raise children and the man’s goal to pursue outside projects.
If the man’s goal is to pursue outside projects then why would he want children anyway?
And if you are describing a situation where a man does not want children, but can be persuaded to tolerate them in exchange for not being bothered with house chores, I repeat my assertion that the woman should kick him in the balls and run away.
The guy doesn’t want children, but he doesn’t mind having children with the woman as long as it’s not too bothersome for him. The woman either really wants children, in which case this arrangement is to her benefit, or does not want children that badly, in which case they don’t have children.
Well, it’s none of anyone elses business, so I don’t see how other people being there is relevant.
If you mean it in the sense of “don’t settle for someone who isn’t going to help you with kids, no matter how good a match you otherwise are”… Never settle is a brag
We’re not talking about the arrangement when the man works and the woman keeps house. We are talking about a man giving permission to his wife to have a baby in return for him not being bothered with house chores. A quid pro quo of sorts.
No, that’s the effect of what we are talking about. It one of the models you can end up when it’s the woman’s goal to raise children and the man’s goal to pursue outside projects.
When I say: “agree” I mean that both parties talk about and understand there mutual values and then come to a conclusion that optimizes those.
The good that this post might do is that it helps someone to be more clear about his values. I did use a game theoretic frame to talk about the exchange, but that’s just a frame. A way of talking about the issue.
I certainly don’t advocate that you should specifically pay attention to optimize game theoretic advantages to win against your partner.
If the man’s goal is to pursue outside projects then why would he want children anyway?
And if you are describing a situation where a man does not want children, but can be persuaded to tolerate them in exchange for not being bothered with house chores, I repeat my assertion that the woman should kick him in the balls and run away.
I think there a difference between being unwilling to spend a very time and straight out not wanting children.
If the guy wants children but is unwilling to spend time, I think the woman should kick him in the balls several times. Just to be sure.
The guy doesn’t want children, but he doesn’t mind having children with the woman as long as it’s not too bothersome for him. The woman either really wants children, in which case this arrangement is to her benefit, or does not want children that badly, in which case they don’t have children.
You speak as if these two are the only people on the planet.
Well, it’s none of anyone elses business, so I don’t see how other people being there is relevant.
If you mean it in the sense of “don’t settle for someone who isn’t going to help you with kids, no matter how good a match you otherwise are”… Never settle is a brag