I guess I understand why in a semi-recent thread, the OP somewhat confusingly went out of his way to refer to his spouse as “they.” It’s really a shame that this thread is probably going to get locked because of gender dynamics issues that I don’t think are germane to the financial question. Of course, from a tax standpoint, whether the spouse is a man or woman makes zero difference.
LOL. If the spouse in question were male, with either a male or a female dawkter spouse, it would still smack me as misogynistic to characterize the non-dawkter’s paid work as less subject to the consideration of “do they want to do it and is it worth it to them” than the dawkter’s. Some things cross gender lines. And if this is the kind of thing that gets threads locked these days, my observation about the forum holds.
(Signed, Girl who did not hold with “modern feminists” as a youngster, but who’s getting feisty near her 40s.)
Say what? If both spouses were hypothetically male, there's really a misogynistic way to frame this?
Serious question: Do you have a grudge against "dawkters?" I'm curious to understand why you choose that pejorative spelling, yet participate in a physician finance forum.
Comment