Commercializing Marriage: A Proposal for Valuing Women's Work Through Premarital Security Agreements

IF 2.2 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW
Martha M. Ertman
{"title":"Commercializing Marriage: A Proposal for Valuing Women's Work Through Premarital Security Agreements","authors":"Martha M. Ertman","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.148048","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The twin problems of displaced homemaker indigency and the general devaluation of women?s work may be alleviated by commercializing marriage through premarital security agreements (\"PSAs\"). PSAs are modeled on commercial security agreements, and import the rights and duties of creditors and debtors to the marital relationship. This importation is justified because in a typical marriage the primary homemaker contributes substantially to the primary wage-earner?s stream of income, but post-divorce stream of income usually is not distributed upon divorce (even though it is often the most important asset in a marriage). This inequitable distribution of marital assets often leaves the homemaker in significantly worse financial shape than her former spouse. PSAs seek to remedy this situation by designating the primary homemaker as a creditor in relation to her primary wage-earning spouse on the theory that she gives value to her wage-earning spouse in the form of homemaking services and lost opportunity costs that facilitate maximization of his wage-earning potential. She does so in the expectation that she will share this stream of income throughout the wage-earner?s career, but this expectation is frustrated upon divorce. PSAs would explicitly recognize this debtor/creditor relationship between traditionalist spouses by calculating a debt that the primary-wage earner owes to the primary homemaker based on the duration of the marriage, the difference between the spouses? wages, and the age of any minor children. PSAs would secure the primary homemaker?s interest in repayment of this loan with collateral (50% of marital property, which is defined to include the primary wage-earner?s post-divorce income). Upon default, the homemaker, like a commercial secured creditor, would have the option to repossess or garnish the collateral to satisfy the unpaid portion of the debt. \"Commercializing Marriage\" suggests that PSAs have cross over potential in that they cohere with the approaches of disparate ideological approaches, including those of legal economic, as well as liberal, cultural, and radical feminist scholars. PSAs offer a new approach and thus contribute to a broad scholarly discourse searching for a theory justifying alimony that is consistent with contemporary understandings of gender. \"Commercializing Marriage\" analyzes how PSAs cohere with the approaches of disparate ideologies, including legal economics and liberal, cultural, and radical feminism. Legal economists would appreciate PSAs? commercial origins, and their power to efficiently deter opportunism. Cultural feminists might like the way PSAs increase the value of caretaking. While liberal feminist concerns are likely to arise around PSAs? potential to create incentives to adopt traditional gender roles, liberal feminists might appreciate PSAs? parallel potential to create incentives for more equal distribution of homemaking and wage labor. PSAs also serve the interests of radical feminism by transforming the cultural category of economically vulnerable housewife to that of a powerful market player, the secured creditor. In sum, PSAs may have cross-over analytical appeal as a solution to the problems of displaced homemaker indigency and the general devaluation of women?s work. While each ideological approach might be inconsistent in some respects with PSAs, \"Commercializing Marriage\" suggests that the benefits of PSAs outweigh shortcomings they may have under any particular ideological analysis. Finally, even if PSAs prove problematic as a substantive measure implementing post-divorce income sharing, they could serve the procedural function of implementing other theories of alimony, such as those based on partnership models. PSAs have both practical and theoretical benefits. Practically, they have the unique potential to commodify homemaking (and thus counter the devaluation of women?s work in both the home and market). Theoretically, they mine the common elements of disparate ideologies to reveal (and account for) the ways that domestic labor contributes to family wealth. As such PSAs illustrate how often-overlooked models from the market offer new solutions to entrenched financially inequities in family law.","PeriodicalId":47670,"journal":{"name":"Texas Law Review","volume":"77 1","pages":"17"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"1998-04-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"18","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Texas Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.148048","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 18

Abstract

The twin problems of displaced homemaker indigency and the general devaluation of women?s work may be alleviated by commercializing marriage through premarital security agreements ("PSAs"). PSAs are modeled on commercial security agreements, and import the rights and duties of creditors and debtors to the marital relationship. This importation is justified because in a typical marriage the primary homemaker contributes substantially to the primary wage-earner?s stream of income, but post-divorce stream of income usually is not distributed upon divorce (even though it is often the most important asset in a marriage). This inequitable distribution of marital assets often leaves the homemaker in significantly worse financial shape than her former spouse. PSAs seek to remedy this situation by designating the primary homemaker as a creditor in relation to her primary wage-earning spouse on the theory that she gives value to her wage-earning spouse in the form of homemaking services and lost opportunity costs that facilitate maximization of his wage-earning potential. She does so in the expectation that she will share this stream of income throughout the wage-earner?s career, but this expectation is frustrated upon divorce. PSAs would explicitly recognize this debtor/creditor relationship between traditionalist spouses by calculating a debt that the primary-wage earner owes to the primary homemaker based on the duration of the marriage, the difference between the spouses? wages, and the age of any minor children. PSAs would secure the primary homemaker?s interest in repayment of this loan with collateral (50% of marital property, which is defined to include the primary wage-earner?s post-divorce income). Upon default, the homemaker, like a commercial secured creditor, would have the option to repossess or garnish the collateral to satisfy the unpaid portion of the debt. "Commercializing Marriage" suggests that PSAs have cross over potential in that they cohere with the approaches of disparate ideological approaches, including those of legal economic, as well as liberal, cultural, and radical feminist scholars. PSAs offer a new approach and thus contribute to a broad scholarly discourse searching for a theory justifying alimony that is consistent with contemporary understandings of gender. "Commercializing Marriage" analyzes how PSAs cohere with the approaches of disparate ideologies, including legal economics and liberal, cultural, and radical feminism. Legal economists would appreciate PSAs? commercial origins, and their power to efficiently deter opportunism. Cultural feminists might like the way PSAs increase the value of caretaking. While liberal feminist concerns are likely to arise around PSAs? potential to create incentives to adopt traditional gender roles, liberal feminists might appreciate PSAs? parallel potential to create incentives for more equal distribution of homemaking and wage labor. PSAs also serve the interests of radical feminism by transforming the cultural category of economically vulnerable housewife to that of a powerful market player, the secured creditor. In sum, PSAs may have cross-over analytical appeal as a solution to the problems of displaced homemaker indigency and the general devaluation of women?s work. While each ideological approach might be inconsistent in some respects with PSAs, "Commercializing Marriage" suggests that the benefits of PSAs outweigh shortcomings they may have under any particular ideological analysis. Finally, even if PSAs prove problematic as a substantive measure implementing post-divorce income sharing, they could serve the procedural function of implementing other theories of alimony, such as those based on partnership models. PSAs have both practical and theoretical benefits. Practically, they have the unique potential to commodify homemaking (and thus counter the devaluation of women?s work in both the home and market). Theoretically, they mine the common elements of disparate ideologies to reveal (and account for) the ways that domestic labor contributes to family wealth. As such PSAs illustrate how often-overlooked models from the market offer new solutions to entrenched financially inequities in family law.
婚姻商业化:通过婚前保障协议重视女性工作的建议
流离失所的家庭主妇的贫困和普遍贬低妇女的双重问题?通过婚前安全协议(“psa”)将婚姻商业化,可能会减轻她的工作。公益协议以商业担保协议为范本,将债权人和债务人的权利和义务引入婚姻关系。这种输入是合理的,因为在典型的婚姻中,主要的家庭主妇对主要的工资收入者做出了很大的贡献。但离婚后的收入通常不会在离婚时分配(尽管它通常是婚姻中最重要的资产)。这种不公平的婚姻财产分配往往使家庭主妇的财务状况比她的前配偶严重得多。公益服务计划试图通过指定主要家庭主妇作为与其主要挣工资的配偶有关的债权人来纠正这种情况,其理论是,她以家务服务的形式为其挣工资的配偶提供价值,并损失机会成本,从而促进其挣工资潜力的最大化。她这样做的目的是希望她能与这个挣工资的人分享这一笔收入。但离婚后,这种期望就落空了。公益广告将明确承认传统配偶之间的这种债务人/债权人关系,通过计算主要工资收入者欠主要家庭主妇的债务,基于婚姻的持续时间,配偶之间的差异?工资,未成年子女的年龄。公益广告会保证家庭主妇的安全吗?偿还这笔贷款的利息和抵押品(婚姻财产的50%,定义为包括主要工资收入者)?(离婚后的收入)。一旦违约,家庭主妇,就像商业担保债权人一样,可以选择收回或扣押抵押品,以满足未支付的债务部分。《婚姻商业化》表明,公益广告具有跨界潜力,因为它们与不同的意识形态方法相一致,包括法律经济方法,以及自由主义、文化和激进女权主义学者的方法。公益广告提供了一种新的方法,从而有助于广泛的学术论述,寻找一种与当代性别理解一致的赡养费理论。《婚姻商业化》分析了公益广告如何与法律经济学、自由主义、文化主义和激进女权主义等不同意识形态的方法相结合。法律经济学家会欣赏公益广告吗?商业起源,以及它们有效阻止机会主义的力量。文化女权主义者可能会喜欢公益广告增加照顾价值的方式。而自由女权主义者可能会对公益广告产生担忧?自由主义女权主义者可能会欣赏公益广告。为家务劳动和雇佣劳动的更平等分配创造激励的平行潜力。公益广告还通过将经济上脆弱的家庭主妇的文化范畴转变为强大的市场参与者、有担保的债权人的文化范畴,为激进女权主义的利益服务。总而言之,公益广告可能具有跨界分析的吸引力,可以解决流离失所的家庭主妇的贫困和妇女普遍贬值的问题。年代的工作。虽然每种意识形态的方法在某些方面可能与公益广告不一致,但《婚姻商业化》表明,公益广告的好处超过了它们在任何特定意识形态分析下可能存在的缺点。最后,即使公益协议作为实施离婚后收入分享的实质性措施存在问题,它们也可以起到实施其他赡养费理论的程序功能,例如基于合伙模式的理论。公益广告具有实践和理论两方面的好处。实际上,她们有使家务商品化的独特潜力(从而抵消妇女的贬值)。(在国内和市场都适用)。从理论上讲,他们挖掘了不同意识形态的共同元素,以揭示(并解释)家务劳动对家庭财富的贡献方式。因此,公益广告说明了经常被忽视的市场模式如何为家庭法中根深蒂固的财务不平等提供新的解决方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
6.20%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The Texas Law Review is a national and international leader in legal scholarship. Texas Law Review is an independent journal, edited and published entirely by students at the University of Texas School of Law. Our seven issues per year contain articles by professors, judges, and practitioners; reviews of important recent books from recognized experts, essays, commentaries; and student written notes. Texas Law Review is currently the ninth most cited legal periodical in federal and state cases in the United States and the thirteenth most cited by legal journals.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信