The Economic Benefits Of Egalitarianism In Marriage

The pragmatic benefits of a philosophy never make it true.  They are either worthless red herrings to toss aside if an ideology is false or useful consequences to never elevate above their secondary place if an ideology is true.  In some cases, a philosophical stance is both true and beneficial, even if its benefits are misunderstood as drawbacks by incompetent thinkers.  Egalitarian ideas about gender have this combination of both matching reality and providing obvious benefits (obvious at least to thorough rationalists).  The veracity of the ideas do not depend on the pragmatism they might bring, but the pragmatism is a quality that has important ramifications.

Gender egalitarianism is true because of the utter logical irrelevance of someone's bodily anatomy (gender/sex) and their psychological traits (personality, talents, and moral character).  Individualistic beings, which humans are even when they are too shallow to realize it, can realize this no matter how sexist their communities might be.  Even aside from the logical facts of egalitarianism, there are numerous benefits people can enjoy from embracing the truth of genuinely egalitarian ideas all across their lives.  The ramifications of this can range from introspective self-acceptance to financial stability in romantic relationships.

American culture has become far more encouraging towards marriages and dating partnerships where both the woman and man hold their own jobs, earning their own incomes that they can pool at will or if needed.  Even if expressing egalitarianism is not what some married people of either gender have in mind when they and their spouses separately work.  After all, it can be extremely difficult for a single person, man or woman, to earn enough to economically support even just their own self and a romantic/marriage partner.  Sheer necessity can drive some people to practice egalitarianism in this aspect of their relationship when they are too philosophically sluggish or disoriented to have started to do so for ideological reasons.

In difficult financial times or more favorable ones, it is always beneficial to have both spouses generating an income when they are able and willing.  The more they earn together, the more they can set aside for times of potential trouble in the future.  The more they earn together, the more they can spend on making their lives more convenient and pleasurable.  A complementarian would have to either deny these facts outright or dismiss them as having no significance.  Of course, it is true that the positive or negative consequences of a philosophy do not determine if it is true, which is something that refutes the more utilitarian complementarian arguments automatically, but egalitarianism is logically true, and it is still pragmatic.

There is always a benefit to a couple mutually contributing to their shared financial strength, given that doing so does not hinder any of their obligations in other matters, and there are always inherent problems in dating or marriage relationships where one member is told or thinks that they cannot have a job at the same time as their partner because of their gender.  The latter approach to romantic relationships is inescapably rooted in the kind of stupidity that could easily prevent self-awareness and self-development, something that in turn prevents couples from sharing deeper intimacy.  Financial standing is just one of many aspects of a marriage that egalitarianism can lift up to a more stable position.