True or False Men should be providers/breadwinners?

I was raised to believe that in a marriage the men should be providers. And what I mean by that is that the man should be the breadwinner and the woman should be able to stay at home. If the woman chooses to work then she can, but it's solely her choice--her income is not needed. The man should be able to not only provide the minimum(shelter, food, water, insurance, benefits, bills) but he should also be able to afford to allow his wife to have a good amount of spending money for her to do as she pleases with it(whether it be her hair, shopping, etc) and make enough money so that one does not have to penny pinch or worry about each bill each month. If a man cannot do this with his income alone, then he isn't a good provider, and if he is not willing to do this then something is wrong with him. Again to reiterate if the woman wants to work, she can. But her income should not be needed to sustain all of the above. And he should be doing everything he can to make that amlunt of money so that he can do all of the above--even if that means working two jobs, or going back school, etc.

This was how I was raised. My dad may not have been a good husband or even the best father, but he was a GREAT provider. My mom never had to work. She only worked when she chose to. With all that being said--I was talking to two friends about this(because me and my bf disagree with what providing means and such) and one of them disagreed with me and said I was outdated and "wrong" to require that a man must be a breadwinner esp. in this economy. The other agreed to an extent--she said that a man should ONLY be able to provide the minimum(housing, shelter, food, water, insurance, and bills) and that spending money, entertainment money, and even having "extra" money left over so that one does not worry about bills should NOT be that man's concern-in other words she believes that providing means that a man only provide for the minimum and that if a woman wants those "extra" things then she must get a job to do that. My boyfriend agrees with my second friend(that he should only have to provide the minimum and that I can stay at home, BUT if I want the "Extra" stuff I must get a job myself). My question--what do you guys think?

Thanks.

I understand it is highly convenient for you to want all of that but I think you are wrong.

I'll leave it at false, this would probably turn into a heated debate.

I was brought up with the same idea, men should work, women stay at home. Alot of people i know who have gotten married have it this way.

I think that in this economy it will be necessary for both to work. I plan to despite how i was brought up. However, that being said, i dont really believe in nannies, and i dont want my children being raised by someone else other than myself. So at least for a year or two id like to have my guy be the breadwinner so i can spend time with my kids.

So........ how come only the woman gets to choose if she works or not? I'm pretty old fashioned myself and plan to go to med school next year, become a doctor, and be able to provide for a family. But why would any self respecting woman want to be totally reliant on a man? If there were kids involved it would be different and she wants to be a mom I'd understand otherwise, false.

That mentality is extremely outdated in today's society. I would be offended if my gf had that expectation of me and I would probably stop dating her.

Nope sorry, you equal rights means equal sweat.

Heh...if I believed that I'd be living a very different - and much poorer - lifestyle.

My mom was a stay-at-home mom/housewife for most of my childhood, so I grew up with that sort of income structure you describe. In fact, I'm from a generation where you'd probably expect I'd believe that.

I don't.

Why should I get essentially a "free ride" just because I have ovaries?

That structure also puts you in a very precarious position when life happens - what happens if he loses his job? That's a very common scenario these days. If you are a one-income household, you're screwed. If you are a two-income household, you have something of a safety net/cushion. How about if the relationship doesn't work out? Do you think it's going to be any easier to get a job if you've been out of the workforce for a while? How do you propose to support yourself if you are not working and things don't work out?

Sorry, but I see so many negatives to having this belief. It puts the "provider" in a position of power. Lucky you, your dad (apparently) didn't abuse that position of power, but not all men would be like that. It would be far, far too easy for a man with less integrity to take advantage of that position to control his wife. It puts an unnecessary amount of stress on the person in the "provider" position. I have seen several threads on here where guys have talked about how they were avoiding getting married because of that percieved burden of being the "provider" for 2 or for a family. My husband's first wife believed as you do and the amount of stress that put on him was ridiculous.

If a couple mutually decides that one or the other will stay home (for whatever reason) that's one thing. But to have an expectation that one gender or the other "should" be the provider? Absolutely not. There's no free lunch in this world, and no one gets a free ride.

I forgot to add that the woman choosing whether or not she should work or stay at home will depend on if she has kids. If she does not have kids she will work, but the man will STILL be the breadwinner. If she does have kids she can CHOOSE if she wants to work or stay at home. Her job, however, is to take care of the home, the kids, cook, clean, and run all the errands, so that all the husband has to do when he comes home is relax. Again this is how I was raised.

I know its controversial. I'm really just gauging opinions. @BrianH--the women gets to choose ONLY if she has kids.

I was also raised that a man is NOT a man if he can barely support his family, and/or if he wants to stay at home with the kids, or not work.

Everyone I tried to edit it but could not.

What I wanted to added is that a woman GETS to choose whether she works or NOT if she has kids. If she does not have kids yet, then she will work, but again her income should not be needed to sustain the family, the man will still make more than her and should make more than her even if she does work.

IF a woman does choose to stay at home, once she has kids, she must cook, clean, take care of the home, run errands, and take care of the children.

Hope this helps.

I am getting ready to go, but I will be back later on tonight. Thank you for everyone that is responding.

I'm a woman and I'm of the belief even though I carry kids and lay in labour with them doesn't mean I get a free pass to not pull my weight financially. You have TWINS - not one child, two - I think it's highly unfair you ask your boyfriend to provide for EVERYTHING by himself, especially your spending money. Being a woman doesn't mean you automatically don't have to pull weight once you birth a child - if that's the lifestyle you want I think this should have been discussed LONG ago. I would never DREAM of asking my husband to shelter everything on his own back.

I find in todays society that things are so expensive its not possible for that to work for lots of people.

You get a lot more stay at home dads too because the woman may be earning more and it makes more sense for the man to stay at home.

Personally I take a sense of pride of getting out there, earning money and buying things with MY money. I dont wan't a man to provide for me. What if he died and I'd been out of work for 10 years and couldnt find a job. No thanks.

Personally I would hate to be financially reliant on a guy.

I guess my views are skewed by the fact that I was brought up by my single mother and that all my friends who are married with kids etc have to go out to work to sustain a lifestyle that includes treats and holidays etc. I don’t know any relationships where the guy is expected to be the breadwinner and in today’s climate I think it’s an unrealistic expectation.

All I would expect from a guy would be mutual respect and a good work ethic (regardless of salary). But if both partners are working I would also expect to share the household chores etc.

"I was also raised that a man is NOT a man if he can barely support his family, and/or if he wants to stay at home with the kids, or not work."

Guess that means that many men now are not men, given this economy.

Since when is one's gender and self-worth tied in with how much money they make? Christ.

No offence, but I find your view to be entitled, unfair, and dated. I personally would never be a stay at home mom but that's not what bugs me about this - it's the ENTITLEMENT. "I had kids and therefore YOU must work to support me completely, while I stay home, and give me spending money!" Ugh. What makes women think like that. Newsflash: Just because you have a a pair of ovaries and are able to pop out kids doesn't mean that your partner has to bear full financial responsibility while you get to stay home.

It's called a "partnership" for a reason. I think you're asking for a lot of trouble with this entitled attitude. It's going to breed a lot of resentment in your current (or future, if this one fails) relationship.

Thing is, if you choose to stay at home for GOOD and NEVER, EVER work (I mean ever, not just taking some time off because you have a newborn but NEVER working again) you best be doing EVERYTHING for your man in return, to make it fair. Make his dinner EVERY night without fail. Make it perfect. House must be * * * * and span. Kids must be disciplined and quiet before he gets home so he's not annoyed. Foot rub every night. Sex whenever he wants. He is responsible for NO housework whatsoever. You are solely responsible for baby sitting and driving the kids around when they get old enough to go to school and activities.

You also can't complain about family finances, and you are stuck with whatever cash he gives you as spending money. No complaining.

If you want to go down this road, that's fine. But it would serve you well to get rid of the entitled attitude about it. You also have no right to complain about "equal rights" for women such as yourself. That's what happens when you give up your finances and work and leave it in the hands of another. You really don't get a say, and you shouldn't.

There's a woman I know who was reliant on her husband, she couldnt even drive. He worked and gave her 'spending money'

One day he left her and she had nothing, she had to get a job, learn to drive, and she wasnt earning anywhere near as much as he had been. She said to me she wishes she'd pursued more of a career when her children reached school age so she could provide more of the lifestyle her husband did.

It's too risky and I hate feeling dependent on anyone.

For the record, I have a grandmother (she's ancient now, lol) who did just this. She stayed at home her whole life, and was given "spending money" by my grandfather. She slaved over the house and the kids and catered to HIM, I mean, waited on hand and foot. He always had fresh clean, ironed clothes, he NEVER had to cook, never had to do anything around the house, and she bent to his whims when he was home. But it was fair, IMO.

If you're going to do this, this is what you have to do to make it "fair", IMO. He's slaving away endless at work to support a whole family, you should be slaving away at home too so he doesn't have to because he's already holding up your end since you decided not to work. No slacking. No complaining.

I think a marriage should (ideally) be a 50/50 relationship, though it won't always be. There will be times when one partner carries more burden than the other, but that shouldn't always be the case.

I think that a family has to make the choices and necessary sacrifices when they choose to have children - for some situations, staying at home isn't feasible. For others, they don't want to. And still others will figure out a way to make that scenario work no matter the hardship because that is what they want for their children.

I think the ideal that you're presenting is rather archaic for most women... many of us WANT to be an equal partner, contribute to the household, and have our own interests and lives aside from servitude to the husband. /shrug

That's just my .02. Being "taken care of" never interested me.

The biggest factor? Both partners have to AGREE and be willing to make compromises in either direction in order for a relationship to be successful. So if someone wants to "be taken care of" and the other expects them to "pull their weight" - you have a problem.

The biggest factor? Both partners have to AGREE and be willing to make compromises in either direction in order for a relationship to be successful. So if someone wants to "be taken care of" and the other expects them to "pull their weight" - you have a problem.

Agreed. It's something that should be discussed before, well, kids are concieved!

False. When I think of the abusive marriage my Grandmother went through I know there is no way I could leave myself in a financially vulnerabler position.

And with the cost of living these days, I think you need two wages coming in to have a decent lifestyle.

False for me too. Both of the adults in the household are responsible for providing for themselves and their children. It is a joint "burden", and doesn't fall solely on the man, and they should figure out together a plan that allows them to lead the lifestyle they want. If they choose for one parent to work reduced hours or not at all outside the home, so that that parent can take care of children, then great: but it should be a JOINT decision based on what is best for the child and works for them. A mother doesn't get to decide whether or not to stay at home unilaterally, without consulting her husband, and then expect him to figure how to finance such an arrangement.

Thank you everyone for the responses. For the record this post wasn't really about me--as me and my bf have our own arrangement right now, which seems to be working out okay for now--this post was more about if people believe it to be true or false that men should be providers in the sense that I talked about in the first post. I was just curious if people still hold on to this traditional belief, or if in 2011 it's no longer true.

This thread is not really about me persay(although I am currently a SAHM and do have these beliefs to an extent) but more about the GENERAL consensus if people still believe in tradition where the man is the provider and breadwinner or if people no longer believe in this.

I don't, not in the least. If the couple chooses for the woman to be a full time mother then that is their choice but it should not be out of an expectation about the gender roles you described. I also don't like the belief that a woman who chooses to be a full time mom is not a provider in the household despite not bringing in a salary. That's far too narrow a definition of provider and in my opinion it's wrong since her childcare/housekeeping services have monetary value.

Sometimes it is necessary for a stay at home mom or dad, because childcare can cost more than working or doesnt make financial sense.