men who financially support women

[DylanNotorious]

I have no idea how some woman can find men who will let them stay home and shop. They are just born lucky I guess.

 

But remember, for they may be living the "dream", it's a long way for them to fall down, if something goes wrong.

[Batya33]

There is no question that raising small children is hard physical work. But as they get older, particularly when they get into school, it gets progressively easier, especially if you bring up the children to gradually take responsibility for themselves and help in the house. By the time they have left home the workload has (or should have) dramatically reduced but the breadwinner is still working the same hours.

 

But many of the women who want to marry rich and stay at home also expect to have help from nannies, au pairs and cleaners and so on. The richer they marry the less physical work they do and the less time is spent working in the home.

 

I see an important part of my job as reinforcing his progression to independence. I plan to work outside the home once he is in school. I think there are many tradeoffs to being financially dependent especially if the money comes primarily from a high paying job where there is a risk of being fired, downsized, etc. Yes some people are lucky enough not to need to work to support themselves just like some people are lucky enough to win the lottery. My only point was that the OP shouldn't be so quick to judge based on Facebook posts because she doesn't have enough information about the sources of income/financial assets or whether these women work or are looking for work.

[shikashika]

Why would you want this?

 

What I would ask is, "Why would you want this sort of guy?" I wouldn't WANT a guy nor would I be attracted to a guy who would want a relationship like this.

 

You think this is a good thing? I think this is why some people are surprised you are asking this. I don't envy anyone who doesn't have to work for their money, so I don't see how this is a good thing!

[Batya33]

I don't think it's the worst thing not to have to work to earn money but I would not be jealous of someone who thought not working was a good way to live - a person can work very hard without earning money or pursue a career where they earn very little money (because they don't need to make that much money). I'd be bored having more than a vacation length of time to just hang out, shop, dine, etc.

[crosbyfan]

Beware of sweeping generalizations.

 

I have three university degrees (BA, MBA and BEd). I've been an executive for a fortune 500 company and then gave it up to have more meaningful work as a teacher. I've lived on my own, paid my own bills, owned my own house etc. etc.

 

I'm in my 40s and I don't work anymore for a myriad of reasons.

 

I volunteer in locals schools working on literacy programs for reluctant learners.

I volunteer teaching ESL to battered women at a shelter

I golf almost every day that it's nice out

I volunteer as a coach for my daughter's High School debate team

I belong to a country club

I foster abused dogs

I dine out, travel and shop without any financial worry at all

I play ice hockey on a co-ed team with my husband.

I coach my daughter's hockey team along with my husband

I maintain a blog and have been published as a writer

,,, but I don't work ,,,

 

My husband makes around 7 figures per year between salary, bonus, stock options etc. He can do what he does, since I'm capable of doing what I do to take care of our home(s).

 

I've worked for a living and now I live this life - this one is better (for me)

[teabee]

Woohoo that sounds great to me crosbyfan! Good for you.

I think some people don't know what they would do if they weren't working. If you love what your work is, that's one thing. But I think some people lack the imagination to fill their time without the rat race.

[Blue Spiral]

I'm obviously bitter about this since I'm poor. If I had money, I'd have a harem that would make a Saudi prince jealous.

 

I've never been angry that some women desire to be taken care of in an extremely lavish way. No, I'm angry about the codewords and dishonesty. If that's what you're after, please, be honest about it, instead of talking about "security" and "ambition."

[DN]

I volunteer in locals schools working on literacy programs for reluctant learners.

I volunteer teaching ESL to battered women at a shelter

I golf almost every day that it's nice out

I volunteer as a coach for my daughter's High School debate team

I belong to a country club

I foster abused dogs

I dine out, travel and shop without any financial worry at all

I play ice hockey on a co-ed team with my husband.

I coach my daughter's hockey team along with my husband

I maintain a blog and have been published as a writer

This is all very well and good but you are only able to do those things because of your husband and his willingness to go to work and allow you the luxury to do what you want. Some of these these activities may be worthwhile and useful but you choose to do them and are able to because your husband pays the bills.

[crosbyfan]

This is all very well and good but you are only able to do those things because of your husband and his willingness to go to work and allow you the luxury to do what you want. Some of these these activities may be worthwhile and useful but you choose to do them and are able to because your husband pays the bills.

 

Why do you assume that my husband pays my bills?

 

The rest of the world simply assumes that because a woman is married to wealthy man that she is supported by him. You're applying the same assumptions that unless a woman works she is not contributing.

 

I have substantial investments that bring in more than I made as teacher. I earned the initial money working at a Fortune 500 for a lot of hours and making some very savy investments. I flipped houses before the market became crazy.

 

In the end, I find it interesting that others would rather me "work" than contribute to society at large - a rather shortsighted viewpoint I think.

 

Sure my husband is the primary breadwinner in the traditional sense of being employed, but I know that I'm not a leach, I simply choose not to work

[shikashika]

I doubt you and these other women that the OP is envious about are the same!

 

While I stand by what I said in previous posts, I do think that mothers of young children are working and contributing to the house... just not financially.... not everything is about finances. You are still contributing.

[DN]

Why do you assume that my husband pays my bills?

 

The rest of the world simply assumes that because a woman is married to wealthy man that she is supported by him. You're applying the same assumptions that unless a woman works she is not contributing.

 

I have substantial investments that bring in more than I made as teacher. I earned the initial money working at a Fortune 500 for a lot of hours and making some very savy investments. I flipped houses before the market became crazy.

 

In the end, I find it interesting that others would rather me "work" than contribute to society at large - a rather shortsighted viewpoint I think.

 

Sure my husband is the primary breadwinner in the traditional sense of being employed, but I know that I'm not a leach, I simply choose not to work

You can only 'choose not to work' and 'contribute to society' because of him if he is the primary breadwinner. All very nice but you choose not to work - does he get that choice? What would happen if he decided to 'contribute to society" who would bring the bread home to support your lifestyle?

 

Instead of blaming people for making assumptions you should have explained your particular circumstances - this thread is about men who financially support women, if that doesn't apply to you, then be upfront about it instead of producing some sort of deux ex machina.

[shikashika]

This is all very well and good but you are only able to do those things because of your husband and his willingness to go to work and allow you the luxury to do what you want. Some of these these activities may be worthwhile and useful but you choose to do them and are able to because your husband pays the bills.

 

So, what if someone contributes, but not financially to a family/ household... is it not as worthwhile because it's not financial? I don't see all siutations as luxurious. When you have two people, say my parents, who had one average salary ( my dad) and my mum spent her time raising 3 young kids (us), cooking, cleaning, taking care of THEIR children... I see this as both contributing. My mum wasn't paying the bills, but was doing just as much as my dad.

[Batya33]

This is all very well and good but you are only able to do those things because of your husband and his willingness to go to work and allow you the luxury to do what you want. Some of these these activities may be worthwhile and useful but you choose to do them and are able to because your husband pays the bills.

 

I think her point was that she contributes financially from her savings and, ostensibly, that even without her husband's income she'd be able to live off of her investments and do volunteer work instead of paid work.

[shikashika]

You can only 'choose not to work' and 'contribute to society' because of him if he is the primary breadwinner. All very nice but you choose not to work - does he get that choice? What would happen if he decided to 'contribute to society" who would bring the bread home to support your lifestyle?

 

Instead of blaming people for making assumptions you should have explained your particular circumstances - this thread is about men who financially support women, if that doesn't apply to you, then be upfront about it instead of producing some sort of deux ex machina.

 

See, I disgree with this... people shouldnt' have to be "upfront' with everything, particulalry their finances... it's not the sort of thing I thought was polite to talk about. If I meet someone for the first time, I don't need to let them know about all my investments and why I'm able to afford what I do.

 

It's sort of similar, but people do judge based on what they think.... A couple of years ago, I went back as a mature student to university, then when I was done I went on a trip for a couple of months. People assumed because I was a student, I must have no money and where on earth could I be getting my money from to go travelling. Some people even said it must be my parents!!! I worked for several years before I went back to be a student again, yet people jump to all sorts of conclusions about my bank account.

 

Point is, I don't know why anyone needs to be upfront about this or have to defend it.

 

I could still never not work (if i didn't have young children) personally, especially if I was doing nothing.

[crosbyfan]

You can only 'choose not to work' and 'contribute to society' because of him if he is the primary breadwinner. All very nice but you choose not to work - does he get that choice? What would happen if he decided to 'contribute to society" who would bring the bread home to support your lifestyle?

 

Instead of blaming people for making assumptions you should have explained your particular circumstances - this thread is about men who financially support women, if that doesn't apply to you, then be upfront about it.

 

I simply don't see it as a case of his money or my money.

 

He does make substantially more per year than my investments do. My lifestyle is certainly enhanced because of his income. I couldn't live the lifestyle that I live within without his income.

 

He works because he wants to. He could retire if he wanted to, but he tried it and found it boring, thus he now works his own chosen hours and days. If he chose to not work because he wanted to 'contribute to society' we as a couple would simply find a way for him to do so. A marriage isn't a defined and static state, it should be fluid and adpative to the circumstances surrounding it. If I needed to return to work, so be it.

 

My primary point that I think I'm trying to make, is there are often different ways at looking at a sitution. I find that people are often very judgemental about women who don't work, if fact it's almost acceptable to make derogatory statements about them. Naturally I'm much more aware of the general attitude since it's a situation in which I'm immersed. I encourage people to try to look beyond the surface of a situation.

 

I almost get then impression at times, that some people would prefer to see me volunteer less and do less to help out others as long as I was part of the same working class status. Perhaps that's just my own imagination, though from the posting here I would beg to differ.

[teabee]

I almost get then impression at times, that some people would prefer to see me volunteer less and do less to help out others as long as I was part of the same working class status. Perhaps that's just my own imagination, though from the posting here I would beg to differ.

 

I see the same thing in people's attitudes in this thread and in general.

[StrawberryYogurt]

 

I almost get then impression at times, that some people would prefer to see me volunteer less and do less to help out others as long as I was part of the same working class status. Perhaps that's just my own imagination, though from the posting here I would beg to differ.

 

I applaud you for volunteering instead of taking a normal job. You've earned it by gasp, working and saving/investing all those years. Plus by not taking a job you don't need, you are not taking a job someone who's unemployed would need. Your situation is a lot like this one guy who has blog called Early Retirement Extreme: He pays for his half of the expenses with his investment money while his wife works.

 

This is a far cry from the OP's situation, to be sure.

 

Also, SAHM thing isn't my cup of tea, but I think we have to separate women who see it as one of the options vs women whose only ambition in life, like the OP, is to be financially supported not just in marriage, but even before marriage. I find the latter quite distasteful.

[PhilliesFan001]

I'm not envious of those women at all - that sounds kind of pathetic to be honest.

[DN]

The point I am making is that women who don't work at a paid job are, usually, making a decision based on someone else's willingness to support them. Unless that partner has the same choice then that is hardly fair. Yes, it's nice that you look after the kids, or volunteer etc. But plenty of people volunteer and work at a job - I do myself.

 

So many women see this as their 'right to choose' but never stop to consider that they can only make that choice courtesy of someone else, and to wrap themselves in the nobility of parenting children and volunteerism doesn't alter that simple fact.

 

It may be that some people are rich enough to choose to work or not work, one or both partners. Bully for you, I hope you enjoy your wealth and the decisions you make. But when one person imposes their choices on someone else, directly or indirectly, then we are talking a different ballgame.

[Lonewing]

Nope, the people at the top depend on their clientele, customers, donors, those that work under them to keep things going smoothly, other businesses (with people at the top, middle and bottom), service people of all ranks whose work maintains their lifestyle, and laborers who bring them basic goods that they rely on. They depend on anyone who pays their bills or provides upkeep so they can enjoy living at the top.

 

They also, more intangibly, have depended on those who, during the process of getting to the top, believed in them, subsidized them, offered them opportunities.

 

Finally, they depend on lady luck and society at large as it changes with the times.

 

No one is fundamentally "independent" of anyone else. Or I should say, no one else.

 

No. For you see, at any time, if any one group of workers decides they are too good or demand more, the truly independent of this world can pick up and find a new group of workers, and do so FAR easier than you or I could pick up and find a new employer. In their position, finding "staff" is like finding a restaurant.

 

Money = Soverienty. There's a reason the very rich can live on levels literally on level with that of countries or presidents. Or why the extremely rich likewise hold very powerful positions within their companies. You say they are nothing without the underlings, and yet - even though the underlings made them, there is no obligation they have to ANYBODY.

 

And they can get away with it, too.

[shikashika]

A working man with a wife who stays at home could also say that he could never have children, never have someone look after his young children and could never have someone take care of the household courtesy of someone else either.

[tiredofvampires]

No. For you see, at any time, if any one group of workers decides they are too good or demand more, the truly independent of this world can pick up and find a new group of workers, and do so FAR easier than you or I could pick up and find a new employer. In their position, finding "staff" is like finding a restaurant.

 

Money = Soverienty. There's a reason the very rich can live on levels literally on level with that of countries or presidents. Or why the extremely rich likewise hold very powerful positions within their companies. You say they are nothing without the underlings, and yet - even though the underlings made them, there is no obligation they have to ANYBODY.

 

And they can get away with it, too.

 

If you're talking about mobility and freedom, I agree with you. Money = more flexibility.

 

If you're talking about "independence" -- which I define as "not having to rely on others", as I interpret your purist version -- then no. Rich people will always need other people to keep them there -- whether that's by being the beneficiary of a trust where you don't have to lift a finger to enjoy your lifestyle, whether you hire and fire people at will and replace them with the new ones you need (which isn't sound business policy, because once you have someone skilled and good at what they do in your company, it's a loss if you have to waste resources to train someone else -- so there, boss and employee ARE interdependent), or whether you work hard to keep dedicated employees and they are loyal because you value them.

 

Any one person is expendable for someone who has vast resources. But resources don't buy you freedom from depending on (that is, NEEDING) other people in general, in every sphere from the the money they hand you to the gourmet vegetables that appear on your plate.

[DN]

A working man with a wife who stays at home could also say that he could never have children, never have someone look after his young children and could never have someone take care of the household courtesy of someone else either.

Why not? Plenty of single parents manage.

 

But it is an interesting point you raise - should a man pressure his wife into becoming a stay at home Mom? Or would that be wrong?

 

Given the divorce rate I think anyone who becomes a sole breadwinner is taking a foolish risk. Anyone who sacrifices a career is also taking a risk - divorce, death of spouse and job loss could mean they are on the poverty line with no chance of getting a reasonable job.

[Seraphim]

Wow, there is a lot of disrespect on both sides. Makes me glad to have my husband.

[DN]

I see different viewpoints but that doesn't mean disrespect. People on both sides are simply making their point of view known.