men who financially support women

[Lonewing]

One of my past Boss's boss had no issue whatsoever with throwing seven figures at a project and then walking away from it Cold Turkey once he was unsatisfied with it. AKA, all that training, the tooling, the 'Sweat Equity' he had in the place meant LITERALLY NOTHING to him. This man is not literally a Billionaire, he IS a billionaire. And he has no NEED for anybody - he only has people in his life if and when he wants them. If any one person says "You NEED us!" guess what: ex-ex-oh, they're out. He finds people who are more than happy to "know their place."

 

He has no need for any individual person. Maybe you say he has a need for "humanity at large," but he has the independence to pick When And Where he chooses his people. Where as you have the freedom to pick form roughly 100 or perhaps even 500 people, He has the freedom to literally pick from all 6 Billion on the face of the earth, minus those who have the level of wealth where money is no longer a question.

 

Once Money is no object, only THEN have you reached true independence... Until then, you're working for the man, and in general The Man really Doesn't care that much about you - even if the Man is indeed a Woman [i.e. the movie Paul]

 

So if you as a woman end up in a position where your man entirely supports your daily life, I really don't see what your beef is. The boredom so many cite, the lack of creativity, the lack of imagination, do I believe these are internal issues and not at all a result of your position "under" a man. For the creative woman who has good sound hobbies and a number of interesting pursuits, a life where she is essentailly FREE her whole working day to pursue her art or her dreams sounds like the PERFECT life to me...so it may come with that depressing chore of running a vacuum ten minutes, or cooking dinner, or you have to deal with the kids all day.

 

No, I do not believe there is any right or wrong way here, but I am a bit miffed by the number of attitudes against those who do find satisfaction in this lifestyle. There are many, and they are very powerful women in their little worlds.

[Miss Firecracker]

I also see a boatload of disrespect on this thread. But that happens every time people discuss women that are not working. It's old stuff here.

[DN]

I also see a boatload of disrespect on this thread. But that happens every time people discuss women that are not working. It's old stuff here.

Just because people disagree it does not constitute disrespect. There are many lifestyles I would not recommend but that does not mean I disrespect those who live them.

[Lonewing]

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.

 

If a divorce occurs, the nonworking spouse typically qualifies for half of the other spouse's income as alimony or such. In otherwords, there is risk, but it is not all to the nonworking spouse!

 

Here's the thing, though: if childcare in your area costs $1000 a month per child, and you have two or more kids, it makes BRILLIANT sense for ONE PARENT to be a stay at home parent. Spinning your wheels for somebody else simply doesn't make sense, long run or short run. As a family, the unit saves a minimum of $24,000 a year this way, aka has $24,000 worth of energy to reinvest into the household.

[Miss Firecracker]

Being called a leech isn't disrespectful I guess.

[DN]

Here's the thing, though: if childcare in your area costs $1000 a month per child, and you have two or more kids, it makes BRILLIANT sense for ONE PARENT to be a stay at home parent. Spinning your wheels for somebody else simply doesn't make sense, long run or short run. As a family, the unit saves a minimum of $24,000 a year this way, aka has $24,000 worth of energy to reinvest into the household.

The problem is that that can be a short term solution causing a long-term problem. The time taken away from the workforce can be hugely detrimental to future earnings. Even if the couple stays together when the children no longer need childcare that is several years of career-building that is lost and sometimes never made up.

[DN]

Being called a leech isn't disrespectful I guess.

Some people who want that lifestyle are leeches. There was an article in a British newspaper a while back about so called 'Sloane Ranger' wannabes whose ambition stretches to landing a rich husband, having a couple of kids, living in a fashionable London neighbourhood with a cottage in the Cotswolds and having nannies, cleaning women and personal shoppers. That is what I would call a leech or a parasite.

[Miss Firecracker]

Pathetic, leech, loser...all words that would apply to me here. I am quite used to reading these things. As long as the people in my home don't see me that way, that is all that really matters.

 

So...everyone have your fun.

[Seraphim]

Pathetic, leech, loser...all words that would apply to me here. I am quite used to reading these things. As long as the people in my home don't see me that way, that is all that really matters.

 

So...everyone have your fun.

 

Yup I am happy my family loves me. I did work for a lot of years but my health and my son's progress in school dictates where I am now. I am glad my husband does not feel I am a leech and that he can go off on deployment with total confidence his house is well run and his child is looked after the best that I can do. He is totally confident and can work in total peace.

[sadchick83]

This thread is disrespectful. I was called a prostitute because a rich guy tried to chat me up while I was jogging in wealthy lake district.

 

And, its true people are quick to make judgements here. Whether anything happens with the rich guy, it doesn't matter 'cause I'll be back at the lake next weekend no matter what.

[PhilliesFan001]

I don't see anything wrong with only one partner working - if it's agreed upon by both partners. If you're a woman who doesn't work and relies on your husband for financial support then I would hope you contribute in other ways to the household. If you do, and you're both happy with your situation, no problems.

 

If you're the kind of woman who relies on her husband for money, sits around all day, goes shopping, and blows his paycheck on spa days and expensive clothes and god knows what else, THAT is what I consider pathetic. Just like I would consider a man who relies on his wife in the same way pathetic, or a 40 year old who relies on a parent. Who would want to be that kind of person? DN was right on with the "parasite" comparison. It isn't meant as disrespect to stay at home moms or people who volunteer or who are actually DOING something helpful with their time. I see parasites simply as those who live off of other's hard work without contributing a thing, when they're very capable of working and earning money themselves.

 

They're two different situations IMO.

[DN]

I think it is disrespectful to one's partner to insist that they either support a stay-at-home Mom or be a stay-at-home Mom if they don't want that role. Too often people are pressured by partners or peers to do one or the other when they would prefer not.

 

i know of at least one man on this forum who would have left his wife years ago because she refuses to work but he knows he would be a weekend dad and his finances would be drained. I also know of at least one woman who bitterly regrets having been a stay-at-home Mom against her better judgment who now finds herself a single Mom with no child-support in a low-paying job because she wasn't qualified for anything else.

 

The fact that it may work for some individuals does not mean it will work for everyone and some will find themselves in real trouble - it is not disrespectful to point that out. If it doesn't apply to you then it doesn't apply to you.

[avman]

This thread is closed.