True or False Men should be providers/breadwinners?

[lostnscared]

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.

 

The post is not really about me though. My boyfriend and I do have our own arrangement right now.

I was just curious about whether or not people still hold on to these traditional beliefs.

But you do have me curious--is it really wrong to ask a man to shoulder that sort of financial burden if the woman is taking care of the home?

[Batya33]

I think you're forgetting about those women who worked before having children and contribute their savings, and income from investments, to the household income (or who own property, for example). Money doesn't just come from a salary. Do you also believe that then the man has no say in how his children are raised and how the house is kept since in your scenario he's not expected to help at all?

 

And women who are full time mothers work extremely hard- they simply don't work for a salary. Very narrow definition of "work" IMO particularly since nannies and other child care workers certainly consider their roles to be "work".

 

(I don't plan to be a full time mom forever - I personally would be bored if my child was of school age although I'm not knocking those at all who choose that path, so this post isn't defending my personal plans - I also never felt entitled to be a full time mom or financially supported by my husband).

 

I also think your exception for "newborns" is far too narrow - I personally think babies need a full time parent (or caregiver) even more once they start exploring the world more physically and in every other way).

[SapphireNoir10]

Im a believer of, I know what I want, but I wont particularly judge anyone else as long as they are happy in their arrangement. Every couple will be different

[Capricorn3]

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.

Another vote for absolutely false. Those traditions no longer hold true in these times (imo). I feel the vast majority of couples these days have both partners working and contributing, not only out of choice, but also because times are really hard these days and many households can't make ends meet with only ONE provider. If couples can afford it, then sometimes they choose to have the wife stay home with the children, while dad works, but usually couples discuss these things, and it it not expected.

[Batya33]

The post is not really about me though. My boyfriend and I do have our own arrangement right now.

I was just curious about whether or not people still hold on to these traditional beliefs.

But you do have me curious--is it really wrong to ask a man to shoulder that sort of financial burden if the woman is taking care of the home?

 

I don't think it's wrong to ask just wrong to expect the answer to be "yes".

[Fudgie]

I wasn't talking about those who worked before and then are contributing via savings. That's still financially "contributing" IMO. I'm talking about SAHMs who don't work ever and NEVER will. If they don't plan on being a SAHM forever, then obviously they aren't included in what I was saying...but I already said that.

 

I personally can't stand women who feel entitled to stay at home FOREVER and never work.

 

And yeah, man gets say over how the house is kept. He's paying for it 100% because she refuses to work, so if he wants the floor clean enough to EAT off of, then it should be and that's her responsibility.

 

Sorry, but if you contribute 0% to the household finances, you get zero say on how money is spent, how much you get, where you get to go out, what hobbies you can afford, etc. That's just life. If women want more independence for themselves, then they need to earn it. Just my opinion.

[jonesyjakk]

if your husband leaves you, what will you do then? What if he got laid off??? what a load b.s. I'd rather be single and spend my money on crisps, fizzy pop and prostitutes than provide for a lazy a222 cheapskate broad!

[lostnscared]

Since everyone is giving their opinions--I will explain later why I posted this(I got to go again).

[OptomisticGirl]

The post is not really about me though. My boyfriend and I do have our own arrangement right now.

I was just curious about whether or not people still hold on to these traditional beliefs.

But you do have me curious--is it really wrong to ask a man to shoulder that sort of financial burden if the woman is taking care of the home?

 

Yes. Taking care of the home is not on the same level as saying a spouse is in charge of not only providing for the basics of life but the extras. Extras are a luxury, not something you NEED. I believe if a woman wants those extras but isn't willing to let go the archaic POV than she needs to go find a job to give herself those extras. I don't even like the idea of my husband being the only one working for the 6 months I'll be out on maternity leave - which is why my money will go into savings so he doesn't have to worry about having that whole burden on him.

 

If a woman has this POV I am in agreement with Fudgie - you can't cry equal rights on ANYTHING else in life if this is how you want the household run, you can't have your cake and eat it too. But I'm a huge believer in everything being as fair as possible in the household.

[Capricorn3]

-is it really wrong to ask a man to shoulder that sort of financial burden if the woman is taking care of the home?

There's absolutely nothing wrong in asking - that's the beauty of good, strong communication in a marriage. Couples should discuss these things, what arrangements would suit them both, how they raise their children, money matters, etc etc. No harm in asking. Communication is key to a good marriage. It only becomes "wrong" when one expects it and feels entitled, without having discussed it beforehand (imo).

[Batya33]

I think that's a far too narrow definition of work. That means volunteer work isn't work either because it doesn't command a salary? She is working in the home and taking care of the children - the family is saving thousands of dollars a year by having her do the work they would have to hire others to do. I would totally agree with you if she hired nannies and housekeepers and didn't work at all. And most mothers I know who care for young children full time and do all the housework aren't "staying" in one place for long and often are not "at home" in doing all of their responsibilities and caretaking.

[OptomisticGirl]

I think that's a far too narrow definition of work. That means volunteer work isn't work either because it doesn't command a salary? She is working in the home and taking care of the children - the family is saving thousands of dollars a year by having her do the work they would have to hire others to do. I would totally agree with you if she hired nannies and housekeepers and didn't work at all. And most mothers I know who care for young children full time and do all the housework aren't "staying" in one place for long and often are not "at home" in doing all of their responsibilities and caretaking.

 

As Fudgie said, it's the sense of ENTILETMENT that simply because someone has popped a child out they don't have to ever work. Yes, caring for kids is a full time job in itself but you then don't EXPECT your spouse to carry the ENTIRE financial burden, including your extras. And women wonder why men don't want to get married...

[Fudgie]

I think that's a far too narrow definition of work. That means volunteer work isn't work either because it doesn't command a salary? She is working in the home and taking care of the children - the family is saving thousands of dollars a year by having her do the work they would have to hire others to do. I would totally agree with you if she hired nannies and housekeepers and didn't work at all. And most mothers I know who care for young children full time and do all the housework aren't "staying" in one place for long and often are not "at home" in doing all of their responsibilities and caretaking.

 

I'm not saying that being a SAHM is bad. I'm just saying, if a mom chooses to NEVER work or contribute to financially, then she doesn't have the right to cry about not having freedom later. She brings it upon herself. And the entitlement that OP was saying that some women feel "I had kids so SUPPORT ME!" is quite off-putting.

 

And no, I don't consider volunteer work to be "work", at least in terms of a family. If a SAHM spends her time volunteering. Okay, good for her, but she's not contributing to the household. Volunteer work should be considered more of a hobby/passion, not "work". So I think she should be at home, cleaning, and raising kids because that's her responsibility if she chooses not to work. And raising a family IS expensive. I've done way more volunteer work than paid work and I don't consider it "work" in the true sense of the word, no. Even though I worked a LOT more at it.

 

I'm not saying that a permanent SAHM doesn't "work" when she's at home with kids all day. But she certainly doesn't contribute financially. So she can't really complain about "equal rights" in terms of money and rights when she really isn't playing an "equal" part herself, at least in my mind.

 

I'm not sure if you've heard of Emily Post, but she is considered the prime person when it comes to manners and social customs, especially stuff like this. She actually sides with me...she has a whole chapter in one of her books that I've read. SAHM that never contributes financially, ever? Then the woman is expected to do ALL of the chores, ALL of the cooking, ALL of the cleaning, and you wait on your husband hand and foot, because it's not fair that he slave all day at work only to come home and have to help with chores, which the woman should have done during the day.

 

I have no issues with SAHM as long as they realize this.

[tiredofvampires]

I can see the rationale of a stay-at-home-mom being 100% there for her children and domestic duties, when the kids are very little and need lots of attention. If I had had a family, I would have wanted it that way, and sought out a partner who was of that value system as well. Though I can also see working part-time if that work was very flexible, which could be just as good an arrangement. But after kids are able to care for themselves more, I don't agree. So for the most part, FALSE, to answer your question.

 

This probably takes the cake most of all:

 

If she does not have kids she will work, but the man will STILL be the breadwinner.

 

The entire point of "breadwinning" is to help provide what a woman simply can't, if she's saddled with the duties of child-raising, which take as much energy and time as a full-time job. If you have a childless couple, you're still saying he has to be the "breadwinner" and that he should make more money? He has to shoulder the costs even if his "family" is just his partner? NO WAY. Basically, you are advancing the concept that women should not be equal to their boyfriends or husbands in terms of earning power or responsibility to the home. I couldn't possibly disagree with a statement more. That's not fair to the man, it's not fair to the woman, and it's not fair to the relationship.

 

I also agree with the posters who have said that there's a chance the man will lose his job or become ill, or something else catastrophic. Then what?

 

And what about when the kids fly the nest? What's a woman going to do then to contribute, if he's covering the costs of her luxury/leisure expenses? Totally unbalanced.

 

It's fraught with problems both ideologically and practically.

 

Even if I got a guy who was willing to do all this, there would always be a part of me that felt the scales weren't balanced and that I owed him something. Not a feeling I'd want to live with 'til death do us part.

[DN]

There are good reasons why neither men or women should agree this - men because they can end up alone in a basement apartment as a weekend dad with most of their income garnisheed, and women because they can find themselves alone (through separation or accident) raising kids and with a low paying job because they are not qualified for anything better.

[Seraphim]

My mother believed the woman should provide equally to the household financial situation and the man should provide equally to running the house as well. Unfortunately she provided 70% of the income and 95% of the household work. So so much for equality.

[Batya33]

LOL- I don't know any full time moms of young children who have time to do all the chores during the day - they have to do a large majority of them after the kids go to sleep because it's pointless to clean/clean up if the children are going to make messes. When children are older/in school I totally agree.

 

I find it of great concern how much you dismiss what a full time mother does while the man "slaves" at a job. He might slave - he might not - and she might slave and she might not (depending on the particular day). I don't know any full time mom who "stays at home with kids all day" unless the kids are (unfortunately) sick or the weather doesn't permit leaving the house -and that makes the work doubly hard.

 

I also think you discount what the caregiver provides just because she isn't paid. I take it you are supportive of a nanny or housekeeper being paid for her work?

 

My point about volunteer work was not that a full time mom should do volunteer work but that since you seem to define valuable and valid work only as work that commands a salary, then volunteer work is not work.

 

I also think that if a man chooses to be a father he has an obligation to help with the caretaking of his children.

[Lester]

Stay at home Mom's are good for the kids. If you can, I highly recommend it.

That said, work sucks!

We trade our time to have more which in turn brings more stress and trouble.

 

If your Dad was a poor provider could he ever been viewed by you as a good husband and great father?

[Batya33]

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 find that concept bizarre and certainly if it was applied today as you wrote it it would set women back many many decades as far as being treated equally. I also think it makes no practical sense in today's economy and especially for women who are educated and get married younger, often bringing debt from school loans into the marriage. I really don't care which of us makes more $ - but care deeply that we both do work that we are at least happy about if not passionate about, whatever the salary. When I return to working outside the home I hope to continue to contribute -or to be ready to contribute - as equally as possible which is my situation now. I suppose if I asked my husband he'd be happy to support me financially if I chose not to return to work but (1) he would be really surprised that I asked or wanted that; and (2) I cannot think of anything more distasteful than a scenario where I did not have a child and I expected my husband to support me financially and actually asked him to do so (again not knocking a couple who are happy with that sort of arrangement -whatever works -just sharing my reaction).

[PhilliesFan001]

False false false. Times have changed. To be completely honest, I have little respect for women who believe they're entitled to live a work-free existence just because they're female, same as I have little respect for a man who would be threatened by me being the breadwinner.

 

I intend to have a career and work hard to earn my money - and if I earn more than him, tough. I think relationships should be as close to 50/50 as possible but that won't always be the case. More often than not, somebody will earn more. I think it's very silly to define somebody's masculinity by how much they make or how well they can provide for a wife who frankly should be able to provide for herself in today's world.

[PhilliesFan001]

What I will say though is if there are children, I think it's fantastic if a parent (mom OR dad) can stay at home with them during the early years before kindergarten. Only if the couple can afford it of course. There's nothing wrong with being a stay at home parent in my eyes, it's a difficult and time consuming job just as any other. BUT it's the sense of entitlement that a lot of women have that I feel is a little repulsive. Talking to your partner and agreeing on your expectations of one anothers' contributions, whatever they may be, is great. Not talking to them and just expecting you get a free ride because you have a vagina - not okay.

[lostnscared]

Okay, so like I said earlier--the reason I created this post was because of a cousin of mine's situation. She is doing premarital counseling, and one of the issues that her and her fiance are having is this very topic. She was raised similar to me--with the same beliefs. Her mom was a sahm, her dad was the provider to the extent as described in the first post. Her fiance, on the other hand, comes from a working-middle class family. Both of his parents worked, and his mom stayed at home for a very short period within his life. His mom also made more then his dad. Since they've been together, my cousin was always interested in continuing her career--even if they were to get married and have kids. But more recently(and I'm thinking due to familial pressure) she changed her mind and now is saying that she wants to be SAHM and wants her fiance to provide for her in the way that I described in the first post. Her fiance makes decent money(he is an accountant), but he isn't sure if he'll make enough money to take care of her in the way she wants him, nor does he feel like it's fair for her to "expect" that of him. He has basically asked her to give up, what he calls her "lavish" lifestyle or at least thinking that she can have the lifestyle that her parents had, and accept the possibility that either she will have to work, or that if she does stay at home a lot of material sacrifices will have to be made. She is not okay with this. My aunt told my mom about it, who told me about it the other day and this got me thinking about my own beliefs and how much they've changed since I've had kids. I used to believe--too--that I would be okay with a man NOT providing in the way my dad did, and that if I were to ever be a SAHM I would be okay with making sacrifices so that the bf wouldn't have to work or "slave" away at his current job. But since having kids I do feel myself changing and I even found myself sort of agreeing with my cousin, and feeling as if it was wrong of her bf to ask her to "give up" the lifestyle she was accustomed to, and feeling as if there is nothing wrong with "wanting" a man to provide in the capacity that I described earlier. Matter of fact the majority of the woman in my family have the belief I described in my first post, and therefore agree with my cousin, and look down on relationships/marriages where the man is not living up to that provider role. However when I've talked to friends, and to my bf about this, it seemed like I got the same negative responses as I'm seeing on here. I was just trying to get a gauge as to how many woman still hold these beliefs, and how many are okay with being with men who aren't providers/breadwinners or who make less than them, etc.

So if the economy wasn't bad and more woman had the choice to choose between a man that can provide in the ability I described above OR a man that made less or equal to what you make and therefore you had no choice but to work or make sacrifices if you wanted to stay at home, many of you are saying you would choose the latter?

 

Very interesting.

[lostnscared]

BTW all of the woman in my family--including me, have college educations and are working in, or working toward decent paying respectable careers. They aren't spoiled in the sense that they aren't willing to work, but they do believe that a man has a "certain" role within a marriage when kids come into the picture. The education, and career experience that takes place PRIOR to having kids is what they fall back on if the marriage does not work out(since some of you mentioned that). These women also feel that there is nothing wrong with being financially reliant on the provider/breadwinner, because he will be reliant on the woman for the domestic things, as well as on her making the decisions for the family and the kids. They see it as fulfilling "roles". While I don't agree to the same extent, I do sort of hold on to traditional beliefs, and I have to admit I probably wouldn't be okay with "having" to work NOW while my babies are young, but when their older I have no issue with it.

[Blue Spiral]

This sounds like a classist thing, to me. "I expect you to provide me with the lifestyle to which I have become accustomed." i.e., only successful/luckily-born guys should get married.

 

People want what their parents had, and they want it right now. This is what's led to a lot of our economic problems. For my parents, it took them a while to be able to afford two cars, a house, etc. But many of these newlyweds want it now now now, so they go into debt. It's not just our current problematic economy...for the most part, it took our parents years to get to a certain level, but a lot of people want it right away. We're getting more spoiled and more expendable at the same time (outsourcing, robotic labor in factories, computers making paper jobs obsolete, etc.).

 

This is one of the many reasons why I won't get married. When it comes to relationships, the emotional demands alone seem unrealistic, to me, but add financial ones on top of it? Wow.

[lostnscared]

You do have a point. It may be unfair or even unrealistic to expect that a man be able to automatically provide in the way our parents did, when times are different, as well as the economic climate. And yet, I do know couples where this is the case--and they are young(in their late twenties/early thirties). It isn't impossible, but it probably will rule out a ton of men if women had these beliefs still.