True or False Men should be providers/breadwinners?

[Firiel]

Should woman feel entitled to getting a free ride? Of course not. When kids are out of the picture, I think that (barring very uncommon circumstances) both partners should work. Once kids are in the picture, I think it's totally acceptable for either parent to stay home with the child. I don't think the woman should be the only one with this option nor do I think she should be the one to make the decision-- it should entirely be a joint decision that they both agree on before even thinking about having a baby (or even getting married, for that matter).

 

I don't think, though, that a woman (or man) staying at home with the kids is trying to get a free ride. Like Batya said, it's a little condescending to paint the man as killing himself as he works for money but to imply that a homemaker spends the whole day sitting around watching television and throwing toys at the kid to amuse it. The other day, I visited my sister who is currently a stay-at-home mom with her one-year old daughter, and in the three hours I was there, she didn't stop working once. It was clean, cook, feed the baby, play with her, go for a walk, come home, put her down for a nap, and then dust. She gets as much done as she can (and she does a great job!), but sometimes there's just not enough time to take care of a rascal of a child and get the floor clean enough to eat off of. I think it's kind of offensive to say that she shouldn't have any spending money ever or be able to help make joint financial decisions just because she is working in a different venue than her husband

[Blue Spiral]

And yet, I do know couples where this is the case--and they are young(in their late twenties/early thirties).

 

So do I--they came from money, one of them is unusually skilled in a valued field, or one of them lucked into a very good job. Unfortunately, most people don't come from money or have unusual skills, so it ultimately comes down to luck. Hard work alone is no guarantee.

[Fudgie]

Well, it doesn't really matter who "slaves" or not. In such a relationship, his work is at the office, her work is at home. Period. That's really the only way it's fair. It's completely unfair that he has to provide ALL the money and then come out and help out with chores/cleaning?

 

I've known only a couple SAHMs and I don't consider staying at home and raising a single kid to be of the same caliber of having a full time job. Sorry. I know my parents agree with me too, from their personal experience. Is it hard? Yes, absolutely, but I don't consider it to be on the same level as an actual full time job. I don't really have a lot of sympathy for SAHMs who whine about how hard their lives are unless they have needy/sickly or many (2+ kids) who are too young for school and have to stay at home...all the while, they will never have to work EVER. Such stress!

 

I'm not discounting anything. I'm just saying...to be equal in this scenario, the man does all the work at the office, she does all the work at home. It's fair. It's clear that you feel that this is not equal but being a SAHM is more/harder, but I disagree. My grandmother felt it was equal, and so do I.

 

In terms of family, no, volunteer work does not contribute to the family. The permanent SAHM should really only tend to hobbies/volunteerism when her chores and duties are completed with the kids and around the house...just like a regular job.

 

With all the working he has to do to support her and the kids, he may not have the time. If he can't fit it in, it's her responsibility. If she doesn't like it, she should consider getting a part time job to take sme of the financial burden off of him, so he can stay home a little more and help with the kids.

 

If you don't like this setup, then don't be a permanent SAHM. If you do, then go with it but you really lose your right to complain in many respects.

[lostnscared]

I agree with you and feel the same. I have two 13 week old babies(twins) and they are a ton of work. I do get a lot of help. But I certainly don't sit on my butt all day. I cook, clean(when I can), take care of them, and try to have a little free time here and there for myself. It certainly is nowhere near comparable to just sitting at home with nothing to do. I don't go out a lot. When it was warmer out I went to the park to take them for walks, or I go to the store(when my mom can go with me to help), but I also don't sit on my butt all day. So it isn't as if I'm expecting spending money for doing nothing. Since I am not able to work, and since daycare is extremely expensive for us at this point, my bf has been willing to give me money here and there to get things for myself and do things for myself(though we do differ on how much spending money I would like LOL). I don't plan on staying at home forever, just until my kids are old enough for me to feel comfortable going back into the workforce. I always made it clear to him, before I even got pregnant, that I wanted to be SAHM. It wasn't unexpected.

Obviously it needs to be a joint decision, and one has to be able to afford to provide that--which I know in this economy this isn't always an option. I understand why people see this as entitlement, but I don't necessarily--if the expectation was spelled out, or if the man agreed to it. It's different if a woman is staying at home, with no kids--in that case her expecting to be taken care of and pampered is different, but wanting to be there to "raise" their child--rather than having a daycare raise their child, well that's completely different. A majority of my friends that have kids, DESIRE to or do stay at home. Not all of them get spending money and some have had to make material and financial sacrifices, live in one bedroom apartments, etc. Others still cannot afford and "wish" they could. I was only curious to see if my beliefs and my cousins were outdated.

[lostnscared]

Got to go. I will try to respond to more posts tomorrow.

[petite]

I was raised by parents who worked and both contributed financially to the family household. They taught me that education was valuable and that having a job meant having crust, no money no food. I don't believe that women should expect to be financially supported by their husbands, but if they agree that the wife should stay at home for whatever reason - childbearing, illness whatever then that is their joint decision. As long as the couple makes the decision together, I see no reason is either one staying at home.

 

I personally don't believe that a stay-at-home-mom has an easy job, and I do see it as a job. I know a number of stay-at-home-moms and they certainly aren't sitting on their bums doing nothing whilst their poor husband kills himself at work. There is so much to take care of at home and whilst it might look so simple and easy, taking care of children can be difficult - albeit their decision (and should be a joint decision made by the couple in question). Just because the husband works all day does not entitle him to come home and sit on his behind just because he provides financially to the household. His job ends after 8-10 (or whatever amount of hours), then to be fair her job should also end after that same amount of hours. Who takes care of the children then? Both, just one parent of the nanny?

 

I am a firm believer in both parents raising their children, I also think that a parent at home is better than a nanny, so if a couple can financially handle having one partner not work for x years (often until the youngest child is in school) I see no issue in that arrangement. I also don't value the person that works outside the home anymore than the one that works inside the home.

 

The only problem I see is "expecting" rather than "agreeing" or "making a joint decision" which sways people in a different direction when such topics come up.

[DN]

When children are babies and toddlers it s a lot of work to keep up. But once they are older, especially when they start school full-time, it gets progressively easier and easier to the point when being a home-maker is essentially a part-time job.

[Fudgie]

BTW, petite, nannies aren't so bad, if you can afford one. Preferable to daycare, that's for sure.

 

I was raised by a nanny. One nanny, whole childhood. She was like a second mom to me and we still talk.

I actually liked that I was raised by a nanny rather than my mom at home. I think my mom would have lost it staying at home all day. She really enjoys working in her career and wouldn't be happy without it. It was also cool to have 2 "moms" in a way.

[OptomisticGirl]

I would never expect either of my husband but of I had to, I'd rather give up all luxuries in life if he was going to be the primary breadwinner. I don't expect special treatment only because I have a pair of boobs and a vagina.

[petite]

BTW, petite, nannies aren't so bad, if you can afford one. Preferable to daycare, that's for sure.

 

I was raised by a nanny. One nanny, whole childhood. She was like a second mom to me and we still talk.

I actually liked that I was raised by a nanny rather than my mom at home. I think my mom would have lost it staying at home all day. She really enjoys working in her career and wouldn't be happy without it. It was also cool to have 2 "moms" in a way.

 

I never said nannies were bad, but given the chance of staying at home with my baby and hiring a nanny I'd rather stay with my child and give it the love and care that cannot be substituted by a nanny. I'd rather have that closeness with my child than miss out on it by hiring a nanny. I am not against babysitters or nannies, I babysat whilst in school and enjoyed it thoroughly but I don't believe a that someone else could be a substitute for a mother or father. I was looked after by my late grandmother and my parents, and if I had to choose for someone to look after my child I'd rather it be my parents or in-laws than a nanny. I love my career and I certainly would not give it up forever, but I also love children and want a family and they would come first before any career.

 

We all have different experiences and upbringings, and that's the beauty of life. We each choose how to live our lives.

[Fudgie]

I definitely think it substituted, for me. My nanny never married or had children of her own so we were her children. My mother and I have issues and always have so I guess it's better that I wasn't raised by her.

 

I don't know, I just see a lot of people put down nannies and when I tell people I had one, they say "Oh gawd you were raised by a nanny?! I'm sorry." Why yes, yes I was. And it's definitely a viable option for those who can afford it.

[civilservant]

Thought better of it.

 

I wrote a reply - then decided it would get me an infraction - so I'll say this....

 

False.

[Batya33]

I love how this was written. I was a nanny, worked in a daycare center, know and have known many nannies over the past almost 30 years. I don't want to write negative details about the nannies I have encountered so I'll just say that based on all my experiences (both positive and negative) I am glad I made the choice I did to be a full time mom while he is not yet in school.

[Batya33]

I would choose (again!) a man who admired my dedication to and commitment to my career and my work ethic (including how hard I work caring for our child and home right now) and I would never take the risk that I've seen other women take of being totally dependent financially on my husband (more than for a few years at most -I am not but if it meant the choice between being with my child and working I would choose the financial dependence for the first few years of his life, hypothetically speaking) - for the reasons many have written -divorce, illness, unemployment, etc.

 

I am not surprised you get that reaction from your bf -for one thing, it's ironic that you're giving that opinion that is not only traditional but quickly becoming outdated (or is it already) and yet you don't want the tradition of marriage. I'm fairly certain that the women who followed the first tradition also followed the second - because of society's expectations back then but also because it's an illusion (at least, legally, people can work out the arrangement they want to and hope for the best) to be financially dependent on someone who's not legally married to you (he is obligated to the children but not to you).

[Batya33]

My issue was that you said the man,since he brought in the $$ could control how his house was kept. So should the woman be able to control how he conducts himself at work and the decisions he makes as far as going for certain promotions or not, and the myriad other decisions that people make at their jobs every day? Does she get to demand that he wear to work what she wants him to wear, etc etc?

I don't think a man who has no time to be a father (or doesn't want to make the time), should choose to be a father -kids are not something you "fit in" to your schedule -obviously the full time parent has the primary responsibility and spends the majority of the time but people make choices all the time and if he's not working 24/7 out of town 365 days a year where he can never come home or be visited by his kids then "not being able to fit them in" - well I have to wonder why a person like that would have kids in the first place.

 

Obviously there are emergency situations where a parent cannot be there -because of work (like military, etc) or other crises - I'm talking far more about a mindset and the "fit the kids in" mindset would make my stomach turn.

[OptomisticGirl]

People don't have to 'give up' the lifestyle they have become accustomed too but they also have to realize they can't MAKE their partner give them that lifestyle. But I think anyone who doesn't want to give up that lfestyle needs to sit and truly think why the don't and if they are ready for marriage.

 

And as Fudgie has said, there is nothiing wrong with a woman staying at home with her children until they are in school (as Batya) is doing but in today's economy you have either MAKE enough to do that or have enough in savings to tide you over. Most people don't and for those that don't I think it's highly unfair and selfish for a woman to scream to keep her up in the lifestyle she has while not contributing ANYTHING to finances for God knows how long. And again, as Fudgie said, if you have this view and EXPECT it, you can't moan about equal rights because this view alone puts you beneath your husband/boyfriend by your OWN choosing.

[Seraphim]

I don't think being at home parent negates you from having an opinion or choices or not have a right to complain about anything. Are we going back in time? Stay at home parents should be slaves with no voice and not counted as people? Ridiculous.

[OptomisticGirl]

I don't think being at home parent negates you from having an opinion or choices or not have a right to complain about anything. Are we going back in time? Stay at home parents should be slaves with no voice and not counted as people? Ridiculous.

 

None of us are saying that Vic - what we are saying is that if you EXPECT it simply becuase your a woman and you popped the kid out without either contributing a savings to hold the family over or have enough income from the husband alone to do it, then no, you can't complain about anything because it's that woman's view point that is causing her partner to solely hold the fort down without her contributing anything. For SAHMs who did work or whose partner can support the family by themselves and they discussed it and agreed with it, nothing wrong with it.

[Seraphim]

Well, it is really my fault for even looking at these threads because some of the opinions never cease to amaze and insult me . Eh oh well. Can't be bothered, really.

[Marah]

If I were a man, I would be extremely offended by this original post. Heck, I'm not a man, and I'm pretty offended by this original post lol. I'm of the belief, if you want to be treated like a Princess, be born one. The rest of us have to be adults and work for our money.

[Seraphim]

This is a really good and fair assessment I can appreciate.

[OptomisticGirl]

I think Petitw said it best as well.

 

This is the whole reason L and I are waiting a year after I find a job - not move over, but find a job - to even start trying. I don't want my husband to be so stressed from worrying about being the major breadwinner and if this or that will get paid that he can't put energy into his other two important jobs - being a loving husband and father.

[DN]

How many women who would prefer to stay at home to look after their children would be prepared to go out to work and be the breadwinner while their husband or partner was a stay at home dad?

 

It was obvious in the OP that the man in that scenario would not have an option or a choice to either be the stay at home dad or even a choice as to whether his partner stayed home if she wanted to.

[winniethepooh]

I was raised to believe that in a marriage the men should be providers.

So was I ... I think. Nevertheless, I don't agree.

 

First question is why should men be the providers? Why not women? The only clear difference between men and women that I know of is their biological contribution to producing children. Everything else is opinion and/or variable - logical vs emotional, blah blah blah (ok, a few other differences such as facial hair, body structure, map-reading ability ).

 

So then to me the question becomes who should provide financially when there are children being produced? I think the answer depends mostly on the people in the relationship and what they want. Ideally, find balance and agreement between themselves, however they do it. If they want to depend on upbringing and/or social conventions, then great if they're both happy with that. If they're not happy with whatever the arrangement is, then change it.

 

And what I mean by that is that the man should be the breadwinner and the woman should be able to stay at home.

Why?

 

If the woman chooses to work then she can, but it's solely her choice--her income is not needed.

Irrespective of whether or not the income is needed, a marriage is usually understood to be some sort of partnership. That to me means that significant decisions about who works or not, or where, should be made together.

 

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.

Why? Is she a princess? An employee of the man? Owned by the man? A dependent of the man for some reason? On what planet is this kind of arrangement helpful to having a balanced partnership between two people (whether friends, married, in business, etc)? Mars? Venus ?

 

Parents do this kind of thing with their children and pets. Since when does becoming a wife mean she has to take on the role of a child or a pet?

 

If a man cannot do this with his income alone, then he isn't a good provider,

Well, I suppose that's a logical conclusion. But the premise that is there in the first place is not one that I agree with.

 

and if he is not willing to do this then something is wrong with him.

Like what? He doesn't want to own his wife? He doesn't want his wife to be dependent on him?

 

Again to reiterate if the woman wants to work, she can.

Oh, so she gets to make important choices relevant to the relationship on her own, but her partner doesn't? That doesn't sound like a balanced partnership to me then.

 

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.

Why?

 

This was how I was raised.

This is how many people were raised, and still are. Does that make it right, or the best way?

 

In years gone by, many children were beaten to keep them in line. Was that right or good?

 

In years gone by, many people were sold into slavery, just because of a slight difference in DNA compared to their owners. Was that good, or right?

 

My question--what do you guys think?

I think it's an appalingly disrespectful attitude that demeans both women and men.

 

To me it fosters a sense of ownership of the woman by the man.

 

It also leaves the woman at a disadvantage should she end up in a situation where she is on her own (divorced or widowed).

 

However, if both the husband and wife want that arrangement and are both happy with it, then as they are the ones in their relationship, my opinion is irrelevant to them. If it works for them, then great (but I think it misses the point of what a healthy relationship should be about).

 

I don't want a partner like that, and I'm allowed to have an opinion and find a partner who shares similar views, or if they are different, they are not so different that we can't find a way to have a workable relationship. That doesn't mean I think my partner HAS to work. It depends on where we are, what we want to do (maybe she wants to focus on study, and I am in a position to support her financially ... and as a result of that study she is then in a better position to contribute financially to the relationship. Or vice versa. Or she wants to write a book. Or I do. Or etc ...).

 

Of course, there are also times when the partnership has to find balance between such things as bringing in an income and raising children. Children are dependents. So somebody has to look after them. Whether that's wife or husband or a nanny is for the people in that partnership to figure out. Usually that's the kind of thing it's better to figure out before having children.

[SapphireNoir10]

At the end of the day every couple is going to talk/work out and agree on a schedule. But the man shouldnt be seen as weak if he isnt the main provider, or if he wants to stay at home with the child. If the woman agrees.

 

One of my friends has just had a baby, her boyfriend earns half of what she does, so he's staying at home with the baby, she is happy tobe out there working and admires him for being such a good father.

 

I don't think anyone should expect or demand anything

 

Or if you want that lifestyle, you shoudl tell your partner very early on 'I expect you to keep me to a fashion which im accustomed too' most men would run a mile