True or False Men should be providers/breadwinners?

[Seraphim]

My husband never wanted to be a SAHD. He wants to be roaming the world on deployments and being in the military. Not conducive to wanting to be a stay at home parent. If he wanted to, sure, would not bother me, as long as he did the same quality of job I did at home.

[DN]

Victoria, it doesn't matter that your husband didn't want to be a SAHD so far as my question is concerned. I was asking if those women who want to stay at home would have been prepared to be the breadwinner if their partner's wanted to be the stay at home parent.

 

I know a number of people will answer 'yes' safe in the knowledge it will never transpire anyway but it is a question designed to get people to think about situations like this in a more fair and equal manner.

[Seraphim]

Well I am sure there are many women who truly appreciate men you know.

[Firiel]

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.

 

I agree that from the OP, the man wasn't being given the option to stay at home. And I completely disagree with that. If having a parent home with the child is important to the couple, there should be a joint decision as to which parent will take on the homemaker role. I definitely don't agree with the original post, but I also felt like some of the reactions against it were too strong for me to agree with as well.

 

If my husband decided he wanted to stay at home with the kids (when we have them), I'll admit that I would be a little peeved, but only because it's something we've talked about and made a decision about-- I'd feel like he was going back on our decision. In addition, I've already made some sacrifices that I wouldn't have made if I was planning on being the breadwinner (I probably would have gone into a doctorate program instead of a masters program, for instance, because it would open up better career opportunities rather than better part-time opportunities). However, all that aside, we'd make it work. I think my husband would be an excellent stay-at-home dad, and if it made more sense for him to stay at home with the kids, I'd be happy with it. I like what I do and I'm totally willing to continue to do it and support him and my children financially. I bet with a little ingenuity (and with our flexible career choices), we could even come up with a way for us to both work part-time productively and share both the financial duties and homemaking duties.

[OptomisticGirl]

I would be willing to be the major bread winner if L lost his job - which actually isn't very far from happening. He works for the government and they are makig cuts EVERyWHErE, we HAVE to plan for the possibility that he could at any moment get laid off and I be the major bread winner. even if he never did and wanted to be SAHd I would support that, just as he supports me being a SAHM for the first six months.

[DN]

Well I am sure there are many women who truly appreciate men you know.

That's nice.

[Seraphim]

I would be willing to be the major bread winner if L lost his job - which actually isn't very far from happening. He works for the government and they are makig cuts EVERyWHErE, we HAVE to plan for the possibility that he could at any moment get laid off and I be the major bread winner. even if he never did and wanted to be SAHd I would support that, just as he supports me being a SAHM for the first six months.

 

I agree, and I have supported my husband too when he was not working, more than once. When you are a family you are in it together, thick or thin. It is not lets be against each other, men against women deal, or women against men.

 

I find the whole women are out to screw men in every capacity there is kind of insulting.

[DN]

I find the whole women are out to screw men in every capacity there is kind of insulting.

Nobody has said that or implied that all women behave like that, please don't drive this thread off-topic.

[Koglin]

I think this all depends on the situation. The reason this was a practical arrangement in previous generations was because men were actually able to land higher paying and better jobs especially doing labor work and putting in lots of overtime. In turn, the woman would stay home and take care of everything that needed to be done around the house which if you include cleaning, cooking, caring for the kids, laundry, etc. it all adds up to the equivalent of what the man does and wasn't unfair to anyone, just worked well.

 

Now times have changed especially depending on where you live. Women can get equivalent jobs as men do and earn the same money and have the opportunity to work lots of overtime. If both people elect to work full time they should accordingly spread other home related responsibilities in half. I see all too often a couple where the man and woman are both working full time and the man still doesn't know how to work an iron, throw in a load of laundry, fold a teeshirt, fry an egg, etc. So the woman is doubled with responsibility which is unfair. On the other hand I also see the opposite where a woman is so programmed to stay clear of the old school mentality and insists that the man in her life contribute exactly the same to home related work as her. This is all great however it won't work if she elects to stay home or even work part time expecting the man to also bring in majority of the money into the house hold.

 

So in summary, there really is no right or wrong answer here but rather a conclusion on this should be formed specifically how it relates to the couple. Given that cooking, cleaning, running errands, grocery shopping, taking care of kids, doing laundry and everything else home related can eat a good 30-40 hours into your week it wouldn't make sense for my wife to go to work fulll time for pride purposes if she earns say $10/hr and I earn $50/hr. A better arrangement would be she stay home and take care of things around the home so that I can invest extra time at work to provide more income to benefit both of us. If on the other hand my wife had a compareable salary to me it would make more sense for her to stay employed and we contributed equally to home related tasks. I don't care what anyone says, there really is no right or wrong answer.

[Seraphim]

This is another good post.

[agent1607307371]

@Koglin - it's also worth pointing out that this is very class specific, and also was the ideal for a short time in recent history. Before marriage became about love, it was about making the best marriage you could to get the best economic set up for yourself by way of money/land/help.

[Batya33]

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.

 

If my husband had really wanted to do that (he loves our son to pieces, spends lots of time with him and he would hate being the full time parent he has told me on numerous occasions) we would have done that. My preference is not because I think being a full time parent is easier than working outside the home -often I think it is harder and certainly far more physically demanding - but because I always wanted the opportunity to be a full time mother for at least a few years (until pre-school time) and I saved in order to do this for 11 years (and I saved for this while I was single as well , just in case my family needed my $$ during that time period).

The OP's scenario about her cousin is downright embarrassing to me as a woman especially since she's changed her mind this late in the game- with all due respect to the cousin I think the fiancee should walk away and consider that he dodged a bullet.

[Honey Pumpkin]

Totally disagree with the premise of the OP - as a woman, I actually find it kind of offensive. I think that's a strange attitude, to expect the guy to work till he drops while the woman gets to have spending money and no worries. It needs to be an individual discussion and arrangement. Also, I have seen many women live that lifestyle till they get traded in for a younger model. And to be honest, there is a sense of woman as commodity with that arrangement/expectation.

[DN]

@Koglin - it's also worth pointing out that this is very class specific, and also was the ideal for a short time in recent history. Before marriage became about love, it was about making the best marriage you could to get the best economic set up for yourself by way of money/land/help.

This is exactly true - for most people for most of history in western society, both men and women worked. In fact, other than servants, most people worked at home until the industrial revolution either on the land or in cottage industries. Interestingly, most children also worked from a very young age and it was only in the nineteenth century in England that the Factory Acts restricted the hours that women and children could work.

 

The stay-at-home Mom as a norm was middle-class phenomenon that only lasted a hundred years or so.

[tiredofvampires]

The problem with the OP is that it's asking what people think EVERY couple should agree upon accross the board.

 

Even though I stated that my view was that I don't think the man should shoulder the entire financial burden once kids are in school, I should clarify that this is a very personal set of priorities and it would be more accurate to say that it's really no one else's place to judge any other couple's arrangement, so long as it's working for them.

 

The one thing that I feel strongly about in a more universal way is that both parents should participate equally in the rearing of children, however that is structured. I also feel that entails some level of upkeep of the home. Sometimes, even if one parent works, they will have to fix something for their child to eat or pick up toys, clean something that got dirtied, etc. I believe the home is a shared place that the entire family takes part in keeping up, even if the SAH parent is doing the lion's share. And this is because the job of any (good) parent is never done. Even when kids are in school, I consider raising a child a major lifetime occupation. Even if your child is asleep at night, you're on call. Even if they are in school, if there is trouble you are on call. You are on duty, on call, 24/7 for 18+ years if your job is parenting. Teenagers don't need continuous supervision like toddlers do, but they require ongoing participation and involvement in other ways. It's just that it's more labor-intense when children are very young. In a twist on the old adage, "Parents with a paying job work from sun to sun, but the SAH parent's job is never done." So there's a burden there for both.

 

As children get older and that frees up more flexibility, it's my own very personal sense of balance that I'd be doing something to contribute financially (if I was in good enough health to do so). But I would not impose that arrangement upon anyone else, because I know of families that continued to have a SAH parent through the kids going to college.

 

Case in point: my sister's sister-in-law is a busy doctor (a specialist). Being a doctor was as much of a goal to her as having a family, and fortunately, she found a husband who just wanted to be a SAHD. This guy has been nothing but a full-time caretaker of the kids, renovator of the house, repair person, cook and avid gardener. I've visited them a few times, and each time, the doctor is showing us around and proudly telling us what her husband did in this corner of the back yard, or that choice of countertop for the kitchen. He has not worked in a professional setting for one day of their marriage, but it's very clear that:

 

1. he has worked every bit as hard as she has to contribute to their family

2. without his being the kind of man who was inclined to want that, she couldn't have married him because it was her desire to be a busy doctor and not sacrifice that

 

So, she was enabling him to live the "kind of lifestyle" that allowed him to stay at home and use her hard-earned money. And he was enabling HER to live her dream and enjoy the "kind of lifestyle" that allowed her to stay in the demanding profession she is in, which was important to her. So that goes both ways!

 

This is a real life example of a couple whose arrangement was symbiotic, not one-sidedly sacrificial. Moreover, what it goes to show is that it's not necessarily the hard-working parent who sacrifices everything to be an endless fountain of ease and comfort for the SAH parent. In some cases, the reverse may be true! I know of a lot of working parents who would not WANT to give up their careers to stay at home, would be loathe to having that responsibility, and are only grateful -- as in my example -- to have a spouse who takes on that work for them, so they can enjoy their careers. In such cases, one could just as easily ask: is it "fair" for one parent to have to stay at home doing the endless work of home upkeep and child-raising (which can be draining, tedious and unfun at times, just as in an office job) while the other goes out and enjoys the "lifestyle" of professional opportunity, acclaim in their field and being able to separate the work world from personal life? As much contact as I've had with this family, I've never seen this doctor -- despite her demanding schedule -- believe she is "entitled" to have every meal done perfectly (even though it was), foot rubs at the end of the day each day, to never have to do a single load of laundry or empty a garbage bag, or have her husband wait on her hand and foot as though he were some slave, just because he stayed at home in the division of labor.

 

I take real exception to anyone who judges one type of work over another as "real work", who believes that even one child isn't "full time" work, who equates earning money with more or harder work, a more significant contribution to the family, etc. I don't believe that you can place greater value on a job just because it earns money (in this context or any other), and if that's the prevailing value system in a marriage when both parties are not employed equally, that is going to be one unhappy marriage filled with tension and strife.

 

What I'm saying is that the benefits and advantages of having a career vs. staying at home are completely relative to the goals of each couple and the individuals in it.

 

I personally would not have wanted to become a full-time breadwinner in order to support my family, like that doctor. I have interests and career ambitions, but my desire to be a mother in an actively present way is more of a priority to me. So if I had a family, a good match in a man for me would have been someone who had no issues with being the breadwinner for at least those early years. If he felt cheated, like he was sacrificing something by being at work, and would have wanted to be a SAHD instead, we most likely wouldn't get married in the first place, because we would not have compatible priorities and desires. I would not fault any man for any of his priorities, and I would not want to be faulted for any of mine. The match I'd be seeking would be one where we both feel satisfied in our roles.

[Saffron_]

Honestly, I think that any woman who has school age children and doesn't work, can't call herself a stay at home mum, she's just unemployed.

 

Lost, the whole thing about the whole 'men being the provider and women staying home' thing is that unless the children are very young (as yours are), or there's loads of them, it's very lazy. It doesn't make you an equal in the relationship, it makes you like a child being provided for by a parent. When I was growing up, my mum didn't work for the first 2 years of my life and financially it was a huge burden on my dad but he agreed to it so my brother and I could have a good start in life and not have to go full time in a nursery. However, once I'd reached the age of about 2, she went back to work part time and once I started school at 4, she went back to work full time. My mum's worked since she was 16 and at 55 she's still putting in 40 hours a week, same as I do. She didn't expect my dad to take care of her and I don't expect (or want) my partner to take care of me.

 

For her mother and grandmother though, things were different and they did stay home but back then it made sense! Being a stay at home mum was a full time job! When you think about how different our lives were 50, 60, 70 plus years ago, you can see how difficult it would have been for women to work. No disposable nappies, no private nurseries, no government subsidies to help with the cost of childcare, no supermarkets. My granny who lived in a highland croft washed the families clothes with a mangle, she cooked EVERYTHING from scratch (inluding things like bread and jam), she made and mended clothes and without modern appliances she was expected to do every last scrap of work in the house. How many of us have to do that now?

 

Can you say that about your situation today? I don't mean to get at you because I do think it's great that you're staying home with your babies. It's nice that you're able to. But you do have a nanny as well. You're one of the few privileged ones. Probably too privileged, and I think that's made you greedy. I know you say this thread isn't really about you but...seeing how you've been given a nanny and given a house and given thousands of dollars worth of baby stuff, and you say you kinda agree with this thinking, I wonder maybe if it's more about you than you're letting on.

[Honey Pumpkin]

Also to say that where I work, we have a lot of women who have children. The 'norm' seems to be that women will take six months maternity leave, and then come back part time (three days a week) until the children get to school, then come back full time. That seems kind of fair to me.

[Seraphim]

I love you ,TOV. I really mean that. As always you find a way to be totally gracious and understanding and give everyone an equal footing. I wish there were more people in the world like you, that understand people give to relationships in their own way and that is important too.

[Batya33]

"Honestly, I think that any woman who has school age children and doesn't work, can't call herself a stay at home mum, she's just unemployed."

 

Then so is a person who only works part time, according to you, just like a parent who is responsible for the childcare before and after school as well as on weekends, school holidays and when they are ill, as well as responsible for all the school related meetings, doctor appointments etc that many working moms send a babysitter to (nothing wrong with that -they have to!).

 

I am so glad I didn't put my son in day care or "pre pre school" this past year and that he will start preschool part time at first after he turns 3. I know that being with me rather than a hired caregiver has made a world of difference in his development and I see evidence of that almost every single day. Nothing to do with my being "the best" mom or "perfect" at child care- I am neither of those things nor do I think it would be good for my child for my focus to be on being "the best". But I know that what I give him would never have been given to him by a hired caregiver. But that's just me, and our child.

[Saffron_]

"Honestly, I think that any woman who has school age children and doesn't work, can't call herself a stay at home mum, she's just unemployed."

 

Then so is a person who only works part time, according to you, just like a parent who is responsible for the childcare before and after school as well as on weekends, school holidays and when they are ill, as well as responsible for all the school related meetings, doctor appointments etc that many working moms send a babysitter to (nothing wrong with that -they have to!).

 

Part time work is still paid work. It's quite obviously not the same as being unemployed. Once children are in school you've got from 9 till 3, 5 days a week. That's potentially up to 30 hours a week which I would call free time. So parents have stuff to do? They're busy? I'm sure they are but y'know what? So is everybody else.

 

Maybe my opinion on this matter is quite harsh but I haven't been raised to be lazy and it's always been drilled into me that I should be able to take care of myself as well as contributing to day to day household chores AND finances. Like I said, if your kids are really young then that's a different matter but I honestly believe it's not good for a person not to work and be taken care of by somebody else.

[Seraphim]

I am not sure why anyone has to defend how they want to live. It is not like anyone here is paying the bill for anyone on here.

[Saffron_]

I am not sure why anyone has to defend how they want to live. It is not like anyone here is paying the bill for anyone on here.

 

No but it's about the expectation that someone else should pay the bill for someone else i.e. be expected to work while wifey stays home and also give wifey money so she can live the lifestyle to which she's become accustomed. Sorry, just going back to the original topic.

[Seraphim]

It has extended beyond that to now include anyone who stays home to do what is best for THEIR family. Like anyone has any reason to judge that. It also has extended to who is "more valuable" in a relationship based entirely on money. Sad and disturbing world if you ask me, where the only value placed on a person is what they make in a wage. I don't want to be associated with people like that in my existence.

[lostnscared]

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.

 

How is it special treatment though? If you are staying at home with the kids, and you aren't able to work, why is it wrong to want to have spending money every now and then to get things for yourself, once you become a mom you don't all the sudden lose your desire and wants. I do 80% of the caretaking on my own, in addition to trying to take care of the home, cook, and make sure bills are paid on time. Why is it wrong to want to be able to get my nails done every once in a while, or buy an outfit to treat myself, esp. if he has little extra money left over?

[lostnscared]

LOL. This is true-but we are getting married in Fall of 2012. And he had agreed while I was pregnant that I could stay at home(even when we weren't married) and that he would take care of us.