True or False Men should be providers/breadwinners?

[OptomisticGirl]

Agreed with Saffron. Not everyone had the option to not work. It's great if a mom can stay at home forever to raise their kids but in today's world unless your well off, live comfortably, or have huge savings, it can't be done. And I agree with Tink that if you only have one income you must live within that - which sometimes mean not being able to live in a lifestyle you use to prior to children.

[Seraphim]

We do it and we are not rich. It can be done.If people only want to have one income they just have to live within their means.

[tinkerbellkj]

We do it and we are not rich. It can be done.If people only want to have one income they just have to live within their means.

 

Well, that is exactly it. My SIL is wanting to be a SAHM, but they have very little money and she is not willing to really make sacrifices so I don't know how that is going to work for them. But, it's not my life so I am sure they will figure it out. If you, as a family, make the decision to have one income and live within the means of that income then there is no problem. If that means something as simple as one vacation this year vs two vacations, or something more drastic like not having a car if the family is willing to do that then that is their right. I think to expect to live a lifestyle of a 'Real Housewife of California' on the sole income of a janitor is just out of touch with reality. There should be communication between BOTH parties (regardless of who works or who makes more money) of where the money goes each month. I don't know for me it's pretty simple, either you have money for extras or you don't.

[OptomisticGirl]

Most people on this thread don't though. Sure, we could live on L's income alone if we desperately wanted to - but I like to work. I love kids and will love my own but even I will need me time as will L, even if that me time is at work.

[Seraphim]

That is exactly how we live our life. You have the cash or you don't. You don't have cash you don't buy it, you don't get it, or you don't go. However I am of the mind that most crap you don't need anyway, most things are a want and you THINK you need them. If others want to have that I think that is great but one has to work for it and that means two people working. And if you both want to work more power to you.

[Firiel]

Agreed with Saffron. Not everyone had the option to not work. It's great if a mom can stay at home forever to raise their kids but in today's world unless your well off, live comfortably, or have huge savings, it can't be done. And I agree with Tink that if you only have one income you must live within that - which sometimes mean not being able to live in a lifestyle you use to prior to children.

 

Eh, I'm not sure I agree with this. Certainly, some people legitimately cannot afford one income. I'm not disputing that. But my sister and her husband live on just her husband's income which is significantly less than $40,000/yr. They don't lack anything, but they have older cars (no car payment), she coupons to save money on food, and they don't have a lot of extras (rarely go out for dinner, do inexpensive things as hobbies, etc.). For them, it was more important to have a parent home than to have the "extras" in life, so they are making it work. For others, priorities may be different, and that's totally okay. But painting the life of a stay at home parent as a luxury that only the very well-off can afford is a little unrealistic.

[Seraphim]

Eh, I'm not sure I agree with this. Certainly, some people legitimately cannot afford one income. I'm not disputing that. But my sister and her husband live on just her husband's income which is significantly less than $40,000/yr. They don't lack anything, but they have older cars (no car payment), she coupons to save money on food, and they don't have a lot of extras (rarely go out for dinner, do inexpensive things as hobbies, etc.). For them, it was more important to have a parent home than to have the "extras" in life, so they are making it work. For others, priorities may be different, and that's totally okay. But painting the life of a stay at home parent as a luxury that only the very well-off can afford is a little unrealistic.

 

That is what I am trying to say. We do without some extras because I want to be sure my son does well in school. My son's school life and marks improved in a HUGE way when I became more available to him. When he was little I worked till 7 pm at night and that was hard. Then I worked from 6 AM to 3 PM. That was a little better because he got more of what he needed in time wise. Then when we moved my husband wanted to be sure our son had the support and emotional support he needed to do well and if he was working all different shifts and can leave at a moment's notice and be gone for half the year he wanted to be secure his son got the best of care. We decided this was far more important than more money.

[OptomisticGirl]

I agree it's based on what you want to give your kids. For me I had almost nothing as a child and want to give my kids what I couldn't - therefore under our wants we can't rely on one income alone with the cost of living.

 

However there are people were one is just not feasible even with cutting corners, such as my sister. Both of them have to work to keep a float.

[Seraphim]

That is the thing though when you have kids super young you condemn yourself to being working poor.

[OptomisticGirl]

I agree. It also comes down to our teenagers not being properly educated sexually - not even teenagers bit people MY age! I personally would never take a risk of becoming pregnant unless I could afford the child - bit again, this is an opinion.

[lostnscared]

Okay I'm back.

Sorry I'm not getting to everyone's posts.

I do agree that if you decide to stay at home, that living on one income is to be expected unless you are very wealthy or have savings(like Batayah). In my case, we don't have to pay rent--our home is already paid for--and my parents are helping tremendously with the costs of nanny, and we're constantly getting clothes, diapers, and toys from family for the babies, so we usually have a good amount(not great) of money left over each month, and if it's not needed for emergency type of situations then we spend it--some goes to me, and he will use a good chunk of it too. If the money wasn't there, obviously I wouldn't get it. As it stands, after having babies, my body is not the same. I still wear the same size pants as I did before I got pregnant, but my chest is significantly bigger, my arms are fatter, and my waist and stomach don't look right, right now. So I had to go out and get new shirts, and new clothing for the winter. I'm not buying "luxuries". There are some things I have gotten, that weren't needed(my hair done a few times, for example, or a pedicure), but for the most part we aren't spending left over money for me to go on shopping sprees or for luxury items. Me and him don't go out that much--we've been out to eat maybe 4 times since we had the babies, and went to the movies once. We used to go out all the time. We've had to cut some things out.

 

Like I said, I have friends who live on very little, and stay at home if it is important to them. I have one friend who is living in a one bedroom, with more than one kid, just so she can stay at home--they have ONE car that is quite old, she has not went shopping in two years, never gets her hair done, doesn't go on vacations, etc. To them it is worth it. Some of other friends with kids would LOVE to stay at home, but they aren't willing to sacrifice to that extent. To each their own type of thing. But it goes back to what I stated in the first post--obviously if you want the "extras", plus the ability to stay at home, you must choose to be with a man that can provide that. If he doesn't make very much money, then obviously that isn't possible. IF a person wants that lifestyle, either they marry "good"(like my sisters plan to do), or must be willing to give the lifestyle up. I agree with that.

[lostnscared]

I agree. It also comes down to our teenagers not being properly educated sexually - not even teenagers bit people MY age! I personally would never take a risk of becoming pregnant unless I could afford the child - bit again, this is an opinion.

 

I agree with you. But what affordibility means to one couple, differs for another. For instance someone said on here that they were living on significantly less than $40,000 and raising a family of 3--to me that is risky, but I understand that for others it may not be--I have an older brother living on $37k before taxes for a family of four and though he gets help as well, he is struggling--but they are making it. I guess it just depends on the sort of lifestyle a person wants. If you want a nice lifestyle and one income alone cannot provide, you both have to work. If you don't care, and just want to stay at home, then that is a different story. ME and my bf aren't rich at all, and have gotten a ton of help, he makes a decent amount of money on his income alone, but not enough for the upper middle class lifestyle I'd like to have for my kids. So I know that if I want that lifestyle when my kids get older, I will have to work. It's one of the reasons why I'm going to grad school in a year.

[Saffron_]

Eh, I'm not sure I agree with this. Certainly, some people legitimately cannot afford one income. I'm not disputing that. But my sister and her husband live on just her husband's income which is significantly less than $40,000/yr. They don't lack anything, but they have older cars (no car payment), she coupons to save money on food, and they don't have a lot of extras (rarely go out for dinner, do inexpensive things as hobbies, etc.). For them, it was more important to have a parent home than to have the "extras" in life, so they are making it work. For others, priorities may be different, and that's totally okay. But painting the life of a stay at home parent as a luxury that only the very well-off can afford is a little unrealistic.

 

 

 

I actually agreed with OG on this one but maybe that's just down to the area I live in and the people I know. I don't know anyone besides the well off that are able to survive on one income. And I'm not just talking about a second income for extras like holidays or dining out, I'm talking about not being overdrawn at the end of the month. For everyone I know, one income bringing up a family can't be done. Firiel, in many circles, the stay at home parent is seen as a luxury that only the well off can afford as it is in mine.

[lostnscared]

Yes I probably am being a little judgemental. I just don't think it's good for a person. Just my opinion.

 

Partly because I cook all my meals from scratch, clean the house, wash and iron the clothes AND find the time to do a full weeks work on top of that! Vic, maybe your friend's just very traditional but his wife sounds more like a skivvy than a partner to me.

 

Yeah I used to work 40 hours a week, and cook and clean as well. It wasn't too difficult to do for me, but I have to admit since have babies, it's harder to find the time to do it all. There are some days when I just can't clean. Today my mom has been over all day helping me, so besides feeding(which I have to do on my own), I've had time to get things done, but during my pregnancy I didn't work, and stayed home, and I would be done cooking and cleaning by midday and spend the rest of the day with nothing to do. It was boring.

[Seraphim]

I actually agreed with OG on this one but maybe that's just down to the area I live in and the people I know. I don't know anyone besides the well off that are able to survive on one income. And I'm not just talking about a second income for extras like holidays or dining out, I'm talking about not being overdrawn at the end of the month. For everyone I know, one income bringing up a family can't be done. Firiel, in many circles, the stay at home parent is seen as a luxury that only the well off can afford as it is in mine.

 

See my income would be all extra since my husband can cover all financial needs for our family on his income alone. But that being said I do not go spending money like it is water. I shop for myself at the most only once a year for clothes and every few years for shoes and I get my hair cut only twice a year and I dye it myself. I plan the budget and make sure everything is in order and the house and money runs to expectations. I also want to be sure we have enough saved and enough in our RRSP's and our son's RESP.

[OptomisticGirl]

I actually agreed with OG on this one but maybe that's just down to the area I live in and the people I know. I don't know anyone besides the well off that are able to survive on one income. And I'm not just talking about a second income for extras like holidays or dining out, I'm talking about not being overdrawn at the end of the month. For everyone I know, one income bringing up a family can't be done. Firiel, in many circles, the stay at home parent is seen as a luxury that only the well off can afford as it is in mine.

 

Agreed. L makes a pretty good living but we want a big family - 6 people on his income alone would be suicide. Let me rephrase. 6 people on his income without government help. Neither of my parents could be home alone win us. My mom is now for my brother but that's because my stepdad makes decent money but they are still struggling.

[Saffron_]

but during my pregnancy I didn't work, and stayed home, and I would be done cooking and cleaning by midday and spend the rest of the day with nothing to do. It was boring.

 

Yeah, I guess that was what I was getting at. Like you, I get bored when my chores are done round the house and I've got nothing to do. It's nice to have a break now and then but not a permanent one. Of course I can hardly imagine you having much free time at the moment.

[Saffron_]

Agreed. L makes a pretty good living but we want a big family - 6 people on his income alone would be suicide. Let me rephrase. 6 people on his income without government help. Neither of my parents could be home alone win us. My mom is now for my brother but that's because my stepdad makes decent money but they are still struggling.

 

I don't know how some people do it. My partner and I both earn an ok wage (above min wage but a few thousand below the national average) and we don't have a car, we don't go out to eat very often, we don't have holidays and right now we're struggling a bit to pay our heating (which is unpleasant because it's snowing outside!), so yeah for us living on one of our incomes alone would be suicide! The cost of living is just too damn high! Lol! My partner and I are undecided on having kids but if we do it'll be a few years away because we're only in a one bed flat and we'd need to save up a lot to afford a 2 bed.

[lostnscared]

Agreed. L makes a pretty good living but we want a big family - 6 people on his income alone would be suicide. Let me rephrase. 6 people on his income without government help. Neither of my parents could be home alone win us. My mom is now for my brother but that's because my stepdad makes decent money but they are still struggling.

 

Yeah my bf and I want a lot of kids too. And I want to give my kids a really good lifestyle, so that is a major reason why I'll be working once they hit preschool age. I'm already working on getting admitted into graduate school for next year, so that once I get out I can make significantly more than what I made with just my bachelors. But I know that I'm going to be working when their in school. My mom was SAHM all my life, even when we were in school, and it was nice, because we did always come home to a clean home, and cooked food, but realistically I know that it's more difficult to achieve that unless my bf was wealthy.

[lostnscared]

I don't know how some people do it. My partner and I both earn an ok wage (above min wage but a few thousand below the national average) and we don't have a car, we don't go out to eat very often, we don't have holidays and right now we're struggling a bit to pay our heating (which is unpleasant because it's snowing outside!), so yeah for us living on one of our incomes alone would be suicide! The cost of living is just too damn high! Lol!

 

I live in the south, so the COA isn't that bad. I used to live in Chicago and I was only making 42K-it was difficult for me because I lived on my own, and did everything on my own. So when I moved down here, since I'm used to having to budget more, I've actually had an easier time budgeting expenses(i.e. I used to spend almost $350 a month of food for just myself, but we're only spending $400 a month on food down here for the both of us). If me and my bf still lived in Chicago, there is no doubt that I would have to work part time at least.

 

Right now his income alone is providing for us fine, because he is in a field where the pay is decent no matter where you live. But if we were anywhere else I'm sure that we would not have money for extras. Which is one of the reasons why we moved down here in the first place.

[purpleyrain]

That kind of lifestyle works for some people: the man brings home all the money, the woman takes care of the home. And where I come from in east asia, it's still pretty darn common. That's how I was raised, too. My mother stayed home after she had my younger sister, and has been a stay-at-home mom ever since (17-18 years now...). And my parents are happy with that.

 

Personally, I would want my husband to have the ability to take care of me were I to get sick, but I would want the ability to do the same for him. And I would want him to be able to take care of the family when we decided to have a baby. Ideally, I want to stay at home with the kid for 4-6 months (*IDEALLY*). But after that, it's off to work and taking care of the family I go.

I also envision going even: not 50/50, but both him and I putting away an agreed-upon percentage of our incomes for bills, rent, groceries, savings, etc. And whatever's left over would be our personal spending money. This is the money we'd use to buy each other gifts, for example. I don't even think it needs to be equal percentage points: if the guy makes 120k and I make half of that, hopefully we'd be able to agree on something like 40% for him and 30% for me, or something like that, that would cover our expenses.

 

That being said, while I wish for him to be able to earn more than me, if that were not the case and I were earning more, the above would still apply and I'd be paying more. 'Nuff said.

[Lonewing]

The longer you women perpetuate the belief that we men should be the main provider and the breadwinner in the household, the longer we men will perpetuate the idea that the house is a woman's place and she should be ranked in a place below her man...

 

We don't believe this anymore. We now strive for equality, which means as a woman you have equal stake in everything in the household - not 100% stake, but equal 50-50 stake.

 

There are many of us who are plenty happy to just stay single and leave it all alone. As for sex, well, there are those amongst us who have no qualms spending night or a couple weeks with a random girl and then dropping her once she's lost her appeal. You may say it's baseless or devaluates women, but honestly, once woman have reduced their value in our minds as equal partners, we've already lost what respect we might have had for you - so there's not much left to devalue.

 

There are ways in which the Roles work and work out well - but I think the best phrase to remember is, There's no such thing as a free lunch. If one person makes all the moeny, then the other person should expect to be working for the breadwinner. I don't think it's wise to automatically assume you'll have that role just because of your sex - you may have the more potent earning power, and you shouldn't sap that off...especailly if you want to work!

[DN]

It is clear from this thread alone that all women are not the same as each other - they don't all think the same way. Men don't all think the same way either.

[Batya33]

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.

 

We just have different definitions of work. I don't think work only includes paid work and I don't think what people do to care for children isn't work.

[Batya33]

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?

 

Because it depends how he defines "extra money" -maybe he wants to put all his extra money in savings. That's his perogative if you believe you're entitled to have him provide for the family financially. Once you have the entitlement perspective then my guess is he's going to be less inclined to want to pay for the extras.

 

Congratulations on your upcoming marriage!