Tall Average Guy

Out of curiosity, what do the wives contribute to the marriage? They work full time, yet keep all the money so they don't pay bills even presumably for their children, and they have housekeepers so they don't do the chores. What exactly do they do for the family?

JJG

Some of the responses in this thread have genuinely shocked me!

What year is this 1950?! Come on girls step up, surely we want to be equal not keep all the parts of ‘traditional’ life that benefit us and just leave the bad parts!

lovelygirl

Not all wives have housekeepers.
Some of them pay the bills, cook/take care of the children, work, do the chores.
My mom is one of them while my dad is a lazy a$$ and does nothing.

EleGirl

I don't see this attitude here on TAM. Can you give some examples of where you see this on TAM?

__________________
Surviving An Affair - What Are Plan A and Plan B? 180 for Betrayed Spouses


To Create A Passionate Marriage - Five Steps to Romantic Love His Needs, Her Needs Love Busters

ShawnD

Maybe she never really cared about you. I had a gf like that. I really liked her and we always had fun together, but she was gone as soon as my season job ended and I had to focus on school again.
My current gf is top quality when it comes to standing strong. She's getting a masters degree in public health with no help from her parents and she has a fairly good job on the side. I have a good job too, but it wasn't always this way. I was working at a fast food restaurant when we met, and she had more money than me.


It's not a simple exchange where men provide money and women provide everything else. For example, I can cook better than my gf can. I did all of the computer networking, I do all maintenance, I did all of our lighting and electrical stuff, and I handle random things like insulating the windows. That's in addition to my paying half the rent, all of the food, the insurance on both cars, and most of the utilities.
If you expect me to pay for everything, then I expect you to do everything above. You fix the appliances, you build the bridged wireless network, you insulate the windows, fix the door frame, maintain the cars, and do all of the dishes and laundry.

EleGirl

I a agree with your view of marriage. Both spouses should work equally. They may not earn the same but the effort is what counts.

In my previous marriage my husband did not work for 10 years and he did next to nothing around the house/yard. He just played computer games, goofed off, etc.

It's not just women who have an entitlement attitude.

__________________
Surviving An Affair - What Are Plan A and Plan B? 180 for Betrayed Spouses


To Create A Passionate Marriage - Five Steps to Romantic Love His Needs, Her Needs Love Busters

Tall Average Guy

I never said they did. I know many women that work and contribute to the marriage and family by paying part of the bill, helping out around the house and taking care of the kids. That to me is a partnership and how a marriage should work.

But Suemolly's description of her SILs as the ideal makes me question what they contribute to the marriage. Based on her description, the wives are in it for themselves, while the men are there to support them. I am trying to understand what these specific women contribute to the marriage.

SoWhat

Thanks, I am.


I'm being a little hyperbolic. I'm saying that you're calling for one tradition (men bankrolling a woman's every desire) but not for others (lower wages, lack of voting power, fewer legal rights).

This selective history is indicative of the likelihood that you're not really calling for "tradition" for tradition's sake, but for whatever best suits you.


"Losers?"
Your worldview is almost certainly so different from mine that discussion is pretty pointless.
Franz Kafka was broke for much of his life. He must have been a "loser." Jesus and Gautama Buddha were poor... what losers!

"Take all you have and a give it to the poor" - loser talk!




."..recent archaeological research done by the anthropologist and archaeologist Steven Kuhn from the University of Arizona suggests that the sexual division of labor did not exist prior to the Upper Paleolithic and developed relatively recently in human history. "

Yeah. Not as ingrained as you seem to think.
Even having a division of labor at all doesn't go very far to prove the proposition that women are supposed to be paid for, etc.
The "gatherer" of hunter-gatherer (and, again, that division of labor was a relatively late development) had to WORK. There was no sitting at home and being a princess while "the help" cleaned your cave and raised your babies.

I'm saying that the concept of men buying women dinner, drinks, etc., IS an economics thing; it was before there was paper or metal money.

Men _had_ all(/nearly all) the resources. After the feminist movement, women's lib and suffrage, etc., women were given much greater access to these resources.
The "traditions" you're thinking of stem from the former economic position, where those with a lot (men) can afford to "give" to those with a little (women).
This economic position came at the expense of womens' ability to choose certain careers, vote, have full legal rights, etc.

Now that the economic situation has evened out more, things will continue to evolve. Of course, there will be some anachronisms for a while and some cultural leftovers. But society's changing to keep pace with the overall economics.
Otherwise, men are going to just go flat broke.

It seems you're advocating the "What's yours is ours and what's mine is mine" position. Stop and think about that for a second.

NextTimeAround

During the courtship with my exH, we were both just out of grad school, so student debt and new jobs. I thought we should go dutch so I offered and he accepted.

But then I noticed that when he got around his friends --male or female -- he was perfectly happy to pay for them.

That;s when I decided, **** this.

DTO

Will put them up as I find them. TAM is really busy so stuff tends to get buried pretty quickly.

Suemolly

When I mentioned women looking for providers, I am not just referring to money. A man can provide and protect a woman in so many ways. But unfortunately, we live in a materialistic society and much of the idea of "provider" is associated with money now. The extreme of such women are of course the gold diggers, and any man has a right to protect himself from those women, so I totally understand those who said they are just trying to be careful. But you must understand that most women still instinctively look for the male who can provide and protect, and if you are too careful in protecting yourself and your resources, you might just come across as cheap and a loser. I am not saying that a woman should never take out her purse at all. I, for example, buy gifts for the man every now and then, cook him nice meals when he comes over, surprise him with tickets to events etc. I do contribute financially, even though I think a man should step up and be spending much more than I do for him, as he is being mentally validated in his male provider role.

Someone asked about what my SILs do. The housekeepers are only part-timers, so my SILs do the care work at other times. They have children too, so the kids need to be cared for. Meals have to be prepared and other domestic chores done. I studied public policy and one of the things I am happy is that care work is now given a bigger spotlight in academic. Care work, often associated with women, has been terribly devalued. Much of the work is unpaid or underpaid, and many people tend to think women don't bring much to the table if they don't contribute financially. The fact is, care work is actually more laborious and women clock in a lot many hours more than men who work outside the home. Men get paid more too, and many women in domestic care work are not even paid at all. Professions dominated by women such as nursing, teaching etc, are underpaid. There is still gender disparity happening here. Sorry, I hope I don't sound preachy, just trying to raise awareness that women in care work or who don't contribute much financially should not automatically be seen as parasites.

I don't agree with Kuhn's suggestion about gender roles being a new development in recent history. Without even having to search for papers, logic will tell us that man and woman are built and wired differently, and there has got to be some differences in our roles. My reference to hunter gatherers was to say that women since past times were wired to be the gatherers and did contribute to her role. Men hunted, women gathered and shared. Men provided, women received and spread the resources throughout the family. It is a social conditioning that is almost like a biological stimulus which still rings true today. Women may have paid jobs now, but she still wants the provider and protector. Men can be domesticated now, but he still wants the woman who nurtures and cares. But if I were a man looking for sex or a good time or just intent to date long term with no intention of actually seriously settling down, yes, I as a man would prefer the woman to pay her part too. Why bother providing for her when all I want is to enjoy myself and to have her company for cheap.

Tall Average Guy

Except that your SILs don't contribute financially at all. They work for themselves, while expecting their husband to pay for everything that supports the family. At least if your SILs were SAHMs, there would be the benefit of all this full time care you mention, but since the SILs work full time, that does not occur and the husbands in fact have to hire someone to do part of the chores.

I am not interested in some political argument. What I am trying to figure out is how these women, who you trumpet as the ideal for a marriage, contribute. Based on your explanation, their contributions are minimal. They work for themselves, while expecting their husbands to provide everything. In exchange, they hire others (using their husbands money, not theirs) to do at least some of the work of running the family. Your ideal is a woman's money is hers, while the man's money is theirs. That is no partnership I want any part of.

jaquen

That, or a man could do like me, and marry a woman who doesn't give two healthy damns about this crap.

Seriously, money has rarely been an issue with us, even when one of us was out of work. If I have it, and she doesn't, I pay. If she has it, and I don't, I pay. She adores me, and looks at me every single day with stars in her eyes, 12 years and counting, regardless of what's in the wallet or bank account. While money is a HUGE point of contention in a lot of marriages and relationships, I'm thankful that neither one of us ever really put much stock into it. Of course I want to give her the world, but not because she's demanding it. And that just makes me want to give her the world even more.

I'd recommend any man in his right mind run away from gold diggers who DEMAND they pay for everything. It's one thing if a guy perpetually volunteers. It's another thing if some shallow chick needs to have dollar bills thrown at her in order to feel "special".

Hookers and strippers feel "special" for those same exact reasons. And if that's the case why bother to stop off at a relationship. She'd be better off filling out an application at the local titty bar, or setting up shop at the neighborhood corner.

jaquen

BTW ladies, there is no such thing as saying you're "traditional" or "old fashioned", without understanding the context.

Men once always paid because most women didn't generate income. She was taken care of by her father, and then passed off, with dowry in many cultures, to her husband. It wasn't a matter of chivalry; women were expected to work hard running the home, and raising children. Men made ALL financial decisions, without necessary consultation to the wife, and expected to have sex whenever they wanted. Of course all men didn't take advantage, but that was the social expectation.

So if you're advocating this "traditional" approach, don't forget that it then becomes your obligation to NOT work outside the home, NOT be involved in the major familial decisions, and to relinquish your own sexual freedom and rights.

Good look with that "tradition".

Not sure what planetary history you're referring to, but here on Earth the hunter-gathering women in almost every society in the world didn't sit around eating bon bons, waiting for the man to "provide".

Those women worked HARD. They, shock of all shocks, actually hunted game. Men tended to hunt the larger, more dangerous game, but the women hunted smaller game. And even then, it wasn't uncommon for women to join in larger hunts when additional help was required, and in some societies the women were expected to do large game hunting regardless. They did the majority (though not all) of the gathering of vegetation, especially the vegetation that was more difficult to acquire. It was hard, grueling work.

This was all in addition to doing most of the child rearing, and cooking. At the end of the day most women in these societies did MORE work than the men did.

I'mInLoveWithMyHubby

Your funny. I would drive to his house, which costs much more in gas then where we drove to hike.lol

I spent more time at HIS house then anything. I didn't ask for gas money.