# Rant about assumptions - Women & money



## justonelife (Jul 29, 2010)

I don't know how many times I've seen it here. No matter what problem a man may be having with his wife, at least one idiot (or several) will immediately call out "cut off her money, don't finance her (insert problem here)!"

Three things irritate me about this:

1. The inherent assumption that all women are financially dependent on their husbands. I make more money than my husband, thank you very much, and I always have. Why is it always assumed that the men make all of the money? 

2. Even if I was a SAHM, that would be a mutual decision between my husband and myself for the good of our children. It's not that these women are lazy and get to have a "cushy" life courtesy of their husband. Sure, some women do have it very good. But most SAHM's work hard and have SACRIFICED a lot, including their own careers, their sanity, time in the adult world, etc to make this choice. And in most cases, this choice was made with the husband's mutual consent and even encouragement. Wives don't somehow manipulate, frighten or force their husbands to financially support them. It's a decision made jointly and involves a lot of trust on the part of the wife. It's not easy being the one shouldering the financial burden for the family. But it's also not easy sacrificing your own career and being financially dependent on another person. This is a family decision made for the good of the family, not a wife sneaking in to her husband's wallet to steal his money when he's not looking.

3. It bugs the heck out of me that people find it perfectly fine to encourage men to control and manipulate their wives using money. If she's not doing X, Y or Z, cut off her money! Nobody ever tells wives to cut off sex as a punishment for some wrong by the husband. That would be horrible and breaking the marriage vows! How is cutting off money any different? The money earned by both parties in a marriage belongs to both parties. At least, that's pretty much the law in most states. The parties should both contribute equally to the family with whatever is agreed upon, whether it's money, housework, child-rearing, etc. If there is a marriage problem, you need to address THAT problem. Whether it's laziness, going out too much, not participating sexually, whatever the problem may be. Address that problem, don't just manipulate your spouse using money. Wives are not *****s, who you can choose to "pay" or "not pay" depending on your level of satisfaction with the services rendered.

Okay, rant over. I think.


----------



## Holland (Aug 20, 2012)

I agree. It is a very old fashioned and destructive line of thought.

In my country the role of the stay at home parent is considered to be of equal financial contribution to the family as deemed by the court system. Yet many men choose not to recognise this and then moan and whinge about paying child support if the couple divorce.

All the rubbish talk about men being hard done by financially in divorce is complete rot. When a couple divorce both parties are set back financially, not just the man.


----------



## CLucas976 (Jun 27, 2010)

I cannot stand the money and women assumption.

in any sense. my boyfriend for the first few months liked to make jokes and jabs about his wallet and me. I couldn't stand it.

I get it if you've been used before, but I work for my money, I pay my own bills, and I want nothing financially from anyone. If money was my motive I would not have married the broke loser I married.

there are plastic barbie doll money mongers out there, I am not one of them. and further, if you were dumb enough to marry one, that is entirely your own fault. 

just jumping to holding the finances above anyones head like a carrot infront of a donkey is inhumane, and belittling.


----------



## AnnieAsh (Aug 22, 2012)

Well said! I like your rant. 

It is OUR money. I contribute by budgeting, shopping, researching and saving. He may bring it in, but I'm the one who makes sure it stays in the bank or goes where it needs to go.


----------



## thatbpguy (Dec 24, 2012)

justonelife said:


> Wives are not *****s, who you can choose to "pay" or "not pay" depending on your level of satisfaction with the services rendered.


No, no, I just won't touch this one. Imagine my restraint.....


----------



## Thound (Jan 20, 2013)

My wife always handled the money, and I'm glad for it; however when got a new job years ago and started making good money our relationship went south. I feel she didn't feel as though she needed me. Maybe coincidence I don't know. I will say if it wasn't for her frugality I would be broke. I know this really wasn't the gist of your thread and I apologize.


----------



## techmom (Oct 22, 2012)

justonelife said:


> I don't know how many times I've seen it here. No matter what problem a man may be having with his wife, at least one idiot (or several) will immediately call out "cut off her money, don't finance her (insert problem here)!"
> 
> Three things irritate me about this:
> 
> ...


Amen sister!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## FemBot (May 1, 2013)

Completely agree! One poster mentioned not "rewarding" his wife with a vacation if she wasn't having sex with him. I was wondering why he felt it was somehow the husbands decision or financial reward to his wife. Chances are she planned the whole thing!

I'm a SAHM and can definitely tell you that if my H contracted out everything I do he wouldn't be able to afford it. Daycare alone for two small kids would be half his paycheck!


----------



## committed4ever (Nov 13, 2012)

I don't go for generalized male or female bashing. If I bash men generally, I married one and I love him a lot. So to bash men generally is to bash my man and I can't do that.

I don't go for generalize female bashing because I one of them. So that would include me in the bashing and I KNOW I'm a good woman and the best wife I can be-I don't cut corners when it come to my man.

There's some horrible wives and some horrible husbands, you don't have to go far. They are the spouses of people right here on TAM. So it go both ways. When my female friends bash men I would always have to say nah ... you just need a good one.

Don't throw nothing at me now. I'm pregnant!


----------



## TiggyBlue (Jul 29, 2012)

Good rant :smthumbup:


----------



## Pitbull5555 (May 26, 2013)

Agree, JustOneLife. This very "rant" has crossed my mind more often than not when I log on to see what's new on these forums. I have to log off because I can't stand the BS most of the time. A lot of the men seem to have the belief that women always make less money and are dependent on men. Apparently, these men have never heard of a situation where a woman might be a doctor, lawyer, CEO of a large corporation, etc. with her own education and her own money.

The other assumption that drives me nuts is: "Oh, he/she is definitely having an affair. He/she is cheating on you!"

Wait - there's one more thing that makes me cringe ... there are a lot of "armchair lawyers" who just love to give erroneous and inaccurate advice.


----------



## livelaughlovenow (Apr 23, 2012)

It goes both ways in a post I wrote I was told to cut my husband off, because I am the sole provider.


----------



## tulsy (Nov 30, 2012)

justonelife said:


> I don't know how many times I've seen it here. No matter what problem a man may be having with his wife, at least one idiot (or several) will immediately call out "cut off her money, don't finance her (insert problem here)!"
> 
> Three things irritate me about this:
> 
> 1. The inherent assumption that all women are financially dependent on their husbands. I make more money than my husband, thank you very much, and I always have. Why is it always assumed that the men make all of the money?


Okay, YOU may make more than your husband, but it is usually the opposite, which I am sure you are aware. More often, the man makes more money.

I don't think that "cut off her money, don't finance her (insert problem here)!" is thrown around arbitrarily, it usually has to do with the thread specifically. For example, a married couple, the woman decides she is leaving for another man, but wants her husband to keep financing her life. I've seen the expression used in these type of instances, and the thought process seems to be that if she is leaving the relationship, she is no longer the husbands responsibility...especially if she is spending money doting on and dating her new man, buying new lingerie, etc. 

I think it may seem a bit petty to cut her off, but chit happens when you've had your heart ripped out, and a man has a real hard time working his azz off to pay for his ex to date someone new. 

But ya, as a woman who makes more money than her man, I can see how that statement would piss you off. I get that.



justonelife said:


> 2. Even if I was a SAHM, that would be a mutual decision between my husband and myself for the good of our children. It's not that these women are lazy and get to have a "cushy" life courtesy of their husband. Sure, some women do have it very good. But most SAHM's work hard and have SACRIFICED a lot, including their own careers, their sanity, time in the adult world, etc to make this choice. And in most cases, this choice was made with the husband's mutual consent and even encouragement. Wives don't somehow manipulate, frighten or force their husbands to financially support them. It's a decision made jointly and involves a lot of trust on the part of the wife. It's not easy being the one shouldering the financial burden for the family. But it's also not easy sacrificing your own career and being financially dependent on another person. This is a family decision made for the good of the family, not a wife sneaking in to her husband's wallet to steal his money when he's not looking.


I agree, there are plenty of women who work their buns off to raise the kids, take care of the household, do the daily chores, etc. There are also plenty who put their feet up and do as little as possible, though I believe the number of those women is substantially less. Still, the lazy ones have given the whole SAHM position a bad rap for those who really do so much. My ex was one of the lazy ones, but I know some women who do more at home than their hubbies do at work.

I want to add that it's not always a "family" decision. My ex dropped out of school before getting pregnant, and always had an excuse why she couldn't go back to work or finish any housework. It became my problem, and became a "family" decision only in how she spoke about to others about it. The truth is, I made good money and she didn't want to work, even when the kids were grown and in full time school. I'm just using my situation as an example, I don't think that all women or even the majority of SAHM's are like her.



justonelife said:


> 3. It bugs the heck out of me that people find it perfectly fine to encourage men to control and manipulate their wives using money. If she's not doing X, Y or Z, cut off her money! Nobody ever tells wives to cut off sex as a punishment for some wrong by the husband. That would be horrible and breaking the marriage vows! How is cutting off money any different? The money earned by both parties in a marriage belongs to both parties. At least, that's pretty much the law in most states. The parties should both contribute equally to the family with whatever is agreed upon, whether it's money, housework, child-rearing, etc. If there is a marriage problem, you need to address THAT problem. Whether it's laziness, going out too much, not participating sexually, whatever the problem may be. Address that problem, don't just manipulate your spouse using money. Wives are not *****s, who you can choose to "pay" or "not pay" depending on your level of satisfaction with the services rendered.
> 
> Okay, rant over. I think.


Funny you should bring up cutting off sex. In the example I gave above, where the woman leaves the man for someone else, she has cut him off of sex and given herself to another man. There are plenty of examples of this here at TAM, and that is often where you see the "cut off her money, don't finance her (insert problem here)!" being thrown out there.

Personally, I totally appreciate any woman who is a SAHM who actually does the job...I think SAHM's usually do not get enough credit, but again, I think the bad apples in the bunch have really contributed to that bad rap they get. Throw in guys whose SAHM wives have been cheating on them too, it makes for an angry thread 99% of the time.


----------



## survivorwife (May 15, 2012)

tulsy said:


> Okay, YOU may make more than your husband, but it is usually the opposite, which I am sure you are aware. More often, the man makes more money.
> 
> I don't think that "cut off her money, don't finance her (insert problem here)!" is thrown around arbitrarily, it usually has to do with the thread specifically. For example, a married couple, the woman decides she is leaving for another man, but wants her husband to keep financing her life. I've seen the expression used in these type of instances, and the thought process seems to be that if she is leaving the relationship, she is no longer the husbands responsibility...especially if she is spending money doting on and dating her new man, buying new lingerie, etc.
> 
> ...


:iagree:

Context is everything.


----------



## FemBot (May 1, 2013)

All good points tulsy!


----------



## Starstarfish (Apr 19, 2012)

I just want to throw out these thoughts:

- Cheaters gonna cheat whether they are SAHM or working full time. You hear stories right here on TAM from both ends of the spectrum and everything in between. So - cheater hate should be directed towards cheaters or cheating not because of whatever profession they might be in. 

- There's "a few bad apples" in nearly any group of people you look at. I mean - my husband is a hard working guy, but he works with some total knobs. People who do the bare minimum, skate by on technicalities, and only by some miracle don't get fired, and even more miraculously get promoted or keep getting raises. These people exist in the working world as well as the stay-at-home world. There are always people willing to do only the minimum. Again - that's a lack of conviction or a personality flaw that could and likely would manifest no matter what some of these people were doing.


----------



## Mavash. (Jan 26, 2012)

All fine and good until you have a spouse who won't listen or one that takes you for granted. Then you're left with few options. Accept, leave, counseling, or try the consequence route.


----------

