# Ladies, would you be ok with being the primary breadwinner in your marriage?



## EleGirl

I would like to get input on this question.

Ladies, would you be ok with being the primary breadwinner in your marriage? Let's define primary breadwinner as earning 60% or more of the joint income in your marriage.

Is this a gray area, whatever your answer? Are there circumstances under which you would be ok but others that you would not be ok?


----------



## EleGirl

I'll start....

Yea I'm ok with it. I've always been the primary breadwinner.

The only think that would make it not ok with me is if my husband was not contributing to the care of the home and children; and not doing something meaningful with his life... like if was spending all his time playing computer games, surfing the web etc.


----------



## jld

I would be okay with it if my husband were terribly ill or paralyzed. And certainly, if he died, I would have to take over that responsibility.


----------



## Hope1964

We don't keep that close track of exactly what each other earns. I do know I used to earn slightly more than him but now I don't. I have no idea what the percentages are. It just isn't something that's overly important to us. We are comfortable and able to do the stuff we want to, for the most part. We have separate bank accounts and both pay the bills we are responsible for, and whatever's left over we kinda share. It's been that way no matter who earns what.

I suppose if one of us earned a LOT more than the other there might be some issues. Although they'd be the same issues whether it was me or him.


----------



## BetrayedDad

It would bother me if I wasn't and I'm a man. Just feels emasculating.... Can't imagine what my female SO would think.

This would be the equivalent of asking men how they would feel if they were far better looking than their wives or girlfriends.


----------



## Giro flee

I was the breadwinner for the first ten years of our marriage, then it evened out, now he earns way more. All were perfectly fine. 

I would never want a non working husband if we had no kids. I would like for my partner to have interests and responsibilities that help out our partnership. To be honest I never understood anybody, though it's mostly men, who enjoy a spouse who does absolutely nothing. No job, no kids, ugh, not for me.


----------



## Hope1964

People actually make a big deal out of relative looks and earnings in a relationship? It isn't a competition.

EleGirl, would't the same be true if your husband earned more and you were just doing nothing? Wouldn't he have a problem with that?


----------



## CantePe

Was for the better part of a decade. Didn't bother me in the least. We run a business together now so I'd say income is evenly split.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## BetrayedDad

Giro flee said:


> I would never want a non working husband if we had no kids. I would like for my partner to have interests and responsibilities that help out our partnership. To be honest I never understood anybody, though it's mostly men, who enjoy a spouse who does absolutely nothing. No job, no kids, ugh, not for me.


I know two women in my office with LOSER boyfriends in long term relationships in this very situation. 

These women work, own their own homes, make all the money, they have no kids, and the men literally do nothing (unless you consider hustling a job).

And they talk about these men with such endearment to boot. They contribute nothing (believe me, I've asked). It's absolutely mind blowing.


----------



## Hope1964

If my man acted like that, he'd no longer be my man.


----------



## *Deidre*

I *say* I wouldn't mind it, but maybe I would? Hard to say without being in the situation. I think there wouldn't be a problem as long as I knew that my husband would be doing his best in his career. I wouldn't ever take care of a guy, for example, who was perfectly able to work, and _chose_ not to and put all the pressure on me. I also wouldn't want to do that to my fiance, but when we marry, we've discussed me being a SAHM. (which I think the situation changes if there's kids involved)


----------



## MJJEAN

I'm an "it depends". I'd have an issue with it if I were trying to conceive, pregnant, had young children at home, and/or the income gap was wide. I wouldn't have an issue if DH was unable to work due to chronic illness or injury.


----------



## heartsbeating

Would I be okay with being the primary breadwinner in my marriage...? In our dynamic and in typical circumstances, the answer is 'It depends.'

Our finances are combined and we share an expectation of the relationship being equitable and reasonably interdependent. When we lived overseas for an extended time, I was fortunate to work and carried us financially. Hubs couldn't get a break securing employment. He was both proud of, and glad, that I could have our back. At the same time, it affected how he felt about himself. I was encouraging him to make the most of it and try different things. While he had a successful try of something, overall I deeply underestimated what it meant for his identity and sense of pride, and in turn underestimated how that was playing out in our dynamic. 

The number isn't what solely drives him or necessarily the focus. We encourage each other to take risks and try different things while balancing what that means to us as a couple and lifestyle we enjoy. Sometimes it calls for sacrifices and flexibility. This perspective, combined with how it impacts him (and therefore, us) leads to my answer of 'It depends'.


----------



## Giro flee

I'll add that while I had no problem being the breadwinner, my husband didn't like it. He's fairly competitive so it bothered him. He admitted that this made him feel sexist, but he still felt it. He doesn't like it when I'm better at anything. He knows this and feels weird about it but there you go. Can't change how you feel.


----------



## Justsayin4897

Omg we would starve to death so I am thinking no way would I've ok with it !!!


----------



## EleGirl

Hope1964 said:


> People actually make a big deal out of relative looks and earnings in a relationship? It isn't a competition.
> 
> EleGirl, would't the same be true if your husband earned more and you were just doing nothing? Wouldn't he have a problem with that?


Absolutely my husbands would have been upset if they were the bread winner and I did nothing.


----------



## Betrayedone

It's just wrong and in many cases would ultimately lead to the destruction of the relationship.


----------



## maritalloneliness

Sometimes I get jealous of the male role in the marriage, at least in my marriage. I have the opportunity to earn more money than my husband but due
to children obligations I'm not working full-time but he is. He's always worked full-time and any over time that's available. That was fine with me when the kids were little and I was engrossed with kid activities. I assumed all household responsibility and all his responsibility was to work, come home, eat do what ever he wanted and I did all the rest.

Now, I want to invest in my career by taking a more demanding job but haven't worked out what to do with my tween and teenage son who have a lot of activities outside the home. Of course that would mean he'd have to contribute to the maintenance of the house hold dynamics but he's resistant to this idea. In my culture, men don't do housework.
I'd like to be the breadwinner only if all I'd have to do is work and come home, eat, have sex when I want and tinker in the garage with my toys and show up as the father during times when I'm required to. Geez, I sound resentful! 

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk


----------



## jld

Different marriages require different structures.

The main thing is that each person feel satisfied with their end of the deal, and not ripped off in any way.


----------



## naiveonedave

something to think about.... I don't know that you can really know the answer to this question, unless you have actually been in that situation...


----------



## Satya

I wouldn't mind being the primary breadwinner, so long so my H contributed toward finances and helped in other meaningful ways. 

That having been said, I know my H would personally feel inadequate if he wasn't the main breadwinner, but if it was a temporary thing, he would be fine with that.


----------



## jld

naiveonedave said:


> something to think about.... I don't know that you can really know the answer to this question, unless you have actually been in that situation...


I am sure that is true.

I was just reading about a family in Aleppo, that one with the little 7 year old girl who has been tweeting. Who cares who is the breadwinner in such circumstances? Everyone would just be glad someone was able to provide for the family.


----------



## lorikeet25

In theory, I don't think it matters. My experience has been that even as the primary breadwinner I was expected to take care of the majority of the household responsibilities as well. That was a recipe for resentment.


----------



## jld

lorikeet25 said:


> My experience has been that even as the primary breadwinner I was expected to take care of the majority of the household responsibilities as well. That was a recipe for resentment.


Did it ever make you wonder if it was worth being married?


----------



## tropicalbeachiwish

The only time I wouldn't be okay with it was if he wasn't pulling his weight but yet he's capable of it. So, if I'm the breadwinner and he's just a lazy a**, oh no, no, no.


----------



## Cosmos

I voted "It Depends."

If my spouse became too ill to work, or lost his job, I would support him 100% and feel honoured to do so.

If my spouse simply decided to not work anymore, expecting me to support him, I would ask him to leave.

Providing my spouse had a stimulating job that he enjoyed, and we were able to maintain a good standard of living on our joint salaries, it wouldn't worry me one bit if I earned _slightly _more than him. Nothing more than 60/50, though.


----------



## Celes

It depends. I'd be okay with making over 60% more provided he was still making a decent income. To me, there's a difference between him making $50k and I $80k, versus him making 100k and me making 160k. I'm not also not interested in a SAHD or a man that works part time. 

I was the primary breadwinner for a year after he got laid off a couple years back. There were no issues other than he did no housework at all. It's weird though, because once he started working he started helping more.


----------



## jb02157

So a non-working husband is not cool, however, a non-working wife is. Why this is not thought of as a double standard since women demand to be treated as equals?


----------



## jld

jb02157 said:


> So a non-working husband is not cool, however, a non-working wife is. Why this is not thought of as a double standard since women demand to be treated as equals?


Not all women demand equal treatment, especially if equal means "same."

And not all men see their wives not bringing in money as not being equal.

The goal is for each side to feel satisfied with whatever their arrangement is.


----------



## jld

Cosmos said:


> I voted "It Depends."
> 
> If my spouse became too ill to work, or lost his job, I would support him 100% and feel honoured to do so.
> 
> If my spouse simply decided to not work anymore, expecting me to support him, I would ask him to leave.
> 
> Providing my spouse had a stimulating job that he enjoyed, and we were able to maintain a good standard of living on our joint salaries, it wouldn't worry me one bit if I earned _slightly _more than him. Nothing more than 60/50, though.


How do you think a wider split would feel to you, Cosmos?


----------



## Celes

jb02157 said:


> So a non-working husband is not cool, however, a non-working wife is. Why this is not thought of as a double standard since women demand to be treated as equals?


This thread is addressed to women and what they value in their own marriages. Maybe you should ask men why they don't care about a woman's earning potential.


----------



## jld

Celes said:


> This thread is addressed to women and what they value in their own marriages. *Maybe you should ask men why they don't care about a woman's earning potential*.


That would make for a great thread, jb.

Actually, maybe I will start it.


----------



## jb02157

jld said:


> That would make for a great thread, jb.
> 
> Actually, maybe I will start it.


There's plenty of men that do care what their wife can add to the family income. I certainly didn't mean to hijack your thread so I apologize for my posts.


----------



## EleGirl

maritalloneliness said:


> Sometimes I get jealous of the male role in the marriage, at least in my marriage. I have the opportunity to earn more money than my husband but due
> to children obligations I'm not working full-time but he is. He's always worked full-time and any over time that's available. That was fine with me when the kids were little and I was engrossed with kid activities. I assumed all household responsibility and all his responsibility was to work, come home, eat do what ever he wanted and I did all the rest.
> 
> Now, I want to invest in my career by taking a more demanding job but haven't worked out what to do with my tween and teenage son who have a lot of activities outside the home. Of course that would mean he'd have to contribute to the maintenance of the house hold dynamics but he's resistant to this idea. In my culture, men don't do housework.
> I'd like to be the breadwinner *only if all I'd have to do is work and come home, eat, have sex when I want and tinker in the garage with my toys* and show up as the father during times when I'm required to. Geez, I sound resentful!


The bolded part is an important issue. As I said earlier, I've always been the breadwinner. It was not by choice. It just worked out that way.

Even though I'm from a culture where supposedly men do some housework, child care, etc. both of my husbands did none of it. So I was the bread winner and did everything else. That did anger me. It was profoundly unfair and mean spirited on their part to say the least.


----------



## EleGirl

naiveonedave said:


> something to think about.... I don't know that you can really know the answer to this question, unless you have actually been in that situation...


I agree. And as you can see in reading this thread that many of us have actually been in that situation.


----------



## Cosmos

jld said:


> How do you think a wider split would feel to you, Cosmos?


It's not something that I can imagine, JLD, because I've never been in a relationship where I have been capable of earning even half of what my partners did!


----------



## EleGirl

jb02157 said:


> So a non-working husband is not cool, however, a non-working wife is. Why this is not thought of as a double standard since women demand to be treated as equals?


There are plenty of men who require that their wife works outside the home. Today about 70% of married women do work outside the home. So being a SAHM/W is not very common.

Further, almost 50% of all married women earn as much or more than their husbands.

Also, most men show do have wives who are SAHM's would not be ok with their wife doing nothing all day but playing computer games out hanging out with her friends. They expect their wife to take care of the home and the children.

This is something that each couple decides for themselves.


----------



## Hope1964

A lot of the answers here aren't gender specific - they would be the same whether it was the wife or the husband who earned the most. I can think of a lot of situations where I wouldn't want to be the primary breadwinner, but they all apply equally if my husband was the primary breadwinner.


----------



## jld

Cosmos said:


> It's not something that I can imagine, JLD, because I've never been in a relationship where I have been capable of earning even half of what my partners did!


I hear you, Cosmos!


----------



## uhtred

I know two couples where the wife is the primary breadwinner. 

In one, the husband stays at home to raise their 3 kids. It seems a fairly balanced situation and as far as I can tell they both seem happy. 

In the other, the husband has a hobby-job ( pretends is a job but doesn't actually make any money), and he doesn't do any housework. The wife is very unhappy and (I think reasonably) doesn't feel he is pulling his weight.


----------



## thefam

I voted no I would not be ok with it because I know my H's expectations of me as his wife. I'm ok with the expectations as long as he shoulders the responsibility of being the breadwinner. But if he ever wanted/needed to change that role he would need to adjust his expectations.


----------



## Hope1964

So for those who aren't ok with it, is it mainly because of the way your husband would react?? Would you change your answer if you knew he would be OK with it?


----------



## ChipperE

I wouldn't mind earning more money than my partner, but he would have to be ambitious. If he were in a field where he was happy but didn't have as many financial rewards I could be okay with that. But just to support someone because they don't want to work hard, no I couldn't do that. Unless he was sick or there was a reason he couldn't work. In that case I would support him if needed.


----------



## jb02157

EleGirl said:


> There are plenty of men who require that their wife works outside the home. Today about 70% of married women do work outside the home. So being a SAHM/W is not very common.
> 
> Further, almost 50% of all married women earn as much or more than their husbands.
> 
> Also, most men show do have wives who are SAHM's would not be ok with their wife doing nothing all day but playing computer games out hanging out with her friends. They expect their wife to take care of the home and the children.
> 
> This is something that each couple decides for themselves.


70% work outside the home and 50% make as much or more than their husbands?? I would challenge those stats. Also, many SAHM's to not take care of the home and end up just watching tv and playing computer games all day.


----------



## naiveonedave

jb02157 said:


> 70% work outside the home and 50% make as much or more than their husbands?? I would challenge those stats. Also, many SAHM's to not take care of the home and end up just watching tv and playing computer games all day.


if they are even remotely true, please shut up about the 70% myth.


----------



## jb02157

naiveonedave said:


> if they are even remotely true, please shut up about the 70% myth.


I think it's BS to but I'm not the one who said it.


----------



## EleGirl

jb02157 said:


> 70% work outside the home and 50% make as much or more than their husbands?? I would challenge those stats. Also, many SAHM's to not take care of the home and end up just watching tv and playing computer games all day.


Of course some SAHM's do nothing, just like some unemployed or underplayed men do.

Why would any man tolerate supporting a SAHM who does nothing but watch tv and play computer games all day? That means that not only is the house not taken care of but that they kids are not. It means that the baby is crawling/walking around with a diaper around it's ankles because it's so full of poo. The kids are starving or eating whatever junk they can get out of the fridge. It means that kids who can open the front door are out running around town unsupervised. 

So why exactly would any man stay married to a woman like that? Why would he allow his children to be basically unsupervised all day and not taken care of?


----------



## EleGirl

naiveonedave said:


> if they are even remotely true, please shut up about the 70% myth.


Who are you telling to shut up? I'm unclear about the point of this post. are you challenging the 70%?


----------



## Ms. GP

No problem being the breadwinner. It all goes in the same pot in my opinion. We have both endured layoffs, and I prefer the financial security of both of us working.


----------



## uhtred

If there are no kids, its not so dire because other humans are not suffering. Still its extremely unfair. Sadly some people (men and women) do accept spouses who do not do their part. Maybe they take a very broad view of "for better or for worse". 





EleGirl said:


> Of course some SAHM's do nothing, just like some unemployed or underplayed men do.
> 
> Why would any man tolerate supporting a SAHM who does nothing but watch tv and play computer games all day? That means that not only is the house not taken care of but that they kids are not. It means that the baby is crawling/walking around with a diaper around it's ankles because it's so full of poo. The kids are starving or eating whatever junk they can get out of the fridge. It means that kids who can open the front door are out running around town unsupervised.
> 
> So why exactly would any man stay married to a woman like that? Why would he allow his children to be basically unsupervised all day and not taken care of?


----------



## kag123

I think my husband and I have a unique situation in that our skill set/education is similar and we work in similar fields, so we are always neck and neck in career and salary. Right now I make a bit more than he does, but he'll creep up and overtake that at some point and then I will get another raise or promotion, etc. and I expect it will continue to ping-pong that way as long as we are both still working. 

It's nice because we each make just enough that if one of us were to lose our jobs, it wouldn't be catastrophic. Not as bad as if say, I made 30% of the income and he made 70% and then he lost his job and we had to live off of the 30%. To me...in this economy to be able to feel confident that we can cover for each other in that way, takes a huge load off our shoulders. It is also nice to feel like "equals". We are both at similar levels in our careers and can easily discuss our careers with each other and get feedback from each other that is meaningful. 

We each knew prior to getting married that we were career oriented people and I never dreamed of being a SAHM. I honestly don't think I would be good at it, and at the time we had our kids we couldn't swing it financially, so I never even considered it. I just knew I had to get back to work so that's what I did. 

I'm a bigger spender than my H, too. Nothing horrible (in my opinion at least), but knowing I am contributing to the family income equally on pace with him allows me to feel more comfortable with spending here or there. I don't feel like I have to ask permission. We consider all of the money to be community property, so even if I wasn't working he would never say I couldn't have "his" money, but I personally would feel guilty and shameful about not having helped to earn it myself.


----------



## EleGirl

jb02157 said:


> 70% work outside the home ....??
> 
> I would challenge those stats. .


Is the Bureau of Labor Statistics good enough of a source for you? Just because you don't want to believe it does not make it BS.

"*Families and Employment *

In 2015, families maintained by women with no spouse present remained less likely to have an employed member (75.0 percent) than families maintained by men with no spouse present (82.9 percent) or married-couple families (81.4 percent). Among married-couple families, both the husband and wife were employed in 48.0 percent of families; in 19.8 percent of married-couple families only the husband was employed, and in 7.1 percent only the wife was employed. (See table 2.)"

married-couple families

81.4% - at least one family member employed. 
48.0% - both the husband and wife were employed
67.8% - have a husband who is employed. (48% + 19.8%)
61.6% - have a wife who is employed. (48% + 13.6%)
19.8% - have only the husband employed. 
13.6% - have only the wife employed. (81.4% - 67.8%) 

So…. In married-couple families in which at least one-person works 

83.3% - have a husband who works (67.8% / 81.4%)
75.7% - have a wife who works (61.6% / 81.4%)

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/famee.pdf


----------



## EleGirl

uhtred said:


> If there are no kids, its not so dire because other humans are not suffering. Still its extremely unfair. Sadly some people (men and women) do accept spouses who do not do their part. Maybe they take a very broad view of "for better or for worse".


Everyone makes their own choices of what they will accept in their marriage.


----------



## lorikeet25

jld said:


> Did it ever make you wonder if it was worth being married?




Absolutely. In fact when I filed for divorce I told him exactly that.


----------



## EllisRedding

I enjoy a nice fresh home baked bread, so in that regard I would consider my Wife the Breadwinner (not sure if that is an option). Well, except for Banana bread which I am just not a fan of...


----------



## arbitrator

*Since our lady friends are the ones that have been asked to cast ballots here, I am not voting!

Having said that, had I voted, I would have certainly voted for "perfectly OK" to do so!

I know that I am a "baby-boomer" child of the 1950's, where for the most part, it was certainly taboo for a housewife to be a member of the work force, excepting of course, that they were a school teacher, college professor, cosmetologist, or a medical profession!

My mother was a housewife, never worked, .and never wanted to! Had she of been necessitated to do so, I feel that she would have stepped right up, with the least amount of hesitation, in a bird dog minute!

Back then, it was so very much harder for females to ever get admitted into college or grad school to ever meet the exacting criteria for the necessary college degree requirements!

Today, with rare exception, it seems as if the females who are in the workforce fully resent having a mate or spouse who earns significantly less than they do! 

But largely as an apposition to that theory, my very best friend, who is college degreed with a masters right alongside his lovely wife, never quite had the same work acumen that his W did, and she was, for the continuing duration of their marital union, the breadwinner-in-chief; and he willingly accepted raising their daughters as a stay at home daddy, and his loving W never ever resented being the breadwinner for their family for even a solitary moment!*


----------



## EllaSuaveterre

I would absolutely hate having to do that. Unless my husband were literally dying, or paralyzed, it would be a deal-breaker. In a couple years I'll graduate from college and will start looking for a job. Ideally I'd be a writer or editor for a magazine or newspaper, but I'm not too proud to work at a call center, especially if I can work from home. The prospect of having to work is daunting and horrifying enough without the added pressure of having to actually make enough money to sustain us.

My husband thankfully understood from the outset that my getting a job- at least a full time job or one requiring any sort of physical activity- would be impossible. It was understood that he would take care of me and I in return would shower him with affection and adoration.


----------



## Hope1964

Hope1964 said:


> So for those who aren't ok with it, is it mainly because of the way your husband would react?? Would you change your answer if you knew he would be OK with it?


Anyone?


----------



## soccermom2three

I marked it depends. There are many variables. If both my husband and I are giving 100%, I don't see a problem with me making more than him. There have been years at the beginning of our marriage, (before kids), that I did make more than him. I do know that he gets great satisfaction from providing for his family so he may have a problem with it. 

I've worked in a female dominated career for 30 years, (damn I'm old!), I would say that most of the women I have worked with through the years have been the breadwinner in the relationship because the job can pay very well. I can only think of few relationships where there wasn't any issues. 

In the relationships where there are issues, some of the men are kind of losers. Lazy or trying to start businesses because it's going to be the next thing, yada, yada. Currently I work with a young woman that is pretty much with her SO because it's free daycare. He doesn't work, does the bare minimum as far as childcare and housework, (I don't think he cooks), and is a hypochondriac. I know another woman, husband is a great guy, no kids but does everything regarding the household but she you can tell she has no respect for him because he doesn't make much money.


----------



## samyeagar

EleGirl said:


> Of course some SAHM's do nothing, just like some unemployed or underplayed men do.
> 
> Why would any man tolerate supporting a SAHM who does nothing but watch tv and play computer games all day? That means that not only is the house not taken care of but that they kids are not. It means that the baby is crawling/walking around with a diaper around it's ankles because it's so full of poo. The kids are starving or eating whatever junk they can get out of the fridge. It means that kids who can open the front door are out running around town unsupervised.
> 
> *So why exactly would any man stay married to a woman like that? *Why would he allow his children to be basically unsupervised all day and not taken care of?


Alimony/Maintenance and child support.


----------



## EleGirl

samyeagar said:


> Alimony/Maintenance and child support.


Most of the time, someone who does not contribute to a marriage (lazy person who does nothing) is like that from pretty early in the marriage. If the divorce happens early enough there is no alimony/maintenance. Now there might be child support. But if they are supporting the person and the child already they are probably spending more then they would if they divorce.


----------



## samyeagar

EleGirl said:


> Most of the time, someone who does not contribute to a marriage (lazy person who does nothing) is like that from pretty early in the marriage. If the divorce happens early enough there is no alimony/maintenance. Now there might be child support. But if they are supporting the person and the child already they are probably spending more then they would if they divorce.


Aside from me buying into the whole "staying together for the kids" thing, one of the main reasons I stayed married to my ex-wife was that I knew that after maintenance child support was taken out, I would not be able to come close to supporting myself with what was left over, so it made perfect financial sense to stay married...at least that way I had my own roof over my head. Her affair however made divorce imperative.


----------



## EleGirl

samyeagar said:


> Aside from me buying into the whole "staying together for the kids" thing, one of the main reasons I stayed married to my ex-wife was that I knew that after maintenance child support was taken out, I would not be able to come close to supporting myself with what was left over, so it made perfect financial sense to stay married...at least that way I had my own roof over my head. Her affair however made divorce imperative.


How many years were you married at the time that you decided that your marriage was not good but you would stay to not have to pay support?

How long were the two of you married when you finally divorced?


----------



## samyeagar

EleGirl said:


> How many years were you married at the time that you decided that your marriage was not good but you would stay to not have to pay support?
> 
> How long were the two of you married when you finally divorced?


About six years in, I was miserable, and hated being married to her, but you know...stay for the kids...and all that. I could survive another 17 years. The financial aspects of what a divorce would do to me didn't hit until we had been married 10 years. We were married 17 years total. In my state, that was long enough for lifetime maintenance. Fortunately I dodged that bullet by spending a lot of money on my attorney.

In retrospect, the mantra of staying for the kids is horrible.


----------



## EleGirl

samyeagar said:


> About six years in, I was miserable, and hated being married to her, but you know...stay for the kids...and all that. I could survive another 17 years. The financial aspects of what a divorce would do to me didn't hit until we had been married 10 years. We were married 17 years total. In my state, that was long enough for lifetime maintenance. Fortunately I dodged that bullet by spending a lot of money on my attorney.
> 
> In retrospect, the mantra of staying for the kids is horrible.


I agree that staying for the kids is horrible. Had you divorced at 6 years in, the threat of any alimony would have been a lot less.


----------



## katiecrna

I would not be happy with it. But if he was ill and I had to than I would suck it up and do it. I would not leave my husband if he didn't make as much as me. I would leave my husband if he was lazy and wouldn't get a job.


----------



## NextTimeAround

Having been unemployed for a few years now, I need a husband who makes more money than I do. Once my (future) husband dropped pretences to his "friend", he became very generous. I do take care of the household side and the social side of our lives. Even there I'm lucky, because my husband is not a neat freak so I can for the most part make my own schedule. I shudder at the thought of someone marrying someone like my brother very exacting and very impatient........ and also expects his wife to work.


----------



## prunus

Giro flee said:


> I was the breadwinner for the first ten years of our marriage, then it evened out, now he earns way more. All were perfectly fine.
> 
> I would never want a non working husband if we had no kids. I would like for my partner to have interests and responsibilities that help out our partnership. To be honest I never understood anybody, though it's mostly men, who enjoy a spouse who does absolutely nothing. No job, no kids, ugh, not for me.


I think in many (obviously not all) these situations are more about control. I wanted to go back to school. I wanted to get a job. But, every time I tried, he shot me down and I didn't do it. Yes, I realize I should of stood my ground and followed through with my wants, but after time you get sick of the behavior of your spouse and just back down...because it's easier.


----------



## notmyrealname4

Whomever has the money, has the power.

Women don't want equal rights in everything.


----------



## AVR1962

I was for part of the time in my first marriage and I did not mind it. I think it is actually good for women as it shows them just what their husband's do provide. The part of it I did not like is that the responsibilities of the home, children and every day life still primary were on me and even though we talked about him helping out more it didn't happen.


----------



## jld

AVR1962 said:


> I was for part of the time in my first marriage and I did not mind it. I think it is actually good for women as it shows them just what their husband's do provide. The part of it I did not like is that *the responsibilities of the home, children and every day life still primary were on me and even though we talked about him helping out more it didn't happen*.


I think a lot of women find themselves in that position.

Sweet deal for the men, though . . .


----------



## EleGirl

notmyrealname4 said:


> Whomever has the money, has the power.
> 
> Women don't want equal rights in everything.


Women are individuals who do not all think the same things. So a blanket statement like is just pure nonsense.


----------



## notmyrealname4

EleGirl said:


> Women are individuals who do not all think the same things. *So a blanket statement like is just pure nonsense.*




Except to women like me, who happen to think it.


----------



## jld

notmyrealname4 said:


> Except to women like me, who happen to think it.


Could you elaborate on your statement, please, on how you do not think women, or some women, do not want equal rights in everything?

Do you think there may be different ways of defining the word "equal"?


----------



## meson

I spoke with Mrs. meson and she would be fine being the primary bread winner and voted her choice. She would not put up with my living off of her charity if I could earn and contribute but other than that any contribution is fine.


----------



## Cosmos

notmyrealname4 said:


> Whomever has the money, has the power.
> 
> Women don't want equal rights in everything.


Some women don't, and that's their own indaba. I have to say, though, I don't know any women who don't consider themselves to be of equal value to men and, therefore, deserving of equal rights...

IMO, men and women are equal but different.


----------



## notmyrealname4

jld said:


> Could you elaborate on your statement, please, on how you do not think women, or some women, do not want equal rights in everything?
> 
> Do you think there may be different ways of defining the word "equal"?




I think for clarities sake, equal must mean equal. As in, the same.


Perhaps "equivalent" might be a better term. Or not. I mean, how many apples are equivalent to 3 oranges?











^^ I stole this from the Humorous Memes thread 

I've helped my husband shovel snow when it's been *really* bad. One year, I ended up fainting while doing so. But a lot of women wouldn't faint; some women are pretty tough. But MANY women I've known wouldn't even consider helping him for a second.

Many men would shovel the snow; and their wives would fix a cup of hot cider for him and start fixing a nice dinner and keep the laundry going, while he did it.

That's not equal to me; I think shoveling snow is harder. But would men prefer to be domestic support,making the home cozy and inviting---while their wives went outside with the shovel?


Is getting a mouse out of the garage, or going downstairs to check what that crashing sound is in the middle of the night as hard as scrubbing the toilet or balancing the checkbook.

I don't have a conclusive answer.

Every day, I scrape the snow and ice off the car, and warm up the engine (I'm not currently working).

He thanks me, but also feels awkward??? I tell him, "I'm staying home right now, it's the least I can do".


I've had female in-laws confess to me privately that I should "let the guys do all the work" (bring in the money, harder forms of labor etc.).

That was one of the interactions that started me thinking about this. Do women really want equality.


I try not to confuse ability with opportunity. Women haven't been inventors like men have. But, historically, women did not receive the education and chances that men did. It would be fascinating to see if that begins to change _dramatically._

Do women do the construction of skyscrapers, dozens of stories up? Are they applying for those jobs? Are they receiving the same chances.

Do women clean sewers? [same question as above]


I think women COULD do the heavy labor of society if they had to. It might take longer for them to do it if they were unaided by heavy equipment. But given the chance and the training, they could do it.

Women can learn to construct heavy equipment. Women can go down in the mines and extract the ores required to build machinery.

Would they willingly? If a WWII situation came about; yes, I think many would. But I'm pretty sure most wouldn't.


It hasn't all played out yet. I think that women feel that because they have to be the ones to sacrifice their bodies for childbearing, that that's enough. They have a point, to an extent. But my equivalent of childbearing for men is going to war. Not all men fight in war. Not all men who fight in war get grievous bodily injuries, or are killed.


TL;DR-----My life experience is that women avoid heavy, dirty work like the plague.


----------



## EleGirl

EleGirl said:


> Women are individuals who do not all think the same things. *So a blanket statement like is just pure nonsense.*





notmyrealname4 said:


> Except to women like me, who happen to think it.


Ok, so you don't want equality. It's best to speak for yourself and not for all women.


----------



## notmyrealname4

EleGirl said:


> Ok, so you don't want equality. It's best to speak for yourself and not for all women.


My posts are always me speaking for myself.

I think it's okay to report what I have found to be true. It is a data point of one; and anecdotal, to an extent. A large amount of the content on this forum consists of such information.

You are being disingenuous. Where did I say, "I don't want equality for women". I said "women don't want equal rights in everything"*. I said "women", meaning the plural form of "woman"; which means more than one. It doesn't mean every single last one.


*^^^I stand by this remark. I have found it to be true.


----------



## EleGirl

notmyrealname4 said:


> My posts are always me speaking for myself.
> 
> I think it's okay to report what I have found to be true. It is a data point of one; and anecdotal, to an extent. A large amount of the content on this forum consists of such information.
> 
> You are being disingenuous. Where did I say, "I don't want equality for women". I said "women don't want equal rights in everything"*. I said "women", meaning the plural form of "woman"; which means more than one. It doesn't mean every single last one.
> 
> 
> *^^^I stand by this remark. I have found it to be true.





notmyrealname4 said:


> Where did I say, "I don't want equality for women". I said "women don't want equal rights in everything"*.


After reading your other posts on this, it seems that you and I are talking about two different things.

You are equating “equal rights” to things like how a couple decides to split up household chores.

To me “equal rights” is a term that means equal under the law. That’s a very different issue from how a couples decides to split household and child care chores based on their individual talents and strengths.

I that that the vast majority of women in the USA want and expect equal rights under the law.


notmyrealname4 said:


> I said "women", meaning the plural form of "woman"; which means more than one. It doesn't mean every single last one.


Linguistically, when one says “women” with no qualifiers, it means all women. Here on TAM the qualifiers become even more important. Try posting something negative about “men” instead of “some men” or “men I know” and the thread will erupt with many men on TAM making such a negative blanket statement about men. I’ve become pretty sensitive to this after years of watching threads explode over this type of loose word usage.



notmyrealname4 said:


> You are being disingenuous


NO I am not. Apparently you and I were talking about two completely different things. Legal equality vs a couple’s choices in splitting chores. How a couple splits chores has nothing to do with equality under the law. Like I said, I had no idea that you equate “equal rights” (a legal term) to how a couple splits chores (a non-legal issue).


----------



## notmyrealname4

EleGirl said:


> I that that the vast majority of women in the USA want and expect equal rights under the law.



I agree with that. Almost 100%.

I don't know about some outliers like the late Phyllis Schlafly though.

Dirty grotty work, *more* financial responsibility??? I think a lot of women (_not_ every single one, but the _majority_, in _my_ opinion) don't want to do the "heavy lifting" in these areas.

While I simultaneously believe that *if* women can do the hard, physically demanding work [as well as any of the other guys]; she should have the right to do so without sexual harassment or less pay.

And the same goes for jobs that require high-level skills in mathematics or the sciences. If she can do it at the same level as her male co-workers; more power to her. She should be able to go about her work without being belittled or held back; in either education or job opportunity.

I know you have struggled with the above ^^^ issue in your own life, Elegirl.

Yet, even on this thread, I get that same sense of women not wanting to be the primary bread winner. IME men are much more accepting of women not bringing in an income. Not ALL men. But most.

Now this may be changing. It seems like it is. And that's great. Indeed, if women have a harder time accepting a lower-wage man, it's only fair that men be allowed to say that they won't accept a woman who doesn't bring in enough money. But I don't think most women would like being told that.

I wouldn't. I would hate for my husband to tell me that I didn't make enough money. I would hate in my single life, to have had to have worried if I made enough money for a guy to be willing to date me.


Here is a job that I consider a man's domain. And apparently, there are a minority of women who do it. Good for them. Better them than me. Though, I suppose MOST men (not *all*), wouldn't want to be professional window washers either.

























> 10. IT’S A MALE-DOMINATED INDUSTRY, BUT THAT’S CHANGING.
> 
> Most window cleaners are male, but female window cleaners are gaining traction and visibility. Sheila Smeltzer, the president of A+ Pro Window Cleaning, tells The American Window Cleaner Magazine that she likes her job’s flexibility—it allowed her the time to be a mom and run her own business. But the job isn’t without its challenges. “Ladder work, roof work, pressure washing … I do it all, but these aspects of the job are challenging for even the most physically capable of women,” Smeltzer says.


----------



## EleGirl

notmyrealname4 said:


> I think for clarities sake, equal must mean equal. As in, the same.


In an earlier post you used the term “equal rights”, meaning equality under the law. Today in the USA everyone has equality under the law regardless of gender, race, etc.

“Equal rights” under the law makes no assumption that all humans are equivalent in many ways. Take two men. One is 5’ tall and weighs 110 lbs. The other is 6’4” and is a very muscular 200 lbs.

Both of these men are equal under the law. But they are not equivalent physically. And the law does not care whether or not they are equivalent physically.

The same goes with the differences between men and women. Men and women have “equal rights” under the law. The law does not care about the physical differences between men and women.



notmyrealname4 said:


> Perhaps "equivalent" might be a better term. Or not. I mean, how many apples are equivalent to 3 oranges?


Men and women are ‘equivalent’ under the law.

But most men are much stronger physically than most women. Women can give birth to children. Men cannot give birth to children. Men and women are not physically equivalent. And the law does not care about this.

It is very important, I believe, to make a distinction between “equal rights” (the legal concept) and equality/equivalence of physical attributes.

So now on to your list of what you seem to think makes men and women not “equivalent”.

On the topic of shoveling snow:

A smart couple splits work according to the talents of each person. So in your household your stronger husband shovels know. That’s called a personal choice.

But what about single women? They shovel their own snow. And what about women married to men who won’t shovel snow-the woman shovels the snow or arranges to pay someone to do it.

But in the end, if the snow is not shoveled and someone is injured because you did not shovel the know, a judge is not going to hold both a man and/or a woman equally responsible. A woman cannot use the excuse, “Judge as a woman I don’t shovel snow.” You and your husband are equally held responsible by the law.



notmyrealname4 said:


> Is getting a mouse out of the garage, or going downstairs to check what that crashing sound is in the middle of the night as hard as scrubbing the toilet or balancing the checkbook.


Getting a mouse out of the garage is easier than scrubbing the toilet or balancing the check book. Just keep some mouse bait in the garage. The mouse fills its little cheeks up with the bait and takes it back to its nest. Shortly the entire mouse family is no longer a problem. 

Going downstairs to check on that crashing sound in the middle of the night? It’s probably safer to not go down there. I would just stay at the top of the stairs with my shot gun and call 911. 

When that happened to me when I was alone with my 3 kids (and I did not have a shot gun), I barricaded us in the master bedroom and called the police. The police came and took care of the intruder.

Do keep in mind that single women do all of this for themselves. So clearly doing these things do not make men ‘more equal’ than women.



notmyrealname4 said:


> I've had female in-laws confess to me privately that I should "let the guys do all the work" (bring in the money, harder forms of labor etc.).
> 
> That was one of the interactions that started me thinking about this. Do women really want equality.


Yet 74% of all married women work. 50% earn as much or more than their husbands. So clearly, a lot of women do not think the same way your female in-laws do. If anything, your female in-laws are the anomaly these days.



notmyrealname4 said:


> I try not to confuse ability with opportunity. Women haven't been inventors like men have. But, historically, women did not receive the education and chances that men did. It would be fascinating to see if that begins to change _dramatically._
> 
> Do women do the construction of skyscrapers, dozens of stories up? Are they applying for those jobs? Are they receiving the same chances.
> 
> Do women clean sewers? [same question as above]
> 
> I think women COULD do the heavy labor of society if they had to. It might take longer for them to do it if they were unaided by heavy equipment. But given the chance and the training, they could do it.
> 
> Women can learn to construct heavy equipment. Women can go down in the mines and extract the ores required to build machinery.


From what I’ve read, these are fields that are still not open to women. I don’t know what percentage of women would be interested in working in these types of fields. But from what I’ve read, it’s hard for even a qualified woman to get an interview, much less a job. This is one of the reasons that there are so many women in college right now. Women know that they are not welcome in a lot of career fields that make good money but are male oriented. I guess women had to break into the fields that requied more brain power first.

Btu the fact that men still do the more physical jobs, does not mean that they are better than women. It does not mean that men and women should not be equal under the law.



notmyrealname4 said:


> Would they willingly? If a WWII situation came about; yes, I think many would. But I'm pretty sure most wouldn't.


Yep, when it was required for the war effort, women stepped up to the plate. And given a real chance, I think that women would do it today too. 



notmyrealname4 said:


> It hasn't all played out yet. I think that women feel that because they have to be the ones to sacrifice their bodies for childbearing, that that's enough. They have a point, to an extent. But my equivalent of childbearing for men is going to war. Not all men fight in war. Not all men who fight in war get grievous bodily injuries, or are killed.


Since for the most part, women support themselves in our society (single women + 74% of married women), I don’t get where you get the idea that most women think that sacrificing their bodies for childbearing is enough. Clearly most women do not think that.
I often see the idea that men are more equal because of war. It’s an argument that falls through pretty quickly.

Most women have babies. Less than 10% of men have fought in wars in the USA. The only except to that would be the civil war.

Before modern medicine, 25% of all women died in child birth. This is for all the history of man-kind. It’s a much higher rate than all the men who have ever died in war. And let’s not forget that in old time war, the winning side usually rape and slaughtered all the women on the losing side.

1,200 American mothers die in childbirth and 60,000 who come close to dying but survive.

During the Iraq war, spanning 10 years, there were about 3,500 soldiers who died and about 31,947 wounded in action.

War has changed. There is a lot more to fighting than combat soldiers. We are going to see more and more women involved in the military. Look at the Israeli military. There are a lot of jobs that women can do very well. For example, women make very good fighter pilots and snipers. A lot of war today is in urban settings. Everyone should be able to protect themselves… this includes medics, supply clerks, office clerks, etc. War is no longer something that only men do.



notmyrealname4 said:


> TL;DR-----My life experience is that women avoid heavy, dirty work like the plague.


Some women do. More and more women seek it out, especially for employment because it usually pays well. But the problem is that there are barriers to that.


----------



## EleGirl

notmyrealname4 said:


> I agree with that. Almost 100%.
> 
> I don't know about some outliers like the late Phyllis Schlafly though.


Yea, she’s interesting. She wanted most women to not have equal rights. But she wanted those equal rights for herself. 



notmyrealname4 said:


> Dirty grotty work, *more* financial responsibility??? I think a lot of women (_not_ every single one, but the _majority_, in _my_ opinion) don't want to do the "heavy lifting" in these areas.


When it comes to financial responsibility, about 40% of women earn more than their husbands. Another 10% earn equivalent to their husbands. And a full 74% of women, in families where at least one spouse has a job, works. And let’s not forget that most single women support themselves and often their children as well. So I don’t think that most woman have any problem taking financial responsibility.

Now we can discuss the difference between being a major contributor vs being the sole bread winner. Keep in mind that today, most men do not want to be the sole breadwinner. In most marriages today, it takes two incomes to support the family. So most men are also not doing all the ‘heavy lifting’. Most couples share that responsibility.


notmyrealname4 said:


> While I simultaneously believe that *if* women can do the hard, physically demanding work [as well as any of the other guys]; she should have the right to do so without sexual harassment or less pay.
> 
> And the same goes for jobs that require high-level skills in mathematics or the sciences. If she can do it at the same level as her male co-workers; more power to her. She should be able to go about her work without being belittled or held back; in either education or job opportunity.
> 
> I know you have struggled with the above ^^^ issue in your own life, Elegirl.


I agree.



notmyrealname4 said:


> Yet, even on this thread, I get that same sense of women not wanting to be the primary bread winner. IME men are much more accepting of women not bringing in an income. Not ALL men. But most.


About half of the woman on this thread have said that they are currently the primary bread winner, were in the past, or would be ok with it should that happen.

I disagree that most men would be ok with their wife not bringing in an income. Since it takes 2 incomes these days to support a family, most men very much expect their wife to work. And most wives do work.


notmyrealname4 said:


> Now this may be changing. It seems like it is. And that's great. Indeed, if women have a harder time accepting a lower-wage man, it's only fair that men be allowed to say that they won't accept a woman who doesn't bring in enough money. But I don't think most women would like being told that.
> 
> I wouldn't. I would hate for my husband to tell me that I didn't make enough money. I would hate in my single life, to have had to have worried if I made enough money for a guy to be willing to date me.


I don’t think anyone would want to be told that. But people pick their spouses based on many criteria. Often income level is sometimes a criteria. Most likely a man who wants a woman who earns more is not even going to date a woman who earns a low income. So it would never even be said. Things would never get that far.



notmyrealname4 said:


> Here is a job that I consider a man's domain. And apparently, there are a minority of women who do it. Good for them. Better them than me. Though, I suppose MOST men (not *all*), wouldn't want to be professional window washers either.


It's also a small percentage of men who are capable of doing that job. Most men would never want to do it. Often times, with jobs like window cleaning of sky scraper, they will not even interview women. If women cannot get into the field and get trained, how are they ever going to get a job. 

Are there sky scraper cleaning schools? I doubt it. Sounds like an on-the-job kind of sill development.


----------



## meson

notmyrealname4 said:


> Yet, even on this thread, I get that same sense of women not wanting to be the primary bread winner. IME men are much more accepting of women not bringing in an income. Not ALL men. But most.


I've been remiss and haven't read the thread except from the last page so I can't speak for what's been said. However I will say that I get not wanting to be a primary bread winner. It brings responsibility that can be stressful and heavy at times. So some may not be mind making the most but don't really want to feel the burden. 

In my own case I looked for a woman that would have a career and would bring in a significant income. My wife was such a woman. She was ahead of me at grad school so she was first to get a job and supported me for a couple years. Meanwhile I got an insignificant job to help make ends meet. 



notmyrealname4 said:


> Now this may be changing. It seems like it is. And that's great. Indeed, if women have a harder time accepting a lower-wage man, it's only fair that men be allowed to say that they won't accept a woman who doesn't bring in enough money. But I don't think most women would like being told that.


Love plays a significant role for me so I wouldn't have outright rejected someone based on a dollar threshold. Though I did date women with similar career aspirations. 

Even with Mrs. meson there was a limit. After our daughter was born she dscovered a need to be more involved with children to fulfill her soul. She wanted to quit and be a full time mom. But we had a mortgage assuming dual incomes and other obligations. We compromised and she went part time.

So yes I admit that to maintain our lifestyle a minimum contribution was needed.



notmyrealname4 said:


> I wouldn't. I would hate for my husband to tell me that I didn't make enough money. I would hate in my single life, to have had to have worried if I made enough money for a guy to be willing to date me.


Nobody would want that. In fact my cousin became what is now called a red pill fanatic after he was dumped by a woman he was dating because he didn't make enough. Really, I think she saw the reality that he was a lazy leach. 

I can see dating people filtering for that but once your married you should make decisions based on the marriage needs which may be emotional and monetary based.

When my wife was pulling the marital financial weight I saw that we needed more so I found work to make ends meet without having to be asked. However if she did ask I would have been on it immediately as well. I would hope that most wouldn't view it as a judgement call but rather a marital need request.

As it turns out that insignificant job became my career. Now Mrs. meson is back to full time and our wages are about eveny matched.


----------



## Duguesclin

Statistically speaking the woman is doing most of the household work, from being the main care giver to the kids to cleaning, and this regardless of her income.

When the man makes more, at least there is some compensation. 

If she makes most of the money and does most of the work at home, what is in it for her?


----------



## wild jade

Duguesclin said:


> Statistically speaking the woman is doing most of the household work, from being the main care giver to the kids to cleaning, and this regardless of her income.
> 
> When the man makes more, at least there is some compensation.
> 
> If she makes most of the money and does most of the work at home, what is in it for her?


Emotional support, love, sex, companionship, someone to lean on ....

Life isn't all chores and money.


----------



## dianaelaine59

When I owned my own business many years ago, I earned 3 times what my ex-husband made. It didn't bother him at all, he was happy we were able to get ahead, and happy for me. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## EleGirl

Duguesclin said:


> Statistically speaking the woman is doing most of the household work, from being the main care giver to the kids to cleaning, and this regardless of her income.
> 
> When the man makes more, at least there is some compensation.
> 
> If she makes most of the money and does most of the work at home, what is in it for her?


On average, women who work full time do 8 hours more housework and child care a week than their husbands. That's pretty significant.

There is more to marriage than work, chores and income. But, if one spouse is working full time and doing most of the household chores and child care, they will often burn out.

Keep in mine that the 8 hours a week is an average. So there are some women who are doing a lot more than 8 hours a week. From personal experience, when this happens the woman doing all the house/child chores often burns out and is exhausted. The marriage often becomes a burden, not something that they can enjoy.


----------



## Duguesclin

wild jade said:


> Emotional support, love, sex, companionship, someone to lean on ....
> 
> Life isn't all chores and money.


If a woman is OK with it, fine. But not all may feel that way, especially if the couple has children.


----------



## Duguesclin

EleGirl said:


> On average, women who work full time do 8 hours more housework and child care a week than their husbands. That's pretty significant.
> 
> There is more to marriage than work, chores and income. But, if one spouse is working full time and doing most of the household chores and child care, they will often burn out.
> 
> Keep in mine that the 8 hours a week is an average. So there are some women who are doing a lot more than 8 hours a week. From personal experience, when this happens the woman doing all the house/child chores often burns out and is exhausted. The marriage often becomes a burden, not something that they can enjoy.


I agree with you. Men need to think about what they bring to the picture.

The truth is, most men, and I include myself in it, are often not the ones in the couple to think first of taking responsibility at home.


----------



## EleGirl

Duguesclin said:


> I agree with you. Men need to think about what they bring to the picture.
> 
> The truth is, most men, and I include myself in it, are often not the ones in the couple to think first of taking responsibility at home.


True. 

But in your case, you and jld have a clear divide of responsibilities in your marriage. So that makes sense for you two.


----------



## Celes

H and I share chores. I couldn't tell you who does more. We have no children but I'm fairly confident he will take on his share if/when we do. There are some chores he refuses to do, like cooking, grocery shopping and litter duty. I also do the deep cleaning. But he takes out the trash, does the dishes, takes the lead on finances, is taking care of all the paperwork in closing our new home, fixes the cars, carries all the heavy stuff, helps with laundry, etc. 

Our marriage is a partnership. He does still take the lead. We view our marriage as him being captain and I'm co-captain. It's about more than who makes more money. He's my rock. He's the kind of man I'd feel very safe with should there ever be a zombie apocalypse.


----------



## Wazza

EleGirl said:


> Linguistically, when one says “women” with no qualifiers, it means all women. Here on TAM the qualifiers become even more important. Try posting something negative about “men” instead of “some men” or “men I know” and the thread will erupt with many men on TAM making such a negative blanket statement about men. I’ve become pretty sensitive to this after years of watching threads explode over this type of loose word usage.


I think you are right, but I think women are equally prone to eruption. Would you agree, or do you think men are more prone?

I think I understand women a little better as a result of TAM, and I'm grateful for that.


----------



## john117

jld said:


> I think a lot of women find themselves in that position.
> 
> Sweet deal for the men, though . . .


Unless the woman is a few bulbs short of a six pack, it doesn't tend to last.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


----------



## Wazza

Duguesclin said:


> If a woman is OK with it, fine. But not all may feel that way, especially if the couple has children.


Both have to be happy with the deal that is struck. Not just the woman.


----------



## john117

I wonder where the data comes from. I looked and it seems there's a bit of confusion in terms of what counts....

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/how-many-women-earn-more-than-their-husbands/

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/ali-meyer/wives-earn-more-husbands-1-3-families-us



Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


----------



## EllisRedding

Duguesclin said:


> I agree with you. Men need to think about what they bring to the picture.


I always crack up at statements like this. I get the fact that things now are not like they were in the 1950's , but making blanket statements like this about Men as if somehow now b/c women work more they have a greater importance in a relationship is laughable (sorry if this rubs anyone the wrong way, well, not really :grin2. How about the fact that they both need to think about what they bring to the "picture". Maybe the whole dating process should be like getting a mortgage. You need to get pre approved, credit check, provide references, etc... I guess at a minimum, just always walk around with your resume to help you weed out a SO. I have seen the statement "Women don't need men anymore" as if they are disposable. Well, ok, if you believe that, if you view it as a business transaction, more power to you. If you want to view people as disposable, well, women and men are just as "disposable" in a relationship. Meanwhile, leave the relationships to those men and women who are looking for love, companionship, security, support, sex, etc..


----------



## notmyrealname4

EllisRedding said:


> Maybe the whole dating process should be like getting a mortgage. You need to get pre approved, credit check, provide references, etc...



IOW, a sort of modern-day matchmaking service. I think, traditionally, matchmakers *would* consider those types of factors when putting people together: income, religion, family backgrounds, [and astrological compatibility in places like India].


----------



## jb02157

EleGirl said:


> Of course some SAHM's do nothing, just like some unemployed or underplayed men do.
> 
> Why would any man tolerate supporting a SAHM who does nothing but watch tv and play computer games all day? That means that not only is the house not taken care of but that they kids are not. It means that the baby is crawling/walking around with a diaper around it's ankles because it's so full of poo. The kids are starving or eating whatever junk they can get out of the fridge. It means that kids who can open the front door are out running around town unsupervised.
> 
> So why exactly would any man stay married to a woman like that? Why would he allow his children to be basically unsupervised all day and not taken care of?


The reason is that our laws, the way there are, not only allow this but demand it from certain men, me being one of them. As I have said over and over again I would never be able to afford to live on 30% of what I make and that is exactly what would happen if I did divorce my wife when the kids were younger. So, I had to support a do nothing wife that basically stayed home all day and watched tv. She did NOTHING to help the kids, herself, me or the family. I not only had to tolerate it I was forced to do it. 

I will quote someone you and I both know, "Just because you think it's BS doesn't mean it's true".


----------



## EllisRedding

notmyrealname4 said:


> IOW, a sort of modern-day matchmaking service. I think, traditionally, matchmakers *would* consider those types of factors when putting people together: income, religion, family backgrounds, [and astrological compatibility in places like India].


Agreed. I always saw matchmaking as a more specialized area, but who knows, maybe with the growth of online dating that is where things are moving, for better or worse...


----------



## Buddy400

john117 said:


> I wonder where the data comes from. I looked and it seems there's a bit of confusion in terms of what counts....
> 
> How Many Women Earn More Than Their Husbands? | FiveThirtyEight


Great link.

Anyone interested in this topic should read it


----------



## Buddy400

EleGirl said:


> The same goes with the differences between men and women. Men and women have “equal rights” under the law. The law does not care about the physical differences between men and women.
> 
> Men and women are ‘equivalent’ under the law.


"Men and women being equivalent under the law" is a statement that I'd guess 99% of both men and women (in the west) would agree with.

When people express their belief in this, it sort of implies that a significant number of people disagree. People don't normally make statements about things that have such a wide consensus (I know of no one who has gone to the trouble of saying "the sky is blue"). 

So, I sometimes suspect that either people saying this believe that a lot of people disagree with them (which I think is unlikely) or that the phrase "equal rights" means something else to them.



EleGirl said:


> It is very important, I believe, to make a distinction between “equal rights” (the legal concept) and equality/equivalence of physical attributes.


That's good. I am always reassured when someone talks about equal rights yet acknowledges the lack of "equality/equivalence of physical attributes." between the sexes.



EleGirl said:


> From what I’ve read, these are fields that are still not open to women. I don’t know what percentage of women would be interested in working in these types of fields. But from what I’ve read, it’s hard for even a qualified woman to get an interview, much less a job.
> 
> Some women do. More and more women seek it out, especially for employment because it usually pays well. But the problem is that there are barriers to that.


And then I see statements like the above which seem to imply that the fact that women are underrepresented in certain fields which often require certain physical attributes is evidence of a lack of "equal rights under the law".

It's possible (in my view likely) that the unequal representation in these fields are due to differences in physical attributes rather than sexism.

As an example, I'm perfectly fine with women being in special forces (Seal Teams, Para-rescue, Delta Force, etc) as long as the women are able to demonstrate the *exact *same physical capabilities as the men in these fields.

And yet, the marines felt the need to reduce standards because not enough women were passing the fitness test.

Lowering Standards for Female Marines Is Not Gender Equality - The Daily Beast

And it looks like some firemen fitness tests have been modified in the name of gender equality.

FDNY drops physical test requirement amid low female hiring rate | New York Post

I'll grant that some requirements in some situations might have been irrelevant to the jobs but changing requirements with this explanation often seems just a little too convenient (did they never notice that unnecessary requirements were preventing otherwise qualified men from being hired?).

So, equal rights for women under the law? Absolutely

Equal opportunity in the workplace? Absolutely

But implications that any unequal distribution of gender in any job is proof of a lack of "equal rights", makes me wonder if the speaker is really thinking what they're trying to make me think they're saying (this isn't aimed at you specifically).


----------



## aine

I was the primary bread winner at the beginning of my marriage as I moved to his country. It enabled us to buy property and assets in our mid twenties. However, things changed when I had kids as he was establishing his career, I was progressing in mine but we both worked long hours and rarely saw our first kid. I had to make a choice to take a less demanding job and change career (sometimes I regret that move but then see how well grounded by kids are so it was worth it).

I would have no problem being the primary bread winner if my H would pull his weight in bringing up the kids, housework, etc. In my case it didn't happen, the burden fell on me while he went out and partied and worked late, so I had to let the career take a back seat. 
TBH, if he had been more mature about things, (he was a very immature man in his twenties then) I could have stayed on in my career, I would probably still be the main bread winner. I was already in the management team at the age of 27 and had a bright future. Pregnancy was not planned either!


----------



## aine

EllisRedding said:


> I always crack up at statements like this. I get the fact that things now are not like they were in the 1950's , but making blanket statements like this about Men as if somehow now b/c women work more they have a greater importance in a relationship is laughable (sorry if this rubs anyone the wrong way, well, not really :grin2. How about the fact that they both need to think about what they bring to the "picture". Maybe the whole dating process should be like getting a mortgage. You need to get pre approved, credit check, provide references, etc... I guess at a minimum, just always walk around with your resume to help you weed out a SO. I have seen the statement "Women don't need men anymore" as if they are disposable. Well, ok, if you believe that, if you view it as a business transaction, more power to you. If you want to view people as disposable, well, women and men are just as "disposable" in a relationship. Meanwhile, leave the relationships to those men and women who are looking for love, companionship, security, support, sex, etc..


Well, take countries like China and Singapore, a woman won't marry you unless you have the five c's (no joke). Men are assessed on whether they have Cash, Credit Card, Car, Condominium and Country club membership. Women can afford to be choosy in China due to the one child policy and there are many more men than women. I kid you not. :grin2:


----------



## AVR1962

jld said:


> I think a lot of women find themselves in that position.
> 
> Sweet deal for the men, though . . .


Of my friends most have not worked outside of the home.


----------



## Wazza

EllisRedding said:


> Agreed. I always saw matchmaking as a more specialized area, but who knows, maybe with the growth of online dating that is where things are moving, for better or worse...


One part of matchmaking is that someone does a piece of analysis to line a couple up, but the other side might be that the couple go into it all with a different attitude. More about making a logical match work, and less about acting on what your heart says.


----------



## Wazza

AVR1962 said:


> Of my friends most have not worked outside of the home.


There is a lot my wife seemed not to get until she went back to work. I don't quite understand it because she worked before having kids.


----------



## Lord Summerisle

From a different angle, my wife was successful office manager for busy medical practice before we had our first child. Since then she has been a full time stay at home mom. In that time I was laid off and started working from home as a freelancer. I have been moderately successful, enough to support the family. Over the years it became apparent that I am simply not good with money and management. Because I am good at what I do I frequently would get promoted to a management/leadership position only to fail and get laid off and start off as a worker bee somewhere else. A couple of years ago my wife took my aside for a serious talk and suggested that our business would function much more smoothly and be more successful if she took things over as manager and I in essence worked for her. She is so much better with money, leadership and management and I am so much happier just doing what I do without worrying about the management of the business. I brought this up several years ago on this form and was pretty much ridiculed for being a "beta male" and that a real man wouldn't let his wife make the decisions. I have plenty of input on how things are run but we BOTH agreed that when we don't agree that she has the final say. It works for us. Maybe that makes me a beta male but I guess that works for me.


----------



## WorkingOnMe

Lord Summerisle said:


> From a different angle, my wife was successful office manager for busy medical practice before we had our first child. Since then she has been a full time stay at home mom. In that time I was laid off and started working from home as a freelancer. I have been moderately successful, enough to support the family. Over the years it became apparent that I am simply not good with money and management. Because I am good at what I do I frequently would get promoted to a management/leadership position only to fail and get laid off and start off as a worker bee somewhere else. A couple of years ago my wife took my aside for a serious talk and suggested that our business would function much more smoothly and be more successful if she took things over as manager and I in essence worked for her. She is so much better with money, leadership and management and I am so much happier just doing what I do without worrying about the management of the business. I brought this up several years ago on this form and was pretty much ridiculed for being a "beta male" and that a real man wouldn't let his wife make the decisions. I have plenty of input on how things are run but we BOTH agreed that when we don't agree that she has the final say. It works for us. Maybe that makes me a beta male but I guess that works for me.




The proof is in the pudding. How is your sex life? If it's good, frequent and hot...then what you're doing is working. If not, then you know why. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Fozzy

Lord Summerisle said:


> From a different angle, my wife was successful office manager for busy medical practice before we had our first child. Since then she has been a full time stay at home mom. In that time I was laid off and started working from home as a freelancer. I have been moderately successful, enough to support the family. Over the years it became apparent that I am simply not good with money and management. Because I am good at what I do I frequently would get promoted to a management/leadership position only to fail and get laid off and start off as a worker bee somewhere else. A couple of years ago my wife took my aside for a serious talk and suggested that our business would function much more smoothly and be more successful if she took things over as manager and I in essence worked for her. She is so much better with money, leadership and management and I am so much happier just doing what I do without worrying about the management of the business. I brought this up several years ago on this form and was pretty much ridiculed for being a "beta male" and that a real man wouldn't let his wife make the decisions. I have plenty of input on how things are run but we BOTH agreed that when we don't agree that she has the final say. It works for us. Maybe that makes me a beta male but I guess that works for me.


Don't accept relationship advice from anyone over the age of 20 that uses the term "beta male".


----------



## Lord Summerisle

Sex life is pretty good in my opinion. I turned 40 this year and while its not as frequent as when we in our 20s our bi-weekly encounters are much longer, hotter and more fun.


----------



## RandomDude

notmyrealname4 said:


>




My dream job! No ground beneath my feet for hours at a time!

*checks pay*

Meh, forget it >.>


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Celes said:


> H and I share chores. I couldn't tell you who does more. We have no children but I'm fairly confident he will take on his share if/when we do. There are some chores he refuses to do, like cooking, grocery shopping and litter duty. I also do the deep cleaning. But he takes out the trash, does the dishes, takes the lead on finances, is taking care of all the paperwork in closing our new home, fixes the cars, carries all the heavy stuff, helps with laundry, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our marriage is a partnership. He does still take the lead. We view our marriage as him being captain and I'm co-captain. It's about more than who makes more money. He's my rock. He's the kind of man I'd feel very safe with should there ever be a zombie apocalypse.
> 
> 
> 
> I feel this way too...
> 
> I'm working a full time job plus keeping my part time.. I still do everything I did when I was working just 15 hrs a week.. now it's more like 55+ ... I have our daughter & son help a little- dishes, folding clothes, putting them away... the 3 oldest does some cooking to help out... but still all cleaning is on me, burning the garbage etc.....
> 
> It seems enough other things go wrong.. a car has an antifreeze leak, yesterday he found a nail in his tire at work...our old mower needs a clutch, the garage roof has a leak..... he keeps himself busy with this stuff, he's the handy man.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the only thing that bothers me about working more.. is I feel like I am rarely home (a day off today).. I am not tired out, still want to jump his bones when I get home almost midnight, getting up again 6 hrs later...
> 
> I would be more bothered if husband & me didn't manage the smaller blocks of time we have together.. over if he didn't do this or that (meaning household chores type thing) .. it's a different way of looking at it.. .
> 
> I still have time when he is at work to get things done (but less time for posting here).. and he's got time when I am at work to do that other stuff.. so when we do have an evening off, a day off together ...it's devoted to us/ or family time / what can we do for enjoyment sorta thing...
> 
> *This* will prevent "burn out" for me... Helping each other is GOOD.. it's loving.. it's supportive.. but managing our busy schedules helps this ride smoother so we can still fit some leisure activities in there ...making the most of our time....
> 
> I need that "refreshment" more than anything else.. I'd say...
Click to expand...


----------

