To think you should never cohabit with a man unless he’s paying the majority of the bills?

There is no 'leadership' in a balanced relationship. Again, you've made a very poor choice of partner - were you choosing from the dregs left over after everyone else had their pick?

I feel very sorry for you.

So if I bring in a good wage, that means I can outsource remembering birthdays, and don't have to bother with all the 'emotional energy' stuff? What about if my partner also brings in a good wage - do we have dual Masculine Provision privileges? What if one or both of us is a woman? What's it called then? I've always considered it to be called 'contributing equally to a household', but maybe I'm just doing being a woman wrong.

I think it's a massive mistake for women to put themselves in a position of financial subjugation to a man, which is what you are saying. Huge mistake for everyone concerned and we advise our adult sons to be wary of women who plan to have their childbearing years (and beyond) funded. Not for the sake of the money but for what it does to the balance and mutual respect. I'm old, I've worked in male dominated environments all my life and heard how they speak about their stay at home wives far too often and seen far too many divorces bring out the absolute worst in people who have allowed that imbalance to develop in the first place.

What is it about men bringing masculine provider energy (I.e more money to the table) that provides you with “stability, initiative and loyalty”?

My DH earnt more than me for a short while when we met (I was a teenager) and I now earn much more than him. Never have either of our salaries determined the values we have, the way we treat each other or fundamentally changed how we work as a team. In some of your responses you seem to suggest that it is team work that you are referring to but then again, reiterate that your strengths are in emotional areas so you expect any DP/DH to pick up in your weak area, finances?

I truly believe that in a relationship you have to lean into your strengths, understand your weaknesses and as a couple, work out how those look together but as a prerequisite to any relationship? No, that doesn’t sit well with me. We have one life to live, I’m not going to determine who I spend my life with by how much they can bring to the table financially.

Have boundaries and values you stick to by all means but placing any bets on a man coming in with his big man masculine energy and hoping he’ll remain “loyal” is just naive (at best).

Money does not equal loyalty! Read some of the threads on here and some of these men are the most disloyal of all, they seem to think they can buy women.

I was all for equality in relationships. I never cared that my partner wasn’t ambitious and would never be a big earner, I was happy enough to go work and pay my own way. Then I had a kid. I thought he would pick up more of the childcare, and to be fair, he does some. However it’s very clear that he sees me as the default parent, and our daughter does too. I had to fund my own maternity leave and most of my weekends are spent with our daughter while he does whatever he wants (whether that’s watching TV, going to the shops, sleeping in or working outside). He will tidy up after himself, but that’s where it stops. He won’t tidy up after me or our daughter, and never cleans either. Even if he feeds our daughter, it’s up to me to do the dishes afterwards. I truly believed women could have it all, but now I see it for the crap it is. There’s too many men who still want the woman to do the childcare and housework but aren’t prepared to pay for it. I now see what a complete mug I’ve been for going 50-50 for so long. I know NAMALT, but I do think OP has a point.

I’ve lived that dynamic with my ex (me emotional labour, him earning very high salary) and I one hundred percent would never do it again.

Financial leadership sounds like a phrase I’d run a hundred miles from.

So I’m a same sex relationship between 2 women the one paying (because there should be one according to you) is bringing the masculine energy?

More like a paid lobbyist for a very sinister political ideology.

If he’s showing up financially and not emotionally then you’re on a hiding to nothing.

Go outside and touch some grass.

Actually, perhaps not. The outdoors may be too masculine for you. Too much authority and leadership going on outside your sad, meek, beige walls for you to handle.

If you wanted an egalitarian relationship, you want someone who shared the emotional labour as well as the ‘providing’. Whereas it sounds to me as if you married a dud, and are trying to retrofit this as being a good thing because he pays the bills, even as you’re stuck with ‘tending to the relationship’ and remembering birthdays. Sounds great.🙄

Absolutely! Relationships where your’e doing all the emotional work is absolute crap and soul destroying. I would never choose an emotionally stunted but very high earning man again. If they’re not contributing equally on an emotional and connection level I guarantee they will also most likely use money as a weapon. Been there, done it.

OP you have a muddled idea of what a partnership in a relationship is. What is your actual experience of long term, committed relationships?

That’s all it’s really about - choosing dynamics that feel right for you. Not everyone wants the same thing and that’s okay.

Hang on. The title of this thread is To think you should never cohabit with a man unless he’s paying the majority of the bills? and now you're saying that it's ok to cohabit with a man who doesn't. I'm getting the feeling you don't actually believe the guff you're posting, you're just doing it for sport.🙄

Am very pleased that we have brought DT’s - DD and DS to have higher standards in their lives. I’d be very disappointed if DD wanted a life like yours.

And yes, I prefer a dynamic some might call “traditional,” but I also think it’s worth discussing why that still sparks so much discomfort in 2025. If it’s truly no big deal, why the heat?

Because unless you are new to MN you will be well aware that many men will fuck off and leave their partners and children without a backward glance. Choosing to put yourself in a financially precarious position if this were to happen is crazy to many of us.

Anyway, I think you're on the wind up so what's the point?

It sounds as though you have never had a long-term, successful relationship? Sorry if that is inaccurate. But if that is the case, you may discover that healthy relationships do not conform to outdated stereotypes about gender roles.

I've been married for 20+ years. Sometimes I have earned more than my husband, sometimes he has earned more, though the discrepancies have never been extreme. Our partnership is based on equality in all respects. You have mentioned "complimentary roles" several times. (BTW I think you mean "complementary.") That sounds like an oddly rigid approach. Surely it is preferable for each partner to provide support, stability, and protection (and whatever else you've mentioned) rather than a strict division based on some tired notions of masculinity and femininity.

But what you seem to be signing up to is a man with the emotional intelligence of a toaster but that’s fine because he ‘provides’.

So basically you want a relationship that works for both parties?
Exactly the same thing that everyone wants in a relationship?

I can't particularly see that you're saying anything revolutionary op, just setting the obvious in a cloak of 'alignment' 'polarity' and other fancy words.

Fanny lodger

”the heat” is because some of us can remember when our mothers weren’t allowed to get their own mortgage without a man, and when marital rape wasn’t legally recognised in the UK, when women being beaten up was an unremarkable occurrence because the man was traditionally the head of the house and could do what he liked. And women’s rights globally are precarious enough without this surrendered energy gobbledegook which frankly sounds like new day, same old shit.