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

We are wifeing and husbanding wrong then.

“Wifework” refers to the traditionally female jobs around the house- cleaning, cooking, washing, ironing etc.

those jobs that women are socially conditioned to care about and tend to take on because of that. A woman will feel judged if her house isn’t tidy, a man less likely to.

there are jobs around the house that are seen as male- taking the bins out, diy, mowing the lawn etc.

Why refer to it as "wife" work and not simply "house" work?

Thank you for the assumption you know my circumstances.

We have had losses. We were told that there was a high chance we couldn't conceive naturally. At no point did either of us change our minds on IVF. We came to a point where we decided we would not "try" and began planning our lives as "child free". DD was a huge surprise to us.

Some people know what they feel about things. I also have many friends that went through it, so I have witnessed the journey. I knew I didn't want that. That's not lacking in self awareness. That's just knowing yourself.

It all sounds very AI generated corporate speak nonsense. Imagine the wedding vows if the OP ever found themselves in the position of getting married (I won’t hold my breath).

Both should pay according to their means and split the “wife” work such that both have free amounts of spare time. In our house it means I pay more and he does most of the “wife” work.

I too suspect OP is a man, or at the very least a deliberately goady woman. I don’t believe they are a woman with experience of long term committed relationships with men.

I think you've hit the nail on the head. Exactly as you say.

I can't believe a self- respecting woman would waffle on about wanting financial leadership and protection from a man in these days..And then double-back and say there's nothing gendered about it.Has to be a man guaging our response.

All the crud about showing up for emotional check-ins, checking the fridge, making appointments, it's just cringe-worthy. I'm sure my mum didn't feel responsible for using feminine energy, emotional check-ins and making corrective conversations blah blah blah. It's just bollocks.

This Is very easy to say - and stick by - when you have had children naturally. It’s what I said. But then we couldn’t have children naturally; I didn’t want children “more than anything” but we still did IVF. It seems very shortsighted and lacking in self-awareness to declare what you would have done in circumstances that have never arisen.

No, but many do.

Many also go grey and get wrinkles as they age.

If a relationship is built on old fashioned expectations of what is acceptable for women, one runs the risk of being replaced by a more ‘feminine’ model down the line.

Good for you doing menopause, right. Hope describing those that don’t as hormonal, ragey messes sits well with you.

@ThisSereneSnail It has hit a nerve. I’m embarrassed that attitudes like yours still exist. I’m concerned that your philosophy, which sounds like it’s been ripped from a 4Chan thread or the pages of Project2025, will spread like rot in people who haven’t realised yet that feminism isn’t a war that’s won, but one that’s continually being fought, and that there are people like you who’d send us back into the kitchen, loaded up on pep pills, spitting out kids rhythmically to keep their masculine energy happy.

But honestly, I think you’re a man. And I suspect you’re posting stuff like this to gauge the temperature here in the UK for some of the stuff that’s happening in the States right now.

Speak for yourself. We don't all become a hormonal ragey mess at menopause.
This stereotyping helps no-one

I'd be quite rightly handed my divorce papers if I was to suggest to my husband, that he works and pays all the bills while I get to keep all my own money!

Yes but that's the point of those men (like OP), you will be barefoot in the kitchen and won't have any of your own money.
You will be "leaning into your feminine energy" and doing everything for him, until he decides to change you for a new model. In this process, he will of course claim you're not entitled to anything, because you never contributed but were just "sitting at home", and then whine on MRA message boards, that you're living the life of luxury on that 7 quid he has to pay in child support. Seen it a million times.

I find it strange this idea not contributing to bills. My name is joint on the mortgage, of course I'm going to contribute to it!

I'd be quite rightly handed my divorce papers if I was to suggest to my husband, that he works and pays all the bills while I get to keep all my own money!

It's so strange people exist with these mad view points!

Is anyone else irritated by these schlocky US views? More and more of them on MN. Attempt to drive women back to the bed and the kitchen, sprogging annually and manufacturing little Elons to go forth and multiply. Sickening.

Women, you should never cohabit with a man unless you are able and willing to pay 50 per cent of bills. And if 'your man' is as deluded as the OP and insists it's his job to drag a bloody carcase through the door each week and pay the bills, and you're daft enough to go along with it, then put your bill money into a secret - yes, secret, won't be 'permitted - running away account. Which you will need fairly soon.

There's nothing wrong with it, but I completely understand this viewpoint.

I love my DD more than anything in this world. But both DH and I said (before we got married, so there was no walking away afterwards) if we didn't naturally have a child we didn't want to go through that to have one.

Simply because of the toll it takes on you physically and mentally. How invasive it feels. We made the decision that children, for us, were entirely up to fate.

I understand people who go through it because they want children more than anything else. And it's great the option is there for them. But it's not for everyone.

Sounds like you want to be a Trad Wife.

" Leadership in a relationship, to me, doesn’t mean control or issuing orders - it means initiative, direction and being able to carry the weight when needed. It looks like someone who steps up, who’s dependable, and who provides a sense of structure that allows the other person to lean into their own strengths"

Why would a grown adult need a leader ? ive never felt I needed to be led anywhere by my partner. What's with the leader thing? And so much guff. It's really weird.

Who has told you that people do have to mirror each other?

You seem to be attacking a position no one holds.

And good luck with your contribution to the relationship when you hit menopause. Brain fog, rage and anxiety don’t generally make for particularly soft energy.

So you better have something else up your vag if you don’t want your man providing his energy with intent elsewhere.

I think the model for high earning women is that you can do so in a very traditionally feminine way, as long as your masculine provider holds and directs all that grubby masculine money for you. Hence the behind the scenes abuse of successful or famous women throughout history.

Men who cannot buy a 'real' 'feminine' 'surrendered' woman do without, I suppose. Or make do with whatever they call the rest of us!

GOSH

I earn fucking loads, what am I supposed to do with all my money if I don't tip up my half of the bills?!
Obviously you need to quit your job so you can lean into your feminine energy instead.

I don't really get what this "financial leadership" quality is either, in a traditional household where a woman became a housewife, the standard was for her to manage finances, with her husband handing over the pay packet each Friday for her to plan the budget.

I understand a principal that a relationship becomes unbalanced where one party is bearing the greater load, eg both working outside the home but one is doing all the life admin on top. But typically I'd discourage polarising of the roles the way you describe, which leaves lower earners incredibly vulnerable to financial abuse/control. Its much more optimal to give men more opportunity to fulfill their caring responsibilities and step up to share the load in terms of parenting & emotional care giving. Many men relish this role & do it well, my DH is a fabulous hands on Dad and our lives would be so much poorer if we didn't both get to contribute as parents in that way.

But what about all the men out there who are less capable of earning a high enough salary to have a partner at home not earning money, and all the women who are?

Currently in the UK its near impossible to afford a comfortable life on one salary unless the one salary is very high. Does that mean the many many men out there who don't have the educational qualifications, skills, entrepeneurialism or experience (or sheer luck?) to earn a very high salary, shouldn't have a wife or family? Lots of women earn more than men. I earn a high 6 figure salary, if I limited myself to men who earn plenty more than me so as to have the "financial leadership" you suggest is essential, I wouldn't have much choice.