To think the ultimate feminist act is ensuring that a man will provide for you and your children?

[ByUmberTurtle]

Life is hard and motherhood is even harder. There’s no shame in struggling to balance work, kids, housework and everything else. Sometimes you have to step back from work, whether it’s due to childcare, burnout or health. In those moments, knowing that your man has your back financially isn’t just practical, it’s powerful.

I’m not a trad wife and I grew up with very ‘independent woman’ kind of parents. But honestly? I think the real regressive choice is staying with a man who can’t or won’t take care of you when it matters. I’d rather be a single mum than build a life with a man who leaves me vulnerable. Feminism should include the right to choose a relationship that brings security, not just survival.

AIBU?

Bit dramatic, no? Wanting a partner who shows up consistently, including financially, doesn’t mean locking them in a basement. It means choosing someone whose values align with yours before committing. We don’t “ensure” anyone won’t leave but we can choose not to build with someone whose shirks responsibility the moment life gets hard.

'Providing and protecting are traditional masculine roles for a reason'.

What is that reason please?

If it were true it wouldn't be with a view to even the playing field and give women equal rights and individual freedom, that's for sure.

Even the greatest guy on earth can drop dead, my sister was widowed quite young.

But how do you know? People change especially after children, or illnesses. There is a YouTuber called Life Take Two who was a Mormon married to her husband for decades and he left to be with a prostitute in her 20s.

It is possible to be a feminist with a career and a man who does his fair share and supports you.

You seem to see this as a binary choice, stay at home wife OR work and do it all wife.

There is still an expectation on women to do more than men, but the answer to that isn’t necessarily staying home so the man provides.

Naive view
Many of us did choose wisely we just didn't know it was all an act.
Or they died. Or got severe depression or cancer. And cannot provide any more.
It s not so simple
Make sure you can support you. Always.

I can take care of myself and don't want a man to take care of me. That is regressive in my eyes.

Yep. They sure are.

Otherwise though I am with you, I won’t be in a relationship that does not benefit me. So yes financial responsibility and generosity would be importantly to me. I see women taking other women out of their own preferences which I think is just stupid. But then I’m happy to be single if I don’t have an equitable relationship with someone I am actually attracted to.

I’d rather be a single mum than build a life with a man who leaves me vulnerable.

You've contradicted yourself entirely. Feminism is making sure that you can afford to make that choice.

But that’a the point, you can’t ‘ensure’ how people behave in future.

You can choose someone lovely and still be blindsided a few years later, as we see on MN time and time again.

Have a read of the Relationships board

The reason is historical and biological, not moral. In most societies, men were traditionally the physical protectors and providers because of how labour and survival roles were structured. That doesn’t mean women weren’t capable, just that roles evolved around certain strengths and risks.

Wanting financial stability in a relationship doesn’t mean I oppose equality. On the contrary, I believe women should have full agency to choose the kind of life and relationship that works for them, including one where a partner steps up financially. Feminism should be about expanding choices, not shaming women for having standards rooted in security.

Feminism should be about expanding choices, not shaming women for having standards rooted in security

This is what feminism is about. People who tell you otherwise are people who don't like feminism. If you'd read my post you'd see it's a simple issue, so simple in fact I'm unsure why it's dragged up time and time again.

The feminists are on your side here. Always have been.

There’s no guarantees in life or relationships and that’s a painful reality many of us have seen or lived. But just because nothing is 100% certain doesn’t mean we throw out all standards or hopes for stability.

To me, it’s not about guaranteeing someone will stay, it’s about choosing someone whose values, consistency and behaviour before crisis suggest they’re capable of being there during one. And if they eventually change or walk away, at least I know I didn’t settle for less from the start. The Life Take Two story is heartbreaking but it’s the exception I use to remind myself not to romanticise or ignore red flags early on, not a reason to give up on the possibility of a relationship that brings real partnership and care.

I may agree with you. If I understand you, I think you are saying you are not pinning your hopes on your partner just chosen the one you think is most likely to bring you happiness.

I think the problem and worry comes when a woman has no way to support herself if/when the relationship breaks down. It is important to have a plan B,C,D…

You're one of the reasons I don't describe myself as feminist anymore

But there’s nothing gendered about any of that? That’s just sensible advice for anyone about the kind of partner they should choose, male or female, surely. It doesn’t mean that the male partner should automatically do all the providing all the time. In many partnerships, mine included, that wouldn’t bring in enough income and in any event would leave me unfulfilled (though I am super lucky to be able to work part time).

I love my husband and trust him as much as I could trust any other human, but I also would not want to be 100% financially reliant on any one else, personally, and that’s advice I’ll pass on to my DD in the fullness of time

I dont need taking care of. I'm not a child.

I prefer teamwork and a relationship of equals both supporting each other and contributing fairly to the relationship and the family unit.

many men on here do start like good providers, the women stay home, then when he finds a younger model and empties the joint account and the wife has never had any savings, and cannot even pay for a lawyer....what we are doing then

But there’s a distinctly unfeminist sentiment lurking behind this point of view: that women who end up in relationships with men who turn out to be dirtbags bring it upon themselves by not being discerning enough, or make poor choices, or are too stupid to pick a sensible choice of partner. Which we know perfectly well isn’t true.

Choosing a dependable, values-aligned partner is solid advice for anyone, regardless of gender. But the difference lies in how people want that dependability to show up.

For me, financial provision isn’t about rigid roles or being 100% reliant. It’s about a man embracing the responsibility to provide when needed, especially during seasons where I might step back due to burnout, childcare or health. That doesn’t mean I’m never earning or contributing, just that I value knowing I won’t be left vulnerable.

It’s a personal standard rooted in how I see partnership. I respect that others feel fulfilled sharing financial roles equally but I think feminism should make space for both models without shame. I’m simply saying that provision, when freely offered and aligned with both partners’ views, can be powerful, not regressive.

Im afraid I'd never trust a man to take care of me or a child. In my lifetime I've never met one that wanted to. I raised my child on my own career on my own.
More and more of my friends are having children alone.

Something being 'historical' isn't really a good enough reason.

Being hanged in the town Square if you were suspected of witchcraft was historical.

I respect that others feel fulfilled sharing financial roles equally but I think feminism should make space for both models without shame

This is what feminism is about. People who tell you otherwise are people who don't like feminism. If you'd read my post you'd see it's a simple issue, so simple in fact I'm unsure why it's dragged up time and time again.

The feminists are on your side here. Always have been.

I think the key thing is that you should be able to provide for yourself and not rely on a partner of any sex to do things for you. That way if things go south, you cope. The whole idea that if only you pick the right man (and why, OP, are you making such heteronormative assumptions?) everything will be great is deeply flawed.