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?

If you choose a relationship for security what happens if he fucks off and leaves you holding the baby?!

surely it’s better to both be able to provide so if it works out it’s good but if it breaks down you are ok?

my understanding of feminism is the belief that men and women are equal. Different in many ways but equal. So it would not be feminist for me to see a woman take on the house and child work and let the man off. If that’s her choice fine but it needs to be viewed as equally valuable as bringing in a wage. And if that’s her choice creeps into the man only works and the woman is on duty 24/7 as is so often the case it’s not equal at all

Yep, it's the weekend, we get the let's have a heated debate poster(s). I see they are settling in to keep the debate rolling as per.

Ffs 🤦🏻‍♀️ How about you don’t rely on an utterly incompetent man to provide for you and you go do it yourself? Provide for your children and yourself and sack off the idiots that want you to be a trad wife? And if your kids need something you buy it for them yourself?
Or don’t you like those of us who do that? Setting an example of building a career and being self sufficient is way better than the example of pandering to a man and all of the ‘requirements’ that come with that.

I thought the women stayed in and swept the cave and baked and submitted to their cave-husbands?

Just kidding of course! Exactly. History shows us so many societal structures throughout human history and only our tiny and very recent time period, basically entirely constructed by ad agencies and politicians, shows women as little submissive wilting flowers whose sole job is to mother their big strong man and not set foot outside the home.

Is it an attractive image? Of course, and it's especially attractive in our current societal landscape where it is ever so hard to enjoy life as a single person. It's not surprising people are wanting out of the rat race, and it's not surprising young, unmarried women are romanticising a misrepresented "golden age" where women were kept and looked after and just had to cook nice food and look after their kids. Guess what? Most of us want that when we choose to have kids. It's not a feminist issue that's led to this being so difficult, it's an economic one.

But you haven't explained what your values are. The only practical advice I can glean from your posts in among all the nonsense is this: marry a rich man so if you burn out you can give up work.

Feminists don't mind if you marry someone wealthy, that's fine.

Christ on a bike.

I never claimed that history was a monolith. Yes, there were women warriors, matriarchal societies and exceptions that challenge simplified gender roles. I celebrate that. But acknowledging broad historical patterns in division of labour isn’t the same as denying variation.

When I referred to men traditionally being seen as providers and protectors, it wasn’t to say women never did or couldn’t. It was to point out how these roles became culturally embedded over time, often in response to physical demands, social structures and survival logistics.

We can honour both history and progress. By personal preference for a partner who shows up financially is just that: a preference. It doesn’t mean I believe women should be confined to a role or that we’re not capable of providing ourselves (we are and many of us do). It means I value certain traits in a partner that reflect security, reliability and generosity, and that’s okay. We can support agency and nuance at the same time.

Indeed.

What do you do when the man you choose shows up for 18 years and then decides in a complete cliche that his 20 something secretary (PA sorry!) is a better option and decides to fuck her instead?

How was I supposed to know that would happen when I met him at age 20?

Feminism is earning enough that you don’t need a man

That’s the key, isn’t it? Feeling empowered to shape a relationship that works for you, not one that mimics someone else’s model.

When I say I admire a man who feels good about providing, I’m not talking about blind idealism or watching from the sidelines. I’m talking about valuing a mindset - one where generosity, foresight and consistency are part of how he shows love. I also work. I contribute. But I’ve learned that I feel safest when my partner takes pride in creating shared security, not just shared bills.

It’s not about giving up all financial control, it’s about mutual respect and complementary strengths. I know I can stand on my own too. But choosing to receive, when it’s offered from a place of care, not control, doesn’t make me any less powerful. That is my ideal.

And I agree, support is about more than money. I just don’t think we need to tiptoe around the fact that financial stability matters too, especially in long-term partnerships with real-world pressures.

Yes can you please for the love of god stop with the word soup and answer the question that’s been put to you many times. What happens when the man you thought shared your values, wanted a partnership and showed up financially turns nasty, cheats, watches hard porn, leaves you, has a car accident, gets cancer, bottom falls out of his industry or you just get the ick and want to separate. What then?

OP, you're talking to a lot of people who are probably married or in long term relationships and are very likely to have children.

You aren't married and you don't have children and I don't think even you know what you're really trying to say here.

As I’ve said multiple times, there are no guarantees in any relationship, at any age. People grow. Sometimes they grow together and sometimes they don’t. That’s not just a 20s or 30s thing, it’s a human thing.

But acknowledging that doesn’t mean we stop hoping or planning or choosing partners who align with us now. It means we choose with intention, stay open to growth and build over time, knowing full well that life can still surprise us.

For me, wanting a dependable, generous partner isn’t about controlling the future. It’s about stacking the odds in favour of a shared one, especially when it comes to stability, kids or long-term goals. If things shift later, I’ll cross that bridge with the tools and independence I’ve built.

I don’t think that’s cute optimism. I think that’s realism with hope in it. And I’d like to believe those aren’t mutually exclusive, even past 50.

You ok op? Hard week? 🙄

Exactly! So you either wait around until you’re utterly fucked (and needing to post on MN) or you get ahead if it, build a career and provide for yourself.

What a long winded way to say, people in a marriage/ partnership should take care of one another.

Your post was literally debunked on page one though, where it was clearly explained that actual feminists fully support your right, as a woman, to have agency and choose your own path in life. You deliberately did not engage with my posts saying that or anyone saying similar, you have in fact staunchly ignored any suggestion that feminist ideology would not condemn your choices, and just made the same references to men in every single post you've made.

As I explained, what I mean by drivel is you constantly repeating your wish list for a partner in response to these points. Because you are deliberately not engaging with the very simple point that feminism is not against women choosing to be a SAHM. And I am absolutely not mocking being a SAHM and have been a SAHM and part time working mum for the last decade since my oldest child was born.

The fact that you even know what a trad wife is shows you are way more versed on this topic than you are letting on, and you know exactly the connotations behind what you are posting. Even the title being so deliberately click baity shows you know all of the rhetoric around this topic.

If "feminism, at its core, is about the freedom to choose the life that aligns with your values, not about shaming other women for wanting something different than you" is what you believe (which is exactly what was said to you on page one of your thread), then what would have even compelled you to post an AIBU claiming the exact opposite? That "feminism" is causing people to judge you for wanting to be provided for by a man?

You have ignored very reasonable posts telling you this literally isn't an issue, because you want the discourse. So I'll say for a final time, feminists are not bothered by you wanting to be a SAHM. Many feminists are SAHMs, single mums, sole providers of childcare and income. What I take issue with is you trying to disparage the concept of feminism by claiming that people who are feminists are somehow trying to constrain your choices. Can you not see how that is hypocritical of what you're now saying, and can you not see how messages like this are exactly what is being used to turn women away from feminism? Well you obviously do as you are the perpetrator of this behaviour, I'm more posting for other people who might be reading and less aware of this trad wife adjacent mentality.

This

Should MN have a separate section for these AI generated discussion topics? Posters are generally happy enough to engage, but it should be more clear on what basis the discussion is being generated.

I remember the last time this shizzle was posted..All this crap about aligning priorities and showing up for something or other. Really weird that youve got this hangup.Op. I don't know what you want to hear.

For me, wanting a dependable, generous partner isn’t about controlling the future. It’s about stacking the odds in favour of a shared one, especially when it comes to stability, kids or long-term goals. If things shift later, I’ll cross that bridge with the tools and independence I’ve built.

But this is just stating the obvious- everyone wants a generous, dependable partner. Do you seriously think people go out and think “I’m looking for someone who’s mean and feckless”.

It’s not the ulitimate feminist act though. That’s ensuring you are financially independent so you can manage on your own if needs be.

They can and many do. I’ve never said women shouldn’t work or that men must provide. Feminism at its core is about choice and autonomy for everyone, that includes men.

The issue is that women are often expected to juggle both, to be primary earners and primary carers, while a man who wants to only be a provider is shamed as “old-fashioned” and one who wants to be a stay at home dad is sometimes not taken seriously by either gender. So clearly, we still haven’t figured out how to make all roles equally respected.

My point is not that women should be handed a one-side menu of options, it’s that relationships should be built on mutual clarity, consent and alignment of values. If both partners agree on who takes which role, whether that’s traditional, reversed or 50/50, then that is feminist. Because it’s chosen, not imposed.

And for those people who might not be aware of the tradwife mentality, this article sets out how it's based on an entirely imaginary premise of a past that never existed - and is a harbinger of a pretty sinister future.

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/ng-interactive/2024/jul/24/tradwives-tiktok-women-gender-roles

Omg I can't believe I fell for this AI bot bullshit. Haven't used Mumsnet in ages and I get sucked in! What a waste of time😅