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?

Well obviously any sensible person will try to choose a helpful, caring partner. But why are you so keen to limit men to financial roles, and women to the domestic? Pregnancy and childbirth are obviously hard work. But after that, both sexes can do varied tasks you know!

I earn 4 times as much as my (male) DP. We took 6 months parental leave each for our DD. He does all the cooking and nursery runs, allowing me to do my job effectively and have quality time with DD when I get in from work. He is an equal partner, fully understands what childcare entails, is a wonderfully sensitive, caring, considerate father, always has my back, and we have we a great life.

How would it be “more feminist” if I’d chosen a man who made more money? Who may not understand or appreciate the challenges of childcare, who may not be that available for our child, who might fall into the trap of many working men and look down on domestic work? Who would live a different life to me, so that we may not understand each other well?

No, no. I’m for men and women both taking an interest in childcare, both having responsibility for domestic life, and both having a life outside the family too.

@CantCallItLove Thank you for sharing that article!

But I think you're right; we're inadvertently training up an AI chatbot to keep coming here to tell us about aligning our values and showing up for our families and on and on with the tedious waffle. But the humans on here might enjoy reading it! I'm darkly fascinated by the whole trend even though it's clearly going to suck us all into a horrible dystopian future...

Always a three word username and always written in a wanky pseudo-philosophical way.

Let me be explicit… I’m not seeking a one-sided relationship where one person carries everything and the other coasts. I’m seeking a relationship where the types of contributions might differ but the depth of commitment does not. If a man leads financially, not by force or expectation, but because he wants to, then I’ll lead elsewhere. That includes emotional labour (which isn’t just “basic adulting”, it’s often the glue holding a household and relationship together), domestic management, practical decision-making, childcare if relevant, and yes, earning too - either consistently or in seasons, depending on what life requires. I might be freelancing, running a household, raising children, managing logistics, supporting his wellbeing or making sure the whole operation doesn’t fall apart during a crisis. That’s not vague, that’s the real, invisible infrastructure of daily life that’s only noticed when it’s missing.

I’m not looking for a patron. I’m looking for a partner, someone whose strengths complement mine, who takes pride in providing the way I take pride in nurturing. That’s not laziness or vagueness, that’s a values-based division of labour.

And crucially, if life flips the script, I’ll step up differently. I’ve done it before. I’m not asking for anything I wouldn’t give back but I’m also not pretending that all roles are equally weighted all the time. Real partnership isn’t always 50/50. Sometimes it’s 80/20 and the key is that over time, it balances out through trust, intention and shared values, not rigid spreadsheets.

Is it AI? Is that why it reads so oddly? Ffs, how boring

I actually laughed out loud at that subject line. Thanks for that OP! I married a woman unfortunately am not a feminist by your standards but am in an equal partnership despite us having kids.

I’m not looking for a patron. I’m looking for a partner, someone whose strengths complement mine, who takes pride in providing the way I take pride in nurturing. That’s not laziness or vagueness, that’s a values-based division of labour.

Is that not just….gender based stereotyping?

I've been burned in the past so being completely honest I don't think you can rely on a man (or anyone). Whether it's innocent like them experiencing a health issue or job loss or something like them running off with another woman! As much as I'd like to feel "looked after", I also thinks that leaves me (extremely) vulnerable.
Feminism is being able to make a choice and not needing to fall into these roles to survive.

I worry about this too, and I worry it will end up spitting out better sounding responses because of all our engagement. But I like to think we're helping the humans who end up reading this in at least some small way!

Mn is a weird target audience for this kind of post IMO because I feel like the demographic is women who have already had families and are better versed in these subject just by sheer life experience.

I’m not against women being self-sufficient, I am one. I work, I contribute and I have goals of my own. I just don’t believe that self-sufficiency and wanting a partner who’s generous and reliable are mutually exclusive.

This isn’t about “pandering” or being a trad wife. It’s about choosing someone whose values align with yours, and for me, that includes a man who wants to provide when needed, just like I’d step up in my own way when he needs support.

There’s more than one way to set an example for children. Showing them that relationships can be built on mutual care, respect and shared responsibility, financial or otherwise, is just a powerful as showing them how to earn a living. Ideally, they’ll grow up seeing both.

You can have mutual care and respect in a relationship where nobody is bankrolling anybody else?

I respect my partner’s ability to clean an oven. He respects my ability to have an established career.

Having to provide for a grown man would just be the biggest “ick” imaginable for me. I’d imagine for some/most men it would be the same in reverse too.

It’s been answered plenty of times if you bothered to read

I’m fine, thanks. Just capable of holding a nuanced opinion and having a conversation that isn’t built on binary thinking. If that feels like a “hard week”, maybe it says more about the thread than it does about me. 😊

Emotional labour absolutely is basic adulting. Because someone who cannot, will not, and/or feels no need to engage in emotional labour is someone who is not someone who is in the right emotional state to be in a relationship. What else forms a relationship other than emotion? If you're with someone who checks out of emotional labour do you even have a relationship anymore?

As for childcare I believe you said you don't have children so with respect you've got no real idea what is involved in raising children or how it changes a relationship.

"I take pride in nurturing". That is such a vague, wishy-washy aspiration that falls apart at the slightest examination. What does that actually mean in practical, day to day terms? Do you not expect your partner to also nurture you and your interests? If yes, then claiming this as your thing to balance his providing/protecting is meaningless. If not, why on earth would you want to be in a relationship with someone who doesn't care enough about you to think you're worth nurturing?

You may claim that if the situation changes then you'll step up but your op and much of what you've written in this thread makes it clear you see that as the exception and not the rule. You want to be provided for and protected while you drift around your home, making inconsequential decisions, nurturing incomprehensible stuff and managing occasional shopping deliveries logistics.

Good luck in finding a man who agrees with your viewpoint.

That’s just making smart choices in a relationship though surely. It’s not about feminism?

I think you’re misreading both the intent and framing of my original post. Nowhere did I claim that all feminists disapprove of my choices. I said, and still maintain, that in many online spaces, expressing a desire for provision or traditional partnership dynamics is often met with hostility, mockery or suspicion. This thread proves the point. That doesn’t mean I believe feminism, as a whole, condemns stay at home mums or partnered women. It means I’m engaging with how modern discourse sometimes plays out, especially when women articulate boundaries that don’t neatly align with the 50/50 narrative.

I also never said feminists are “bothered” by me wanting to be a SAHM and I’ve clarified multiple times that I’m not one. My preference for financial provision isn’t about withdrawing from contribution: it’s about choosing a dynamic that prioritises mutual support and security. The fact that this has triggered multiple accusations of agenda-pushing or trad-wife larping suggests I’ve struck a nerve.

You said you were a SAHM for ten years, great. That only reinforces my point: women’s needs, values and relationship models can differ. I’ve been very clear that my stance is a personal boundary, not a call for anyone else to copy/paste it. What’s puzzling is the insistence that because some people on page 1 said “feminism supports choice”, the conversation should end there. If we all agreed on how feminism plays out in real life, there wouldn’t be constant debate about it and you wouldn’t feel the need to “post for other people who might be reading.”

As for “wanting discourse”, we’re on a discussion forum. I posted something I knew would spark differing views, not because I want to “turn people away” from feminism but because I think it’s worth exploring the grey areas, including how some values are treated online. You don’t have to agree with my framing but claiming I’m a perpetrator of anti-feminist harm because I shared my perspective is a reach. If your concern is nuance, let’s have a nuanced conversation, not one where disagreement is painted as bad faith.

Just to clarify, nothing about my original post was AI-generated. It came from my own lived perspective and is rooted in genuine reflection and experiences around relationships, provision and how those themes are often received in modern conversations (especially online).

Yes, I framed it in a way that encouraged discussion - that’s the whole point of AIBU? If the thread prompts people to think or debate, that doesn’t make it artificial. It means the topic hit a nerve.

If we start demanding “proof of origin” every time someone posts a provocative or well-worded question, we’re going to lose what makes open forums available: the ability to explore different viewpoints without gatekeeping how they’re expressed. Ultimately, if people are engaging thoughtfully, and many have, then the discussion clearly resonates, regardless of what sparked it.

The bad faith part of the discussion is not disclosing the AI use - are you using AI to edit your own beliefs or are you paid to generate discussion and don't care either way?

I think there’s a misunderstanding. I’m not saying men can’t be nurturers or take parental leave. Nor am I prescribing a single “right” dynamic for every couple. I’m simply stating that I personally value a man who sees financial provision as part of how he shows up in partnership, not because I think that’s all men are good for but because it’s a form of consistency, protection and responsibility I resonate with. For others, that may look different.

Feminism, to me, means the freedom to choose, whether that’s being the breadwinner, sharing it 50/50 or preferring a partner who provides materially while you contribute in other ways. Where it becomes tricky is when people suggest that one version (e.g fully interchangeable roles) is more evolved or equitable than others.

You and your partner made choices that work beautifully for your family. I’m hoping to make choices that work for mine, even if they look different on paper.

I grew up in a traditional household. Dad went to work...except he didn't earn very much, so mum did bits of pieces of work around him but still had to do all the work at home, because very work was just for 'pin money'. Even when she went full time she was still expected to do it all.

All these bollocks posts are clearly from women who've never actually experienced the man as breadwinner thing. I made damn sure that I could earn enough to support myself. I also made sure to choose a man who was my best friend and who treated me as an equal. Most of our lives I've outearned him. But what mattered to me was s man who pulled his weight equally in all aspects of life. And he does.

I picked a great man. He changed. How was I supposed to mitigate that back when we met?

And where are all the men asking to be looked after? Or do they just become cocklodgers and do it by stealth?

Your question refers to the “ultimate feminist act”.

For me, the ultimate feminist act is providing for yourself because for so long women were shut out of the means of doing so, at least when it comes to professions such as being a doctor or a lawyer. And having financial independence is deeply empowering.

But i think it’s fine to be an SAHM if that’s your choice and it’s not unfeminist. It’s feminist if you choose it for yourself rather than having it foisted on you.

But no, finding someone to provide for you - making yourself financially dependent on someone else - is not the ultimate feminist act. How could it be? Without financial self-sufficiency, you’re missing an important element of power and independence.

You can choose your relationship

it doesn’t have to be a man who has your back —a woman, someone else in your family , a good friend

you should always be able to manage on your own even if it’s no ideal and i believe that you are more likely to find a strong supportive man if you have that ability to back totally on yourself

ao nothing wrong with being in a partnership with a man

a lot wrong in making that your aim or expectation