What is your view/experience on men being providers and SAHM (traditional)

[amanda2k4]

I have friends in the USA where it seems to be more common for the male to go to work full time, pay all the bills, the woman will ensure that there is a hot meal ready/peaceful life & clean house/children are looked after. I even know women that work full time and do not contribute to the bills, but there man still expects the traditional wife role duties. This seems to work well. I mean the woman get to spend there money on what they like... sounds good to me! lol however I always wonder at what expense does this come at? Is the husband an a$$hole? kicks off if the house is dirty / it is expected you do not socialise with friends etc..

I am interested in where people sit with this? Would you love to be a SAHM if your husband could afford - but run the risk of always relying on him for everything OR would you much prefer contributing your fair share and splitting up household chores and going to work?!

I see more and more of these posts where men keep complaining they want a "traditional woman" and they go to work 5 days a week to provide and ensure she has a roof over her head, all the bills are paid, she can stay home, but seem to expect a hot meal/no complaining/to do what they want outside of work in return - I mean is that fair enough? - would that work for you??

I think different things work for different families, I wouldn't knock any approach if it works for them.

I'm in the both work / equal / split chores camp but it's probably a a lot more chilled having a more traditional approach. I think it's important that both partners can spend money equally etc. but you will get arsehole men in any situation.

Being a SAHM would not be for me, I don't really like doing housework or cooking, I'm not very good at personal admin and I'd probably get bored and drink too much. Also would hate to have to ask for money! You do have to think what happens if you do split up too..

I think different things work for different families, I wouldn't knock any approach if it works for them.

It's just that the airy 'Oh, it works for our family' so seldom appears to mean 'I have considered my own separate professional and economic future and factored it in as a major part of the decision-making process'. Judging by the contexts in which I see it used on here it appears to mean something like 'It will be easier on DH, and I refuse to think hardheadedly about the situation'.

I think the SAHP thing can work fine, but not with this man. I would actually really think if you want to make your life with him TBH.

i could not relax thinking that our entire financial wellbeing hangs on one person. it may be fine for very rich people with a lots of savings and investments...but not for me when there's mortgage to pay

I'd say 2 varies on the job. I can think of several jobs that I'd say are absolutely more difficult than cleaning, cooking etc and looking after children.

For me, my own separate professional and economic future is something I worry about constantly, multiple times a day and I dream about finding myself in a situation where I’m working, happy, my children are happy in a childcare situation that is sorted and works for them and my partner can also contribute to some of the childcare / life admin etc. I realise many posters above have this all sorted and I admire them hugely!. But when my eldest was a baby I just could not put them in childcare (no family help) and it was a heart over head decision. I love spending time with my children but I knew at the time what a massive effect it would have on my career (and my ability to get back into the workplace).

You’re not doing too well at pretending not to be a journalist OP🙄

@DelightfullyDotty IDK if OP is a journalist (although I know there seem to be a lot of them on/watching the boards at the mo.)

I know she had a general question for this thread, which can seem like mining for content, but OP made another thread going on to explain she is trying to get feedback about her own situation. https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/relationships/4927212-would-this-financial-set-up-leave-me-vunerable?

The job itself might be harder by many measures, but unless the person works 24/7/365 without a break at that paid job, it is not more demanding. One person can’t become solely responsible for children and home because that person would be working 24/7/365 without a break.

I think it would be a big culture shock. Before DC, I worked full-time. A job with a final salary pension and decent contributions and that was one big reason I went back part time rather than quit. DH progressed his career-I considered it but heart was no longer in it post-children. So DH is the main provider but I contribute a not insignificant amount. I’d say him 2/3 me 1/3. So housework etc reflects this.

Part time flexible hours are the sweet spot imo so you can do most of the childcare yourself as I didn’t want to outsource the majority of childcare outside of the family.
I would’ve liked to have done fewer hours in the pre-school years though. Something like 20 would’ve been ideal in hindsight. But this does affect your pension contributions.

It wouldn’t work in most families for the simple reason that most men don’t earn enough to provide this level of support to the family.

I think women spending their whole life not working is infantilising. It means that you’re missing out a huge part of life. Especially if you’re doing it because you just expect someone else to bear financial responsibility for you. Also if you don’t have your own money, you’re not ever full independent- you don’t have full power and control over your own life.

its one thing to take a few years out when kids are young but another to opt entirely out of the workforce in favour of living off someone else.

Same here - when I marriedDH 30 yrs ago, we had a joint bank account, I don't remember being given an option for our mortgage not to be a joint one.the house was in both our names and all our household expenses came out of that account.
Still the same now - two adult children, left home
When they were little we had various working arrangements.
At one point I was the higher earner so my husband stayed at home with the kids. Rare in the early 2000's.
We always pooled our resources. Never overstretched ourselves.
I don't understand why people split bills 50% from you 50% from me if they are living together. Far too much hassle in my opinion!
Why are couples not being offered joint names in a mortgage if you are buying a property is should be 50/50. Don't understand why women are accepting deals where only one of them is on the mortgage? This is a backward step for equality is it something that the banks insist on or is the woman's choice ?
It should be simple if one of you works and the other stays at home it is an equal partnership. The person who is earning should get a meal cooked for them when they get in by the SAHP, why not ? The SAHP parent manages the children and life admin, the cooking ( or shared ). The drs appointments. The shopping ( ours was shared ). It is an equal partnership.

.

Is a relationship between someone with a career and someone who spends their whole life cleaning up after them, an equal relationship? In most cases, I would say no.

This is all very interesting and ties in with some of the internet narrative that is doing the rounds - women are now being told (by men) to 'be more in their feminine energy' and suddenly I'm hearing all this 'man is provider, woman is femme' crap, like a step backwards, like he wants all the power and she is just pretty and stays at home - it's good in a way to have read this discussion, and for it to be around for other women because the narrative that we should all step back into the 50's is damaging and risky imho.

Nope not for me, I’m definitely in favour of having a career and not relying on someone. Also, prefer work challenges etc compared to kid playgroups etc all day. Think it’s good for my daughter to see mum working too.
Seeing my friend’s mum negotiating with her dh for some extra money, when I was a kid once, put me off being in that position for life!

I don't understand why people split bills 50% from you 50% from me if they are living together. Far too much hassle in my opinion!

We don't have any joint accounts. I pay some bills, DH pays others. No hassle. (And no worries about working out if it's split 50/50. It doesn't matter since all money is family money. It's just held in different accounts.)

DH and I have separate finances but pay our fair share of the mortgage, nursery fees etc into a joint account which all joint bills come out of. It's super easy, not a hassle at all.

I would never agree to have my entire salary in a joint account. What's left over in my personal account is mine and I spend it as I wish.

Split your finances and earn enough to pay 50% of the bills.

Any other approach leads to resentment.

So what would you do if you a) took a personal decision to be a SAHM
or b) your life circumstances changed and there was no option for you such as illness or redundancy/ unemployment and you were reliant on one salary ?
This is what OP is asking about. Would you be happy to rely on one income?

I've already explained in a previous post that I would never make the choice to be a SAHM.

I wouldn't be happy to rely on one income, no. It would never be an active choice, only as a last resort due to circumstances such as illness and if redundancy/unemployment then hopefully very brief.

I don't have kids but am a stay at home wife, I have a private income and my husband pays for everything as well as giving me money which I both spend and put in savings. He has a well paid job and we have a lot in savings, no mortgage. I do most of the housework and all the cooking, which I am very good at. I do have health issues and I am working on starting up a part time career from home which would allow me to both work and look after my health.

I have a higher level of education than my husband and am better read and better informed than him on many matters, so even though we have quite an old fashioned set up, he isn't "the boss" any more than I am, we are a team who talk things though and agree together on what to do. We see eye to eye on most things so it all works out well.

OP I would recommend you check out a book called The Female Woman by Arianna Stassinopoulos (Now Huffington) https://www.amazon.co.uk/Female-Woman-Arianna-Stassinopoulos-Huffington/dp/0706700988?tag=local02-21

She talks in it how women's lib ruined a good thing for women, of course though she is only really talking about rich women and she herself has had a very notable career but it is an interesting read which looks at this idea from a different perspective than the trad one you mention in your op, which I think is not a good place for women at all, at first seems safe but can easily become a prison.

Nah, I’m not for sale.

The vast majority of women worked outside the home throughout history, mostly doing farm work or other pre-industrial labour. Apart from a few middle-class women during the post-war era, there were no 'stay at home mums' in the sense the OP describes. It's not traditional, it barely existed in the first place.

I sometimes wonder if the idea of women working was sold as some sort of feminist triumph because white collar work exploded in the 1970s and businesses needed fresh, cheap labour. We now seem to have arrived back at a place where hardly anyone can support a family on just one income.

Women should not be reliant on a man like this - even a very part time job is better. If he leaves you, how are you going to get a job with years and years gap on your CV.