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'm a SAHM and agree with this poster.

I've literally never heard of a husband doing this Wants and Needs thing. It sounds controlling and abusive to me. I'm not a servant he's paying. And it's not HIS hard earned cash. It's ours. My job is looking after the dc. Outside of normal working hours we split housework and childcare evenly.

Before I gave up work we never bothered to combine finances (we met when we were older). Before I quit, we discussed how much money I needed a month to cover my usual expenditure and he transfers me that amount each month. I buy all the food and most child related things with it, and spend it however I like. Save some too. Works for us.

I organise most holidays because I like to. We agree where to go together and naturally have the same rough idea of budget.

My husband isn't traditional (lefty liberal, open minded, atheist) nor does he expect me to do the housework or have a meal ready for him and I'm a SAHM to older DC.
House jointly owned though I contributed nothing financially. I've access to all his money and when I worked he continued to pay 100% of everything. He was like this from when we were dating. I don't see us ever separating but if we divorce of course I will take my half, I gave him children and did the bulk of raising them. I wouldn't date let alone marry a man who demanded 50-50 or a man who wanted a trad wife.

I was talking about this today with DD and as a divorced woman I would never recommend my kids to be a SAHP, because when I was unhappy in my marriage I could just leave. No real worries about finances, no worries about trying to find a job or career

If you have the time read Feminists against progress, it really helped me understand that, say what you like about equality, the nuclear family has immense value in ordering our society.

I have a friend who is a SAHP. But she has skills from a previous career that are in huge demand so - unlike with many - she could get a job tomorrow if she needed to. She also has an inheritance because tragically her parents died while quite young, so is financially secure with assets held in trust that provide a separate income for her and her husband could never leave her destitute. In that situation, it's wonderful for her to be able to be with her children more with total peace of mind. Some women may be married to someone so wealthy that even a poor divorce settlement would mean they will be absolutely fine even if their husband turns on them.

But for the vast majority of women it is a folly to rely on a man entirely for your financial security. Even if he's topping up a pension for you a bit and you'd get more than a 50% share of assets in divorce, the bottom line is you'll still need to get a job and provide for your family and you'll then be stuck in low paid work or starting much further down the career ladder later in life when it's harder to climb AND with the constraints of single parenting on top. While he - already doing very well in his career thank you having worked unconstrained by responsibilities for children for years at the expense of your career - soars to ever higher heights after divorce, so his standard of living recovers quickly from the financial shock of divorce and then increases rapidly again while yours is set back by decades.

It's even worse when they husband is smart enough to wait until children fly the nest then swiftly announces he hasn't been happy in years, leaves knowing that now without dependents the woman having sacrificed everything will likely get 50% of assets in divorce if she is lucky, and is now likely too old to have time to establish a new career and had been relying on their nearly paid off house and his much higher pension for a comfortable retirement. And every single time the woman is shocked this happened. "Never in a million years would I have thought he'd do this", "no warning signs", "he was a family man". Yeah, they always are, until they are not.

I don't know how anybody could ever make themselves so vulnerable and dependent on another adult's good will voluntarily. Nobody expects their marriage to break down or they wouldn't get married in the first place. Everybody thinks their husband is "not like that". But the fact is that you can never know, until it happens. The statistics speak for themselves, but many women convince themselves that those it happens to must just be stupid, must have made poor choices or missed "red flags", understandably I suppose, to alleviate their anxiety about this happening to them and convince themselves that it won't.

Only with a stone clad contract to provide for you (and children) for the rest of your life.

If I was going to sacrifice my earning potential to keep house for someone, then they need to guarantee all the benefits that I would get for doing that work for someone else - notice periods, pension etc. (like that lady with the binder full of arrangements before she'd have kids with the guy - who was SHOCKED that she was actually thinking it all through rather than just popping out sprogs and seeing what happened)

This is the lesson I've learned from putting my career on the backburner for a relationship. That by doing the lionshare of the domestic and healthcare, without ensuring you're keeping you're hand in work-wise, you are super-vulnerable and trapped. Never let a man trap you.

Ok. But why does that nuclear family need to be structured in such a way that in the vast majority of cases it is the women who do the unpaid work and the men who work and have financial freedom? Is that an innate and necessary quality of a nuclear family? Other systems around the world suggest otherwise. And to then add to that social systems that don't reflect the value of that work that women do and disadvantage them further as a result?

There is also lots of evidence that actually a more communal approach to raising children, with more involvement from wider extended family, is far more beneficial to everyone than this "nuclear family" approach. Indeed, this is how human societies have functioned for the vast majority of human history, and still do in most of the world in fact.

I wouldn’t ever be dependent on another adult. For me that is too risky. I have the holy grail of jobs, term time and very well paid. Both my husband and I have similar education levels and even though at present I’m the higher earner, he has been a lot in the past too. We both work. We have two autistic children too, we make it work.

Hoards of women telling us they work in case their husband screws them over financially is not indicative of progress

No not necessarily that, if he gets sick, if he has an accident. I’m happily married for nearly 20 years it isn’t about my husband leaving me for pastures new.

Everyone should do what is right for them. For me, I am glad I always worked full time. When my husband became an alcoholic and my marriage imploded, it meant I had an established career and didn't need to depend on him at all. The risk is always there - death, debt, divorce - and I would never take that risk. Better to be able to provide myself.

I dont think we're all secretly hating our husbands, it's one of a list of potential adverse future outcomes.

The only reason you don't hear men talk this way is that giving up their income/career/security is so rare they don't have to! If a man was planning to become a sahd, considering when would happen if his wife left him would be a sensible consideration also

Hordes of women risking their own financial security for a 1950s ideal is not indicative of progress either.

But what do women really want? Putting aside the aspect of doing it for financial security...let's say it was guaranteed that their dh would never leave them in the lurch or financially abuse them..would these working women choose to work or sah?

I couldn’t think of anything worse.

This.
The myth that women can have it all, full time career, fulling marriage, beautiful home, contented happy children is a big fat lie on the whole. An advertiser's fantasy sold to women who were told they shouldn't be like their own Mother's and wife work /childcare holds little value in society and something to be mocked, hence the "stuck in the dark ages" comment. Can't help think we have been sold a mysoginistic dream.
Go out to work full time but still end up with the lion's share of domestic demands.
Hopefully more modern men are realising they absolutely have to do 50/50 but I haven't seen it in my social circles.

But you can't just hand wave away any consideration and claim you're getting to what we "really" want in an ideal worls - we live in this world!

Sure if I won the lottery I'd probably stop working. But so, presumably, would my husband. He also works for financial security

I choose to work, always have done. When married I was the higher earner. Now divorced and a mostly single parent (exH has her every Friday overnight) and I still work full time. I am lucky / have chosen to live near family and get support with school runs but I give financially in return. Without family I’d pay for school pick up / drop off.

I would not want to be a SAHM, I’d be bored. I have no issue with anyone who does want this role but it wouldn’t suit me. With a disabled child I’m not sure exactly what I would do but I’d be prioritising my need to work where I could.

would you much prefer contributing your fair share and splitting up household chores and going to work?!

SAHP’s are contributing their ‘fair share’ OP.

I want to be independently financially secure.

Honestly?

I'd work. I'd need something to fill my time. I already have a hefty volunteering role alongside my full-time job. I suspect if I gave up paid work outside the home, I'd simply take on more unpaid work outside the home. Or I'd just end up finding another paid role of a different kind.

Ok so hypothetically you have that without working... would you work or sah?

My husband works less hours than me in a lower paid job, and we both agree that if we were ever in a position to have one of us stay home, it would be him. I love my kids and I’m really enjoying my second maternity leave, but I also really enjoy working. I would much rather be the one coming home to the clean house and the hot meal than the one who makes it all happen (and my husband does actually do 90% of the cooking so I do get to live part of that dream!)

I’m a sahm due to a combination of factors. I changed sector a short while before getting married and then pregnant and my industry collapsed in the recession. It was really hard to get work, and then before I got well established ds’ autism became a serious challenge. Meanwhile dh, was in an industry that survived and then thrived.

It has undoubtedly been an excellent arrangement for our family and our standard of living and quality of life is significantly better than if I were working. Whether it’s been better for me is debatable.

In terms of relationship equality, it has never been a problem. We’re partners raising a family and are values are aligned. We both appreciate what each of us bring to that endeavour.

We have a mutually respectful relationship and decisions are taken by talking to each other. If anything we’re both a bit too keen to accommodate each other’s wants and desires and that can lead to misunderstandings.

We both work on the assumption that the other is doing their best. If dh came home and the house was in chaos, he’d just get stuck in and load the dishwasher or something. And likewise I’ve picked up the slack for him during busy periods too. We have each other’s back.

I think a sahm arrangement can only really work if the husband is a decent human being and for that reason alone, I’d never recommend it. In patriarchal communities (I’m thinking of some US church communities where it seems to be encouraged) I think the potential for abuse is enormous if people are constantly hearing prescriptive gender roles being reinforced. And the surrendered wife/total woman/ trad wife nonsense is bollox.

I know a lot of women in the US and none of them subscribe to this way of life. They all work full time, as do their husbands, and they have a nanny for young children. (Nurseries seem much less commonly used than here.)

Personally I wouldn't give up work unless circumstances meant I absolutely had to (severe illness). If our child were disabled I would expect my partner to take some responsibility for looking after them.

Anyway, I'd be an utterly shite SAHM 😂 I'm a terrible cook and I don't care if the house is clean. I like spending money (mine) on nice things, and I sincerely dislike being told what to do. I found maternity leave unutterably dull and was very happy to get back to work.