Justnotmartha

Some people might say that it should be the man supporting the family because the Bible states that it should be that way. Sometimes I think ideas originate in the Bible and some people don't know that. ( not trying to ignite a "religious" debate here peoples ) I'm a Christian and feel that what that really means is that the man should be willing to support the family. It is one thing for a woman to work and support the family because the man doesn't want to. It is entirely a different thing to agree within a marriage that the wife works and the husband stays home. In your case your DH was laid off and having him home is a good thing for now. I think that is great. I would not have minded working and having my DH home if I were to have made a salary that would have allowed that.

Who cares who makes what wage? I made more than my first husband and my benefits and child support bring in more than my DH now. ( I'm on disability )

IMO it is up to a couple how they work it out and should be no one else's concern. The important thing is that the family is provided for both financially and physically. It's like having women's work around the house and man's work. Doesn't matter to me as long as it gets done.

"It's like having women's work around the house and man's work. Doesn't matter to me as long as it gets done."

AMEN!!! I hate dishes but LOVE to cook. I cook amazing meals for my family... hubby cleans up, better than I could. (he's anal about cleanliness)

Isn't equal rights what women have fought so hard for? Isn't it why women were burning their bra's? Isn't that why our country is moving closer and closer to a woman president?

Even if the husband wants to stay home because he just doesn't want to work... if the woman is okay with supporting him, is that any different than a man that lets his wife stay home because SHE doesn't want to work? It's a joint decision. If the one working WANTS the other to work but they won't, then it will cause resentment by the one that is carrying the load and THAT is where I see a problem. In my situation, any resentment I have is aimed toward the mother that won't contribute to her own children. Maybe it wouldn't even bother me so much if she wasn't constantly reminding me that SHE is the mother... not me, yet I am doing her job and paying for it. Yeah, I guess I resent THAT.

Too right JNM!! As long as everybody is happy with the arrangements it's all good. That is to be truly disengaged as far as I'm concerned.

Well, this one is near and dear to my heart...

I think that the key element here is that the two parties involved need to reach an AGREEMENT about how the household will be supported. Whether he does it, she does it, or they mutually do it isn't so much the issue as being in agreement as to how it gets done. What works for one may not work for another.

That said, I do see the other side of the coin. There is an argument to be made for the "emasculation" of the men in American culture. Not all that long ago, as recent as my childhood in the 1970s, it was common for women to stay home and men to go to work to support the family. I do think that when it became an commonplace for women to work outside the home and they were given all of the same benefits, pay, position, power, etc. as men that men sort of lost their way. What had been a clearly marked path for most men--go to work, support your family--became more difficult to navigate. ...and don't get me started on "sensitive" guys. Oh hork...

So much for the sociology of the thing, but I do understand that even 40 years later there are STILL growing pains when it comes to traditional male/female roles.

I so WISH that I could look upon my husband as the leader of the family instead of just another piece of baggage that I have to pick up and lug down the street every time I want to make a move. I wish I could even see him as an equal partner in carrying the financial and emotional weight of the family unit, but I don't. It's been two years since he quit his steady job of 15 years because of "stress" despite my protestations and outright begging him not to. I understand stress--better than your average bear I think--but I also understand responsibility. What he did was irresponsible and EXTREMELY traumatic for me. He abdicated his role as a family provider unilaterally, without discussion, without agreement, leaving me in the financial driver's seat of a car with half an engine. Talk about resentment!

No, we're not in the 1800s, but I for one do believe that MEN do have a responsibility of supporting their families--in whatever fashion is agreed upon by them and their spouse. I would even go one step further and say that there is a moral and ethical obligation to provide for his family financially.

There's a difference between sharing and supporting.

i think people have been raised with the idea that the man should provide for the woman andnot the other way around.
My next door neighbour is a stay at home dad...i have to admit...my husband and i were a littletaken aback with the idea and took some time ot get use to it.
But hey, his wife earns more than him and taking care of his son, is something he wanted to do. Plus he has a carpentry business at home..so he can arrange time around.
Its what suites each family really. If you are in marriage where is works, with whatever rules you guys have set down between you, then it really doesnt matter what prejudices other people have.
What matters is the fact that you love one another, respect one another and have a healthy balance in all that you do.

It is fine whatever works for people. But then "whatever works for people" should be fine for everyone, not just selected individuals. If people want to critisize other people's BFs or DHs, then I can do just the same. Why not? Double standard again? this is not imaommy's forum. she wants to critisize, then she should be OK to listen critisism.

Now about who should support who...

I don't think that a man should be the one to support a woman, absolutelly not. I think both should support the family. if one stays home with the kids, it is fine to, man or woman does not matter. But arrangements when one spends his/her money on themselves while the other pays for everything does not sound too good for me. either for a man or for a woman. especially if kids are involved. It might be OK just does not sound good for me.

It sounds strange when people say that adult (older than 18) children should be on their own and pay their own way and yet they fully support 40 or 50 year old grown individuals, it just does not sound fair to me.

if i have enough money to support another capable adult, i would rather help my own child with school or my parents or some disable person i know. It is my position. Others don't have to agree.

now if one is laid off or disabled it is entirelly different and I would support them fully, but it is not the case. I would not start a relationship by telling a man that i will support him fully while he would contribute only 5% to the household. I also do not see myself asking a man to support me this way.

now it is fine to help paying debts off. i think when people don't have to pay two mortgages or two rents a months, it is a huge help and remaining money can go towards debt. Or any other arrangements. But fully supporting another capable adult is just unrealistic. Although it definitelly is very very convenient for one party...

So this statement really bugs me. Why in the world should be man have to be the main financial support in a family?

Yes, that bothers me too, although I have to admit, not as much as this one:

"Some people might say that it should be the man supporting the family because the Bible states that it should be that way. Sometimes I think ideas originate in the Bible and some people don't know that.

Grrrr

Um, I'm a Christian too and although the bible does contain many such references, I fully disagree that husband as provider ORIGINATED there. Most other premodern cultures, including those never exposed to the bible, have had this same arrangement.

This pretty much goes back to the dawn of mankind--the days of the "hunters and gatherers" where men were the hunters and women the gatherers as a matter of necessity that their very survival depended on. It's really hard to argue the physical and biological differences between men and women that made this only common sense.

There is a legitimate biological REASON that women were labeled as "the weaker sex," it's because as a general rule, physically, we are! If a tiny woman attempted to "take" a great big man in a "fist fight", she going down! But give them each a gun and providing she knows how to shoot straight, her chances are now 50/50--Smith and Wesson, the great equalizer!

That women even are able to consider being the breadwinner while the man stays home instead is actually a LUXURY afforded to us by the technology and conveniences of our modern society. It is these technologies and conveniences which are really responsible for enabling the equalization of men and women in the workplace.

In today's marketplace, most jobs now value brain over brawn, specialized technical knowlege usually pays better now than having a "big strong back", rendering gender differences irrelevant. Even those saddled with physical and mental disabilities and handicaps can now be adequately accomodated, and equipped with the tools, that give them the ability to become useful, productive members of our modern society.

My husband is over a foot taller and outweighs me by almost 100 pounds, but that is completely irrelevant in today's job market. What IS relevant is that I am far more competitive, while he is far more nurturing. He and I are completely at the opposite ends of the spectrum at the very root of that which is our nature.

I couldn't have children but if I had been able to, with our personalities, he would have been the logical choice, and actually the ONLY choice to play the role of "homemaker" and raise the children, while I provided the financial support.

But we entered into our marriage, in fact, into even our initial relationship with not only with the full-knowledge of each other's strengths and weaknesses, but recognizing that these opposite qualities were exactly what were both seeking and desired in a mate. Individually, we are at 2 extremes, and together we provide each other balance.

My work is not just how I earn a living, it is my passion! Even before I returned to college to obtain my degree, in every job I've ever held, usually didn't take very long before I was running the show. It's a "force of nature" that even I don't have the power to reign in. Bringing my husband and his daughters into my life gave purpose to my work, because it gave me a family to provide FOR.

Over the years, we have imparted a certain amount of our qualities upon each other, and he is now more competitive and I am now somewhat more nurturing. He is now far better equipped to compete in the marketplace, and I am far better now at nurturing my personal relationships.

I do agree fully though that the structure of our society which enables this, has also had negative consequences for many, such as what was referred to above as the "emasculation" of men. I've also witnessed the serious blow to what is actually a rather fragile male "ego", especially when they've been pounding away faithfully and loyally for many years, only to have a little tiny blonde female space cadet just waltz through the door and almost immediately get promoted over them. I have to agree that I can see where this could, and probably does, have the effect of making them feel that they have been "stripped" of their purpose, as I would undoubtably feel if the early computer skills of teenagers made them capable of doing my job, maybe even better than me.

I don't know how I would handle that, but I don't imagine it would be very well.

"this is not imaommy's forum. she wants to critisize, then she should be OK to listen critisism."

No it's not my forum... (I do however, have a private group that doesn't have the nastiness seen here) but I do have a right to my opinion, you have a right to yours. Have I directly criticized anyone? I've stated my opinion or beliefs on certain issues. If you take it personally that I am criticizing you, that is not my problem. I am not taking your comments personally, but you actually directed a comment at me that was inaccurate and all I did was provide the truth. If you are going to say something directly about my situation, you should have your facts correct. I'm not the only person you have done that to here. If you want to make general comments, you are entitled to YOUR opinion, but don't refer to me personally if you don't have your facts straight.

And just for the record, are you calling it a double standard because you felt insulted or criticized so you feel the right thing to do is return an insult or criticism and someone else took offense or didn't necessarily agree with you? Are they not entitled to their opinion without being accused of holding a double standard?

Ima, I think you have critized, which is Ok, it is a public group. And when you refer to a SO or DH controlling the thermometer, it was pretty clear who you were referrign to. But everyone else has the right too.

I think people ought to be able to do what they choose to do within their own relationships but also recognize that their choices may impact other people. It's fine if the couple lives in a vacuum and both are happy with the "traditional" set-up of man making all the money and woman staying at home. But when there are children (bio or step) involved, it can set up a situation where wife and kids are basically in competetion for the resources of one person: Dad. Which, depending on circumstances, may never become an actual conflict or problem.

But on the other hand, it may. And in stepfamilies there's more liekly to be a problem. Any number of problems, actually. For example, the one just brought up on the other thread about the stepfather who paid for everything for his stepdaughter and who is now questioning if he was used when his wife left him. Or when it's the breadwinner Dad who has the kids from a previous marriage and new wife wants to be "taken care of" by her husband, as a matter of "tradition" but also wants to "disengage" from his kids like a modern liberated woman. The problem there is that wife being "taken care of" comes at the direct expense of resources (financial and emotional) allocated for the kids, and for husband himself, with not much being put back into the 'fund' of money or nurturance by the wife in return. Dad is the only one who works and then when he comes home both kids and wife are chomping at the bits for his attention and money. Compounding this inherent problem is that because total family resources are lower, wife pushes for kids to be financially (and emotionally) "independent" at 18, which becomes an inherent hypocrisy as Finedreams mentioned and which causes even more conflict. On top of that, if wife has not played a real supportive role in kids' lives, kids and husband could very well see it as wife wanting to be provided for as though she were active nurturing SAHM without having done any of the work that makes that a soemtimes fair enough arrangement. In intact families that follow the more "traditional" model, most decent folks are going to appreciate if Mom is a homemaker and does all this stuff to care for the family and no one is ever going to think about things such as "Mom staying home means there's going to be less money for college funds" because Mom is actively contributing to the whole family in all the myriad ways she keeps the house running for everyone's benefit. This can be the case, too, with custodial SM's or those step-parents who are otherwise actively, lovingly involved with the kids. But it gets much more potentially conflict-ridden in blended family situations where step-parent (of either sex) doesn't have (nor want) the kind of integral role which contributes to the whole family's well-being but basically wants the whole family to sacrifice so s/he can live cushy.

I think if a couple is going to adopt the more "traditional" model, especially in a blended family (but also in an intact one), then simultaneously expecting to "disengage" shouldn't be an option. Sure, people can do whatever they want, but if they go that route they should expect there to be conflict from both kids and breadwinning spouse because that's basically a "take- take" proposition. It's important to clarify, too, that even in the traditional model, it's not like the woman just sits around eating bon-bons all day. At least that's not how it was intended. The idea was for the man to do certain things and for the woman to do other things. Presumably the primary point of the woman staying home is to free up time for her to tend to the kids, not to just "disengage" from family responsibilities. This imperative tends to get thrown into even sharper relief when it's a blended family, and I think it can be a major root cause of resentment in those SM's who insist on the traditional "man supports woman" model because the stepfamily gives much less leeway for a woman to get out of responsibilities toward kids if she expects to be supported.

well actually iamommy, you didn't make general statements. You said exactly: your SO is cruel and selfish because he didn't turn up the thermostat. Phrases "cruel and selfish" about someone, you know nothing about, is pretty direct and harsh.

to which i replied that i think your DH is selfish by making a woman fully supporting him and his daughter while he only contributes 5% to the household.

after i got some good advice here i talked to SO straightforward (over a year ago) and we never had thermostat issue anymore, it is warm. It was mainly communication issue. i assumed I was clear about being cold. apparently i was not.

imamommy's Dh however didn't show any improvemenet and continues mooching of her which i still consider selfish.

and frnakly i don't think imamommy qualifies to be an expert on a choice of men.

This is based on my observations only, I am sure there are exceptions...my personal experience is men who don't work (or who are underemployed) do less than women. Women who are stay at home moms/wives cook, clean, do laundry, food shop, take care of the kids, etc. Men who stay home for the most part just seem to play with the kids. It would be nice is the roles were interchangable, and I have no issue with it, but they don't seem to actually exchange. It seems like men who stay home don't pick up their fair share. Every woman I know who attempted to have the husband stay home just about lost her mind and her marriage. They come home to laundry, cooking, homework not done, house a cluttered mess, etc. After working a full day. Most men just don't seem to be capable of multitasking as well as women.

disengaging...Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr? LOL

Finedreams, if you are going to accuse me of saying something about you or your SO, get it right. This is what I said:

"and just for the record, when you said you had broken up with your SO... I thought that was a good thing for you. Not because he was an alcoholic, but because he seemed selfish and cruel in not considering your comfort in keeping the house warm when you visit. Maybe he has changed and in that case, I'm happy for you!"

The words "I thought..." and "He seemed" are the expressions of my opinion, not stating a fact that I am right. You are entitled to think my husband is selfish and it warms my heart to know you care so much how my husband treats me.

When you say "imamommy's Dh however didn't show any improvemenet and continues mooching of her", is that your opinion or do you know my husband personally and for a long enough period to say if he has improved or not? Do you know our life and financial situation personally to say he is mooching off of me?

and nobody is an expert on choosing men. Like I said, to each his/her own. I'm very happy with my choice as I'm sure you are with yours. I feel he treats me very well and I'm sure you feel yours treats you well. That's all that matters, isn't it?

as I do not know your husband you do not know neither me nor my SO. and if you insist on "seems" i can say that your DH seems selfish and cruel. I do not know your financial situation but I go by your words: "he contributes 5% of the income to out household and I pay everything else for the household, for him, and his daughter (and on top of everything he complains when I spend money on my son)". It SEEMS very selfish and cruel. but as long as you are happy.

You are onto something serenity.
If there are no children, people can do whatever makes two of them happy. Even the most bizzare stuff. But when children (of any age) are involved, parents' decisions effect them. Not necessarilly financially but emotionally. It is about priority in a way. I think children come first.

yes I do find it rather hypocritical when a parent or a stepparent expects teenagers paying their own college tuition or live on their own or work many hours etc But then they think it is Ok to fully support someone else who is not their child, is fully grown and should be able to support themslves.

i can see how it can build a resentment in children.

disengaging...Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr? LOL

believer,

My apologies, but to explain,

I enjoy debating my case for Christianity, only I like doing it on highly advanced and extremely hostile "anything goes" atheist boards.

They tolerate me because I do my research first just as thoroughly as they do theirs. After all, without 2 sides, there is no debate.

Why do I do this? I don't believe in Santa Claus or the boogeyman. I KNOW they are nothing more than fictious beings and anyone is stupid enough to believe otherwise certainly isn't worth my time arguing with. I have NO NEED to study up, because I KNOW they don't exist!

That these people actually spend this much of their time researching to the point that they have practically memorized the entire bible, along with all the related history and background, intensively studying a being they claim to believe is imaginary, attempting to PROVE he doesn't exist? Oh sure!

We get into some very complex issues that lie at the very roots of "faith". It's more like an advanced bible study course--they just don't realize it. Extremely educational.

The problem occurs though when other Christians happen upon these boards and attempt to join in without doing this same research and get quickly get attacked and ripped to shreds in every way imaginable. It sets the entire debate back for weeks which drives me absolutely insane. This recently happened just when we were really getting deep into the very issue you just brought up. I didn't feel like listening to anymore of their redundant profanities so I left. When they calm down, I'll return so we can resume the actual debate.

Hence the Grrr

I agree sue36...men dont multitask very well. I have to give my Dh credit..he tries but then disappointment sets in...lol
He can't cook, wash laundry and wash dishes at the same time. The cooking usually gets burnt!, the laundry doesn't get hung and the dishes are only half done. ANd the pots and pan are not cleaned!!!! rrrrrrrrrrrggrrrrrrrrRRRRR!
But today he did vacuum, and is attempting ot clean dishes without cooking. Its now been 2 1/2 hrs...ehhhheeh
I have relaxed...and will do the rest in a jiffy when i'm off the computer;)
I will:
wash the rest of the dishes, make the bed, put away all dirty laundry, put a load in at the same time make lunch. Within the hour.:) I intend to have my bubble bath this afternoon! i haven't done that in a looooong time! So CHeers! to us hard working woman!

Wow, I feel even luckier that my husband 'helps' me in the kitchen. No, he can't cook at all, but he hangs out in there with me. He'll rinse off things as I get done using them & loads the dishwasher as he hates to see anything in the sink.

Oh, don't get me started on laundry!!! I gotta go give him a big HUG!