Reply to Are there really men whose dream it is to have their wife not need to work?

Forum Index » Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)

Reply to "Are there really men whose dream it is to have their wife not need to work?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Are there women out there that have the same dream for their men? Because I don’t love going to the office every day, and would happily have the choice not to.

I am amazed at how old-fashioned Americans sense of gender roles are compared with my home country.[/quote]

But men don't get pregnant and give birth. I think people really underestimate how big of a deal it is for women to have kids. I did, before I had them. Now I totally understand why a woman would want a man like described.

[b]Motherhood is labor in a way fatherhood isn't. Unless that changes, these gender disparities will persist.[/b][/quote]

That is the point.  In many UMC houses there is no disparity in this after birth.  Marry a better quality of man and raise better quality men.[/quote]

What makes it possible is money though. When families have less money, they wind up relying more heavily on the unpaid labor of women to make it work. UMC couples can create egalitarian marriages because they have enough income to solve any disparities with money, if necessary. And maybe some of these UMC families have female breadwinners, but most either have both parents who are earning well, or one very high earner.

Which means most of the families you are talking about have exactly what OP is talking about-- men whose wives *could* choose not to work, if they wanted or needed to. So these women could take an extended maternity leave, or take unpaid leave during pregnancy, if they felt it was needed, and it wouldn't somehow throw things all out if whack.

I also think that family support/help can make it easier to have an equal marriage, because it can relieve three pressure. If you knew there wasn't going to be that kind of support, it might be one even more important to have a higher income. [b]Money makes equality more accessible in marriage.[/b][/quote]

That last sentence about the privilege money provides to relationships is true but judging by some of the anecdotes here it is also important to not marry an anti-feminist, status obsessed and/or controlling man. People seem more likely to rail against not working more than not marrying a toxic man and some social circles (for a variety of reasons) have more toxic men than others. The reason being, it is easier to make that split from the toxic man if you have a job. I'd advocate not falling for the toxic man in the first place and make your decisions based on more important reasons like finances or if that is assured, desires or the unexpected reasons that life throws at you with kids and opportunities.

This debate is pointless for people without the privilege of either choice but cautioning women against misogynistic red flags serves everyone because it is on the rise globally.[/quote]

PP here and I agree with you. To me the key in the OP is that it's a man who wants to make enough so his wife does not *have* to work, but being fine with her working. I mean, it's 2024. If I met an UMC man who did not think women should work, I would walk away and not look back as that is an insanely retrograde position. I honestly can't think of a single man I know who thinks women shouldn't work, or shouldn't work once they have kids. Most married men I know, whether their wives now work or not, were at least partially attracted to their wives because of their intellect/education/professional background. In a town like DC where "what do you do?" is often the first or second question upon meeting someone, this is really common.

But yeah, assuming a man has already met my standard of not only being okay with me working but actually respecting and appreciating my professional side and valuing me for being an intelligent, capable person and not just a sex buddy or a housekeeper, I would embrace someone who took it upon themselves to try and be successful enough that if I ever wanted to stop working and focus on our kids, I could. Not saying that's my plan, only that a man who wanted to make sure he could facilitate it if it came out would be pretty attractive in my book.

I also think about how many women I know have struggled with those early years of motherhood and balancing work and children, the push-pull of wanting to be with them but not wanting to give up on a career, or dealing with less-than-supportive employers or colleagues, or wondering if it's time to make a left turn towards something more family-friendly -- all of that would be easier with a man who is like "I've got us covered, whatever you need to do."

Yes, it's all super privileged. But that doesn't make it anti-feminist. It's okay to acknowledge that sometimes women have a good reason to step out of the workforce, and that it sure is easier if they have a partner who can and is willing to support that, whether it's for 6 months or 16 years.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics