Until men can have babies or paid maternity leave is offered in this country - yes.

Yes. Make your own money but marry someone who understands their job is to provide for the family. No lazy bums here.

Anonymous wrote:Why get married if you're not going to marry a man who is not good provider? I do not want me daughter marrying someout of work bum or someone who can't hold a job for more than 6 months.

+1

Who even uses this terminology? No, I don't tell my daughter to look for a provider, any more than I tell my son to look for a woman with a generous dowry.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My daughter is young, but I will not. The whole term "provider" is anachronistic and I've never heard anyone in my social circles use it IRL.

One thing that I love about my husband is that he is a good provider. Our families needs and wants are met. I like that I do not have to work, although I do because I want to. I like that he will work three full time jobs, if be needed to, before he feels that I have to work. I do not have daughters, all boys, but we are teaching them to be providers for themselves and later on, their family. That means choosing a good career, and able to manage money.

You don't need a husband. You are looking for an ATM!! Good God. Glad you are not my DW.

The feeling is mutual, glad I am not yours. The thing is, neither of us (husband or I) have a problem with him being the main provider.

But if he loses his job tomorrow, would you still love him? I think not because it seems your relationship is based his ability to provide.

I've already started talking to my 11 and 7 yo kids about partnerships needing to be a well functioning team, especially if children are in the picture.

I've talked to the 11 yo about career choices and and positioning himself well (starting now) to do well in school so that he can have his choice of professions when the time comes. My younger one will hear the same messages as she grows up.

I will encourage both to choose carefully when it comes to both work AND partners. I don't want either to think in terms of providing for others or being provided for; I want them to think in terms of happy, healthy partnerships and the ability to be self sufficient.

Two self sufficient people working together to form a strong team is the goal, whether they are both working outside the home or not. There are no guarantees in life, and both partners need to be able to step up to the plate and provide if necessary. I'm not going to handicap my daughter by telling her to look for someone who will provide for her. I'm going to advise both kids only to have children with someone who will be a strong, compatible teammate.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My daughter is young, but I will not. The whole term "provider" is anachronistic and I've never heard anyone in my social circles use it IRL.

One thing that I love about my husband is that he is a good provider. Our families needs and wants are met. I like that I do not have to work, although I do because I want to. I like that he will work three full time jobs, if be needed to, before he feels that I have to work. I do not have daughters, all boys, but we are teaching them to be providers for themselves and later on, their family. That means choosing a good career, and able to manage money.

You don't need a husband. You are looking for an ATM!! Good God. Glad you are not my DW.

The feeling is mutual, glad I am not yours. The thing is, neither of us (husband or I) have a problem with him being the main provider.

If my DW expected me to work three jobs to support the family I would probably suggest that it's time to move to a cheaper area. Might as well be supporting a homeless family in Africa if you have to work three jobs. "Oh you're the kid I worked three jobs to raise? Never got the chance to meet ya!"

Notice how it's always the women saying "my husband would work three jobs" and never the husbands saying that. I assume it's because they would probably never do that in reality.

I don't have a daughter, but I'm teaching my son to be an equal partner in everything: finances, chores, child care, emotional support. There is not need for a provider unless a spouse falls ill and then of course he/she should support.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My daughter is young, but I will not. The whole term "provider" is anachronistic and I've never heard anyone in my social circles use it IRL.

One thing that I love about my husband is that he is a good provider. Our families needs and wants are met. I like that I do not have to work, although I do because I want to. I like that he will work three full time jobs, if be needed to, before he feels that I have to work. I do not have daughters, all boys, but we are teaching them to be providers for themselves and later on, their family. That means choosing a good career, and able to manage money.

You don't need a husband. You are looking for an ATM!! Good God. Glad you are not my DW.

The feeling is mutual, glad I am not yours. The thing is, neither of us (husband or I) have a problem with him being the main provider.

If my DW expected me to work three jobs to support the family I would probably suggest that it's time to move to a cheaper area. Might as well be supporting a homeless family in Africa if you have to work three jobs. "Oh you're the kid I worked three jobs to raise? Never got the chance to meet ya!"

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My daughter is young, but I will not. The whole term "provider" is anachronistic and I've never heard anyone in my social circles use it IRL.

One thing that I love about my husband is that he is a good provider. Our families needs and wants are met. I like that I do not have to work, although I do because I want to. I like that he will work three full time jobs, if be needed to, before he feels that I have to work. I do not have daughters, all boys, but we are teaching them to be providers for themselves and later on, their family. That means choosing a good career, and able to manage money.

You don't need a husband. You are looking for an ATM!! Good God. Glad you are not my DW.

The feeling is mutual, glad I am not yours. The thing is, neither of us (husband or I) have a problem with him being the main provider.

lol, yes! As the mother of two boys I'm definitely going to tell them to try and screen out the gold diggers.

I want my children to partner with people that have strong work ethics.

I tell my son that they need to find rich women to marry and that all adults need to work.

I will teach my three girls that there's no free lunch. If you want something you will have to work for it. Always plan for a disaster and hope it never comes. Never depend on a man financially. God forbids he dies or become incapacitated, you better have a skill. A husband is not a pocketbook or a meal ticket! Geez. I'm a wife who works even though I don't need to.

Anonymous wrote:No. Never have. I have a teen DD and that topic never came up. She did talk about cute boy, and how she wouldn't date this pothead or how good looking and nice this kid is, or how this kid is good looking but not nice, but what does that mean teach them to marry money? Isn't that like telling her she is incapable of making money?

Sure but when she marries at 27 and wants to have a baby she'd want to SAH and the only way she can do that is if she marries money.

Why get married if you're not going to marry a man who is not good provider? I do not want me daughter marrying someout of work bum or someone who can't hold a job for more than 6 months.