Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Agree this OP is so regressive. In other countries women are grateful to have opportunities that prior generations didn't.

Many people in the United States never had the opportunity to take care of their own children. There’s a whole demographic who only experienced life through the lens of constant work.

This is true for many minorities and can be true for lower income whites as well.

In that context the opportunity to take care of your body and your own children can feel very revolutionary.

You mean because they have their young grandmother raise their kids while the mom (and dad if around) work one or two jobs?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Feminist Genx boomer stuff is dying out , it was a lie And caused the dusk income trap

Tell that to the GenX gray divorces I'm seeing with the SAHMs left with bread crumbs in their 50s-60s.

Trad wifes will see it in 20 years and then half to get their *sses out to compete with workers more than 1/2 their age for entry level jobs.

That’s weird. When you divorce you split all savings, assets and accounts 50/50.

Didn’t they save or invest in anything over the 20-25 years?

Anonymous wrote:My husband wanted me to be his partner and not just the mother of his children. Our children were always our priority but working was very important to me given my education. I would never have married him if his dream was for me not to work. When our children reached preteen age I briefly retired but I quickly went back to work when I found a job that was perfect for me plus allowed me to be in my kids orbit. My husband is very successful and that has created options that many don’t have but I’m lucky that my husband has never done anything but support what I have wanted to do. Once we became empty nesters I went back to work full time and now we are discussing when to retire. He knows I want to start a crafts business so I will never fully retire.

Again, the question isn't if there are men whose dream is to have a SAHM. It's whether there are men whose dream it is to make enough that if their wives wanted to become a SAHM, she could.

The men I've known who dreamed of having a SAHM often were not very high earners -- they just wanted to have a captive woman. OP is talking about something else, a man who aspires to be a really, really good provider to where his wife has choices. This is fundamentally different than what many of you are talking about, which is a man who doesn't want his wife to work because he finds that threatening or thinks it will detract from her mothering/homemaking.

Also, FYI, I am a woman and I aspire to do well enough in my career that my DH could quit his job, because he doesn't like it very much anymore and feels trapped in it. I would love to give him the gift of choosing not to do it anymore. That is not me saying I want him to stay home (I think he'd get quite bored with that after a while and would want to find another way to be productive, but maybe that would be starting a woodworking business or something). It's just me saying I love my DH and I feel bad he is in a job he doesn't like and I would like to lift my income enough to where he could potentially leave it and shift careers.

That is basically what I read OP to be talking about.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guy here. Honestly, when you get married you’re agreeing to split your life with someone. That means you have to allow them to pursue what makes them happy. I would have been fine with a sahw if that’s the way it worked out. I’m so lucky it didn’t though. My wife dreaded the idea of being forced into a sahw role. She loves to work and has had a stellar career that has benefitted us and our kid in lots of ways:

1. Income responsibility isn’t placed solely on me. I don’t have to wake up at night wondering what happens if I lose my job.
2. We’ve been able to keep our kid in private school.
3. Outside of our careers we’ve been able to build a rental property business together and get our kid engaged and interested in business.
4. We’ll be retiring in our early 50’s.
5. We’ve got a lake property that we split time between there and home.
6. Our kid will graduate college with no debt.
7. When our kid graduates college we’ll be able to give them a house that they’ll own outright.

There’s just no way I could have done this by myself.

So you think that if a man wants to stay at home that that’s just part of the deal when you marry Even if that wasn’t agreement when you talked about marriage

Well you have to figure out how to meet each other’s needs and keep them happy. A person’s needs changes over time, however, you can’t just pursue your dream if it makes your partner miserable. Again, when you get married you’re agreeing to split your life.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guy here. Honestly, when you get married you’re agreeing to split your life with someone. That means you have to allow them to pursue what makes them happy. I would have been fine with a sahw if that’s the way it worked out. I’m so lucky it didn’t though. My wife dreaded the idea of being forced into a sahw role. She loves to work and has had a stellar career that has benefitted us and our kid in lots of ways:

1. Income responsibility isn’t placed solely on me. I don’t have to wake up at night wondering what happens if I lose my job.
2. We’ve been able to keep our kid in private school.
3. Outside of our careers we’ve been able to build a rental property business together and get our kid engaged and interested in business.
4. We’ll be retiring in our early 50’s.
5. We’ve got a lake property that we split time between there and home.
6. Our kid will graduate college with no debt.
7. When our kid graduates college we’ll be able to give them a house that they’ll own outright.

There’s just no way I could have done this by myself.

Sounds like low T.

Trust me, her T is fine!

My husband wanted me to be his partner and not just the mother of his children. Our children were always our priority but working was very important to me given my education. I would never have married him if his dream was for me not to work. When our children reached preteen age I briefly retired but I quickly went back to work when I found a job that was perfect for me plus allowed me to be in my kids orbit. My husband is very successful and that has created options that many don’t have but I’m lucky that my husband has never done anything but support what I have wanted to do. Once we became empty nesters I went back to work full time and now we are discussing when to retire. He knows I want to start a crafts business so I will never fully retire.

Anonymous wrote:Guy here. Honestly, when you get married you’re agreeing to split your life with someone. That means you have to allow them to pursue what makes them happy. I would have been fine with a sahw if that’s the way it worked out. I’m so lucky it didn’t though. My wife dreaded the idea of being forced into a sahw role. She loves to work and has had a stellar career that has benefitted us and our kid in lots of ways:

1. Income responsibility isn’t placed solely on me. I don’t have to wake up at night wondering what happens if I lose my job.
2. We’ve been able to keep our kid in private school.
3. Outside of our careers we’ve been able to build a rental property business together and get our kid engaged and interested in business.
4. We’ll be retiring in our early 50’s.
5. We’ve got a lake property that we split time between there and home.
6. Our kid will graduate college with no debt.
7. When our kid graduates college we’ll be able to give them a house that they’ll own outright.

There’s just no way I could have done this by myself.

So you think that if a man wants to stay at home that that’s just part of the deal when you marry Even if that wasn’t agreement when you talked about marriage

Anonymous wrote:Guy here. Honestly, when you get married you’re agreeing to split your life with someone. That means you have to allow them to pursue what makes them happy. I would have been fine with a sahw if that’s the way it worked out. I’m so lucky it didn’t though. My wife dreaded the idea of being forced into a sahw role. She loves to work and has had a stellar career that has benefitted us and our kid in lots of ways:

1. Income responsibility isn’t placed solely on me. I don’t have to wake up at night wondering what happens if I lose my job.
2. We’ve been able to keep our kid in private school.
3. Outside of our careers we’ve been able to build a rental property business together and get our kid engaged and interested in business.
4. We’ll be retiring in our early 50’s.
5. We’ve got a lake property that we split time between there and home.
6. Our kid will graduate college with no debt.
7. When our kid graduates college we’ll be able to give them a house that they’ll own outright.

There’s just no way I could have done this by myself.

Sounds like low T.

Guy here. Honestly, when you get married you’re agreeing to split your life with someone. That means you have to allow them to pursue what makes them happy. I would have been fine with a sahw if that’s the way it worked out. I’m so lucky it didn’t though. My wife dreaded the idea of being forced into a sahw role. She loves to work and has had a stellar career that has benefitted us and our kid in lots of ways:

1. Income responsibility isn’t placed solely on me. I don’t have to wake up at night wondering what happens if I lose my job.
2. We’ve been able to keep our kid in private school.
3. Outside of our careers we’ve been able to build a rental property business together and get our kid engaged and interested in business.
4. We’ll be retiring in our early 50’s.
5. We’ve got a lake property that we split time between there and home.
6. Our kid will graduate college with no debt.
7. When our kid graduates college we’ll be able to give them a house that they’ll own outright.

There’s just no way I could have done this by myself.

remember this

ALL THOSE PINK HATS HARPING THEIR FALSE CLAIMS WERE MEN

I raised my own kids and a husband. I never felt the need to work nor did my husband make me work.
I worked from home before it became popular. I just didn't get paid but the benefits were amazing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

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

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.

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. Money makes equality more accessible in marriage.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

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

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.

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. Money makes equality more accessible in marriage.

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.

You make it sound sort of like a fetish (and for some men it might be), but yeah, there are men who want to earn enough money to be able to make it so their wive doesn't have to work.

My husband definitely planned on making enough money so his future wife didn't have to work. It wasn't even a question in his mind. Think about it. Wouldn't it be nice to make enough money so that you could maintain your lifestyle on only one income? And doesn't it make sense, if you want that, for it to be one of your financial goals? This doesn't seem odd at all to me.

But he also had other financial goals too, like making enough money to retire early, get good Christmas presents for the kids, take nice vacations, etc. There was no "make sure my wife can live the kind of life she wants to live" obsession.

^What is this?

Gay dude with a boob fetish I guess.

Anonymous wrote: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.

+1 I would greet her when she comes home with favorite drink, I would make myself look good for her, I would have prepared dinner (knowing what foods she likes and avoiding anything she dislikes) and I would be DTF anytime, anywhere she wanted.