So I was recently on a thread that claimed women who looked for financial security from a man were not gold-diggers and though I do not disagree with the original poster's position I was definitely interested in the responses from the men that disagreed and that is the reason for this post.
I was not that interested in the men's response that used the "OK, we will go back to when women couldn't vote" argument. I find this to be a nonsensical argument. A woman still had power over her man and her family even if she could not vote. Heck, women still dictate when a couple has sex or not so she has a lot of say in things, I would say. *cough cough. Happy wife, happy life is not a saying because it is not true.
However, the men that did not care for the burden of being the provider, those answers I found extremely interesting and I hope more men will share and expand their thoughts on that.
Men may or may not want the burden of being the provider but they still are the provider today. I am not talking in salary or education. I am talking in the fact that if you take a girl that has no athletic ability or know how and pair her with a guy that loves sport, you now have a female that has not only a favorite sports team but a favorite player. lol! Also, statistically speaking, wives will take on the political beliefs of their husbands more often than the other way around. Men take women under their wings; is not often the other way around. Ergo - you are the provider.
So my point is, whether you want the job or not, you are the provider. It just is at least in male/female dynamics.
So what exactly is so scary about it? What is it that is unfair? What is it that do you do not like about it? And what do you love about it, if anything.
I'm fine with being the provider of the family but I also want my wife to have a degree of some kind or at least a basic education and basic life skills and such so that if something should happen to me like I get killed in an accident or get in an accident and get injured to the point of not being able to work for a while. That she can and will be able to provide for the family in my absence. I also want her to be able to pull her weight around the household you know? like if I'm going to be working all day and providing for everyone then she needs to be taking care of things at home if she isn't working, this is the balance of that kind of marriage the man is the provider, protector and head of the household, the woman is the caregiver, caretaker, the nurturer and the heart of the home.
I have wondered about gender roles. When I grew up in the 80's, my mother started out as a stay at home mom doing everything for the household and waiting on everyone. As the need for health insurance (father was self employed) loomed large, she went to work, but still assumes all of the duties she had before. She also differed to my father on many major decisions. Not because she couldn't make them, but because that was how things were done. To me, that seems an unfair position, but she handled it with grace. The women I meet that are my age predominantly (but not exclusively) seem to want the man to be the provider (like it was when I was young) but also have the man perform the household duties - what my mother did, except with the addition of being either the sole or primary provider. This strikes me as odd and regressive. Perhaps there are aspects of yet to realize.
I am old school, so I don't disagree with the idea that men are the providers, but part of that is that some men will not reproduce. Those men used to have no voice. They just drank themselves to death or whatever. Nowadays they are expected to live, as thy do.
I am good with all of those things, I just want her to financially contribute to the relationship/family as much or more than I would. I don't want to spend all of my time just making money, but have no time left to spend with my family/kids. I want to be the kind of father that my kids will grow up with many good memories of what we did together, not of what I bought with the money and all of the important life events that I couldn't be there for and missed out on.
No one likes to be someone else's plow horse. In a real partnership things are done together. If you were asked to do a job with someone else, and they demanded you do a majority of the heavy lifting, would you be happy?
I think a man should pay for everything and feed his lady. And the lady should take care of the kids and keep the house clean. That's honestly how I feel
Well honestly, it's because I don't want to empty my wallet out on everything and she doesn't. I'm not like most of these men who answered I'm a modern unconventional guy and want a woman who's willing to share her money with me.
She could become a limp noodle that feels like being married to a defendant child than a sexy woman...
She could make you broke by reckless spending...
She could make you feel broken by expecting luxuries you cannot afford despite working hard...
She could live off of you and not love you - or even love someone else
Women generally WORKED throughout history. They grew elaborate gardens, picked fruit, raised chickens, sewed, mended, washed (much harder before washing machines which aren't that old), canned, drew water, etc. Many also took on outside work - laundresses, seamstresses, helping their husband with his trade, etc. Even poorer women also worked as domestic servants, mill workers, nurses, teachers...
This idea that wifey just tickled babies and waited for daddy to come home is historically inaccurate.
Because they're insecure and incapable. But on top of that, the way, not society but the whole world is running, relationships require two workers to maintain a living. On top of that, no one is content with what they have, more money just equals more bills, nobody wants to simplify their life, and woman don't want to accept that.
This law is only for those who believe in the bible, that men are not just providers but the head of the house and relationship, and wife. They don't want that position, women do