Most women would say "yes" when they have the luxury of considering this *in theory*.
In *reality*, most women who take on this role in relationship-- with the man playing "househusband" instead-- wind up frustrated, and lose attraction to their husband, and wind up cheating, most likely with a coworker or boss.
The problem here is that human nature is comprised of many conflicting drives and desires and needs. We have a 'reptilian' brain that only cares about survival and reproduction, and a 'selfish gene' that wants to get the best DNA possible for our future offspring. Then we have the emotional and cognitive brain, and the higher levels of consciousness + executive planning it makes available to us.
So for many women it "makes sense" on a cognitive level to be the breadwinner. But their reptile brain disagrees-- the reptile brain wants the big, strong, brave, resourceful alpha male who can run the tribe and keep it safe from wolves and rival tribes etc. And that alpha male would, almost by definition, not be content with being consigned to the role of nest-defender. They would be the ones leading the hunting pack, and bringing back meat for the rest of the tribe.
Society has changed, but human nature is startlingly unchanged from our caveman years, once you strip away all the cognitive reasoning and social conditioning and ideological theorising.
Of course she "CAN", but the average husband will not be happy in that marriage. Men are driven to be the leaders. Men want power. Men want to feel useful in every way possible. It's in our DNA. Always has been, always will be. If the woman is suddenly taking on the role of being the financial leader, he will feel unfulfilled, unmasculine, maybe even worthless and a loser. It's bad for his psyche. So sure, the wife can be the breadwinner, but don't expect a happy marriage.
Yes the woman can earn more than her spouse. As a woman who earns more than her husband, this is NOT repulsive to me. What I earn was a conscious decision and a goal. I grew up poor and knew my family was poor. It enables a sense of security too. If anything ever happened to him at work, I wouldn't be in financial ruins. My husband is ok with and knew the $$ I bring home early in our relationship. It's not something I have ever held over him or leverage during a fight.
The concept of breadwinner is outdated and I personally believe it just pointless. Both work and earn. Adding the "title" usually causes problems and self esteem issues
Ya, of course, the wife can be the breadwinner in the family. I mean this isn't the 1920s. Women can get high paying jobs if they choose to and have the ability to do those jobs.
Only if the man is a loser. There is no such thing as a girl that is both marriageable age and high income earner. Well i guess kylie jenner. Thats about the whole list. So if a man isn't a total bum he will always out earn a woman he dates.
Of course the wife can be the breadwinner, BUT, the wife will quickly lose respect for her husband if she is the one responsible for providing for the family. The dynamic as the woman as provider is biologically repulsive to women.
I don't care about who makes more money or silly ancient outdated concepts. As long I'm respected and she submits to my authority she can make a million dollars a day.
@Wowgirl30q: That's not the question being asked. I would not allow for someone to take care of me like a baby or child. If a man happens to make less money than his wife because he doesn't have a better career there's no shame or problem in that, but there is when a man doesn't work or contribute nothing to expenses or bills.
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
Most Helpful Opinions