What's wrong with the man being the sole provider for a household?

Question

OlderAndWiser · Accepted Answer

If both husband and wife agree that they want to do that, there is nothing wrong with it. In fact, I think a return to mothers being at home with their children would go a long way towards eliminating bullying and mass shootings.

Avicenna · Accepted Answer

There is nothing wrong with it, it's just not possible for the vast majority of people

Brainsbeforebeauty · Answer

What's wrong with it? Ask the women from the 60-70's who forewent education, a career to be a good little housewife. And when their husbands found the cute little secretary at work more attractive than the frumpy housewife at home and divorced the house wife for the other woman, these women were left with little education, no job skills, etc. Guys on here will tell you the woman makes out in a divorce, I will tell you first hand, my mother didn't. She was left with 5 kids to support and maintenance and child support don't/didn't cover everything.
And then also, when one partner takes care of everything, what happens when that partner dies. My friend's mom never worked, never paid a bill, any of that, her husband did it, and when he died, she didn't know how to do anything without him.
Just like we want to know or kids can survive, make it on their own if something happens to us, do should a spouse want to know their partner is a strong independent person that could survive without them if they had to. I'm today's world, there's no reason why both can't work to provide, support their family. If both puts less pressure on just one person to be the sole provider, but it also protects each from being left with no way to support themselves in the event of a divorce, death or other unforeseen crisis life can throw at us with no notice..

MzAsh · Answer

If it’s consensual then that’s fine, but a lot of women including myself prefer to have our own money to our own name, regardless.

Apple1996 · Answer

Nothing wrong with it. That's the way it should be. My hubby is the only one that works and I stay home with the kids. Like sure I could work but I'd just be covering the daycare expenses and I'd be missing out on my kids lives so it'd be pointless.

thegirlwonder · Answer

I'm dead @ the photo lolol

I mean, this is a loaded question. You need to be more specific. What's wrong for that reality for whom? For yourself? For me? To be the majority in society? Different answers, depending on what the question actually is.

For yourself - I mean, I could give you advice on things to be mindful of, if things go south, but it's your life and you're a very grown woman by the age on your profile. You can do what you want. Yay feminism!

For me - I'm simply not interested is the short answer - I don't want it. Long answer? As someone who started to identify as a feminist at a young age, I do think my politics are a part of why it's not appealing to me. It's absolutely not true that you can't be a homemaker and be feminist, but I do think for many of us... the choice to willingly go into that arrangement feels like giving up something that women have fought for. It almost feels like a duty in some small way. And for myself personally, I want any child I might have to see a working mother. I don't want them to grow up being accustomed to old fashioned gender roles at home.

I'm too independent and excited about my abilities - it's too late for me to be home maker, if that ever was even a possibility. I love the opportunity of what I can do as a woman in this day and age. My career is one long project to me. And really, I've always been that way. Even as a young girl in pre-school, I loved to be out and learning, from day one. I was bright and I knew it and anything felt possible. I'm an achiever, I'm curious and inspired and driven to "do." I need to earn as well, and at this point I'm so used to being perceived as/thinking of myself as an "intellectual" and working for a specific cause that I wouldn't feel fulfilled if I didn't work. I would feel that I was letting my immense potential go to waste, on top of not showing my future child what women are capable of.

I live in a very expensive city, have no intention of leaving (it's one of my dating deal breakers if he's trying to leave NY lol). I want to live a comfortable life with money for travel, leisure and to give my child the best that we can give. One income is not a great idea for that here, unless your hubby is making bank bank bank. Even in that situation, I would still want to work, but I'm just saying that it's extremely expensive here.

It's nice to trust people, but I also have to think of the potential consequences if we get a divorce and I've signed a prenup or he just has a specifically vicious lawyer. Even if I get something, it may not be enough and then not only do I have money to worry about, but I'd be behind in career experience that could earn the higher salaries I'd want/need.

I'm someone who is so independent that I've had to make a conscious effort to let guys take care of me, and be okay with needing help from men to an extent, to not take it as a slight to my own abilities when a guy wants to help me with something I can obviously do on my own. Psychologically, that makes the proposed idea incredibly uncomfortable for me. Giving someone that level of control over my life is something I would never do, as long as I had a choice.

For society? - Short answer is just that I don't agree with encouraging women to go back to seeing their value as primarily based on ability to take care of a home and children. It's sexist, harmful, and completely against my beliefs.

Citizenkirk · Answer

I wasn't aware there was anything wrong with "THE MAN" being the only one providing income if he is financially solvent, and not constantly worrying about which bills will not get payed this month, next month, etc.
When I got out of the Army, good, entry level positions in auto manufacturing and medical equipment and supplies fabrication, could still be had, in Southwest Michigan 30 years ago, even though lifer-packages (UAW and Journeyman Union retirement agreements and suffrage settlements, negotiated in trade talks between company and union representatives) we're hard too come by, with the possibility of being laid off whenever the economy went south.
It was a "feast or famine" working environment, I made my living in, getting as many hours as I could, when things were going good, and getting as many hours as I could, when things were going bad.
The feast periods involved little sleep, poor hygiene, and gallons of coffee ☕, too build up enough rainy day surplus, too survive the famine times by that always followed, depleting much of that savings cushion, too get me through the slumps in "hourly wage availability" deficient - economic conditions, since unemployment benifits were insufficient and unreliable, with chronic administrative changes and underfunded, understaffed, overworked state employees, struggling too keep these services operating.
Supporting a family under these conditions would have been possible, but paycheck to paycheck existence is no way for any family to live. No "one" member of any family, should be the sole provider, if there are family members not disabled, or going too school full time, who can work and contribute financially.
If your name is Jed Clampett, and your biggest monthly expense is the operation and maintenance of that concrete pond in your backyard, to worry about keeping a budget on, with enough disposable income from your "Big oil profits (BLACK GOLD, TEXAS 🍵 TEA ☕,) too keep you within the 99.99 % tax bracket for the rest of your days, than the casinos are the only thing standing between you, and the financially solvent person you need too be, too be the sole provider.🧐🎩🚝💰.

Dinklex3 · Answer

Nothing "wrong" with it.
I was taught to be as financially independent as possible and to not rely on another individual's income to live because you never know what could happen.
I won't have to feel "trapped" because of finances and if they lose their job, at least we have mine.

My uncle was a cop and recently lost his job around covid. My aunt doesn't work so he had to search for a new job quickly.
My aunt was supportive to his face, but started talking shit once a month went by about him not finding a job yet and how they need the money. I couldn't understand why she couldn't just get off her ass and get a job if they were in need of money and her husband was obviously trying 🙄Then of course when he did find another one, half income of what he used to make, she was bitching even more.

So I also feel like it helps take a little pressure off of each other.
If my partner hates their job and wants to quit.. possibly go back to school. We'd be able to afford that.
To each their own 🤷

t-8900 · Answer

unless you are a top tier guy making 6 figures it's NOT GONNA HAPPEN. The value of currency continues to decline, wages stagnate, job opportunities become more finite by the day. For better or worse the Nuclear Family is dead and it's not coming back without some global catastrophe, likely leading to worse quality of life for both sexes. Men say they want to be the sole provider. I even did once upon a time. But have you REALLY looked at the gravity of the situation we are in? have you considered the medical costs of raising children, buying a house, vehicles for both of you, adding in a pet or two for good measure plus the cost of food and continued education PLUS your own retirement?

Who would want all that on their shoulders? You should be happy more women have seen how hard it is that they DO want to contribute to the workforce and help their spouse and kids financially. It sucks that the kids dont get to see the parents much but what can you do? Do we just give up then? Right now I am the bread winner but when my fiancee finishes school thats going to change by a LARGE margin. She's fine with it so so am I. Men need to stop feeling threatened by a woman achieving her goals. If she took you at your worst (this one took me when I was unemployed ffs) then she's a catch! Dont mind the gold diggers. And ofc you have lots of hypergamis women. I won't deny that for a second. But I promise you not all of them are solely focused on what a man has financially. My advice? Find a woman that prioritizes her love and devotion to you over finances. Just be sure you do the same in turn.

Tiffany_Taylor_Made · Answer

The problem with the man being the sole provider for the household is that it is potentially harmful for women. If men are the sole household providers, then men are basically responsible for taking care of his woman, not unlike a father taking care of his young daughter. Chances are great that if he is solely providing for her, then she likely is a full-time housewife or has a low-paying job at best. The problem is that if anything happens that threatens the relationship, such as the man becoming violent towards her, cheating on her, not providing as much love and care as he used to, or him becoming terminally ill or passing away, she would be on her own if the relationship ends, causing her to struggle more. I'm assuming this wouldn't be too much of a problem if they were married and she received a divorce settlement or life insurance, but not every couple is married, women don't always get the best settlement in divorces.

This is especially true if the man isn't wealthy, and not everybody gets life insurance payments either because of certain lack of coverage or them being too expensive for some people. Thus, it's always good for a woman to be the adult that she is, acquire some skills, and work a high-paying job to support herself just like any man so that she would be financially secure if her relationship ever ended. In other words, she should be with her man because she loves him and wants him, not because she's desperately needs him. In addition, a man being the sole provider could be harmful to the man as well. A woman that is capable of working or is working should be able to take care of herself with a decent-paying job. If she's able to take care of herself, she should contribute to taking care of the household too. Bills can be paid off easier that way and it takes the pressure off the man in the house.

zeitgeist057 · Answer

There's nothing wrong with one person being the sole provider, be it the husband or wife there is no difference.

There should be some equality in terms of contribution to the relationship and the energy and that can vary a great deal. Someone who makes all the money for the team might want/expect all the house chores to be done, someone else might not care about the chores at all and just expect/want lots of sex or pampering when they get home.

This is all part of the relationship and figuring out how the team works. Obviously it's not going to work if one person goes and makes all the money for the house and all they want in return is sexual gratification, and their partner doesn't like sex or isn't into it as much as they are and/or objects to them filling their needs with someone else or in another way.

Same thing if the person who isn't making money doesn't want to do chores, but that's what the "breadwinner" thinks is a fair trade. There is going to be resentment built up and eventually some fights and maybe a break up.

But on the flip side, it might work out well. Some people are turned on by "sugar" daddy/mommy types and love the chance to show their appreciation sexually. Other people really enjoy having time alone at home or with kids to do chores and be a househusband/wife and/or parent. It just take the right fit.

Anon621 · Answer

I personally don't see anything wrong with it. Thats exactly why I tell women that are interested in having someone that is motivated to have a above average income to go for someone else since I'm not motivated by money. I would not want someone to fall for me and then expect me to be the sole provider and I wouldn't expect them to be the sole provider either. The way I see it, money is money but you don't always have to have a lot of it if you have no reason to use the money but of course you would want to try and make a higher income if you have a family for multiple reasons. Any woman that's interested in me I legitimately send them a copy of my resume and at the top I make it clear I'm not interested in money and I fully plan to continue doing some sort of physical labor because I enjoy physical labor so I warn them how I'm going to make enough money for ME to use effectively and that's why I'm selfish and I realize that and I make it clear I'm prideful of earning my own paycheck and focusing on myself since that's what I'm used to. Like Biggie smalls said and it is very true and it's something a lot of successful people never consider until they have a lot of money "more money more problems" and there are exceptions to that rule but there gets a point where if you make a certain amount each year it gets too much even with a family.

EmbraceThePain · Answer

Well, it may not be exactly practical today, especially considering women are becoming more equal to men when it comes to a wide variety of realms within society. In terms of careers, women can make just as much as men, can hold the same positions, etc. I don’t think it’s particularly wrong for the man to be the sole provider for a household, I just think it’s less likely in today’s world. Also, there are those who seek to break away from the stereotypical nuclear family template, where the woman is the stay-at-home mother that cleans the dishes and looks after the kids, and the father is the one that goes to work and earns the money for the household. There are a lot of people, perhaps generation, that seek to break out of this model for one reason or another.

RolandCuthbert · Answer

Absolutely nothing. We created this insane society where the majority of men can no longer provide for a family of four. Both parents have to work.

The thing is these folks want to blame women for having to be independent. Women have to be. We need for them to be.

My relationship is more traditional. I am the sole provider and for most of my relationships that’s how it has been. Except for the time I was with a woman who had a career of her own.

WindAtMyBack · Answer

Nothing wrong with it. That was the norm when I grew up. Of all the kids I knew in the neighborhood growing up, I can't think of any exceptions. The parents were all housewives with wage earning husbands. Around where I live, it's still a good half of households with kids that are traditional.

The thing is that a lot of the extra income from two wage earners gets spent on things like daycare, expenses associated with work (clothes, transportation, etc). With less time spent at home, more things are hired out, like repairs, eating out instead of at home, etc. So there are serious diminishing returns on the second income. You have to work a fair amount just to break even. Depending on pay, the first ten, twenty or even thirty hours may essentially be working for free, with only the remainder being increased net income.

MrOracle · Answer

There's nothing wrong with it AS LONG AS both people are pulling their share of the load. If he's out working all day earning money for the couple, then she should be doing the housework and whatever else she can reasonably do to make his life as comfortable as it can be when he comes home.

Relationships should always be a team effort, and as long as both people are pulling their share, and both are working towards the same goals, then it doesn't really matter how the workload is divided as long as it is divided fairly.

flamiE · Answer

Nothing if both parties are happy with it. But I like to bring money to the table too and not put all the pressure entirely on the man. I’d also want to be doing something because i don’t want to be financially dependent, I’ve seen too many situations where the woman wants to leave but decides not to because she can’t provide for herself and I refuse to be that woman. Also, having my mind busy keeps it sharp and therefore I’d be a better partner, will be able to relate more to my man’s problems and give solutions etc.

ZackBan · Answer

I mean nothing is wrong with it it worked for years but it comes at a price for the woman.
If the husband is gonna work and take care of her and their kids all on his own financially then she has to do all the rest. That's cooking cleaning raising the kids taking care of all marital responsibilities that in it's way is her contribution to the family.

The wrong starts when the husband has to work and the wife sees herself as some kind of princess who couldn't wash a dish to save her own life and that is bad in this context.

Of course I have nothing against, and even encourage women not to let their husband be the sole provider and actually have a career as well because that gives them more perspective on the world and the value of money I had two working parents and see it as a great way to sustain a marriage

hi_it_is_me123 · Answer

Nothing. If he wants to be traditional/provider then he can be and it is his decision if her wife has no problem with it. The problem would be if a traditional man/woman date/marry non traditional women/men and want her/him to be a housewife/a provider out of nowhere. I have seen how this happened to some working women whose partners did not say anything about them working but as soon as they married they dont want them to work anymore and so they all end up divorcing lol. So that is why I advice you all to talk about marriage in the first date. I told my boyfriend that i want to work and also dont except him to be a provider and i even would not mind if he become a househusband and he accepts it.😊

Floppy2112 · Answer

Absolutely nothing. Unless, his partner takes advantage of him, then it's a horror show. But you better believe the man has expectations if this is the case. He doesn't want to come home and have to cook, clean, bathe the kids and all manner of domestic stuff. If you're relying on him for all provision, you have to be completely committed to that man. Women have the advantage in this case however. All she has to do is choose to leave and she will essentially take his family away and half or more of his resources. When it comes down to it, I think this is the main reason men are no longer interested in marriage. The cost of failure is immense for him and for his partner, she gets rewarded by the state. Its why women file for divorce 80% of the time. It's a good business proposition for ladies and it's pretty much all loss for men.

Hearthly11 · Answer

Nothing. But usually the man start looking down on the woman when the man is the Sole Provider in the family. So it's good that a woman have her own career and is able to provide as well in any aspects possible. I work with this very wealthy family the husband was the provider and the wife was basically the stay-at-home mom who took care of the kids and everything in the house so one day the husband actually disrespected the wife even though she has a career in the Arts he disrespected her career and said that she doesn't even make that much right in front of me and everyone else who was there. Can you check out my questions please thank you

RJJ33666 · Answer

There is no issue when a man is the sole provider of the house, it becomes a problem when he starts to abuse his status as the provider. I mean, even the mother can be working person in the family, but the provider has to be conscience of their status and should not abuse their dominant status in the house.

Jjpayne · Answer

I guess it depends on his income. If it's possible to do then yes.

But I think it's smarter for both to have a job because then you could afford to do more things together. She could also enjoy having her own independent income, job experience and we could share our days. This could change maybe with being mother but overall, I think work is a healthy thing rather than sitting around all day, it gives you something to do.

SpiderManFan2002 · Answer

There’s nothing wrong with it, as long as that’s what they both want. But if the woman wants to work too, he shouldn’t force her to stay at home.

alexander3244 · Answer

As a man I don't want to have all the pressure on me, especially to buy her all she wants. I'm perfectly fine with cooking for myself and doing house chores, the only condition is to split the chores more or less equally. Most importantly, I want her to be happy, satisfied (I know what's like to do house chores, it drains your energy) and in the end of the day I want to see her in a good mood and have good time together, because that's what it is all about (no, is not just sex but intimacy and quality time).

michael1469 · Answer

Nothing as long as he is taken care of otherwise... clean house, clean clothes, etc etc...

I did that for a few relationships i was happy til thier spending was out of control. One flat out refused to work a part time job when recession hit... that royaly pissed me off, just needed 400$ a month to help make up loss of income. I dont think that was to much to ask for.

abc3643 · Answer

In this day and age, unless one member of the couple is very wealthy, you NEED two incomes. Why? Because, more than likely, one of them is going to lose their job at some point. YOU NEED TO SAVE FOR THE BAD TIMES WHICH MEANS THAT YOU NEED AS MUCH MONEY AS POSSIBLE WHICH MEANS TWO INCOMES.

TruthBringer · Answer

I don't think there is any issue with that. I'm also mainly the one paying within my relationship and I'm happy to do it. I believe it is only becoming a problem if one side wants the benefits of a traditional partner while not wanting to become traditional themselves.

clalinesuu · Answer

Nothing wrong actually. Depends on the couple, whether or not 1 person making money is enough to cover needs and wants. If not then, the wife can help out. As a girl, i prefer to work cause i’d get bored not working😄 it would be extra money to save anyways

crazyish · Answer

Nothing is wrong with it. If a couple is able to have this opportunity and they choose it, then they should. Especially if there are young kids involved. Kids get to be raised by a parent and the household gets taken care of in every aspect. It just shouldn't be expected to be this way. There are a lot of factors that prevent this from being ideal in today's society.

Tinana · Answer

The person that controls the money controls the other. Man or woman, if one is providing and the other isn’t not. It might be all lovey dovey until a fight erupts. And they make you feel like a liability for not being a financial provider. So both of them should get jobs and provide for their family

ShaTTeredMasterpeace · Answer

Nothing is wrong with it. It's just not ideal for a lot of women today. Anything can happen and I'd like to know that I could survive on my own. Not depending on someone to take care of me and then when they feel like leaving, I'm stuck with nothing. I'm good lol.

JuneLady · Answer

Ironically, the primary disadvantage is only the financial one. Less money = less bonus spending. The benefits are more practical - children receive proper attention from their mother, and the relationship actually benefits greatly from being mutually codependent as opposed to independent but involved.

MemeSupreme · Answer

i mean if it's financially do-able and isn't too much of a strain and both people agree, then there's nothing wrong with it.

it's just hard to do in today's age and it'd better if both were working so there's more money to use on the household instead of struggling

nevernevernever · Answer

nothing, but I'm guessing the argument that prompted this wasn't really about the man being the sole provider for some arbitrary reason

Agape93 · Answer

Nothing if that’s what both parties want. But it’s not for me.

REALSTEEL · Answer

well its not 1950 anymore times have changed severely cost of living went threw the roof and now it takes 2 incomes to live a nice comfortable life also it takes "A LOT OF STRESS OFF THE MAN" in a relationship its about team work doing the best for each other going out of your way to please your spouse then when children are involved its all about the best interest of the children always working together as a team

Dragonpurple · Answer

I'm all for equality, I have no issues with this or if the man wants to stay home and the woman be the sole provider.

What matters is that they both agree to it and accept it, be it both working or one not.

Fathers make great stay at home parents too.

Adam1978 · Answer

It's a problem because then everything falls apart if something happens to him. If both work, then something needs to happen to both before it falls apart if the economy is sound. So it's more security to have both working and maintaining value in the work space. Any changes coming your way will be easier to handle.

Lina26 · Answer

Times have changed. There is nothing wrong with it if you two have discussed and found is a better option and therefore agreed to it. But I dont think forcing a man to provide is the right way. As I said times have changed , life is more expensive now and needs two people to provide. Plus why depend on someone for your haircut, your manicure or whatever.

Jamie05rhs · Answer

What's wrong is he has all the power. Whoever has the money has control. It makes for an unbalanced relationship.

It also creates an economic and gender imbalance in society. Because men are competing economically with other women who are not their wives. So in order to please one woman he has to conquer another. That doesn't bode well for the working man OR the working woman.

ChrisMaster69 · Answer

Women are entitled to good careers as well.

My ex earned more than I do, and in her new job even more.

it’s down to choice.

some 6th century cultures and guys with 6th century thinking believe a married woman should not work, that they should simply cook, clean and breed.

there is zero reason a guy should be the singular provider.

for family dynamics, it’s far better to have two big wages come in rather than 1.

horribleguy17 · Answer

Nothing but sometimes it makes the women feel useless. You never know how they feel not providing for their family. I wish I could experience it first hand to see what my father went through being that he was disabled and could hardly even stand. Spent his life in a wheel chair

multiplestabwounds · Answer

Depends on the couple and if they're ok with it. As of righ now I'm the sole provider of ours.

Petermorgan34 · Answer

Nothing. But it can seriously stress a guy out if he is solely responsible for taking care of the family needs in the here and now, while also saving for retirement when only he will have $ put away and get his SS check, while his spouse would get 0$. Nothing is wrong with it, but it could be very stressful

SirJohn42 · Answer

Nothing wrong at all. I woukd love to be that. Its mice if she wants to help. But Id do everything for her. Because I was taught to be a sole provider.

betchimightbe · Answer

Nothing wrong, but trust me your kids will appreciate it a lot more if you were a dual income household. I know I wish my parents were instead of my dad being the sole provider

Anpu23 · Answer

Nothing as long as his income can match the household expenses. Problem is that for many households a single income just isn't enough. I was just offered another raise and with the pay bump Im getting my wife will be able to quit. In fact that is the plan, probably in June after we catch up on a little credit card debt.

genericname85 · Answer

whether that's wrong or not entirely depends on her part in this relationship. if she's not working, what does she do?

Open2It · Answer

Each relationship has its own dynamic, and each person in the relationship has their own role and comfort zone. That said, as long as both parties are okay with the arrangement and the family (if appropriate) is being adequately cared for, I'm okay with either being sole provider or both working.

nelly83 · Answer

If I relied on men being sole provider , then I would go for the richest man possible.

slatyb · Answer

Nothing if the partners agree. But they need to discuss it beforehand. It leaves the woman rather vulnerable,. If the partnership ends she will be entering the labor market with no work experience.

_no_one_ · Answer

With all the equality and stuff going around, i don't think that would be considered fair.

ChiTown33 · Answer

Absolutely nothing. It's just less and less feasible in this day and age.

Waldoe · Answer

here's a secret... wages stopped going up when both parents started working to support the Family... Big business increased their profits

mizakazim6996 · Answer

I’m the only one who works and wife is a stay at home but kids go to daycare. She cannot handle being with the kids so this is kinda stupid to me. If you’re staying home then shouldn’t you be taking care of the kids so there is no extra 800$ per month for kids daycare. I don’t mind being the only one to work but you would have to take care of everything at home if you aren’t working otherwise dividd the chores and get a job

JulianRoy · Answer

If he stops making money for some reason for a long time, everyone in the house is fucked.

Vickymoore9 · Answer

Nothing if his wife is taking care of their children but if they don’t have kids that’s not right.

karangill · Answer

Nothing wrong with that. But rare men are up to take such responsibility. Men have gotten lazier because women want to share responsibility, men have backed off and got excuses. Commited relationship Women complain about this all this time - their man having no purpose or responsibility.

Omar5881 · Answer

Not very safe he can always lose his job then his family will all be in jeopardy, men usually be bitter and resentful when they have all this responsibility upon their shoulders and if the the man turned out to be a bastard the women won't cope the best with the changing demands of the market

Account · Answer

If you prefer it, I have no say in it. That is your own business.

For me it doesn't work and it would never work, because I don't want to depend on anyone financially. I like being in control of my finances.

What's wrong with the man being the sole provider for a household?

Most Helpful Opinions

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

What's wrong with the man being the sole provider for a household?

Most Helpful Opinions

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

We're glad to see you liked this post.