Traditionally, men were expected to earn the money while women took care of the home. But in today’s world, gender roles are shifting.
Do you think couples still follow this old model, or are things more equal now?
Valid? Yes, if that's what a couple decides is best for their family. I also think it's equally valid if they decide it works best for their family for dad to be at home with the children. I know several families who have decided to do it this way because the wife has a career that earns more money and it works for them. Many of my friends and I consider ourselves lucky that our husbands make enough income for us to be at home moms. I worked full time until we had children. I still work full time, just not outside the home and earning an income. I think it is somewhat risky for a woman (or man) to give up being in the workforce because it is almost impossible to keep up with changes in the the work environment and effects your future earning ability. But the reality is that today it is almost impossible to make ends meet with only 1 income. If you figure in the cost of childcare and are willing to "down size" your lifestyle, it can be done. What your really don't see anymore is the wife staying home and the husband working when there are no children. Still, I think any way a couple mutually decides to arrange their life together is valid. But I do think that we have created huge problems for our society since the 1960s by routinely putting children in daycare so both parents can work.
One of the reasons that most men could support a whole family on a single income is because women were largely not in the workforce. This meant that there were far fewer workers and so those workers could command higher wages. Basic supply and demand.
One of the big reasons Feminism was so well-funded is because the Rockefellers and other industrialists donated large amounts of money to the cause, because they wanted women to enter the workforce and force down the price of labor. And that's what happened. Today, you need two incomes to live the kind of lifestyle that a single income could support in the 60s and 70s.
So, as long as most women remain in the workforce, most men aren't going to be able to afford an entire family on their own income alone. Certainly top earners will, but not the majority.
But this problem is kind of solving itself. AI is replacing huge swaths of office workers, which impacts women disproportionately. Plus, the collapsing birthrate means that there is going to be a huge shortage of blue-collar workers, so tradesmen will be expensive and backed way up. Your leaking pipe might take 6 weeks to repair, IF you have the $2500 to pay for it.
Office jobs have only just begun to be eliminated - mostly tech jobs because they are more comfortable with the technology, but it's coming for most office jobs and most artistic jobs. And so a large percentage of women are going to be cut out of the workforce (men too, but most men can transition to more blue collar type jobs).
Over 1 million office jobs have been eliminated in the last two years, but that's just the beginning. AI is a reality and it won't stop.
Well it depends on the marriage many of them seem to be a fantasy of staying home will be easy. The husband does all the working, then comes home to cook dinner, clean the house, etc. Not all of them are like that and when these narcissistic women find out that being a stag at home mom is harder then it looks they do nothing but bitcj about it. Making the good ones look bad.
If the man’s making good financial income to the point where her working a job wouldn’t make much difference especially if it’s lower end jobs that pay much less. Then it can work better atuxally. Not because she can’t work or won’t work if she needed to. But simply because she can take care of her kids and husband at home.
There are wives who do almost all the housework, childcare (spending time with the kids should be equal) and everything else. Not saying the husbands don’t pitch in sometimes but they’re not required to. They even take care of things like mowing the lawn. They also don’t spend all their husbands money financially they are responsible. They budget and manage the money.
If you just want to stay home and have a easy wife. Don’t waste a man’s time because I promise it’s not as easy as it looks if you do it right.
Keep in mind too. Everyone’s looking for something different put of a relationship. It matters if both people are happy and it’s a healthy relationship.
Every marriage can look different even more traditional marriages can look differently. So finding someone compatible.
People who hate on others marriages though are mostly envious people. But it’s perfectly fine if that’s what both people agree on.
@summeroflove Thank you for that acknowledgment! If done right it is a 24/7 job. And I wouldn't have it any other way. I love it.
@Caroline91 that’s exactly what it is the hate on stay at home moms isn’t really fair. Yes, there is narcissistic women (and men too) who have a fantasy idea of what this lifestyles like. They become very let’s just say resentful when it’s not as glamorous and easy as they thought it would be.
@Caroline91 the ones where the wives stay home when done right is a 24/6/365 job. Both spouses are working equally as hard in separate roles. All marriages should be EQUAL…. But equal may look different for different marriages such as having different roles.
I agree this type of marriage isn’t for everyone. Many times it’s a situation where both the man and woman have discussed this that they are both on the same page of wanting this.
If they wife can work and absolutely would go to work if she ever needed to. But if they get to a point where the husband is making enough money to where the wife’s income wouldn’t make much of a difference anymore especially if she’s working a much lower wage job.
Then it can absolutely be beneficial especially when the children are young to have the wife staying home taking care of the children. Doing the housework. Doing simple maintenance repairs. Mowing the lawn. Balancing the budget (not just blowing money)
Especially if the husbands working a lot
Of hours and is mentally and physically stressed out. Then this honestly helps the husband a lot more in my opinion then the wife working all day and coming home exhausted and not making half the income he is.
@Caroline91 now let me say that men and women with good intentions need to be VERY careful. I’m all for prenups. Obviously most people (except dark personality’s) plan on divorcing someone. But it’s sort of a insurance policy and trust policy for both people.
If on one hand the wife refuses a prenuptial agreement. What can happen is that she sits on her ass all day and ends up taking half everything she never worked for.
But it also happens where the husband leaves ZERO protection for the wife. So if he up and leaves her she’s homeless with a decade or more of no work experience.
So there should be protection for BOTH spouses if anything should happen. So neither one screws the other over.
@Caroline91 now for some marriages it may look like the wife not working until the kids are a certain age. Some marriages may look like the wife never works a paying job until she dies of old age.
As for other marriages sone women may work from home, run a small business, or work part time jobs. But that again what’s right for one couple maybe isn’t for another.
@Caroline91 but those bad examples of women are a real shame and a insult to the women who genuinely love their husband and kids. Who work their ass off.
To have women who make it seem like it’s just baking bread, taking your kids to the park, and doing whatever you want to do all day while blowing your husbands money away.
Because that’s not all stay st home moms.
*most people DO NOT plan on divorce I mean
@summeroflove I have actually made it my career. I have taken child development and nutrition classes. I also serve on the Boards of Directors of two non profit community service organizations and do volunteer work in the community, using my university degree in Communication and Public Policy. It is all arranged around the needs of my husband and children. I am the family executive. He earns the primary income and shares in child care and work around the house as time permits. I ensure we all have a clean, orderly, peaceful home and family life. He is my rock, I am his refuge. Equally important roles. He’s the left wing of the bird, I am the right wing and, with us both strong, we soar. No, we don’t have a prenup, but we have things in place so we are both protected in case of something unexpected. We also have integrity and commitment. I know there are people who will consider me naive. At least I am not jaded. The truth is the best laid plans can go awry. I won’t live my life worrying about it. An airplane could fall out of the sky on me too.
@Caroline91 not everyone needs a prenup it sounds like a healthy relationship. But in modern times I can’t blame new couples for wanting premup agreements.
@Caroline91 and you’re right if you’re working equally as hard as one another just in different roles. You’re both loyal. Genuinely love one another. That’s what counts
Obviously if a time ever came where you needed to work. You could and would. But if he’s making enough income to support the whole family. I can understand it being better.
I get not all families are financially able to do this. But instead of you both exhausted after a long day. You both are supporting one another
I think it's perfectly fine so long as both people are genuinely comfortable in their roles, and both have some sort of fallback in case something were to happen. You could just as easily reverse the roles and it would still be reasonable given the same provisions.
(By fallback I mean like, both people still have independent access to money, the ability to get some form of employment (ex. having pursued a degree or side business), knowledge of how to cook and clean on a basic level, emotional support networks like family and friends, etc. This isn't just in case of divorce, but also things like illness or death of a spouse.)
On a practical level it's definitely more difficult now just because of how the economy and means of production are structured.
Opinion
55Opinion
What do you mean by valid?
Is it reasonable? Not really. Costs are now made to suit two incomes, not one. Living costs like housing especially. I think its more fair to blame capitalistic pursuit of profits on this than anything else but it is certainly a result of women enmasse joining the workforce. Expect everything that can be exploited for money to be so.
In a more individual basis? For my own age women tend to be better educated and have a higher income. This is only going to increase in the next several years and unless we do another sweeping reform like the school reform to make education better for women - which succeeded but perhaps should have accounted for the costs that making it maladapted for boys would have as well - we will only see this gap increase.
So quite realistically women should get used to being the better educated and breadwinners in the future. A shift of mentality most men and women are slow to accept even as society has already changed.
All of this said, we are society. If we want to enable a single-income household again then as a collective we can. Incredibly difficult to do of course, but at the end of the day perfectly doable.
Two incomes of a couple that works fast food or at a grocery store maybe
Not really. About a 10% deposit on a house is normal. With a fairly common 40-50K after taxes, meaning an average US salary above median - read above normal- income and putting away 10% for a normal house price of 550K it takes you 11 years to earn the deposit. A more aggressive 20% halves it but you are still nowhere near pre-women in the workforce days of 2 years. To reach 2 years you need two incomes - and even then it is further off.
I am quite privileged myself but society can not be viewed from a lense of only those having it easy.
@Effably
people tend to marry those on their level of socioeconomic status. The poor marry the poor, the rich marry the rich. Society very much over exaggerates how rich men want to marry poor women. In reality, it rarely ever happens. Rich men usually end up marrying rich women. Such in a case where he is worth 50million whiles she is worth 5 million.
In a case of 1 spouse working in fast food, it would usually be more advantageous for wife to stay home with the kids so they can lower their income level in order to qualify for food stamps / welfare. The kids usually grow up to be just as broke and deadbeat as the parents. Thats why I would never recommend financially unstable couples to reproduce
I actually largely agree with you.
However when the trend is broken it is overwhelmingly the man who is the higher performer. And in most cases, although we can certainly attribute this to the more male-dominated history of work even in a similar socioeconomic standing the man historically is performing a little better.
This all boils down to our genetics, funnily enough. Not something that makes men superior! But rather the fact that mal to female birth ratios are not actually 50-50 but rather between 50-54 to men and 50 to 46 for women. In other words, our species produces "spare men" every generation.
I do think we might need new solutions for those less well off. Having children is rather important for the continuation of society, albeit I admit mostly for the economic aspect.
Measuring human success by ability to gain money is silly to me and hints at a misunderstanding of... basically our entire world.
@Effably
the truth is.. the rich look down on the poor. The rich know there is NO ADVANTAGE to marrying someone who is poor. With wealth, comes power/connections/ perks/ and a lot of rich men don't want poor people to be marrying them "just for the lifestyle upgrade".
The reason why deadbeat parents raise deadbeat children is because kids need resources in order to develop and thrive. This is why rich parents are always fighting to send their kids to the best schools, investing millions into education, going to prestigious colleges.
I see your reasoning but I assure you men do not really see it that way. Someone's social ability is more important than wealth. Of course, likes attract more than opposites. But all of this isn't particularly meaningful to the original question. Women are already outperforming men and it is going to increase.
@Effably
It's no secret that rich people often marry other rich people. Studies show that about 80% of wealthy individuals end up with partners from similar financial backgrounds.
h ttps://www. millionairematch. com/dating-tips/rich-marry-rich#:~:text=It%27s%20no%20secret%20that%20rich, partners%20from%20similar%20financial%20backgrounds.
High-income people in the US keep marrying each other, and it’s exacerbating inequality
h ttps://qz. com/work/1812980/high-income-people-in-the-us-keep-marrying-each-other
Like I said, we largely agree. I am simply highlighting that when people marry outside their own "group" it tends to overwhelmingly be women marrying up.
And as for the vast majority of people women are now better educated and earning more money.
Which does mean the oldschool marriage model is not realistic as a standard model anymore.
@Effably
If you want my total honest opinion, women SHOULD marry up
When a woman marries up, it makes motherhood and housework easier for her
What is happening right now is that women aren't happy being married, which is why they initiate 70% of all divorces
You may ask why are they so disatisfied?
Its because when poor to lower middle class women marry men who are on a similar socioeconomic level, she needs to work a low paying job while coming home to do 90% of the child care and housework
There was actually a research study conducted that proved married mothers did more housework than single mothers.
Child care and housework still remains primarily a womans duty Despite the fact most mothers work jobs.
Womens lives have gotten harder
Financially well off men can hire nannies and maids to assist their wives. Women who marry poor men become literal nannies, maids while they also have to clock in at their jobs at McDonald's.
Career women married to financially well off men can afford to take a few years off work to stay home to care for kids. Poor women cannot.
It's getting less valid over time. What allowed that stay at home mom option was a strong middle class. For a short time, a man could earn enough to buy a home, a car, maybe a vacation once a year, and allow a woman to stay at home with her children when they needed a parent most.
But the middle class has been under unquestionable assault in the USA by wealthy Oligarchs since the Reagan "Conservatism" sold the morons of this country on "Trickle Down Economics" in the 1980's. Today, a couple are both working 2 jobs in a gig economy, homes cost 10X - 20X average combined incomes. College education costs $200K each. A new car costs $40K. And daycare can cost $2K/mo per child.
Society has failed the current generation of young people. They have no hope of having the same sort of life their parents had. They can't afford kids. They are renting or still living with their parents.
Meanwhile the Heritage Foundation is executing Project 2025 with the useful orange Idiot in the White House giving tax breaks to Billionaires and Corporations while removing any government support and raising taxes on the middle class and poor.
And people keep voting to screw themselves with this insanity.
It all depends on the two people involved. But 90% of it is what you want.
-do you want to be a equal?
-do you want to have a say in making decisions?
-do you want to buy whatever you want without being told what you can buy (with everything)?
Then you are looking for a equal partner/teammate and you need to get a job and work.
OR
-Do you want your man to pay all the bills?
-do you want the freedom to stay at home all day?
-do you want to just take care of the house and kids, and let your man take care of everything?
Then you are looking for a provider and to be a house wife. But, remember staying at home and not working you give up the right to -make decisions that involve money. -the right to buy whatever you want with everything, as somethings he will only want you to get pacific things and it is his hard earned money not yours. And that's the trouble women want a relationship that they can have it all. But only 1-3% of men will give all that to you.
What ever kind of relationship you are looking for be open and honest with it.
It can be. I could afford to. I'm not going to pick a girl based on what she earns and if a broke waitress has the character/personality traits I want ten I would marry her. As I earn more I expect to pay most everything. Her waitressing money can be her pin money.
If I earn't 2, 3 or 5 times more by hour than she does, than from a household income perspective, it would be economic for her to work an hour less if it enabled me to work an hour more. Making dinner or lunch for example. If you are married it is household income that matters.
It is more plausible for contractors if you set up a company and both you and your wife work for the company. You can save a lot of tax dollars that way because you split what the guy earns across both.
A lot of tradies do this. The wife handles incoming calls and handles the books. Say gross income is 100,000 but split across both they pay two lots of tax on 50,000. Depending on tax scales that can be a big tax saving. Depends on your countries tax regime.
I asked a question on this a while ago and about 50% of girls liked the idea whilst the other 50% didn't and preferred to work for a work husband who gave them orders.
A lot of girls didn't get the idea of income splitting though and thought it tax fraud but it is not. Family business typically do this.
Valid? Yes. But definitely becoming a minority.
I think this is ONE of the many problems with the dating scene. Women are absolutely NOT on the same page in the role of a woman. And before you get pissed off at that statement, I ain't trying to tell you what the roles of a woman is. I'm simply saying that you got women that are polar opposites when it comes to what they consider a role of a woman to be. So you got some women that feel it's a man's duty to essentially adopt her, and care for her. And then you have women that feel they are absolute equals in every way to a man. And then you have the wide swath of women in between. And to make things even worse. Even with the women who want complete equality? Not when it comes to courting. A man I still supposed to do all 5he work there in her mind. To her, equality does not mean that. And even that isn't that bad. But even though she's perfectly capable of voicing what she wants from a man. She'd rather he read her mind and figure it out. Even though I just explained the wide swath of women nowadays. And what she asks is virtually impossible.
I can't imagine why guys have just decided to bench themselves.😆😆😆
It won't work today because due steady real wage dumping most men don't earn enough to offer decent life quality in this old model with just one bread winner. Bringing women in workforce had significant impact on lowering of real wages. It's less a social issue this doesn't work today but financial one. However most women alone will have troubles to raise children, to work and to sustain level of life quality without child support. That's why this system is good for people interesting in lowering wages but very bad for demographic and socio-economy.
Wage slaves don't want giving birth to children.
Regardless of traditional gender roles, single income homes are challenging enough. Single income families are even more so. If either parent doesn’t go out into the workforce, they almost always have to have some sort of home-based income potential. Even part-time, flexible hours gigs are less than helpful unless they provide daycare or are child friendly. Those sorts of jobs rarely pay well enough to offset the cost of childcare. Most people have to work, including many retirement age folks. So too few people can go to work while their rugrats go to grammy & grampy’s house for free.
It may not seem so, but you still have a lot of women that are traditional wives and follow traditional gender roles. Where they take care of the home and family, and the husband works and pays the bills.
The media is silent about how many women left the job market after the covid19 lockdown ended. Both low level and high level, women left to either take care of homes and family or to start families. For all the bs that the lockdown, it showed a lot of people what was really important in life.
No, no it's not for multiple reasons but the biggest one is the economy. We live in a world where 90% of us will never own a house and we'd be lucky to even be able to rent one and almost nobody wants to or can afford to start a family. These days with how bad the economy is a household almost always needs two incomes just to keep a family of two running and sheltered. Woman who are single here's some advice to immediately end that.
Step 1. Approach us instead of us approaching you.
Step 2. Lower your standards to reasonable not low, reasonable, because a lot of y'all are overweight or have bad personalities and expect to pull a guy with a 6 figure income.
step 3. Go Dutch and pay for your half of the bill.
If you do these three things your dating options will be near endless.
Me personally wouldn’t mind that but unfortunately with the economy today it’s harder to do unless he makes a shit ton of money and can pay for everything. And she is willing to be on a tight budget , and doesn’t have spending problems like most females’ do. Unfortunately females’ are the reason things are like this today because of women’s Liberation , that demanded that women can be independent and have jobs etc. So women pretty much dug their own hole with this shit by wanting to be equal to men , causing less jobs and causing the cost of things to rise , if females’ kept their mouths shut , they could of just stayed home while the men worked and the cost of things wouldn’t be as bad as it is today.
With the way the economy is looking today, it's highly unrealistic unless the husband is making well over 100k a year. Making at least twice the income of two people. And with kids it's probably way more than 150k a year.
I was just talking with my bestie about this. Most people today aren't living by themselves to make it. They are either staying at home with parents, have roommates, or working along with their spouse.
It's just not realistic in this economy for the wife not to be working in most cases.
I would love to be a SAHM, but the likelihood of that happening is slim to none unless I snag a doctor, lawyer, tech guy, or someone who owns a very successful business.
You must have unrealistically high standards of living to think 100k is the minimum requirement for this
1 child cost around $17k alone. Add 2 more to that and you have $51k a year just for the kids. This doesn't include the two adults in the house which would add another $64K equaling over $100k. You have to think about all the needs of the children and then all the needs of the adults in this economy. Cars are not cheap. Rent is not cheap or mortgages. Insurance is not cheap either. And you are thinking about putting insurance down for not just you but each individual living in the house. All thay adds up. And I didn't even get started on all the other expenses like gas, electricity, groceries, etc. It adds up trust me. And I did get this from ChatGPT.
That would mean you spend 1,416 dollars a month just to have one kid, thats about how much it costs to take care of me and my fiance monthly. You need to lower your expectations for transportation cause ain't no way in hell im spending that much on a car. The car im driving right now i bought for 3,500 dollars on marketplace and I've put 3k in it in the 4 years I've driven it. As for rent, if you have never been in debt (like me) you can get certain loans other people can't to buy property which that alone saves tens of thousands of dollars in rent. I will however factor in that startup costs for the child may be around 17k to get the home ready.
So, yes it is possible to have a traditional family with the husband making less than 100k a year. Personally i make around 47k a year so im not making the best money but i get a full dollar raise when i get raises so i expect that will change.
It's possible but not realistic for the majority of people in this economy especially when you factor in debt which many have. You are speaking from your personal experience but I know several people who are struggling off 50k a year and they live with parents or roommates. I can't even imagine kids added to that equation.
It can be still viable. First, we must eliminate mass migration and it depresses wages. Second, our government needs to make sure our trade deals help our citizens. Lastly, there needs to be tax breaks for families.
Trump is doing all three of these and it can create the economy that allows people to make more money, afford a home and a family. It can be done. It is being done.
Mass migration benefits the wealthy, large corporations and some politicians. You have been lied to by the Democrats and some of you believe that crap. Wake up.
i'd say for the top 20-30% or incomes, that's still viable. but the cost of living vs the inflation of wages today invalidtes that model for pretty much the rest. it's not that things have gotten "more equal". it's just that the vast majority of jobs that need physical strength are outsourced to other countries and that jobs that women can actually do as well as men are most prevalent today. the physical and biological differences haven't changed at all. so men would still be better at these jobs today but today most jobs are in the service industry. that's why it is even possible for most women to work. i still don't see female construction workers, road workers, plumbers and mechanics. that shit is still the same as it was 100 years ago.
No Its not valid under most circumstances but it depends on the couple too. I don’ t think things are equal as society still pushes that standard in some way or form, its still the man is still expected to pay for everything, and help take care of the home too now. But there is no expectation for the woman to help out financially. I think this is why most young men prefer to stay single longer in order to to find a the right woman who is on board with combining joint efforts to ensure a better financial outlook for the whole family, while both taking care of the home together.
Absolutely not. Most people are working multiple jobs just to survive. The economy has changed since the prosperity of the 1950s when a guy was paid enough to raise a family, with a nice car and a house. Heck, minimum wage at the time could buy a vehicle with a summer job, but nowadays, minimum wage barely affords groceries.
Society can not go on an outdated standard of society. Not only has the economy changed, but also the mentality & habits of society when it comes to dating & romance... some could say in a very toxic & self-destructive way.
Yes, but under two conditions --
-- she lets me do all the household chores, cooking and cleaning
-- she's willing to consider a one sided open relationship, in which I remain strictly faithful and exclusive to her while she enjoys the freedom to date other guys whenever she wants
They may have less income, but not only is it a valid choice, it is the best choice. That is especially true if they have children, who are nurtured and home-schooled instead of being sent to daycare and public schools, where they are indoctrinated instead of educated.
Most men would happily pay the bills for their wife. But most men don't have the kind of income to support that kind of lifestyle. And that's why woman have to work nowadays.
Feminism has allowed you to work for yourselves and earn the same amount as men. However, because of that there is now a society that needs woman to work as it has adapted to account for women.
Depends on where you live. Things have changed for sure but some couples still prefer to follow that because they believe it balances things out. Someone to look after the kid while the father is at work. My last ex wanted us to marry me and didn't want me to work as he was financially very well off.
Valid in what sense? People can still choose to take on that lifestyle if they want, but it’s no longer necessary like it was 50 years ago. Women can choose not to do that, and often prefer not to. Men also prefer the women also work so they can have a larger shared income.
100% yes it can definitely be possible for couples who are good at managing their finances. My relationship as well as everyone on both mine and my husbands side of the family the man is the provider and the woman stays home and cares for the house even if they dont have kids.
It is valid for some, just as the model is valid where the man stays at home and the woman works (like one of my close friends)! Or the model where both work, such as my household. Whatever works for the couple is best, even if it changes as they age together.
m I don't know about validity, but I can tell that it inspires no one around me, I even wonder if that ever inspired anyone in my surroundings. As a kid, no adults I remember followed this model except my grand-parents, and I was a kid 40 years ago.
Not really. In today's economy it's hard to maintain such lifestyle based on only one income unless a man is very rich or smth. Also that kind of lifestyle always ends up in abuse cos men start viewing their spouse as a maid and demand unrealistic maintenance of house and family. Men are also under a lot of stress and pressure to earn and provide as much as they can and always end up feeling burnt out and totally not enough. And Ngl I've never seen happy couple with this dynamic.
Nope! They wanted RIGHTS, so Equal rights, Equal fights, right? Now i know what you saying, but the way the "world changed", is no point to bust your ass for SO if he/she stays at home and finds "its way" with someone else, while you're at work and providing...🤷♂️
Hahahaha... Now that's Funny 😂😂😂👏👍
Most couples don't but I do like of being a stay at home wife. As a woman who likes to be in charge of house chores I often find it challenging to do the cooking, cleaning, laundry and a full time job all at the same time. If I could just stay at home taking care of the house I would feel fulfilled.
Much less now. Even when I was a kid in the 70s ALL my family and extended family had both parents who worked. It's a myth too that women were "forced" to stay in the home because that was ONLY middle classes who could even think like that. Sure when children were born it tended to be mothers staying home to run the house but only for a few years then it was back on the rat race.
Valid more than ever with declining birth rates and culture.
There is a massive culture shift upcoming where the so called high value men are going for women who want to be SAHMs and have children instead of careers.
Career women and no so high value men are left out and funnily enough they probably don't want each other either.
Nature always has a way of going back to default settings.
This was such a brief urban/suburban “marriage model”. Preindustrial wives helped around the family farm/ranch. They weren’t inside the home mixing stew and watching the family fire burn all day. Same with even young kids. They were outside helping run the farm/ranch at 4 years of age (sometimes earlier) even it amounted to nothing more than helping feed the livestock and garden.
Equality and gender has nothing to do with it at all. That is just someone trying to say look here while I do this over there. Today both partners have to work to be able to afford a good living unless one or both were born with a silver spoon. It is all economics….
It still can happen, I was in a similar set up.. but I got bored of being at home so I left to become a grown up who can take care of myself without having to depend on a guy to treat you nice and give you things.
Women do this at high risk, because if the marriage ends they have no marketable skills are will be trying to support themselves on an entry-level job. Not fun at 40 with children.
I have no idea why people say this, it’s honestly extremely devaluing to the work literally required to actually run a home. You can gain valuable marketable skills outside of a college degree !
Maintaining a home requires organization, patience, time, discipline, and emotional intelligence.
@caitycat21 I didn't say that running a home and raising children is not work. But those skills don't have high value in the job market. Even with some experience, if one has not been working for ten years they will have a hard time getting a new position that values those skills.
I know you aren’t saying running a home and raising children don’t require work, I’m pushing back on the idea that you raised of it not being highly marketable work.
I agree it can be difficult to enter the job market as someone lacking recent job experience but managing a household is work, if someone was hired to handle all the cleaning, scheduling, budgeting, caregiving - that would be considered skilled labor would it not? Just because you aren’t being paid for it doesn’t make a difference. If you’re smart enough to know how to translate that to create a compelling resume you’ll be pretty competitive in the job market.
@caitycat21 I think that's rather optimistic. What positions would she be able to get beyond entry level work?
Kadın Why do women become traditional women when they don't work? Educated women, self-improved women, do they become traditional when they are housewives? Come on, don't be ridiculous, it's very hard to be a housewife.
If he makes more money and you both have agreed on it, but I think with the cost of everything and how everything is you almost need both partners working
Only the wealthiest 3% of married couples in the USA can even think about that model these days. That era is gone, and you can thank Ronnie Reagan and his trickle-down bullshit for that.
Some do and some don't. Most do not though. Most men don't want the responsibility of being a sole provider, and most women don't think their man is capable nor willing.
No. Even if you think that is a good family structure, I dont, but regardless its irrelevant because the current economy requires a both parents to work for a decent quality of living.
Women wanted to work so now the cost of living is higher companies are used to higher profit margins, raised taxes and end of year financial gains that having one person take the brunt is heavy duty.
That wasn't every really a practical model for anyone but the uber rich and only for a brief window of time. Men and women have always been both working their tails off to keep homes stable
I think expecting that isn't valid, and in today's economy most men will never pull that off; but a guy choosing to do it? People can do whatever they want.
If you both want that, it’s absolutely valid. But women shouldn’t be forced into that model if they don’t want to be.
I would need to laugh at the GAG housewife obsession.
Housewives pretty much DO NOT EXIST anymore.
The only time where housewives do exist is when couples are too broke to support children and can't afford to hire a nanny.
LOL, you're confused.
That was an idealist family model. Women DID work, and men did do housework in some cases as well.
If you want to be a stay at home mom and you guys can afford to do it that way then go for it it's perfectly valid if you have the means.
depends on what the couple wants ideally that works best this way your children stay safe
That never was valid. In the Proverbs, it tells you a good woman is supposed to work for a living and be a business owner too.
For the average couple, it's like using a VCR to play movies, or a cassette player to play music.
no. i like to have an actual life and make a difference in the world with my career. and no way in hell that old traditional way work today unless the husband was making like 200k.
The major thing is that for at least 4 months before giving birth a woman is basically unable to earn or look after herself and then again for months after
More equal with some, not so much with others...
Yes, it's still a valid model but doesn't apply as universally as it used to do in the past.
Rarely. Housing costs make that model pretty difficult for most couples in a large swath of the USA.
Men no longer want to support a woman who doesn't work. And even if they did, who would support her after a divorce? Women who rely on men and enter into traditional marriages should think carefully—they could end up penniless in the end.
Good question hard to answer. I can't, I think it all depends.
On the financials . But I do believe it can still be worked out that way
If the woman chooses to stay home. Have to find balances
Not at all, the cost of living has grown to such a ridiculous level that both people have to work. The only way the woman can stay at home is if the guy is extremely wealthy
The times were better when that was the norm. Total chaos exists today.
Valid: yes to those who like it.
But it now has a strong competition in alternatives.
Of course. But it requires the wife to live within her husband's means. And yes... especially wealthy men want frugal wives.
Still valid just not very practical in today's economy where most families can't survive on one income alone.
You can also add your opinion below!
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 
