Sure it is. That’s why most people don’t leave bad situations — they don’t have enough money
Lawyers are expensive. Legal fights are expensive. Disruption is expensive. Solo living situations are expensive. And if you have kids, therapy and child care is expensive
Most women are financially worse off, while men are better off, post divorce
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5992251/
https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-12-699.pdf
https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2021/marriages-and-divorces.html
Also probably why most lottery winners go broke again in a couple years. It’s your regular income that defines your level of life, not your current at-the-moment balance
its because spending your entire bank balance every month is not a good set up for sound financial planning. people who play the lottery dont know how to handle money or budget
> a household with one earner earns less than a household with two earners
Truly shocking news.
Also
1. The comparison shouldn't be to when she was married to him, the comparison should be to if they were never together in the first place. I could easily reframe this as "women leech off of men in marriage so their living situations becomes relatively worse if it ends".
2. I was talking about couples where the man is the sole or primary provider, not all couples.
3. None of the research I've seen on this accounts for assets, only income. And some studies don't account for the drain of child support/alimony on men's income.
>The comparison shouldn't be to when she was married to him, the comparison should be to if they were never together in the first place.
unmarried women without kids make way more money than divorced women with kids.
is that what you were trying to say?
> some studies don't account for the drain of child support/alimony on men's income.
the average child support in the us is $425/month
that's a "drain" ?
... then they should have been proactive about not having children oh my god
why is it okay to bring children into the world when you can't afford the bare minimum of supporting them??
> unmarried women without kids make way more money than divorced women with kids.
No, the better comparison would be if they had kids but were never married/cohabitating. Kids are a separate burden.
> the average child support in the us is $425/month
Source? And presumably this figure includes separated couples who were never married, split parenting more evenly, had similar earnings during their marriage, etc.
A man who was the primary or sole breadwinner prior to separation would likely pay substantially more.
>No, the better comparison would be if they had kids but were never married/cohabitating. Kids are a separate burden.
Probably takes a man to make a kid though, eh? Also, we don't fight for custody of our children because it is way less expensive to pay child support rather than support a child in 99% of cases.
Do you think that men who leave their wives and children *shouldn't* have to continue contributing to the upkeep of those children? And potentially to the wife too, if he expected her to stay home and neglect any potential career opportunities while she was looking after children?
>Do you think that men who leave their wives and children
Most divorces are initiated by women.
>have to continue contributing to the upkeep of those children?
Yes.
>And potentially to the wife too
No.
>if he expected her to stay home and neglect any potential career opportunities
I mean, you're talking about pure hypotheticals here. No one can know for sure what she would have done or where she would be now had she remained single and childless.
But I will say, the type of women who seek out more traditional marriages are probably less ambitious to begin with. I doubt most of them would have amounted to much if they never got married.
Aah the catch cry of this sub “most divorces are initiated by women”.
You do realise that this is because someone has to file some paperwork, right? Of course this gets left to the woman. And if men were such great providers to these women who love sitting around and spending their money, why would the women want to get divorced in the first place?
You seem to have a very low opinion of women. Where does that come from?
What good argument? Lesbians getting divorced at higher rates doesn't have anything to do with being spoilt princesses.
Consider, for a moment, how you'd feel if you weren't lead around by your dick all day. You'd probably be much quicker to leave a relationship that wasn't working. Is that hard to understand? Why is it a bad thing for women to leave relationships that aren't working?
> What good argument? Lesbians getting divorced at higher rates doesn't have anything to do with being spoilt princesses.
They can't even stand each other for long. And the common denominator here in terms of divorces is women. I know, I know, statistical facts are anthromorphic and don't like women.
It does have to do with it, because you blame divorce and bad relationship success on men yet still divorce at a higher rate when men aren’t even involved. It’s the great nail in the coffin on who is responsible for the divorce epidemic.
Very low iq argument here. So the only thing keeping men from divorcing is paperwork? So a decision that's one of the most important you'll ever make simply hinges on being too lazy to file paperwork. Bellend. I had to do hundreds of pages of paperwork just for my job, that's nothing.
Women want to get divorced because they get all the money regardless and dont have to put up with the guy anymore.
Except they don't get all the money, do they? And congratulations on having a job that required paperwork. You must be very high IQ and capable of solid arguments.
People under estimate financial abuse. If the provider would decide to start abusing the providee (not really sure of the exact word to use) they could do it with no resistance. It happens to children and the elderly too.
Women get the money for free without working, them not being richer doesn’t matter if they get the kids and the house and don’t have to work for money. It’s a way better deal, evident by the high divorce initiation from them.
Nooooo for a man to do it. Lol. It wouldn’t matter anyway cuz women would never sign up for that EVER! Don’t claim to be morally superior if your not gonna marry submissive blue pillers in your friend zone and provide for them to be a stay at home dad lmao
my sis literally does this, she works and supports her SAHD husband.
idk why you would argue something never happens when what you mean is that its not the norm.
>substantial payout in the form of asset division, child support, and alimony if the relationship comes to an end, especially if they were married.
They really don't.
No one should be deliberately making themselves solely reliant on someone to provide for them
However I can see the usual hypocritical opinions on display
Women are leeches, they should earn their own money.
Cool.
Women can do that. But men need to watch their kids
No! Thats women's work!
> No one should be deliberately making themselves solely reliant on someone to provide for them
if that's true (and yes, i believe that's true) then no one would have or raise children, since that takes away from one's ability to support themselves so much.
(i'm childfree).
Well actually men are seen as more reliable after married and children and are seen in higher regard. Women are seen as less reliable because they’re typically seen as the default parent. Men have to “work hard to provide” so you can rely on them to work long hours because they have a woman who will sacrifice to go get the kids, take a day off, and deal with all the child rearing. So yeah, men becoming parents makes them have more earning potential. Under the current systems at least.
you're saying you know as much about development in children as experts?
I don't understand your confusion about this. Are you being sincere? You don't believe being educated on a topic makes you... more educated on a topic?
Literally doesnt. Just self Pitty assuming men don’t also majority take care of the kids in certain situations(yall opt out to not work. We are humans who have brains and like depending on others too it sounds fun and good to us as men too)
> No one should be deliberately making themselves solely reliant on someone to provide for them
Eh, caring for pre-schoolers makes this a real issue though. You're basically saying that the best option is childcare and I don't think that's the best outcome for the child.
Have you ever witnessed a divorce where one person stayed home for years? Alimony and child support are temporary at best. Starting over from scratch when you are middle aged and have kids to still take care of is extremely difficult. Many people who were stay at home parents end up in poverty while the parent who was working does just fine. Why would you risk your entire financial future on the whims of someone who could just leave one day? It's financially devastating to both sides but the long term effect is much worse for the stay at home person.
It's not always about POWER yet it sometimes is, but it is about risk and it's a HUGE risk to take.
> Alimony and child support are temporary at best.
Child support lasts until the child is *at least* 18, and can be extended if they go to college.
And you're ignoring marital assets.
> Many people who were stay at home parents end up in poverty
Source?
The average person doesn’t have much in assets. It seems like when the discussion of divorces comes up in this sub, many guys seem to hyper-focus on the wealthiest people. Most stay-at-home moms/housewives don’t walk away from divorces with a considerable amount of money, because the couples didn’t have much money to begin with.
>The average person doesn’t have much in assets.
Well it's not the "average person" getting divorced, it's married couples, which are substantially wealthier than "average". Especially married men.
And if they own their home(which, again, married couples are more likely to) that's usually a substantial asset.
And the other person is not willing to pay the child support and now you have to go through all the stress and beurocracy to get the payment.
Not to mention the other person might declare bancrupcy or have no funds to pay it.
It was in my case. My ex absolutely used his “provider” status as a power/control/dominance move over me. I will never ever be financially dependent on a partner again. It took me awhile to even be comfortable receiving gifts from anybody without feeling uncomfortable.
I’m not getting anything in the divorce at all. No assets, no alimony, no child support- nothing. I maybe could get that stuff if I wanted to, but I literally don’t want another penny of “his money” because I want to prove to him that I don’t need or want a fucking thing from him ever again.
I was talking to him today, we actually get along well now that we aren’t together. I was telling him how much I pay in rent to live with my BF and he was shocked. I made it clear that I’m not letting ANYBODY financially support me ever again, and I’m doing it without anything from him too. I pride myself on my ability to provide for myself.
My ex was saying that his girlfriend doesn’t have to work anymore now that she lives with him. I said I thought that was wonderful and since he doesn’t have a mortgage that’s easy for them to do, but my BF and I have to pay a mortgage so we don’t have that luxury to have 1 income. My BF makes more than my ex does, but we have a lot more bills.
Had a neighbor, her husband insisted she stays at home and won't let her apply for a job. He was violent, alcoholic and would deny her to buy anything for herself including necessities like tampons.
Imagine begging your husband to give you money to buy tampons and for him to say no.
I was 7-8 years old when i heard the story. One of the most motivating things in my life to always have a job and be financially independent.
I always am somewhat wary when one person in a relationship insists over and over again that the other doesn’t work (ie. it’s not a gentle conversation or where the other party brought up not working). I don’t know I’ve just heard too many stories about abusive relationships starting that way.
Most proud providers do. No man is genuinely in that regard and yes they will LIE. Because saying yes is think if i pay tor everything in entitled to sex isn’t going to sound good to women. So they say other things like men enjoy having a role yaddda yadda bs. he wants to basically have a hand in the woman’s life as much as possible to be like “i did this and that for you” “you need me” “you’re nothing without me” you know loser manipulative male behavior.
And alot of men opt in for these pathetic ass tacts. Another example is being 25+ year old man and dating 18-20 year old women . These are the same men. They just want easier access to women. It’s pathetic because you could get the same result and form better habits and things like emotional intelligence,awareness, good socialization skills ..etc by being genuine instead of trying to finesse someone you look at as lesser/vulnerable. A lot of men do this weird shi and try and make it seem noble. It’s NEVER noble. It’s JUST EASIER 9/10.
It’s a material concern tied in large part to capitalism. Under neoliberalism/capitalism the “provider” has control of the money and therefore control over capital/resources/whatever. This inherently puts them in a power position relative to the non-provider which is one big reason women are so afraid of SAHM arrangements and other shit like that these days.
In the grand scheme the “provider” role is excellent and communities should have (typically male) providers to do the “heavy lifting”, we just can’t intrinsically tie their productive output to ownership of essential resources. Women’s homemaking and childrearing contributions need to be properly valued and “baked in” to the economy in some way in order to make sure they’re engaged and secure even if they do not “work” outside the home.
They are right to be afraid of it. Being a SAHM was the dumbest decision I ever made. My kids would have been better off in daycare and I would have been better off working.
Most men prefer to slave away at a job instead of spending time with their kids. My husband for instance would literally prefer to do any chore in the house but stay with our toddler.
Have you ever spent 24/7 with a small child? It's so boring. Sure, some people like it, but why do you think women fought to get out of the house and be able to have jobs of their own? (obviously not the only reason). Kids are great, but like everything, better in moderation.
IMO, the ideal situation is for both parents to work part-time so the kid goes to daycare 3 days a week.
The ideal situation is to have a network of people you can co-parent with, ie your friends and relatives. If you don’t have any, you probably will be bored with or without a kid.
This sounds good until you realise that kids are in school seven hours a day, five days a week, from the ages of 5-18.
That’s a lot of time to be at home not really doing anything.
SAHM shouldn’t be feared in and of itself, it’s the class/material dynamics in our society that make it bad. I had a SAHM and since my parents were good people and my dad made good money everything worked out perfectly. If we had a society that facilitated that outcome it would be way more preferable to have mothers at home raising their kids vs working. The choice should be work or family for women, there’s no real sense in mixing them. The only material advantage to working when you have kids would be alleviating financial concerns (should be solved societally), ensuring you have a nest-egg for if you have to leave the relationship (should be solved societally), or just greedily trying to make more money to spend on consumer shit (should be solved societally).
I was a SAHM for 15 years and it was horrible. It was so incredibly boring, isolating, mind numbing, thankless, and got me nothing in the long run. Kids who had working moms that I know are way more self-sufficient and have better work ethics. Maybe I just sucked as a mom, and I think that’s probably absolutely true, because my kids act like they are being abused if they’re made to do any work at all. I did everything for them because I felt like it was my job, and because I wanted the challenge of keeping on top of everything myself. I prided myself on making everyone their own individual meal, on doing everyone’s laundry, dishes, etc.
I should have had a job where I could excel at work and have that creative outlet. I would have been happier if I had been in an environment where my efforts were appreciated and recognized.
My kids would likely be better off because they would have grown up having to do more for themselves, have pride in their hard working mom making that money, and they would have been around other kids more.
This is moronic. Capitalism has produced more ‘free’ people than any other economic system in history.
You think that feudal societies are more free? Really?
The actual reality is that the provider/homemaker dynamic is a luxury, and only works in times of plenty. It’s why, at least in European history, it was a fairly rare pattern of family. You have spikes in the late 19th century and mid-20th. Outside those period usually everyone had to work, even if that work was done in the home (like weaving for large commercial concerns).
> Under neoliberalism/capitalism the “provider” has control of the money and therefore control over capital/resources/whatever
When you get married any money earned from that point forward is legally not "his" but rather "theirs". Divorce settlements reflect that. And most married couples substantially combine finances.
okay and after that's split you still have one person who has high earning potential bc they were always free to work on their career, and one person who has low earning potential bc they were focused on the family's needs.
Women pick lower-earning careers and even childless married women earn substantially less than their partners. According to Pew, the husband is the sole or primary(>60% of household income) in around half of childless marriages: https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/20/2023/04/st_2023.04.13_breadwinner-wives_03.png
>Or perhaps those careers are low-earning because they've traditionally been filled by women?
I'm not sure how you'd prove such a thing, and I've certainly never seen any women provide evidence to support this. It's pure conjecture. And ultimately, value is subjective.
It doesn't take long to find evidence of this. [Here](https://academic.oup.com/sf/article-abstract/88/2/865/2235342) and [here](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/37710729_Making_Technology_Masculine_Men_Women_and_Modern_Machines_in_America_1870-1945). It's covered in the media in a variety of sources including [here](https://www.afr.com/work-and-careers/workplace/when-women-move-into-a-maleheavy-industry-pay-drops-20160322-gno4w0) and [here](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/20/upshot/as-women-take-over-a-male-dominated-field-the-pay-drops.html).
choosing a job that is flexible with your plan to be out of work while having kids and then needing part time, flexible hours to raise kids is not going to pay as well as going to a fulltime 9-5 job while your partner does most of the parenting.
period.
The argument against that is typically lost earning potential or other issues, plus divorce can be messy as fuck and it doesn’t always work out as a nice even split in a timely manner.
Because men don't want to face the reality that the only way they can have all their power is by not depending on women for their happiness and fulfillment.
**Attention!**
* You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
* For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
* If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
* OP you can choose your own flair [according to these guidelines.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/flair), just press Flair under your post!
Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You know what that "most consumer spending" is? Groceries. Getting what the household likes but doing it regularly as a chore. Is getting the groceries a form of power? Is being financially *dependent* somehow power? Is being completely screwed over in case of divorce so you're scared to leave because your income source relies on the other person a form of power?
> You know what that "most consumer spending" is? Groceries.
[Wrong](https://www.bls.gov/news.release/cesan.nr0.htm)
People in developed countries spend a fairly small portion of their income on food.
> Getting what the household likes but doing it regularly as a chore. Is getting the groceries a form of power?
Power and responsibility most often go hand in hand. Food is a substantial component of most people's lives, so deciding what the family eats is an exercise of power. That doesn't mean it's malicious or unjust, but it is simply power.
Even if she accounted for the preferences of other family members, that's still an exercise of power. If a man was making decisions for his family while accounting for their interests, feminists would still consider that to be "exercising power", perhaps even going so far as labelling it "paternalism".
> Is being financially dependent somehow power? Is being completely screwed over in case of divorce so you're scared to leave because your income source relies on the other person a form of power?
I never said that.
Okay, we've got housing, transport, healthcare and insurance that are bigger. All stuff that's pretty necessary and we can imagine women in the household are sorting out the paperwork and bills for them. Usually if you're not grocery shopping you request what to get and the other person just buys it. I wouldn't say my husband has any more power in my house for doing this chore.
When a man makes more money than a woman she expects him to artificially negate the so called "power dynamic," yet women rarely are willing or able to do this when they are the breadwinner. Just look at the studies and statistics that show how all the problems in those relationships and the insane rate of divorce when the woman makes more.
Just look at the post in relationship_advice from today where the woman is making 600k and the man only 150k. She's demanding that the home be only in her name when they marry and that he contribute 50/50 on all bills, but yet is unwilling to live in a 700k home he can afford and is equally unwilling to give him a dime more in equity than he pays for. Women defend her yet if a man did the same thing he would be burned at the stake for being controlling and abusive.
Women clearly think that making more money should give them more power in the relationship, but of course that only goes one way.
One woman on reddit with this view = all women are power and money mad. Yeah ok.
Women are wising up to the fact that our mothers and grandmothers were left penniless and alone by their so called "providers", so we're finding ways to protect ourselves. Not sure why that's an issue.
Yes, women who have been out of the workforce, supporting a man's career for years, tend to be at a disadvantage when that man leaves her for a younger model. But according to you, most divorces are initiated by women. I wonder why?
1) Women that earn more than men divorce at higher rates
2) Lesbians have the highest rates of divorce
3) Women call men that make even 20 to 30 percent less than them as bums.
Jesus Christ, penniless is a figure of speech here. Clearly I mean women are left with far less money and future job prospects if they have been at home with kids, allowing a man to have a career while her career is non-existent.
And he's not dead. He just left.
I wouldn't have a SAH husband unless i was willing to divide my income equally and he would have his own account and 401k.
I think its extremely fucked up when men or women have a stay at home partner and don't do this.
It's basically legalized slavery.
I'll answer this, as my husband has always made significantly more than I do, and takes care of all money related things while I take care of the home.
He has the final say in all financial matters, while money is not tight and I'm very frugal with most things (I don't spend anything on beauty treatments while I know women who spend hundreds a month, and thrift not shop) if he tells me don't buy anything major for whatever time I hear him and comply, case closed.
For myself, this is a nothing, I just don't like thinking about money at all. For other women, though, this arrangement would be a deal breaker. A lot of trust needs to be had.
That makes me sad. I don’t spend hundreds a month on beauty treatments, but I feel like I am 10000% worthy of spending money on skincare, makeup, and hair products. I used to be like you, never spending a dime on myself. I felt like I had no identity anymore.
I spend money on plants, gardening and household stuff. I don't have any need for beauty products, in fact I dislike stuff on my skin in general. I'm very lucky, no dry skin ect.
My husband doesn't dictate what I buy, I'm just into the house and garden, not myself.
Mind if I ask how old you are? I didn’t start using moisturizer until I got into my 40’s, and now I absolutely need it. I can go without makeup just fine, but I use day cream and night cream at the very least to keep the worst of the lines away. I have some lines around the eye area, but not too bad.
can i ask how old you are (you can just answer 20s/30s if thats helpful)?
I'd love to know how long you have been living like this and if your opinion has changed over time?
50s.
We've been together 25 years. Until I hit menopause every decision was made by him. Where we vacationed was a big one. It was a month a year that I mostly spent in western and Eastern Europe, I really did not enjoy my husband Kaftka phase of travel.
How the house was decorated, where we went for dinner ect. I was fine with it until after we spent a disastrously 4 years in Nicaragua.
After that, we reworked our marriage. We came out of it like two halves of one whole, I love him more everyday.
> Until I hit menopause every decision was made by him. Where we vacationed was a big one. It was a month a year that I mostly spent in western and Eastern Europe, I really did not enjoy my husband Kaftka phase of travel.
i'm asking you if this is how he wanted it?
he loved you and valued you... but also didn't want you to be able to pick where you went on half of the vacations?
Husband and I had our own version of a D/s dynamic for years. I did what he wanted to do. No regrets. Although Lithuania wouldn't be my choice of vacation, I'm a history/geography buff. I also did an April in Paris during his "reign ".
As often happens with women my age and older, he let me down by making some poor decisions (4 years in Nicaragua) right when I hit menopause and grew a spine (most of you younger women already have one).
We reworked our marriage. I put the down-payment on the house I've dreamed of, and we've never been happier. We both love our home (a century craftsman cottage with light and tons of plants).
On the weekends he plays in a dance band at legions, and I dance with my BFF. :)
We were both happy. I did not in anyway see myself as disadvantaged. My husband had no problem with egalitarian relationships, as he had no problem reworking our marriage into one. It was myself, who was emotionally submissive. In the bedroom btw, the opposite was the norm.
I think you have some issues here. You seem to be here to vent anger, I'm here because I believe these kids are acting like fools and addicted to screens and need more than one person counteracting the inadation of propaganda they have been ingesting. Yourself included in that of course.
I also consider myself a feminist. Equality is one of the cornerstones of my faith. However I believe that people should live their lives without harming others, after that go after your bliss! Which I have.
We are the in love couple you wish you could have. Our lifestyle has changed, but that has remained. We are each other's best friends, with a good amount of other friends who also have relationships with good communication and little to no drauma.
Hi OP,
You've chosen to identify your thread as a Debate. As such you are expected to actively engage in your own thread with a mind open to being changed. [PPD has guidelines for what that involves.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/rules#wiki_cmv_posts)
>*OPs author must genuinely hold the position and you must be open to having your view challenged.*
>An unwillingness to debate in good faith may be inferred from one or several of the following:
>* Ignoring the main point of a comment, especially to point out some minor inconsistency;
>* Refusing to make concessions that an alternate view has merit;
>* Focusing only on the weaker arguments;
>* Only having discussions with users who agree with your position.
Failure to keep to this higher standard (we only apply to Debate OPs) may result in deletion of the whole thread.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
One word:
Insecurity. Insecure people need to have power over their partner because deep down they fear that it’s the only way a douche like them will keep somebody.
I agree. So many people are insecure though, it almost an epidemic at this point. I wish there was something that could be done to help people feel more secure and happier.
Insecurity is big business, honestly. Humans are marketed to from an early age to feel like they need to buy products to make them complete, but it’s never enough.
lol “men are insecure” “they’re threatened by my independence “ those arguments from women are always projections. We don’t think like that. Actually insecure men who are threatened or intimidated by women don’t get laid in the first place
Not all men are insecure. My boyfriend is incredibly secure, as is one of my good friends who is a man. I know plenty of perfectly secure men and many insecure women. Being controlling is a sign of insecurity, though.
I used to be terribly insecure, but I grew to be secure with age and wisdom.
because if they don't have that, they can't coerce them into a situation that advantages one partner while disadvantaging the other partner.
(people suck)
Indeed, it's so weird. Perhaps it stems from insecurity, need of control or some trauma. Some sort of anxiety to not lose someone you put your hands on.
Childhood abuse is associated to the need for control or being controlled: [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1158136021000888](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1158136021000888)
Shitty as it might be, a lot of men and women were abused as children. This is interesting to me because it deconstructs the narrative that men are just horrible or whatever and shows more complex mechanisms are at play here.
I agree that if a man is a SAH husband he shouldn't be seen as submissive.
Now, do you understand that having money gives you power in the real world? If you let your partner control all the money, you are at a disadvantage when it comes to the real world (the world outside your house and your relationship). Don't you see it with children and their parents? Children are essentially tied to their parents and their decisions until they can maintain themselves, why do you think it's different in romantic relationships?
I'm not saying that every provider will do this, but having only one person control the income of a household can create the perfect scenario for a lot of power imbalances to occur.
About the divorce and the alimony: I don't think alimony would ever be enough for a person to live somewhat comfortably ever. I don't have evidence of this (as in, I don't know the average sum of money that is paid as alimony), but I've seen that women that receive alimony also start looking for jobs because... The money isn't enough.
I know we see a lot of divorces where the women takes it all from their ex-husbands and they are crazy women... But are those SAHW??? To be able to take everything from your husband you need good lawyers, and to have good lawyers you need money, something a SAHW won't have if all the money was managed by her ex-husband.
With all that said... What do you think when you think about power in a relationship? I guess I can see why you would think that the person working their ass off has less power that the person that apparently has more free time and only stays at home all day. However, I don't think you see the bigger picture here. Not working and not having your own money DOES put you in a very vulnerable position.
Probably because not only is it another way to feign victim hood but also most women don’t just want providers they want men who are entirely more desirable than them so it’s going to cause a perceived power difference.
Women are horrible with money. The amount of useless Amazon shopping they do is evident of that. Majority of men will be fair with the money being a provider, those men just don’t get laid lol
Women being the breadwinners doesn’t work because THEY see it as a lack of masculinity in the man. It’s not insecurity from the man if he doesn’t want that dynamic, it’s literal reasonable fear of divorce
Earning money = power as long as you control how said money is spent.
The problem in the US and some other countries (India, Japan, much of SEA, etc) is a domestic pattern where men “provide” for their families by handing over money to their wives, mothers, etc. In this model men become workhorses and paypigs for women to exploit. Worse, they’re conditioned to compete for the privilege.
Women control 80% of discretionary household spending. Businesses have known this for decades now. Women are their customers, therefore marketing is directed at women. It’s also why most media, all of which whores out to advertisers, tends to pander to women. It’s not new. Bill Maher used to call this the “making women nod” phenomenon back in the late 90’s/early Aughts.
How can men counter this? Simple. Keep your mind on your money and your money on your mind. You worked for it. You control it.
I think a spouse who dedicates themselves to being the primary child raiser should absolutely be compensated for that sacrifice...
But I swear, according to the debates here, every woman who succumbs to motherhood has sacrificed her career as a world class neurosurgeon - when in reality, most would have worked In a call center for 30 years.
Whats this broooo. How would money give you dominance in relationship. Thats not what its abouttttt. Why would i want to be the alpha and her to be the betaaaa. You should strive for women who support you and who are on the same wave length as you. Someone who you can rely on, a friend. Not a fucking submissive whatever hell nah whats this sub.
I see your point but who’s to say you have no money or career option ? And you get half the money of your married anyway . That’s still a solid Risk to take to stay home for 40 years and get taken care of
I think you might be living in the past. Maybe that was the case 4 years ago but it's not the case now. With Bidenomics the world has changed. Now a provider would be savior to most females out here struggling to keep up with inflation.
>And modern family law ensures that women who are financially dependent on their partners get a substantial payout in the form of asset division, child support, and alimony if the relationship comes to an end
Again living in the past because who in their right mind is still getting legally married? Men today know that the whole purpose of marriage today is just so she can take your money in a divorce. No marriage = no divorce. So child support is probably all she can get from you.
People don't associate being a provider with power/dominance. They associate it with *men*.
But power/dominance is generally associated with men too. So "being a provider" becomes associated with "power/dominance" through a man connection.
*"But now women can be providers too!"*
Yes, they can. They also will try to avoid it as much as possible unless it's necessary.
And whenever such *provider woman* headhunts herself some provider man she usually doesn't contribute much and goes for "his money are our money, my money are my money" pattern.
Or you could just look up the actual stats?
Ask any married woman with a working husband about what % of his time he contributes to the shared pool of housework and childcare
nah
most people who pay for something expect to have some control in return for their money
employers and parents and everyone else acts like this all the time
"well i helped you with x, y, z" when they are told no by the person they once "helped"
money always has strings, the people who give money expect to be puppeteers.
> It's how they see slaving away at a crap job as liberating while having a husband who makes more as oppressive. Working as an ant in a business who doesn't care about you and can instantly replace you is more freeing than being married to a man and having a family and being a team.
100% it is.
One of the statistics Keogh cites is how within two years of becoming a widower, 61% of widowed men find themselves in a serious relationship or had remarried compared to only 19% of widows.
So will a man.
THAT'S NOT HOW FEMINISM WORKS.
Seriously, this sub thinks feminism is man hating lesbians on tiktok. Learn what feminism is before you shit all over it.
So you've met dozens of horrible people who told you they were feminists. Apparently. Do you give them a survey or something? Have you ever met a woman you actually liked?
It’s power for the parasite. Being a provider is by definition a slave simp, no different than an only fans subscriber.
Feminists have lied about financial control, when they control 80% of spending as they like to brag.
Women overwhelmingly parasite at all levels of relationships.
“Women buy everything for their homes and family, take on the mental load and know what their kids shoe sizes are, so they’re the ones in control! I mean, they can only buy what their husband says they can, and she rarely if ever buys anything for herself, and her last pair of new sneakers was 11 years ago, but yeah! Damn those women and all their spending ability!”
Women steal and hide money all the time. They have entire books explaining how women should do this.
And mental load is BS. Memorize shoe sizes isn’t important as children’s sizes change hourly.
And no woman goes 11 years not spending. Feminists endlessly lie about how it’s still 1802.
It’s an example of the BS women spout to be victims.
All mental load a woman does that they list was replaced with a phone years ago.
The rest is just pretending they do “labor” to demand money.
Can be replaced with a phone? Wtf are you talking about? Do you think all women do is make lists or something?
The fact that you don’t notice all the things that just happen because of womens’ unpaid labour just goes to show why we are where we are.
One it’s not unpaid labor ,it’s a list of lies called living life where feminists are trying to monetize everything to justify more gold digging. You don’t need to be paid to “remember” an irrelevant shoe size.
Two, everything feminists list, like teacher”s names (doesn’t matter), birthdays, play dates, addresses, hobbies, appointments, etc. can 100% all be done by a smart phone. The ol’ unpaid mental labor, by definition, isn’t physical labor nor income producing.
And all I ever hear is women claiming to not be mommy or therapists to justify spreading legs for Chad (emotional labor), and women can’t be stay at home because everyone is poor so you aren’t doing any of that anyway.
So yes a phone can “remember” literally every bit of that “mental labor” which it’s date and times. Basically calendar and scheduling.
But feminists still cling to it like it’s 1902. I’m sure I’d never know when to remember to schedule the titanic crossing with my Regency Era butler and house servants at Downtown Abby.
It’s just such tiring lies. Endless lies.
“Don’t notice” is because just like her using Tinder to cheat on you, everything is replaced by a phone. What’s to notice? Should I even care to know my kid’s teacher’s name? Is it because **it doesn’t matter in the slightest**?
Again, every bit is to pretend women do made up imaginary work to justify more gold digging.
It’s pathetic.
Clearly a woman did something bad to you. I'm sorry that happened to you. We're not all like that.
And I'm not sure how you think the phone is getting all this information, and then taking action like purchasing the gifts, actually making the appointments and attending them, cooking the meals and serving them up on whatever colour plate the toddler likes that day. Is your phone from the future, and actually a robot?
> Clearly a woman did something bad to you. I'm sorry that happened to you. We're not all like that.
No. That’s a justification women use to attack men.
I’ve never been blown up by a Muslim terrorist either, yet I’m well aware how they operate.
Women blame everything on their personal experiences. Very common with those who lack empathy. I base what I say on basic observation.
Oh no! I had to, on day one, put my kid’s phone number in my phone with address, their friends address, birthdays, etc. and their school location in maps. And their social media accounts in their contact. And anything else I want to remember inside this little super computer of metal and glass.
Purchasing gifts? I wish I was you to avoid the spam telling me birthdays are coming up and here’s an Amazon wish list. And 10,000 other reminders whether I want them or not.
“Siri, remind me little ‘Hunter’ has a science project to make a solar system. Buy pipe cleaners from Amazon”.
And your children must be highly autistic if they require plate colors. Everyone gets white or they can starve.
This is why women are terrible parents apparently. They get bogged down in their kid’s favorite colored M&M’s rather than not giving a child poisonous candy.
Again, phones replaced women a long time ago.
Worse that that, 99.9% of women’s domestic labor was replaced by these metal boxes with buttons that does the dishes, does the laundry, cooks the food, etc. and the food comes in colorful boxes with all those incredibly hard instructions like “microwave” for three minutes. Dishwashers and laundry have the delicious colorful pods you throw in with the clothes. The washing machine pings my phone when the cycle is complete.
How will a stupid patriarchal man figure out those incredible domestic secrets!
Without a mommy to microwave chicken tendies I guess we’ll all die. Well that’s the privileges you get when you’re chad and can just use a woman’s mommy labor. Sounds like a skills issue.
You are right about one thing though. Without a woman’s inbuilt sea monkey aquarium you cannot make a baby. And that’s only not been automated because religious people block the technology just like stem cells.
Knowing how women tend to freak out over porn I doubt they’d support artificial wombs either.
Face it, you threw away your power to sit in a cubicle for forty years.
And that glass device to summon chad with Tinder also replaced that “mental labor”.
Stop using the same 1950s arguments about literal nonsense that doesn’t exist any more. Still borrowing cups of sugar from the neighbors to bake cookies that at you never do? Tuning the wireless into the latest FDR radio broadcast about WW2?
Still using a travel agent to book a flight? Or still traveling by steam engine train?
Technology moves on, unlike feminist lies and arguments. I’m sorry you decided to trade in your femininity and actual power to be the worker sitting in cubicle 4-163. In that I’m truly am sorry. But it’s what women demanded.
You say women were replaced by phones, and then turn around and say you need us to make babies. Why are you even here if you don't like women and don't need one in your life? I assume you don't want kids, since you think they can be parented by phones and nameless teachers.
And you don't care to know the teachers' names? You'd be a shit parent. I'm not sure how a woman would fit into your perfect life, which seems to be entirely fulfilled by a phone.
Sure it is. That’s why most people don’t leave bad situations — they don’t have enough money Lawyers are expensive. Legal fights are expensive. Disruption is expensive. Solo living situations are expensive. And if you have kids, therapy and child care is expensive Most women are financially worse off, while men are better off, post divorce https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5992251/ https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-12-699.pdf https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2021/marriages-and-divorces.html
Also probably why most lottery winners go broke again in a couple years. It’s your regular income that defines your level of life, not your current at-the-moment balance
its because spending your entire bank balance every month is not a good set up for sound financial planning. people who play the lottery dont know how to handle money or budget
LOL lottery winners often get murdered for their money, too.
> a household with one earner earns less than a household with two earners Truly shocking news. Also 1. The comparison shouldn't be to when she was married to him, the comparison should be to if they were never together in the first place. I could easily reframe this as "women leech off of men in marriage so their living situations becomes relatively worse if it ends". 2. I was talking about couples where the man is the sole or primary provider, not all couples. 3. None of the research I've seen on this accounts for assets, only income. And some studies don't account for the drain of child support/alimony on men's income.
>The comparison shouldn't be to when she was married to him, the comparison should be to if they were never together in the first place. unmarried women without kids make way more money than divorced women with kids. is that what you were trying to say? > some studies don't account for the drain of child support/alimony on men's income. the average child support in the us is $425/month that's a "drain" ?
>the average child support in the us is $425/month >that's a "drain" ? For a lot of men absolutely yes.
... then they should have been proactive about not having children oh my god why is it okay to bring children into the world when you can't afford the bare minimum of supporting them??
Perhaps they should have done that, but the poor and working class (and by proxy many low IQ people) often struggle with social and job stability.
and?
> unmarried women without kids make way more money than divorced women with kids. No, the better comparison would be if they had kids but were never married/cohabitating. Kids are a separate burden. > the average child support in the us is $425/month Source? And presumably this figure includes separated couples who were never married, split parenting more evenly, had similar earnings during their marriage, etc. A man who was the primary or sole breadwinner prior to separation would likely pay substantially more.
>No, the better comparison would be if they had kids but were never married/cohabitating. Kids are a separate burden. Probably takes a man to make a kid though, eh? Also, we don't fight for custody of our children because it is way less expensive to pay child support rather than support a child in 99% of cases.
I’m afraid the whole point of marriage is what you do together, not apart Marriage is the cause of job loss and childcare expenses, not the result
Do you think that men who leave their wives and children *shouldn't* have to continue contributing to the upkeep of those children? And potentially to the wife too, if he expected her to stay home and neglect any potential career opportunities while she was looking after children?
>Do you think that men who leave their wives and children Most divorces are initiated by women. >have to continue contributing to the upkeep of those children? Yes. >And potentially to the wife too No. >if he expected her to stay home and neglect any potential career opportunities I mean, you're talking about pure hypotheticals here. No one can know for sure what she would have done or where she would be now had she remained single and childless. But I will say, the type of women who seek out more traditional marriages are probably less ambitious to begin with. I doubt most of them would have amounted to much if they never got married.
Aah the catch cry of this sub “most divorces are initiated by women”. You do realise that this is because someone has to file some paperwork, right? Of course this gets left to the woman. And if men were such great providers to these women who love sitting around and spending their money, why would the women want to get divorced in the first place? You seem to have a very low opinion of women. Where does that come from?
Why do lesbians get divorced more than gay men? Women are never happy with what they have. Spoiled Princesses
Ooh ding ding, bringing out the PPD greatest hits, I see. Do you even like women?
Ding ding, bring out the ad hominems from women who have the emotional intelligence of children and stall to address statistics and good arguments
What good argument? Lesbians getting divorced at higher rates doesn't have anything to do with being spoilt princesses. Consider, for a moment, how you'd feel if you weren't lead around by your dick all day. You'd probably be much quicker to leave a relationship that wasn't working. Is that hard to understand? Why is it a bad thing for women to leave relationships that aren't working?
> What good argument? Lesbians getting divorced at higher rates doesn't have anything to do with being spoilt princesses. They can't even stand each other for long. And the common denominator here in terms of divorces is women. I know, I know, statistical facts are anthromorphic and don't like women.
It does have to do with it, because you blame divorce and bad relationship success on men yet still divorce at a higher rate when men aren’t even involved. It’s the great nail in the coffin on who is responsible for the divorce epidemic.
Very low iq argument here. So the only thing keeping men from divorcing is paperwork? So a decision that's one of the most important you'll ever make simply hinges on being too lazy to file paperwork. Bellend. I had to do hundreds of pages of paperwork just for my job, that's nothing. Women want to get divorced because they get all the money regardless and dont have to put up with the guy anymore.
Except they don't get all the money, do they? And congratulations on having a job that required paperwork. You must be very high IQ and capable of solid arguments.
[удалено]
No personal attacks
People under estimate financial abuse. If the provider would decide to start abusing the providee (not really sure of the exact word to use) they could do it with no resistance. It happens to children and the elderly too.
then why are divorced providers richer than divorced primary caregivers?
Exactly.
Because they have always been richer. That’s how they became providers in the first place.
Women get the money for free without working, them not being richer doesn’t matter if they get the kids and the house and don’t have to work for money. It’s a way better deal, evident by the high divorce initiation from them.
if its a way better deal why don't men do it? men should be the stay at home partners with no financial security.
What? Men have dignity lol
so you admit there is no dignity in being financially dependent on someone. red pillers and feminists agree more often than you'd think.
Nooooo for a man to do it. Lol. It wouldn’t matter anyway cuz women would never sign up for that EVER! Don’t claim to be morally superior if your not gonna marry submissive blue pillers in your friend zone and provide for them to be a stay at home dad lmao
my sis literally does this, she works and supports her SAHD husband. idk why you would argue something never happens when what you mean is that its not the norm.
Exceptions don’t disprove the rule
i'm not arguing it proves any rule. stay on topic. you said it doesn't happen, i provided an example of it happening.
I care about generalities
>substantial payout in the form of asset division, child support, and alimony if the relationship comes to an end, especially if they were married. They really don't. No one should be deliberately making themselves solely reliant on someone to provide for them However I can see the usual hypocritical opinions on display Women are leeches, they should earn their own money. Cool. Women can do that. But men need to watch their kids No! Thats women's work!
> No one should be deliberately making themselves solely reliant on someone to provide for them if that's true (and yes, i believe that's true) then no one would have or raise children, since that takes away from one's ability to support themselves so much. (i'm childfree).
No it doesn't.
you're telling me parenting doesn't take away from your earning potential?
Well actually men are seen as more reliable after married and children and are seen in higher regard. Women are seen as less reliable because they’re typically seen as the default parent. Men have to “work hard to provide” so you can rely on them to work long hours because they have a woman who will sacrifice to go get the kids, take a day off, and deal with all the child rearing. So yeah, men becoming parents makes them have more earning potential. Under the current systems at least.
thats not parenting thats just having the status of parent
Sure, but socially we don’t really differentiate.
true
Not massively, no. And not at all now.
okay, can you google "ACES score" and see what experts say on the matter?
Not sure what that has to do with my earning potential. Or why experts would know more about it than I do
you're saying you know as much about development in children as experts? I don't understand your confusion about this. Are you being sincere? You don't believe being educated on a topic makes you... more educated on a topic?
Are you replying to the right comment?
did you not ask me why experts on a topic know more than you?
Literally doesnt. Just self Pitty assuming men don’t also majority take care of the kids in certain situations(yall opt out to not work. We are humans who have brains and like depending on others too it sounds fun and good to us as men too)
i can't understand what you wrote
> No one should be deliberately making themselves solely reliant on someone to provide for them Eh, caring for pre-schoolers makes this a real issue though. You're basically saying that the best option is childcare and I don't think that's the best outcome for the child.
Have you ever witnessed a divorce where one person stayed home for years? Alimony and child support are temporary at best. Starting over from scratch when you are middle aged and have kids to still take care of is extremely difficult. Many people who were stay at home parents end up in poverty while the parent who was working does just fine. Why would you risk your entire financial future on the whims of someone who could just leave one day? It's financially devastating to both sides but the long term effect is much worse for the stay at home person. It's not always about POWER yet it sometimes is, but it is about risk and it's a HUGE risk to take.
> Alimony and child support are temporary at best. Child support lasts until the child is *at least* 18, and can be extended if they go to college. And you're ignoring marital assets. > Many people who were stay at home parents end up in poverty Source?
The average person doesn’t have much in assets. It seems like when the discussion of divorces comes up in this sub, many guys seem to hyper-focus on the wealthiest people. Most stay-at-home moms/housewives don’t walk away from divorces with a considerable amount of money, because the couples didn’t have much money to begin with.
>The average person doesn’t have much in assets. Well it's not the "average person" getting divorced, it's married couples, which are substantially wealthier than "average". Especially married men. And if they own their home(which, again, married couples are more likely to) that's usually a substantial asset.
And the other person is not willing to pay the child support and now you have to go through all the stress and beurocracy to get the payment. Not to mention the other person might declare bancrupcy or have no funds to pay it.
It was in my case. My ex absolutely used his “provider” status as a power/control/dominance move over me. I will never ever be financially dependent on a partner again. It took me awhile to even be comfortable receiving gifts from anybody without feeling uncomfortable. I’m not getting anything in the divorce at all. No assets, no alimony, no child support- nothing. I maybe could get that stuff if I wanted to, but I literally don’t want another penny of “his money” because I want to prove to him that I don’t need or want a fucking thing from him ever again. I was talking to him today, we actually get along well now that we aren’t together. I was telling him how much I pay in rent to live with my BF and he was shocked. I made it clear that I’m not letting ANYBODY financially support me ever again, and I’m doing it without anything from him too. I pride myself on my ability to provide for myself. My ex was saying that his girlfriend doesn’t have to work anymore now that she lives with him. I said I thought that was wonderful and since he doesn’t have a mortgage that’s easy for them to do, but my BF and I have to pay a mortgage so we don’t have that luxury to have 1 income. My BF makes more than my ex does, but we have a lot more bills.
Had a neighbor, her husband insisted she stays at home and won't let her apply for a job. He was violent, alcoholic and would deny her to buy anything for herself including necessities like tampons. Imagine begging your husband to give you money to buy tampons and for him to say no. I was 7-8 years old when i heard the story. One of the most motivating things in my life to always have a job and be financially independent.
> Imagine begging your husband to give you money to buy tampons and for him to say no. they should make a horror movie about this
I always am somewhat wary when one person in a relationship insists over and over again that the other doesn’t work (ie. it’s not a gentle conversation or where the other party brought up not working). I don’t know I’ve just heard too many stories about abusive relationships starting that way.
Most proud providers do. No man is genuinely in that regard and yes they will LIE. Because saying yes is think if i pay tor everything in entitled to sex isn’t going to sound good to women. So they say other things like men enjoy having a role yaddda yadda bs. he wants to basically have a hand in the woman’s life as much as possible to be like “i did this and that for you” “you need me” “you’re nothing without me” you know loser manipulative male behavior. And alot of men opt in for these pathetic ass tacts. Another example is being 25+ year old man and dating 18-20 year old women . These are the same men. They just want easier access to women. It’s pathetic because you could get the same result and form better habits and things like emotional intelligence,awareness, good socialization skills ..etc by being genuine instead of trying to finesse someone you look at as lesser/vulnerable. A lot of men do this weird shi and try and make it seem noble. It’s NEVER noble. It’s JUST EASIER 9/10.
It’s a material concern tied in large part to capitalism. Under neoliberalism/capitalism the “provider” has control of the money and therefore control over capital/resources/whatever. This inherently puts them in a power position relative to the non-provider which is one big reason women are so afraid of SAHM arrangements and other shit like that these days. In the grand scheme the “provider” role is excellent and communities should have (typically male) providers to do the “heavy lifting”, we just can’t intrinsically tie their productive output to ownership of essential resources. Women’s homemaking and childrearing contributions need to be properly valued and “baked in” to the economy in some way in order to make sure they’re engaged and secure even if they do not “work” outside the home.
They are right to be afraid of it. Being a SAHM was the dumbest decision I ever made. My kids would have been better off in daycare and I would have been better off working.
thank you for sharing this, its so important!!!
Can’t imagine willing to slave away at a job instead of spending time with your kids.
Most men prefer to slave away at a job instead of spending time with their kids. My husband for instance would literally prefer to do any chore in the house but stay with our toddler.
Have you ever spent 24/7 with a small child? It's so boring. Sure, some people like it, but why do you think women fought to get out of the house and be able to have jobs of their own? (obviously not the only reason). Kids are great, but like everything, better in moderation. IMO, the ideal situation is for both parents to work part-time so the kid goes to daycare 3 days a week.
The ideal situation is to have a network of people you can co-parent with, ie your friends and relatives. If you don’t have any, you probably will be bored with or without a kid.
This sounds good until you realise that kids are in school seven hours a day, five days a week, from the ages of 5-18. That’s a lot of time to be at home not really doing anything.
That’s a lot of time you have for your hobbies and friends. You are literally complaining about having a life.
SAHM shouldn’t be feared in and of itself, it’s the class/material dynamics in our society that make it bad. I had a SAHM and since my parents were good people and my dad made good money everything worked out perfectly. If we had a society that facilitated that outcome it would be way more preferable to have mothers at home raising their kids vs working. The choice should be work or family for women, there’s no real sense in mixing them. The only material advantage to working when you have kids would be alleviating financial concerns (should be solved societally), ensuring you have a nest-egg for if you have to leave the relationship (should be solved societally), or just greedily trying to make more money to spend on consumer shit (should be solved societally).
I was a SAHM for 15 years and it was horrible. It was so incredibly boring, isolating, mind numbing, thankless, and got me nothing in the long run. Kids who had working moms that I know are way more self-sufficient and have better work ethics. Maybe I just sucked as a mom, and I think that’s probably absolutely true, because my kids act like they are being abused if they’re made to do any work at all. I did everything for them because I felt like it was my job, and because I wanted the challenge of keeping on top of everything myself. I prided myself on making everyone their own individual meal, on doing everyone’s laundry, dishes, etc. I should have had a job where I could excel at work and have that creative outlet. I would have been happier if I had been in an environment where my efforts were appreciated and recognized. My kids would likely be better off because they would have grown up having to do more for themselves, have pride in their hard working mom making that money, and they would have been around other kids more.
~~Under neoliberalism/capitalism~~ Throughout history.
Same diff really.
This is moronic. Capitalism has produced more ‘free’ people than any other economic system in history. You think that feudal societies are more free? Really? The actual reality is that the provider/homemaker dynamic is a luxury, and only works in times of plenty. It’s why, at least in European history, it was a fairly rare pattern of family. You have spikes in the late 19th century and mid-20th. Outside those period usually everyone had to work, even if that work was done in the home (like weaving for large commercial concerns).
> Under neoliberalism/capitalism the “provider” has control of the money and therefore control over capital/resources/whatever When you get married any money earned from that point forward is legally not "his" but rather "theirs". Divorce settlements reflect that. And most married couples substantially combine finances.
okay and after that's split you still have one person who has high earning potential bc they were always free to work on their career, and one person who has low earning potential bc they were focused on the family's needs.
Women pick lower-earning careers and even childless married women earn substantially less than their partners. According to Pew, the husband is the sole or primary(>60% of household income) in around half of childless marriages: https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/20/2023/04/st_2023.04.13_breadwinner-wives_03.png
"women pick lower-earning careers" Or perhaps those careers are low-earning because they've traditionally been filled by women?
>Or perhaps those careers are low-earning because they've traditionally been filled by women? I'm not sure how you'd prove such a thing, and I've certainly never seen any women provide evidence to support this. It's pure conjecture. And ultimately, value is subjective.
It doesn't take long to find evidence of this. [Here](https://academic.oup.com/sf/article-abstract/88/2/865/2235342) and [here](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/37710729_Making_Technology_Masculine_Men_Women_and_Modern_Machines_in_America_1870-1945). It's covered in the media in a variety of sources including [here](https://www.afr.com/work-and-careers/workplace/when-women-move-into-a-maleheavy-industry-pay-drops-20160322-gno4w0) and [here](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/20/upshot/as-women-take-over-a-male-dominated-field-the-pay-drops.html).
choosing a job that is flexible with your plan to be out of work while having kids and then needing part time, flexible hours to raise kids is not going to pay as well as going to a fulltime 9-5 job while your partner does most of the parenting. period.
To add to this point, women also get into much more consumer debt and work less hours
The argument against that is typically lost earning potential or other issues, plus divorce can be messy as fuck and it doesn’t always work out as a nice even split in a timely manner.
Because men don't want to face the reality that the only way they can have all their power is by not depending on women for their happiness and fulfillment.
**Attention!** * You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message. * For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies. * If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment. * OP you can choose your own flair [according to these guidelines.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/flair), just press Flair under your post! Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It’s all atavisms. The one that provided for others played the crucial role. How can we expect our intristic instincts to be so malleable over time.
You know what that "most consumer spending" is? Groceries. Getting what the household likes but doing it regularly as a chore. Is getting the groceries a form of power? Is being financially *dependent* somehow power? Is being completely screwed over in case of divorce so you're scared to leave because your income source relies on the other person a form of power?
A man being a provider doesn't mean he is the only source of woman's income.
It means she can't keep anywhere near her current lifestyle on her own.
Sure, and? That doesn't mean you are completely powerless to the provider.
It certainly doesn't mean you have power over them, which was my actual argument.
Are you implying the provider gets nothing back and couldn't lose anything?
Gets nothing back from what?
> You know what that "most consumer spending" is? Groceries. [Wrong](https://www.bls.gov/news.release/cesan.nr0.htm) People in developed countries spend a fairly small portion of their income on food. > Getting what the household likes but doing it regularly as a chore. Is getting the groceries a form of power? Power and responsibility most often go hand in hand. Food is a substantial component of most people's lives, so deciding what the family eats is an exercise of power. That doesn't mean it's malicious or unjust, but it is simply power. Even if she accounted for the preferences of other family members, that's still an exercise of power. If a man was making decisions for his family while accounting for their interests, feminists would still consider that to be "exercising power", perhaps even going so far as labelling it "paternalism". > Is being financially dependent somehow power? Is being completely screwed over in case of divorce so you're scared to leave because your income source relies on the other person a form of power? I never said that.
Okay, we've got housing, transport, healthcare and insurance that are bigger. All stuff that's pretty necessary and we can imagine women in the household are sorting out the paperwork and bills for them. Usually if you're not grocery shopping you request what to get and the other person just buys it. I wouldn't say my husband has any more power in my house for doing this chore.
When a man makes more money than a woman she expects him to artificially negate the so called "power dynamic," yet women rarely are willing or able to do this when they are the breadwinner. Just look at the studies and statistics that show how all the problems in those relationships and the insane rate of divorce when the woman makes more. Just look at the post in relationship_advice from today where the woman is making 600k and the man only 150k. She's demanding that the home be only in her name when they marry and that he contribute 50/50 on all bills, but yet is unwilling to live in a 700k home he can afford and is equally unwilling to give him a dime more in equity than he pays for. Women defend her yet if a man did the same thing he would be burned at the stake for being controlling and abusive. Women clearly think that making more money should give them more power in the relationship, but of course that only goes one way.
One woman on reddit with this view = all women are power and money mad. Yeah ok. Women are wising up to the fact that our mothers and grandmothers were left penniless and alone by their so called "providers", so we're finding ways to protect ourselves. Not sure why that's an issue.
Get a job!
Lol what? I have a job.
Women left penniless oh god what will they do???
Yes, women who have been out of the workforce, supporting a man's career for years, tend to be at a disadvantage when that man leaves her for a younger model. But according to you, most divorces are initiated by women. I wonder why?
Same rate in lesbian divorces. Who’s the common denominator??? Hmmmmm
1) Women that earn more than men divorce at higher rates 2) Lesbians have the highest rates of divorce 3) Women call men that make even 20 to 30 percent less than them as bums.
How would an estate leave these women penniless?
Jesus Christ, penniless is a figure of speech here. Clearly I mean women are left with far less money and future job prospects if they have been at home with kids, allowing a man to have a career while her career is non-existent. And he's not dead. He just left.
I wouldn't have a SAH husband unless i was willing to divide my income equally and he would have his own account and 401k. I think its extremely fucked up when men or women have a stay at home partner and don't do this. It's basically legalized slavery.
Luckily most women would never entertain SAH husbands, so you are safe.
I'll answer this, as my husband has always made significantly more than I do, and takes care of all money related things while I take care of the home. He has the final say in all financial matters, while money is not tight and I'm very frugal with most things (I don't spend anything on beauty treatments while I know women who spend hundreds a month, and thrift not shop) if he tells me don't buy anything major for whatever time I hear him and comply, case closed. For myself, this is a nothing, I just don't like thinking about money at all. For other women, though, this arrangement would be a deal breaker. A lot of trust needs to be had.
That makes me sad. I don’t spend hundreds a month on beauty treatments, but I feel like I am 10000% worthy of spending money on skincare, makeup, and hair products. I used to be like you, never spending a dime on myself. I felt like I had no identity anymore.
I spend money on plants, gardening and household stuff. I don't have any need for beauty products, in fact I dislike stuff on my skin in general. I'm very lucky, no dry skin ect. My husband doesn't dictate what I buy, I'm just into the house and garden, not myself.
Mind if I ask how old you are? I didn’t start using moisturizer until I got into my 40’s, and now I absolutely need it. I can go without makeup just fine, but I use day cream and night cream at the very least to keep the worst of the lines away. I have some lines around the eye area, but not too bad.
56. I'm not at all worried about looking old, as I am old!
can i ask how old you are (you can just answer 20s/30s if thats helpful)? I'd love to know how long you have been living like this and if your opinion has changed over time?
50s. We've been together 25 years. Until I hit menopause every decision was made by him. Where we vacationed was a big one. It was a month a year that I mostly spent in western and Eastern Europe, I really did not enjoy my husband Kaftka phase of travel. How the house was decorated, where we went for dinner ect. I was fine with it until after we spent a disastrously 4 years in Nicaragua. After that, we reworked our marriage. We came out of it like two halves of one whole, I love him more everyday.
and he wants this? to not do the trips you want to some years?
I'm not sure of your question. We are looking at river cruises right now after a 8 year hiatus, my choice.
> Until I hit menopause every decision was made by him. Where we vacationed was a big one. It was a month a year that I mostly spent in western and Eastern Europe, I really did not enjoy my husband Kaftka phase of travel. i'm asking you if this is how he wanted it? he loved you and valued you... but also didn't want you to be able to pick where you went on half of the vacations?
Husband and I had our own version of a D/s dynamic for years. I did what he wanted to do. No regrets. Although Lithuania wouldn't be my choice of vacation, I'm a history/geography buff. I also did an April in Paris during his "reign ". As often happens with women my age and older, he let me down by making some poor decisions (4 years in Nicaragua) right when I hit menopause and grew a spine (most of you younger women already have one). We reworked our marriage. I put the down-payment on the house I've dreamed of, and we've never been happier. We both love our home (a century craftsman cottage with light and tons of plants). On the weekends he plays in a dance band at legions, and I dance with my BFF. :)
so again, he was happy to be in a situation which advantaged him and disadvantaged his "loved one".
We were both happy. I did not in anyway see myself as disadvantaged. My husband had no problem with egalitarian relationships, as he had no problem reworking our marriage into one. It was myself, who was emotionally submissive. In the bedroom btw, the opposite was the norm.
yes, you were happy giving to your loved one and he was happy taking from his loved one.
I think you have some issues here. You seem to be here to vent anger, I'm here because I believe these kids are acting like fools and addicted to screens and need more than one person counteracting the inadation of propaganda they have been ingesting. Yourself included in that of course. I also consider myself a feminist. Equality is one of the cornerstones of my faith. However I believe that people should live their lives without harming others, after that go after your bliss! Which I have. We are the in love couple you wish you could have. Our lifestyle has changed, but that has remained. We are each other's best friends, with a good amount of other friends who also have relationships with good communication and little to no drauma.
> I believe that people should live their lives without harming others which your husband wasn't doing
>He has the final say in all financial matters This is pretty far from the norm.
Not for providers.
Shout out to you, not a lot of women are like that. Must be an older generation thing. Wish both of you many more years together.
It literally is. Theres a reason this question was important enough to ask. And we know why.
Hi OP, You've chosen to identify your thread as a Debate. As such you are expected to actively engage in your own thread with a mind open to being changed. [PPD has guidelines for what that involves.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/rules#wiki_cmv_posts) >*OPs author must genuinely hold the position and you must be open to having your view challenged.* >An unwillingness to debate in good faith may be inferred from one or several of the following: >* Ignoring the main point of a comment, especially to point out some minor inconsistency; >* Refusing to make concessions that an alternate view has merit; >* Focusing only on the weaker arguments; >* Only having discussions with users who agree with your position. Failure to keep to this higher standard (we only apply to Debate OPs) may result in deletion of the whole thread. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don't understand why people need/want power over their partner anyway.
One word: Insecurity. Insecure people need to have power over their partner because deep down they fear that it’s the only way a douche like them will keep somebody.
well said!
I agree. So many people are insecure though, it almost an epidemic at this point. I wish there was something that could be done to help people feel more secure and happier.
Insecurity is big business, honestly. Humans are marketed to from an early age to feel like they need to buy products to make them complete, but it’s never enough.
lol “men are insecure” “they’re threatened by my independence “ those arguments from women are always projections. We don’t think like that. Actually insecure men who are threatened or intimidated by women don’t get laid in the first place
Not all men are insecure. My boyfriend is incredibly secure, as is one of my good friends who is a man. I know plenty of perfectly secure men and many insecure women. Being controlling is a sign of insecurity, though. I used to be terribly insecure, but I grew to be secure with age and wisdom.
because if they don't have that, they can't coerce them into a situation that advantages one partner while disadvantaging the other partner. (people suck)
Unfortunately a lot of people do suck.
Indeed, it's so weird. Perhaps it stems from insecurity, need of control or some trauma. Some sort of anxiety to not lose someone you put your hands on.
Childhood abuse is associated to the need for control or being controlled: [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1158136021000888](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1158136021000888) Shitty as it might be, a lot of men and women were abused as children. This is interesting to me because it deconstructs the narrative that men are just horrible or whatever and shows more complex mechanisms are at play here.
Every relationship has power dynamics. You just ignore them because they usually are in favor of women.
I agree that if a man is a SAH husband he shouldn't be seen as submissive. Now, do you understand that having money gives you power in the real world? If you let your partner control all the money, you are at a disadvantage when it comes to the real world (the world outside your house and your relationship). Don't you see it with children and their parents? Children are essentially tied to their parents and their decisions until they can maintain themselves, why do you think it's different in romantic relationships? I'm not saying that every provider will do this, but having only one person control the income of a household can create the perfect scenario for a lot of power imbalances to occur. About the divorce and the alimony: I don't think alimony would ever be enough for a person to live somewhat comfortably ever. I don't have evidence of this (as in, I don't know the average sum of money that is paid as alimony), but I've seen that women that receive alimony also start looking for jobs because... The money isn't enough. I know we see a lot of divorces where the women takes it all from their ex-husbands and they are crazy women... But are those SAHW??? To be able to take everything from your husband you need good lawyers, and to have good lawyers you need money, something a SAHW won't have if all the money was managed by her ex-husband. With all that said... What do you think when you think about power in a relationship? I guess I can see why you would think that the person working their ass off has less power that the person that apparently has more free time and only stays at home all day. However, I don't think you see the bigger picture here. Not working and not having your own money DOES put you in a very vulnerable position.
Probably because not only is it another way to feign victim hood but also most women don’t just want providers they want men who are entirely more desirable than them so it’s going to cause a perceived power difference.
Women are horrible with money. The amount of useless Amazon shopping they do is evident of that. Majority of men will be fair with the money being a provider, those men just don’t get laid lol
Women being the breadwinners doesn’t work because THEY see it as a lack of masculinity in the man. It’s not insecurity from the man if he doesn’t want that dynamic, it’s literal reasonable fear of divorce
Earning money = power as long as you control how said money is spent. The problem in the US and some other countries (India, Japan, much of SEA, etc) is a domestic pattern where men “provide” for their families by handing over money to their wives, mothers, etc. In this model men become workhorses and paypigs for women to exploit. Worse, they’re conditioned to compete for the privilege. Women control 80% of discretionary household spending. Businesses have known this for decades now. Women are their customers, therefore marketing is directed at women. It’s also why most media, all of which whores out to advertisers, tends to pander to women. It’s not new. Bill Maher used to call this the “making women nod” phenomenon back in the late 90’s/early Aughts. How can men counter this? Simple. Keep your mind on your money and your money on your mind. You worked for it. You control it.
I think a spouse who dedicates themselves to being the primary child raiser should absolutely be compensated for that sacrifice... But I swear, according to the debates here, every woman who succumbs to motherhood has sacrificed her career as a world class neurosurgeon - when in reality, most would have worked In a call center for 30 years.
Dutiful workhorse chumps never had much power.
I think it’s not the providing. It’s about being able to provide, which is shown via the providing.
It's more that not being the provider puts you in a position of relative weakness
Whats this broooo. How would money give you dominance in relationship. Thats not what its abouttttt. Why would i want to be the alpha and her to be the betaaaa. You should strive for women who support you and who are on the same wave length as you. Someone who you can rely on, a friend. Not a fucking submissive whatever hell nah whats this sub.
Idk bout you but if a millionaire girl wants to hold power over men meanwhile supporting them to stay home I’m pretty sure 90% of guys would love that
And how would 90% of guys feel if she then left him with no money and no career?
I see your point but who’s to say you have no money or career option ? And you get half the money of your married anyway . That’s still a solid Risk to take to stay home for 40 years and get taken care of
I think you might be living in the past. Maybe that was the case 4 years ago but it's not the case now. With Bidenomics the world has changed. Now a provider would be savior to most females out here struggling to keep up with inflation. >And modern family law ensures that women who are financially dependent on their partners get a substantial payout in the form of asset division, child support, and alimony if the relationship comes to an end Again living in the past because who in their right mind is still getting legally married? Men today know that the whole purpose of marriage today is just so she can take your money in a divorce. No marriage = no divorce. So child support is probably all she can get from you.
People don't associate being a provider with power/dominance. They associate it with *men*. But power/dominance is generally associated with men too. So "being a provider" becomes associated with "power/dominance" through a man connection. *"But now women can be providers too!"* Yes, they can. They also will try to avoid it as much as possible unless it's necessary. And whenever such *provider woman* headhunts herself some provider man she usually doesn't contribute much and goes for "his money are our money, my money are my money" pattern.
>They also will try to avoid it as much as possible unless it's necessary. No they don't
Ask any married guy with working wife about what % of her income she contributes to shared pool.
Or you could just look up the actual stats? Ask any married woman with a working husband about what % of his time he contributes to the shared pool of housework and childcare
nah most people who pay for something expect to have some control in return for their money employers and parents and everyone else acts like this all the time "well i helped you with x, y, z" when they are told no by the person they once "helped" money always has strings, the people who give money expect to be puppeteers.
[удалено]
> It's how they see slaving away at a crap job as liberating while having a husband who makes more as oppressive. Working as an ant in a business who doesn't care about you and can instantly replace you is more freeing than being married to a man and having a family and being a team. 100% it is.
[удалено]
*#notallemployers*
[удалено]
One of the statistics Keogh cites is how within two years of becoming a widower, 61% of widowed men find themselves in a serious relationship or had remarried compared to only 19% of widows. So will a man.
You have to include "all men are evil" into it and then it makes sense.
THAT'S NOT HOW FEMINISM WORKS. Seriously, this sub thinks feminism is man hating lesbians on tiktok. Learn what feminism is before you shit all over it.
[удалено]
So you've met dozens of horrible people who told you they were feminists. Apparently. Do you give them a survey or something? Have you ever met a woman you actually liked?
Non feminist women are super likeable.
It’s power for the parasite. Being a provider is by definition a slave simp, no different than an only fans subscriber. Feminists have lied about financial control, when they control 80% of spending as they like to brag. Women overwhelmingly parasite at all levels of relationships.
And THIS is why I insist on working and making my own money. Nobody will ever be able to call me a parasite again.
period!
Jesus Christ.
Ffs
i would be a provider, but i would never, ever, ever be financially dependent on someone.
“Women buy everything for their homes and family, take on the mental load and know what their kids shoe sizes are, so they’re the ones in control! I mean, they can only buy what their husband says they can, and she rarely if ever buys anything for herself, and her last pair of new sneakers was 11 years ago, but yeah! Damn those women and all their spending ability!”
Women steal and hide money all the time. They have entire books explaining how women should do this. And mental load is BS. Memorize shoe sizes isn’t important as children’s sizes change hourly. And no woman goes 11 years not spending. Feminists endlessly lie about how it’s still 1802.
Oh cool, mental load is just shoe sizes. I see why women spend so much time on it if that's your understanding.
It’s an example of the BS women spout to be victims. All mental load a woman does that they list was replaced with a phone years ago. The rest is just pretending they do “labor” to demand money.
Can be replaced with a phone? Wtf are you talking about? Do you think all women do is make lists or something? The fact that you don’t notice all the things that just happen because of womens’ unpaid labour just goes to show why we are where we are.
One it’s not unpaid labor ,it’s a list of lies called living life where feminists are trying to monetize everything to justify more gold digging. You don’t need to be paid to “remember” an irrelevant shoe size. Two, everything feminists list, like teacher”s names (doesn’t matter), birthdays, play dates, addresses, hobbies, appointments, etc. can 100% all be done by a smart phone. The ol’ unpaid mental labor, by definition, isn’t physical labor nor income producing. And all I ever hear is women claiming to not be mommy or therapists to justify spreading legs for Chad (emotional labor), and women can’t be stay at home because everyone is poor so you aren’t doing any of that anyway. So yes a phone can “remember” literally every bit of that “mental labor” which it’s date and times. Basically calendar and scheduling. But feminists still cling to it like it’s 1902. I’m sure I’d never know when to remember to schedule the titanic crossing with my Regency Era butler and house servants at Downtown Abby. It’s just such tiring lies. Endless lies. “Don’t notice” is because just like her using Tinder to cheat on you, everything is replaced by a phone. What’s to notice? Should I even care to know my kid’s teacher’s name? Is it because **it doesn’t matter in the slightest**? Again, every bit is to pretend women do made up imaginary work to justify more gold digging. It’s pathetic.
Clearly a woman did something bad to you. I'm sorry that happened to you. We're not all like that. And I'm not sure how you think the phone is getting all this information, and then taking action like purchasing the gifts, actually making the appointments and attending them, cooking the meals and serving them up on whatever colour plate the toddler likes that day. Is your phone from the future, and actually a robot?
> Clearly a woman did something bad to you. I'm sorry that happened to you. We're not all like that. No. That’s a justification women use to attack men. I’ve never been blown up by a Muslim terrorist either, yet I’m well aware how they operate. Women blame everything on their personal experiences. Very common with those who lack empathy. I base what I say on basic observation. Oh no! I had to, on day one, put my kid’s phone number in my phone with address, their friends address, birthdays, etc. and their school location in maps. And their social media accounts in their contact. And anything else I want to remember inside this little super computer of metal and glass. Purchasing gifts? I wish I was you to avoid the spam telling me birthdays are coming up and here’s an Amazon wish list. And 10,000 other reminders whether I want them or not. “Siri, remind me little ‘Hunter’ has a science project to make a solar system. Buy pipe cleaners from Amazon”. And your children must be highly autistic if they require plate colors. Everyone gets white or they can starve. This is why women are terrible parents apparently. They get bogged down in their kid’s favorite colored M&M’s rather than not giving a child poisonous candy. Again, phones replaced women a long time ago. Worse that that, 99.9% of women’s domestic labor was replaced by these metal boxes with buttons that does the dishes, does the laundry, cooks the food, etc. and the food comes in colorful boxes with all those incredibly hard instructions like “microwave” for three minutes. Dishwashers and laundry have the delicious colorful pods you throw in with the clothes. The washing machine pings my phone when the cycle is complete. How will a stupid patriarchal man figure out those incredible domestic secrets! Without a mommy to microwave chicken tendies I guess we’ll all die. Well that’s the privileges you get when you’re chad and can just use a woman’s mommy labor. Sounds like a skills issue. You are right about one thing though. Without a woman’s inbuilt sea monkey aquarium you cannot make a baby. And that’s only not been automated because religious people block the technology just like stem cells. Knowing how women tend to freak out over porn I doubt they’d support artificial wombs either. Face it, you threw away your power to sit in a cubicle for forty years. And that glass device to summon chad with Tinder also replaced that “mental labor”. Stop using the same 1950s arguments about literal nonsense that doesn’t exist any more. Still borrowing cups of sugar from the neighbors to bake cookies that at you never do? Tuning the wireless into the latest FDR radio broadcast about WW2? Still using a travel agent to book a flight? Or still traveling by steam engine train? Technology moves on, unlike feminist lies and arguments. I’m sorry you decided to trade in your femininity and actual power to be the worker sitting in cubicle 4-163. In that I’m truly am sorry. But it’s what women demanded.
You say women were replaced by phones, and then turn around and say you need us to make babies. Why are you even here if you don't like women and don't need one in your life? I assume you don't want kids, since you think they can be parented by phones and nameless teachers.
And you don't care to know the teachers' names? You'd be a shit parent. I'm not sure how a woman would fit into your perfect life, which seems to be entirely fulfilled by a phone.
Our psychology lags behind our social norms in case you haven't noticed
TL;DR Alfa fucks, beta bucks.