Supporting your wife financially is AFC

[edger]

I think this deserves some attention here in the forum that it's never gotten. It amazes me how so many men do it. As many of you already know, I'm not a proponent of supporting the wife financially and being her one way ticket to a work-free life while I bust my ass, so she could drive around in her SUV and yap away on her cell phone and stroll through almost about every store in town each day.

Like I've always said, it's one thing for wifey not to work if she has to take care of the kids when they're toddlers growing up, but to not work otherwise and live scott-free doesn't fly with me. But, can you really hold the women here ultimately responsible? No. It's they're AFC men who allow it, who pedestalize them, who tell wifey that she can "stay home" and live a nice stress free life. And then we men wonder why women have become such a problem that they see themselves entitled to the queen/princess treatment expecting everything like the spoiled little b*tches that so many of them are, especially here in America. Can it be more clear that men are at the root of the problem here? Men have ruined women, and also themselves by displaying as far as I'm concerned, one of the worst degrees of AFCism.

This usually gets debated heavily here by many with the "men are provider" antics, how a man's purpose by nature is to "provide". But this "provide" thing deserves a closer look and has gotten to much emphasis. Yes, no doubt at all at ONE TIME(notice I said at ONE TIME) men had to provide because women couldn't. A woman did not have the physical strength(and still doesn't have the physical strength and stamina) to take down a large animal to eat.

I've had this debate with Str8up several months back in a PM, and this was what I said. One important other thing that I also stated is how people have evolved, societies have evolved, we as a human civilization have evolved BEYOND a hunter gatherer society(where only men were able to provide sufficiently) and have taken humanity to the next height/phase of its existence. Women can easily provide for themselves with no problem in this day and age. Then can easily put food on the table, buy a house, car, or whatever they want. "Men as provider" has turned into nothing more than a "tradition" if you will, that no longer serves any puropse. Men and women have become so accustomed to this "provider" thing, that it still continues to this day. But things change, things will always and will continue to change. Human beings as well as all other life, "go with the flow" and try to be in sync with nature, which men and women needed to do at one point.

And so this is my argument...

 

[Phyzzle]

it's one thing for wifey not to work if she has to take care of the kids

There shouldn't be marriage without kids. That's my argument.

 

[Mr.Positive]

This is an interesting topic Edger and I agree with your post.

I think we have been in a transition stage for the past decade or two. While the notion of a "provider" as a man who protects the family, provides food, a place of shelter etc may still ring true, I think there is a shift going on. I'm sad to say that the government seems to be stepping up and replacing men as the sole provider now, with all the current laws constantly popping up placing men, in general, on the backburner.

Our laws actually seem to encourage the removal of men now, because there is so many economic and social gains now. Divorce is "in style" now, it's on every Hollywood tabloid newspaper, tv show, or website.

Where men were once needed, we are slowly being weeded out. No wonder women seem to be soo confused these days?

You have 10000 years of evolution and nature innate to them, yet society is pulling them another direction.

There seems to be a couple of strong mindsets or generalizations for men these days. Yes, provider is one, but since it's not necessaryily needed, the provider is more like a tool, a vehicle, an innanimate object. This is apparent everywhere, all men are the same, except some look different, some have better/worse jobs, and some are more alpha/beta. That's it. Women have your limited choices.

The other mindset is purely sexually..which I think would be a whole other topic..

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

Well, you can make the argument that in this day & age women ought to pull their own weight financially, but the cultural norm for women now is to have their westernized romaticism cake and eat their new found independence too. What pisses guys off is that, socially, we don't have this option. Men's identity tends to become synonymous with what he does. It's still perfectly socially acceptable for a woman to be a housewife, a working woman and/or both, but men are defined by what they do, period.

I'd have no problem financially supporting my wife from a personal standpoint. This is because I'm in the role of being the head of the household. I make the decisions for the family. It's men supporting their wives financially and allow her to dominate the frame of their marriage who're in a special kind of hell.

 

[squirrels]

I'd have no problem financially supporting my wife from a personal standpoint. This is because I'm in the role of being the head of the household. I make the decisions for the family. It's men supporting their wives financially and allow her to dominate the frame of their marriage who're in a special kind of hell.

Absolutely. Back in the 50s when women were housewives, the man "brought home the bacon" and what he said was law in the house. Of course, the woman had a large amount of political sway, but when the man ruled, she did what he thought was best.

It's the old "live under my house, live by my rules" scenario. The more of the bill she's footing, the more say she has. But if you're supporting her financially and she's not supporting you socially, you're in a bad way.

 

[WestCoaster]

A bigger problem is alimony. A friend of mine told me when she got divorced -- no kids -- her ex-hubby had to pay alimony to her for two years.

She was making six figures as a stock broker and living in a very inexpensive small town ... and she still had no qualms in taking her ex's $$$.

Freaking amazing. I can't believe the judges and judicial system in this country. A bit off-topic, but you get the idea.

 

[bigjohnson]

There shouldn't be marriage without kids. That's my argument.

I'd tend to agree, and I have to say that I have no problem with supporting her financially IF (HUGE IF) she is willing and eager to take on her traditional role as manager and keeper of all things domestic. That is a huge job if done properly, and by properly I mean she washes and cleans, cooks meals, buys needed things while being frugal and carefully shopping, and so on.

Ordering takeout 5 nights a week then wanting to go out on weekends just don't cut it.

 

[Bible_Belt]

IF (HUGE IF) she is willing and eager to take on her traditional role as manager and keeper of all things domestic. That is a huge job if done properly, and by properly I mean she washes and cleans, cooks meals, buys needed things while being frugal and carefully shopping, and so on.

I agree about it being a huge if. That sounds like a mail-order bride these days. Maybe a very young and naive American girl could be that way for a few years at least, or a woman who already has children and most of the work is cleaning up after her kids.

I find a lot of times it's one extreme or another. Either she's a career woman, who will move away if she gets a better job, or the opposite - a clingy, 'let's have kids so I can watch tv all day and get fat' woman.

 

[azanon]

I agree the wife needs to contribute significantly in some way; not necessarily including working, but of course "that works too". I think if one couldn't refer accurately to their marriage as a "team", then its not a very successful one. A marriage should become a union which forms a mutually beneficial and synergistic relationship where the sum of the joined parts equal more than the two parts evaluated separately. Obviously, if that isn't the case, then the marriage is logically a liability.

 

[STR8UP]

I agree the wife needs to contribute significantly in some way; not necessarily including working, but of course "that works too". I think if one couldn't refer accurately to their marriage as a "team", then its not a very successful one. A marriage should become a union which forms a mutually beneficial and synergistic relationship where the sum of the joined parts equal more than the two parts evaluated separately. Obviously, if that isn't the case, then the marriage is logically a liability.

Exactly.

When I discussed this with the OP before, it had nothing to do with me thinking that a woman should skate through a relationship without contributing anything.

My thing was, if the man is a BETTER provider than the woman, there is no reason why the woman cannot contribute her share in OTHER ways.

I mean, if you are a pro athlete, a high dollar surgeon, or a very successful business man, how can you demand that your spouse contribute equally? You can't.

Say Gene Simmons is on a business trip where he is making deals to license out the KISS name. He makes millions per year, and he comes home to his wife who WAS once a Playboy playmate and D list actress back in her day.

Is he gonna walk in the door and ask his wife to hand over $50,000 that month for her share of the mansion payment? Pretty ridiculous if you ask me.

As far as I am concerned there are things that need to be done at work and things that need to be done outside work. If my spouse is better at contributing something OTHER than money and I am able to float the bills, then so be it. Whatever keeps the gears turning, that's what i say.

 

[edger]

I mean, if you are a pro athlete, a high dollar surgeon, or a very successful business man, how can you demand that your spouse contribute equally? You can't.

And my response to this was, i t d o e s n ' t m a t t e r. A man paying a womans way through life is a CHUMP. I grew up in a fairly wealthy household, does that mean I should depend on my dad for money like a trust-fund kid because he just so happens to make enough money to support me? Hell no. Same thing with a wife.

 

[edger]

I'd have no problem financially supporting my wife from a personal standpoint. This is because I'm in the role of being the head of the household. I make the decisions for the family. It's men supporting their wives financially and allow her to dominate the frame of their marriage who're in a special kind of hell.

That's a lame excuse Rollo.

 

[Victory Unlimited]

Yo Troops,



I think that supporting your wife financially CAN be AFC sometimes, but it depends mostly on the makeup of the woman's core belief system. Does she suffer from an unearned sense of entitlement? Does she suffer from Magic Pusssy Syndrome? Does she REALLY think that you and all the rest of the male world OWES her a solid gold pedestal to stand on, JUST because she has a vagina????

THESE are the questions you should be seeking answers to before you marry her in the first place. And I would venture to say, that you need these questions answered as soon as YESTERDAY.

I have found that there are a lot of women out here who subscribe to the theory of SELECTIVE TRADITIONALISM. They pick and choose which behaviors, societal conventions, and traditions they want to adopt, and which ones they want to discard.

The current westernized version of the Wedding preparation scenario itself is a great example of how some women mix greed. tradition, and the incessant need for pure unadulterated attention until it becomes a smoothly consistent homogenous blend of selfishness. Yes, many women DO seem to cherry pick their "equal rights"...

And usually, ALL the ones they pick are the ones that benefit THEM more so than the man, or even the family as a unit. The trick to knowing whether or not a particular woman is WORTH "attempting" to financially support her as your wife is by measuring the length, height, weight, and depth of the amount of SELFISH she exhibits during the various growth stages of your burgeoning relationship.


Peace...one day.

 

[penkitten]

It's men supporting their wives financially and allow her to dominate the frame of their marriage who're in a special kind of hell.

amen rollo!
they work their butts off and come home to a dirty house, with unclean dishes and no dinner, to find a wife who is still in her pajamas chatting on the freggin yahoo chat room that live in that hell.... with the exception of payday in which she is showered and dressed and waiting on the porch for him to pull in so she can go with him to cash his check, pay the bills, go by mcdonalds and spend the last dollar at walmart on something no one needs.
*let us bow our heads and have a moment of silence while we mourn what is scared.

i have to go call my brother now, and direct my anger at his wife as i described above.

 

[penkitten]

pathatic. when I had my company, one guy had it so bad that I used to just give his check to his GIRLFRIEND who showed up once a week... Fridays at 11am.. to pick up his check and go with him to cash it. I feel bad for guys like that. but than again.. the decisions we make.

it started out differently with my brother.
when they married in 97 she was 18 and he was 27, she had no job experience and left the poor country side to move 3 states away with my brother.
he could financially support them until she decided what she wanted to do.
but she wouldn't get off her butt and actually decide anything, it was all talk.
she does not know how to drive, so she would stay home stranded.
he felt bad about it, so he would take her out somewhere on payday night.
he thought he was getting her out of the house and making her feel good, but instead he was spoiling her.

just when he couldn't take it anymore, she was pregnant with my niece.
he loves his daughter and would never ever leave, even if it means being a little unhappy.
the wife is now on to this and doesn't do anything anymore.
she has gained so much weight, i can no longer buy her a sweater because the 3x is too tight and when i ask her actual size, i get lied to , so why bother?

i hate to see my brother go without, i hate to see him work his butt off while she sits there on yahoo all damn day, and i hate to see him come home to cook dinner and clean the house and be told to mind their daughter because she feels bad and has done it all day. his daughter is now 8, pretty much self sufficient now a days.
i send a nice birthday gift for him of coffee and filters and sugar and creamer and a book and his favorite candy and a few bucks for lunch for him... and she writes me an email saying she opened it before he got home and had some coffee and candy and they were good... then i conveniently forgot to send her anything when her birthday comes around, she stole his already.

i usually keep my mouth shut, because if he wants to bide away his time, so be it.
however when i see her light up on yahoo and her status message says "cant talk now, hubby making me do the dishes !!" i get very angry at her little spoiled bratty butt.
when i see a status message that says "last day online cant afford bill" i get even saltier.

so that is when i write her the "im coming home to kick your a$# emails.
if you love my brother, respect him. clean the house since you are at home, homemaker. have some dinner waiting on him since he put in a 60 hr work week. wash his clothes, he deserves some clean ones. cause if you don't and i have to drive down there.... it is not going to be pretty."

what do i say to my brother? nothing, he has clearly made his choice, hasn't he?

my question is "why do some men make these choices"?

the only thing i can come up with is that he is afraid that if they separate, he will lose time with his child, and the mother won't cook or clean , so if he is not around to do it, nobody will.

 

[penkitten]

so let me get this straight.. she has NEVER tried to get a job?

that is a situtation where it's a false sense of pride to be supporting her.

I hope for all that is good his daughter turns out to be a asset to soceity.. at least your brother can say he sacrificed his life for something.

i did get her on at a place that i worked once when they were newly married, but i moved out of state and could no longer help them with her transportation. our boss, happened to be one of my brothers oldest and dearest friends, one who i babysat her kids when i was 12 or so.
that boss started to give her rides to help them out, and probably only hired her because of my brother.
she two faced talked about the boss and her kids and ex hubby to other peon employees during work.
the boss had to let her go.


recently she took a class and test to be a person that prepares taxes.
she failed the test by a few points and was mad and ranted about it.
i told her that if she had gotten off the chat line and memorized the book they gave her, she might have passed.

i think she ranted so much about it, he just got tired of listening to it.
it may actually be more of a burden for her to get a job.
she cant drive and he works extremely long hours sometimes.
and if she was working there wouldn't be anyone there when the daughter gets home.
so right now, its like he has this live in babysitter that never goes anywhere.

 

[penkitten]

http://www.odesk.com

tell her to do some type of tying or data entry job to help pay the bills.. anythnig is better than nothing

yah data entry was the job she was running her mouth at.

 

[STR8UP]

And my response to this was, i t d o e s n ' t m a t t e r. A man paying a womans way through life is a CHUMP. I grew up in a fairly wealthy household, does that mean I should depend on my dad for money like a trust-fund kid because he just so happens to make enough money to support me? Hell no. Same thing with a wife.

You don't get it. LIFE is an economic exchange.

I pay someone "x" amount of dollars to cut my grass. It has a value. Maybe I don't want to be the one DOING it, so I hire lawn guy who charges $100 per month.

If you are paying a woman to sit on her ass while she contributes nothing to a relationship, you should be tied to the bumper of a car and dragged down the pavement for a few miles. But there's a huge, HUGE difference between a woman who makes a genuine contribution to the relationship (monetary or otherwise) and one who ABUSES the MAN'S contribution by being a lazy, good for nothing, fat ass nag who does nothing but SPEND his money frivolously.

Seriously dude, you aren't getting it. It doesn't MATTER if the man and the woman bring home different amounts of bacon. All that matters is that at the end of the day there is food on the table and everyone is happy. It isn't a competition, it's a cooperative effort to keep things rolling along smoothly.

 

[edger]

You don't get it. LIFE is an economic exchange.

I pay someone "x" amount of dollars to cut my grass. It has a value. Maybe I don't want to be the one DOING it, so I hire lawn guy who charges $100 per month.

If you are paying a woman to sit on her ass while she contributes nothing to a relationship, you should be tied to the bumper of a car and dragged down the pavement for a few miles. But there's a huge, HUGE difference between a woman who makes a genuine contribution to the relationship (monetary or otherwise) and one who ABUSES the MAN'S contribution by being a lazy, good for nothing, fat ass nag who does nothing but SPEND his money frivolously.

Damn, some of you make it sound like a wife tending the household chores/cooking is such a "big" job. A house can get cleaned in a basically short amount of time, and it doesn't take all that much to prepare a good healthy meal. I'm not saying household chores and cooking are easy, easy tasks, but they sure have nothing on the standard 40 hour work week. A house gets cleaned, what, once every 2 weeks? A meal gets prepared and cooked in what, an hour and fifteen minutes?, most of the time not even. It takes what, 3 minutes to fill up and empty out a dishwasher, when doing the dishes?..or if you do it by hand, it takes what, 10 minutes? A wife goes shopping, what, once every week and a half? That's nothing. Both the husband and wife can take care of all these things while they both have jobs. These tasks can be accomplished on their days off and when they come home from work. It's all about team work like you say, right? They both can cook their meals when they come home from work.

Seriously dude, you aren't getting it. It doesn't MATTER if the man and the woman bring home different amounts of bacon. All that matters is that at the end of the day there is food on the table and everyone is happy. It isn't a competition, it's a cooperative effort to keep things rolling along smoothly.

I never said it mattered if the man and woman bring home different amounts of bacon, obviously people can't always help how much they make, but when I discussed this with you several months ago, I said the wife should pay HALF the bills, and if she can't, then she should at least be paying as much as she can afford. But women should always strive in life to make decent money the same way men do, this way they are able to pay half their share.

 

[amoka]

There shouldn't be marriage without kids. That's my argument.

Kid first or marriage first?