Why are straight women not uncomfortable with accepting complete financial support from their husbands?

Most of the people who do this are staying home with the kids and it would be more expensive for them to work and try to find child care. And, straight men don't see it as a burden. They think it makes them manly. Some are upset of they can't support their wife and kids without her working. I think the true sugar daddy phenomena is actually more common in the gay male world.

Where are you typing from....1952???

Life of Riley.

It is becoming less common, but it wasn’t too long ago that women couldn’t hold their own credit cards, mortgages, and bank accounts. And if they don’t work for pay (which many women in prior generations didn’t), it probably seems touchy to ask for some kind of separate handout of funds for a savings account.

A lot of my mother’s friends got screwed by this during the 2008 recession, which was so sudden that a lot of husbands got caught out for shaky finances and over leveraging (in some cases bankrupting) the family. The wives either hadn’t been paying attention or the husbands hid the family’s financial state.

Because most of them provide tons of free labor: cooking, cleaning, laundry service, etc. Overall, it’s not a good deal for women.

Ummm… because it’s not a bad deal for the women?

He works, she spends. Old story

They are secretly shopping around for a smart divorce lawyer with hopes of getting everything. The big pay off for them is worth the wait. That's why mgtow is increasing.

[quote]It is becoming less common, but it wasn’t too long ago that women couldn’t hold their own credit cards, mortgages, and bank accounts.

I bet 99% of people under 50 have no idea that this was still happening in the 1970s.

If there is enough trust in the relationship and you know your man won't do you dirty and will give you what you're entitled to, I don't see the porblem, and this goes for gay couples too. Whatever works for your couple, works.

Is it really that common? It's a pretty rarefied class of women.

[quote] Wouldn't this make you feel uncomfortable??

Accepting money for watching some rugrats and making sure they don't kill each other? No, I don't think so. I would think it's okay to accept compensation for that.

Open a separate bank account and don't tell your husband.

r11 The hardest part of the deal is not killing the kids.

I agree with OP. It’d make sense it was in the 50s. Women nowadays have the access to education and career paths and are much more independent than ever before, so staying home and financially depending on their husband is out of the norm nowadays. I’ve seen a LOT of women like this and most of them are lazy and uneducated women.

Why is everyone looking at me?

My brother-in-law is a stay at home dad while my sister works full time (plus). Day care and/or afterschool care for their two kids would negate whatever money he brought home. He seems to love spending time with them and they've both mentioned how he and my sister never have to worry about a sitter abusing them or a day care worker molesting them. He knows their teachers and is really involved with their school stuff. The kids are both well adjusted and pleasant, so maybe more kids would be better off if they were lucky enough to be able to spend more time with one or more of their parents like that, I dunno. I guess he may go back to work when the kids are older but, he hasn't said. If either of them are uncomfortable or unhappy with him staying home with their kids, I can't tell.

R11, I wouldn't feel uncomfortable accepting compensation for raising kids (not that there's enough money in the world to make me do that job, I won't even agree to babysit for an hour).

What would make me uncomfortable would be the part where I'm completely dependent on the kids' father (or anyone else). I need to be able to take care of myself -- even if I agree to let someone else pay the bills, I'd want to have my own money in my own account, just in case.

R16 Yes, sadly the same people balking at the idea of a woman staying at home and dedicating herself to children and housework probably get a massive hard on with a man doing that, as if it's denigrating only if one gender does it.

R8 There was a frau in my town who used to whine in the local media about how hard she had it after her first divorce because she couldn’t get a credit card in her own name. What she didn’t say was that mommy and daddy had longed dumped millions of dollars on her and she was heir to the entire family fortune (only child) and there was nothing she could buy from a house, a second house , a car, or yet another mink coat that she couldn’t pay cash for. Ironically, her maid and social secretary could get credit when she couldn’t.

Traditional gender role bullshit. Women weren't just dependent, they often were not allowed to participate in financial decisions or often had no idea what the family finances were. It was considered a man's job to handle the finances. This type of thinking was common 50-70 years ago when divorce rates were lower. It filtered down to some women, but in time, other women stepped up and got jobs (or held on to careers following childbirth) or at least demanded participation and knowledge of a couple's finances.

The Sopranos dealt with this a lot as it did many old customs vs. modern advancements. At one point Tony admits he doesn't want Carmella to play the stock market. He doesn't think she'll lose money. He implies she'd probably do well, he just doesn't want her to. It would give her some independence and he likes having control over money and not being answerable to anyone, even his own wife.

I'm a lesbian and I am a strong advocate against women who do this and believe me, there are a lot of them who do this even today. I grew up in the 1970's where my dad was the sole breadwinner in the family. My mother had never worked a day in her life. All she ever wanted was to be a stay at home mom, so she popped out 4 kids and did just that for 18 while married. Then shit went bad, my dad tried to off himself, then her a few times. She filed for divorce and my dad went batshit and let our house go into foreclosure, resulting in us having to move out in the middle of the night. She got a part time job, but we were on food stamps and welfare because my father didn't pay child support. We almost ended up homeless. My mom's solution was to find another idiot to take care of her and her kids and he was a nasty, abusive alcoholic who ended up kicking all her kids out of the house. My mom eventually became a postal carrier but she hated having Mexican supervisors telling her what to do.

Whenever I see women who depend on men like this, all I can think of is what fucking idiots they are. They have no clue how bad shit can get and it will. I vowed to never do this. I don't think I would even be comfortable buying a house with a partner.

R21, if women do it then maybe that's what they want? Who are you to decide what system works better for the couple? Believe in women enough to think they can decide their best possible course in their life.

OP,

Who cares how you would feel?

Knew of a very happy homemaker. She raised the kids while taking care of his parents, as her husband was older.

Then she took care of her parents not wanting them to go into a care home.

"Husband worshiped the ground she walked on" according to their daughter as mom was so hard working.

Family was Dutch/Baptist. When her parents died mom devoted her extra time to church work.

"Believe in women enough to think they can decide their best possible course in their life."

Sorry, nope. Women who depend on a man to provide for them are weak and usually quite dumb. When the man leaves or dies, the woman is then helpless. I have a friend who wanted so desperately to leave her marriage but she knew if she did, she would have to get a job and well, that wasn't an option for her so she stayed in the marriage and is miserable. Another girl I know also doesn't want to work so she is with some guy who she psychically fights with but won't leave because he lets her stay rent free. Another woman I know was a stay at home mom with a man she loathed and then when the kid got old enough and she was ready to go back to the workforce, she suddenly got knocked up again and her boyfriend/baby daddy is working two jobs to support her and the kids.

Women who do this shit are idiots. But hey, sure stay miserable and dependent. It works out so well.

Hey if I were in a relationship where my spouse fully supported me I'd be happy to do all the household care. You could even throw in some kids. And I wouldn't expect my spouse to come home after working all day and share housework with me. It seems like a fair deal to me. If I could get some housekeeper in, even better.

But in exchange for total support I would make their life as comfortable and easy as possible. Which would make my life more comfortable and easier. At my age, in retrospect, it seems like a great deal actually. LOL!

In Yugoslavia almost all women started working back in 60 and 70s, thanks to socialsm, so this hausfrau concept is almost unknown here in Croatia.

R25 staying at home has worked out very well for both the stay at home mom and stay at home dad I know. And stop talking like a 1st year Woman's studies student. 60 years ago maybe women didn't have as much choice. Now they do. If they chose that life, more than likely they know what they're doing.

Jfc whats will all the radfems on here lately?

This is DL, who is even bringing that mgtow crap here? Who on DL is even interested in some weird cult-type movement that the straights invented for themselves?

[quote]some guy who she psychically fights with

What, they stare real hard at some bad-luck Tarot cards and wish shitty things for each other?

R28, nothing wrong with either parent staying home to raise kids, if that's what both of them want. It's the idea of being dependent on someone else for support that's repellant. Neither of them should be penniless and powerless without the other -- endless love and trust forever don't always work out as planned, so that's why we have lawyers.

Some women don't want strangers raising their children.

Opee, are ya crazy?

It kind of backfired on me.

R31 I don't think people get that there are laws protecting people who stay at home to not get screwed over. There are joint bank accounts and credit card extensions as well. It's not I love Lucy anymore where you have to beg your husband for an allowance to buy the pretty dress.

No idea

--Erika Jayne

Plenty of straight women pick their husbands based on the ability to provide a comfortable life and not have to work. They are aware he may not be the hottest or the most fun but prefer security and a certain kind of lifestyle.

Just like a lot of straight guys pick their partners on how hot or thin they are and not compatibility or personality, right R37?

Yes R38 that is exactly true. What makes you think R37 was being critical of it?

It is a woman's nature to be subservient to a man. They are happier that way, and their natural skills make them wonderful housewives and homemakers and terrible office employees. Studies consistently show that everyone is more miserable now than they were before women were working, and women are the most miserable due to the change.

As with so many things, "liberation" was just a guise for wealthy who have made themselves wealthier off of the change.

[quote]So many women do this.

They...they do?

How old are you? Where do you live? I don't know a single woman in my personal network who doesn't work for a living, except for retirees or young/recent moms.

[quote}she suddenly got knocked up again and her boyfriend/baby daddy is working two jobs to support her and the kids...Women who do this shit are idiots.

Really? Sounds like the man working two jobs and not using birth control is the actual idiot.

Sounds like they deserve each other, R42. Too bad about the kids, who don't deserve to have idiots for parents.

“Studies consistently show that everyone is more miserable now than they were before women were working, and women are the most miserable due to the change.”

Why don’t you post these studies?

Why WOULD women want to be completely dependent for the basic provisions of their life - food, shelter, clothing, medicine - on another person --when they don't have to?

Why WOULDN"T they want their own interests, education, accomplishments and their own power?

Think about this OP, it's not that hard.

My sister never wanted to do anything but be a mother -- no ambition, no interest in any other subject. Nothing wrong with that goal, but she needed a man to impregnate her, participate in the kids' lives as a father, and provide support. Unfortunately, she chose the wrong man 3 times and the whole family has had a hard time financially. Women shouldn't cede power over their own lives, much less over the lives of the children they create.

I think it takes a lot of naivete' to believe he'll always take care of you and you'll retire together comfortably on Golden Pond someday. That God brought you together and you'll be married to him til you die. A very infantile mind.

There's thi/s one at least

“It is a woman's nature to be subservient to a man.”

LOL!

OP you really are just a role model

R40 I also think part of the women’s liberation created a whole class of workers that they could pay less. Works out great for companies! It’s all about driving down wages and creating more profits. That’s why we need two income families now. I personally think most people were happier when the man was the breadwinner and women stayed home. The kids were looked after and turned out into more well-adjusted adults. This is in general I know there are exceptions to this scenario.

R47 I was born in 1944 and most likely have a larger perspective than you about how society has changed over the past 70 years. That wasn’t an infantile way of living, but where our society was at that point. I don’t believe one woman in our neighborhood that I knew was out working for a living. They were at home raising their kids, which was proper in the 1950s. Men were “the man of the house,” whose duty was to go make a living and support his wife and children. The structure, rigidity of our lives were comforting, and necessary to rebuild a society that had been strained by World War II.

[quote] I think it takes a lot of naivete' to believe he'll always take care of you and you'll retire together comfortably on Golden Pond someday. That God brought you together and you'll be married to him til you die. A very infantile mind.

R47, that's the Hallmark Movie audience!

I personally know about 2 women who live like that. Hell, my folks are affluent Boomers and my mom loves working at her law firm, getting out of the house and having a solid amount of her own is a blessing. My sister HAS to work but, despite the challenges of menopause and being a mom, she likes having her own thing despite my BIL's good salary. This day and age...very few women live like that and few want to.

R51 I think it was important to remind women that there was an alternative to staying at home, I think it was important. But yes, at the same time, I think it was in every capitalist, every corporation and every person who wanted to make money's best interest to push for women working more, More money in the household meant more to spend.. I am nit against t if that makes a household happy but yes, let's not pretend the main interest in it was "liberating women". Most women knew they had the option to work beforehand anyway. A good 35% of 50's housewives already worked before feminism "liberated" them.

To add to that, in freaking 1950 1950, 36.5% of women between 25 and 44 worked.

Live, Love, Lounge

My mom was a homemaker but their marriage only survived because he was gone all the time on road trips. She ran the house, he made the money.

But I know she had worries about what would happen if he was no longer around (for whatever reason). She didn't even have a h.s. diploma, no marketable skills. And back then men could get away with non-payment if chils support.

I would hate for my entire existence to be attached to another person. Terrifying.

My partner’s family is wealthy, and many of his Midwestern relatives are stay at home moms or married to stay at home moms. His cousin graduated law from the University of Chicago. She worked in corporate law for a few years, married a colleague, had two kids and hasn’t worked since (17 years later). She takes the kids (alone) to Europe every summer to study languages (they speak 4). She really has an enviable life. His male cousin’s wife was an OBGYN, and she quit when her child was born (she seems miserable, but the child is still young). In both cases, the women would get half of the husband’s retirement savings, equity in the house, etc if they divorced. They would also have an education to fall back on. It works if you have an education and a wealthy husband with decent morals.

I understand women who want to stay home with kids and I think in some cases it can work, but society created that scenario in the old days to keep women in line and subservient to men. Today, for a woman to do this is seen as old fashioned and plays into this idea that men are more capable, more intelligent, and more likely to get paid more. I've often thought my life would be easier if I had a sugar daddy or mama to take care of me instead of my having to work but the cost to my own independence and my own self esteem would be too high to pay.

Today, women buy into the "women can have it all" myth and I've seen far too many women make the choice to have kids without a partner because they always wanted a kid and their choices in men or women have been bad. One friend is in her 50's and had her eggs frozen. She just had a kid on her own and is struggling massively with balancing the kid and being an "actress." She makes very little money but was running out of time to have a kid and decided that the time was now. She's learning that wanting to be a mom and wanting to parent are two very different things. One only requires a uterus, the other requires time, money and sacrifice. I wish her the best but the kid is going to suffer in the long run from her choice.

R59 here…I forgot to add that both of the stay at home wives discussed above work out daily and are obsessive about their diet. Wealthy men don’t like overweight women, no matter how well educated.

I am too much of a softy (literally and figuratively) to be able to survive in a transactional, high wire, “live up to my bougie standards” marriage like that.

Could be that the stay at home parent wants to work (or plans to go back at a later date) but is sacrificing their career to take care of the kid(s). Some can't afford day care or childcare that's safe, some kids have special needs. So the parent who makes less --which is usually the female-- quits to stay home with the kid(s).

A lot of Datalounge have shit, irresponsible parents so I thought I'd point this one out since it might not be something that would spring to mind.

R60"I understand women who want to stay home with kids and I think in some cases it can work, but society created that scenario in the old days to keep women in line and subservient to men. "

No it didn't. It just made sense that for most of history it would benefit children to be taken care of at all times and that the women more able and more willing to be the ones to do that would be the ones who birtjed and nursed them.

Did that perhaps need some rethinking once technology and modern education made certain attitudes redundant? Sure. But no, there was not some big secret conspiracy to keep women down. That's radfem babble.

My cousin married a woman with no ambition or goals. She essentially trapped him. She was 18 when he knocked her up and he was 31. He plead with her to work and get an education to help support the family. She never did. She openly told people the whole reason she got married was so she wouldn't have to work or go to school. Their marriage is totally dysfunctional, He insults her openly and admits to being a lousy husband. But they're still together. The truth is, I don't think any sane person would have either of them, so they're stuck with each other

Once you add children into the mix, I'd rather be the worker than the stay-at-home mom or dad. It really would be a thankless, mind-numbing existence (cleaning, cooking, taking care of kids).

My brother wanted a stay at home wife while the kids were young. Now the kids are older and she refuses to get a job. She knows she will get 1/2 of everything if he divorces her. So he stays in the marriage and is miserable. She goes out to lunch with friends, shops and gets manicures. He has a super stressful job that pays well but they still don’t have a lot of savings for retirement.

I knew - even as a kid - that I would never support someone. Never considered the idea of dating or marrying someone who wouldn’t pay their way. Maybe because my mother was trapped in a miserable marriage but could never leave because she couldn’t support herself and kids.

right, r64. That's why so many women who attempted to go to work in the 50s were openly laughed at or given jobs that were given back to men when they came home from the war.

But I'm sure there was no agenda in doing that at all.

I haven't seen anyone mention religion yet. My brother and his wife are VERY religious and it was that that made her (who has a college degree) stay home and raise their seven kids. He's a doctor and makes lots of money. She does all the housework, although the kids started having to do it once they got old enough. She's been perfectly happy from what I can tell with this situation.

Honestly it would depend on the job for me. If its my dream job, then yeah, I totally get it. If its a shitty thankless desk job for instance, I'd prefer to stay at home. Ultimately, you're always a slave to someone. I did read a study that said most women would prefer to keep working but part time. Makes sense. Best of both worlds.

r69, ALL the women I know who stay home are "Christians." They believe it's their duty to raise the kids and let their men take care of them. Then, when the man beats her or cheats on her, she just stays because it's what Christ would want her to do. I was raised in a house like this. My parents never saved a dime for their kids to go to college because they just expected that we were also going to just stay home with the screaming babies.

R4 do you live in a fucking time warp? Time stands still for you, dear? The laws about woman and mortgages was 1975. 45 years ago. "not too long ago"? Woman had the right to bank accounts in the 60s. How old are you, crypt keeper?

For most of human history, there were no “stay at home moms.” There was no middle class, there were no offices to go to. A few wealthy women got sit in the castle and have nannies raise the kids. Every other woman strapped the kid to to their back and went out into the fields. Children worked along side them as soon as they could, and that was life.

The middle class ideal of a woman staying at home raising the children existed only for about a century. It was never within reach for most of the people of the world.

When I read threads like this, I find myself thinking that the meme that DL is stuck in the year 1987 is being too generous, that it should really be 1967.

R59 is the only one who gets it.

Stay at home spouse is a status symbol for the Upper Middle Class and unlike days of yore when the doctor married his receptionist, today's doctors are more likely to marry other doctors. Or lawyers or i-bankers or similar, from similar top schools and all that.

And yes, these women could, if their husbands left them, go back to work at relatively high paying jobs .

For everyone else, it's just too expensive to have one spouse not work, the exception being blue collarw workers where the cost of child care would exceed the costs necessitated by the wife working.

And as for your question OP, not she does not.

If anything, many of them are conflicted about giving up a high powered job to raise the kids, but when they see how miserable their husbands often are, working 80 hour weeks at a law firm or investment bank, they figure they're pretty fortunate.

Yeah R71, that's how it always is. It always ends with the evil men cheating or beating them.

Dear god the indoctrination......

Being taken care of by someone is a dream, like who wouldn't want that op? But in the real world I've seen how this plays out for some. Especially when fights occur, it's always "I pay for this, I put food on the table, I keep a roof over your head" etc. So it's always best to have your own money to not be to dependant of someone.

R64, did you even see the statistics I posted about women working in 1950? Here it goes again, I guess 36% of women aged 24 to 44 got lucky and were NOT laughed at.

Meant to say R68

“ But no, there was not some big secret conspiracy to keep women down. That's radfem babble.”

Thank good the clueless cunts on here have some man turdbrain “explain” the situation of women throughout history, after all he majored in MRA and misogyny.

I am not a man R79 bit next time I suggest you stick to decent arguments and not ad hominems. Doesn't make you look all that informed.

Not me. I would feel very uncomfortable supported by a man. I'm a straight woman, and in all my adult life I earned my own income and was financially self-sufficient. When I was younger (I'm now 72), I used to think it would be nice to be a housewife and stay home all day being domestic, but that was only a fantasy. The reality is, as R5 pointed out, that I would have been on duty 24-7 providing free services like cooking, cleaning, laundry, shopping and childcare. And I would have felt insecure knowing that at any time I might be abandoned for a younger woman, or my husband could lose his income. That's no way to live.

R81 this is why alimony laws were created.

Women will achieve equal pay status in 2059.

Yeah, not trying to keep women down at all.

And r75 1 in 8 couples live in domestic violence situations. So yes, it's a thing.

This thread's era-appropriate theme song

If someone asks you who you are, and you answer with your job, you've lost your identity.

You think you've freed yourself through work.

Polls show women less happy?

You think these kind of polls were conducted before all this? They didn't. You think there are polls from earlier times to compare them with? There aren't.

Because it fulfills their "Princess" fantasies.

R86, the study compares information gathered from 1972 onwards till 2010. The paper is available upon google search, no paywall or anything, under the name "The paradox of declining female happiness". It's very interesting.

By 1972 things were already turning upside down. Feminism was loud and prominent about how bad women had it.

Where are the studies form the early 1960s and the 1950s?

You could be right but a decline in happiness from 1972 would still be a thing. If women were happier in 1972 than in 2010 then what went wrong? As far as I know no similar polls or studies exist for the 50s/60s

My mother always said "I'll never be beholden to any man". She never was, bless her.

R37 I know I’m not agreeing with a lot of these replies. Just look at the NYT Wedding page, and how many women “until last month, worked at ___”

A lot of women pretend they want to work and have a career because it’s politically correct, but MANY are just biding their time so they can find a rich enough husband so they don’t have to anymore. Or if they don’t quit working entirely, they start their own “consulting firm” (a vanity project funded by their husband), or start their own baby clothing line (ditto). And of course they have to make sure they have at least one child quickly to ensure their financial security.

Oh, hell no. Would not have kids until I had a university degree and a career. I’m 62.

[quote] Just look at the NYT Wedding page, and how many women “until last month, worked at ___”

Actually not many and it's generally when they are moving somewhere to be with their husband.

Women in this strata work until they have the first kid.

Sometimes even until they have the second.

Because if the woman is making $250K/year, and they can bank that for another two years, it's a big plus.

My mom was like this. Both my dad (who died when I was 11) and my stepdad (who my mom married when I was 13) were in the military.

My first job was for an organization which provided job training for women who were displaced homemakers. One woman called and she didn’t identify herself by her own name; she stated, I’m Mrs. Warren Smith, or whatever her husband’s name was. He left her for his secretary; 2 sons and 1 daughter. As a young person in the 80s that left an impression.

I didn't finish my post.

My stepdad was a lot older than my mother, so he was retired when they got married. He used money to control, not only my mom, but my sister and I as well. He flat-out forbid my mom from working and made us all basically beg him for money. He also did a lot of other weird control things. My sister and I went to Catholic school, and though we got scholarships that made it free, he said that we should go to public school since his tax dollars "pay for them." Then he complained about having to buy us school clothes, which we needed, since we no longer went to a school with a uniform.

I don't see how anyone can live like that.

Basically all women are whores.

R5 don’t forget emotional labour. The countless hours and days my poor Mom wasted listening to my Dad rail and rant and curse and threaten suicide...not worth it.

R84 is such a dyke sometimes!

Ah, yes, the commodification of all human relationships as 'emotional labor'.

R5 I had a coworker who seemed to hate his long-term girlfriend as he was always complaining about her. Once someone (not me) asked him why he stayed with her and he basically said, "she cooks and cleans and has sex with me on demand" though in a less-direct way.

Are people in a couple NOT expected to do "emotional labor" for the other? I thought that was the part if a loving comnited relationship?

That's the going rate for the inherent dangers and burdens of childbearing, OP.

R103 I think they absolutely are. The problem with some straight guys is they don’t hold up that end of the deal and then some—they don’t put the level of effort into daily household stuff that they would do if they lived alone, so the woman has to remember to ask the guy to do basic things like “put your dirty plate in the dishwasher.” It’s whatever the female version of a boner killer is.

Not all straight women are comfortable with it or even seek it. Those who are were more than likely trained from childhood by their own mothers that they should seek a man who could support them in the manner in which they wanted and deserved.

I feel sorry for women who were raised by gold digging mothers. I had a receptionist years ago that was beautiful, only had a high school education, with very wealthy parents. Her parents paid for her swanky condo and bought her a new Mercedes. She would go to Barney’s and buy thousands of dollars worth of crap, even though she made a little more than minimum wage. She dated a hot guy who worked in construction for a couple of years and was in love with him. Her mother told her that she would be cut off financially when she got married, and would be miserable with him because she didn’t know how to take care of herself. She broke up with construction guy and dated a rich asshole who cheated on her within a month. She was set up to fail.

My mother raised me to be admired.

I don't know. Why does a dog lick his balls?

Anyone who is living completely dependent on their spouse or partner is living in a Fool's Paradise. Male or female, unless you are disabled, you need to get off your fat ass and generate some income of your own and start saving. If anyone here is in that situation, please do come forward and testify. Explain how that works for you..

My Boomer father lives off my mother’s income, not because he’s disabled (unless undiagnosed PD/CPTSD counts as a disability) or incapable, but because he’s too much of an angry antisocial narcissist to hold down a job long enough. He also has no friends (hasn’t since he left the military in the 1990s), won’t do grocery shopping or cleaning or cooking, and alienates any neighbours they have. All he ever does is pointless renovation/DIY on the house or the car, running errands, or watching tv.

And my mother has the gumption to ask me why I don’t date men and why I’ve not been married to one yet ‘at my age’’. On the off chance I do ever marry, it will be a secret handfasting Pagan marriage to an independent girl, a ceremony that none of my tragic disordered relatives will be invited to attend.

R110, my brother is a stay at home dad...do you really think all they do, or women for that matter, is lay around the couch and watch the soaps? My brother is super into his son's lives and takes them everywhere, from tennis class to swimming to violin lessons. He does housework, cleaning and renovations, goes to the market, hlps the kids with their homework.....he does some part time work a few days a week too, but mainly he's a househusband. And leads a very full life.

R112: Makes perfect sense to me, whether it's a man or woman who is not working and/or "accepting complete financial support" from a partner. Whether kids are involved, whether the disparity in income between partners is so great that it doesn't make sense to try to keep up or play at being self-sufficient, or where a couple simply decide that that's the thing that works for them, it's fine.

When people object too vehemently there often seems to be an element of jealousy, or contempt based on old-fashioned sex roles, or projection of their circumstances onto someone else's. There's a hard edge among gay men that I see on Data Lounge and elsewhere where men think any relationship where each partner doesn't contribute equally is one of one partner using another, of one being too lazy and the other too indulgent; that all relationships are suspect anyway so it's best to keep everything in separate names, ready to walk away at a moment's notice and not out of anything more than the cost of a pre-nup and a locksmith to change to keys. There's not only a negative but often a nasty attitude toward couples of any stripe and an I-told-you-so delight when they fail.

What concern is it of mine if two people are happy with one working at a salaried job and the other shepherding the kids around, or doing volunteer work, or looking after the house renovations and maintenance? None. What attracts people to one another and what holds them together is often interesting but rarely a place for me to offer advice or harsh judgment.

I wasn't thinking of the Mr. Moms or guys or women who are contributing. I'm thinking of slobs.

My sister (an RN) was married to a doctor (MD). She quit her job at some point. They didn't even have kids except for a teen-aged daughter from husband's previous marriage who lived with them at some point.

Anyway, nasty divorce, etc. Sister was bitter, broken, etc. Went back to school as an older student, etc. (Didn't want to work as a nurse any more.)

Sometime after the divorce, I heard my sister say something about wanting to meet a "prince." I was incredulous. I said, "What?" If that experience didn't teach her some kind of lesson ...

Don't quit your jobs, ladies. No gaps on the resume unless it's for your own purposes.

Some of the comments on here are utterly ridiculous. First off, not all women even get a say in the matter as to whether they can work or not, secondly a lot of women are kept in a state of financial destitution. The belief amongst gays that women do nothing, but shop using their husbands credit cards is a myth.

I think happiness in either “extreme” (wanting to put in 80 hours a week at work and always reaching for the next brass ring in your career; staying at home full-time and focusing exclusively on child-rearing and keeping house) are pretty rare in the women that I know.

I think once they have kids, basically all women want to stay home with their baby for the first 12 to 18 months, but then most yearn to have a life that isn’t child-minding, cleaning and meal prep.

I would bet that for most women if they could design their life, it would involve 12-18 months for maternity leave, then having the option to re-enter the workforce doing something like 25-32 hours a week, with work-from-home flexibility (for non-frontline jobs) and high quality subsidized childcare.

What decade are you in OP? Almost 60 % of women work at least part time, and most because their families are dependent on their incomes to survive.

Yes, most women work outside the home.

Don't expect anyone to support you. Maybe you'll have a trust fund. Maybe you'll have a wealthy spouse. But you never know when either one might run out.

My parents married right after WWII. Traditional Catholic family, so stay at home mom and eventually eight kids.

Then my dad got cancer and died at age 49, leaving mom with eight kids to raise, no job, no money, no work history or experience since WWII.

The stupidest damn thing an adult can do is place their future security solely in the hands of another. If/when that person leaves, you're up shit creek. No matter how much money your partner makes, you need to have some kind of a paying job so you have a work history and credit history of your own, in case you end up on your own.

R119, there’s a tension there, though. I think most people think that children are best raised by their own parents, particularly in their early years. There should be away of ensuring that can happen. If both parents have to keep working, there’s the inevitable question of how to pay for appropriate child care.

R114, with respect to “slobs,” the other party is probably getting something out of the relationship that’s worth it for them. Some people enjoy feeling victimized, for example.

[quote] I bet 99% of people under 50 have no idea that this was still happening in the 1970s.

Yep. My nanny when I was a child couldn’t buy a car without her husband’s permission. This was in the early 1970s.

Those shitting on stay at home parents are also shitting on UBI as well, I hope? ;-)

OP sounds salty as fuck. I would have zero problem with staying home and having my man support us both financially, if he wanted to.

One of my relatives (woman married to a man) stopped working for a while when their 2 kids were little. It was Christmas-time and I asked her about exchanging gifts (I used to care about gifts). She said, "I feel kind of stupid asking him for money so that I can buy him a gift."

Anyway, she did go back to work, but I appreciated the honesty.

I think that most of these people are seeing this from a middle-class perspective, Of course having a nice, white collar-job and making your own money seems like an interesting, independent thing to do. Now imagine if the alternative to being a wife/mother was being a server or working in a factory on your feet for 8 hours a day. Or living with your parents because rent is too high.

Not everyone is Dinity who loves her "marketing" career.

What is wrong with that kind of work, r125? I'm a female who worked retail for several years before heading to college (which I paid for on my own, I might add). I never wanted kids but I knew I wanted to be able to support myself and working for $12 an hour wasn't going to cut it. So I went to community colleges for 5 years, then transferred to a University. I make good money now and was never looking for a sugar mama. I worked my ass off for everything and will never rely on anyone else to support me because it is my responsibility as a grown woman to support myself.

[quote] Don't quit your jobs, ladies. No gaps on the resume unless it's for your own purposes.

Uhm.....does crippling chronic depression count as a purpose...?

[R26] Nothing wrong with doing that work, but it's a far cry from working in a nice office with coffee breaks and salary reviews, which will be the norm for many middle-class women. It's great that you used retail as a stepping-stone to a better career but even you realized that it was not something you wanted long-term.

Not everyone has your motivation, opportunities, nor a background that encourages that sort of motivation and most straight women eventually do want kids.

Today I had a strange experience on my daily dog-walk—I slid into a semi-aware daydreamy headspace where I was fantasising about being a babymama (to a pro soccer player I have a crush on) and carrying/raising a son. This fantasy, while soapy-dramatic and weepy and replete with bullshit moments I would not tolerate irl, wasn’t utterly agonising and depressing to think about either.

This is a totally alien and scary thought process for me to have, as I have never ever wanted a kid of my own before (I used to cry and complain when given babydolls to play with as a little girl), and have never had or wanted to be impregnated either—honestly I have an phobia of it, whole thing gives me the ick (plus it isn’t safe for me due to inherent medical issues). To basically function and stay alive, I need sleep and personal space and privacy to the extreme. Having a child would probably kill me. As for the drama and nonsense of getting caught up in the WAG life, I could never keep up with that either. But today for the first time, my body asked me—how much worse could it actually than the life I currently lead? (my mind: MUCH FUCKING WORSE U SILLY HO)

Anyway is this the first tick of the biological clock? Because if so I don’t rate it, and would like to get a return on it.

Money is money. I’ll take it.

[quote] The belief amongst gays that women do nothing, but shop using their husbands credit cards is a myth.

No, it’s not. I know women like that.

[quote] Those shitting on stay at home parents are also shitting on UBI as well, I hope?

Those things aren’t related

[quote]No, it’s not. I know women like that [women "who do nothing but shop using their husbands credit cards"]

So what if you do know women like that? I know women like that. I know gay me like that, also. (I also count as friends people who were given everything, and others who had to work like dogs to get anything.)

These things don't harm me. They don't make me jealous. They don't make me angry. They don't make me form a fist and shake it in the air.

I'm not sure why it bothers anybody, really.

As stated by some on this thread, some women just want to get married and be homemakers so that they don't have to work. I know two of them. The husband works, while the wife stays at home, cooks, takes care of the kids in the morning and evening. During the day they might do a bit of housecleaning (one of them refuses and uses professional housecleaning), but they also meet friends or go shopping. Now that the kids are gone from the nest, the wife still doesn't want to work despite not having to take care of the kids. She prefers to meet with friends all day long. They know the husband can't do shit about it because in case of divorce the wife gets half of everything. Their lives are miserable.

OP, why do you care so much about straight women?

The topics at DL about straights are so bizarre.

Because they make up 99% of society and won’t leave this website alone?

Just a thought.

If I was still a kid, I'd want a mom who actually stayed home and raised me.

[quote] Because they make up 99% of society and won’t leave this website alone?

You think straight women make up 99% of society? And if you want people to leave this website, you don't create posts about them. Just a thought.

Straight people make up 99% of society. This thread is about straight marriages.

Now why don't you go stick a knife in your cunt?

R135 This board has been invaded by the radfems for awhile.

[quote] Straight people make up 99% of society.

Again, wrong.

[quote]Don't quit your jobs, ladies. No gaps on the resume unless it's for your own purposes

So fucking what if someone has a gap in a his or her résumé? Is that the best thing one can aim for is a record of unbroken employment? You'd think it was stretch in prison.

Looking after one's own interests and self-reliance and are fine, but plenty of people have a record of 40 years or unbroken employment and are neither rich nor happy nor any where near either. Self-reliance as it relates to working is useful in the way that swimming is useful when you're in deep water.

How do you account for wives who not only don’t work but also have nannies to raise their kids and housekeepers to do the housework? The only explanation is that they don’t want to - and they married someone with enough money to be able to do so.

I don't "account" for them at all, I guess. I just don't give a fuck about them. Why care about people like that, R143? Are you looking for a reason to get pissed off or hate people? I wish I had your free time.

I don’t think that a gap in employment is a big deal in high demand professions. My neighbor lady is a RN and just went back to work after taking 8-10 years off. I’m sure that she is getting paid quite well too, judging from her new breasts and Audi.

R139 you're a fucking psycho. And a huge cunt yourself. You're not hot enough to have a man support you financially, why don't you learn a skill to support yourself and then maybe you won't be envious.

Are you kidding?

24/7 programming telling certain demos - women sharing top place with the other group that cant be named - that they are always victims and they are owed everything and owe nothing back..... And when poop hits the fan, big daddy government steps in to give them endless stuff.

Entitlement level approaching infinity.

R142, I don't get the obsession in America about gaps in your Resume (..yes before you rip into me, I come from one of those 'Socialist' countries). Why would you work yourself to the bone for someone else? Everyone should be entitled to annual leave/or take a break. Staff don't function if not treated reasonably. Resentment towards your boss or colleagues is very corrosive. Take time out, move jobs, rest up, look after yourselves. As the old saying goes, 'we can all be done without'

WTF are you on about, R147?

[quote]And when poop hits the fan, big daddy government steps in to give them endless stuff.

First, it's "shit," as in "when the shit hits the fan." Talking in baby talk just makes you sound like a retarded Midwestern Neighbor Flanders.

But to the real point tell me about all the endless stuff given out by government to woman who don't work because they don't need to financially? Tell us what favors they get that make them richer still?

You hint about a culture of victim good yet no poor fucker is more put upon by you - and certainly none are more put out be the imagined benefits docked out to others which you get none

*you hint at a culture of victimhood

I hate whiny poor white men like r147 that think that women, minorities, and the poor are getting free shit on every corner. I bet you think that people on food stamps are eating steak and lobster every night, while you work hard and can only afford Top Ramen.

I am an immigrant. and not white... why don't you cry some more?

I dont think they get lobster.... but I hate the identity politics victimhood promulgated by the USA. Too bad that shatters your fragile world view.

[quote]Because they make up 99% of society and won’t leave this website alone? Just a thought.

99%? Not true. You sir, are a moron.

Lots of people are financially supported by others: trust funders, young gay men with old sugar daddies, young straight women with old sugar daddies, the list goes on.

If the people supporting these types don't care, why the fuck should YOU? Talk about needing a hobby.

I only see complete financial support for stay at home moms. It's a leap of faith but it makes enough sense especially with the high cost of childcare. For many families, it's more financially viable for one parent to stay home. If a partner is at home and primarily responsible for cooking, cleaning, and childcare that's a whole job itself. Childless housewives are pretty rare these days. And honestly, if you don't have kids it makes sense to have some kind of career even if it's frivolous like part time event planning. Just something to have a personal nest egg. Never know what might happen.

[quote]Lots of people are financially supported by others: trust funders, young gay men with old sugar daddies, young straight women with old sugar daddies, the list goes on.

As though there are anywhere near as many young gay men supported by sugar daddies as there as fraus supported by their husbands.

WTF is that logic, R155? Because there are so many more financially supported straight women than there are financially supported gay men?

Maybe that has something to do with the fact that in the U.S. the heterosexual population is estimated at 94% and gay, lesbian, and bisexual population at juts under 6%? That couldn't possibly be an explanation for the disparity in numbers.

One relationship is far more common (even per capita) and fully sanctioned by society. That's why it's being discussed.

Don't worry, R155. Once Bezosnet takes over the world, every house (even the poorest ones) will have robots to watch the kids and those lazy, whore women will have to go to work. Then, you'll be able to bitch about how you can't find a office job because some whore woman took your position or promotion!

I'm so sick of the "but I do all the cooking and cleaning" argument. Single people work full time jobs, keep a roof over our heads, pay all the bills, and do all our own cooking and cleaning too.

Yes, R159. For one person.

[quote] For one person.

As though that proportionally increases the workload.

My mother made one thing: take it or leave it.

R67 My brother wanted a stay at home wife while the kids were young. Now the kids are older and she refuses to get a job. She knows she will get 1/2 of everything if he divorces her. So he stays in the marriage and is miserable. She goes out to lunch with friends, shops and gets manicures. He has a super stressful job that pays well but they still don’t have a lot of savings for retirement.

My partner's step-brother is in a similar situation to R67's brother. He married at 30 to a wife who is seven years younger than him. They started having kids right away and he was fine with her staying home when they were very small because they both didn't like the idea of daycare or a babysitter. Three of their four kids are in school and the youngest is 3. The wife has told him that she has no plans to work when the youngest goes to school. His wife spends like crazy and refuses to budget on many things.

My partner's step brother works in the mining industry which is stressful and dangerous. Two years ago, the wife didn't like living in the area where his employer is located. So they sold the home they had in that town. They bought a house 90 miles away where the wife and kids live in full time. He lives in a fifth wheel trailer parked at an RV park in the town where his employer is located during the time he's working. He goes to stay with them in the other town during weekends or periods he's off from work. He has told my partner's s father that he knows if they divorce, he will lose half of everything. He has told my partner's dad that he's miserable as fuck because he's pretty much stuck between working, going home to RV park after work, and then going to spend time with the wife and kids on weekends for a few days at a time.

I’m convinced that some of these men just like to complain. No one in their right mind would stay in a horrible marriage just for the money, Alimony ends once the person receiving it remarries, which is very likely. Child support ends at 18. Ditch the spouse, downsize and be single with a little less money if you’re so unhappy.

R163, a number of states, maybe most of them, don’t have “alimony” anymore. There’s just the division of marital assets and child support. There’s no reason for someone to waste their life being miserable.

This is a fucking LGBTQ site. We don't give a shit about your straight woman issues.

What is a housewife today?

I’m 34, this thread completely ignores the fact that men have evolved domestically as much as women have evolved in the workplace.

Men clean, men cook, men look after kids AND are also the breadwinner.

Most women want to work. In addition to money, a job offers socialization and a sense of accomplishment. For those few women who don't work (but don't have pre-school aged kids), usually there are two reasons. It's a status symbol for the couple if the wife doesn't work; it's a humblebrag about how wealthy they are.

The other reason for avoiding a job: some people have anxiety and low self esteem, and they are afraid of being held accountable for their performance by someone other than a family member, or they have personality disorders that make it very hard to navigate a workplace's social environment. (Some men feel this way too, but it's more socially acceptable for women to use family to duck out of the workforce.) Some of these women will baby trap a man by intentionally making sure their birth control fails.

I know a number of women who don't work, but they all have wealthy husbands. I don't know how middle class women could do it, with the cost of living the way it is now.

[quote]This is a fucking LGBTQ site.

It used to be. Half of these posts read like MRA central. Endless sob stories of terrified, hard working husbands chained to feckless, money-sucking harridans threatening to "take half" if they so much as protest.

Datalounge is something else these days. We used to have biting wit and insight. Now we have recycled talking points and narratives from the right wing.

MRA central? I feel like I am drowning in a pool of radfems in this thread.....

Yeah MRA central? I’ve never seen so much male bashing on a gay site.

They are uncomfortable. But admitting that would force changes they really don't want to face or make.

For those of you that are in it for the alimony...Move here: New Jersey, West Virginia, North Carolina, Oregon, Florida, Vermont, Michigan, Connecticut, Virginia, Tennessee, Oregon, Mississippi, Washington, and New Hampshire may still grant permanent alimony.

First off, stay at home mothers cook, clean, wash and look after the kids etc., the claim they do nothing is a misogynistic myth spouted by people who have never carried, birthed, breastfed or raised children.

Secondly, the claim that they spend their husbands money is a myth. Most stay at home mothers are given a meagre allowance or are kept in a state of financial destitution.

Thirdly, not every woman has a choice in the matter. Some girls are married off at a young age. Some women thought that they would be returning to work after they had the baby only to find their husbands wouldn't let them.

Why is it only White people that shit on mothers and housewives?

OMFG. What a frau posting. Females who are married and don't work and let hubby pay for everything are just whores, through and through. Clearly many were destined to be somebody's bought and paid for whore.

Why aren’t they not uncomfortable?

Obligatory prenups would help everyone.

Also, R177 obligatory paternity tests

"Why is it only White people that shit on mothers and housewives?"

Because the entire concept of the stay-at-home mom, and then the "luxury" version - the stay-at-home wife, who may also be a mom, but has enough money to have a lot of "mom" duties done for her while she spends money and goes to yoga classes and the wine bar with her girlfriends - is based on white women. There were always significantly more white women that didn't have to work than black or brown women. Stay-at-home mom "jokes" or commentary like this, the idea of the "bored housewife", etc. who is black or brown just wouldn't land.

And I realize this is all stereotypes. Most white stay-at-home moms aren't of the "luxury" variety and are slogging away on the tasks that R174 points out, and aren't living some great passive mom life, where it's all about shopping, Peleton, and day drinking. Or they're in and out of the work force, always gauging if it is worth it to stay at home and save money on child care, or whether they should work, depending on how their partner is doing economically.

R179 Wouldn't all of that havee more to do with class than racee though? Like, the reasons behind it are all about class, not race.

Of course, R180, but race and class have had a strong correlation. Black and brown people literally didn't have access to certain jobs, couldn't gain certain opportunities for work and career, thus requiring that the women worked. Plus pay gaps. It's certainly improved and there are definitely "luxury" stay-at-home moms of all races. But, the genesis of the stay-at-home mom who is derided comes from that post-war generation of largely white women, which then continued until today in other manifestations - like the "Yoga mom."

My friend is going through a divorce right now. Her husband has left her for a much younger woman. She used to be a very beautiful women who marries to a well to do man. She’s now in her late 40s, is no longer attractive like she once was 20 years ago and has never worked in her life. She’s now fighting tooth and nail for every last penny she can get.

She has no skills, no education and is still be able to amaze her with her delusions. Bitch thinks that she’s still a catch and will be able to marry an old and rich man soon in the near future.

I think in some situations it's more of a class thing. I know a Latina immigrant from Mexico who hasn't worked in many years. Her husband owns several assisted living homes for elderly people. When her two daughters entered school, that was when she started going off to fitness classes, BIble studies, meet ups with friends, hobbies, which she would do before she picked up the kids from school. She and her husband attend an Evangelical church. Pre-pandemic she tried to organize a trip her women's BIble study group to go a conference in a neighboring state and then was shocked when she found out most of the other women couldn't afford to go because they are on one income households and are barely making ends meet. Since the pandemic has hit, she has posted things on Facebook about worrying about her husband's businesses and asking for prayers. I wonder if they lived above their means and shit is finally catching up with them.

R182.."My friend"...."The bitch"

So I assume she's not a suoer close friend.

Jesus christ, this thread is infested with fraus. "Emotional labor" is called being in a relationship. Heterosexuals are so insufferable.

Saw this thread had been resurrected. Made me think on this again.

You know the reality through the ages - and to some extent still today - is that women have a tougher go in the workplace for various reasons. For some women it isn't worth the extra fight required just to be even with men. Especially if they have a family to give birth to and to raise. An agreement to stay home and take care of the family so the other partner can have the freedom and support needed to bring home the wooly mammoth to feed the family is a practical and in some families a smart decision that gets them all what they want. There may be a downside for the woman if she wants to enter the workplace later but that can be remedied.

Making me rethink my whole career.

[quote] Making me rethink my whole career.

Aww, how come baby?

R174 my mom was a stay at home mom but the minute my sister and I were able to hold a can of Endust and a cloth, we were the ones doing all the housework. Only thing my mom did on the regular was laundry and much of that was while she was watching As The World Turns and Guiding Light.

R188 your mother is a legend and too smart to be scammed by a society that hated her!