Men who prefer non-career women - can you afford to have what you want?

[norajane]

There are two current threads that I find interesting when juxtaposed:

 

http://www.loveshack.org/forums/t166470/ - Do men find career women attractive or appealing?

 

http://www.loveshack.org/forums/t172912/ - Should a man be able to support a wife and kid temporarily?

 

For those of you who aren't attracted to career women and prefer a woman who only wants to be a SAHM, how do you answer the second thread? Can you actually afford to, and are you willing to make the sacrifices to support a wife and family? Without feeling like your wife is taking advantage of you and resenting her?

 

Are you making preparations and saving NOW to get ready for that day when you will support wife and children solely on your salary?

 

Does it make it more palatable to you that a woman might be a "career woman" and making herself very valuable in the workplace now, so that she can have savings and a 401(k) socked away for when she steps back to have your children?

 

Or would you still prefer a woman just mark time in a low-level, low paying job until she marries you and you can then support her fully, because the only type of woman you're attracted to is the home maker type and not the career woman?

[Trialbyfire]

How does male pride pay the bills?

[alphamale]

i just need a woman who is working part-time and making $25,000/year so she can buy her own shoes and clothes and take me out to dinner once a month.

 

I can take care of most of the rest.

[burning 4 revenge]

How does male pride pay the bills?

I dont have any male pride, Id let you pay the bills

[OpenBook]

Or would you still prefer a woman just mark time in a low-level, low paying job until she marries you and you can then support her fully, because the only type of woman you're attracted to is the home maker type and not the career woman?

 

Since I'm not a man, this is pure speculation on my part... but the woman's career, interests, etc. just aren't important to guys who want their women to fulfill a certain role for them. THEY DON'T CARE what the woman is (or is not) doing for herself. They assume it will all be replaced by HIM becoming the center of her universe anyway. That's all he cares about.

 

That said, I've seen W's who have taken the bull by the horns with these men and carved out their own path, all the while successfully negotiating this mine-filled path with their H's. I do not know how they do it. But they all have one thing in common - they show everyone (including their H's) what they're made of. They're very strong in their own sense of self-worth, and it is completely independent of what everyone else thinks (including their H's).

 

And I suspect that, in spite of whatever opinions their H's happen to express, it is that very same solid character, spirit of independence and drive that attracted their H's to them in the first place.

[norajane]

Since I'm not a man, this is pure speculation on my part... but the woman's career, interests, etc. just aren't important to guys who want their women to fulfill a certain role for them. THEY DON'T CARE what the woman is (or is not) doing for herself. They assume it will all be replaced by HIM becoming the center of her universe anyway. That's all he cares about.

 

Perhaps. But their best chance of success in marriage is to find a like-minded woman, one who wants to fulfill the role they want their wife to fill. I'm really curious whether they can actually afford it.

 

If they want to attract home maker types, then they really need to have an income that can support that lifestyle, otherwise those women will seek men who can. (And most likely those ladies will be viewed as gold-diggers who expect him to pay for all the dates ).

 

So are these men planning for that kind of future? Career women want to be successful for the financial security, among other things. They are planning for their future, regardless of what it brings.

 

Are traditional men who want a traditional wife planning for that NOW and stockpiling their cash and working to become successful in their careers so they can afford to support a wife and family?

[BoooredGuy]

I want a wife that is a homemaker, raises the kids, etc. If my wife wants to work then that's fine, but family comes first. The same applies to me - I won't be the dad/husband who's never around, but, I am making the sacrifices now so I can be pretty comfortable when I'm older and can enjoy life more. I'll have the finances to support everyone in my family.

 

Marrying a girl who wants the finer things in life, designer branded labels, shopping for shoes every weekend, etc., is not an option. Those women don't do it for me. Even if she can afford all those items with her own money then I still would not be happy and would not propose. It's just not what I want in a woman, and I've learned this through dating. I've got money for that stuff, but I'm a saver - I don't want a spender.

 

Culture is what drives it for me. I'm an American, but as a 1st generation my heritage and culture rule. That being said, I've learned that I need someone from the same background as me to make it work, i.e., stick to my flock if you will.

[norajane]

I want a wife that is a homemaker, raises the kids, etc. If my wife wants to work then that's fine, but family comes first. The same applies to me - I won't be the dad/husband who's never around, but, I am making the sacrifices now so I can be pretty comfortable when I'm older and can enjoy life more. I'll have the finances to support everyone in my family.

 

Do you plan to delay marriage until you're older and can support a family? Do your plans include college educations for the kids?

[carhill]

He's in his mid-20's. We both know what happens when life and plans meet

[Trialbyfire]

I dont have any male pride, Id let you pay the bills

 

While you do have male pride, I'm guessing you'd get over it.

 

There really is nothing wrong with traditional marriage but in these trying times, there aren't too many men in their twenties/thirties who are so financially secure or have sufficient job security, that they can afford to have only one partner working. Imagine if something happened to the working partner, such as lay-off, accidental death, a sudden major medical expense, nvm the mundane medical expense of childbirth.

 

Everything you would have worked for to save, no matter how financially responsible you are, even to the point of miserly thriftyness, would go down the toilet. So what happens then? Does your skill-less, experience-less partner attempt to find a minimum wage job?

[norajane]

He's in his mid-20's. We both know what happens when life and plans meet

 

Yes, we do know!

 

And so do all those career women who are making the most of what they have to offer employers - they know it's very difficult to thrive without money, and even more difficult to raise a family on one income and no other savings. That's why they have careers. It's mind-boggling to me that there are men who don't find women who have careers attractive because they have careers.

[carhill]

I'll just say there is tremendous value in a smart, stay-at-home spouse who both manages the family's finances and supports the income-producing spouse emotionally and logistically. The conflict comes when the working spouse doesn't appreciate that value, or, conversely, when the SAHS doesn't appreciate the singular efforts the income-producing spouse is making. Note that I don't call them "working" and "non-working" because both work very diligently and with the same respective intelligence.

 

The largest incompatibility I've noted in this area, personally, is one of proactive and reactive personality. The reactive personality always has more control because, simply, they care less. I watched this in action just this morning, and am happy to say I'm caring less every day. Equality is a great thing

[fral945]

For those of you who aren't attracted to career women and prefer a woman who only wants to be a SAHM, how do you answer the second thread? Can you actually afford to, and are you willing to make the sacrifices to support a wife and family? Without feeling like your wife is taking advantage of you and resenting her?

 

 

I would highly prefer a SAHM (or even volunteer myself to be a SAHD if her career is more lucrative) at least while the children are young. Someone that believes daycare or a nanny spends most of the time with children instead of the parents has a totally different belief system than me.

 

I would be able to afford it, however it would take some sacrifice, which I would be willing to do. Luckily, I have a degree that is very marketable, pays well, and job security is fairly high for me even in tough times.

 

Are you making preparations and saving NOW to get ready for that day when you will support wife and children solely on your salary?

 

Yes. You do make a good practical argument that it is difficult financially, though not impossible at all. My attitude is if my future wife would absolutely have to work for financial reasons, that would be fine. However, unless we can't put food on the table or pay the light bill, it is more important to me to raise children the way I believe than to have a flat screen TV, a few extra cable channels, or a new car every few years.

 

This is essentially what I see with two successful, career-oriented, dual income families. They are able to afford nice extras, "luxury" items that aren't really necessary. Admittedly, there are people out there that have to have both parents working.

 

Does it make it more palatable to you that a woman might be a "career woman" and making herself very valuable in the workplace now, so that she can have savings and a 401(k) socked away for when she steps back to have your children?

 

It's a nice to have. Not a necessity for me. Having a wife of GF with a good job or successful career itself is not even the issue for me. The issue is more a career woman's expectations, beliefs, and how she prioritizes her life and views men and relationships. I personally find many career women have different beliefs and expectations about marriage, children, etc. than myself. I tend to have more in common with SAHM types, or women who aren't all encompassed with their jobs.

 

Or would you still prefer a woman just mark time in a low-level, low paying job until she marries you and you can then support her fully, because the only type of woman you're attracted to is the home maker type and not the career woman?

 

Valid point. Women shouldn't wait around for a man to take care of her. I honestly do not have a problem with a woman with a job or career before children or after children once they become more independent. My aunt did exactly that, she became a teacher after she was a SAHM for 20 years.

 

I can’t argue anything you said financially. We have a system in place that makes it more difficult financially to have children when we are healthiest to have them. When nature and money disagree, I side with nature. Nature dictates a woman’s best childbearing years are when she is young (teens, 20s, early 30s) career. That is a fact. To delay childbirth into your late 30s or 40s (when childbirth is much more risky) because of financial means is wrong, IMO. But that is a completely different argument.

[Trialbyfire]

fral, it's always interesting to hear men talk about womens' lower fertility rate at 30's+, yet men also have the same issues. Why aren't you reproducing now, if you feel that it's the best time to do so?

[fral945]

fral, it's always interesting to hear men talk about womens' lower fertility rate at 30's+, yet men also have the same issues. Why aren't you reproducing now, if you feel that it's the best time to do so?

 

Our issues occur in our 40s. We have a little longer than you do. Look it up.

[Trialbyfire]

Our issues occur in our 40s. We have a little longer than you do. Look it up.

Do you mean like this?

 

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20070925-000003.html

 

Male Health: The Long Shot

 

From puberty on, reproductive health and the viability of sperm continue to evolve.

30s

 

Testosterone levels start to decline at age 30, bringing a decrease in potency. By 32-34, fertility begins to fall. Men who are 35 or older are twice as likely to be infertile as men under age 25. The mid-thirties also bring a significant increase in sperm DNA damage and thus an increased risk of producing birth defects. One in 99 fathers ages 30-35 sire children with schizophrenia versus one in 141 for fathers under age 25.

[Trialbyfire]

And how about this study from 2008?

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080706194250.htm

 

"But we also found that that the age of the father was important in pregnancy rates -- men over 35 had a negative effect," says Dr. Belloc. "And, perhaps more surprisingly, miscarriage rates increased where the father was over 35."

[BoooredGuy]

Do you plan to delay marriage until you're older and can support a family? Do your plans include college educations for the kids?

 

Nope. I know what I want, and it will happen when I meet the right person, and I have not met her yet. Then again, my current schedule doesn't allow for me to socialize much as I'm terribly busy, but I'm young, and I have time. I'm making the sacrifices now.

 

I do want kids, quite a few. At least 3. If all my children want to become doctors, then so be it. I will fund all education expenses. My dad doesn't make close to $100k a year, and my mom hasn't worked in 20 years. They had four kids which all went on to college, some of them private, and some then went onto grad. & professional school. Dad paid all expenses so long as we brought home A's. I think that it's a fair deal, and I'll do the same for my kids. No allowance, no money for fun, etc., from parents. Get a part time job and learn how to make your own money. You'll learn to appreciate it, budget, etc., but schooling is important, so parents paid for it.

 

We're all very good with money - we respect it. That's how my parents raised us. I'll do the same with my kids. If I were to marry now and have my first child, then I would be ready financially. I wouldn't be in my ideal place, but I can afford to do so. Ideally, I'd want to wait a few more years when I am closer to 30. I'm young, in my 20s, but I've worked hard to be in the spot that I am in. With money, it's never about how much you earn. It's what you do with it once you earn it.

[wierdmunky]

non traditional vs traditional gender roles? Aren't they negotiable these days?

[Woggle]

I actually prefer having a wife who makes her own living and supports herself. I make decent money and probably enough to support a housewife but at least I know why my wife is here which is more than most breadwinner husbands can say. A stay at home mon will betray you and crush your heart just as fast as a career woman will which is something many men don't seem to get.

[Gold Pile]

Perhaps a career woman who could support me as a stay at home Dad. Actually forget the kid...she could support me as a stay at home Husband. Lets forget about marriage too... I just want her to support me as a friend (with benefits)

[Shygirl15]

For those of you who aren't attracted to career women and prefer a woman who only wants to be a SAHM, how do you answer the second thread? Can you actually afford to, and are you willing to make the sacrifices to support a wife and family? Without feeling like your wife is taking advantage of you and resenting her?

My BF turned his once career wife into a SAHM for 17 years. Later on through the years, he began feeling taken advantage of and started resenting her. She sufferred depression because of this. They're now divorcing.

 

He's now asking me if I will be willing to be a SAHM if we happen to end up together. What a joke.

 

I can try to understand when a woman decides to stay home for a few years when kids are young, but to be a full time SAHM for the rest of the life? Hell no. I stayed home for 3 months only after having a baby, and he's growing up just fine.

 

I'm not sure what do couples agreeing with this expect to achieve.

[spookie]

My mom was a SAHM my whole life. My parents believed that real men pay bills; real women raise cook, clean, and raise kids; and that childcare is the sole reason for our country's high rates of crime and addiction.

 

Well, my siblings and I are some of the most screwed-up kids you'll ever meet. know what a load of BS it is that kids turn out better if a parent stays at home to coddle them.

 

When I have kids, I'll work, so they have examples of what being productive looks like.

 

I'd have trouble being with someone who didn't agree with me on these counts, and expected the woman to stay home.

 

On the other hand, I think I'd also have trouble with a man who COULDN'T support a family on his income alone, even though I know that bias is irrational; just because I'll likely be able to, and I don't like feeling like I'm wearing the pants.

[sb129]

This issue is hot where I am right now, the talkback radio shows are full of it.

 

In the 80s and 90s, women were encouraged into the workforce by getting educations and pushing for equal rights.

 

Now, many people seem to have changed their minds about whether that was a good idea or not, and are penalising the same women for using daycare/nurseries etc, and being a SAHM is now apparently better for your kids.

 

Just over a 100 years of working towards equal rights, and now we women cannot win. We're damned if we do and damned if we don't.

 

People are still getting married later in life than they used to- so it stands to reason that most women will HAVE to work for some of her adult life to support herself until Mr. Right comes along.

Should she just throw that all away?

 

This argument annoys me, because its really easy to point the finger and throw stones, when really most of us are just out there working hard to have a good life for us and our families, and if we choose to work or be SAHM or whatever, if it works for us, we shouldn't let anyone else tell us otherwise.

 

(NJ- not annoyed at your end of the argument, just that of some of the more idealistic including those I have heard on the radio this week.)

[GoodOnPaper]

People are still getting married later in life than they used to- so it stands to reason that most women will HAVE to work for some of her adult life to support herself until Mr. Right comes along.

Should she just throw that all away?

 

This argument annoys me, because its really easy to point the finger and throw stones, when really most of us are just out there working hard to have a good life for us and our families, and if we choose to work or be SAHM or whatever, if it works for us, we shouldn't let anyone else tell us otherwise.

 

I agree. I figure this issues resolves itself for each individual couple. When my wife and I married, she was fully intending to go career-track. Once we had our first child, she fell in love with the idea of working half-time in office work and hasn't looked back.