Why are some men so adverse to their woman making her own money?

[Woggle]

I am certainly no feminist but I truly do not get this mentality I like knowing that my wife loves me for me and not the fact that I can provide for her or buy her stuff. I know why she is here and that is more than can be said for provider men who are only still married because their wife doesn't want to give up her lifestyle. They are most likely screwing the neighbor and at least one of his friends while blaming him for destroying her identity. Career women cheat too but at least you can kick them to the curb and not be financially raped in court. Trust me men when I say that a woman who can provide for herself is a much better find.

[Lizzie60]

I just can't believe I am still reading about this in 2009?????

 

What is wrong with you people.. WOMEN DO HAVE CAREERS !!!!!

 

I just can't believe some people even wonder about this.. STILL!!!!

[norajane]

Because they want a mommy at home taking care of them.

[fral945]

Woggle,

 

I think you pointed out to me one time the difference between a woman with a "career" and a "careerist". That's an important distinction. The careerist is what I (and most men) try to avoid. Many so-called career women are borderline careerists and/or feminists.

 

I don't care one way or another whether a woman has a job. I just care that she has qualities that would make for a good mother and wife, and careerists don't have them.

[johan]

As far as I'm concerned she should have more than enough on her hands at home. She should be mine and only mine. How should I feel about it if she's also renting herself out to the Man?

[Trialbyfire]

It's a combination of things, of which one is a total focus towards personal comfort and the other, personal insecurities that drive a need to entirely control their environment.

 

I'm not saying this is for all traditional men. Only the ones who don't have respect for women.

[clv0116]

I want a traditional family with my kids having a full time caregiver and I'm able to provide for that financially. I don't need a second income and I don't want to feel any guilt or have a woman feel resentment over 'giving up' her career.

 

Therefore I will pair up with a traditional woman who values herself for who she is and realizes that homemaker is not a dirty word. It has nothing to do with personal comfort and everything to do with being responsible and caring for my future family.

 

I don't want a girl who's not into that and fortunately I have found several sweet young things who are like minded. I don't see where all the angst is coming from, if some OTHER women want to be school bus drivers or whatever then fine for me I respect your life choices, how about you do the same for me?

[jerbear]

Trust me men when I say that a woman who can provide for herself is a much better find.

 

Both men and women put up with less "crap" when that is the case. She wants to get something, she can and vice versa. When it comes to family we both can support and live within our means.

[carhill]

Why are some men so adverse to their woman making her own money?

 

Dependence feeds their ego

 

IMO, it's a psychology of ignorance, but it does and likely always will exist...

[Woggle]

I agree with the difference between a careerist and a woman with a successful career but in the other thread a guy was saying that he doesn't even want a woman to get a college degree and that to me is going way too far.

[Geishawhelk]

I think people are missing an important point.

 

Men can't bear children.

Of course, they can father them, but then, if we're looking at purely traditional roles, the men are the partners who then continue with their work, and bring home the money to support mother and child(ren).

 

A woman is very often torn, in that she either needs, or would like, to continue with a career, but is also pulled (and I'm talking hormones here, not external force) towards being a mother.

It's the egg and bacon argument.

The man contributes but the woman, commits.

Having children is a massive physical and emotional pull on a woman, and juggling a pleasurable, profitable career that gives her variety and independence, with bringing up offspring and therefore investing at least 4 years away from the career ladder, show that there are choices she has to make.

 

I personally do not agree with having children then farming them out for others to bring up for you, for two reasons:

One, a woman will find that invariably, she doesn't see any of her salary, because the major portion of it goes from her bank account (left hand) right into her childminder's/nanny's bank account (right hand) by-passing the middle man. So really, she's working for pennies. Unless she really is quite high in the career stakes, and is a high-flyer...

 

And reason two, why in that case (if it means you are going to miss their arguably most important and formative years), bother having children in the first place?

 

It's very easy to say "Well, the choice is yours, you can't have it both ways" but life is actually not geared up in a way that accommodates this kind of argument.

 

I had reason to travel to Germany on business, to interview a major distributor of children's CDs and DVDs and to gather information on the market for children's products of this nature in general.

It was quite depressing.

The overal market for such products, has fallen by 47% in the last 7 years. And it's still declining.

Why?

Because young German couples are deliberately not having children. They enjoy a lifestyle which includes careers, property, the accessories that go with such a lifestyle (good clothes, cars, holidays, second homes) and are shying away from having children because they are a bind, a tie and an obligation. A commitment. A commitment they'd rather not make because it means too much personal sacrifice.

In the long-term, however, it means that the future workforce is in danger of being too small to sustain the economy. In short, Germany is not producing the future generation that will power its manufacturing and commercial indiustries. There won't be enough people doing the jobs, because these people are not being created.

Is the answer to pay women a decent wage to stay at home and have children? is it something Governments should consider? Actually using National Treasury funds to pay women a registered, taxable living wage to maintain a home and raise a family?

How would you calculate a sum like that?

How would you fund it!?

 

The revolution that has placed women shoulder to shoulder with men, has left gaping holes in the fine print.

Whilst some women may be said to want it all, it is clearly, plainly obvious that most women - and their men - can't have it.

 

Discuss?

[boxing123]

First of all, I would only marry with the intention of having kids.

 

I grew up in a traditional family, and see the advantages. Simple things. Eating together every day. Mom helping me with school work, teaching me foreign languages. Dad coming home from work to a nice meal. Since dad works during the day, and mom takes care of everything else, both have every evening free to relax, talk, without both doing more work.

 

They also had time in the evenings to focus on the children. My sister was modeling, I was playing sports. They were present at my tennis tournaments and soccer games. They had time.

 

A "careerist" is a huge liability and should be avoided. Why? Well they spent their lives focusing on themselves and working towards a career goal. It will not be easy for them to give this up. Family and kids will take a back seat. No dinner time. Less time to help kids. Less time to devote to husband and have quality time. Basically a selfish woman out for herself doing everything half ass.

 

It has nothing to do with "control". Who has time or the energy to focus on "controlling" someone. if nything, the "careerist" is the one with control issues as she cannot relinquish it,but still has a natural yearning for a man to lead. A very internally conflicted person.

[birdie]

First of all, I would only marry with the intention of having kids.

 

I grew up in a traditional family, and see the advantages. Simple things. Eating together every day. Mom helping me with school work, teaching me foreign languages. Dad coming home from work to a nice meal. Since dad works during the day, and mom takes care of everything else, both have every evening free to relax, talk, without both doing more work.

 

They also had time in the evenings to focus on the children. My sister was modeling, I was playing sports. They were present at my tennis tournaments and soccer games. They had time.

 

A "careerist" is a huge liability and should be avoided. Why? Well they spent their lives focusing on themselves and working towards a career goal. It will not be easy for them to give this up. Family and kids will take a back seat. No dinner time. Less time to help kids. Less time to devote to husband and have quality time. Basically a selfish woman out for herself doing everything half ass.

 

It has nothing to do with "control". Who has time or the energy to focus on "controlling" someone. if nything, the "careerist" is the one with control issues as she cannot relinquish it,but still has a natural yearning for a man to lead. A very internally conflicted person.

 

why not the other way around? if the woman is earning so much money, why doesn't the husband stay at home with the children?

 

I earn more than some of the men I date, partly because sometimes they are younger and partly because I was prepared to put in the hard work over the years, completed a finance degree while I also worked full time and put up with the pressure and the stress that comes with a well-paid job.

 

there are a lot of men that aren't prepared to do that but I would never give up my standard of living so the solution in my opinion is that HE stays at home

[Stockalone]

I had reason to travel to Germany on business, to interview a major distributor of children's CDs and DVDs and to gather information on the market for children's products of this nature in general.

It was quite depressing.

The overal market for such products, has fallen by 47% in the last 7 years. And it's still declining.

Why?

Because young German couples are deliberately not having children. They enjoy a lifestyle which includes careers, property, the accessories that go with such a lifestyle (good clothes, cars, holidays, second homes) and are shying away from having children because they are a bind, a tie and an obligation. A commitment. A commitment they'd rather not make because it means too much personal sacrifice.

In the long-term, however, it means that the future workforce is in danger of being too small to sustain the economy. In short, Germany is not producing the future generation that will power its manufacturing and commercial indiustries. There won't be enough people doing the jobs, because these people are not being created.

 

We do have a problem in Germany. And even though the government has tried to create incentives to have kids, it’s not really working. I don’t know why it isn’t working though. At least on paper, it all looks very reasonable and should be manageable. Whether the government admits it or not, they are targeting women with college/University degrees because they don’t have enough kids.

 

The problem with that is, financial incentives will not work. If those women absolutely wanted kids, they would have them already. Women with a college/University degree have not enough kids. There is no reliable data, but estimates are that 30% of those women remain childless.

 

My best guess is that those with lower incomes can hardly afford to have kids because they need both incomes to make enough money. And those who can financially afford them, don’t always want kids or wait longer and longer and then maybe only have one child.

 

We still have the lowest, or at least one of the lowest birth rates in Europe with 1.3 or 1.4. We also have the highest number of women who don’t have kids.

 

If I look at friends and people I went to school/college with, or worked with, that certainly could become a reality too. I was at my 10 year high school reunion last year and this very topic came up. To the best of my knowledge, out of nearly 100, there are less than 10 who have kids.

 

But we are “only” 30, which due to our University system (at least for people of my age) is different than being 30 in other countries. If you go to college/University, “we” spend more time in school before we start working, but that is already changing.

 

Mid thirties, for some even later, seems to be the time when people start thinking about getting married or about having kids. At least if you think in terms of planning a family and when would be a good time.

 

However, as we get older, fertility is on the decline. And maybe some get used to the life they have and then decide against having children. If you are in your mid to late thirties, that means you will be in your sixties before your kids would be out of college.

 

 

Is the answer to pay women a decent wage to stay at home and have children? is it something Governments should consider? Actually using National Treasury funds to pay women a registered, taxable living wage to maintain a home and raise a family?

How would you calculate a sum like that?

How would you fund it!?

 

The revolution that has placed women shoulder to shoulder with men, has left gaping holes in the fine print.

Whilst some women may be said to want it all, it is clearly, plainly obvious that most women - and their men - can't have it.

 

Discuss?

 

You can't raise enough money to pay women or men who stay home to raise kids and manage a family a salary.

 

Having kids is a personal choice, but aside from that, someone has to have kids if you want to ensure future generations and hence the survival of the country.

 

I would think about raising taxes in general and then give parents additional tax relief. It would basically punish people for not having children without admitting that this was the reason for the tax raise.

 

However, that is probably not a feasible option as long as we insist on fair and equal treatment for everyone. It would also be a slap in the face for those who would like to have kids but can't have them.

[fral945]

why not the other way around? if the woman is earning so much money, why doesn't the husband stay at home with the children?

 

I earn more than some of the men I date, partly because sometimes they are younger and partly because I was prepared to put in the hard work over the years, completed a finance degree while I also worked full time and put up with the pressure and the stress that comes with a well-paid job.

 

there are a lot of men that aren't prepared to do that but I would never give up my standard of living so the solution in my opinion is that HE stays at home

 

While that makes logical sense (especially in the case of career women who earns more), most of the career women here have said that they would look down upon a house husband.

[Geishawhelk]

First of all, I would only marry with the intention of having kids.

 

I grew up in a traditional family, and see the advantages. Simple things. Eating together every day. Mom helping me with school work, teaching me foreign languages. Dad coming home from work to a nice meal. Since dad works during the day, and mom takes care of everything else, both have every evening free to relax, talk, without both doing more work.

 

They also had time in the evenings to focus on the children. My sister was modeling, I was playing sports. They were present at my tennis tournaments and soccer games. They had time.

That's all very well if it's what people actually want. If either parent is unhappy in their role, then it's not going to be happy fsamilies.

Given that 50% of marriages end up in divorce, chances are children have two mummues and daddies nowadays anyway. So you are kidding yourself, kiddo....

 

 

A "careerist" is a huge liability and should be avoided. Why? Well they spent their lives focusing on themselves and working towards a career goal. It will not be easy for them to give this up. Family and kids will take a back seat. No dinner time. Less time to help kids.

Most career-oriented men fsall into this cstegory. But that's ok by you, of course. It's their role in life....

 

Less time to devote to husband and have quality time. Basically a selfish woman out for herself doing everything half ass.

I've yet to meet such a woman. And do you honestly think that a 'Female careerist' is going to want to even consider having children?

have you read my post about what's happening in germany? And that it is by no means unique?

 

It has nothing to do with "control". Who has time or the energy to focus on "controlling" someone. if nything, the "careerist" is the one with control issues as she cannot relinquish it,but still has a natural yearning for a man to lead. A very internally conflicted person.

 

Please provide statistics, evidence, or data when making ourtrageous comments of this kind.

 

And what is mummy making for your tea tonight?

Does she know half the rubbish you write about?

[norajane]

I would think about raising taxes in general and then give parents additional tax relief. It would basically punish people for not having children without admitting that this was the reason for the tax raise.

 

However, that is probably not a feasible option as long as we insist on fair and equal treatment for everyone. It would also be a slap in the face for those who would like to have kids but can't have them.

 

That's what we do in the US. Parents are able to deduct a certain amount on their annual income taxes for each "dependent" (child).

 

So everyone else gets slapped!

[Stockalone]

why not the other way around? if the woman is earning so much money, why doesn't the husband stay at home with the children?

 

If you are interested in this topic, you should read the following thread. It is called house husbands.

 

http://www.loveshack.org/forums/showthread.php?t=166402

[Stockalone]

That's what we do in the US. Parents are able to deduct a certain amount on their annual income taxes for each "dependent" (child).

 

So everyone else gets slapped!

 

You mean tax exemptions for kids, we have those too. I would just widen the gap even further.

 

Making childless people pay a tiny bit more for health care insurance, nursing care insurance (we already have a penalty there for singles: 0.25 % if I am not mistaken), pension insurance. Things like that.

 

The government, however, must be forced to use that money only to make life better for children. Either give it to the families directly, or to schools, kindergartens, etc.

[Trialbyfire]

Whilst some women may be said to want it all, it is clearly, plainly obvious that most women - and their men - can't have it.

Geish, people can't have it all because they're not willing to put the effort into getting it all. Everyone has control over their lives. If they plan for the future, from the time they're teenagers, they can easily have it all.

 

If you want it all, you need to look to education, firstly. If you get a BA in flute playing, it's not going to get you a lucrative future. If you love to play the flute, then this means you're going to have to sacrifice it all. People have to be realistic, not simply idealistic.

 

Okay, now say you have some high demand credentials and you manage to get yourself a decent job. Then you have to work hard and I don't mean doing your crappy little 40 hours a week. I mean doing 60 - 80 hours a week to establish yourself. This includes networking like a mad person, to ease your career path. The more alliances you make and the more you show your dedication and good work, puts you head and shoulders above the rest of the crowd. People sit up, take notice and when an opening comes up, your name pops into their heads.

 

After you've finally established yourself, this is when it starts to get lucrative, as long as you've positioned yourself in a lucrative sector. When this happens, you remain financially responsible, living a reasonably comfortable lifestyle but not doing stupid things, like making piss poor investments or blowing it all in a rock star lifestyle. Spend stupidly and guess what, you're forced to live stupidly.

 

After you've established your life, including having a comfortable retirement and rainy day nest egg portfolios, this is the time where you consider a family but doing it in the way where you have it all and don't get overstressed. This is one of the main reasons why I went self-employed. I can drive my own income AND more importantly, my time and where I choose to spend that time, which is at home.

 

Of course throughout this entire life building, you have relationships, continue dating and seeing people and eventually, find someone you want to stay with, someone who enriches your life through mutual caring.

 

Sound difficult? If you want it all, it's the path you take. I personally don't resent or regret a thing. It was a blast to exceed expectations!

[Stockalone]

Sound difficult? If you want it all, it's the path you take. I personally don't resent or regret a thing. It was a blast to exceed expectations!

 

Good for you. However, I think what Geishawhelk meant, or at least that was how I understood it, is that not everybody can reach certain goals.

 

Not every kid who plays football in high school is going to the NFL. Not every scientist will become an Astronaut even if they want to. Not every person will become president of the United States.

 

All can try, but success is not guaranteed. Some, like you, will achieve their career goals. Others will fail, even if they tried their best. There will always come a ceiling, no matter how extraordinary one's abilities are.

[Trialbyfire]

Good for you. However, I think what Geishawhelk meant, or at least that was how I understood it, is that not everybody can reach certain goals.

Sure they can when it comes to a good, fiscally responsible lifestyle.

 

Not every kid who plays football in high school is going to the NFL. Not every scientist will become an Astronaut even if they want to. Not every person will become president of the United States.

Well, that's reliant on reasonable goals which is the point I made about getting a BA in flute playing and my reference to pragmatism v. idealism. The three careers you're talking about are idealistic careers.

All can try, but success is not guaranteed. Some, like you, will achieve their career goals. Others will fail, even if they tried their best. There will always come a ceiling, no matter how extraordinary one's abilities are.

If we're talking about pragmatic goals, EVERYONE can attain them. The only ceiling that truly exists, is the one YOU put on yourself. The more "I can't do it" or "so and so won't let me do it", the more you're going to fail. I stand firmly on this.

[boxing123]

Well, TBF painted an accurate picture of the career woman. It takes devotion, dedication, and time. If done at a frantic pace, this might be accomplished for a woman by age 30? 32?? A normal pace would be 35?

 

Now after all those years and years of devotion to something, is it easy to quit? Completely shift gears into being an excellent wife and mother? Does she even want to? And how many men want to start a family or marry a 35 yr old woman? Far less. It is like a pro athlete struggling with retirement. He might not need the money at all, but the competition/lifestyle is what he misses most.

 

So what type of man does this woman want? Ironically she wants a man that makes more money that her! Problem is, this man does not need a woman with a career! He might go for a younger woman with no money or career, who has better wife skills. He can choose anything he wants.

 

 

Now the career woman as illustrated above would make perfect sense if she said "I just want a man that loves me, his career is irrelevant! I do not care about money".. But career women do no think like that. That want a guy who does not need or want what they have to offer.

[IrishCarBomb]

That's what we do in the US. Parents are able to deduct a certain amount on their annual income taxes for each "dependent" (child).

 

So everyone else gets slapped!

 

It's funny if you look at it that way because there is an additional credit for "day care" expenses. So, if we assume the government uses tax credits to provide incentives for behavior, I guess the government's position is that we should have children, but then outsource their care.

[Trialbyfire]

Ladies, if you want it all, work hard for it and make good decisions for YOU! For certain, don't settle for a useless man or one who spouts his own twisted realities to you!