Wife makes more money than husband


PV2004
 Share

Recommended Posts

I am currently the breadwinner in the home, by a longshot. For now, we are both fine with it because it works out with schedules and children and the bills get paid. The hard part for me is feeling like I am the odd duck out at church because I get the strong message that women are the "nurturers"... when in my case, it's the "daddy" who does the majority of child care (not to mention laundry, dinner and transportation). In other words, I feel like he doesn't get the credit he deserves, and I'm being looked down upon. I mentioned to someone that it was nice that he got up with the baby Mon-Thurs because he's not working and I am, and it's nice to get the sleep. I was not prepared for the look of shock. I did not grow up in an LDS home, and I don't have any real LDS friends... but I would say the "culture" of the LDS faith appears/seems to be very traditional. I wouldn't mind hearing from others on this subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a woman, it would very much bother me if I made more money than my husband. I would lose respect for him.

Have you turned your man into a hermaphrodite? - Telegraph

Here's a great article that explains how feminism hurts marriages. Women claim that they want to bring in a lot of money and share the housework with their husbands. But without realizing it, they emasculate their husbands and then lose respect for them.

Women want a knight in shining armor to provide and protect for them, but they are taught that this is stupid to want and that they should be independent career women, completely equal to men. Then if their man accomodates them, they secretly wish he had more masculine traits. This is taught in our culture and is in the church. So many women brag about how they wear the pants in the family and they run the money and their husband has to ask their permission to do things and they don't let their husband do blah blah blah. That's what they think they want, but not the way God wants a marriage to be. The man should be the leader and provider. Sure, he should be loving and kind and respectful leader and is not the boss of his wife, but he is still the leader.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a woman, it would very much bother me if I made more money than my husband. I would lose respect for him.

Have you turned your man into a hermaphrodite? - Telegraph

Here's a great article that explains how feminism hurts marriages. Women claim that they want to bring in a lot of money and share the housework with their husbands. But without realizing it, they emasculate their husbands and then lose respect for them.

Women want a knight in shining armor to provide and protect for them, but they are taught that this is stupid to want and that they should be independent career women, completely equal to men. Then if their man accomodates them, they secretly wish he had more masculine traits. This is taught in our culture and is in the church. So many women brag about how they wear the pants in the family and they run the money and their husband has to ask their permission to do things and they don't let their husband do blah blah blah. That's what they think they want, but not the way God wants a marriage to be. The man should be the leader and provider. Sure, he should be loving and kind and respectful leader and is not the boss of his wife, but he is still the leader.

ehhhhhmmm.... I see your point here crazypotato but I'm not quite sure I agree with all of it.

The article you posted is completely valid. But this is not at all the same as what you are saying.

Just because a man doesn't make as much as a woman doesn't "emasculate" him.

There was this talk once that our then EQ president gave one Sunday. It really made an impression on me. The EQ president is a millionaire guy. He said in his talk that he used to consider how much one makes at his job as a gauge of man's success. Then he got to know the then bishop's brother who is a case worker. The bishop's brother is this kind of guy who doesn't really care how much he makes or if he even gets paid as long as he gets to help the troubled youth in our county/region. They have a whole lot less money than the EQ president, that's for sure. I don't even think he makes more than $35,000 a year at that time! So, in his talk, the EQ President explained that he has always just thought of the bishop's brother as "unimportant" and just a "lowly" guy. But then, he was driving to work one time and heard the bishop's brother on the radio talking on the morning show about this project he has with the city to help abused children. He was so passionate in that interview that the EQ President stopped his car to listen. That is when he realized that the bishop's brother's work is more important than his multi-million-dollar business.

Guess what, the bishop's brother is married to a civil engineer who makes a VERY good living... probably up to the 100 thousands, if not more.

Can you honestly say that she would lose respect for him?

I wouldn't say so. As a matter of fact, the bishop's brother is now our seminary teacher and we have utmost respect for him. The kids love him - he knows the doctrine very well (his dad was the stake president) and with his passion for the youth, he is one awesome seminary teacher.

It's not unusual to see him cooking. They have a tradition every Sunday morning that he makes breakfast for everybody before going to church. And it's not unusual to hear she is traveling for her job so he is taking care of the house and the kids.

His wife is a convert who has grown by leaps and bounds because of his priesthood authority guiding their family. He runs a tight ship with discipline strict but full of love.

The word "emasculate" can't get within 500 miles of the bishop's brother.

I don't have to look too much farther than the people in my ward to give me a good idea of what "manly man" REALLY means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm. . .somehow I have insulted a man that helps abused children? Strange, I don't remember doing that.

Anyway, I am speaking generally. And if that kind man was making 35K per year to help abused kids, I think that is great. If I were his wife, I would prefer him to do that job and then another job to cover our expenses. 35K is not providing for a family. I know lots of great guys that cook and clean and work humanitarian jobs. They are nice, but not super masculine. This is exactly what the article was saying. Women are attracted to men who are willing to help them with the house and kids, that don't demand they be a SAHM, and that don't try and take charge and lead the house. They want a man that will be like that, but biologically or something, there is something in us, male and female, that desires the man to protect and provide, and the woman to do the more feminine roles.

Nothing about your story changes what I said. The term emasculate refers to men that have lots of feminiine traits and roles. It doesn't mean that the man is a loser or a bad person. Women like emasculated men, but they wish, as the article said, that their men were aggressive, took charge more, did man-jobs more, were leaders, made good money, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm. . .somehow I have insulted a man that helps abused children? Strange, I don't remember doing that.

Anyway, I am speaking generally. And if that kind man was making 35K per year to help abused kids, I think that is great. If I were his wife, I would prefer him to do that job and then another job to cover our expenses. 35K is not providing for a family. I know lots of great guys that cook and clean and work humanitarian jobs. They are nice, but not super masculine. This is exactly what the article was saying. Women are attracted to men who are willing to help them with the house and kids, that don't demand they be a SAHM, and that don't try and take charge and lead the house. They want a man that will be like that, but biologically or something, there is something in us, male and female, that desires the man to protect and provide, and the woman to do the more feminine roles.

Nothing about your story changes what I said. The term emasculate refers to men that have lots of feminiine traits and roles. It doesn't mean that the man is a loser or a bad person. Women like emasculated men, but they wish, as the article said, that their men were aggressive, took charge more, did man-jobs more, were leaders, made good money, etc.

Actually, the term you're looking for is effeminate. Emasculate means to castrate. It is colloquially used to indicate the process of making a man feel less like a woman. Effeminate is an adjective, emasculate is a verb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay. I feel like there are a lot of people here with their dictionaries and reference tools waiting to correct each other. If you want me to use the terms more clearly, then fine. Women try to emasculate men. Men are effeminate. But I wasn't trying to say that men are effeminate. I was trying to say that women push their female gender roles onto men and then wonder why men aren't more masculine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay. I feel like there are a lot of people here with their dictionaries and reference tools waiting to correct each other. If you want me to use the terms more clearly, then fine. Women try to emasculate men. Men are effeminate. But I wasn't trying to say that men are effeminate. I was trying to say that women push their female gender roles onto men and then wonder why men aren't more masculine.

Yeah, I will sit here with a dictionary and correct your use of terms when it's necessary. You can't expect us to understand what you're trying to communicate if you're using words improperly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a woman, it would very much bother me if I made more money than my husband. I would lose respect for him.

That's... Wow. That's incredible.

So if you were a medical doctor, you wouldn't date a truck driver or a mechanic?

This attitude confuses me to no end. Don't get me wrong - If you don't respect someone, you shouldn't date them, but I think maybe you should consider that you're being very silly in this regard and, depending on what you how much you make, preventing some very fulfilling relationships.

On the other hand, if you earn basement dollars, then it's understandable. You want someone with a desire to do something, but to condemn a man because that desire is not 'High profile stockbroker' seems to me to miss the point of relationships.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay. I feel like there are a lot of people here with their dictionaries and reference tools waiting to correct each other. If you want me to use the terms more clearly, then fine. Women try to emasculate men. Men are effeminate. But I wasn't trying to say that men are effeminate. I was trying to say that women push their female gender roles onto men and then wonder why men aren't more masculine.

What you are trying to say is that by pushing men into more effeminate roles the women are in effect emasculating their men. Then the women wonder why the men are so effeminate and wish for a more masculine man.

I personally have to disagree with this. Money does not make the man. Yes it does cause women to feel more secure in a relationship, but it does not make the man more masculine.

I heard a long time ago about a study done on what women and men find attractive in the opposite gender. For men the curvy look on a woman is often very attractive, good birthing hips and such. Something about how human males look at women cause them to subconsciously be attracted to women who look like they would be a good (to be blunt) breeder.

Conversely women were attracted to men who dressed nicely, seemed to have money and seemed as if they could provide well for the woman. Subconsciously they were attracted to men who would be good providers for themselves and any babies that came along. It is all down to survival instincts.

That said, a man who makes more than another man is not suddenly more masculine, money does not add extra testosterone to a man's system. It just makes him look like a better provider.

Personally I would have no problem if I made more than my husband, I would not think less of him either. I have a degree, he does not, we work the same level of job at the same company but I get paid less than he does. That I see as more of an issue than how much we both bring home.

When it comes down to it feminisim does not ruin marriages, people do. Feminism (and I am not talking extreme bra burning feminisim) can actually help marriages. Fear of feminisim often causes women to end up in a relationship where they are unhappy and they live that way for years because they thing that is how they "should" be. It is a bunch of hogwash, a couple in a marriage should find ways to make each other happy, and if that means that the woman has a job (because for whatever reason it makes her happy) then so be it. If the marriage is happier and healthier because of it then I see no harm in a woman making more than her husband.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's... Wow. That's incredible.

So if you were a medical doctor, you wouldn't date a truck driver or a mechanic?

This attitude confuses me to no end. Don't get me wrong - If you don't respect someone, you shouldn't date them, but I think maybe you should consider that you're being very silly in this regard and, depending on what you how much you make, preventing some very fulfilling relationships.

On the other hand, if you earn basement dollars, then it's understandable. You want someone with a desire to do something, but to condemn a man because that desire is not 'High profile stockbroker' seems to me to miss the point of relationships.

FunkyTown, I am already married. My husband is not rich, but he provides so that I don't have to work. If he were a truck driver or a mechanic, that would be awesome. As long as he made enough for us to pay for our needs, that would be great. I would lose respect for him if he were counting on me to work full time or even part time for our entire marriage, so that he could have more toys or didn't have to have it all on his shoulders. Sure I would work temporarily if needed, or permanently if it was for a good reason, but in general, no. I respect men that have the desire to provide for their family. It has nothing to do with how much or little education they have or how much money they make. If they live in a trailer park and the husband is providing, I have respect for him. If the husband is home on disability legitimately and the wife is providing, then I still respect the man.

Funkytown, I understand that I confuse you and also I seem to be irritating a lot of people here. My intention is not to judge anyone else's marriages or relationships here. My intention is to give my opinion that has actually changed over the years. I am 37 years old and when I started out as single, I was only marrying someone based on how we got along with each other, not anything with money. Then I married my husband, and we were dirt poor, like a lot of newlyweds, because my husband was still in school and we were living on our two part time jobs. I expected him to have a lot of feminine traits. It was what I wanted and thought men should be like. I wanted him to cook and clean, and I wanted all of our money decisions and decisions in general to be joint decisions. Now this is all great in theory, but it didn't work.

I strongly believe, strongly strongly strongly, that women give mixed messages to men.

We want them to be equal partners in the household chores, the finances, the jobs, but then on the other hand, we want them to be protectors, providers, and be very masculine. My husband happens to have a very masculine personality. I used to think he was a huge jerk. After I embraced his masclinity and stopped trying too get him to be a woman (i.e. have long talks with me, do all these household chores, agree with me on everything), we have had a great marriage. Now I know plenty of people that are not like me, but I still strongly believe that feminism harms marriages. It makes people extemely defensive, it seems, to say that, but I still believe it. I could elaborate more if you like, but I get the feeling that everyone here thinks that I am an extremist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you are trying to say is that by pushing men into more effeminate roles the women are in effect emasculating their men. Then the women wonder why the men are so effeminate and wish for a more masculine man.

I personally have to disagree with this. Money does not make the man. Yes it does cause women to feel more secure in a relationship, but it does not make the man more masculine.

I heard a long time ago about a study done on what women and men find attractive in the opposite gender. For men the curvy look on a woman is often very attractive, good birthing hips and such. Something about how human males look at women cause them to subconsciously be attracted to women who look like they would be a good (to be blunt) breeder.

Conversely women were attracted to men who dressed nicely, seemed to have money and seemed as if they could provide well for the woman. Subconsciously they were attracted to men who would be good providers for themselves and any babies that came along. It is all down to survival instincts.

That said, a man who makes more than another man is not suddenly more masculine, money does not add extra testosterone to a man's system. It just makes him look like a better provider.

Personally I would have no problem if I made more than my husband, I would not think less of him either. I have a degree, he does not, we work the same level of job at the same company but I get paid less than he does. That I see as more of an issue than how much we both bring home.

When it comes down to it feminisim does not ruin marriages, people do. Feminism (and I am not talking extreme bra burning feminisim) can actually help marriages. Fear of feminisim often causes women to end up in a relationship where they are unhappy and they live that way for years because they thing that is how they "should" be. It is a bunch of hogwash, a couple in a marriage should find ways to make each other happy, and if that means that the woman has a job (because for whatever reason it makes her happy) then so be it. If the marriage is happier and healthier because of it then I see no harm in a woman making more than her husband.

Tarnished, extreme feminism does hurt marriages. And I see a trickle of ideas in your post that I disagree with. I am not basing my opinion on how things "should" be. That implies that I have no life experience in this or that I am blindly following a mentality that feminism is bad. I am basing my opinion on my life experience as well as a book called "Fascinating Womanhood", on Dr. Laura's theories about marriage, and on this article that I sent. I used to vehemently disagree with Dr Laura and with the book Fascinating Womanhood. But over the years and with life experience, watching my own marriage, my sisters and brothers, my parents, my coworkers, my friends, I strongly believe in their theories now. I am not 100% on board with Dr Laura, but in general, yes.

And the philosophy of trying to make each other happy is exactly what I believe in, too. I used to try and change my husband into my ideal of us being completely equal and the same. But happiness in marriage is best found if we follow Jesus Christ. And the Lord wants us to love and accept each other, and do our primary roles. If we look at the proclamation on the family, it is very traditional and sexist in some people's view. But it is still true. It doesn't say, women should provide for the family if that makes them feel happier and more liberated. It says men should provide for the family unless circumstances make this impossible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we look at the proclamation on the family, it is very traditional and sexist in some people's view. But it is still true. It doesn't say, women should provide for the family if that makes them feel happier and more liberated. It says men should provide for the family unless circumstances make this impossible.

And that is completely right. I misjudged your posts and for that I apologize. I was misreading it as something where you expected your husband to be in a $100, 000/year job, with a house and two cars.

You're right: Men should provide for the family unless circumstances make this impossible.

However: This shouldn't mean that a woman should feel compelled not to work, or to find work that earns less than the husband. If a woman chooses to work and has something that allows more money to be earned than the husband, then this should be fine for both. It's simply a reality - Nothing more nor less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And that is completely right. I misjudged your posts and for that I apologize. I was misreading it as something where you expected your husband to be in a $100, 000/year job, with a house and two cars.

You're right: Men should provide for the family unless circumstances make this impossible.

However: This shouldn't mean that a woman should feel compelled not to work, or to find work that earns less than the husband. If a woman chooses to work and has something that allows more money to be earned than the husband, then this should be fine for both. It's simply a reality - Nothing more nor less.

Funkytown, thank you for your apology. Contrary to what some of you may believe, I really am not a doormat or a jerk. If a woman chooses to work, I would hope that it is not when she has to put her kids in daycare or with a sitter. My husband would be very upset with me, and rightfully so, if I chose to work, though he is already providing, and put my kids with a sitter. I just don't think that is fair to kids. They survive, but why not give them the ideal, best situation, and work when my kids have graduated from high school? Or work part time while they are in school if you can juggle it.

The church leaders have told us that women should stay at home with their kids and live frugally and tightly if necessary. They are not trying to oppress women when they say that. They are trying to help families to be stronger. I enjoyed my career before kids, and sometimes I miss it. It is a big sacrifice to be a SAHM. I do have to put aside a lot of my own desires and I have to sacrifice a lot. That is a good thing. I don't have a job, I don't have lots of time for hobbies. The challenge is to make it work. I get me-time away from the kids. My husband watches them so that I can go do stuff.

My mom worked for a large amount of my childhood. When I came home from school all through middle school and high school, she was not home for about 3 hours. During that time, I was not doing good stuff. Then when she came home, she was really, really, really tired. Some women have more energy than others, but it is still hard. A lot of our family type activities ended when she went back to work, and she could have stayed home. Money was tight but we had enough before she went to work. She liked her career and she did well with it. She didn't have time for me, though.

Edited by crazypotato
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tarnished, extreme feminism does hurt marriages. And I see a trickle of ideas in your post that I disagree with. I am not basing my opinion on how things "should" be. That implies that I have no life experience in this or that I am blindly following a mentality that feminism is bad. I am basing my opinion on my life experience as well as a book called "Fascinating Womanhood", on Dr. Laura's theories about marriage, and on this article that I sent. I used to vehemently disagree with Dr Laura and with the book Fascinating Womanhood. But over the years and with life experience, watching my own marriage, my sisters and brothers, my parents, my coworkers, my friends, I strongly believe in their theories now. I am not 100% on board with Dr Laura, but in general, yes.

And the philosophy of trying to make each other happy is exactly what I believe in, too. I used to try and change my husband into my ideal of us being completely equal and the same. But happiness in marriage is best found if we follow Jesus Christ. And the Lord wants us to love and accept each other, and do our primary roles. If we look at the proclamation on the family, it is very traditional and sexist in some people's view. But it is still true. It doesn't say, women should provide for the family if that makes them feel happier and more liberated. It says men should provide for the family unless circumstances make this impossible.

Read my post again, I never said extreme feminism helps marriages, I said that feminism, NOT EXTREME feminism, can help in marriages. When we look at the role that the church says a Mother should have we find this:

"I continue to emphasize the importance of mothers staying home to nurture, care for, and train their children in the principles of righteousness."

It does go on to say that women should stay home with the children and preferably not work unless it is absolutely nessisary. And that I agree with. I think there are things that happen when a mother is away from the house that would not happen if she was there. However if a mother does have to go out into the work force for whatever reason and she happens to make more money than her husband I don't think it should be a big deal.

I do agree with you that a man who worked a piddly job with no pay just because he knew his wife would take care of him is diminished in my opinion. A man who sits on his butt and sends his wife out to work while he plays with toys is not much of a man.

What I am saying though is that it never says anywhere in what the prophets have advised us that women need to be the primary cleaners of the home. It never says that they have to fit exactly into the 1960s idea of the perfect little housewife. It says that women are to nurture, care for and train their children in the principles of righteousness. Nothing there about housework. As far as I see it if the husband is willing to help with the housework then great! Each family is different, every family dynamic is different. But what is see is that a fear of feminism tends to breed co-dependance in our church. As a person who grew up in a co-dependant family I will say that it makes the woman into a lesser being. It turns the co-dependant person (usually the mother) into a servant for the entire family. And that is a sad thing to see, and it often leads to negelect of other things.

When I say feminism I am speaking of strong women, women who are willing to stand up and say, "This is who I am, deal with it." Women who because of the way they view themselves get equal respect. Equality in my mind really comes down to respect. If I am making myself into a lesser being by my actions in my home then I am doing myself no favors what so ever.

Respect has nothing to do with whether we work inside or outside of the home, it has nothing to do with whether or not we raise our children as we should, it has everything to do with how we see ourselves and the self esteem we have for ourselves. It has taken me a long time to build my self esteem up to where it is now, I was all set to create the same type of co-dependant household that I grew up in, and it was my husband who changed it all for me. His respect for me as a woman was what helped me to become as strong as I am today. If only every man was like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Read my post again, I never said extreme feminism helps marriages, I said that feminism, NOT EXTREME feminism, can help in marriages. When we look at the role that the church says a Mother should have we find this:

"I continue to emphasize the importance of mothers staying home to nurture, care for, and train their children in the principles of righteousness."

It does go on to say that women should stay home with the children and preferably not work unless it is absolutely nessisary. And that I agree with. I think there are things that happen when a mother is away from the house that would not happen if she was there. However if a mother does have to go out into the work force for whatever reason and she happens to make more money than her husband I don't think it should be a big deal.

I do agree with you that a man who worked a piddly job with no pay just because he knew his wife would take care of him is diminished in my opinion. A man who sits on his butt and sends his wife out to work while he plays with toys is not much of a man.

What I am saying though is that it never says anywhere in what the prophets have advised us that women need to be the primary cleaners of the home. It never says that they have to fit exactly into the 1960s idea of the perfect little housewife. It says that women are to nurture, care for and train their children in the principles of righteousness. Nothing there about housework. As far as I see it if the husband is willing to help with the housework then great! Each family is different, every family dynamic is different. But what is see is that a fear of feminism tends to breed co-dependance in our church. As a person who grew up in a co-dependant family I will say that it makes the woman into a lesser being. It turns the co-dependant person (usually the mother) into a servant for the entire family. And that is a sad thing to see, and it often leads to negelect of other things.

When I say feminism I am speaking of strong women, women who are willing to stand up and say, "This is who I am, deal with it." Women who because of the way they view themselves get equal respect. Equality in my mind really comes down to respect. If I am making myself into a lesser being by my actions in my home then I am doing myself no favors what so ever.

Respect has nothing to do with whether we work inside or outside of the home, it has nothing to do with whether or not we raise our children as we should, it has everything to do with how we see ourselves and the self esteem we have for ourselves. It has taken me a long time to build my self esteem up to where it is now, I was all set to create the same type of co-dependant household that I grew up in, and it was my husband who changed it all for me. His respect for me as a woman was what helped me to become as strong as I am today. If only every man was like that.

Tarnished, you are right that nowhere in the scriptures does it state that women should do all the housework or be disrespected in any way. I think that throughout history, since women were moms and men were off hunting or farming or doing physically demanding work, and the women were nursing or taking care of kids, and naturally were in the home, doing housework. So it was not mean for men to have the women home with the babies, doing housework, it was just natural. I do the housework because I am home all day with the kids, and my husband is off working or going to school or doing military stuff, so why wouldn't I do the majority of it? It seems natural to me.

I am not clear on your co-dependence comments. How does fear of feminism make women codependent? A woman with no self esteem and no self respect, sure, she can be codependent. Do you mean, with your definition of feminism, fear of being an equal or of being respected? I am really not seeing that I disagree with you in any way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tarnished, you are right that nowhere in the scriptures does it state that women should do all the housework or be disrespected in any way. I think that throughout history, since women were moms and men were off hunting or farming or doing physically demanding work, and the women were nursing or taking care of kids, and naturally were in the home, doing housework. So it was not mean for men to have the women home with the babies, doing housework, it was just natural. I do the housework because I am home all day with the kids, and my husband is off working or going to school or doing military stuff, so why wouldn't I do the majority of it? It seems natural to me.

I am not clear on your co-dependence comments. How does fear of feminism make women codependent? A woman with no self esteem and no self respect, sure, she can be codependent. Do you mean, with your definition of feminism, fear of being an equal or of being respected? I am really not seeing that I disagree with you in any way.

It is true that the man out making a living through a job and a woman at home tending the house and the children seems natural. Our historic culture was this way for years and years. But it was necessary for it to be this way. A man had to be out in the field or doing some sort of craftsman job all day long because that kind of work required him to do so. Conversely a woman had to be at home working on the home and making the food and so forth because otherwise it would not get done and people would go hungry. It had to be done. However, society has changed so much from what it used to be that now men do not have to be gone all day to provide for their families and women do not need to spend all day on housework. Because of this societal roles are changing, men can help with housework because they have time, and women can bring in income because the option is provided.

This being said, I do think that women bring something to the nurturing and teaching of children that somehow goes beyond what the child would get from just the father alone, but I also do think that the family needs to be complete for that to happen. There needs to be a father and a mother in the house for a child to have a well rounded home life. In situations where this is not possible I think the parents or parent does as best as they can given the circumstances.

What I am saying with the co-dependence comments is basically this: In Mormon society we tend to breed a co-dependent environment in families. And it has nothing to do with the counsel we have been given by our prophets, instead it has everything to do with social norms we as a Mormon society have created. A wife is expected to act and behave in a certain way otherwise they are obviously not a good wife and mother. She must keep a clean house, she must have neat and obedient children, her children must be extremely well versed in the Gospel and only have LDS friends, and above all she must be willing to sacrifice everything for her family. This often leads to women who feel that they must give up every shred of happiness so that their family can be happy. They go without things THEY need because they think it sets an example. And they often allow their husband to walk all over them because they feel that it is his right and obligation as a priesthood holder.

A few examples: When a friend of mine was a teenager she approached her mom about getting a new bra because she was outgrowing the one she had. And her mom made a offhand comment of "It has been 7 years since I got a new bra." This is an example of taking being the "perfect wife" too far. If you need something get it, don't keep yourself from getting it because it makes you look like you sacrifice for your family.

Another example, a friend of mine grew up in a co-dependent family, yet she seemed to be a pretty strong woman. When she got married she married a man who to tell the truth was rather reserved and would have gladly let her take the lead on things, but instead she badgered him into placing his authority over her by setting rules for her. So he set a curfew and a some other rules that between husband and wife were just idiotic. It was frightening to see her try to turn her marriage into the same sort of family she grew up in. And it was all so that she would feel that she was living up to the societal norm of being the "perfect wife".

What I guess I am trying to say here is this. Taking on the time honored roles of man in the work field and woman in the home is absolutely fine as long as we keep in mind not to let ourselves become influenced by what society expects of us. If our husband helps out in the home, that is fine. If he does all the cooking, that is fine. If he cleans the house, that is fine. If the woman takes on some of the more manly roles, like doing the yard work, or fixing the car, that is absolutely fine just so long as we are happy in our marriages and our children are not being neglected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funkytown, thank you for your apology. Contrary to what some of you may believe, I really am not a doormat or a jerk. If a woman chooses to work, I would hope that it is not when she has to put her kids in daycare or with a sitter. My husband would be very upset with me, and rightfully so, if I chose to work, though he is already providing, and put my kids with a sitter. I just don't think that is fair to kids. They survive, but why not give them the ideal, best situation, and work when my kids have graduated from high school? Or work part time while they are in school if you can juggle it.

The church leaders have told us that women should stay at home with their kids and live frugally and tightly if necessary. They are not trying to oppress women when they say that. They are trying to help families to be stronger. I enjoyed my career before kids, and sometimes I miss it. It is a big sacrifice to be a SAHM. I do have to put aside a lot of my own desires and I have to sacrifice a lot. That is a good thing. I don't have a job, I don't have lots of time for hobbies. The challenge is to make it work. I get me-time away from the kids. My husband watches them so that I can go do stuff.

My mom worked for a large amount of my childhood. When I came home from school all through middle school and high school, she was not home for about 3 hours. During that time, I was not doing good stuff. Then when she came home, she was really, really, really tired. Some women have more energy than others, but it is still hard. A lot of our family type activities ended when she went back to work, and she could have stayed home. Money was tight but we had enough before she went to work. She liked her career and she did well with it. She didn't have time for me, though.

Peace crazypotato. We seem to have a difficult time understanding each other. I tend to be long-winded and verbose so it could be that the purpose of my posts is lost in the chatter. Like Funky, I apologize if I have offended you or misunderstood your intent.

I did not mean to say you disrespected an abused child worker when I relayed that story. The story was a reaction to your statement that you would lose respect for a man who makes less than the woman. All I was doing was showing you that it is not as black-and-white as that and the situation with the bishop's brother was a perfect example of how the amount of money one makes has no bearing on the respect he deserves.

Your succeeding post qualified your initial statement when you said

I respect men that have the desire to provide for their family. It has nothing to do with how much or little education they have or how much money they make. If they live in a trailer park and the husband is providing, I have respect for him. If the husband is home on disability legitimately and the wife is providing, then I still respect the man.

That I can completely agree with.

Taking that statement into consideration, the only difference between us is our life experiences. You chose not to work to provide the best environment for your children because of your life experiences. I chose to work to provide the best environment for my children because of my life experiences. Please read this post that explains the reason behind my decision to work.

My husband provides for our family. I work because it is what I'm good at. I can program better than I can clean a house. I'm quite good at my job. It just so happens that the kind of work I do makes more money than my husband's choice of career even working part-time. This is like what Funky said about the medical doctor. That's what she's good at. She shouldn't have to stop being a doctor to marry the truck driver. And the truck driver shouldn't feel less of a man because he is "only" a truck driver while his wife is a doctor. My husband is very good at his job too. And he loves it. He provides enough for our family. I chose to work not because he is a slacker. He perfectly fits your idea of a "manly man". I choose to work because I'm a terrible home-maker, so I delegate the job to those who are good at it - the cleaning lady, the laundromat, the music teacher, the tutor, etc., then I can concentrate on just being "supermom". ;)

Different strokes for different folks. But the objective is the same. The Proclamation of the Family says it all.

I do admire your strength and fortitude and your desire to do the best by your family. God bless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would lose respect for him if he were counting on me to work full time or even part time for our entire marriage, so that he could have more toys or didn't have to have it all on his shoulders.

That is not what you said though. You make a blanket statement earlier in the thread.

As a woman, it would very much bother me if I made more money than my husband. I would lose respect for him.

Seems when people disagree you change your story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is not what you said though. You make a blanket statement earlier in the thread.

Seems when people disagree you change your story.

No, I actually agree wtih both of my quotes. I would lose respect for my husband if I made more money than him. I still have that opinion. And do you reallly think that I am trying to get people to agree with me? If that is the case, then I could lie and be PC and say that it doesn't matter to me if my husband makes less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...I would lose respect for my husband if I made more money than him. I still have that opinion...

That's crazy, if you did receive a paycheque your husband would have no control regarding your pay. That is more under your and your boss' control. So in other words, it would actually be your own fault for seeing your husband in a disrespectful way, since you put him in that position - hypothetically of course, since I'm assuming you don't receive a paycheque.

M.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's crazy, if you did receive a paycheque your husband would have no control regarding your pay. That is more under your and your boss' control. So in other words, it would actually be your own fault for seeing your husband in a disrespectful way, since you put him in that position - hypothetically of course, since I'm assuming you don't receive a paycheque.

M.

You are not making sense to me, but that's okay. I'm the bad guy here (apparently) because I want my husband to work and I want to be a SAHM. No, I don't receive a paycheck because I am a full time mom. Although no one seems to have my point of view on this forum, that doesn't make my philosophy "crazy."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a reminder to us all here of the forum rules:

4. No bickering and nit-picking toward others. Realize that sometimes it is very difficult to be able to express how one feels through written words. Please be courteous and ask for a further explanation, rather then trying to attack and find holes in someone else's post.

I am not saying that all of you are doing this, but I do feel rather attacked and under a microscope.

Edited by crazypotato
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest mirancs8

You are not making sense to me, but that's okay. I'm the bad guy here (apparently) because I want my husband to work and I want to be a SAHM. No, I don't receive a paycheck because I am a full time mom. Although no one seems to have my point of view on this forum, that doesn't make my philosophy "crazy."

Just so you don't feel so all alone CrazyPotato... I'm with you on this view in many ways. You're not the bad guy it's just everyone has different views on this topic (which they are entitled to) and it can get a bit wild when all this back and forth goes on in the threads. Everyone is trying to make their point and it comes off as people are trying to convince others to agree with their view. We don't have to agree because frankly this boards would be utterly boring if we did :D

I have always longed to be a SAHM. I have such respect for women who hold this position so close to their hearts. It is the toughest job and the least appreciated. The couple of times I got to be a SAHM when my boys were first born (about a year off with each) it was the most happiest days of my life. There is so much fulfillment in being a mother and being able to be there all the time for your children. To be there and not only take care of your children but to take care of your husband. There is nothing more rewarding to me as a women then the position of stay at home wife and mother.

I would never want to make more then my husband though there was a brief time that I did in our marriage. It did have a negative impact on our marriage during that time for various reason. I would rather curtail our spending, clip coupons, become more frugal, and downsize our home to be able to fulfill that duty. I would think that most men would feel a sense of fulfillment and usefulness by providing for their family. If his wife is fulfilling her role in the home and doing it with love he will desire to do what he has to so that his family can stay as it is. He will look forward to coming home after work and spending quality time with his family. If the husband and wife are happy you will see a ripple effect do through to the children.

This of course is not everyone's ideal but there are many of us out there who take that role very much to heart. At times it is frowned upon but it is something HF has put us in the role of fulfilling. Not everyone is called to fill that role obviously but those who are certainly add a great vein of stability to the foundation of the family and the home.

There are those who have to work and that we cannot help of course. Some husbands may suffer from job loss or a medical situation which prevents them from working. Those times it is needed for the wife to work. There are those women who do not have the desire to serve their family in that capacity and that's fine too. Then you have us single (or on their way to being single) women who have to work to support their household on their own which is a feat all in itself! All these women in all these various situations should be commended for there desire to take whatever challenges/obstacles and make the best of that situation. To at times put aside their wants to do what they have to in support of their husbands and/or children to survive.

At times we must carry our husbands burdens/responsibilities as well. As husband and wife for time and eternity we must do this for each other... we should be there always to help each other when the other cannot for whatever reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow. I didn't think my initial question would attrack so much attention. Overall, I can see both sides, but let's all remember it is up to each couple and what works for them. My sister works and her husband stays at home and that works for them. However both my brothers work and their wives stay at home. Overall, personally it wouldn't both me if my wife made more than me and I stayed at home, but hey, not everyone see it the same. Luckilly the Lord has given us the gift of personal choice and reveralation and we should all respect that.

Thanks for the good comments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are not making sense to me, but that's okay. I'm the bad guy here (apparently) because I want my husband to work and I want to be a SAHM. No, I don't receive a paycheck because I am a full time mom. Although no one seems to have my point of view on this forum, that doesn't make my philosophy "crazy."

You said that if you made more money you would lose respect- it was a hypothetical scenario- it has nothing to do with your desire to be a stay-at-home mom. I feel sorry for your husband if your level of respect for him is based solely on his earnings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share