Post # 1
Even though I grew up in a household where my father took care of all the bills, my mom would still help at the store they owned but mainly took care of us. I’ve always had it in my head that nowadays, it is not uncommon women and men split bills and help eachother out when married. Today I saw someone post this: ” I grew up in a household where my dad took care of all of bills and my mom the house. He’s never heard of a wife having to go half on bills. If a man cant provide for me like that than I dont even want it. ” and several people joining in agreeing ” why split it when you’re in a relationship? I think a man should be a provider so I ain’t splitting shit! ”
I don’t care what others do and I think it depends on the relationship. But to see comments of so many people bashing those who split bills are childish. Some even called it gay….wow.
Post # 2
Well there ARE childish people out there so this should come as no surprise.
I think the old days where the majority of households have the man as the provider and the woman is only supposed to cook, clean and rear children is antiquated and outdated. Women have jobs now and you live there too! Why should you not pull your weight? Men, those kids are half yours, they couldn’t have gotten here without you so why is it only a woman’s responsibility to take care of the kids?
There are certain people who will always be stuck in the 1950’s though, that’s just how it is. It also doesn’t affect my household one way or the other so I don’t see any point in getting riled about it. If a woman wants to stay home and live her life in the house while the man makes all the money and pays all the bills, that’s her prerogative and their relationship to navigate. It doesn’t mean I have to.
Post # 3
I think whoever posted the comment was on a day trip from 1952…
I would have the opposite opinion, I would not want to be with a man who wanted to be the sole provider. I want my own career and my own financial security.
I don’t want a provider, I want a partner.
This is in no way a dig at SAHMs, by the way. That’s an entirely different situation and a full time job. Deciding as a couple that one of you will stay home and raise the children is not the same as assuming the man should make all the money just because he’s male.
Post # 4
We don’t “split” bills in our household. We both work, but my future husband makes significantly more than I do, so he pays the majority of the household bills. I pay a car payment, kids daycare, and grocery bills. It works for us.
I think it is absolutely crazy for a woman to expect a man to pay for everything or else they’re not interested… you’re partners, not his child.
Post # 5
It doesn’t surprise me that some people still have this mindset, but it doesn’t work for me.
I am the breadwinner in my relationship and I pay for almost all of our bills. My partner does not have a full-time job currently but works his butt off at two part-time jobs to be able to pay child support (which is astronomical) and his car loan and insurance (also both astronomical). He supports our household in other ways by doing almost exclusively all of the cooking, helps me clean, does most of the dishes, drives us everywhere, etc.
In today’s time, it just seems really ridiculous to think that every man is going to be able to be the breadwinner. I don’t want to be provided for, I want a partnership – as long as something works for your household where you are both contributing and bills get paid, who cares whose account it comes out of?
Post # 6
For now, Darling Husband and I split the bills – Since we moved in together we have had a joint bill account (which he does administer) which we both pay in to and covers our bills.
I am about to go on maternity leave for the second time and will be a Stay-At-Home Mom after that. So when I am not earning, he will be paying all the bills. That said, I have contributed to all the savings we have that allow me to stay at home so if he uses those to pay the bills, I am still contributing.
I never thought i would be a Stay-At-Home Mom, but the economic reality is that it makes more sense for me to stay at home rather than pay for child care.
Post # 7
I think there are many ways of splitting finances and responsibilities in a relationship/family so I typically view it as “do what works for you”, however, I have to acknowledge that I think it is quite foolish to allow yourself to become completely dependant on a partner.
You should always be in a position where if that person is suddenly not there, you are able to find a way to scrape things together and keep yourself (and/or your children) clothed, sheltered and fed.
No one should ever put themselves in a position where they can’t leave if the relationship is causing them harm, or where they’re at risk of ruin if their partner suddenly passes away. So if you’re going to, say, take time off work to raise children, you should continue to keep your knowledge and skills fresh during that time and have a game plan for getting back into the working world eventually. As for just not working at all regardless of having no children? Yeah, I’ll admit, I side-eye that lifestyle. Just being honest 🤷
Post # 8
I guess it would blow their minds to know I pay the bills and my husband takes care of the house. (He does work but it’s part time as he has health issues that prevent him from working more)
Post # 9
FH and I do have somewhat traditional beliefs in that we believe that the man should be the major provider, but we don’t believe that necessarily means he has to pay all the bills. He has a strong sense of duty to provide for and protect me, and it’s one of the things I love most about him. That said, we work together on finances. I’m currently the one paying most of the bills in the house, but the only reason is because we’re putting away almost the entirety of FH’s salary for the wedding. After we get married, we’ll likely switch so that I can dump my whole salary into my student loans and scratch those off the list. But after we have kids, it’s likely I will work part time from home so he will be the major breadwinner. It all balances out and we don’t like getting into a rut over who “should” be paying more. As my mother always says, “don’t should on yourself.”
Post # 10
I pay zero bills and it works for us. My husband makes about 50% more than I do, 1/3 goes into retirement savings, and then the remainder covers our mortage and bills, plus discretionary spending and short-term savings for travel, house upgrades etc. My entire salary goes into savings and invesment accounts every month – we basically treat it like it does not exist. This works for us because we live in a low cost of living area and because I find my work deeply rewarding. He provides for present-day us and I provide for future us, I suppose!
Post # 11
I live in one of the most expensive cities in the world (5th if you’re looking at income-to-housing ratio). I don’t know a single person that can actually afford for the man to be supporting the entire household, unless he’s making upwards of half a million dollars a year. So no, I don’t believe in this. I absolutely respect each couple’s right to choose what is best for their situation.
Post # 12
There are pros and cons to either lifestyle, so it really just comes down to what works for the specific couple. 1 income “traditional households” is extremely common where I live and amongst my friend group, and that’s how my marriage is as well. However, personally I hate the “sole provider” mindest….he gets the money, but I save it. I cook him healthy meals, keep his living space clean and comfortable, and raise our kids when he’s not around. We provide for each other. There’s way more to gain in life than money, and calling him the “sole provider” or someone I’m dependent on undermines all that I do. He’s “dependent” on me, too…but for different things. There’s abaolutely nothing unequal or degrading about “1950’s housewife”, imho, as long as both people are happy with that.
The necessity to go to college/have a degree is a toxic lie. My dh worked up to earning 50k salary without a single day of college. If he can do it, I can do it if something were to happen to him. Also, if “something were to happen” and we had no cash flow to pay the bills…that’s why we have family. Although some seem to think it’s shameful to have to rely on your family for anything, I wasn’t raised that way. It’s one thing to be a deadbeat living in mom’s basement, but there’s nothing wrong with using family as support until you can get onto your feet (especially when we’re talking about an extreme case like my dh dying or getting critically disabled). My family is very supportive and they’d insist for me to live with them if something happened to my dh, at least until I got a stable income. I would do the same for my kids without a second thought. But again, that’s specific to my situation and I know not everyone has that option.
Post # 13
First of all no one should be calling anything “gay”. That is so 1995.
Other than that I mean if sharing the bills is not what they want to do then it’s not what they want to do. Nothing wrong with it if it works for them.
Personally you couldn’t pay me to stay home with the kids, as I’m the kind who views dropping off at daycare and going to work to be freedom. But different strokes for different folks.
Post # 14
Mlim : ugh I’ve seen those annoying ass twitter posts too. But notice—most who chime in with positive things to say supporting that post (as in, suggesting that if a man can’t fully support them and pay all the bills, under any circumstance, is less than a man) are miserably single. I doubt this is simply a coincidence.
Post # 15
Might I add, she’s been only married two months and is getting a divorce! Preaching about how relationships should work, smh.
But I would not be with a man if he expected me to be the one to always cook, clean, care for kids, and not work! If women are calling men who aren’t paying all the bills NOT A REAL MAN, than they’re not REAL WOMEN