The modern world provides a woman with the opportunity to earn money independently on an equal basis with a man, but many ladies consciously prefer the old way of life and believe that the husband should be the only breadwinner in the family.
How relevant is such a position today, in which cases it is selfish, and in which it is justified, and what pitfalls may be hidden in such an alliance – two Bologny experts talked about this.
You might be interested in: Should a woman wear dresses, skirts, heels? The opinion of two experts from Bologny magazine, the dispute between a man and a woman
Julia Klyukvina, stylist, blogger, expert at Bologny magazine
The vast majority of norms and foundations came to us from the past. Over the millennia, the traditional model of the family has evolved: a man is a breadwinner, a woman is a mother and a keeper of the hearth. Of course, this alignment did not arise by chance: life in those days assumed that a potential breadwinner had great physical strength, without which it is in principle impossible to carry out this function, whether it is filling up a mammoth for lunch or plowing a field.
However, the twentieth century changed everything and became a turning point: on the one hand, progress allowed women to work on an equal basis with men, and on the other, society began to pay more and more attention to the issue of citizens’ rights, and feminism developed. This “broke” the traditional model and … gave rise to certain difficulties.
In most Western countries, there is no dilemma: the concept of “debt” based on gender has already disappeared into oblivion. Good or bad – time will tell. In Russia and other countries of the post-Soviet space, everything is much more complicated. As a legacy from the USSR, we received a double moral (I don’t want to offend anyone, but this is a fact): a man and a woman work on an equal footing, have formally the same rights, but at the same time the patriarchal model of the family is still alive. And to this day, in many families you can hear this bad word “must”.
Sorry, but the word “should” (as well as “should”), from my point of view, is absolutely inapplicable in a relationship, unless, of course, it is about loyalty and honesty. As for the rest, as they say, everything that I have to be written down in the tax code.
Building a family and relationships on the principles of certain responsibilities completely excludes the element of mutual respect and love: partners do not take into account each other’s interests, but treat them with certain “debts” from cooking borscht by their wife to supporting the family by their husband. Where is it written? And what is the reason? The family is not an enterprise where a master allocates and distributes funds. The family is a union built on mutual respect and love.
And, from the point of view of modern morality, a woman who wants to be treated as a person, in turn, cannot treat her husband as a source of money. He has the right to do what he loves, receiving minimal funds for it, he has the right to lose his job, he has the right to seek, think, make mistakes. After all, he is a living person, not an ATM, and this is worth remembering.
Another nuance: the interests of a woman in such a union. It may sound selfish, but it is not profitable for the wife herself to demand that her husband support the family. Not only does she run the risk of being limited in finances (either she will not be enough all the time, or her husband will distribute them), but there is also no confidence in the future.
If a man suddenly loses his job, everyone will be left without money, including her. If we look at the situation with an unclouded look, we get a deplorable picture: a lady with no work experience, accustomed to living at the expense of her husband, suddenly finds herself at a broken trough. And if there are children? After all, they also require costs. In short, the only breadwinner is too much of a risk for the family.
However, the morality of the 21st century does not at all deprive a man and a woman of their usual roles: if desired, the classical model of the family takes place, but with certain amendments and reservations. A man has the right to work and earn most of the money in the family, feeling at the same time a breadwinner, and a woman has the right to give priorities to the household and children. The main thing is that in such an alliance the roles should be distributed by mutual agreement, and the word “should” be hidden away and for a long time.
Sergey Ashmanov, teacher, nutritionist, expert of Bologny magazine
My answer to this question is: yes! The wife has the right to demand from her husband to support the family. But the question is posed a little incorrectly. Let me explain why. Initially, the role of a man in the family is to provide for his family and the very definition of “demand” casts doubt on the very essence of this man.
Is he a man if he cannot or does not want to provide for his family? There are few circumstances when a man really cannot provide for his family, one of them is a coma. There is nothing to be done about this and the woman will have to provide for herself, her children and her husband.
Every woman should have a thought-principle in her head: if a man cannot provide for me, then why do I need him at all? And it will be right. Why would she try and work for the sake of some Vasya unemployed, who cannot provide his beloved woman with essential needs.
Because it is the man’s duty to provide the family with the urgent (basic) needs: pay bills, gasoline, home repairs, car repairs, children’s bicycle repairs, buy medicines in case of illness, provide children with education, provide the whole family with clothes, food, and the like.
We are not talking about luxury, like “honey, I want a Mercedes of the latest model, and so we go to rest in Bali.” Yes, a woman can ask for it, but she cannot demand it, just as a man is not obliged to take three jobs in order to buy his wife a Mercedes of the latest model. He is obliged to work three jobs only if he cannot meet the basic needs that I mentioned above.
There are, of course, women who believe that a man should provide her in luxury. That is, she believes that he owes her everything at once. So, you need to run away from such women as far as possible. A man can provide luxury, but he shouldn’t. The difference is clear.
But we know that there are also children in the family. Should a father provide for the children and how long should he do it? Yes, of course I should, but here you need to keep in mind that if the child is already forty years old, then it is no longer necessary to provide for him. He is an adult and can take care of himself.
Since we started with the boys, we will continue with them. So, if you have a boy in your family, then you need to provide for him until about the age of majority. And this should be done gradually. Not now, he turned 18, and you say: “Pack your things, go wherever you want, you are already an adult!” No. It is necessary to prepare the boy for an independent life in advance, starting from about 14 years old, when he becomes a friend to you.
There are many ways, for example, to give less pocket money, to get him a job, or to give him some kind of male job, and then pay him for this job. The boy must know that he must be responsible for his actions and words; that soon he will have to live alone, find a family, and be able to provide for himself and his family.
If there is a girl in your family, then you must provide for her until she gets married, well, or finds a job, telling you personally that she will not take more money from you. But you must protect her precisely before marriage. Because after marriage, the husband takes responsibility for her. Everything is simple here: you need to make a man out of a boy, and it is enough to just love and protect the girl.
Let’s analyze now a couple of examples from life
“My husband does not go to work and sits on the couch all day, while I work and after work I cook and wash the dishes and clean up.” The question is: why do you need such a husband if he does not respect you and does not fulfill his main role, his immediate duty? If such a man does not change, then you need to look for another. Better than living in misery.
“My wife wants me to get a second job because there is not enough money for a new car.” If a man provides his woman with basic needs, then the rest is not the man’s responsibility. If you have enough money to fulfill the main role in family relations – the role of the breadwinner, then you have every right not to fulfill the requirement of your wife to get a second job.
However, there is a slight exception here. A woman wants to be a woman and very often she needs to rest. How does a woman rest? Most often, she goes to a beauty salon, photo shoots and other pranks of this kind. Now we are not talking about expensive things, such as a fur coat for two hundred thousand rubles, or an expensive car, or a telephone.
Here you need to properly distribute your finances and give your wife funds that she can freely spend wherever she wants – nails, hairstyle, eyelashes, eyebrows, and the like. Because this is how she rests, this is how she pampers herself, pleases herself and becomes happy. You need to keep this in mind.
Must share this useful content with your loved one's
Visit Bologny for more useful and informative articles!