What's your honest opinion on the wife as the breadwinner?

[Yanni depp]

Let's if I can explain my question better.
I'm not talking about two paychecks. One is working outside the home and there are no preschool kids.
Is there some reason that the husband should be the one to work outside the home rather than the woman?

Fast answer: nope.

As well as the fellow i know that takes care of the babies and cant afford child care- i know another man that hasnt worked for 9 years, his wife works two jobs, their kids are older and able to care for themselves in the home and he doesnt do any chores. I was thinking of that fellow when i quoted thoroughgood if that helps you know where im coming from.

If only one had to work, with no kids, gender wouldnt be a factor in my eyes. It would come down to who has more education or opportunities to make a higher wage.

 

[bluegreysky]

What does he do with his time during the day? Are you sure it is not feeding a inappropriate content addiction?

I guess I’m not 100% sure but I feed that need daily so probably not.
He cleans the house, cooks and takes care of the dogs which are essentially our kids.

 

[snoochface]

So he does do chores. He cleans, he cooks, he cares for the dogs. Does he do other things that are traditionally "men's" jobs, like mow the lawn, fix things, take the cars in for maintenance, etc.?

 

[Brokenhill]

Pro 31:24 Linen garments she hath made, and selleth, And a girdle she hath given to the merchant.

She is a business woman. In this day and age she may own her own clothing factory or clothing store. She may sell other types of merchandise which includes her skills with math, science, language, etc.
She may own a large winery and sell the wine to merchants all over the world.

Some of the most important things that I see about this intelligent and very capable woman is...

Pro 31:25 Strength and honour are her clothing, And she rejoiceth at a latter day.
Pro 31:26 Her mouth she hath opened in wisdom, And the law of kindness is on her tongue.

As long as her children are cared for, whether it is by a handmaid, servant, (caregiver) or their father, and her home is kept and meals are prepared, whether it is by a handmaid, servant, or by housekeeper/cook, or her husband, I don't see a problem as long as everyone is at peace in their role.

I wasn't trying to pull those verses in Prov. out of context, I just didn't want to paste the whole. I picked that passage to try and show that I wasn't trying to be biased.

But ALL passages considered, Paul writes some very strong statements that can't be nullified with Proverbs 31.
I agree that she is a businesses woman, but keeping things in context, she made her own clothing at home and then sold it.

I think the overall teaching/example given is that the woman should be primarily working directly with her children (not given over to a nanny or something) and she should be serving her husband, starting within the home. By extension of that/surpassing that she can do more if those primary responsibilities are fulfilled.

God designed the family unit. The man is supposed to be the spiritual leader (to both wife and children); the wife is to be submissive to the man and has primary/majority of care over the children. Both parents are to raise the child--God did not intent our children to be raised by others, they are our responsibility. I'm not necessarily saying that home-schooling is a must, but i'm just making a general point because things have gone too far the opposite direction in modern western society. The TV and daycare should not be the primary role models of our children.

 

[Paidiske]

There's something important we need to understand about Biblical statements about working "at home," and that is that in Biblical times, everyone worked at home; home was the workplace. To not be at home was to not be working.

So exhortations to be busy at home, or the like, are about exhortations to work; the separation of home and work is really a phenomenon of the industrial revolution.

Now, you could argue that that separation is a bad thing, but then you'd need to argue it for both men and women, and encourage cottage industries or the like for men and women, because that was the cultural reality of households in the Bible.

Please also note this part of the Statement of Purpose for this forum:

"Submission will only be discussed in the separate forums for married men's/women's personal topics. Please only discuss submission in the married men's/women's personal topics."

 

[HannahT]

There's something important we need to understand about Biblical statements about working "at home," and that is that in Biblical times, everyone worked at home; home was the workplace. To not be at home was to not be working.

So exhortations to be busy at home, or the like, are about exhortations to work; the separation of home and work is really a phenomenon of the industrial revolution.

Now, you could argue that that separation is a bad thing, but then you'd need to argue it for both men and women, and encourage cottage industries or the like for men and women, because that was the cultural reality of households in the Bible.

Please also note this part of the Statement of Purpose for this forum:

"Submission will only be discussed in the separate forums for married men's/women's personal topics. Please only discuss submission in the married men's/women's personal topics."

I think there are loads of people that look back at the culture in which Proverbs, etc, and not realize what you are speaking of. Most of the time you didn't have jobs to go to, but at times you did have seasonal ones. Majority of people were around their homes, or worked out of them. It is rather foreign to think of. Joseph - Jesus's father - they say was a carpenter. Most of that work would be around the house, and then of course you had your times away.

Whereas, today people may use nannies, daycare, etc today? They used the Senior Citizens of the time to watch over their children to work. Many times those same Seniors helped with the schooling as well. Whereas, today many would claim they would be raising their children? It wasn't looked at like that in the past. Everyone had their role in society to help the whole, and the family wasn't as insular as it is today. Yes, of course you always had your intimate times as a family. That's a given.

The Proverbs story also speaks of servants. Majority of people didn't have servants. The more affluent people did, and if you had a single or younger person? They would be more of an apprentice. Yet, that also had its sense of community too.

I don't think people realize how hand to mouth existence it was. Everyone - including children - had to participate. The more income any one person could bring to the family? It helped the whole. That's not to say that parents didn't have their traditional roles at that time, but it is hard to apply that culture to the current one since they are so drastically different. We need to keep in mind the spirit of what is being said, and leave the sense of legalistically thinking about it behind.

lol as far as the question that began this thread? It's only a problem when egos, pride and gossip become involved - excluding lazy behavior, special circumstance. Since we are all human? It's not that hard to see how those get mixed in. They always cause trouble.

 

[tampasteve]

It doesn't bother me; we both work full time, but she makes around $30K more than me. Neither of us are big money spenders, so it does not really matter who makes more money between us. We split all the big bills and house responsibilities as well.

 

[meyerjd]

If my wife could find a job that produced enough income for me to walk away from my career, I would most certainly become a stay at home dad. She has arthritis and does little to help with our home or the kids. It gets tricky to manage everything at home and work full-time.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Let's hear it.

It is not for everyone but it is quite successful for some. Some women want their spouse to be a symbol of status and would find being married to a man that does not make as much as themselves to be a liability. Some men's egos will not withstand being married to woman that has a larger salary than themselves. Some women want to be take n careof by their husbands and some men want to be the hero figure to their wives. None of those types of people would fair well with the woman as the breadwinner. There are also people that have serious mental problems ( abusers for instance) and ought not to be married at all but that would be irrelevant to who is the breadwinner. IMO as long as the couple is on the same page with financial, religious and political philosophies nothing else much matters.

 

[WolfGate]

Is it the best situation for a specific family given earning potential, how each of the people are made and gifted, needs of the children and who can best meet those, etc.? If so, then great.

 

[ValleyGal]

1 Tim 5:8
But if anyone (male or female) does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.
Brackets mine.
This means anyone. If you make enough to support him as well as pay for things like car repairs, entertainment, etc without having to stress about surviving till the next paycheque, then great - especially since he does all the work at home. If he didn't take care of the home and the cooking, etc. and actually invest in the marriage, the relationship, the home, then it could cause all kinds of problems you might not even be able to anticipate. Isn't he an accountant? He should have no problem finding good work. And honestly, there are millions of people with PTSD who do manage to function in society and hold down good jobs. If his PTSD is still a problem, then he needs to actively seek help for it - a very successful treatment takes about 8-10 sessions. It's called EMDR. Look for an EMDR therapist. If he won't go, then maybe it's time to consider whether he is using the diagnosis as an excuse to stay stuck.

 

[Leah F]

Right now I am the breadwinner because I had the career when we met. Not very traditional and it bugs my husband but it is temporary until his business takes off. I do not mind providing at this time because I want him to pursue his dreams. It is only the beginning of our marriage.

 

[RedPonyDriver]

I've always worked, well, until I tried retirement and went bonkers at home...I've always made more money too...who cares! We both work, we both take care of the house and the critters. I enjoy my career, I am doing exactly what I've wanted to do since I was a kid. He enjoys his career, doing exactly what he wants to do. Does it really matter who makes more money? Does it really matter who does the chores? We both live here, we both do chores, although my end of things has been considerably lower since my car accident last spring. However, if the couple is in agreement, does it really matter?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Let's hear it.

It would be pretty awesome...I've always been a big fan of staying home and not working.

On a lighter note, does the word "breadwinner" sound weird to anyone else? Was there a point in time where contests to win bread were somehow the best way to feed a family? Does it seem odd that at some point creating wealth was so closely tied to food that terms like "breadwinner" or idioms like "bringing home the bacon" were created?

Is this just an English language thing? Or do other languages have these pseudo-slang terms for money that are food related?