Ladies: Would it bother you (or does it) to be the main breadwinner in the family?

[Widebrim]

Okay, ladies, due to many suggestions by other Loungers, here's your version of a question which has already been asked of the men of the Lounge...

Being into vintage/the Golden Age as we are here on the Lounge, we're well aware that in the past it usually was the husband who brought home the bacon. Women during the Golden Age often did work outside the home (especially during WWII), and some rose to positions where they made a hefty salary. Usually, though, it was the man who was the main supporter of the family. However, attitudes regarding the employment of women have changed, people are more determined now to maintain a "standard of living," and salaries have become more equitable between the sexes, with the result that more women find themselves in the position where they are financially supporting the family more than their spouses. So, whether you are married or not, would it be (or is it now) a problem if you made more than your husband?

 

[LizzieMaine]

The women in my family have always had to work, but I wouldn't tolerate for a second a husband who refused to do so. My father was a no-account thieving bum who wouldn't hold a job, and I've held a grudge against him for the better part of fifty years. And if you think that's bad, you should hear what my mother has to say on the topic. I couldn't care less how much he makes, as long as he's pulling his weight.

 

[Widebrim]

^^Wow. I think that's a good point, though: at least pulling his weight.

 

[sheeplady]

No, it wouldn't be a problem, although it's unlikely that my husband will make less than I do... I'm an academic and the types of jobs I am looking at often pay a lot less than what my husband makes. I'm not a "career ambitious" person- I like to work and make a decent paycheck (that pays me what I'm worth), but I'm not overly motivated by career success or pay. But I'm also one of those people who would love to have a pay cut if it meant a fewer day work week- time is so much more important to me than money.

I would have no problem being the sole or "head" breadwinner on paper, but as Lizzie said, my husband has to to do something. The times we've been without work individually this meant we took over the house (meals, cleaning, home repair, etc.) to the best of our abilities. And if we need money and that means my spouse or I are piecing together fast food jobs to make ends meet, we're not above that.

I (nor he) is going to come home to a spouse on the couch with bon-bon wrappers surrounding them, cold pots, and dirty laundry.

I do admit, however, I would find being the sole income earner likely stressful in the sense that I would be the only one providing for my family, particularly when it comes to things like health insurance given the economy and job market right now.

 

[HadleyH]

Yes it would.

I'm sorry to say but yes, it would bother me very much... probably I'm wrong thinking like this ....but there you have it! I am not going to lie about it! [huh]

 

[Red Diabla]

My husband and I both work in project-to-project jobs, which means that we rarely have long-term jobs, and rarely do those long-term jobs happen at the same time for both of us. We've come to the understanding that if one of us is working, all is good: we'll manage. Right now I'm the one who's working, while his job specialty has floundered(not his own doing). In the end, we have each other's backs, and that's all that matters.

RD

 

[AmateisGal]

I've been the main breadwinner for the past two years since hubby is going to college full-time. He goes to school from 8-4, then works a part-time job from 4-8 every evening. So we work together on household chores, etc.

I think it bothers him more that he's not the main breadwinner than it does me. He doesn't feel like he's providing for us right now - but I tell him that it's only temporary. He graduates in June (auto-body school) and already has a job waiting for him. Yes, it's been stressful to live on one income, but you have to do what you have to do to get by.

 

[Flicka]

I would have no problem making more than my husband (or having a husband who made more than me for that matter), but the expression "breadwinner" implies, to me, that the family would be reliant on the sole income of one adult. I have to say – honestly – that I couldn't imagine being "the breadwinner" anymore than I could imagine letting someone else be it. I'm sorry, and I know the attitudes in my country are different from that in most other countries, but I cannot imagine that, no matter if it's the male or the female. It simply isn't done here and no matter who the sole breadwinner was (me or my husband), it would make me very, very uncomfortable.

ETA: I think it's a little wrong to assume that women didn't work in the Era. There was always a rather large number of single women who depended on their own income, as well as a large number of working class women who worked the skin off their hands trying to provide for their families, whether they had husbands or not. I think when we accept "women didn't work outside of the home" we are buying into something that was essentially an ideal promoted and fulfilled by the middle class, but it by no means reflects the diverse reality of the experience of women of the Era.

 

[Widebrim]

ETA: I think it's a little wrong to assume that women didn't work in the Era. There was always a rather large number of single women who depended on their own income, as well as a large number of working class women who worked the skin off their hands trying to provide for their families, whether they had husbands or not. I think when we accept "women didn't work outside of the home" we are buying into something that was essentially an ideal promoted and fulfilled by the middle class, but it by no means reflects the diverse reality of the experience of women of the Era.

That is why I wrote in the introductory post that women often did work outside the home during the Golden Era.

 

[sheeplady]

I would have no problem making more than my husband (or having a husband who made more than me for that matter), but the expression "breadwinner" implies, to me, that the family would be reliant on the sole income of one adult. I have to say – honestly – that I couldn't imagine being "the breadwinner" anymore than I could imagine letting someone else be it. I'm sorry, and I know the attitudes in my country are different from that in most other countries, but I cannot imagine that, no matter if it's the male or the female. It simply isn't done here and no matter who the sole breadwinner was (me or my husband), it would make me very, very uncomfortable.

I think another reason why the perception of the term breadwinner is so prevalent in the US is because the structure of benefits is so different as well... to me being the breadwinner mainly includes things like getting health benefits (insurance), retirement benefits (like a 401K), and paying a higher amount into social security. It's not that uncommon that only one spouse (if one spouse) can get all these things. Benefits are considered another 50% on top of your pay here if you can get health and retirement.... so even if a person makes half what another makes if they have benefits (and the other person doesn't) the benefits make the person with the lower pay the true breadwinner. That makes employment here a totally different mindset than in countries where those things are provided by the government.

 

[Widebrim]

^^Bump.

 

[Gingerella72]

I am, and yes, it does bother me. But it's through no fault of my husband's.

 

[Lily Powers]

I'm "The Paycheck" in the household, but it doesn't bother either of us. We are both full-time employees but his career is notoriously low paying (journalism) and mine is not. It all balances out somehow.