Should a Christian man always be provider in a modern women's rights-oriented world?

[mlssufan01]

I feel like I can't be in a relationship, because I don't, and probably never will, have enough money. I suppose you can partially pin the blame on me in a way, but at some level I feel like I didn't have much say in that matter.
Anyways, every church I've ever been to says that men should be the provider. But, in today's world, women are getting better jobs and are making sufficient incomes, sometimes even enough to live on their own. It just seems with shift of dynamic that, while men should be hard-working, should the breadwinning expectation be placed on the male?
By no means would I suggest that the man be lazy, I think he should work and do what he can, but sometimes life just puts us in situations where finances don't go our way. At some level, I feel like this mentality is outdated and the times have changed. I wouldn't say it's wrong for a man to be provider, but I think if two people love each other and want to start a life, the woman can be the financial provider, provided that both parties agree to it, and I wouldn't think to be a sin. Agree or disagree?

 

[crosstweed]

I feel like I can't be in a relationship, because I don't, and probably never will, have enough money. I suppose you can partially pin the blame on me in a way, but at some level I feel like I didn't have much say in that matter.
Anyways, every church I've ever been to says that men should be the provider. But, in today's world, women are getting better jobs and are making sufficient incomes, sometimes even enough to live on their own. It just seems with shift of dynamic that, while men should be hard-working, should the breadwinning expectation be placed on the male?
By no means would I suggest that the man be lazy, I think he should work and do what he can, but sometimes life just puts us in situations where finances don't go our way. At some level, I feel like this mentality is outdated and the times have changed. I wouldn't say it's wrong for a man to be provider, but I think if two people love each other and want to start a life, the woman can be the financial provider, provided that both parties agree to it, and I wouldn't think to be a sin. Agree or disagree?

Not true. Stats show that women still make significantly less money in the workplace than men, although people are working overtime to change that.

Do I think that it's a sin for a married woman to work outside the home? Nooo. You do what you have to do.

But if you're a man, and you're planning to get married and have your wife take care of the kids and cook and clean for you, I think you'd better be doing your dead level best to make sure that that woman you're marrying works outside the home as little as she has to, because kids and housework are a job and a half (unless of course, you will be shouldering an equal load of the housework and tending kiddos). The Bible has lots to say about the man who won't take care of the needs of his family...

A lot of people don't seem to get this and some guys - not all mind you - but some guys get hung up on the "bread-winner" and think "Ugh! What a loooaaaad on me!" and they're dead right, it's a ridiculously heavy load... but they never stop to consider what goes into keeping a household running and fail to see the part that falls to the wife.

And I get it - Times get harder, times get easier, times get hard again. Sometimes the woman has to work. But I think a couple should carefully consider where they're at financially and what the plan is before they decide to get hitched and start a family, so that they can take care of their kids properly.

 

[Bate]

Why not?!

 

[AsifinPassing]

I think we live in a diverse world of new and old. I agree with crosstweed on sharing responsibility. On a financial note, however, most of the world lives in poverty, and yet seem to have just as functional (or dysfunctional) families as those who live in wealth.

If we're talking about roles, then when it comes to teamwork and strategy, people assume roles based on necessity. For example, if we're talking about war (or video games) you have both those who fight at the front and who fight from a distance. You can all choose to fight from the front or at distance if you like, but very likely at great opportunity cost or reduction to your effectiveness.

Similarly, we assume roles (usually based on strengths and weaknesses) in relationships (be it friendship, marriage, working, etc). So, in that regard, I don't think it really matters who makes more money; if one chooses to work while the other stays home; or if both work or both (in limited situations like extreme wealth or working from home) stay home. Each couple and family have to work things out for their own situations. The variables are vast...

Now, on the aspect of social norms and sin, I'll make this comment. As I've come to understand/believe and teach others, 'sin' by practical definition is 'anything which separates or distances you from God'. So, to over simplify, does it draw you closer to God or farther away? If closer, then do that. If farther, then, at least for you, that's sin.

When it comes to social norms, what's your motivation? Is it easier to do things the way others expect you to? Does making something 'easy' mean that it's right? If something is popular or widely accepted, does that make it right? Do might or majority have anything to do with morality?

So, the real issue, at least how I've come to see it, is preference. Someone thinks you should do something because x,y,z, but really, x,y,z usually has to do with something they want or like or accept or hold some sort of connection to.

So... is your relationship about everyone else, or the two of you? Is your life about what everyone else is doing, or will you have to give account to God for what YOU did/are doing?

Something to think about...

 

[Tintin]

Not true. Stats show that women still make significantly less money in the workplace than men, although people are working overtime to change that.

Do I think that it's a sin for a married woman to work outside the home? Nooo. You do what you have to do.

But if you're a man, and you're planning to get married and have your wife take care of the kids and cook and clean for you, I think you'd better be doing your dead level best to make sure that that woman you're marrying works outside the home as little as she has to, because kids and housework are a job and a half (unless of course, you will be shouldering an equal load of the housework and tending kiddos). The Bible has lots to say about the man who won't take care of the needs of his family...

A lot of people don't seem to get this and some guys - not all mind you - but some guys get hung up on the "bread-winner" and think "Ugh! What a loooaaaad on me!" and they're dead right, it's a ridiculously heavy load... but they never stop to consider what goes into keeping a household running and fail to see the part that falls to the wife.

And I get it - Times get harder, times get easier, times get hard again. Sometimes the woman has to work. But I think a couple should carefully consider where they're at financially and what the plan is before they decide to get hitched and start a family, so that they can take care of their kids properly.

I think this is a myth and has been for quite some years eg. male teachers certainly make no more money than female teachers.

 

[wisebeardman]

truck drivers are paid by experience. male female no matter. both get paid same.

 

[coby]

I feel like I can't be in a relationship, because I don't, and probably never will, have enough money. I suppose you can partially pin the blame on me in a way, but at some level I feel like I didn't have much say in that matter.
Anyways, every church I've ever been to says that men should be the provider. But, in today's world, women are getting better jobs and are making sufficient incomes, sometimes even enough to live on their own. It just seems with shift of dynamic that, while men should be hard-working, should the breadwinning expectation be placed on the male?
By no means would I suggest that the man be lazy, I think he should work and do what he can, but sometimes life just puts us in situations where finances don't go our way. At some level, I feel like this mentality is outdated and the times have changed. I wouldn't say it's wrong for a man to be provider, but I think if two people love each other and want to start a life, the woman can be the financial provider, provided that both parties agree to it, and I wouldn't think to be a sin. Agree or disagree?

I never hear this preached, but I live in Holland where when you get kids women get a parttime job and men work a day less and get a daddy day.
I was married to a guy who thought: hey she has a job and takes care of her kids and her household. I'll just stay home and play WOW. That was quote annoying LOL. But my first ex was jobless when I met him. I heard one preaching about it then, Roberts Liardon came over and said you should never marry someone who's jobless. I thought: what an idiot. My ex didn't have a good education so he got boring jobs and it paid almost nothing. I had to study from my dad so I got a great fun job which paid much better, almost enough for both of us with 4 days working a week. So he got another awful job and I said: I'll just work so you can start the church you want to start. He worked hard for that and got 700 euro or less a month.

 

[wwjd_kilden]

If I ever get married I certainly hope that both of us will work and contribute with some income
I didn't spend all those years in school to spend my life locked up at home.
... but then I also expect the man to help take care of the house

 

[coby]

If I ever get married I certainly hope that both of us will work and contribute with some income
I didn't spend all those years in school to spend my life locked up at home.
... but then I also expect the man to help take care of the house

Yes all those marriages I see around me where they both work parttime and both do the household and take care of the kids are great.

 

[Lynx]

Yes all those marriages I see around me where they both work parttime and both do the household and take care of the kids are great.

Yup. I'll do the dishes if she'll dust (I don't even notice there is dust.) I'll mow the yard if she'll vacuum. And she can do her own laundry but she'd better not touch mine - I want mine done my way so I'll do it.

 

[coby]

Yup. I'll do the dishes if she'll dust (I don't even notice there is dust.) I'll mow the yard if she'll vacuum. And she can do her own laundry but she'd better not touch mine - I want mine done my way so I'll do it.

Lol I ruined all my ex's suits, not on purpose, I simply couldn't iron and the thing was too hot. I never iron anything now. Oh lol he'd ask me to iron his blouse and because I was so lazy I only did the front. That's the flip side of having a wife that provides. He's soooo happy with his new wife, she cleans everything up.

 

[mlssufan01]

Not true. Stats show that women still make significantly less money in the workplace than men, although people are working overtime to change that.

Do I think that it's a sin for a married woman to work outside the home? Nooo. You do what you have to do.

But if you're a man, and you're planning to get married and have your wife take care of the kids and cook and clean for you, I think you'd better be doing your dead level best to make sure that that woman you're marrying works outside the home as little as she has to, because kids and housework are a job and a half (unless of course, you will be shouldering an equal load of the housework and tending kiddos). The Bible has lots to say about the man who won't take care of the needs of his family...

A lot of people don't seem to get this and some guys - not all mind you - but some guys get hung up on the "bread-winner" and think "Ugh! What a loooaaaad on me!" and they're dead right, it's a ridiculously heavy load... but they never stop to consider what goes into keeping a household running and fail to see the part that falls to the wife.

And I get it - Times get harder, times get easier, times get hard again. Sometimes the woman has to work. But I think a couple should carefully consider where they're at financially and what the plan is before they decide to get hitched and start a family, so that they can take care of their kids properly.

I meant better jobs than they have in the past, not better jobs than men. This is definitely true.

 

[mlssufan01]

I think this is a myth and has been for quite some years eg. male teachers certainly make no more
money than female teachers.

On the average men make about 25% more than women, but it's primarily for one reason: The older men have significantly more experience, and thus, have better-paying jobs. The men who, 25 years ago, were breadwinners, still have 40 years experience, and employers will almost always take these guys over a 28-year old grad school graduate. I say give it about 25 years, and you're going to see a very significant shift in this statistic.

 

[coby]

On the average men make about 25% more than women, but it's primarily for one reason: The older men have significantly more experience, and thus, have better-paying jobs. The men who, 25 years ago, were breadwinners, still have 40 years experience, and employers will almost always take these guys over a 28-year old grad school graduate. I say give it about 25 years, and you're going to see a very significant shift in this statistic.

Where I work most men simply get more because they have other jobs with more responsibility. Most of the women there, me too, are okay with a simple nice job and a lot of free time. We had one female manager with 3 kids, she was worn out. I told her why don't you just work a day less and take an easier job. She did.

 

[JeniBean]

This was a huge battle in my marriage, as I have worked hard for what I earn. My EX flipped the first year we did our taxes together to know what I really made and he didn't make as much. It became a battle, to the point that my income was hurting his ego. Though he never minded all the gifts and trips. I started to work less simply to make just under him. I never had an issue with the amount he made. The last guy I seriously dated made only $30,000 a year and he had no issue at all with it. I do not believe PROVIDER means only financially. For example a mother who can stay home with the kids is a PROVIDER, as is any father who can do so. To PROVIDE means many different things. Therefore stop worrying about your income and be blessed with all you have. Trust God will lead you to a woman who simply doesn't care.

 

[mlssufan01]

Why not?!

• "Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8).
  
  This is the most common verse associated with this message, and is almost ALWAYS preached in regards to finances
  
  But, as someone else pointed out, perhaps the provision is not always financially. A man can help out in other ways, and perhaps pitch in what he can, but really, because of what I've seen, I feel women always want richer, and always look down on poorer. Perhaps not always true, but it has always been my experience (I was dumped one time by a six-figure income person, because I couldn't provide for her). And that seems to be the problem for me, at least in the Christian realm.

 

[coby]

• "Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8).
  
  This is the most common verse associated with this message, and is almost ALWAYS preached in regards to finances
  
  But, as someone else pointed out, perhaps the provision is not always financially. A man can help out in other ways, and perhaps pitch in what he can, but really, because of what I've seen, I feel women always want richer, and always look down on poorer. Perhaps not always true, but it has always been my experience (I was dumped one time by a six-figure income person, because I couldn't provide for her). And that seems to be the problem for me, at least in the Christian realm.

Yes I heard some say that. In that time a man had to provide, but ehm these days if I as a woman don't want to work and provide for my kids I have denied the faith. I don't know why they think that text is only for men.

 

[sassylady]

I believe the best way is for the wife to be home taking care of the children and running the household while the man works. But it is not a sin for her to work, it's a world where things cost so much and housing is very expensive. Very difficult for a woman to stay home. In some instances if you add the cost of child care away from home, the extra expense of another car and clothing for her job, etc. plus the extra that will inevitably be spent on convenience foods and take out, is the wife's paycheck really helping any? The 700 Club did a study on that and found a lot of couples are in the negative when the wife worked. But if she is making a very good wage then it does help.

My mom worked and I HATED it. I stayed home for 9 years with my children and would do it over again in a heartbeat, I don't regret one minute of being there with my children. But things happened and I ended up working. Then the husband needs to step it up at home and help out where the wife needs help.

 

[coby]

I believe the best way is for the wife to be home taking care of the children and running the household while the man works. But it is not a sin for her to work, it's a world where things cost so much and housing is very expensive. Very difficult for a woman to stay home. In some instances if you add the cost of child care away from home, the extra expense of another car and clothing for her job, etc. plus the extra that will inevitably be spent on convenience foods and take out, is the wife's paycheck really helping any? The 700 Club did a study on that and found a lot of couples are in the negative when the wife worked. But if she is making a very good wage then it does help.

My mom worked and I HATED it. I stayed home for 9 years with my children and would do it over again in a heartbeat, I don't regret one minute of being there with my children. But things happened and I ended up working. Then the husband needs to step it up at home and help out where the wife needs help.

When I got my first baby I didn't want to work anymore, but I had to. I was lucky because I could work 2 days a week and get paid for 2 and those 2 days his dad was with him. I think it depends on the people. I'm glad I don't have to do it all alone now. Just do what you're good at.

 

[phil38111]

I feel like I can't be in a relationship, because I don't, and probably never will, have enough money. I suppose you can partially pin the blame on me in a way, but at some level I feel like I didn't have much say in that matter.
Anyways, every church I've ever been to says that men should be the provider. But, in today's world, women are getting better jobs and are making sufficient incomes, sometimes even enough to live on their own. It just seems with shift of dynamic that, while men should be hard-working, should the breadwinning expectation be placed on the male?
By no means would I suggest that the man be lazy, I think he should work and do what he can, but sometimes life just puts us in situations where finances don't go our way. At some level, I feel like this mentality is outdated and the times have changed. I wouldn't say it's wrong for a man to be provider, but I think if two people love each other and want to start a life, the woman can be the financial provider, provided that both parties agree to it, and I wouldn't think to be a sin. Agree or disagree?

The churches your going to are full of it and Id find a new church if they aren't intelligent enought to even get this right. No, a man in modern society does not need to be a provider. Let me explain. Women these days can provide for themselves. They work and make as much if not more money then men do. The only reason the STATS show that women get payed less then men is because women often have children, and that means they get PAID LESS because they WORK LESS.

Now is this fair? Thats a matter of opinion. It takes two to make a baby. And women aren't protected to keep their jobs if they get pregnant, which I def don't agree with.

I think their should be some protection for women to be able to keep their jobs if they ever get pregnant.

Now, should they get paid while they are not working if they get pregnant. I don't know. That is a matter of opinion. I think it would be nice, but there is also a trade off. Corporations, would have less incentive to HIRE women if that were the case because it would be more profitable to just hire men. So either way women may get affected negatively regardless of what laws get passed. I apologize for getting off topic, lol, but I just wanted to clear that up.

Now back on the topic. Here's why men don't need to be the PROVIDER in a marriage. How can you provide for someone that can and does already provides for themeselves. Not only is this not fair. It is not providing. If you do this you are simply a SPONSOR not a provider. You are spnosoring your wife. You are giving her extra money she does not need. You are sponsoring her for her new Loui Vitton Purse or gucci purse. You are tricking your dollars off because some dumb preacher said a man is supposed to provide for her wife. There is nothing wrong with buying something for your wife if that is what you want to do, but paying all the bills, while she stacks her money and splurges on whatever she wants while you are taking care of everything isn't fair. Not only is it not fair, it is pretty weak and spineless on the man's part if he does that. Now if your wife is only working part time, or not at all and you can afford to pay for everything while she stays at home and cooks and cleans and takes care of the kids, thats ok. Nothing wrong with that. But most men aren't rich enough to do these things.

It may have worked in the past for men to provide for their wives, or stay at home moms, but in todays economy it is usually not feasible. I'd say if you want to be a PROVIDER for your wife, then become rich. Then maybe it will be feasible. But if your not rich, it really isn't affordable. But if your wife is working and you are working in today's society, your wife should not be doing all the cooking and cleaning. WWJesusDO? lol He would be fair. In a godly marriage you have to be fair with your wife. You divide the responsibilities as fairly as possible. Your wife should not be the only one cleaning. Heck maybe not even cooking. But if she is the only one cooking, maybe you should do more cleaning to make up for the fact that she is cooking to be fair.

But like I said. There is nothing wrong with providing for your wife if she is not working a full time job like you. But if you are providing for a woman that is already capable and providing for herself, then you sir are not a provider. You sir are a SPONSOR. The street term for this word is trick. Meaning you are basically buying the woman And she is selling her services whatever that may be. That is not the way to go. There is no purpose for it in today's society where women are allowed to work, it is unfair to the man. etc etc.

Remember every RULE has a purpose behind it. The reason men were supposed to provide for their wives in the past is because women were NOT ALLOWED TO WORK. Women wanted to be able to work like men, so when that happened they traded being PROVIDED FOR for being self sufficient. And there is nothing wrong with that. But they can't have it both ways. Well they can. But I don't think any women would respect a man that allowed them to have it both ways since most women like a man with a Spine.