Whose fault is it if hubby makes less?

[YPestis]

Do we know what fundies think of men who make less than their wives? I know fundies look down on wives working, but there are fundie-lites who let their women work.

I know fundies are sympathetic to unemployed husbands because, well, I'm sure they see that a lot. However, what about men who are less successful than their wives? What do they say to wives who make more than their husbands? You know, the wife runs a home business which brings in more than his day job? Or a wife who teaches at a private school (a family friend profession) who makes more than hubby struggling with his business?

Do fundies/fundie-lites think the wives should quit when they start making more? Which is worse to them? Handouts from government or letting the women "emasculate" the husband? Do they blame the wives for emasculating the husband by making more?

[Drina Adams]

Like everything else, feminists are to blame.

[GolightlyGrrl]

Like everything else, feminists are to blame.

I nearly fell on my butt when I was walking on an icy sidewalk this morning. Damn, feminists!

[merrily]

If it's not feminists, then it's teh ebil atheists. If it's not atheists, then it's the evolutionists. If it's not evolutionists it's the guvernment headed by the Muslim. BUT it's NEVER the fault of the fundie, God lovin', gun tottin' misogynistic man.

[KBepote]

I've been thinking about this lately because I'd say it's highly likely that Crystal Paine, previously of the Biblical Womanhood blog, earns more than her husband. While she's considerably less fundie (at least out loud) than she used to be, I wonder if there is tension there.

[GolightlyGrrl]

If it's not feminists, then it's teh ebil atheists. If it's not atheists, then it's the evolutionists. If it's not evolutionists it's the guvernment headed by the Muslim. BUT it's NEVER the fault of the fundie, God lovin', gun tottin' misogynistic man.

But what about the gays? THE GAYS!?!?!

[Jinger Jar]

I think a lot of the whole Titus 2 submission stuff is in reaction to the fact that last economic downturn hurt traditionally male jobs - construction jobs being the most prominent - more than it did teaching, nursing, and other jobs than have been female dominated in the past 60 years or so. Suddenly there were a whole lot of wives who were the primary/sole breadwinners, and the fundie leadership panicked. "OMG, you guys, wake up! Get your womens back into the house or else you'll never find another job!!!11!!1!!!"

[merrily]

But what about the gays? THE GAYS!?!?!

:doh: Oops! forgot that one! (I also forgot teh evil abortionists- but they can be grouped with feminists, right?)

[GolightlyGrrl]

:doh: Oops! forgot that one! (I also forgot teh evil abortionists- but they can be grouped with feminists, right?)

Yes, because feminists get abortions the way some women get mani/pedis.

[Fargood]

This is an interesting question. A complimentary question to that is: what do fundies think of women who are good at their profession when it is beneficial to fundies? Should those women not work either and then the fundies lose the benefit of their services or goods? Because we know the fundies lurve having the benefits of cheap goods and services.

[LynnGrey]

This is an interesting question. A complimentary question to that is: what do fundies think of women who are good at their profession when it is beneficial to fundies? Should those women not work either and then the fundies lose the benefit of their services or goods? Because we know the fundies lurve having the benefits of cheap goods and services.

I think most of them find a way to justify keeping the benefits of the top wage-earner, even if she's the female. If they already allow women to have side-businesses and to go to work when the husband loses his job, they're already half-way there by using the logic of "She's just supporting the needs of our family!" And then of course there's there's the ever-ready card of "She's being a light in the darkness by demonstrating godly principles in the workplace," or if she's in a religious-affiliated position, "She's doing God's work!"

[VooDooChild]

Satan is attacking the husband.

Also, I tend to believe the bolded.

I think most of them find a way to justify keeping the benefits of the top wage-earner, even if she's the female. If they already allow women to have side-businesses and to go to work when the husband loses his job, they're already half-way there by using the logic of "She's just supporting the needs of our family!" And then of course there's there's the ever-ready card of "She's being a light in the darkness by demonstrating godly principles in the workplace," or if she's in a religious-affiliated position, "She's doing God's work!"

[Effie]

Dunno, Kelly 2 chickenbreasts was clearly the top-wage-earner, but yet she decided to quit 10+ years ago because she felt called to home... Very shortly thereafter her husband became unemployed. Yet, it didn't matter because Kelly felt convincted to never work outside of the home again. Her husband had to struggle with three different part jobs at times (but he has also been employed by her family). It seems like he still has a hard time earning an income, considering they ration food...

[OkToBeTakei]

Dunno, Kelly 2 chickenbreasts was clearly the top-wage-earner, but yet she decided to quit 10+ years ago because she felt called to home... Very shortly thereafter her husband became unemployed. Yet, it didn't matter because Kelly felt convincted to never work outside of the home again. Her husband had to struggle with three different part jobs at times (but he has also been employed by her family). It seems like he still has a hard time earning an income, considering they ration food...

Effie I was going to use that very example.

Kelly I believe is or was a teacher. This is a job which tends (in my country anyway) to be well paid, with as time and experience and particular areas studied further increases in salary, and also tends to have a good pension prospect. For example my friend is the 'Numeracy' advocate for her cluster schools. It is a career which grows is a relatively required profession which does not bend to economic needs such as construction.

Now excuse my obvious biblical ignorance, because with me being a parsimonious Scot and all, it would appear to me that Kelly could have worked things out a wee bit better. You know ..have the babbies, take the maternity leave and then her husband who without actual knowledge seems to have a less educated backround and less stable income. SILLY me that would take common sense. Would not fit their dafty bible interpretation. So instead she stays at home her husband is out of work for periods of time. IF they own their home it is because they are very lucky that they were enabled to do so by her parents which is not always available to everybody who subscribes to the lifestyle she preaches.

To me her whole philosophy is built on lies. Never mind the religious aspect. It is just not possible for some to do what she 'claims' is God's plan. The fact that some aspire to that annoys me about her. She is entitled. She does not have any self awareness about this. She is a total fraud. Without the benefit of her parents, their land. She would not be able to do what she does.

I do wonder though. What of the future? Are the children expected to provide for the parents without health insurance? Without pensions? Without the safety net of her parents? Because how absolutely terrible is that, she has basically funded her lifestyle on her parents, but has no intention of being that safety net for her own children. She is fulfilling her life wishes at the expense of way too many people. Let's not even discuss how she is stifling THEIR lifes they do not even know they are missing :(

To answer the question. Some many years ago Mr OK earned less than I. We were also 500 miles apart. Mr OK was a pro football player with an injury and half a degree. Hey when you are that good at sport education you know (not a priority). I worked my wee arse off. He went to uni. I have a career where I will always have work. He went stratospheric in his career. But never at any point was it at the expense of mine. That was MY choice. We have a great life. They are choices we made together.

[anjulibai]

I think their answer to that question is twofold:

1) Their men would earn more if they stayed home and supported their husbands look proper wives.

2) They are in rebellion against God, and will suffer for it in some other way.

As to how they justify using the services of women who work (women doctors and nurses probably being the big one), I think they feel God provides those women for them. I don't think they really look at those women as people. Women whose work benefits fundies have essentially been sacrificed by God for fundie glory.

[Full enough quiver]

It's the woman's fault. She clearly needs to be a better helpmeet so her man can be more successful. She also needs to quit the high paying job she is taking away from a good, godly man, so she can stay home and make babies. And when she does stay at home, it's her fault the family is living in poverty, because she isn't a good enough proverbs 31 wife.

[Childless]

I don't understand this mindset about money. It's almost as if they worship it instead of god. Who cares who makes more money. Is money really that important to them? Why are they using it as a litmus test of success? Take my husband and me for example. My husband is currently in college earning a degree. He will make more money than he did as a laborer when he goes back out into the work force. I, however, will always make more than him based on my chosen career field. That doesn't make me more successful than him. If he chooses a career he loves and works hard, he is successful. The amount of money he's paid for doing the job doesn't matter. Money should only matter as far as having enough to support yourself and your family. For a group of people who claim to shun the culture of materialism in our world, they sure seem to care a lot about who makes more money.

[salex]

I don't understand this mindset about money. It's almost as if they worship it instead of god. Who cares who makes more money. Is money really that important to them? Why are they using it as a litmus test of success? Take my husband and me for example. My husband is currently in college earning a degree. He will make more money than he did as a laborer when he goes back out into the work force. I, however, will always make more than him based on my chosen career field. That doesn't make me more successful than him. If he chooses a career he loves and works hard, he is successful. The amount of money he's paid for doing the job doesn't matter. Money should only matter as far as having enough to support yourself and your family. For a group of people who claim to shun the culture of materialism in our world, they sure seem to care a lot about who makes more money.

I think that the money is used in part as a measure of success, but more as a measure of control

Money is power. Whoever has the most money has the most power, in the opinion of many.

Consider--in relationships an educated woman (daughter, wife, widow) who has work experience can eventually say "I'm done with this" and move on if things become unbearable. By default, that means the man in the relationship (father, spouse, son) does not have the power to be domineering, abusive, bossy, annoying, didactic and imperial as we see . I the kind of relationships where women are supposed to submit, the woman outearning the man is bound to feel like the woman has more power--or, more power than that particular man would like.

On a larger scale, the same ideas apply. We see more and more states looking into drug testing for food stamp recipients, even though the research on the results don't show it as making a difference, cost wise. However, it gives people a way to impose a certain morality on others--conform or starve. Candidates say more and more that government should not be giving out charity--churches should--and point to some imagined past where there were no starving people in the usa, no single mothers needing welfare, and any in need, the church cared for. I can get no answers about when or how this happened from the people who spout on about it. However, the drive to move social programs away from the government and "to the people" is designed as a way to enforce morality. If a church has food or money to give, it can come with far more strings attached than what we currently have on money from our secular government.

You want to feed your kids? Join our church and follow our rules. No sex, no alcohol, no drugs, no rock and roll-- well, unless one of the elders thinks you look good (and we all know that money that equals power equals power OVER someone).

So, for fundies who are so patriarchal that they don't "get" the idea of egalitarian relationships, where both partners are equal in decision making regardless of who is earning what at any given time, the idea that the woman would be able to say what I've actually heard men say "I earned it, it is my money" These men assume their wives are as selfish and controlling as they, and why not, if money defines control in their minds.

[docmom]

I think their answer to that question is twofold:

1) Their men would earn more if they stayed home and supported their husbands look proper wives.

2) They are in rebellion against God, and will suffer for it in some other way.

As to how they justify using the services of women who work (women doctors and nurses probably being the big one), I think they feel God provides those women for them. I don't think they really look at those women as people. Women whose work benefits fundies have essentially been sacrificed by God for fundie glory.

Wow, I'm provided by God for the benefit of fundie men. I am obviously very speshal. You will all have to agree with all my opinions from now on.

[anjulibai]

Wow, I'm provided by God for the benefit of fundie men. I am obviously very speshal. You will all have to agree with all my opinions from now on.

Nah, not fundie men. That would put you in authority over them, and they can't have that. :roll: You're here to treat their women.

You're still going to hell - you're in rebellion against God's true calling for all women. But God knew you'd rebel anyways, so he made sure you'd do something to help good, God-fearing, heaven-bound fundie women.

[GenerationCedarchip]

I think a lot of fundies definitely look down on men who make less than their wives. Based on what I see IRL and on blogs, more than a few fundie lite wives work and some of those fundie blogs definitely bring in the cash. However, there seems to be a disapproval of men who aren't providers. If the wife is the main source of income, the husband usually doesn't end up being in positions of leadership (elder, deacon, etc..) in the church - unless he starts his own. Also, among real-life fundies I know, if the wife is supporting the family and they have daughters or sons who are old enough to be looking for spouses, they're going to have a hard time making a match because the prospective FIL is seen as a liability.

[YPestis]

I think that the money is used in part as a measure of success, but more as a measure of control

Money is power. Whoever has the most money has the most power, in the opinion of many.

I think that's exactly the issue we have here. Conservatives, whether they say so or not, see women making more as an implied power imbalance. When it's a SAHM, they make a big deal that the husband's money is "both" their money----i.e the SAHM *is* working for money because she supports the husband in his job. However, if it's the women making the dough, then the husband must be a wuss, or worse, the wife is a man eater taking jobs away from deserving men.

I admit some of this attitude bleeds into the larger society. Fundies are just more vocal about it. My husband once admitted to me he would feel uncomfortable if I made more than him, like it's his fault that he wasn't working hard enough "forcing" me to shoulder the financial burden. I think his attitude stems from age old gender attitudes. If even progressive people still struggle with it, I can only imagine fundies and fundie-lites would really have a hard time with it.

[Childless]

Ah, so it's not a worship of money. It's a worship of power. Still not very christian like.

[Fargood]

I think that's exactly the issue we have here. Conservatives, whether they say so or not, see women making more as an implied power imbalance. When it's a SAHM, they make a big deal that the husband's money is "both" their money----i.e the SAHM *is* working for money because she supports the husband in his job. However, if it's the women making the dough, then the husband must be a wuss, or worse, the wife is a man eater taking jobs away from deserving men.

I admit some of this attitude bleeds into the larger society. Fundies are just more vocal about it. My husband once admitted to me he would feel uncomfortable if I made more than him, like it's his fault that he wasn't working hard enough "forcing" me to shoulder the financial burden. I think his attitude stems from age old gender attitudes. If even progressive people still struggle with it, I can only imagine fundies and fundie-lites would really have a hard time with it.

I agree that it's about power. Women having more money that men, even if in a theoretical sense (because in a lot of households, the money is pooled), the fundies get their panties in a bunch.

I've always made more money than my husband, until very recently. But instead of throwing away my career to stay home, we are saving in the event that something bad happens down the road. My husband and I have both gone through lay-offs in the last five years and even though he works in a stable industry (oil) I can't get over the feeling that being dependent on only one income is dangerous.

[Jinderella]

If possible they will just spin around facts to make the man look like the main provider. I've seen this happen a lot. Situations were everyone knows the woman is making the most, but nobody admitting it. They will say the mans business is having a hard time for a little while. They will claim the man is responsible for a big part of the income the wife generates. And most of the time, they won't say a thing and hope nobody noticed.