60
Add a comment
You must be logged in to be able to post comments!
Create my account Sign in
Top comments

Say yes, but that means he's gonna have to do the dishes, make the food, and do all the other household chores. That should set him right.

Comments
Reply

#13: It's sexism both ways, and there is no need to be bitter. I'd like to think we've grown out of such traditional ideals, but you managed to bring it up anyway.

Reply

although this situation is different and he was most likely making a statement like that out of laziness, my fiance and I share whatever money we get because couple's who are commited like that should look at it as"their" money not individually.

Reply

23, That depends on the couple. If, say, one of them can't control how much he/she spends, it'll be better if other person controls finances and hands out the allowance.

Say yes, but that means he's gonna have to do the dishes, make the food, and do all the other household chores. That should set him right.

Reply

Add to that foot rubs with a daily pampering session and he'll be off to find a job of his own in no time.

Reply

Like it would be sexist if that father was working and the mother wasn't, and you'd tell the mother that she'd better be working in the kitchen and doing the laundry.

Reply

Plus there are those families where the father might not be making enough or may have lost his job so the mother gets a job as well to support the family. However if the father gets the necessary raise or his job back it would be okay for the mother to quit hers.

Too many negative votes, comment buried. Show the comment

Too many negative votes, comment buried. Show the comment

Reply

Post said husband the money would be joint not the owner of who "worked" for it. But if that was not the law how would it work? You eat dinner but hubby gets no food as you cut him off?

Loading data…