women: would you like to be proteced and kept?

[wwwjd]

General very broad, sweeping question:

 

If it was an option, would you like to be a loved, protected, provided for, "kept" woman?

 

Like maybe, stay home all day messing about in a garden, doing whatever hobbie you want (sewing, crosswords, rock climbing, whatever) MAYBE cooking the dinner IF you wanted - or maybe a maid or service does this, hanging with girlfriends, shopping, have kids if you want, be a stay at home mom if you wanted, and feeling pampered and loved and cared for and charished without having the stress of bringing home money for mortgage, car payments, cell phones etc, or job stress?

 

I know this is the age of equality, enlightenment, woman's rights, and independent gals and all of that, but what I am asking about is DEEP DOWN in your "id", way down at the core, does a life like that appeal to you?

 

I'd like to hear some feedback before I respond further about where I am going with this. And, of course, there is no wrong answer.

[Ruby Slippers]

Not exactly like that, but like anyone, I would like the freedom and time to be who I am that only money affords.

 

In my ideal life, both my man and I would be making great money doing all kinds of different things we love to do - running businesses, doing wild creative projects, and so on. I wouldn't care if his or my earnings ebbed and flowed, as long as we stayed strong together.

 

Now, I am old-fashioned in that I love it when he is an old-school gentleman who opens the door for me, pays for things, and gives me a good dose of the queen's treatment. But I enjoy doing all the traditional female equivalents and giving him the king's treatment - cooking for him, showing him consistent respect as the strong man I can lean on, giving him sensual massages, and so on.

 

I never really wanted to get out onto the money-making field and compete in the "man's game". I think I'm doing it reasonably well and having a lot of fun with it, but I've done that out of necessity.

[mesmerized]

Who doesn't like the ability to not work and have everything provided for? Sounds great to me. The truth is, in the real world, it comes with a lot of limitations and complications so it's just not worth it.

[threebyfate]

Loved, cherished, treasured and protected? Absolutely! Financially kept, being a domestic engineer? Not a snowball's chance in hell!

[CarrieT]

Sure, I would...

 

Because just like all the other fantasies I live out in my brain (being a perfect Size 8, never having another nightmare, being able to walk in 5" heels with no pain, eating at Nopa and Troisgros, owning a Flemish still life...) I know it will never happen.

 

So I can want it but know it is just one of those things in life that would never happen.

[RedRobin]

I want the kind of life where both of us feel safe, cherished, and protected.

 

That comes in different forms and is unique to each individual. I feel each person has to be a fully functioning, healthy, independent person before they can responsibly offer that kind of reassurance to another person... in whatever form it takes. Otherwise, they are more like a parasite and not a partner.

 

I'm fortunate that I've built a life that gives me choices and balance. I hope to find a man who has achieved a similar balance.

 

Then we can work together on whatever life throws our way and make adjustments as necessary. I don't believe in rigid gender roles.

[serial muse]

I really thought about this, because sometimes an absolute freedom from stress sounds like a dream.

 

But that's a surface feeling, borne out of situational anxiety and tiredness and worry about projects and family and whatnot. Sure, I'd like those things to go away; who wouldn't? But since you asked for us to search deep down, at a gut level...well, all other things being equal, I honestly think I would not like being "kept". It's a bit too much like being locked away from the world.

 

And the truth is, I like striving. I honestly do. I like that feeling of excitement and fire in my belly, of creating something, of flexing my brain. I like feeling connected to the world, and like I'm making an impact. A short vacation from anxiety sounds nice at the moment (haven't had vacay in a while), but after a few weeks or so, I don't really think I'd like being sheltered in a fluffy pink cloud where it didn't much matter what I did. I think it would chafe.

[wwwjd]

very interesting and great feedback.

 

Not sure if it is only "money" that allows this to happen or simply lifestyle contentment or realistic compromise. Personally, money will NEVER be the root of MY happiness. I've had decent amounts, had little amounts, will always get by, but the amount didn't affect my happiness as a person. Only how expensive of a car I had.

 

Had a GF once I took on a boring business class trip with me. She stayed at the hotel while I went off to "work". Came back and she was in this odd great mood. Said she felt like a "kept women", just puttered around with zero responsibility and loved it! That was NEW for her being a typical career driven woman, but she admitted she REALLY liked it. And it made me feel like a real man bringing home the bacon to provide for my little woman.

 

I'm not against women working, don't read that into this AT ALL, just questioning our ways in what really makes us happy.

 

All the women that I have gotten to know on a deep, and I mean DEEP level, where we talk about why we are here, our purpose, feelings and all that, have ALL confessed (sometimes in tears) they would LOVE to live like that.

 

So, I ask..... why not? IF that is what we both really want, we could do it, money or not.

 

And it is not just fantasy. I'm not "rich" but could support tomorrow, with the right woman. But not if her idea of living carefree means pointlessly expensive tastes: I GOTTA have a Mercedes, and $700 handbag....

 

But I do know women want to DO things and strive and such, but think of what you could do with the time you would get?!?!

 

Keep the feedback coming. Excellent, interesting points so far. Good reading.

[wwwjd]

I would not like being "kept". It's a bit too much like being locked away from the world.

 

 

I didn't mean to imply that but I understand where you got it. I seriously doubt it is like that. I think it would much more open of a world to explore. Looks tome like a place where you can do anything you want with whoever you want as long as it was legal and moral.

[xxoo]

I've been home completely, worked ft, and worked pt during stages of our marriage.

 

Staying home completely is nice for a few months. They I start to appreciate it less. I need some work time to appreciate the rest time. Balance is key.

 

Also, being 100% dependent is not conducive to less stress. I have a deeper peace knowing that I can support myself, should the need arise--even if I am not currently supporting myself 100%. Again, balance.

[january2011]

I lived this life for a time. I was bored out of my mind. And with hindsight, I also think that I got depressed because there was no real structure to my day, so nothing to really strive for or achieve. The days, weeks, months just merged into one homogenous mass of nothingness.

 

No, I'd prefer not to be a kept woman again, protected/loved or otherwise. It does not suit me.

[Mme. Chaucer]

I like to feel protected.

 

I'd also like to be independently wealthy so I could do and buy anything I wanted without worrying about money. It would be SUPER fun if my husband and I both were so we could share that fun.

 

But to be 100% dependent on the man in my life in order to have that? No. That would be a very precarious feeling situation for me.

 

Sure, on a trip it could be enjoyable to "feel" like a kept woman. But to actually be a "kept woman" would be pretty insecure, unless your keeper gave you a LOT of money to invest as you chose, in case the relationship ended.

 

For the record, I do not believe that a life of crossword puzzles, shopping, hanging with girlfriends and MAYBE cooking dinner, or MAYBE having a maid to do this at the expense of a man in ones life is comparable with one person raising children them while the other person brings home bacon, regardless of which one is the man and which the woman. That does not equate to somebody being "kept."

[Els]

Who doesn't like the ability to not work and have everything provided for? Sounds great to me. The truth is, in the real world, it comes with a lot of limitations and complications so it's just not worth it.

 

I think this is key.

 

Sure, it'd be 'nice' in a vacuum. I wouldn't face some of the problems some of the women here would, I think. I seem to have an infinite list of hobbies just waiting for me to pursue, I would set my own goals and pursue them so my life would still have structure, my qualifications are sufficient such that even if for some reason it all ends I'd still be able to start at a job, and I don't think I've ever been bored before in my life unless I'm not at home or not free to do what I want.

 

But that being said, if one partner is putting in all the work and the other not doing anything at all, not even housework or childcare or helping the other person with stuff, it could potentially point to an unhealthy R dynamic that I'm not sure I want to be part of. And plenty of relationship-based complications can arise from this, I think.

 

I would be cautious if I were you, OP. I don't mean this in the 'all women can't be trusted, don't ever let a woman pay less than 50%' way. I mean, if you are doing all the work and the girl is doing literally nothing except being pampered, how do you know if she is with you for you or for the lifestyle? And also, just IMO, any decent person would offer to at least help out in SOME way. If she doesn't, you might want to rethink why you are doing this.

[wwwjd]

something that always bugs me about our current society dynamic....

 

why do women bother having kids if they HAVE TO go to work to get enough money to pay for CHILD CARE, where they send their kids to be raised WHILE THEY ARE AT WORK? Do they not want to bother with the whole mommy-hood, child rearing thing? Seems like foot shooting to me.

But I mention it because I have seen it a lot in business. I hear "Her job barely covers the childcare". Isn't being a stay home mom (which is a huge job in itself, I know this) as rewarding or more rewarding than a job, and much better for children?

 

(this is only a minor side track off the whole stay home kept idea)

[Teal]

Doubtful.

 

I learned very early on in life to rely on others as little as possible, so the idea of being kept and provided for sounds like shooting myself in the foot. My gut reaction is aversion and an expectation of boredom and feeling lost in life if I sit around all day with no responsibilities. I remember being deeply depressed in the brief period between high school and college when I was also between jobs, despite being free all day to have fun after the day's job searching, or when I was without one or the other to a lesser extent.

[verhrzn]

No. I'd be bored out of my mind. I have to work. I find that the less I work, the less I get done over all... I'm much more productive in my hobbies during the week than I am on the weekend.

 

However, it WOULD be nice to have a choice about where to work. If I didn't have to worry too much about money, I could take a low-paying job that I loved (part time under-curator at a museum, for example) without worrying about how I/my family would survive.

[zengirl]

To your last question:

 

The only time I can imagine being a SAHM being enough work for someone like me (who likes work) is if the kid was under 5 and not in school OR if the kid has special needs. Even at a younger age, kids really should be put in preschool. It's important for academic and social development. Daycare isn't bad at all if it's an actual preschool which nurtures young children---it's better than staying home with Mom all day, really. A family that can afford to have parents working flex time or something so they can put the kid in school only 1/2 days as a toddler is probably best. This is all gleaned from a study of educational research, and people can certainly disagree if they like, but I'd never deprive my kids of preschool, if I were having kids.

 

At any rate, most families don't pay as much in daycare fees (maybe for a fancy preschool) as one partner makes. So most families are dual income because they feel they require the money. It's also really inconvenient to take a big chunk of time off of a career you started nurturing when you really won't need to once the kid goes to school. So, it's worth it to sacrifice money gain for a few years to gain it overall. I also disagree that having kids in a social setting with other kids, where they can potentially learn and be nurtured, is bad for them. Socializing outside the family is also important for young kids.

 

To answer the OP:

 

Of course, it'd be fun to be independently wealthy, but if that money came as an allowance or made me feel kept, it'd be the exact opposite of fun. At any rate, I'd still work. I love my work. I might do different work -- even work without pay -- and outreach and community activism if I won the lottery or was independently wealthy or if either hubby or I made millions and we didn't need the money. Just as I know hubby would like to start his own business and do his own creative things, if he could afford it and money allowed. We'd also both love to travel, etc.

 

At any rate, I work because I like my work and because I like contributing to society as much as for the money. So, I have no desire to be kept. If I won the lottery, I wouldn't complain, though. I'd set up my own foundation, so I had even less people to answer to and felt even more independent.

 

But, yes, I like to feel protected to some degree. That said, I like to feel like I'm helping and protecting as well. I want it to be mutual.

[xxoo]

something that always bugs me about our current society dynamic....

 

why do women bother having kids if they HAVE TO go to work to get enough money to pay for CHILD CARE, where they send their kids to be raised WHILE THEY ARE AT WORK? Do they not want to bother with the whole mommy-hood, child rearing thing? Seems like foot shooting to me.

But I mention it because I have seen it a lot in business. I hear "Her job barely covers the childcare". Isn't being a stay home mom (which is a huge job in itself, I know this) as rewarding or more rewarding than a job, and much better for children?

 

(this is only a minor side track off the whole stay home kept idea)

 

Flip it--why do men bother having kids if they have to go to work and pay for child care. Do they not want to bother with the whole child rearing thing?

 

Why do people expect more child rearing from mothers than fathers?

 

Being a SAHM is rewarding for me in many ways, but isolating and frustrating in other ways. I am a better mom when I get some time away from my children. I am a more balanced person overall when I pursue work in addition to motherhood.

 

Other women many feel completely fulfilled and balanced at home. We are individuals and find our own balance.

[wwwjd]

I was truly asking out of my ignorance, not having children or wife/mom.

Thanks for the very insitefull replies to that.

 

As far as a male perspective on child raising....

 

On the very bottom level.... and I'm gonna make 10,000 enemies right now and am prepared to accept that.... All men HAVE is a job. THAT is their only known purpose. Remember, I said BOTTOM level. We provide sperm and bacon. Women CAN have a choice (this is where you all hate me now) many out there over history DO CHOOSE To have children. Some don't. Either way, they CAN have children, and men can't. All we can HAVE is a job to feel like we are doing SOMETHING important in the world: PROVIDING For my wife and child. Women, OTOH, can have instant purpose with their child. Yes, theres a million other parts to this but I am trying to stip it down to the very bottom level.

What if men could have kids? We'd probably be much closer to them and want to stay home and raise them as well.

But as society seems GENERALLY self balancing, you will notice the stay at home father is FAR LESS common than the other way.

 

If we were a primative tribe, I'd be out killing antelope for dinner while the mom stayed home nursing the child (another thing we can't do).

So, be default the child is way closer to the mom, and the mom to child (having come out of her), and the man does his providing thing which usually requires us out of the house.

 

Plus we don't know jack about nurturing children. We give them a spear and point to the wild bore and expect them to "get it".

[RedRobin]

something that always bugs me about our current society dynamic....

 

why do women bother having kids if they HAVE TO go to work to get enough money to pay for CHILD CARE, where they send their kids to be raised WHILE THEY ARE AT WORK? Do they not want to bother with the whole mommy-hood, child rearing thing? Seems like foot shooting to me.

But I mention it because I have seen it a lot in business. I hear "Her job barely covers the childcare". Isn't being a stay home mom (which is a huge job in itself, I know this) as rewarding or more rewarding than a job, and much better for children?

 

(this is only a minor side track off the whole stay home kept idea)

 

Ask yourself, why do men bother to have children if they are going to be preoccupied with work all of the time?

 

I mean, if the kids are little more than 'pets' to the dad. If he's just Mr. Fun Time, and the wife gets all the yucky stuff to deal with (which, TBH, is much more than a 9-5 job), then why bother? I see that dynamic too.

 

Women work because they are multi-dimensional. One needs the company of adults too. I can imagine that raising kids full time could feel very isolating.

 

How would you feel doing it?

 

Even my very traditional Iowa families all had women who went back to work when the kids started school.. Either on the family business or elsewhere.

 

oh, and in a traditional society... you'd be there with your children too. Showing them how to hunt antelope

 

You can choose to be a more balanced dad. I know plenty. You'll have to decide if you want to be the climber type... or put your ego a bit in check and decide to work fewer hours so you can be there for your kid's special times, take turns on sick days... all that. That is the positive side I see to our current social dynamic. Men CAN participate more fully in family life if they choose to. It is possible.

 

EDITED: I wrote this before I saw xxoo's post. I'm glad I'm as in touch with mom's as I thought. I don't have kids... why not is a long story....

Edited April 18, 2012 by RedRobin

[xxoo]

Plus we don't know jack about nurturing children.

 

Don't believe the hype. My father--an old school "union" guy--is the best baby soother in the family, hand's down. This was as true for his own babies as it is for his grandbabies, or neighbor's babies, or even baby animals

 

Times are changing. It turns out that, when it is required, women CAN be great providers and men CAN be great nurturers. Why did we ever believe otherwise?

[zengirl]

Plus we don't know jack about nurturing children. We give them a spear and point to the wild bore and expect them to "get it".

 

Are you kidding me? My step-father -- who not only didn't have me come out of his body but wasn't even involved in my genetic makeup or there when I was a baby -- was the most nurturing parent figure in my life. He's the one who taught me how to do math and drive a car and a much better teacher than my mother. He's the one who taught me how to nurture and be nurtured! And he taught my mother, too.

 

Men can absolutely be nurturing. That society has ever made them feel they cannot be is as much a crime as making women feel they cannot be assertive or productive outside the house. Men can make choices to be better fathers or even the more primary parent, if they choose. You know who stayed home with me when I was sick with pneumonia? My step-father. Because my mother's job was in a lot more jeopardy than his at the time, and he could get a couple of weeks off work. He also makes better chicken soup than she does!

 

No, men can't bring a child out of their womb, but it takes male and female body parts to make a child happen and people adopt children without them coming from the womb at all. I don't think the fact that a woman has a womb makes her any more of a parent, nor do I think adopted children are any less connected to their parents, etc. The womb argument just doesn't hold up.

[RedRobin]

Don't believe the hype. My father--an old school "union" guy--is the best baby soother in the family, hand's down. This was as true for his own babies as it is for his grandbabies, or neighbor's babies, or even baby animals

 

Times are changing. It turns out that, when it is required, women CAN be great providers and men CAN be great nurturers. Why did we ever believe otherwise?

 

You betcha!!

[wwwjd]

I was merely generalizing.

 

Societies numbers show the balance there, not my comment about nurturing.

I don't know real numbers but it is quite obviously less than 20% are stay at home dads

[xxoo]

One more thing....if you think that new mothers instinctively know how to hold and care for babies, well I'm sorry to disappoint When our first was born, H and I were equally clueless, and just jumped in and figured it out together!

 

In traditional societies, that knowledge would be modeled and handed down to young women and girls. But I went to HS and college instead of being an apprentice of motherhood I learned "on the job"....right along with my husband. We both were much more competent when the next one came along!