How to save many £1000s and hundreds of hours

starrystarry

I'm not single and I provide for myself. My OH and I both work full time and we contribute equally to the household expenses. I have 2 sisters, neither are single yet neither of them are "provided for". We were brought up to be independent. None of my female friends are "provided for", they all work. In fact, I can't think of anyone in my circle of acquaintances who is "provided for".

lightSwitch_3

ViolaLass wrote: »

I'm confused. Men are there to provide for their women and this is what everyone expects (according to you). Again, according to you, women who expect this are gold diggers.

It looks like the women can't win.

Sorry you are not reading the posts.
I said women are provided for especially in marriage and that is OK no gold diggery there as long as each side does its bit.

I've probably said this a dozen times. I knocking this thread on the head.

lightSwitch_3

rgay1992 wrote: »

Brilliantly said !



ON the other hand..i dont see many men staying at home(so someone has to look after kiddes and have you seen childcare costs and the amount of tax lost if both earn) but when they do i wonder to provides for them.... THE WOMEN!

IF you dont see it any other way you are very narrow minded, look around you.

Your sexist and to be honest- i wont keep hoping for a girl, if i were you, i doubt it would happen.

Another thing-having lots of hobbies dosnt always make you intresting as youve proved./

I SAID each side must do their bit.
It is amazing that you think I'm sexist. Calling the role of the genders as they are makes you spit your dummy out. You sound like an unthinking feminist. If a man said it must be wrong. Open your mind

ViolaLass

lightSwitch wrote: »

Sorry you are not reading the posts.
I said women are provided for especially in marriage and that is OK no gold diggery there as long as each side does its bit.

I've probably said this a dozen times. I knocking this thread on the head.

What I haven't understood is what the woman's 'bit' is. Sex? Housework? Or something less tangible?

You say women are provided for, especially in marriage. If this is true, then why do you slam women who apparently expect to be provided for?

In any case, I also think your assertion that women are provided for (whether in or out of wedlock) is out of date. I am married but my husband has never 'provided' for me. In fact, last year I supported him financially (in an arrangement that suited us). This year, it may work out that he supports me but I certainly don't expect him to. I didn't get married in order to ensure my own financial stability.

lightSwitch_3

starrystarry wrote: »

I'm not single and I provide for myself. My OH and I both work full time and we contribute equally to the household expenses. I have 2 sisters, neither are single yet neither of them are "provided for". We were brought up to be independent. None of my female friends are "provided for", they all work. In fact, I can't think of anyone in my circle of acquaintances who is "provided for".

I don't doubt you. I have never seen a guy provided for.

ViolaLass

lightSwitch wrote: »

I don't doubt you. I have never seen a guy provided for.

See my post 56 - my husband, last year, for around 8 months. You might consider that people don't choose to share their financial arrangements with all and sundry.

starrystarry

lightSwitch wrote: »

I don't doubt you. I have never seen a guy provided for.

I've provided for my OH during periods of unemployment over the last few years. I'm sure many couples have been in the same position in the current financial climate.

I think you have some very strange ideas to be honest. Why the need to pigeonhole people as either a "provider" or "provided for"? Most couples I know are a partnership, where each person is both provider and provided for. That's what being part of a couple is about. You share your strengths and weaknesses.

Perhaps this is why you're single.

lightSwitch_3

starrystarry wrote: »

I've provided for my OH during periods of unemployment over the last few years. I'm sure many couples have been in the same position in the current financial climate.

I think you have some very strange ideas to be honest. Why the need to pigeonhole people as either a "provider" or "provided for"? Most couples I know are a partnership, where each person is both provider and provided for. That's what being part of a couple is about. You share your strengths and weaknesses.

Perhaps this is why you're single.

My mother did the same thing when my dad was ill. It doesn't change the fact that he was always the provider.
It is just the natural order of things. Women in this country are voting with their feet to go back to their traditional roles. I didn't say that the media have been saying it.

Anyway, this argument has moved away from my original post which is about women who use "men provide for women" societal practise to fleece unsuspecting men. Like i said, men that do it for sex are not fleeced because they are counting the cost of sex with a prostitute and decide this is cheaper or less sleazy.

It is so simple.

hollydays

I would like to hear details of the birthday present incident,as it seems key.

ViolaLass

lightSwitch wrote: »

I didn't say that the media have been saying it.

Then it MUST be true.