critically comment on the question with informed biblical standards.

Feminist/free thinkers are not welcomed because they don't believe in the Bible.

In a godly marriage based on biblical standards if a man contributes half of the money to pay the bills, is he still a provider.

man = provider
woman = helper

modified

most of you are deviating, for the purpose of this discussion let's look at payment of bills using money as provision forget moral support n motivation

He is a partner.

Provider no be only by monetary input.





Sinaj, regardless of who contributes more, they're still in a partnership.

yes ..even if the wife foots the while bill in the house..the husband is still the head...the problem is have with some people is that they think just because they are financially more stable than their partners..they are better and should steer the ship...there is more to been a leader and head than money

He’s a partner, and that’s ok but let’s just call it what it is. They’re both providers

babyfaceafrica:
yes ..even if the wife foots the while bill in the house..the husband is still the head...the problem is have with some people is that they think just because they are financially more stable than their partners..they are better and should steer the ship...there is more to been a leader and head than money

a provider is no the same as a head. he can be a figure head but not the provider.
my hubby and I share the bills. we are partners and both providers. some months I spend more, other months he spends more.

momokiddies:



a provider is no the same as a head. he can be a figure head but not the provider.
my hubby and I share the bills. we are partners and both providers. some months I spend more, other months he spends more.

ok

momokiddies:



a provider is no the same as a head. he can be a figure head but not the provider.
my hubby and I share the bills. we are partners and both providers. some months I spend more, other months he spends more.

I wonder whether your husband won’t feel slighted if he sees this.

If he foots the bills according to his financial capacity, I'm good. There are several things a husband is to provide not just money. The major thing, majority of us are looking for us is a sense of security. Whatever will foster that sense of security is what the Head of the home should provide. This should include fidelity, health care, serene environment amongst others.

StPete:


I wonder whether your husband won’t feel slighted if he sees this.

Why?

Half provider

Of course he is. It isn't only financial stability a man is supposed to provide for his family.


He, being a responsible dad and affectionate lover, he provides a father figure for his kids and a strong arm of support for his wife.


These are things money can't buy.


If he's out of a job but provides these things even as he's looking for another job, then he's still the provider of the family and the wife is being called upon on her duty as the support, helper and backbone of the husband.


If he just comes in once a month just to drop cash for the wife and kids and he isn't there for them physically and emotionally because he's in the arms of another woman, then he has failed in his duty as a provider.

So many people deceiving themselves here with their comments.

By bills, I believe you mean financially. A man Is suppose to be the provider in a family. Providing half of the bills is not enough as a man, that's the truth. But still, he's a provider because "Half" is something, but not enough for a man.

Ioannes:
Of course he is. It isn't only financial stability a man is supposed to provide for his family.

He, being a responsible dad and affectionate lover, he provides a father figure for his kids and a strong arm of support for his wife.

These are things money can't buy.

The wife should also be responsible and affectionate, should provide a mother figure for her kids and a strong arm of support for her husband also.

Since they are both working and contributing equally towards the household expenses, they are both providers and the husband should take up half of the household chores. That way no one feels cheated.

kmcutez:



The wife should also be responsible and affectionate, should provide a mother figure for her kids and a strong arm of support for her husband also.

Since they are both working and contributing equally towards the household expenses, they are both providers and the husband should take up half of the household chores. That way no one feels cheated.

Are you a feminist?

Marriage is not a competition between husband and wife. Going into it with the mindset that you must not be cheated by the man you married will spell doom for that marriage even before you tie the knot.

Both have naturally and divinely ordained roles in the home. That they both earn and both contribute financially to the upkeep of the home doesn't make the woman the head of the home.

Two people can't be at the steering wheel.

There can be only one captain on a ship and it doesn't matter if he is at the helm or down below in the bunkers incapacitated.

Ioannes:


Are you a feminist?

Marriage is not a competition between husband and wife. Going into it with the mindset that you must not be cheated by the man you married will spell doom for that marriage even before you tie the knot.

Both have naturally and divinely ordained roles in the home. That they both earn and both contribute financially to the upkeep of the home doesn't make the woman the head of the home.

Two people can't be at the steering wheel.

There can be only one captain on a ship and it doesn't matter if he is at the helm or down below in the bunkers incapacitated.

I never said it was a competition. I said if both are equally contributing to the finances, they should both contribute equally to the household chores.

One cannot be doing half work, while the other is doing one and half work. That is a recipe for disaster as the one doing the one and half work will be much more tired and weary and that might breed resentment.

As to the man being the head of the household, well, those are Christian teachings and not everyone is a Christian, so not going there. I believe more in partnership and working together towards a common goal where mutual understanding is the key.

As for the captain of the ship being incapacitated, and still running the ship, hope the ship will not sink.

[quote author=kmcutez post=71504943]

I never said it was a competition. I said if both are equally contributing to the finances, they should both contribute equally to the household chores.

So you're saying they should draw up a rooster where they divide the household chores right down the middle? Ask yourself which man will accept that. In fact how many couples celebrating their silver/golden wedding anniversary have operated such formula. I think you should ask around.

One cannot be doing half work, while the other is doing one and half work. That is a recipe for disaster as the one doing the one and half work will be much more tired and weary and that might breed resentment.

When a couple reach a stage where they keep scores on the help they render to each other and keep account of the good things they do for their spouses, then you can take it to the bank that that marriage is about to hit the rocks. Marriage is all about love and love is all about sacrifice. If you aren't capable of sacrificing your time and resources to build a happy home for yourself, your spouse and your kids, then don't think of getting married. The same goes for the man.

As to the man being the head of the household, well, those are Christian teachings and not everyone is a Christian, so not going there. I believe more in partnership and working together towards a common goal where mutual understanding is the key.

Marriage can not work like a business contract because it is NOT a business contract, it is a solemn covenant. What happens if one of them becomes permanently incapacitated physically or mentally to carry out their solemn vows? Divorce?

Before Christianity came to our forefathers who do you think was the head of the family? It might look like a Christian teaching but it predates Christianity.

Marriages lasted longer and children had the opportunity of growing up in a stable household having their emotions balanced by both mother and father figures present.

Not now when women think they can raise kids on their own, turning their male kids into effeminate beings and their girls into macho women out of overcompensation for their own reality.

As for the captain of the ship being incapacitated, and still running the ship, hope the ship will not sink.

The ship will only sink if the woman doesn't play her God-given role as helpmate.

The woman is no less important in the home than the man. It is their roles that is different and that gives the man the edge of holding the reins.

In actual fact, the wife is the puppet master (the person who pulls the strings behind the scene and makes everything work out perfectly) and the man is the puppet.

The woman who has won the heart and respect of her man controls him subtly. The operative word here being SUBTLY.

She also controls the kids. In most homes, the woman spends more rime with the kids and hence properly forms the child's conscience than the man and she gains a lot when the kids grow up. They are mostly always closer to their mothers than their fathers.

It is only a woman that doesn't know the power she wields in her home that will be arguing with her husband over petty things like "since I'm picking up half of the financial burden of the house we must split the household chores in half too".

I do not dispute that the husband MUST help around the house with chores. But it is the PRIMARY duty of the woman. The PRIMARY duty of the man is to earn for the upkeep of his family and PROTECT them.

I'm sure you didn't marry your husband so that he can cook and clean for you. Don't ever pray that he finds himself in a situation of staying at home to cook for you instead of being at work to earn enough to take care of you and the kids.

[quote author=Ioannes post=71508750][/quote]

You keep putting words into my mouth. I said marriage is a partnership where both work towards the success of their marriage. Times are changing, where definitive roles in marriages are no longer written in stone, so no matter how much you shout and cry, change is still going to happen.

So I suggest you adjust your my mindset.

StPete:


I wonder whether your husband won’t feel slighted if he sees this.

Why should he feel slighted because the wife says they co-provide? Is she lying?

There's nothing to be ashamed of. Many families do same.
Infact some families have only the woman as sole provider despite the man not being disabled.
It is just what it is.
Nobody is stopping the man from being sole provider, but if he's apparently not able to, they both bear the burden together. She doesn't have to downplay her own achievements and contribution to appease anybody's ego.

Is a woman still a woman her man does half the house chores?

They're equal providers (or one body) regardless of who makes or provide more money. Provision can be financial or nonfinancial. Even in economics and human resource management, motivation is defined in the context of intrinsic and extrinsic factors (or motivators and hygiene factors).

What this means is that beyond bills, a woman can provide good food, peace, prayers, sex, respect, understanding, loyalty, etc. A man can also provide more by being the spiritual head of the home, providing guidance, quality leadership (more transformational and less transactional leadership), sense of security, loyalty, love, etc.

Defining marriage in terms of contractual or corporate partnership between two equal or unequal individuals can be highly detrimental because partnerships are based on terms/agreements, clause, and in most instances, come with expiry dates (tenure). A lot of people still downplay some of the powerful utterances/vow couples declare on the altar. You guys stop being equal/unequal partners the moment you say your vows. If you work against the vow, the vow will work against you sooner or later. Some of you are too used to being boyfriends/girlfriends you forget that marriage is a completely different institution.

kmcutez:


You keep putting words into my mouth. I said marriage is a partnership where both work towards the success of their marriage. Times are changing, where definitive roles in marriages are no longer written in stone, so no matter how much you shout and cry, change is still going to happen.

So I suggest you adjust your my mindset.

Haven't you heard dear, change isn't always good. Here's a concrete example, compare the rate of divorce we have today to the rate of divorce in the 50s.

Then compare the rate of crime waves in cities today to the rate of crime waves in cities of the 50s.

Because eventually every criminal is a product of his society and the family is the smallest unit of any society just like a cell is the smallest unit of life.

Change doesn't always mean progress.

Marriage is more than a partnership. It's a commitment through thick and thin, for better, for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, till death do them part.

That's way more than a partnership. That's commitment. That's unconditional unity based on mutual love and not based on if the other person can bring 50% of the housekeeping money, or 50% of the time and effort required to complete household chores.

Ioannes:


Haven't you heard dear, change isn't always good. Here's a concrete example, compare the rate of divorce we have today to the rate of divorce in the 50s.

Then compare the rate of crime waves in cities today to the rate of crime waves in cities of the 50s.

Because eventually every criminal is a product of his society and the family is the smallest unit of any society just like a cell is the smallest unit of life.

Change doesn't always mean progress.

Marriage is more than a partnership. It's a commitment through thick and thin, for better, for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, till death do them part.

That's way more than a partnership. That's commitment. That's unconditional unity based on mutual love and not based on if the other person can bring 50% of the housekeeping money, or 50% of the time and effort required to complete household chores.

Probably because the stigma attached to divorce is not as prevalent as it once was.

Whatever you call it, partnership, commitment, unconditional unity based on love, so far as they are working towards making their marriage a success, it is all good with me.

Nothing is set in stone anymore. If you want to bring 50% of the money and do all the household chores as a husband, more grease to your elbow, but that is definitely not me as a wife. Different strokes for different folks.

There are certain bills a man must pay to keep answering the man in the relationship/marriage.

shelter - a man must be the one to provide shelter aka rent payment

payment of school fees - a man be the one to take this bill

food - you must provide at least 50% here

purchase capital intensive things - always provide 70%

purchase of vehicles - provide 100%

others - provide 50%

they don't call u a man and head of family for nothing

Eketem:
Is a woman still a woman her man does half the house chores?

Poor comparison

Maybe if you’d said ‘head of domestics’ or something lol

What is a woman if she pays no bills at all? I don't know why the whole world must know anytime a woman pays even the least bill in the house!!!

kmcutez:


Probably because the stigma attached to divorce is not as prevalent as it once was.

Whatever you call it, partnership, commitment, unconditional unity based on love, so far as they are working towards making their marriage a success, it is all good with me.

Nothing is set in stone anymore. If you want to bring 50% of the money and do all the household chores as a husband, more grease to your elbow, but that is definitely not me as a wife. Different strokes for different folks.

So assuming I marry you and I provide for the family 100% over and above what the family needs materially would you be OK with 100% of the household chores?

[quote author=Ioannes post=71508750][/quote]

You are talking with both sides of your mouth. If you are going the route of roles and responsibilities, then you must go the full mile.

If a husband wants to be the alpha and omega then responsibilities such as full or 90% provision come with it.

It is not about sharing chores, it us about doing what is fair.

If it is a marriage where everyone gives their 100% time and money, no wahala.

If you are going to remember it is not your duty to do chores, better echo that when you are expecting her to contribute to something financially.

You can't eat your cake and have it.

Ioannes:


So assuming I marry you and I provide for the family 100% over and above what the family needs materially would you be OK with 100% of the household chores?

What is this aversion to housework by some men? Is it laziness or what to clean up after themselves? What's the big deal in cleaning your own toilet, and cooking food for your family to eat?
I feel same way about some women who can't spend their money on their family.
Nonsense
I'm really not understanding how grown ups cannot clean their homes, raise their children, and provide for themselves o..

StPete:


I wonder whether your husband won’t feel slighted if he sees this.

You should only feel slighted if you cover 100% of the bills, irrespective of your circumstances.

He's the provider if he provides 100 percent I mean everything.

He may decide to share the bills with his wife if it's okay by them, in that case he alone is not the provider, they are both partnering to provide

The question is straight forward ojare

eyinjuege:


What is this aversion to housework by some men? Is it laziness or what to clean up after themselves? What's the big deal in cleaning your own toilet, and cooking food for your family to eat?
I feel same way about some women who can't spend their money on their family.
Nonsense
I'm really not understanding how grown ups cannot clean their homes, raise their children, and provide for themselves o..

What's with the unsolicited attack madam? Did you follow my discussion with the lady at all?

Maybe you should go back and read our convo so you can get a better picture of my position instead of quoting me wrongly.