Dear Sugars,

My husband has a life that many people who are "rule-followers," like me, would envy. When I first met him, it was undeniably a passionate love affair. I'd never dated anyone or known anyone like him before. He took risks, lived all over the world, had many passions and has been a loyal friend. He's seven years older than I am, and we met at work, where his power and seniority at the office was insanely attractive to me. The year we got married, he wanted to take a risk and go back to graduate school to find his dream job. I trusted his judgment, and between his savings, my new job, and some sacrifices, we comfortably lived while he went through two years of graduate school. My husband now has his dream job. I'm proud of everything he's accomplished and what we were able to do together to make it happen.

Over the past four years, my career has skyrocketed in ways I never could have dreamed of. I've broken through the hypothetical glass ceiling in a male-dominated industry. I am a huge believer in women in the workplace and always will be. If they become the breadwinners in marriage, more power to them.

Now herein lies my problem — I became the breadwinner in an extreme way. I committed to supporting us for two years, but we're going on four now, and it will likely be five. Our income divide is so extreme that I pay for 90 percent of our living expenses. What I've found is I can't live this girl-power lifestyle that I believe in.

Friends Don't Loan Friends Money. Or Do They?

DEAR SUGARS

Friends Don't Loan Friends Money. Or Do They?

I'm very close to a breaking point, and I never stop thinking about leaving my husband. And no matter what other reasons I come up with, it always leads back to money, power and sexual attraction. I hate myself for it. I hate my sexist, wealthy, materialistic father, who likely instilled these ideals in me. I hate my mother-in-law, who thinks women shouldn't have to work. I hate that I want a more traditional lifestyle with a husband who can provide for me. I hate that I'm not confident enough in myself to have children because I don't think I can be the financial provider and a mother. And I hate that I would never look at my husband the same way if he was a stay-at-home dad.

What I hate most of all is that this is not what my husband wants either. He never imagined that he would spend all of his savings to follow his dreams to come out on the other end making a quarter of his prior salary. When I ask myself if I would've ever married an older man that I would financially support for the first five years of marriage, and possibly forever, the answer is a hard "no." And most days I feel like I can't do this one second longer.

He's doing everything in his power to make more of a financial contribution, but his fruitless attempts haven't pulled me out of this rut. It's embarrassing enough to him that I could never tell my friends or family the extent of our income divide, and I can't tell him exactly how I feel either. Maybe this was a risk he shouldn't have taken. I want to be taken care of. I want to pull back at work in order to have a family. And I am so ashamed of my feelings.

Sugars, please help me live what I believe in.

With love,

Breadwinner

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3448689&forum_id=2#32052375)

Their ultimate goal is a society where they don't have to take responsibility for any action or decision.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3448689&forum_id=2#32059602)

no, it's not. you want to be held down and raped by a breadwinning patriarch/husband.

there's not 'compartmentalization.' there's no 'complexity.'

you want one thing, and not the other, but you are lying to yourselves because you happen to be pea-brained and stupid.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3448689&forum_id=2#32054604)

He treats her well and is the economic breadwinner, but she's the leader in the relationship.

She needs a dude to be in control in all respects. It's not enough for a guy to be an economic breadwinner; he needs to dad her around too.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3448689&forum_id=2#32054947)

Doing most of the emotional legwork is pretty much a relationship requirement for some girlfriends of mine who value certainty and don't want to invest in a relationship unless they know the man is all-in from the start. And these girls are the more traditional ones who have slept with like 3 doods (all LTRs).

I troll for it because it's the way shit works. You want a traditional woman? Well, best be prepared to shoulder a lot of the emotional risks/work in the relationship.

The old vows said that the man should "love, honor, and CHERISH" a woman in exchange for her "love, honor, and OBEY" pledge. Women who want to obey their husbands will do so in exchange for being cherished, in other words, being put largely on a pedestal.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3448689&forum_id=2#32067593)

All relationships we have are with people. Not with ideals of people. In every relationship we're confronted with the fact that the person we're with doesn't match up with the hopes and fantasies we projected upon them, and it's up to us to either recalibrate our expectations of relationships, or get out.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3448689&forum_id=2#32054905)

Just so much unhappiness. So much grass is greener syndrome. So many disasters.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3448689&forum_id=2#32055028)

More people should look at marriage as either a religious sacrament or, if they aren't religious, as a way to add more legal and financial transactions costs to breaking up the relationship. Knowing that someone just can't walk out the door scot-free can ease your mind quite a bit about a relationship.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3448689&forum_id=2#32055061)

SO MANY people get married for the wrong fucking reasons. its insane.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3448689&forum_id=2#32059282)

your second paragraph is a hilarious juxtaposition revealing what has been lost with the decline of even casual religiosity

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3448689&forum_id=2#32059460)

Just reason with her

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3448689&forum_id=2#32059263)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3448689&forum_id=2#32059279)

MY HUSBAND. MY BREADWINNER.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3448689&forum_id=2#32059500)

All these women who get advanced degrees and who have lucrative careers prior to getting married (i understand this was post-marriage, but the broader effect is more pronounced in the single set) want a man who is AT LEAST their equal in education/career but then take actions that drastically shrink the pool of men who fit that criteria. And of course many of the men who are really successful often want a complementary partner -- one who will take care of the day-to-day stuff, one who will put family first, and one who will be feminine and attractive.

It's a precarious situation in the dating market.

As for income inequality, it's no secret that a huge driver of income inequality in the US is married couples who each have successful careers, which of course leaves fewer good jobs for men who are the primary breadwinners.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3448689&forum_id=2#32060058)

wrong. men want youth and beauty. that's it. women who devote their youths to their careers and then look for relationships later in life with men who are their status equals have actually probably reduced their chances to find such a partner and ironically increased the odds they will have to settle for a beta male.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3448689&forum_id=2#32060094)

the true benefit of feminism was that it allowed women who really want to be research scientists or entrepreneurs or whatever the freedom to do so. not everyone is a round peg, and i do think there is a benefit to allowing those women who don't fit the traditional mold the chance to do what makes them happy.

the issue of course is the forcememing that most women need to pursue the same path as men, and it's causing a lot of issues.

as for your second paragraph, i agree youth and beauty are important, but it's not everything. there are other characteristics that are complementary to men.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3448689&forum_id=2#32060119)

I agree with this. Feminism should be described as "pursue whatever path you want. There will be consequences, both positive and negative, but such is the nature of freedom."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3448689&forum_id=2#32067605)

I also think that proximity also counterbalances a lot of this: many couples I know met in law school or business school or through professional circles. Social circles tend to be comprised of people who have similar professions, or, at least, share similar interests and backgrounds and values and tastes.

People also value different things in a relationship. Some of my guy friends value youth, beauty, and nurturing qualities (and have ended up with women who possess those), and other male friends of mine have ended up with women who are more like best-friend equals that they enjoy having sex with.

Not everyone wants the same thing out of a relationship, and career-focused women should probably target men who are less traditional-minded and would prefer a woman who can relate to a lot of their life experiences, hobbies, and goals. Or, they should recalibrate their expectations and be open to men that don't have traditional breadwinner occupations.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3448689&forum_id=2#32067584)

That being said I don't have much or a problem with this. It seems equivalent to Petraeus dumping his wife for a hot young thing. I don't judge. But you have to own it, not blame the spouse.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3448689&forum_id=2#32060080)

Californian Kathy Murray says she saved her marriage by giving up trying to control her husband. Despite considering herself a feminist, she follows - and now teaches others - the approach of a controversial book called The Surrendered Wife, which tells women to stop nagging their partners and start treating them with more respect.

The first time I married I was divorced by 26. I married for the second time at 32 but soon found myself sleeping in the guest room. My husband and I fought all the time.

Much of our fighting stemmed from the fact I thought my husband was clueless when it came to raising the children (we had four children between us aged from four to nine years old). We also quarrelled about how to manage our finances, and how often we made love.

I was working full-time as chief finance officer for a private school and also volunteered at my kids' school and in my community. My husband was a sales rep for a construction company but I was the breadwinner and acted like I was in charge.

I didn't tell anyone I was in constant conflict with my husband. I was embarrassed, angry and resentful.

The six principles of being a 'Surrendered Wife'

Relinquishes inappropriate control of her husband

Respects her husband's thinking

Receives his gifts graciously and expresses gratitude for him

Expresses what she wants without trying to control him

Relies on him to handle household finances

Focuses on her own self-care and fulfilment

Source: Laura Doyle, author of The Surrendered Wife

My husband often resorted to watching TV and snuggling with our pets as I'd rage at him over ignoring my needs. I mean all men want sex right? Not my husband. He wanted nothing to do with me. It was awful.

The more I told my husband how he should be, the less he'd try. I couldn't figure it out so I dragged him to marriage counselling. But that only made things worse, so we sent our children to counselling since they too bore the brunt of so much of our conflict. That didn't work either.

So I went to counselling by myself and complained about my husband for more than a year. Spending thousands of dollars, only to find myself nearer divorce than when I started.

I'd cry, fight, yell and pout, thinking he would eventually come around, but he didn't. I lost weight, went to the gym and started getting attention from men which was tempting to act on, but I knew I couldn't do that, so I'd play the victim card and sulk. That didn't work either.

I was about to end my marriage when I picked up a book called The Surrendered Wife by Laura Doyle. I mean, they don't teach us how to be successful in marriage in school and the women in my life didn't share the secrets either.

It was incredibly humbling to recognise that I had something to do with why my marriage was failing and perhaps even why my first marriage failed. But it was also empowering.

I didn't know I'd been disrespectful to my husband or even that I'd been controlling and critical.

I thought I was being helpful and logical. I just didn't know that respect for men is like oxygen, so no wonder my husband was no longer interested in me sexually.

I'll never forget the day I first apologised to my husband for being rude for correcting him in front of the children, or the day I said "whatever you think" when I'd previously been extremely opinionated about what he should do.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3448689&forum_id=2#32061731)

Surrendering in this way isn't just the wife's role (what if there are two wives or two husbands? Who surrenders then?)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3448689&forum_id=2#32067552)