Claus:

These questions come up because not all aspects of society evolve at the same pace.

Generations ago, men had a much stronger hold on the work force. A career oriented woman was rarer than what we see today.

Women have rightfully fought for more equality in the work place and gradually (depending on what country you're in) we're getting there.

Given the additional economic wealth that a woman can now bring into a home, I am really baffled by the reluctance of some of those women to contribute to the home. Did women fight for economic equality just so they could spend the resources on themselves (and as some have pointed out, on their kids)? If that's the case, then what is the nature of the love these women have for their husbands?

The male flip side of this is that as women are now devoting more time to the work place, they don't have as much time for domestic chores. In the name of a more holistic evolution of society, this is where men as well must step in to contribute to the domestic aspects of the home. If a man refuses to help a working woman with household chores, then the question comes up again, what is the nature of love that the man has for his wife?

That someone's ancestors held a view does not necessarily make it valid today. Society evolves.

Ujujoan:

Good points here!

Except of course we know it just won't fly. People come everyday to complain about how the women are too career-oriented that they no longer have time for their families. Like the money they make are strictly for their make up . . .

Like you rightly pointed out, if women should contribute financiall, men should contribute equally to house chores . . . . in the spirit of equity!

It'll be very unfair if I have to wake up at night to feed the baby, wake up early to make breakfast, make dinner after work no matter how tired I am, go for shopping and do the laundry, and ensure the house is spic and span! And at the same time, contribute 50% of the family finances . . . while the man will contribute his own 50% and basically lay around the rest of the time!

walcolm:

i think the point @Claus was raising in his post is that, if the woman spends as much time earning a living as the husband and contributes as much as the husband to the family purse, she would have EARNED the right to be relieved of half the domestic duties that is traditionally expected of the woman in the house

so if the woman chips in financially as well as the man, there's no reason why the husband will wait for her to get home before arranging dinner (if he gets home first) or refuse to help her in putting breakfast together

i am all for gender equality but i am baffled by the tendency of most women to want to be equal in some respect and not in others i.e. women want to be equal in earning power, decision making, domestic chores, politics but dont want to be equal in financial responsibility, is that not unfair?)

walcolm:

so if the woman chips in [/b]financially as well as the man,

chaircover:

No long story.

The truth is that most of the women who say No No No to contributing towards the family purse are single.

jennykadry:

The problem now is this :ME I AM NOT CHIPPING IN AT ALL

Ujujoan:

Actually, it depends on the kind of job you have and the type your husband has . .

If you are a teacher on a minimum wage and your husband is a bank manager, I doubt if you'll be expected to contribute 

If however the reverse is the case, then you really do not have a choice. 

chaircover:

Another aspect to it is that the hubby will work himself to an early death by working all hours just to keep us & then we never get to see him and when he does come home he is way too fagged out & too tired to carry out his bedroom duties. That one na real wahala o!