When is enough enough?

riverrock1981

Hi All,

Ok, this is my first time posting here, and it's probably a sign of how far things have gone I think. Basically, the problem relates to my girlfriend, her finances and it's impacts on our relationship. I've been with my girlfriend for over 3 years, and I love her like crazy. Up until this point, I was sure that I'd spend the rest of my life with her.

During the past 3 years of our relationship (we're in our mid-late 20's), I've always been in a better position financially - both in terms of earning power and my money management. She had several credit card debts, which, over the past year, she has managed to pay off (by herself and with help from her parents). Over the years, I've always helped her out, with deposits for renting, rent, holidays where she doesn't have enough to pay for everything etc etc. In the past year, she had to have several operations (both here and at home). As she didn't have health insurance, I helped her out with paying for these (several '000). Her health was the main priority, I couldn't not pay for it.That's fair enough, I don't mind that as I realize that as I earn more, it's only fair that I contribute more. During this time, I've also managed to continue to save, with the intention of using the money for a house deposit.

We have recently moved abroad, partly to travel and also realizing that things weren't going to be great at home for the next few years. We've both got jobs in our fields but she has had to take a pay cut relative to what she would have made at home. It's a very good job though in terms of experience and so she is keen to stay there as it is beneficial in the long term. As a result, I find myself paying for more and more (eg deposit on apartment, rent, stuff for the new place etc etc). I also have to get some dental work done, which ironically, I had put off until we were settled and she had recovered from her operation.

Anyway, all of this has come to a head recently, when her friends from home came to visit. We had planned to go travelling with them for a week, as we hadn't seen them in a year and it made sense to do it while they were here. Also, one of her close relations at home is unwell at the moment, and she wants to go home at Christmas to see her. I explained that we couldn't afford to go travelling and go home for Christmas, as we didn't have the money. After all the expenses lately, we're literally stretched to breaking point and couldn't afford to do everything. We have booked everything to go travelling (flights/accommodation etc) and she is now saying that she is going to borrow money off her brother to go home for Christmas!!! I don't have the money now, after paying for all of the above so looks like I'm going to be left here on my tod!!!

Sorry for rambling on a bit, but I'm just so angry at the moment that I had to vent it somewhere. I feel like I've been taken for a fool, but at the same time, I know she is a caring, wonderful person - Aggghhh!

Any thoughts would be appreciated!

Thanks

kjl

That's a tricky one.

A friend of mine is going out with a polish girl and he basically pays everything for her, rent, spending money, dinners out, holidays etc.

He like yourself does OK financially but honestly never has money anymore because he has to look after her.

If the issue is that you can not afford to go with your gf for Christmas perhaps you should tell her that you have a problem with it.

Thread lightly though, this is a sensitive issue and will result in a massive argument unless you can get through to her why its unfair to you.

GL is all I can say.

CDfm

I think you are being taken advantage of tbh

There is a book called Emotional Blackmail by Dr Susan Forward. Google some of the reviews even.

Now the moving and medical expenses I can get and its what couples do. But choosing over a travelling with her friends and going home to her family seems to be putting herself first all the time.

Your dental work etc has been put off and her trip is going ahead. She sounds very selfish.

Financially if any real catastrophe happened right now you would be wiped out.

So consider your options.

jellyboy

HI op

How about her brother paying for holiday....and both of ye go home?

ash23

Hmmmm....it's a tricky one.

I know my ex paid for a lot of things. He would pay for the fixed expenses (rent, bills) while I paid for day to day expenses. I earned a lot less than him. Partly because, due to his job, we had to move around a lot and therefore I never stayed in a job more than 6 months to a year and therefore never got great jobs. I also had a child and had to get a 9 to 5, mon to fri job in order to manage childcare.
We had talked about all of this before we moved in together and he was ok with being the main earner.

In one way I look at it and think, its not fair on you to pay for everything. In another, you are practically married to this girl and I personally believe in marriage that everything should be pretty much divided.

My suggestion to you is this.
Set up a joint account. Work out bills, health insurance, rent. food etc. Lets say you earn 50k and your gf earns 25k for simplicity sake and your outgoings are 3k per month. So you would pay 2k of that and she would pay in 1k.

Whatever is left of your wages (approk 2k in your case and 1k in hers) then that is your money to do as you see fit.

You could still treat her to evenings out or pay for stuff on holidays but essentially she would need to be responsible for her own money.
Plus that way, if she pulls a stunt like this then she has to pay her bro back and you would have the money to go with her.

I can totally understand her wanting to go home at xmas by the way. She is probably a bit homesick. I think she prob thinks you have the money to go home and are just being overly cautious.

metrovelvet

Would you be less upset if you werent being left alone at Christmas? I think a fair compromise would be to ask her to arrange the trip for just after or before Christmas or find a way for you both to go.

writestoomuch

It's a bit hard to know exactly what to say about this. Ideally I'd want to know a bit more about your girlfriend's attitude before saying anything. (How does she feel about your help? Humbly grateful? Completely taking it for granted? Somewhere inbetween?) I'd also want to know how she spends her own money now. If she blows it irresponsibly then it's a completely different case to if she spends reasonably carefully...

But at the risk of taking an unpopular stance, from what you've said it doesn't really sound like she's done anything too terrible. You've been sharing your expenses according to your earning power, which is both a logical and laudable thing if you're in a committed relationship. If I'm understanding you correctly, although her money management has been bad in the past, she's got herself together now and paid off her loans. Her operations were presumably unavoidable, although not having health insurance wasn't smart. It's tough you had to pay for those, but it sounds like there was no real choice. Returning to the present, her currently low earning power is partly because you have both, together, taken a decision about your futures that resulted in her having to take a low paid job.

In other words, it sounds like you've been doing everything pretty sensibly between you.

Now the two of you don't have the cash to return home at Christmas, but she has a sick relative there who she is presumably concerned for and wants to see. You can't cancel your current travel arrangements since they're all booked. Now, I agree that for her to head off home on borrowed cash when you are unable to go for the very reason that you have been putting so much financially into the relationship is pretty selfish. But at the same time with the sick relative thing she is in a bit of a dilemma. She kind of needs to go, right?

I do understand your feelings, but you haven't given me any reason to think you're being taken for a fool. Have you talked about this with her? If she is the caring person you say she is, chances are she might not have realised how this makes you feel, and may be mortified to realise how hurt/angry you are about it.

If you have talked about it and she won't listen then that's a slightly different story...

ciagr297

ash23 wrote: »

My suggestion to you is this.
Set up a joint account. Work out bills, health insurance, rent. food etc. Lets say you earn 50k and your gf earns 25k for simplicity sake and your outgoings are 3k per month. So you would pay 2k of that and she would pay in 1k.

Whatever is left of your wages (approk 2k in your case and 1k in hers) then that is your money to do as you see fit.

You could still treat her to evenings out or pay for stuff on holidays but essentially she would need to be responsible for her own money.
Plus that way, if she pulls a stunt like this then she has to pay her bro back and you would have the money to go with her.

I think she prob thinks you have the money to go home and are just being overly cautious.

personally i think this is a great suggestion. and as you are paying for alot of things right now, putting a bit of visibility on where the money is might help her understand she can't afford to do everything

i get the feeling you are mostly annoyed about the possibility of being left on your own for christmas - absolutely fair enough. have you actually said this to your gf? she may be assuming you'd be ok with that

Terodil

ciagr297 wrote: »

i get the feeling you are mostly annoyed about the possibility of being left on your own for christmas - absolutely fair enough. have you actually said this to your gf? she may be assuming you'd be ok with that

I agree with this, although if she really thinks that it's ok to leave the bf at home alone during xmas I think she's pretty inconsiderate to put it nicely.

shellyboo

Um, leaving her bf - who has bent over backwards and made numerous personal and financial sacrifices for her - in a foreign country, at Christmas, alone, is possibly THE most selfish thing I have ever heard in my life.

She sounds like an ungrateful brat, OP. What she's doing is not on.

mood

Some good suggestion here. You need to sit down with her and talk about it. Suggest you pay for a certain % of things and she pay a certain % of things relative to you salary. Keep tabs on what is spent etc.

Re her operations - in Ireland you don't have to pay for operations even if you don't have health insurance or a medical card. What health problem had she?

In-patient public hospital services:
Everyone living in Ireland is entitled to free in-patient hospital services in public beds in public and voluntary hospitals. Information on care, hospitals, charges and more.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/health/hospital-services

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/health/hospital-services/hospital_charges

ash23

shellyboo wrote: »

Um, leaving her bf - who has bent over backwards and made numerous personal and financial sacrifices for her - in a foreign country, at Christmas, alone, is possibly THE most selfish thing I have ever heard in my life.

She sounds like an ungrateful brat, OP. What she's doing is not on.

Flip it on its side though.
Girl with sick relative who is homesick wants to go home for christmas but her OH won't come, claiming he hasn't the money because there is another holiday booked. When she tries to convince him, he says he has no money because of all the money he had to spend on her when she was sick.

3 sides to every story.


From what I see the OP has been paying for most of their joint living expenses as she has a lowly paid job. Other than that her health expenses were the only other things he paid for. The credit card debt was paid off by herself.

She isn't good with money. But they are in a partnership. Imo, that means that the person who earns more, pays more. It shouldn't be about whats his is his and hers is hers.
Or does that only apply once married?

shellyboo

ash23 wrote: »

Flip it on its side though.
Girl with sick relative who is homesick wants to go home for christmas but her OH won't come, claiming he hasn't the money because there is another holiday booked. When she tries to convince him, he says he has no money because of all the money he had to spend on her when she was sick.

There's no "claiming" or "saying" about it... taking the OP's word (which is what we do here, right?) there is no money. By the sounds of things, the OP would only love to go home for Christmas but he just can't because of the holiday he has booked for both of them and their friends.

So the girlfriend has gone and borrowed money off SOMEONE ELSE to pay for HER ticket, leaving him on his own? Eh, no. Sorry. Still selfish as hell.

EDIT: I do actually agree with you on one thing - they're in a partnership. So they should be sticking together through good times (holidays with friends) and bad (not being able to afford to go home for Christmas). Not one person getting everthing they want to the detriment of the other, and the relationship.

Oh The Humanity

OP, there is a difference in being kind and being used.

I don't think for a minute she realises the cost, either financial or emotional (personal sacrifices you made for her, always putting her before yourself) to YOU.

You have almost seamlessly continued parenting her as indulgent parents would have. With th result that she hasn't a clue of the value of what she is receiving.

She hasn't had to go without. All her needs are taken care of. But she is an adult. Just because you earn more doesn't mean she is entitled to parasite off you. Life is as tough as fcuk, everyone has to paddle their own canoe. Even people in couples.

Dependancy and being taken for granted like this are the result of your generosity. She needs a wake up call. Bigtime. Stop putting your hand in your pocket automatically for her. If she earns medium then she lives medium.

You earn more. Im sure you didn't just get your job through luck, you trained harder and studied and worked hard and deserve it....right.

I've been in relationships where I earned much less than the other person, but he never subsidised me and I never expected him to. I am in one now where I earn more but its give and take. I don't see him in difficulty of course but he is autonomous, as am I.

She needs a serious reality check and you need to stop being a safety net. The thoughless ingratitude she is showing is probably a taste of things to come. She feels you are an umbrella sheltering her from all the hard edges of life. She is complacent. Put a stop to this dynamic.

ash23

If it weren't for the sick relative I would agree about her being a selfish witch. But fact of the matter is , she may be worried that she won't get the chance to see this relative again. It may be her last christmas with said relative.

My granny is very very ill. And come hell or high water I will see her over christmas. Because I will never forgive myself is I don't and I lose her during the year.

Now, if the relative just has a minor illness then fine, she's being a selfish cow. But if it's a serious illness then I think the OP should be more understanding about it. It's not like she planned for this person to get sick. If the holiday was booked and paid for before she realised she needed to get home then it's not her fault.

I also think the OP needs to realise that he has allowed her to fall into the pattern of being looked after and he needs to sit her down and explain that he can't do it anymore. I already suggested how they sort out expenses.
After that, if she wants more money then she needs to get a better paid job or just accept that she has to budget better.

If I were in a committed relationship and living with someone and he earned more than me then to be honest, yes, i would expect him to contribute more to the household than I do (again in the plan outlined in my previous post).

And if I needed to travel to see a sick relative and needed to borrow the money to do so, I would do it and I wouldn't expect aggro over it.

Wibbs

Oh The Humanity wrote: »

Dependancy and being taken for granted like this are the result of your generosity.

I agree. I've been on the receiving end of partners who were users(women in my case). I was taken for granted and ended up putting one fire out after the other, mostly emotional again in my case. Sometimes financial too. Looking back it was at least 50% my fault. I enabled it. In two cases I know those exes went on to guys who didn't or couldn't enable it and funny I think those exes are happier with that too(I couldn't figure why at the time. I know now).

If you're the naturally take charge supportive type who jumps in every time she has a crisis then she'll expect that. And more to the point she'll take it and you for granted. You'll be daddy in this case and she'll be the kid. A few probs with that. Well this current issue for a start. I've also noticed that dynamic after a while makes them less attracted to the pseudo parent too.

So don't jump instatntly to her aid every time. Let her figure stuff out. Be there as a support in the background, yes. That's one of your jobs as a partner. Be a safety net by all means, just make sure she has to fall a fair bit further before she reaches that safety net. That way she's far more likely to learn to want to walk the tightrope.

Oh The Humanity

ash23 wrote: »

If it weren't for the sick relative I would agree about her being a selfish witch. But fact of the matter is , she may be worried that she won't get the chance to see this relative again. It may be her last christmas with said relative.

But thats her problem. Not his, she needs to start figuring out how to be a big girl not a dependant baby.

ash23 wrote: »

But if it's a serious illness then I think the OP should be more understanding about it.

I think the point is, he is all out of understanding. She obviously knew the rellie was sick before the holiday was booked. She should have piped up sooner and prevented the holiday money being spent and then they both could have gone home together for Xmas.

ash23 wrote: »

It's not like she planned for this person to get sick.

EXACTLY! Why hasn't she planned? She is a grown adult, unforeseen things happen. You have to be ready and you have to cut you cloth. Adult. Parents gone. At 18 you're on your own. She has been subsidised too long. A pattern of dependance. Even the credit card debts were paid off 'with the help of her parents'

She is in a job which doesn't pay well but is good for her CV, who is subsidising that? OP.

A lot of men would have told her tough sh1t, get another job at night if you want to live luxuriously. In my world luxuriously is being able to go to the Doctor and afford things in the chemist.

ash23 wrote: »

If the holiday was booked and paid for before she realised she needed to get home then it's not her fault.

Its not his fault either. She is thinking like a child. 'oh its not my fault, someone else will sort it out'

ash23 wrote: »

I also think the OP needs to realise that he has allowed her to fall into the pattern of being looked after and he needs to sit her down and explain that he can't do it anymore. I already suggested how they sort out expenses.
After that, if she wants more money then she needs to get a better paid job or just accept that she has to budget better.

100% agree. Its mad that he should have to sit her down and spell this out to her but hey ho.

ash23 wrote: »

If I were in a committed relationship and living with someone and he earned more than me then to be honest, yes, i would expect him to contribute more to the household than I do

I wouldn't agree with this at all. In fact I lived with someone for 10 years who earned more than double what I earned and everything was split 50/50. Thats life. You can only spend what you earn and you are NOT entitled to cash from a man just because you are going out with him.
If he is kind enough to give it then thats up to him, but its very unwise imho.

ash23 wrote: »

And if I needed to travel to see a sick relative and needed to borrow the money to do so, I would do it and I wouldn't expect aggro over it.

Well I dont think its 'aggro' for the fella to want to put a stop to her freeloading. Sick relative this week, travelling the next, cruising through life in a job which dosen't pay well but will be good for her CV. Those are luxuries.

If she is an adult she needs to start thinking like OP. Not being suprised when unexpected things come up. That is being an adult, you have to manage and use your own resources to get through and cope!

shellyboo

Oh The Humanity wrote: »

Its not his fault either. She is thinking like a child. 'oh its not my fault, someone else will sort it out'

This, plus a MILLION. Nail on head.

ash23

But surely it's her decision to borrow the money to go home? She isn't asking him to lend it to her. She isn't asking him to pay it back. He is p1ssed that she is borrowing it and he isn't able to go.

How is she being a dependant baby by doing this?

OP, did this relative get sick recently. Did she know that this relative was sick before the other trip was booked?

Who wanted to move abroad? Whose idea was it first?

Does she contribute to the house in other ways? For eg, I lived with a guy who worked long hours and got paid well. So he contributed financially more than I did. But I did all the cooking, most of the cleaning, bought the groceries, took time off for repair men, etc etc. I think the person with the lesser paid job winds up doing more around the house as their job usually isn't as demanding.

As for thinking about unforseen things happening, well, if you don't earn a lot this isn't always possible. Sometimes you have to borrow money when something unexpected crops up. These things happen and unless the OP gives more info, we are all speculating about this girl which is why I am trying to assume the best of her and playing devils advocate.


I think it's insane that they didn't sort this out before they moved in together and the OP is as much to blame for that as she is. Who moves in together without sorting out how finances will be handled? It's a sure fire way to head for disaster.

As for not being entitled to cash from a man because you are going out with him, I say again, money isn't the only contribution to a house. A person can contribute time, effort and energy and have the house running smoothly so the other person doesn't have to worry. It's up to each indivdual but I don't believe that everything should be split 50/50. If a person earns more they pay more. If a person has more free time they do more housework. If a person can easily get time off work, they do the waiting in for the plumber etc etc.
Money isn't everything.

Wibbs

There is one aspect of this that may raise hackles and it's only my take, but there's somewhat of an elephant in the room in this subject. the fact is some women want to be babied. They want to be dependent.

Some want to be "housewives" with part time vanity careers, until they start a family looked after by the men in their lives. Some are clear they want that from the start, some come to it later. Some men want to be the type to enable that too. I can think of a lot of examples of that. A lot. It's not acknowledged by many of these women as they may feel they're letting their notion of "feminism" down. It's a notion also looked down upon by independent women who want to forge their own lives for themselves.

The problem comes when one partner is not a good fit for the other. It can go the opposite too. I know a guy who wants to be the "man of the house" and he left a damn good woman simply because she was too independent for him. He's now got a 50's style woman and both are happy.

It can be cultural too. In many cultures the man is expected to handle all the finances and "adult" stuff. They're more unequal relationships but they work for them. Again mixing that can be an issue.

ash23

^^^^ Agree and was going to say it but was a bit afraid tbh!

I think she sounds like the type who wants to go from mammy and daddy, to the church to the husbands house and then be a mammy who stays at home.

Not a bit wrong with this at all. But op, if you want an independent career minded woman, you're barking up the wrong tree with this girl.
I would fully anticipate that if you two get married she will want to stay at home or work part time.

I have had guys who don't like the fact that I am independent. And others who love it.
You need to decide what you want and see if you and her are a good fit.

Oh The Humanity

ash23 wrote: »

But surely it's her decision to borrow the money to go home? She isn't asking him to lend it to her. She isn't asking him to pay it back. He is p1ssed that she is borrowing it and he isn't able to go.

Well, what is she doing borrowing when she owes OP for operations/living expenses etc and had to get her parents to dig her out of a credit card debt in the past. OP mentioned her money management skills are lacking. I think that is by design rather than accident. That is something you make the effort to learn not something you are magically born with.

ash23 wrote: »

How is she being a dependant baby by doing this?

Well, first and foremost. She appears not to have any contingency at all. No visible means of support, so how is she going to pay this back? Muggins is going to have to dig her out again directly or indirectly.

ash23 wrote: »

Does she contribute to the house in other ways? For eg, I lived with a guy who worked long hours and got paid well. So he contributed financially more than I did. But I did all the cooking, most of the cleaning, bought the groceries, took time off for repair men, etc etc. I think the person with the lesser paid job winds up doing more around the house as their job usually isn't as demanding.

Thats lovely, but as a real adult. I work full time AND do most of the housework and thinking about bills/domestic sorting out/forward planning/grocery shopping/house cleaning, staying off for Sky man to come etc etc on lunchtimes/weekends and using annual leave. Its not either/or. An adult does everything for themselves. She needs to pull her weight.

ash23 wrote: »

As for thinking about unforseen things happening, well, if you don't earn a lot this isn't always possible.

Now you said it. She doesn't earn a lot, so it isn't possible. That is what she needs to learn. I don't think that penny has dropped with her though.
If she hadn't worn out her goodwill draining OP then he may have been much more ready, willing and able to help her out with the visit to the sick person. As it is, he is fed up with her expectations of handouts and the fact she is also deserting him at Xmas after bleeding him dry.

ash23 wrote: »

Sometimes you have to borrow money when something unexpected crops up.

Sometimes being the operative word. But with this girl it looks like its a way of life and it hasn't occurred to her she is not entitled to borrow. Its a privelege not a right.

ash23 wrote: »

As for not being entitled to cash from a man because you are going out with him, I say again, money isn't the only contribution to a house. A person can contribute time, effort and energy and have the house running smoothly so the other person doesn't have to worry. It's up to each indivdual but I don't believe that everything should be split 50/50. If a person earns more they pay more. If a person has more free time they do more housework. If a person can easily get time off work, they do the waiting in for the plumber etc etc.
Money isn't everything.

Money isn't everything when its someone elses money, as soon as its yours and its constantly spent for you by someone else, someone thoughless, its amazing how quickly this motto becomes empty words when its always one person doing the paying and thinking.

I think the default expectation in society now is that things will be 50/50 and both people will be independantly solvent and autonomous. If its going to be one of those arrangements where one person subsidises the other in exchange for household tasks etc then that is a special case and done by prior agreement between the couple as you quite rightly said.

Wibbs

ash23 wrote: »

^^^^ Agree and was going to say it but was a bit afraid tbh!

Not surprised. It's as I said one of the biggest elephants in the feminist room. It also troubles some men as they don't have that choice even if they wanted it.

I think she sounds like the type who wants to go from mammy and daddy, to the church to the husbands house and then be a mammy who stays at home.

I agree and the loosely speaking the career she's studying for could be an indication. The low paid, or stunted career path arty type jobs are usually the ones. Things like interior design*, ceramics and such. Writing childrens books is another one. If she's studying medicine or something, diff ballgame.

Not a bit wrong with this at all.

I agree, so long as the OP is not being sold a dud from the start. I've seen that too. Woman with seemingly good career and ambition, gets hitched and then loses jobs and loses interest and expects the guy to support that. Honesty is where its at for both.

But op, if you want an independent career minded woman, you're barking up the wrong tree with this girl.
I would fully anticipate that if you two get married she will want to stay at home or work part time.

I expect so too judging by what the OP has told us.


* nada wrong with interior designers BTW. I know a guy making good money at it.

Emme

I think that the OP has been more than fair. I'm sure his girlfriend is a very good person but maybe not good at managing money. I've always paid my way in relationships as much as I can even though I've gone out with guys who have earned more. I regarded it as my hard luck if I couldn't afford what they wanted and did without instead of scabbing off them.

If the OPs girlfriend's family member is very ill maybe her family might help her out if she wants to travel home. He shouldn't have to do it, especially if he's doing without things for himself like dental treatment.

If the partner on a lower income can't afford the lifestyle the partner on a higher income wants then the relationship is doomed. This may not apply in this case but it might be better for the OP to try and help his GF manage what little money she has instead of bailing her out. As I said before, if your OH earns more than you do that's not a reason for him to pay for everything.

iguana

ash23 wrote: »

If it weren't for the sick relative I would agree about her being a selfish witch. But fact of the matter is , she may be worried that she won't get the chance to see this relative again. It may be her last christmas with said relative.

My granny is very very ill. And come hell or high water I will see her over christmas. Because I will never forgive myself is I don't and I lose her during the year.

If it's a case of visiting someone who is ill and might die can't she do that the week before Christmas? Or two weeks before? Or two weeks after? I live in the UK with my husband, if he was going to Ireland next week for two weeks I'd be a bit lonely and I'd miss him but I'd suck it up, it would be fine. If he was going home over Christmas and I had to stay here because we couldn't both afford to go home I'd be so bloody miserable.

Unless it's an emergency where a family member is in immediate critical condition or has just dropped dead, leaving your partner stuck all alone in a foreign country for Christmas is close to unforgivable.

ETA: OP, where are you living? Are you in Europe or further afield? If you are in Europe have you looked at all alternatives with regard to going home? I know flights tend to be more expensive than usual at Christmas time, but there are alternatives like all inclusive bus journeys and Rail & Sail deals. If you could both get home for €150 or less would that make it possible to get home? You could agree that going home together could be your Christmas present to each other and have a quiet time once you get home. Explain to friends and family that you have no money for gifts or make home made presents for them/ do a Kris Kindle. Going home doesn't have to be an expensive.

Lastly, it would have been prudent to have worked all of this out before booking the other trip and discussed it with her. If she had known in advance that it was either traveling with friends or going home for Christmas she may have chosen not to travel at all. I know it may seem unfair that she didn't work that out for herself but in most relationships there is one person who is better with money. You know in this relationship that person is you so you should have talked to her about it being a one or the other situation before you booked.

ash23

Thats lovely, but as a real adult. I work full time AND do most of the housework and thinking about bills/domestic sorting out/forward planning/grocery shopping/house cleaning, staying off for Sky man to come etc etc on lunchtimes/weekends and using annual leave. Its not either/or. An adult does everything for themselves. She needs to pull her weight

That makes no sense at all. If you are living with someone then the pair of you aren't going to sit in and wait for the plumber!
I no longer live with someone so yes, like you, I do it all.
If I were living with someone and we were splitting everything 50/50 then yes, I would expect that he would do 50/50 of everything else too.

If he were in a high pressured job which paid better and was happy to pay more towards housekeeping than I did, then I would try to contribute in other ways. Such as being the one who does the housework, odd jobs etc.

There are many stay at home parents who basically do all the house work, cooking, cleaning etc, not only for the kids but for their OHs too. And their OHs are the financial providers.
Other contributions to a household such as time and energy etc can't be dismissed as nothing in the face of money.

Oh The Humanity

ash23 wrote: »

That makes no sense at all. If you are living with someone then the pair of you aren't going to sit in and wait for the plumber!

No I know, but for example I would be the one in my relationship as I own the gaff, so he shouldn't have to deal with maintaining a place he doesn't own.

ash23 wrote: »

If he were in a high pressured job which paid better and was happy to pay more towards housekeeping than I did, then I would try to contribute in other ways. Such as being the one who does the housework, odd jobs etc.

Hm, no i would tend twords letting him have his own extra money and be free of having to do chores to make up the shortfall. I'd be thinking: if he works for it its his. You see I wouldn't want to be beholden to a partner. You know if you take little extras then you are obliged to have to give them which I wouldn't want to do.

ash23 wrote: »

There are many stay at home parents who basically do all the house work, cooking, cleaning etc, not only for the kids but for their OHs too.

Yeh. To be honest parents deserve everything they have. Their job is the hardest so they deserve everything. If my boyfriend stayed at home to bear and rear my kids he would be welcome to every penny I had. In fact I would be in HIS debt.

ash23 wrote: »

And their OHs are the financial providers.
Other contributions to a household such as time and energy etc can't be dismissed as nothing in the face of money.

No I wouldn't dismiss them at all. But I think we are talking apples and oranges here. People with kids are different than this situation where its a couple with no kids. In this situation I believe the girl is making herself deliberately dependant on OP. I've been in OP's shoes before and its an extremely unpleasant experience when someone else is spending your money before you even earn it and you are going without in order to facilitiate their thoughtlessness and deliberate lack of planning.

ash23

They are renting the place so it is both their responsibility.
So who sits in? Him or her?


I don't see what I mentioned as being "beholden to a partner".
I see it as being a partnership. I can't give what he can in terms of money. He can't give what I can in terms of time.
He ensures I have a comfortable level financially at home. I ensure he has comfort of a different sort.

It makes no sense to me that a couple who are living together as man and wife would live the way you describe. Why would I do my washing and not his. Why would I cook my meals and not his. Why would I buy my food and not his? Why would I pay my half of the bills and not pay his at the same time?

If I get home from work at 5pm and he gets in at 8pm, is it not right that I should have dinner ready and a bit of tidying and washing done? Is it not right that if I am off all weekend that I go and do the grocery shopping while he works.

In return, he makes sure that we are pretty much equal financially. That I wouldnt be sitting in every weekend while he went out because he earns more or that he gets a holiday when I can't because he earns more.

I thought relationships were give and take. Kids or no kids.

Oh The Humanity

ash23 wrote: »

They are renting the place so it is both their responsibility.
So who sits in? Him or her?

Well both work so they toss a coin I suppose!

ash23 wrote: »

I don't see what I mentioned as being "beholden to a partner".
I see it as being a partnership. I can't give what he can in terms of money. He can't give what I can in terms of time.
He ensures I have a comfortable level financially at home. I ensure he has comfort of a different sort.

Well, if the couple are agreed on that then thats grand. But I wouldnt want to accept money/treats etc from a man in exchange for chores. Just no!

ash23 wrote: »

It makes no sense to me that a couple who are living together as man and wife would live the way you describe. Why would I do my washing and not his. Why would I cook my meals and not his. Why would I buy my food and not his? Why would I pay my half of the bills and not pay his at the same time?

Ah no, I dont mean that just doing your own washing lark. What I mean is in a couple where both work, both do their equal share. So one takes the dishwasher, one takes the clothes., one takes hoovering, one takes bathrooms etc. That works well I think.

Bills should be split down the middle.

But I am against an assumption that a disparity in wages is assumed not to exist and that the person with the higher wages is expected to give more than their half over to their other half.

I haven't got a degree but my ex did and therefore had a better job than me, by miles. That was my tough ti1tty and rightly so. I was faffing around art college while he was crunching physics books.

ash23 wrote: »

If I get home from work at 5pm and he gets in at 8pm, is it not right that I should have dinner ready and a bit of tidying and washing done? Is it not right that if I am off all weekend that I go and do the grocery shopping while he works.

So you get home earlier? I presume thats because you would have started earlier. It cuts both ways, had he jumped out of bed early to cook your breakfast?

In theory if both work then I would be very much of the school that he feeds himself, its not the womans job to do that. But in reality,its impractial (not to mention uneconomical with the electricity!) so I would generally cook a bif load of stuff once a week and we would both eat it. But he would do other chores to make that up!

ash23 wrote: »

In return, he makes sure that we are pretty much equal financially. That I wouldnt be sitting in every weekend while he went out because he earns more or that he gets a holiday when I can't because he earns more.
I thought relationships were give and take. Kids or no kids.

Oh no, no way. Why should he make the woman equal financially. No. Its her responsibility to get in her own cash if she wants to upgrade to his type of social life. Otherwise they socialise according to her purse!

ash23

Oh The Humanity wrote: »

Well both work so they toss a coin I suppose!

POint is that a lesser paid job usually has less responsibility and therefore is easier to get off work.

Well, if the couple are agreed on that then thats grand. But I wouldnt want to accept money/treats etc from a man in exchange for chores. Just no!

Which is why I said they need to sort this out. In fact they needed to sort this out before they moved in together.

Ah no, I dont mean that just doing your own washing lark. What I mean is in a couple where both work, both do their equal share. So one takes the dishwasher, one takes the clothes., one takes hoovering, one takes bathrooms etc. That works well I think.

Bills should be split down the middle.

I worked full time. So did my ex. My full time was 35 hours per week. His was anywhere from 55 hours per week to 100 hours depending on the season. He earned more because of the long hours.

I haven't got a degree but my ex did and therefore had a better job than me, by miles. That was my tough ti1tty and rightly so. I was faffing around art college while he was crunching physics books.

I actually went to college and got the degree and study on an ongoing basis for my job. My ex started working in a shop and worked his way to the top through long hours and hard graft, facilitated by me being at home with dinner on and clothes for him to wear while he worked 6 day weeks and 10 hour days. Would he have stuck it out if he'd been coming home to a cold empty house, an empty fridge and facing into housework? Who knows. But I made it easier on him. I also moved a lot. When he was relocated I went with him, giving up friends and jobs. While he was working I found apartments and did all the landlord, paperwork, making it a home stuff. He handed over the money.

So you get home earlier? I presume thats because you would have started earlier. It cuts both ways, had he jumped out of bed early to cook your breakfast?

No, he used to start earlier and finish later. I wouldn't be up getting him his breakfast but I ran the house more or less.

In theory if both work then I would be very much of the school that he feeds himself, its not the womans job to do that. But in reality,its impractial (not to mention uneconomical with the electricity!) so I would generally cook a bif load of stuff once a week and we would both eat it. But he would do other chores to make that up!

Nothin to do with man/woman doing anything. It's to do with other things. When he lost his job I was the main earner. I took on overtime and paid for everything. He had my dinner on the table every evening and had the house clean. Give and take.

Oh no, no way. Why should he make the woman equal financially. No. Its her responsibility to get in her own cash if she wants to upgrade to his type of social life. Otherwise they socialise according to her purse!

Well, not exactly equal financially. But proportionatly so.
So lets say they both pay 50% of their wage into bills. She will have less remaining money than him but he will be paying more technically.
Personally I think thats the fairest.

Oh The Humanity

ash23 wrote: »

POint is that a lesser paid job usually has less responsibility and therefore is easier to get off work.

Sometimes! Not in my own personal case but I dont want to keep going OT

ash23 wrote: »

Which is why I said they need to sort this out. In fact they needed to sort this out before they moved in together.

Agreed!

ash23 wrote: »

I worked full time. So did my ex. My full time was 35 hours per week. His was anywhere from 55 hours per week to 100 hours depending on the season. He earned more because of the long hours.

Ah no way, that was HIS choice to work all those hours. I wouldn't have enabled a 'martyrs to the cause' workaholic like that. I certainly wouldn't be sitting in ironing his shirts and cooking his dinner for the dollar he might throw my way.

ash23 wrote: »

I actually went to college and got the degree and study on an ongoing basis for my job. My ex started working in a shop and worked his way to the top through long hours and hard graft, facilitated by me being at home with dinner on and clothes for him to wear while he worked 6 day weeks and 10 hour days. Would he have stuck it out if he'd been coming home to a cold empty house, an empty fridge and facing into housework? Who knows.

So you were the woman behind the great man. Why not be the woman behind the great woman instead. I mean after all that work on your behalf he is still your ex. An investment made by you which you didn't reap. How is that fair. Now Im not judging you for that. I made the mistake of being an eejit for that ex with the degree and the drink problem. He earned a lot more and I still worked full time and did everything. I mean everything. I just feel that being 'best supporting actress' in someones life in exchange for a lifestyle they might provide is a false investment.

I think to come back to the OP as well, there is no mention of her taking more of the household chores or even being aware that things are badly unbalanced!

ash23 wrote: »

But I made it easier on him. I also moved a lot. When he was relocated I went with him, giving up friends and jobs. While he was working I found apartments and did all the landlord, paperwork, making it a home stuff. He handed over the money.

So really you lost friends and jobs for him. Yes he gave you money to manage his life for him but from what I've seen of you on Boards you are better than that.

ash23 wrote: »

No, he used to start earlier and finish later. I wouldn't be up getting him his breakfast but I ran the house more or less.

No would HE be getting YOU breakfast! His choice to work those long hours. I personally think anyone who works to that extent is nuts but each to their own.

ash23 wrote: »

Nothin to do with man/woman doing anything. It's to do with other things. When he lost his job I was the main earner. I took on overtime and paid for everything. He had my dinner on the table every evening and had the house clean. Give and take.

Good.

ash23 wrote: »

Well, not exactly equal financially. But proportionatly so.
So lets say they both pay 50% of their wage into bills. She will have less remaining money than him but he will be paying more technically.
Personally I think thats the fairest.

Ha, if only ....both pay 50% of their wage into bills? No. Way.
That is fisher price economics. Things cost what they cost. You pay your half or you cant have it. Thats the way the world works.

iguana

Oh The Humanity wrote: »

Ha, if only ....both pay 50% of their wage into bills? No. Way.
That is fisher price economics. Things cost what they cost. You pay your half or you cant have it. Thats the way the world works.

But it's not in most relationships. In most relationships, to varying extents, all resources are pooled. Be that cookery skills, DIY skills, childcare, animal care or money. A partnership is generally about 2 halves making a greater whole.

My husband is shít at ironing, for example, so if something needs to be ironed, I do it. On the other hand he's a better (or more enthusiastic) cook, so he does the bulk of that. I take care of vacuuming, dusting and dog-grooming so his eczema is kept at bay. I do most of the DIY, budgeting/investing, shopping and cleaning. He generally earns more, though this varies, and we share everything equally. As a unit our lives are better (most of the time;)).

ash23

Well I disagree.

I think feminism is about choice.
I don't think I was the great woman behind the great man. I also know he didn't choose to work those hours. If he hadn't he wouldn't have progressed.
I reaped the benefits of his work in many ways. I had a small child who I was able to rear and I was able to come off benefits because of his wages. I was also able to go back to work because he was able to help me fund rent and childcare.
I wasn't sitting at home ironing his shirts. Thats a bit patronising. And what if I was? If that is what I wanted to do then that was my choice and wouldn't I be lucky I was in a position to do it.
He didn't throw money my way. Again thats a bit patronising. You are portraying me as a meek little woman, scrubbing the floors for my lazy husband while he throws money at me when he sees fit.

We had a system. I earned money. I paid for certain things and was left with a certian amount which was mine to do as I saw fit.
He paid for other things and had his own money.
Any luxuries like holidays, we split pretty much 50/50.
Yes he paid more than I did if I were to tot it up. But he was also left with more at the end of the week too.
And in return, I accepted that if I wanted to 9-5 mon to fri job which enabled me to spend time with my child and if I also wanted the lifestyle we had, then he had to work those hours and therefore I ended up with the brunt of the housework as I had the most free time.

The OP needs to work out if his OH is contributing in ways that aren't financial and decide if he is happy with this in lieu of money.
If he would prefer the money then he needs the career girl But he will also have to realise that the career girl might not be available 6 days out of 7. She may have to travel for work and be away. She might be crabby and cross because of the pressure of her job. She might have the money to take the luxury holiday with him but she might spend most of it on her blackberry or laptop.

I'm sure his OH has some redeeming qualities. She might just be the type who wants to be a bit mollycoddled. That can have its perks too.

I always say my life would be a lot easier and I'd have a better job if only I had a "wife".
Someone to pick the kids up, do the errands and have the house nice and clean with dinner on the table.
I could handle a stressful job then!

Oh The Humanity

ash23 wrote: »

Well I disagree.

I think feminism is about choice.

It is 100% NOT about choice. We cannot choose the soft options now because living as men did is too hard for us.

Despite the fact that I have a serious problem with 'feminism'
-I 100% disagree that feminism is about choice. We can't go around screaming and demanding to be equal when it suits us and slip back into expecting men to support us mode whenthe going gets rough.

Either we can be grown up people or not. If we want to be taken seriously as women then we have to step up to the mark and stop expecting men to support us like OP's GF is doing. There is no choice. You support yourself. Thats it. We live in a meritocracy not a commune.

Now, none of the above is personally directed at you Ash. I am talking in general terms and in terms of OP and his freeloading GF.

To me 'feminism' is all about double standards. Hypocritical bullying women trying to tell other women what to do and think. My message to them is I wouldnt let a man tell me what to think so why should I let them just because they are women. Most of them are full of sh1t to be honest.

ash23 wrote: »

I don't think I was the great woman behind the great man. I also know he didn't choose to work those hours. If he hadn't he wouldn't have progressed.

So he DID choose to work those hours in fact. He wouldn't have preogressed if he didn't but its still a choice.

ash23 wrote: »

I reaped the benefits of his work in many ways. I had a small child who I was able to rear and I was able to come off benefits because of his wages. I was also able to go back to work because he was able to help me fund rent and childcare.

So it was a symbiotic deal that worked for a time for you. I have no problem with it. But OP does with his GF and thats the point. No-one is negating your choices. This is about OP and his GF.

ash23 wrote: »

I wasn't sitting at home ironing his shirts. Thats a bit patronising. And what if I was? If that is what I wanted to do then that was my choice and wouldn't I be lucky I was in a position to do it.

Whoah! I wasn't referring to you with that comment.

You will get girls. Gold diggers who will specifically target blokes with big paycheques. I was musing on those types of freeloading girls/women who are willing to do nothing other than just parasite off a man not referring to you. Read it again.

ash23 wrote: »

He didn't throw money my way. Again thats a bit patronising. You are portraying me as a meek little woman, scrubbing the floors for my lazy husband while he throws money at me when he sees fit.

I am not portraying you as anything. I am no feminist and no bully. Everything I wrote above is in general terms and in reference to the OP and his problem.

ash23 wrote: »

We had a system. I earned money. I paid for certain things and was left with a certian amount which was mine to do as I saw fit.
He paid for other things and had his own money.
Any luxuries like holidays, we split pretty much 50/50.
Yes he paid more than I did if I were to tot it up. But he was also left with more at the end of the week too.
And in return, I accepted that if I wanted to 9-5 mon to fri job which enabled me to spend time with my child and if I also wanted the lifestyle we had, then he had to work those hours and therefore I ended up with the brunt of the housework as I had the most free time.

Ehm, I dont understand why you are explaining your own personal set up to me. I am not some kind of equality monitor. Im quite uncomfortable with the turn of events here to be honest. No-one has to justify themselves to anyone else.

Im not going around and round any more anyway. I've said my bit to OP.

ash23 wrote: »

The OP needs to work out if his OH is contributing in ways that aren't financial and decide if he is happy with this in lieu of money.

That was never even mooted by OP. I dont think its the issue.

ash23 wrote: »

If he would prefer the money then he needs the career girl But he will also have to realise that the career girl might not be available 6 days out of 7. She may have to travel for work and be away. She might be crabby and cross because of the pressure of her job. She might have the money to take the luxury holiday with him but she might spend most of it on her blackberry or laptop.

??? There is a lot of people who neither fall into the stereotype of career girl nor 50's housewife.

ash23 wrote: »

I'm sure his OH has some redeeming qualities. She might just be the type who wants to be a bit mollycoddled. That can have its perks too.

For who? Her? :rolleyes:

ash23 wrote: »

I always say my life would be a lot easier and I'd have a better job if only I had a "wife".
Someone to pick the kids up, do the errands and have the house nice and clean with dinner on the table.
I could handle a stressful job then!

Yeh, well wouldn't we all.

iguana

Oh The Humanity wrote: »

It is 100% NOT about choice. We cannot choose the soft options now because living as men did is too hard for us.

Despite the fact that I have a serious problem with 'feminism'
-I 100% disagree that feminism is about choice. We can't go around screaming and demanding to be equal when it suits us and slip back into expecting men to support us mode whenthe going gets rough.

Either we can be grown up people or not. If we want to be taken seriously as women then we have to step up to the mark and stop expecting men to support us like OP's GF is doing. There is no choice. You support yourself. Thats it. We live in a meritocracy not a commune.

You have a very different view of things than most people. Relationships are not meritocracies. They are partnerships. If a couple decides that one person will be a stay at home parent and the other will work - that is partnership. Raising children is making a contribution to the relationship. And it's often much, much tougher than being the one going to work.

And yes equality is most certainly about choice. Letting people be free to choose the life that works for them - men and women. It's not about forcing everyone to live the same crappy life they aren't happy with.

Terodil

iguana wrote: »

You have a very different view of things than most people. Relationships are not meritocracies. They are partnerships. If a couple decides that one person will be a stay at home parent and the other will work - that is partnership. Raising children is making a contribution to the relationship.

Yes, exactly. And that's why I think that if you start adding up and comparing your individual 'contributions' you're already in trouble. Partnerships are based on mutual trust and the desire to look after each other. Sometimes that may be more, sometimes that may be less. When somebody is sick, you don't leave them lying around like garbage; if somebody has to work long hours or has a particularly stressful time with the kid you help out in whatever way you can. In the long run, though, it should feel equal to both more or less, and I think many people have that innate ability to judge fairness properly. (@OP you don't, apparently, you are being taken advantage of.)

iguana wrote: »

And it's often much, much tougher than being the one going to work.

Sometimes indeed. I wouldn't want to start comparing the two though because a) all of the above and b) you're comparing apples and pears. E.g. work can be more rewarding intellectually and socially, whereas raising kids and seeing them grow is a reward all by itself. The same with disadvantages. In general, I would say that housework is still largely underrated and unrewarded. That doesn't mean though that the 'bread-earner' has it significantly easier than the 'child-raiser'.

iguana wrote: »

And yes equality is most certainly about choice. Letting people be free to choose the life that works for them - men and women. It's not about forcing everyone to live the same crappy life they aren't happy with.

Yes, it is, as long as it gets done

or rather: as long as both look out for each other enough so it always gets done before the other does it

@OP: Her behaviour is not acceptable. I agree that you've enabled her for too long, which has now prompted this behaviour. You need a serious talk about what 'pulling your weight' in a relationship means, although having that talk to begin with does not bode well to be honest...

Oh The Humanity

iguana wrote: »

You have a very different view of things than most people. Relationships are not meritocracies.

I said we live in an meritocracy, not that relationships are meritocracies. Our society is one, some people choose to work hader and longer hours they get more money. And so it should be. That is THEIR money.

iguana wrote: »

They are partnerships. If a couple decides that one person will be a stay at home parent and the other will work - that is partnership. Raising children is making a contribution to the relationship. And it's often much, much tougher than being the one going to work.

Agreed. see post # 27 where I said

Yeh. To be honest parents deserve everything they have. Their job is the hardest so they deserve everything. If my boyfriend stayed at home to bear and rear my kids he would be welcome to every penny I had. In fact I would be in HIS debt.

And in the same post I also said:

But I think we are talking apples and oranges here. People with kids are different than this situation where its a couple with no kids. In this situation I believe the girl is making herself deliberately dependant on OP. I've been in OP's shoes before and its an extremely unpleasant experience when someone else is spending your money before you even earn it and you are going without in order to facilitiate their thoughtlessness and deliberate lack of planning.

My point is comparing this unmarried couple with no children (mentioned) and persumably no mortgage with a couple who is married with kids is just a bad comparison. Half the stuff getting discussed on the thread has nothing to do with the original post.

iguana wrote: »

And yes equality is most certainly about choice. Letting people be free to choose the life that works for them - men and women. It's not about forcing everyone to live the same crappy life they aren't happy with.

So men have to behave in a very tightly prescribed 'acceptable' way, no choices for them. Try being a SAHD and witness the SAHM treating him like a pedo if he takes his kid to the playground. Ostrasised at the school gates. Yet women can cherry pick how to live after causing a massive stink for the 'right' to go out and work all day. Oh yeh we were sold a pup there. No wonder we have a generation of young girls more opportunistically parisitical than ever before.
If we now suddenly decide we want choice then we have to put our money where our mouths are and let men have it too. Paternity leave, equal parental rights by LAW for men in Ireland, real choice to stay at home with kids etc.

iguana

Terodil wrote: »

Sometimes indeed. I wouldn't want to start comparing the two though because a) all of the above and b) you're comparing apples and pears. E.g. work can be more rewarding intellectually and socially, whereas raising kids and seeing them grow is a reward all by itself. The same with disadvantages. In general, I would say that housework is still largely underrated and unrewarded. That doesn't mean though that the 'bread-earner' has it significantly easier than the 'child-raiser'.

I mean it more as in certain days. Like when the kids are sick and vomiting half the night and the beds and sheets need washing and you haven't slept and now they're cranky and crying and fussing. And the dogs are being bollockses as they haven't had their walk. Meanwhile the partner who you let have a good night's sleep is having a pretty good day out of the house, chatting with their workmates trying a new place at lunch and is generally content.

Obviously the inverse happens, when the SAHP takes the kids to the park to see the autumn leaves, has a lovely time, comes home and bakes cookies and everyone is a little angel. Meanwhile working parent got stuck in traffic, had series of ****-ups at work, has a stress headache and needs to stay late to sort thing out.

I just pointed out that the staying at home can often be tougher as it was described as taking the easy option and being taken care of.

iguana

Oh The Humanity wrote: »

So men have to behave in a very tightly prescribed 'acceptable' way, no choices for them. Try being a SAHD and witness the SAHM treating him like a pedo if he takes his kid to the playground. Ostrasised at the school gates. Yet women can cherry pick how to live after causing a massive stink for the 'right' to go out and work all day. Oh yeh we were sold a pup there. No wonder we have a generation of young girls more opportunistically parisitical than ever before.
If we now suddenly decide we want choice then we have to put our money where our mouths are and let men have it too. Paternity leave, equal parental rights by LAW for men in Ireland, real choice to stay at home with kids etc.

Where did I say women can choose but men can't? Two of my uncles are stay at home dads. They both do work from home, but the bulk of their day is and was caring for their children (one did it in the 80's&90's and his children are now grown, the other has 2 toddlers and an infant now). Either parent can stay home if that's what works for them. Either is acceptable although at the moment it's unusual for any parent to stay at home - largely due to the fact that house prices rose to a point where two salaries were necessary.

Wibbs

OK folks, lets take this part of discussion elsewhere. Interesting it may be, off topic it certainly is. Thanks

I hate freeloaders as much as the next person, but there are some very weird views of relationships on here. I can't imagine insisting that everything has to be 'equal' - how on earth does that ever work out? Nothing is ever equal. Where do you stop with that kind of attitude? Do you lock up the TV when you're not watching because it's 'yours'? Do you have separate shelves in the fridge for 'your' stuff and 'their' stuff? Do you write your name on the milk carton?

I agree that being an adult is about taking on responsibility for everything. But in the real world, some people work more than others, some people have less money but more time, so what is the point in insisting that everything has to be equal? If one partner does virtually all the housework and cooking because the other partner doesn't have time, what's wrong with that partner paying most of the bills? Where is the logic in one partner cooking meals for one and cleaning their side of the room while the other has loads of money but no time for household stuff? I know I'm being extreme here but it's supposed to be a partnership, give and take, and it's not all about money.

My boyfriend is of the opinion that his money is our money because we're together. Now I wouldn't feel comfortable just taking it all the time, having been brought up to be independent and self sufficient, but if he had a lot more money than me, what's the problem if he pays more of the rent/bills/food if he's happy to do so? Or if I earned more and paid more. I think calling the girlfriend spoiled and ungrateful is a bit unfair. We don't know the whole story. It's highly likely that she has started to take it for granted that he's always there to fall back on but suggesting she's being a leech seems a tad unfair. I think OP should tell her how he feels, pretty much what he's written here, but I don't think there's any need to be harsh.

CDfm

@izzy - i agree with you. but i think here you have something different. boy loves girl and will do anything for her. girl allows boy to be very generous. girl is very happy to see her needs satisfied. situation arises where boy cant provide & girl makes other plans. boy confused & thinks boy loves girl but does girl love boy.boy has doubts.:eek:

nesbitt

Wibbs wrote: »

I agree. I've been on the receiving end of partners who were users(women in my case). I was taken for granted and ended up putting one fire out after the other, mostly emotional again in my case. Sometimes financial too. Looking back it was at least 50% my fault. I enabled it. In two cases I know those exes went on to guys who didn't or couldn't enable it and funny I think those exes are happier with that too(I couldn't figure why at the time. I know now).

I enabled my ex with gambling debts, cleared large debts 3 times, I was earning very good money at that time. I was like Wibbs and enabled the behaviour, should have ran for the hills when I first realised he was a grabber. However with marriage and later children I had to then take a stay at home role and rely on him. Wow was that a disaster. A few years ago now.

OP ask yourself if you were ill or lost your job in the morning, would your girlfriend support you?

shellyboo

[quote=[Deleted User];62763333]
My boyfriend is of the opinion that his money is our money because we're together. Now I wouldn't feel comfortable just taking it all the time, having been brought up to be independent and self sufficient, but if he had a lot more money than me, what's the problem if he pays more of the rent/bills/food if he's happy to do so? Or if I earned more and paid more. I think calling the girlfriend spoiled and ungrateful is a bit unfair. We don't know the whole story. It's highly likely that she has started to take it for granted that he's always there to fall back on but suggesting she's being a leech seems a tad unfair. I think OP should tell her how he feels, pretty much what he's written here, but I don't think there's any need to be harsh.[/quote]


Izzy, the scenario you're describing is fine, and it is a healthy relationship, but the thrust of it is that you'd do the same for your partner were the tables turned, right? It's a two-way street.

In the OP's scenario, he's made sacrifice after sacrifice for her, but when it comes to a sitaution where SHE has to compromise, she doesn't. She just does what she wants and to hell with him. That's not fair. It's selfish.

Wibbs

nesbitt wrote: »

OP ask yourself if you were ill or lost your job in the morning, would your girlfriend support you?

+1 People are like teabags, their real flavour only comes out when they're put in hot water. It can be a hard question to answer without good evidence too. I've been caught out in the past where I expected support from some quarters and received little or none. I've seen it with a mate where he supported his GF when she went back to college to further her career. Supported her almost entirely for a year. Fast forward a few years, her doing very well and then he gets let go. The almost constant static he took from her was unbelievable. She couldn't get past her opinion that as he was "the Man" he shouldn't need support. Hardly the most self aware of people. That is a lot more common than acknowledged. By either gender. TBH if I was advising an 18 year old guy on this, I would tell him assume that you as the "man" will be expected to take more responsibility as a general thing. If you find a woman who wants a truly equal relationship, hang on to her as there are many that don't actually want that. I'd go so far as to split it loosely 50/50.

I've seen it happen in reverse too with a slightly different dynamic like in nesbitts case. "Male" alco's, spendthrifts and gamblers being supported by the women in their lives. That's a bloody common one.

Nowadays I'd hope to spot the type early on. I'd be looking for a few things personally(I'm taking from the bloke perspective but it defo should apply in reverse);

Is your money "ours", but her money "hers". You know the one. Quick test when shopping, if she comes up short, spot her the money and then see how quick she repays you, if she does at all. Ask her for it and see her reaction. If she gets snotty, big red flag. Ask for a loan from her and see if she's on your case almost immediately.

Is she emotionally needy. Are you putting one fire out only for another to start? Basically is she constantly pushing you emotionally and financially. That type are rarely satisfied and you'll end up as daddy to her.

Does she make an effort to split bills? Is she financially clued in? I don't mean some mad haired economist, but just generally up to speed.

Does she have large debts that she ignores until too late? Credit card junkies are to be avoided. If she must have the latest whatever and hang the consequences that's another bad sign.

Does she always expect you'll bail her out, financially, emotionally and always forgive and fix her mistakes, both trivial and major? If so then you're defo in daddy mode.

All this is fine if this is what you want to be. If not it's a really and I mean really a bad plan and will put you in an early grave.

kmick

On the bright side you wont have to see the disapointment on her face when the "amazing present" you sent home with her at Christams turns out to be santa socks. Its not going to be much fun when she comes back in January though.

miss_feminem

CDfm wrote: »

I think you are being taken advantage of tbh

There is a book called Emotional Blackmail by Dr Susan Forward. Google some of the reviews even.

Now the moving and medical expenses I can get and its what couples do. But choosing over a travelling with her friends and going home to her family seems to be putting herself first all the time.

Your dental work etc has been put off and her trip is going ahead. She sounds very selfish.

Financially if any real catastrophe happened right now you would be wiped out.

So consider your options.

I completely agree with this. It sounds like the money issues are very one-sided and since you're always there to bail her out (and everyone else seems to be just handing over money as well) she expects it all the time.

It doesn't seem very fair that you have to forgo dental treatment so that she can go on holiday. Personally I think this is extremely selfish on her part (assuming she knows you need dental work) and I would question what's going on here.