The concept is that without her help, the man would not be able to have the family life, the loving home, the children … all of which supported her husband in an infinite number of ways so that he could go about his work without interruption or cares beyond the workplace. She definitely helped him be who he was, also in an infinite number of ways.

I especially “got” this because when it came time for the financials to be discussed in my divorce, I had become very ill and no longer worked. However, as my attorney pointed out, I’d still taken care of every move we’d made — every detail, every sweat droplet, on both ends — that advanced his career, while he went ahead and started his new job rested and totally unencumbered.

I “kept” the home, making sure the pantry was always stocked so that he could sweep in from a business trip, and immerse himself, relaxing as he cooked dinner, using every pot and pan and utensil as he did so — leaving his wife, me, to clean up after him.

But, yeah, I didn’t “contribute” anything to the marriage. So, I get this statement… and I REALLY wish the second version of the story had been mine. I was lucky enough (wish I could say it was smart enough, but I’m honest and will say I was lucky) to be making enough money, living in small cities with a fairly low cost of living, that when I needed to get out a few times in similar situations as the author described (bosses with bad intentions; boyfriend with a temper), I was able to do so. But it took me way too long to be able to leave my marriage.