9 ms·

Looking at this from another perspective: As a modern woman who makes good money, I'd be comfortable in theory with marrying a man who makes far less than I do

Looking at this from another perspective: As a modern woman who makes good money, I'd be comfortable in theory with marrying a man who makes far less than I do. The problem with that in practice is gender roles in marriage. It's still the norm for women to be responsible for the lion's share of cooking, cleaning, and childrearing. Even in the marriages with the most "woke" husbands I see among my friends, the wife almost always ends up both doing more and spending more mental energy on the home. That means that for men, marriage lightens the burden of (for lack of a better term) managing life, leaving more time and energy for career. For women it's the opposite. This is the primary reason IMO why marriage is a good deal for both parties if the breadwinner makes more than the homemaker. It's just that men who are willing to be the homemaker are vanishingly rare. And if both are breadwinners, almost invariably the homemaking burden falls more heavily on the wife. That means that from a practical (as opposed to a romantic) perspective, marrying a man who makes significantly less than me is liable to be an enormous burden. Why would I want to support a man both economically and practically? Yes, there are some men out there who would make the fair trade and do more of the homemaking if I were the primary breadwinner. There are also a bunch who say they'd be willing to do it, but aren't aware of what that fully entails and aren't willing to put in the emotional investment. (See [1] and [2]). There are also more of those men in younger generations in general; and the ones who exist in my generation are likely to be already married - and happily so. So I'll stay single - and happily so. The solution, in my opinion, would be to continue to erase traditional gender roles. If most of the men out there were ready to take on the homemaker role enthusiastically, I would be far more willing to consider them as partners even if they make a fraction of what I do.

Blackstone4 9y ago
I think you make an excellent point around gender roles. The modern world of work (i.e. modern career focused women) clashes with the status quo/tradition of marriage (i.e. housework).
erikb 9y ago
Agreed. And I would even say that the traditional gender definitions will shift automatically if it's really the case that women can be the major bread winner in a relationship. The basic deal of "I give you a home, you give me financial stability" is a good one, no matter who's who in this relationship. It's just a transition that naturally takes 2-3 generations, and the people who are caught in the middle are a little F*d.
- cimmanom 9y ago
  Although I suspect it will end up taking more than 2-3 generations, I admire your optimism and hope you're right!
- watwut 9y ago
  I think that "I give you a home, you give me financial stability" deal does not really work in practice. The one that is supposed to give financial stability is very likely to end up spending so much time at work, that home does not really matter. And if the work ends up not liked by him/her, resentful. And the one at home is very likely to end up feeling unappreciated, useless and so on.
  - supreme_sublime 9y ago
    That's a pretty pessimistic look at things. It sounds like something that could be pretty easily resolved with communication. Setting expectations for one another that have been clearly communicated. I know plenty of happy married couples where the man is the primary breadwinner and the woman is the homemaker. We are a sexually dimorphic species and have optimized our brains and physiology for that separation of labor. It is pretty obvious through something as basic as muscle mass. Men want to be the provider. Men take pride in that and I think that is a good thing. While I think most men are alright with their wives working, especially when the children get older and don't need as much attention, they'd prefer to be able to make enough to let their wives do as they please. While attempting to become financially independent enough to spend as much time with his family as possible. Perhaps this is a bit of a rosy view, but I think that it is much easier if couples swim with the stream of biology than attempt to fight against it.
    - watwut 9y ago
      Your theory does not take into account pretty normal human psychology and biology, both male and female. No, you can not communicate away resentment over what is rationally speaking unfair situation. It will not go away when you set expectations (and actually only one of partners is in position to set expectations), those can only prevent you speak which has tendency to just bottle things up. Yes, it feels good to be provider especially if you provide out of job you love and are successful in. It makes you feel important, capable, like you matters and so on and so forth. That is why even rich people don't want to retire all that much. Of course, you don't consider that women might like that feeling too. Or at least dislikes feeling like dependent lazy incapable freeloader - which can be her own feeling independent of what man does (meaning not caused by his bad actions). If you however has to work long hours in job you dislike with boss that treats you like disposable dirt, pretty normal situation in bad economy, while actually capable adult person who depend on you watch tv/call with friends/does some hobby, then certain amount of resentment is absolutely normal human psychology. And this does not even have much solution, because if she starts to work, she is endangering his masculinity. Men happen to be human, which is not the same as idealized saints with zero consideration about themselves. But also practically speaking, even this discussion has men resentful over "loosing half of his money" in case of divorce in traditional family. And past stereotypes about women are full of what is basically resentment over the above. From the female side, in the rosy view she is allowed to do as she please - except being truly useful or achiever. It is fine to watch tv or do some home embroidery, but the real full focus on success endangers his pride and his status of provider. The feminism of 1960 did not happened because women were going against their biology. It happened because our biology and psychology has deep build in need to be useful, do something real, not just hang around coffee whole day. In other words, adult women need to be adults and cant be happy living as children. It was first time when large enough portion of population really did not needed that much home work, did not needed to sew their own cloth, did not needed to earn money (lower classes and peasants needed that always), cooking took much less time and so did shopping. And quite a lot of them were not happy and were quite vocal about that. They were not possessed by aliens nor on drugs. It was their psychology and biology in action, making themselves heard.
Blackstone4 9y ago
> And if both are breadwinners, almost invariably the homemaking burden falls more heavily on the wife. Which is why I'm in favor of outsourcing (i.e. cleaning, take-out, blue apron). My friends (she's a doctor and he's a product manager) say getting a cleaner is the best thing they could have done for their relationship
- Nursie 9y ago
  Yeah, I need to get this sorted out. My long term GF and I are both really lazy in the home. It doesn't (often) strain the relationship, but ... yeah. Just having someone in to get a bunch of the drudgery out of the way would be good.
- brightball 9y ago
  We once hired a nanny after our 2nd child was born because the cost was about the same as daycare for 2 kids. We asked her if she’d be up for doing a load of dishes and a load of laundry each day while the kids were taking naps for an increase in her rate and she agreed. That year and a half or so was the easiest we have ever had. People take for granted how much time laundry absorbs when you have two people working and limited free time.
- cimmanom 9y ago
  Ok, let's examine that with a bit of critical thought. How does outsourcing help with a crying baby at 2am? How does outsourcing help with the mental burden of worrying about whether the kids have their shots and annual dentist visits and don't forget that you have to go shopping because they outgrew their shoes? And if you're raising two kids on a $35k nursing salary and the $15k your husband earns at the minimum wage job that's all that's available to him, how are you going to afford any of that anyway?
  - romanovcode 9y ago
    If both of them start fighting about who's turn it is to take the kid to dentist then I gotta say - why bother with kids in the first place? It is clear that both persons don't want to deal with kids.
watwut 9y ago
To be fair, I know men who absolutely do their fair share around cooking, cleaning, and childrearing. However, obviously, they are not the ones bragging on forums about constantly working overtime nor are much visible in their hobbies etc. Edit: for those who downvote - there is opportunity cost for doing these things. At minimum, he is more tired when he does that. And it is not possible to do fair share of house work if you work 70 hours a week every week. Nor when you train or work on hobby additional 20 hours a week. It is not like men who did all those things would have longer days or magically needed less sleep.
cimmanom 9y ago
Oops, missed the links and for some reason my edits won't take: [1] https://english.emmaclit.com/2017/05/20/you-shouldve-asked/ https://english.emmaclit.com/2017/05/20/you-shouldve-asked/ [2] https://www.themarysue.com/emotional-labor-pdf/ https://www.themarysue.com/emotional-labor-pdf/
PuffinBlue 9y ago
> The solution, in my opinion, would be to continue to erase traditional gender roles. If most of the men out there were ready to take on the homemaker role enthusiastically, I would be far more willing to consider them as partners even if they make a fraction of what I do. The solution is not merely one sided. Women must also be willing to 'give up' those roles. Say what you will about men stepping up but my ongoing experience in a marriage with the woman as the bread winner and me as the home maker (with kids) is that my wife puts herself under a lot of 'self' pressure to be the classic mum (baking, cleaning, ironing, washing whatever). She also receives a ton of pressure from her mother and from her friends, intended or perceived it doesn't really matter, to maintain the 'mum to the kids and running the house' meme. Believe it or not we've had stand up arguments about her not doing the washing and ironing and leaving it to me, because she just can't let it go. The most recent one is wrestling control of the kitchen from her, not in the sense of shutting her out but letting me in. Even food purchasing, I began to solely do that last year but New Year, New Resolutions has brought a return to the 'we'll eat healthily, I'll cook every evening and bake at the weekend' pantomime. Despite the fact we already ate great food and she's away with work for at least 1 week in 6 and the weekly late evenings still in work or day trips away for conferences/meetings. All this might sound like one big complaint but really it's just to illustrate that it takes both sides to change in order to actually affect change.
- arethuza 9y ago
  Perhaps its because my wife is a commercial litigation lawyer - but we've ended up having a fairly firm "contract" as to who does what in our household. She shops, I cook. She cleans some parts of the house, I clean others. We both look after our own clothes. Just about everything has a clear demarcation and, in general, we do the bits we like (or at least dislike least). This has survived 27 years and kids so far.... :-)
  - PuffinBlue 9y ago
    Maybe I'll be after you for that contract soon :-) We've developed a bit of a different style where I'm her 'safety net' for the things she still puts pressure on herself to do. Like washing/ironing and cooking. Cleaning has mainly been resolved and we do what's needed when needed. House organisation/upkeep is mine, all critical kids care is mine. But everything else we pretty much just communicate with each other. That seems to have been the key to success so far.
Gatsky 9y ago
This is exactly why women in Japan have stopped getting married, it's a terrible deal for them as there is no flexibility in gender roles. Men, as they currently exist, are becoming obsolete. There will need to be a great adaptation and reassignment of roles as women will soon surpass men in their 'default' social, financial and political status. Frankly, it isn't going to go down very well. Lets hope that traditional masculinity doesn't start a war on its way down.
- daemin 9y ago
  There was also the trend of "herbivore men" in Japan where they didn't want to actively pursue women, and instead were just interested in being friends with them (in the purely platonic sense). This actually drove women mad because at some level they did want men to make the moves.
- Blackstone4 9y ago
  > Men, as they currently exist, are becoming obsolete. There will need to be a great adaptation and reassignment of roles as women will soon surpass men in their 'default' social, financial and political status. @Gatsky that's a strong statement. Would you mind expanding on your definition of "Men, as they currently exist"?
  - Gatsky 9y ago
    Only one X chromosome and a massive sense of entitlement.
    - romanovcode 9y ago
      All I see is you who are entitled. Sexes should always complement each other, not compete.
    - Blackstone4 9y ago
      I don't follow your logic. I feel like it could be interpreted as misandristic. Could you expand upon your view? Why do you think men will become obsolete?
alterego2 9y ago
So, essentially, women still want to marry a man who earns more than them. At the same time we're fighting hard for women to earn the same (or more) on average. No wonder the marriage is declining.
brightball 9y ago
For what it’s worth, we are really good at lifting heavy things and reaching stuff on high shelves. :)
- cimmanom 9y ago
  I can lift heavy things too. And for $30/hr I can hire someone twice a year to lift the ones I can't (and can't get a brother, friend, or neighbor to help with). As for high shelves, even if you're taller than me (not guaranteed) I've got this thing called a stepladder for that.
  - brightball 9y ago
    Well... I got nothing. :-)
  - ddorian43 9y ago
    So you date shorter men ?
hycaria 9y ago
As a woman, the solution is to know what you want. House care is not an obligation. You can pay people to clean or just accept to have a relative untidyness in your home. You don't have to have children either (which is a burden I don't think is ever equally shared). The problem is the pressure women put on themselves, out of social mimicry. I don't give a shit if I'm not the perfect housekeeper, that's not my goal in life, and many things are more exciting than this to me.
- partycoder 9y ago
  That is assuming that a household can afford it, which is not always the case. Then, historically, before house appliances, the burden of home tasks was brutal. No washing machines, driers, dishwashers, vacuum cleaners, microwave ovens, no instant or fast food, etc. What can now be done in a few minutes used to take hours, and require more work, to the point it was a full time occupation. I am glad this is no longer the case.
  - PuffinBlue 9y ago
    Hans Rosling has a talk dedicated to just the effect of the washing machine on female emancipation: https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_and_the_magic_washing_machine https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_and_the_magic_washing...
    - dagw 9y ago
      It's worth noting that his position isn't universally accpeted. I know Tim Harford for example questioned these findings in one of his podcasts. https://twitter.com/TimHarford/status/883373670990786561 https://twitter.com/TimHarford/status/883373670990786561 Of course some people then went on to question Tim Harford...
    - partycoder 9y ago
      Well, you could also hire laundry services, which used to be done by hand either individually in water courses or in places known as washhouses or lavoirs... or in laundry boats (french bateaux-lavoirs). My grandfather, who was not wealthy, told me that he used the services of a professional laundress in his 20s. But then once you are done with laundry you've got cooking, washing, ironing, etc... Ironing became optional for some people as fibers started receiving a special treatment to reduce wrinkling. Before that, clothes would wrinkle beyond what most people today would be comfortable wearing. Before electricity, irons were powered by coal and of course had no thermostat. Before refrigeration and other modern methods for preserving food, you also had to buy fresh food constantly, or preserve food in archaic ways like salting. Then, before plumbing and sewers, rather than getting water from a faucet you had to go get water from a well.
eeZah7Ux 9y ago
> Even in the marriages with the most "woke" husbands I see among my friends, the wife almost always ends up both doing more and spending more mental energy on the home. A lot of people here seem to assume that living together and being married it's the same thing. You can have one without the other. Please don't make this assumption.
itronitron 9y ago
If the husbands aren't doing more than their share around the house they are not really woke but just nodding in agreement. Having said that, I agree that women spend more 'mental' energy on the home as they are the ones being judged by friends and family. The solution is to task husbands with more of the unskilled labor household chores.
miscreanity 9y ago
>The solution, in my opinion, would be to continue to erase traditional gender roles. While it may nice to imagine an idyllic world devoid of gender roles, that simply is not reality across the board. Each couple has their own idiosyncrasies and forcing a social pattern or demeaning traditional ones always ends in failure. There is a continuum of personalities, yet recent movements seem to assume a strict dichotomy exists and seek to tear down a division that is unique to each individual. This is not to say that you should assume a traditional role, only that before offering a one-size-fits-all solution it is worth keeping in mind that what works for you will not necessarily do so for others. Certain acts such as abuse, murder and theft are universally accepted as wrong; it's when opinion becomes demand that respect fades and hostility builds. It happens in both male and female-led societies. A simpler solution may be to encourage individual discovery with awareness of history - what is occurring now is nothing new :)
ajuc 9y ago
> That means that for men, marriage lightens the burden of (for lack of a better term) managing life, leaving more time and energy for career. Not my experience. It's easier to have a career, hobbies, and energy if you're single, than if you're in a "modern" marriage. I'd argue it's easier even compared to "oldfashioned" marriage, but for different reasons, but that's just a guess. People still get married, because love, and kids, and social expectations, and tax cuts ;), but in my experience being alone requires the least effort. > The solution, in my opinion, would be to continue to erase traditional gender roles. If most of the men out there were ready to take on the homemaker role enthusiastically, I would be far more willing to consider them as partners even if they make a fraction of what I do. Why would you want to erase them? These roles developed and exist for a reason. Obviously the alternative roles should be promoted as viable and respectable choices, but the existing roles exist because for most people it's a good fit. I've met women that are quite angry at society for making them feel inadequate because they just want to be housewives. > If most of the men out there were ready to take on the homemaker role enthusiastically, I would be far more willing to consider them as partners even if they make a fraction of what I do. Why do you want most? Isn't it sufficient if some do? You won't marry all of them :)
megaman22 9y ago
I think that one of the primary disconnects is that the amount of domestic work that a typical man finds necessary and the amount a typical woman finds necessary are wildly different. Men, by and large, have spent their single lives existing with entire classes of housework, that their female partners consider essential, not being done or even considered. And those tasks that men have done for themselves are typically done at a much lower frequency or degree of thoroughness than might be expected by another party.
moltar 9y ago
There was a study that showed that the more chores a husband does the less sexually attractive his wife finds him. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/men-who-do-housework-have-less-sex/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/men-who-do-housew...
- romanovcode 9y ago
  It's pretty clear that by doing those chores he is emasculating himself and thus making himself less attractive partner to the women. I don't want to be a dick here but one cannot cheat the biological psychology of gender dynamics in a whim. Maybe someday, but as it currently stands it is just the way it is and there is nothing one can do about it.
  - philipov 9y ago
    Human gender dynamics are not dominated by tournament behavior. Pair bonding dynamics favor men who share in the chores. Humans demonstrate both tournament and pair bonding behaviors about evenly, on a complicated spectrum, and so anecdotal evidence is particularly bad at representing reality. Additionally, human psychology is not dominated by genetics like in other animals, so upbringing and culture are strong, sometimes overriding factors. Learn your biology before you start spewing MRA crap.
    - romanovcode 9y ago
      I am by no means MRA and I do believe it is complete crap. I just said how I view it and why it makes complete sense to me. > so upbringing and culture are strong This is the main point and this is why I said that current generation cannot change itself, the next ones might tho.
mpweiher 9y ago
Apologies, but this is flashing "rationalization" in big bright letters. "I would so much like to, but circumstances outside my control just make it impossible". > for men, marriage lightens the burden No, it absolutely does not. You are now the sole breadwinner for an entire family. See A letter to … my wife, who won’t get a job while I work myself to death: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/jul/02/a-letter-to-my-wife-who-wont-get-a-job-while-i-work-myself-to-death https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/jul/02/a-lette... > leaving more time and energy for career. Huh? How backward is that? First, the vast majority of people has jobs, not careers. Second, you have a job in order to live, you don't live in order to have a job. A job is generally something you don't really want to do, otherwise people wouldn't give you money to do it. > Why would I want to support a man both economically and practically? This is the truth: you don't. And the vast majority of women don't. Not because you can't, but because you don't want to. Really, really, really don't want to. Which is why the rationalizations come so thick and heavy. Anyway, the reason I am pretty confident that it is not because they can't is that every study shows that the higher the income, the less women want to support a man, despite the fact that with higher income it obviously becomes factually easier. And in fact, when it comes to to senior dating, it becomes even more extreme. Wealthy widows with no financial concerns and no housework to speak of absolutely and adamantly refuse to consider men who have less than they. And of course, they have a million rationalizations as to why that's just not possible. http://www.bettinaarndt.com.au/wp-content/uploads/Broke-Older-Divorced-Men.pdf http://www.bettinaarndt.com.au/wp-content/uploads/Broke-Olde... > continue to erase traditional gender roles. You go right ahead! Start erasing! > If most of the men out there were ready... Ahh, but of course it is the men that have to change. And change first. Should have guessed. And of course you can't actually tell if a particular man is willing to take on more house-work and child-rearing before your "consider" him, so you have set up a nice impossible barrier. "There's just nothing I can do".
david38 9y ago
In my experience, high earning women want even more high earning men because if she can do X, as a man, he should be able to do X+1. I hear this FAR more than anything else. The second most common thing I hear is that men are intimidated by her. Sometimes this is true and sometimes they are just put off by her aggressive (masculine in their eyes) behavior. She of course rewords it make it sound like he shouldn't have a choice or preference (while she can). It should be obvious that anyone who is too much of an outlier is going to have issues with marriage. Picture a man who is the image of a soft caring person who strives to be the best caregiver as a stay at home husband. Can he get married? Of course. Will lots of women reject him and think he's not a proper man? You bet! His behavior won't get him mocked my women, in fact he'll be so deep in the friendzone he be surrounded by women. Sexual attraction is another thing. Regarding the comment about not doing more homework, I see it this way. Many men are simply unwilling to do it. I just can't be bothered. Her level of income won't change my attitude towards this. Does this restrict me to women who earn less? Probably. Most men who chase youth and beauty also end up with women who earn far less. It shows that her income is very low on the priority scale while his exemption from most housework is high. Your solution is a valid one. Another is to try to make our society a more fair and balanced one so that income isn't as important in a spouse as it's getting to be if you're not already wealthy.
- david38 9y ago
  I should add that as men get older a HUGE incentive against marriage is the perception of mistreatment by family courts. Stories about owing a woman a paycheck for years make people think twice. This is in glaring contrast to the line everyone hears about the amount of employment opportunities women have. The way I see it, the law fails to protect women from abusive men in the physical sense men from women in the financial and custody sense.
jacknews 9y ago
> The solution, in my opinion, would be to continue to erase traditional gender roles. I don't think you can just erase gender roles. I think in any relationship there is a "masculine" role and a "feminine" role, and currently men tend to fill the former, and women that later.

Blackstone4 9y ago

I think you make an excellent point around gender roles. The modern world of work (i.e. modern career focused women) clashes with the status quo/tradition of marriage (i.e. housework).

erikb 9y ago

Agreed. And I would even say that the traditional gender definitions will shift automatically if it's really the case that women can be the major bread winner in a relationship. The basic deal of "I give you a home, you give me financial stability" is a good one, no matter who's who in this relationship. It's just a transition that naturally takes 2-3 generations, and the people who are caught in the middle are a little F*d.

cimmanom 9y ago
Although I suspect it will end up taking more than 2-3 generations, I admire your optimism and hope you're right!
watwut 9y ago
I think that "I give you a home, you give me financial stability" deal does not really work in practice. The one that is supposed to give financial stability is very likely to end up spending so much time at work, that home does not really matter. And if the work ends up not liked by him/her, resentful. And the one at home is very likely to end up feeling unappreciated, useless and so on.
- supreme_sublime 9y ago
  That's a pretty pessimistic look at things. It sounds like something that could be pretty easily resolved with communication. Setting expectations for one another that have been clearly communicated. I know plenty of happy married couples where the man is the primary breadwinner and the woman is the homemaker. We are a sexually dimorphic species and have optimized our brains and physiology for that separation of labor. It is pretty obvious through something as basic as muscle mass. Men want to be the provider. Men take pride in that and I think that is a good thing. While I think most men are alright with their wives working, especially when the children get older and don't need as much attention, they'd prefer to be able to make enough to let their wives do as they please. While attempting to become financially independent enough to spend as much time with his family as possible. Perhaps this is a bit of a rosy view, but I think that it is much easier if couples swim with the stream of biology than attempt to fight against it.
  - watwut 9y ago
    Your theory does not take into account pretty normal human psychology and biology, both male and female. No, you can not communicate away resentment over what is rationally speaking unfair situation. It will not go away when you set expectations (and actually only one of partners is in position to set expectations), those can only prevent you speak which has tendency to just bottle things up. Yes, it feels good to be provider especially if you provide out of job you love and are successful in. It makes you feel important, capable, like you matters and so on and so forth. That is why even rich people don't want to retire all that much. Of course, you don't consider that women might like that feeling too. Or at least dislikes feeling like dependent lazy incapable freeloader - which can be her own feeling independent of what man does (meaning not caused by his bad actions). If you however has to work long hours in job you dislike with boss that treats you like disposable dirt, pretty normal situation in bad economy, while actually capable adult person who depend on you watch tv/call with friends/does some hobby, then certain amount of resentment is absolutely normal human psychology. And this does not even have much solution, because if she starts to work, she is endangering his masculinity. Men happen to be human, which is not the same as idealized saints with zero consideration about themselves. But also practically speaking, even this discussion has men resentful over "loosing half of his money" in case of divorce in traditional family. And past stereotypes about women are full of what is basically resentment over the above. From the female side, in the rosy view she is allowed to do as she please - except being truly useful or achiever. It is fine to watch tv or do some home embroidery, but the real full focus on success endangers his pride and his status of provider. The feminism of 1960 did not happened because women were going against their biology. It happened because our biology and psychology has deep build in need to be useful, do something real, not just hang around coffee whole day. In other words, adult women need to be adults and cant be happy living as children. It was first time when large enough portion of population really did not needed that much home work, did not needed to sew their own cloth, did not needed to earn money (lower classes and peasants needed that always), cooking took much less time and so did shopping. And quite a lot of them were not happy and were quite vocal about that. They were not possessed by aliens nor on drugs. It was their psychology and biology in action, making themselves heard.

Blackstone4 9y ago

> And if both are breadwinners, almost invariably the homemaking burden falls more heavily on the wife. Which is why I'm in favor of outsourcing (i.e. cleaning, take-out, blue apron). My friends (she's a doctor and he's a product manager) say getting a cleaner is the best thing they could have done for their relationship

Nursie 9y ago
Yeah, I need to get this sorted out. My long term GF and I are both really lazy in the home. It doesn't (often) strain the relationship, but ... yeah. Just having someone in to get a bunch of the drudgery out of the way would be good.
brightball 9y ago
We once hired a nanny after our 2nd child was born because the cost was about the same as daycare for 2 kids. We asked her if she’d be up for doing a load of dishes and a load of laundry each day while the kids were taking naps for an increase in her rate and she agreed. That year and a half or so was the easiest we have ever had. People take for granted how much time laundry absorbs when you have two people working and limited free time.
cimmanom 9y ago
Ok, let's examine that with a bit of critical thought. How does outsourcing help with a crying baby at 2am? How does outsourcing help with the mental burden of worrying about whether the kids have their shots and annual dentist visits and don't forget that you have to go shopping because they outgrew their shoes? And if you're raising two kids on a $35k nursing salary and the $15k your husband earns at the minimum wage job that's all that's available to him, how are you going to afford any of that anyway?
- romanovcode 9y ago
  If both of them start fighting about who's turn it is to take the kid to dentist then I gotta say - why bother with kids in the first place? It is clear that both persons don't want to deal with kids.

watwut 9y ago

To be fair, I know men who absolutely do their fair share around cooking, cleaning, and childrearing. However, obviously, they are not the ones bragging on forums about constantly working overtime nor are much visible in their hobbies etc. Edit: for those who downvote - there is opportunity cost for doing these things. At minimum, he is more tired when he does that. And it is not possible to do fair share of house work if you work 70 hours a week every week. Nor when you train or work on hobby additional 20 hours a week. It is not like men who did all those things would have longer days or magically needed less sleep.

cimmanom 9y ago

Oops, missed the links and for some reason my edits won't take: [1] https://english.emmaclit.com/2017/05/20/you-shouldve-asked/ https://english.emmaclit.com/2017/05/20/you-shouldve-asked/ [2] https://www.themarysue.com/emotional-labor-pdf/ https://www.themarysue.com/emotional-labor-pdf/

PuffinBlue 9y ago

> The solution, in my opinion, would be to continue to erase traditional gender roles. If most of the men out there were ready to take on the homemaker role enthusiastically, I would be far more willing to consider them as partners even if they make a fraction of what I do. The solution is not merely one sided. Women must also be willing to 'give up' those roles. Say what you will about men stepping up but my ongoing experience in a marriage with the woman as the bread winner and me as the home maker (with kids) is that my wife puts herself under a lot of 'self' pressure to be the classic mum (baking, cleaning, ironing, washing whatever). She also receives a ton of pressure from her mother and from her friends, intended or perceived it doesn't really matter, to maintain the 'mum to the kids and running the house' meme. Believe it or not we've had stand up arguments about her not doing the washing and ironing and leaving it to me, because she just can't let it go. The most recent one is wrestling control of the kitchen from her, not in the sense of shutting her out but letting me in. Even food purchasing, I began to solely do that last year but New Year, New Resolutions has brought a return to the 'we'll eat healthily, I'll cook every evening and bake at the weekend' pantomime. Despite the fact we already ate great food and she's away with work for at least 1 week in 6 and the weekly late evenings still in work or day trips away for conferences/meetings. All this might sound like one big complaint but really it's just to illustrate that it takes both sides to change in order to actually affect change.

arethuza 9y ago
Perhaps its because my wife is a commercial litigation lawyer - but we've ended up having a fairly firm "contract" as to who does what in our household. She shops, I cook. She cleans some parts of the house, I clean others. We both look after our own clothes. Just about everything has a clear demarcation and, in general, we do the bits we like (or at least dislike least). This has survived 27 years and kids so far.... :-)
- PuffinBlue 9y ago
  Maybe I'll be after you for that contract soon :-) We've developed a bit of a different style where I'm her 'safety net' for the things she still puts pressure on herself to do. Like washing/ironing and cooking. Cleaning has mainly been resolved and we do what's needed when needed. House organisation/upkeep is mine, all critical kids care is mine. But everything else we pretty much just communicate with each other. That seems to have been the key to success so far.

Gatsky 9y ago

This is exactly why women in Japan have stopped getting married, it's a terrible deal for them as there is no flexibility in gender roles. Men, as they currently exist, are becoming obsolete. There will need to be a great adaptation and reassignment of roles as women will soon surpass men in their 'default' social, financial and political status. Frankly, it isn't going to go down very well. Lets hope that traditional masculinity doesn't start a war on its way down.

daemin 9y ago
There was also the trend of "herbivore men" in Japan where they didn't want to actively pursue women, and instead were just interested in being friends with them (in the purely platonic sense). This actually drove women mad because at some level they did want men to make the moves.
Blackstone4 9y ago
> Men, as they currently exist, are becoming obsolete. There will need to be a great adaptation and reassignment of roles as women will soon surpass men in their 'default' social, financial and political status. @Gatsky that's a strong statement. Would you mind expanding on your definition of "Men, as they currently exist"?
- Gatsky 9y ago
  Only one X chromosome and a massive sense of entitlement.
  - romanovcode 9y ago
    All I see is you who are entitled. Sexes should always complement each other, not compete.
  - Blackstone4 9y ago
    I don't follow your logic. I feel like it could be interpreted as misandristic. Could you expand upon your view? Why do you think men will become obsolete?

alterego2 9y ago

So, essentially, women still want to marry a man who earns more than them. At the same time we're fighting hard for women to earn the same (or more) on average. No wonder the marriage is declining.

brightball 9y ago

For what it’s worth, we are really good at lifting heavy things and reaching stuff on high shelves. :)

cimmanom 9y ago
I can lift heavy things too. And for $30/hr I can hire someone twice a year to lift the ones I can't (and can't get a brother, friend, or neighbor to help with). As for high shelves, even if you're taller than me (not guaranteed) I've got this thing called a stepladder for that.
- brightball 9y ago
  Well... I got nothing. :-)
- ddorian43 9y ago
  So you date shorter men ?

hycaria 9y ago

As a woman, the solution is to know what you want. House care is not an obligation. You can pay people to clean or just accept to have a relative untidyness in your home. You don't have to have children either (which is a burden I don't think is ever equally shared). The problem is the pressure women put on themselves, out of social mimicry. I don't give a shit if I'm not the perfect housekeeper, that's not my goal in life, and many things are more exciting than this to me.

partycoder 9y ago
That is assuming that a household can afford it, which is not always the case. Then, historically, before house appliances, the burden of home tasks was brutal. No washing machines, driers, dishwashers, vacuum cleaners, microwave ovens, no instant or fast food, etc. What can now be done in a few minutes used to take hours, and require more work, to the point it was a full time occupation. I am glad this is no longer the case.
- PuffinBlue 9y ago
  Hans Rosling has a talk dedicated to just the effect of the washing machine on female emancipation: https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_and_the_magic_washing_machine https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_and_the_magic_washing...
  - dagw 9y ago
    It's worth noting that his position isn't universally accpeted. I know Tim Harford for example questioned these findings in one of his podcasts. https://twitter.com/TimHarford/status/883373670990786561 https://twitter.com/TimHarford/status/883373670990786561 Of course some people then went on to question Tim Harford...
  - partycoder 9y ago
    Well, you could also hire laundry services, which used to be done by hand either individually in water courses or in places known as washhouses or lavoirs... or in laundry boats (french bateaux-lavoirs). My grandfather, who was not wealthy, told me that he used the services of a professional laundress in his 20s. But then once you are done with laundry you've got cooking, washing, ironing, etc... Ironing became optional for some people as fibers started receiving a special treatment to reduce wrinkling. Before that, clothes would wrinkle beyond what most people today would be comfortable wearing. Before electricity, irons were powered by coal and of course had no thermostat. Before refrigeration and other modern methods for preserving food, you also had to buy fresh food constantly, or preserve food in archaic ways like salting. Then, before plumbing and sewers, rather than getting water from a faucet you had to go get water from a well.

eeZah7Ux 9y ago

> Even in the marriages with the most "woke" husbands I see among my friends, the wife almost always ends up both doing more and spending more mental energy on the home. A lot of people here seem to assume that living together and being married it's the same thing. You can have one without the other. Please don't make this assumption.

itronitron 9y ago

If the husbands aren't doing more than their share around the house they are not really woke but just nodding in agreement. Having said that, I agree that women spend more 'mental' energy on the home as they are the ones being judged by friends and family. The solution is to task husbands with more of the unskilled labor household chores.

miscreanity 9y ago

>The solution, in my opinion, would be to continue to erase traditional gender roles. While it may nice to imagine an idyllic world devoid of gender roles, that simply is not reality across the board. Each couple has their own idiosyncrasies and forcing a social pattern or demeaning traditional ones always ends in failure. There is a continuum of personalities, yet recent movements seem to assume a strict dichotomy exists and seek to tear down a division that is unique to each individual. This is not to say that you should assume a traditional role, only that before offering a one-size-fits-all solution it is worth keeping in mind that what works for you will not necessarily do so for others. Certain acts such as abuse, murder and theft are universally accepted as wrong; it's when opinion becomes demand that respect fades and hostility builds. It happens in both male and female-led societies. A simpler solution may be to encourage individual discovery with awareness of history - what is occurring now is nothing new :)

ajuc 9y ago

> That means that for men, marriage lightens the burden of (for lack of a better term) managing life, leaving more time and energy for career. Not my experience. It's easier to have a career, hobbies, and energy if you're single, than if you're in a "modern" marriage. I'd argue it's easier even compared to "oldfashioned" marriage, but for different reasons, but that's just a guess. People still get married, because love, and kids, and social expectations, and tax cuts ;), but in my experience being alone requires the least effort. > The solution, in my opinion, would be to continue to erase traditional gender roles. If most of the men out there were ready to take on the homemaker role enthusiastically, I would be far more willing to consider them as partners even if they make a fraction of what I do. Why would you want to erase them? These roles developed and exist for a reason. Obviously the alternative roles should be promoted as viable and respectable choices, but the existing roles exist because for most people it's a good fit. I've met women that are quite angry at society for making them feel inadequate because they just want to be housewives. > If most of the men out there were ready to take on the homemaker role enthusiastically, I would be far more willing to consider them as partners even if they make a fraction of what I do. Why do you want most? Isn't it sufficient if some do? You won't marry all of them :)

megaman22 9y ago

I think that one of the primary disconnects is that the amount of domestic work that a typical man finds necessary and the amount a typical woman finds necessary are wildly different. Men, by and large, have spent their single lives existing with entire classes of housework, that their female partners consider essential, not being done or even considered. And those tasks that men have done for themselves are typically done at a much lower frequency or degree of thoroughness than might be expected by another party.

moltar 9y ago

There was a study that showed that the more chores a husband does the less sexually attractive his wife finds him. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/men-who-do-housework-have-less-sex/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/men-who-do-housew...

romanovcode 9y ago
It's pretty clear that by doing those chores he is emasculating himself and thus making himself less attractive partner to the women. I don't want to be a dick here but one cannot cheat the biological psychology of gender dynamics in a whim. Maybe someday, but as it currently stands it is just the way it is and there is nothing one can do about it.
- philipov 9y ago
  Human gender dynamics are not dominated by tournament behavior. Pair bonding dynamics favor men who share in the chores. Humans demonstrate both tournament and pair bonding behaviors about evenly, on a complicated spectrum, and so anecdotal evidence is particularly bad at representing reality. Additionally, human psychology is not dominated by genetics like in other animals, so upbringing and culture are strong, sometimes overriding factors. Learn your biology before you start spewing MRA crap.
  - romanovcode 9y ago
    I am by no means MRA and I do believe it is complete crap. I just said how I view it and why it makes complete sense to me. > so upbringing and culture are strong This is the main point and this is why I said that current generation cannot change itself, the next ones might tho.

mpweiher 9y ago

Apologies, but this is flashing "rationalization" in big bright letters. "I would so much like to, but circumstances outside my control just make it impossible". > for men, marriage lightens the burden No, it absolutely does not. You are now the sole breadwinner for an entire family. See A letter to … my wife, who won’t get a job while I work myself to death: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/jul/02/a-letter-to-my-wife-who-wont-get-a-job-while-i-work-myself-to-death https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/jul/02/a-lette... > leaving more time and energy for career. Huh? How backward is that? First, the vast majority of people has jobs, not careers. Second, you have a job in order to live, you don't live in order to have a job. A job is generally something you don't really want to do, otherwise people wouldn't give you money to do it. > Why would I want to support a man both economically and practically? This is the truth: you don't. And the vast majority of women don't. Not because you can't, but because you don't want to. Really, really, really don't want to. Which is why the rationalizations come so thick and heavy. Anyway, the reason I am pretty confident that it is not because they can't is that every study shows that the higher the income, the less women want to support a man, despite the fact that with higher income it obviously becomes factually easier. And in fact, when it comes to to senior dating, it becomes even more extreme. Wealthy widows with no financial concerns and no housework to speak of absolutely and adamantly refuse to consider men who have less than they. And of course, they have a million rationalizations as to why that's just not possible. http://www.bettinaarndt.com.au/wp-content/uploads/Broke-Older-Divorced-Men.pdf http://www.bettinaarndt.com.au/wp-content/uploads/Broke-Olde... > continue to erase traditional gender roles. You go right ahead! Start erasing! > If most of the men out there were ready... Ahh, but of course it is the men that have to change. And change first. Should have guessed. And of course you can't actually tell if a particular man is willing to take on more house-work and child-rearing before your "consider" him, so you have set up a nice impossible barrier. "There's just nothing I can do".

david38 9y ago

In my experience, high earning women want even more high earning men because if she can do X, as a man, he should be able to do X+1. I hear this FAR more than anything else. The second most common thing I hear is that men are intimidated by her. Sometimes this is true and sometimes they are just put off by her aggressive (masculine in their eyes) behavior. She of course rewords it make it sound like he shouldn't have a choice or preference (while she can). It should be obvious that anyone who is too much of an outlier is going to have issues with marriage. Picture a man who is the image of a soft caring person who strives to be the best caregiver as a stay at home husband. Can he get married? Of course. Will lots of women reject him and think he's not a proper man? You bet! His behavior won't get him mocked my women, in fact he'll be so deep in the friendzone he be surrounded by women. Sexual attraction is another thing. Regarding the comment about not doing more homework, I see it this way. Many men are simply unwilling to do it. I just can't be bothered. Her level of income won't change my attitude towards this. Does this restrict me to women who earn less? Probably. Most men who chase youth and beauty also end up with women who earn far less. It shows that her income is very low on the priority scale while his exemption from most housework is high. Your solution is a valid one. Another is to try to make our society a more fair and balanced one so that income isn't as important in a spouse as it's getting to be if you're not already wealthy.

david38 9y ago
I should add that as men get older a HUGE incentive against marriage is the perception of mistreatment by family courts. Stories about owing a woman a paycheck for years make people think twice. This is in glaring contrast to the line everyone hears about the amount of employment opportunities women have. The way I see it, the law fails to protect women from abusive men in the physical sense men from women in the financial and custody sense.

jacknews 9y ago

> The solution, in my opinion, would be to continue to erase traditional gender roles. I don't think you can just erase gender roles. I think in any relationship there is a "masculine" role and a "feminine" role, and currently men tend to fill the former, and women that later.