3 ms·

I don't think that's necessarily woman-specific. I'm a guy, and if I could stay at home all day and spend time with my kids, I would too. Certainly, I would if

I don't think that's necessarily woman-specific. I'm a guy, and if I could stay at home all day and spend time with my kids, I would too. Certainly, I would if my wife was making 330k/year :D

ChaosDegenerate 7y ago
Yes, but also it's not like having maternal instinct wouldn't make this decision easier for you. And keep in mind, statistics say than one of the divorce factors is husband making less than wife. From her perspective: this isn't sexy at all.
- nathan_compton 7y ago
  I'd interpret these results with a grain of salt. They are, after all, culturally (and circumstantially) bound. If making money wasn't so important to raising kids, then women might express quite different preferences in partners. I believe there is some evidence for this if you look at mate preference in nations with more social support. Just anecdotally, women seem to be interested in men who excel in some area, not just in salary. Successful musician's, artists, scientists, etc all do pretty well, even if they aren't top earners. I guess what I'm cautioning against is reading your "studies" as suggesting that women don't find lower earners "sexy." Much simpler economic circumstances could plausibly explain the higher rate of divorce.
  - ChaosDegenerate 7y ago
    Please keep in mind, I said socio-economic status. But, homeless looking, constantly drank, smelling of urine Charles Bukowski had plenty of young, attractive and willing lovers. My point being exactly his high socio-economic status. We're talking about one of the best American poets. How many of these you get to meet? Hey, he might even write a poem about feeling he has for you if he likes you. That's what was so damn hot about the guy. Not money. With no money at all, his status was extremely high. I'm not pushing this vulgar simplistic idea here that women are all about money. They are after men who are really, really good in their niche. Even when the niche doesn't provide any money. It's about status they're after. This usually translate into money, but not always. Bukowski was dirt poor. With high status. EDIT: grammar
    - nathan_compton 7y ago
      Right, but what you are saying now borders on tautological: women like those with high socioeconomic status. But socioeconomic status is just the combination of all things which makes people like you.
      - ChaosDegenerate 7y ago
        No, socioeconomic status is not the combination of all things which makes people like you. It's combination of all things which makes people's endocrine and nervous system react to you in a way where they feel and act submissive to you in the group setting. Literally, on the basic biological level, without concious thoughts behind it. If you were to enter the meeting room full of guys who are better at work than you, your body automatically adjusts into submissivness. It's visible you're the one at the low end of the social order there. That's especially visible to the females. They don't want any of that guy. They want the one who makes them and everybody around feel and act like that.
- danbolt 7y ago
  I think the parent comment is saying that his paternal instinct is clashing with society and culture.
mkoryak 7y ago
wait, are you saying that staying at home with the kids is not work?! It is arguably a harder job than most white collar jobs out there: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWcJZ210AaM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWcJZ210AaM
- jsharf 7y ago
  Yeah but kids can smile and bond with you. Computers can't. It's hard work, but it's a bad idea to compare the two either way. One might come naturally to some people, even if they're (gasp) computer programmers.
- nkrisc 7y ago
  Something can be, at the same time, both more work and more enjoyable than office work.
- shantly 7y ago
  Harder doesn't mean worse, necessarily. There are lots of things I'd rather do than my white collar programming job, and most of them are at least as much "work" as it is—they just don't pay nearly as well. [EDIT] that includes staying home to teach my kids—much rather do that, and it'd 100% for sure be much harder. Pays zero dollars though, and someone's gotta keep the bills paid.
- SkyBelow 7y ago
  With a possible exception of before they can talk and are potty trained, child care is not harder. And it is far far more enjoyable spending time with your kids.
- WhompingWindows 7y ago
  Unless parent edited their comment, sounds like you're way over-interpreting their comment. I wouldn't mind being a stay-at-home parent if my SO made bank, it's not because I think it'd be "not work" though.
- username90 7y ago
  100 hour workweeks kills people, 40 hours of work and 60 hours of parenting doesn't, 100 hours of parenting doesn't. Parenting therefore isn't work, parenting is life on the work-life balance spectrum, so it isn't soul crushing in the same way work is. Parenting can still be a lot of work of course, but it isn't work in the same way a job is work, it is more work in the way a vacation trip is work or a hobby is work.

I don't think that's necessarily woman-specific. I'm a guy, and if I could stay at home all day and spend time with my kids, I would too. Certainly, I would if my wife was making 330k/year :D

ChaosDegenerate 7y ago

Yes, but also it's not like having maternal instinct wouldn't make this decision easier for you. And keep in mind, statistics say than one of the divorce factors is husband making less than wife. From her perspective: this isn't sexy at all.

nathan_compton 7y ago
I'd interpret these results with a grain of salt. They are, after all, culturally (and circumstantially) bound. If making money wasn't so important to raising kids, then women might express quite different preferences in partners. I believe there is some evidence for this if you look at mate preference in nations with more social support. Just anecdotally, women seem to be interested in men who excel in some area, not just in salary. Successful musician's, artists, scientists, etc all do pretty well, even if they aren't top earners. I guess what I'm cautioning against is reading your "studies" as suggesting that women don't find lower earners "sexy." Much simpler economic circumstances could plausibly explain the higher rate of divorce.
- ChaosDegenerate 7y ago
  Please keep in mind, I said socio-economic status. But, homeless looking, constantly drank, smelling of urine Charles Bukowski had plenty of young, attractive and willing lovers. My point being exactly his high socio-economic status. We're talking about one of the best American poets. How many of these you get to meet? Hey, he might even write a poem about feeling he has for you if he likes you. That's what was so damn hot about the guy. Not money. With no money at all, his status was extremely high. I'm not pushing this vulgar simplistic idea here that women are all about money. They are after men who are really, really good in their niche. Even when the niche doesn't provide any money. It's about status they're after. This usually translate into money, but not always. Bukowski was dirt poor. With high status. EDIT: grammar
  - nathan_compton 7y ago
    Right, but what you are saying now borders on tautological: women like those with high socioeconomic status. But socioeconomic status is just the combination of all things which makes people like you.
    - ChaosDegenerate 7y ago
      No, socioeconomic status is not the combination of all things which makes people like you. It's combination of all things which makes people's endocrine and nervous system react to you in a way where they feel and act submissive to you in the group setting. Literally, on the basic biological level, without concious thoughts behind it. If you were to enter the meeting room full of guys who are better at work than you, your body automatically adjusts into submissivness. It's visible you're the one at the low end of the social order there. That's especially visible to the females. They don't want any of that guy. They want the one who makes them and everybody around feel and act like that.
danbolt 7y ago
I think the parent comment is saying that his paternal instinct is clashing with society and culture.

mkoryak 7y ago

wait, are you saying that staying at home with the kids is not work?! It is arguably a harder job than most white collar jobs out there: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWcJZ210AaM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWcJZ210AaM

jsharf 7y ago
Yeah but kids can smile and bond with you. Computers can't. It's hard work, but it's a bad idea to compare the two either way. One might come naturally to some people, even if they're (gasp) computer programmers.
nkrisc 7y ago
Something can be, at the same time, both more work and more enjoyable than office work.
shantly 7y ago
Harder doesn't mean worse, necessarily. There are lots of things I'd rather do than my white collar programming job, and most of them are at least as much "work" as it is—they just don't pay nearly as well. [EDIT] that includes staying home to teach my kids—much rather do that, and it'd 100% for sure be much harder. Pays zero dollars though, and someone's gotta keep the bills paid.
SkyBelow 7y ago
With a possible exception of before they can talk and are potty trained, child care is not harder. And it is far far more enjoyable spending time with your kids.
WhompingWindows 7y ago
Unless parent edited their comment, sounds like you're way over-interpreting their comment. I wouldn't mind being a stay-at-home parent if my SO made bank, it's not because I think it'd be "not work" though.
username90 7y ago
100 hour workweeks kills people, 40 hours of work and 60 hours of parenting doesn't, 100 hours of parenting doesn't. Parenting therefore isn't work, parenting is life on the work-life balance spectrum, so it isn't soul crushing in the same way work is. Parenting can still be a lot of work of course, but it isn't work in the same way a job is work, it is more work in the way a vacation trip is work or a hobby is work.