From: slarsen@beethoven.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Some Politically Incorrect questions
Date: 28 Aug 92 20:06:15 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame

My apologies to anyone receiving a half-finished post on 
this.  I cancelled as quickly as I could.  Sorry for any 
inconvenience.

In article <1992Aug28.174245.26681@unixg.ubc.ca> schultz@unixg.ubc.ca
 (Stewart Schultz) writes:
>In article <1992Aug27.202019.23360@news.nd.edu>
>slarsen@schumann.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen) writes:
>
>>I would agree with the contention that men are more subject to 
>>the *expectation* that they perform the breadwinner role however
>>this certainly does not mean that women are somehow unwilling 
>>to act as the breadwinner.  
>
>Women are less willing, on average, as shown by several lines of
>evidence.

Does this include single working mother headed households?

>>In looking at the lower and middle class marriages, there are 
>>myriad examples of women as higher, primary, and sole wage 
>>earners in their families. 
>
>Well if it's a myriad of women, then it's a myriad X 20 of men.  Unless
>these women are somehow hiding from the Census Bureau.
>
>>>Hmmm.  And just above you said these families are 'vanishing.'
>>>Now I'm confused.  ;^>
>>
>>Vanishing and extinct are not the same thing :)
>
>But vanishing = myriad, eh?

I guess I am confusing you. I am attempting to point out that there 
are various combinations of income producers in male/female households:
men as sole wage-earner, women as sole wage-earner; man as higher wage-
earner, woman as higher wage-earner; man as "benefits" provider, woman 
as "benefits" provider; man as one full-time worker, woman as two-part time
worker; man as entrepeneaur, woman as steady weekly check, etc. etc. The 
vanishing structure I refer to is that of "sole" wage earner, whether 
it be male or female.

The problem I have with the claim that women are not "willing" to be 
sole wage earner (besides the impression I have that such character-
izations of women seem to imply that as a group we are lazy or 
irresponsible) is that the following are not taken into consideration:
1--the fact that early socialization of the current wage-earning 
population was heavily influenced by a 1950s model of family;
2--despite inroads, for whatever reasons women do make on average 
less then men. This would bear quite heavily on any jointly made family
decision on who, if anyone, should leave the workforce to care ex-
clusively for the children (as a side note, this was exactly the 
reason why my husband stayed home, I could make more money than he 
could and his wage would not cover child care plus his work-related 
expenses);
3--you are citing evidence that "women want men as breadwinners," 
as if women would be exercising a greater degree of control on 
male decision-making.  What is it that the men want?
4--if a physician's salary is generally considered one that 
could support two people quite comfortably, then why did not one 
of the husbands of physicians opt to stay out of the work force? 
Can a claim really be made that these husbands were "forced" to 
remain on a job by their physician-wives?
5--exactly what professions\jobs were held by both the male and female 
spouses of physicians?  Some professions, such as writer or artist, 
would require a larger degree of "support" from the employed spouse 
than a homemaker would.

>>I'm confused.  Are you claiming that men are forced into being 
>>breadwinners or are you claiming that they are willing volunteers?
>
>I'm imagining a young unmarried man who desires to be a stay-at-home
>father and primary nurturer of his (yet unborn) children.  What
>obstacles does he face?  Some that women also face, some that women
>don't face.  The most important obstacle that is not symmetrical is the
>extreme rarity of women, regardless of their financial prospects,
>-willing- to financially underwrite his goal.  The main reason for the
>rarity (IMO) is the abundance of women who happen to have the -same-
>goal, more or less (this fact is reflected in the stats I quoted, and
>in numerous psychological studies and surveys).  As a result, men who
>desire this role find it considerably more difficult to achieve than
>women.

How many young unmarried men want to be a stay-at-home parent?  
How many married men have been actively prevented from the stay-at-
home options by their wives/SOs?
When you ask little boys what they want to be when grown up, how many 
say "a father?"  
Is the expectation of "man as breadwinner" a female creation, or is 
it more the result of adapting to gender expectations from an 
earlier time?

There may very well be a scarcity of women willing to take on the 
support role, but I do not think that this is a "main" reason for 
men being denied or denying themselves a larger role in the house-
or family-maintenance functions.  Frankly, how many men do you 
suppose are ready to give up financial independence and face their 
friends and relatives' snide comments?  How many are ready to 
face their own inner voice that equates paid employment with 
personal viability?  

>Now I think I know how Copernicus felt.  :-)

Cheer up, Stewart.  Maybe hundreds of years after your death 
you'll be proven right, too!  ;)

Sue Larsen
slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu
Newsgroups: soc.men