My father was born in 1922. He died just over three years ago, at the age of 85, and I can honestly say I never once heard him tell my mother what to do in her own house. Yup, that’s what I wrote: her house.
Technically, it was their house — my father did make the payments, after all — but he would never dream of telling my mother how to decorate it or how to situate the furniture. And he certainly wouldn’t tell her how the kitchen should be organized, what utensils should be used, or how to load the dishwater. My parents’ home was, with the exception of the garage and basement, my mother’s domain.
That’s the way things were back then: The house was her job, the office was his. This arrangement had its bumpy moments — she would complain that he didn’t “help out” enough in the kitchen,” and he would try to be of assistance, only to be told he wasn’t doing it right — but for the most part, it worked.
Today this family model has gone the way of the dinosaurs. Husbands and wives are expected to do everything 50/50. That’s how couples, men in particular, prove their status as enlightened beings. But is the 50/50 marriage — in which both spouses work, cook, clean, and raise children together in perfect harmony — superior to the old way? And does it even work?
In theory, perhaps. In reality, no.
Don’t misunderstand. I’m all for sharing duties, and that’s generally the way things work in our home. My husband and I rarely fight about who does what because we’re both self-sufficient and respect each other’s role. (Full disclosure: My husband works full-time and pays the bills; I write, as you know, but also take on the lion’s share of household and child-related matters). And our marriage dynamic has become all the more evident since we moved my 81-year-old (and still vibrant) mother into our home.
Oh, sure, my mother knew my husband does the dishes every night; she’s seen that many times. And she remembers his doing his part in caring for our two children when they were babies. But it wasn’t until my mother moved in with my family that she saw the extent to which my husband got involved on the home front.
When she wants to put certain utensils in a certain drawer in the kitchen, I might respond, “Well, you-know-who doesn’t like it there.” Or if she wants to prepare a dish (I do most of the cooking, but she helps out) a certain way, I might say, “Well, you-know-who doesn’t like such-and-such prepared that way.” At which point her eyes will open wide while she desperately tries to keep her mouth shut. But I know exactly what she’s thinking: My father would no more have had an opinion on these matters than he would fly to the moon. And he would eat anything and everything my mother put on his plate. My husband, on the other hand, has lots to say — so much that it makes my job that much more difficult.
The 50/50 marriage feminists have been touting for decades is supposed to be a recipe for the old model. Their argument is that women like my mother were unduly burdened, while husbands got off scot-free. But is this accurate?
My mother quit her career as a stockbroker (yes, women had careers before feminism came along) when my sister and I were five and three, respectively — and was never employed after that. As a result, her time was her own. Once my sister and I were in school full-time, my mother was free as a jaybird to do whatever she liked.
My father couldn’t say that.
Does my mother’s life, or mine, seem oppressive to you? That’s what feminists and the women they’ve enlisted in their cause believe — and what they want you to believe. Consider this shocking statement by Sheryl Sandberg, COO of Facebook: “We still haven’t achieved the goal of real equality for women in the workplace and men in the home. Women continue to need protection not only globally where many women lack basic civil and human rights, but also here where the most dangerous place for an American woman is still shockingly in her home.”
The most dangerous place for an American woman is in her home. Wow.
With this belief firmly planted in their brains, feminists tout a new model for marriage — one in which each spouse is expected to do the exact same thing. Sandberg explains that she and her husband share everything right down the middle: care of their two small children, full-time careers, cooking, cleaning, etc. What she doesn’t mention (as most high-profile feminists don’t) is that somewhere in the background is a full-time nanny who’s doing the hard work — some might say the real work — for them.
Most women, most parents, don’t want to give up the precious years they have at home to rear their children so they can pursue demanding careers that place them at the mercy of hired help. Much to the dismay of feminists such as Sandberg, most women — despite all their so-called gains — still choose to work part-time, if at all, once they have children. In doing so, they acquire a type of freedom men don’t have.
Husbands don’t have the luxury of leaving their jobs temporarily, and then when their babies are old enough to go to school decide whether or not they want to go back to work, change careers, or get part-time jobs. Millions of men don’t follow their dreams because they know women want husbands who are willing to carry the financial load. My husband is an academic at heart, an intellectual of sorts who’d spend his days reading and writing poetry if he could. But when he was in his 20s, he realized his dream to become the next Pablo Neruda would not provide for a family — so he gave it all up and went into sales instead.
It is men’s consistent work — full-time, year-round, all throughout their lives — that allows women the freedom and flexibility to find the balance they so desperately crave. If that kind of life, that kind of devotion to the daily grind, were recognized as equally taxing as “women’s work,” as it used to be before feminism came along, the idea that women are unduly burdened would seem downright laughable.
The 50/50 marriage is a fraud. No marriage is ever equal on any given year — and too many cooks in the kitchen can spoil the soup anyway. No one dares admit this lest they be labeled a throwback who believe women “belong in the kitchen,” which is so ridiculous. But the greatest problem with the 50/50 model is that in order to follow it, the children of America can’t be raised by mom and dad — and the majority of parents, thankfully, don’t want that.
The 50/50 model is a feminist utopia. It works in their dreams, but not in ours.
Right on! Women totally screwed themselves, their families and kids with the late 60s early 70s insistence that paid labor outside the home was the be all and end all. I am relishing these early years of my kid's life at home with her and am grateful to my husband every day for making this possible.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGroan.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGreat post. Actually, a woman at home has a huge number of possible careers: child psychologist, nurse, decorator, cook, cleaning lady, landscaper, seamstress, painter, hostess, teacher, consumer product tester, etc, etc. With all these opportunities for defining yourself and pursuing your own interests, isn't it sad that some women seem to find validation only in the title the have at work?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI disagree with the basic argument of this column. It is not a matter of whether or not a mother and wife wants to work outside the house, the fact of the matter is many of them have to in order for their family to survice. As for a husband already doing enough by going to work each day, I'd say that that does not relieve him of his duty to pitch in as much as possible at home. I work full-time, my wife puts in 30 or so hours per week at her job. I would have some nerve to come home and sit around and not help.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseShe didn't say that her parents' world was ideal (and even there, the only reason that was okay was because the wife didn't work outside the home at all). In fact, she said that her husband has his own duties in the home, even though he works more outside the home than she does.
And even if your wife only works in the home, depending on the age of the children, it only make sense that you split the chores, assuming that she's taking care of the kids full time so when you come home from work, you have both been working a similarly long day. Of course especially in your case where your wife works part-time.
But the point is you misunderstood her. assumptions.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSorry, but why isn't this calling for a "throw back to women in the kitchen"?
Which is extremely odd from people so easy to support Sarah Palin as Vice-President or even President. Or do you think Todd would keep his "consistant work" and be the main bread-winner, while Sarah would pop out of the Oval Office every couple minutes to make sure the kids were doing their homework?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou do have a point, but there is another one to be made: Sarah got into politics through the PTA. Why did she have so much time for the PTA? Because she wasn't working a full time job. If they had been a two-career family all along she would never have gotten where she did.
That's not just a coincidence. There are two separate issues here, the desire for there to be some cushion available for intense focus on things like the PTA, and the question of whether the roles have to be what they have historically been. To question a, I really think people can go their own way on it, but people who want that cushion should cease being apologetic - since those who don't certainly are not.
As far as whether these roles have to be rigidly based on gender, of course they do not. I imagine things would end up that way more often than not, but I really don't care either way.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMy wife and I raised two good kids; both with good jobs in their mid 20's now. In fact, one of my kids works for the same Fortune 300 company BOTH of us spent our careers at. My wife and I retired early from said company. I'd like to think we're all pretty happy at this point.
So frankly, Suzanne, up yours. It's VERY possible. But like anything else, it takes work.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHow typical. Feminists and their slave-driving husbands just can't STAND another viewpoint. Instead, they must tear down anyone who dares speak against their religion.
Glad it worked out for you. But other people have other opinions. And I would love to know what your wife REALLY thinks about her time spent at the career, instead of bonding with her children.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWait, if you were both at work during the day, who was raising your children?
Suzanne pointed out an uncomfortable fact that feminists have been ignoring for as long as they have been touting the both-parents-working model: that someone still needs to raise the children. In the dual-income-with-kids model, that someone is almost always low-paid women from the working class. So, instead of a man at work and a woman raising the children at home, it is now a man at work, a woman at work, and a woman at the daycare raising the children. Instead of a woman relative raising the children it's . . . a woman employee raising the children. Progress!
That isn't an extensible social model. It's a lifestyle that only works for the wealthy. Who raises the children of the poorly-compensated women who work at the daycare? (If I were to guess, I would say the even-more-poorly-compensated women who work at the ghetto daycare provided free by the local government.)
And is it really in the best interest of the children? If asked who they would prefer to be raised by, a parent or the daycare, what do you think children would choose? And statistically, how significant are the differences in outcomes between children who are raised by a parent in the home and those who are put in daycare or in a nanny's care since they are infants? (I have no shortage of anecdotal indications on that one, but I would love to see some real statistics.)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHere is the problem with the article (the problem with Feminism and the 50/50 marriage in general) people are getting married later in life after they already know what happens in the home.
Consider, if a single man graduates college, gets a professional job, buys his own home, perhaps starts his own part-time business (on the side), feeds himself, does his own laundry, and cleans his own home, how is it ever possible for that man to ever "give all that up in marriage" once he knows he can accomplish it as a single adult? Same is true for women, if she can support herself, buy her own home, keep her home clean and always have dinner on the table, you think she would ever want to alter her lifestyle after she gets married?
The old patters for "men work outside the home, women inside" no longer works because people don't generally get married at 22 anymore. People wait until their 30s. And even the newer feminist models of "50-50" don't work anymore either because both men and women know exactly, PRECISELY, how hard it is (or isn't) for one or the other (or both) to work outside and inside the home. That has thrown the feminist balance completely out the window. SO we have to find a new normal and I'm afraid that Suzanne has not been able to describe that.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI grew up in the traditional father went to work, mother stayed at home, household. That is what we all knew growing-up so that is what I was looking for when it came time to get serious about dating and finding a mate. But, I've ended up alone and after many years of having to do it all by myself, I have found that I do not need a woman in my life to help me with the things I need to do at home. Oh, sure, I have no children to raise, but I cannot do that by myself. A woman friend once told me that there are certain advantages to being a woman, one of which is deciding when to have children. Just stop taking B/C and get the father to pay child support. Now there's an advantage! But I really see no need for a woman in my life, and am seeing that in a lot of the young men that I interact with at work or whereever. We see that no matter what we do... we are wrong, or neanderthal, or whatever. So, I guess that today's men have simply grown tired, or are growing tired, of the state of affairs between the sexes these days. You can have yours. I can do alright by myself. We always hear about women "not needing a man in her life", and she's supported with a hearty, "yo go girl!". But when men say the same kind of thing we don't get support. Perhaps, though, this will become the new normal. It's working well for me.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTo the commenter who wrote “SO we have to find a new normal and I'm afraid that Suzanne has not been able to describe that.”
Fair enough—and excellent point. Here’s my two cents:
It has been my own personal observation that the happiest marriages, the ones with the least amount of strife, are those in which each partner has a clear and distinct role. That does not mean I believe all marriages must function the exact same way. There are all kinds of people in the world and we aren’t all exactly the same, obviously. But that doesn’t negate the fact that MOST women and MOST men fall into patterns that are commensurate with biology.
Most women, no matter how liberated they may be, still choose to care for their babies themselves. They also like to “build a nest,” if you will. They like to decorate, go to Home Goods and Target, and just, well, make a home. Most men, on the other hand, thrive on competition with other men; and the good guys want to spend the money they make on their families.
That doesn’t mean these roles can’t be reversed, but there are often problems when people do. High-profile working mothers suffer unbelievable guilt (which comes from their nature, not from society, as feminists claim) and miss their children terribly when they’re away. They also tend not to marry men who are less ambitious than they are. They say they like the idea of the stay-at-home-dad but often resent being the primary breadwinner and get upset when their child calls out for Daddy instead of Mommy. This is not always the case, but it is often the case; and I think both sexes are taken off guard when this happens.
That said, most mothers in America with children under 18 still choose NOT to work outside the home either at all or only part-time - so it seems to make sense to suggest this type of path for women: go to college (but don’t get degree upon degree over a ten-year period or you'll end up in a pickle); work full-time and live on your own for awhile; choose a man to marry; stay home with the babies when they come; and return to work either full-time or part-time once the kids are in school. Or don’t return at all if you like the freedom and flexibility that comes from being a full-time mom of school-aged kids. After the kids go off to college, the sky’s the limit. That’s because women are having fewer children than ever while at the same time are living longer lives.
Alternatively: go to college; get married and have babies while you’re young; and start your career once the kids are in school. You’ll have decades left to live and zero fertility issues. You’ll also have the added bonus of not having lived the good life prior to settling down, which makes “staying home” and budgeting a thousand times easier. As my father used to say, “It’s much easier to go up in your standard of living than it is to go down.”
In both these scenarios husbands can and should do their part on the home front -- I wasn’t suggesting for a moment that my parents’ model was preferable. I was merely pointing out that the 50/50 model as it’s purported by feminists isn’t possible or even desirable. Not only does it cause endless conflict as couples become resentful over who’s doing what more, most women don’t want to leave their babies and go off to work. Feminists don’t mind – but normal women do.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI would really argue with your statement that the happiest marriages are ones with well-defined roles. The happiest marriages are undeniably the ones in which both spouses work hardest to support the other. Whether this involves more defined or traditional roles or not, you can't go wrong if both people care most about the OTHER partner's happiness.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseABSOLUTELY. And here in lies the gig hook in the feminist b.s. "gimme it all, right now, and don't bother to tell me no, because lots of fringes have my back-----but no one has yours..." Well, i have YOUR back, because it is a natural truth; not a social collective truth of Me-Me-Me. That is is provence of the original Fem. movement. As a battered wife, i protected myself legally with divorce. But i never left my husband. We lived as married until he died. thanks for such a fine response, for which i am VERY grateful. love, maureen
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere are some women who need to work outside the home, but many who say they need to, actually do it so they can have a life with more stuff in it. My mom didn't work until my dad died in his 30's. We had one car. If mom needed the car she took dad to work that day and picked him up. We had one bathroom for a family of six (my mom's family had had one bathroom for a family of 17.) We kids all had to share a bedroom and share our toys.We almost never took a vacation. Dad didn't come home and sit around. He didn't do the cooking, but he did home and car repairs instead of paying for someone else to do it. Too many people give up having a mom at home for the kids to have big houses and multiple cars and vacations.These are wants, not needs.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse' .... she would complain that he didn’t “help out” enough in the kitchen,” and he would try to be of assistance, only to be told he wasn’t doing it right'
FLASHBACKS!!!! I'm having FLASHBACKS!!!! Let me out of the kitchen. PLEASE!!!!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseA great marriage is not 50-50; it is 100-100. Each side gives 100% to the marriage and family. Dividing chores equally is a silly idea; do you also split up what you eat exactly in half? do you spend exactly the same amount on clothes? do you count the hours taking care of the children so you spend exactly the same amount of time with each one every day?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhen we got married almost 20 years ago, my wife became a stay at home mom for what eventually became a 6 member family. Yes we could have used the extra income, but we chose to reduce our spending instead. For those who insist that both parents have to work to maintain their standard of living, have you ever considered adjusting your expectations on your standard of living? Maybe you have and believe that you both have to work. Nothing wrong with that, but something has to slip. We have often marvelled at how people can do it all. I came to realize after a while that no one can do it all; something has to slip; who stays home with the sick kids; who gives up work travel because both cannot be away from home at the same time; which career advances when the other does not.
"...When we got married almost 20 years ago, my wife became a stay at home mom for what eventually became a 6 member family. Yes we could have used the extra income, but we chose to reduce our spending instead. For those who insist that both parents have to work to maintain their standard of living, have you ever considered adjusting your expectations on your standard of living?"
Mmmmm, no.
I'm glad that worked for you but most married people are functionally incapable of doing this. They generally do NOT adjust their expectations and living standards. If mom worked outside the home as a single woman before she got married and she had things (and a certain lifestyle, new car every three years, nail salon, house cleaners, magazine subscriptions, lots of shoes, etc) there are very few women who are willing to give that up. Moreover, if dad worked professionally before he got married and had kids which gave him more than ample spending money for vacations and leisure, he's not giving up the goodies. He's expecting mom to work.
In theory your scenario works. But in reality (with massive credit card debt being brought into a marriage, right along with $100K student loans, cell phones, DirecTV, and who knows how many numerous more monthly expensies that exist now that did not exist for families in the 1950s) your scenario only works if both parties come into the marriage either very young or very financially savvy/stable.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHmmm. Well that certainly is true in some cases. Unfortunately, increasing numbers of people in our country do not know how to discipline themselves or think long term or logically. However, I and many of the families I know have adjusted our lifestyles in order to be a one income family. As the child of a full time working mother when I got married in 1980, we agreed that no matter what I would be home with our children. We had 5. I was full time at home for 20 years. And we ate beans when we had to . My husband worked in sales rather than pursuing other interests. We drove older cars, had no cable tv for most of our life, went camping, didn't go to many movies....blah, blah, blah and so on. It can be done if the couple is motivated and determined. And life can still be great.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse