Are Men Lazy?

The majority of women say they want to be stay at home mothers. What does this mean for the finances of our families?

Are today’s men getting lazy?  I am beginning to wonder because not only are women getting “ahead,” we are falling behind.  Forget society as a whole for a minute.  What does this mean for the finances of our families?

I recently read an article on Forbes indicating that 84 percent of women want to stay home and raise their children. This flies in the face of the The End of Men: And the Rise of Women by Hanna Rosin.  It turns out that even though women have risen, they want to rise further by going back to the old days. Go figure!

To get a real woman’s perspective on this, I asked a young nurse I know.  Her name is Faith, and she is the author of “Preemies In A Pod” where she blogs about premature babies.  I specifically asked for her views on this topic because nurses get paid hourly.  With the opportunity to work overtime and make more money, those that work twelve hour shifts three days a week appear to have plenty of time at home.  Her views confirmed the research.

“Many women wish they had more flexible options for staying home,” she said.  “Some mothers are really stressed out with the pressures of home and work—and children can never be turned off like a job. If a child has special needs or is one of the 12% born premature, affordable day-cares might not accept him/her.  If one of my babies’ parents asked, I would suggest that one of them stay at home if at all possible.”

I wonder how many men are aware of these views? Do we realize that our career-oriented girlfriends will very likely want to stay at home when they have children? (84% is not a small statistic!)

I ask because this has serious implications for how we plan our careers.  It also affects how we manage our money from the dating to the wedding and beyond.  Knowing this, a man might set a goal of being able to financially support his family by himself.  He could also do his part to help the family save money to make staying at home possible for the mother of his children. The man himself might be the one to stay home.

If you’re a skeptic, you probably wonder whether it’s possible to do this.  You likely think that only rich people can afford it, but you might be wrong.  According to Beside Every Successful Man: Getting the Life You Want By Helping Your Husband Get Ahead author Megan Basham, educated women can “have it all.”  The book cites research and anecdotes supporting the idea that men whose wives stay home earn the most in the long-term. Where there’s a will, there’s a way, right?

So I ask:  Have men considered the apparent reality that women still want to spend time at home? Are we putting pressure on ourselves to facilitate this like our fathers did? Or do we think it’s impossible—that dominance both in the home and at work is too much for one gender to have?


Read more: Why Men Can’t Have It All

Image of construction workers courtesy of Shutterstock

About Albert Okagbue

Albert has devoted his life to understanding money and wealth, especially how they mix with culture. He writes and is the author of Stop Budgeting Start Living: How to Sync Your Money and Your Life. He is a licensed Certified Public Accountant and has a Tax & Financial Planning practice in Houston.


  1. Cool Mint Creme says:

    Most men are already putting a sizable amount of pressure on themselves to earn as much as they can; I don’t think they should welcome more pressure in light of a spouse’s desire to stay home.
    The prospects for single-income households depend as much on expectations as income. When spending is kept in check, the move from two paydays to one may become more manageable. When an adult forsakes his or her career, they sometimes lament losing the power of the purse string, or suffer the loss of adult stimulation the workplace at its best provides. You could devote doctoral theses to addressing the dynamics of domestic finance; I don’t know how to nail this question with a crisp one-liner.

  2. Life Lessons says:

    It’s all about choice. It isn’t that all men want one thing and all women want one thing. It seems like what lots of people want is to be able to raise and spend more time with their children.

    Oh and the “good old days’ never really existed. If they had existed, women would not have created the Women’s Liberation Movement.

    • I agree on the children, but I disagree about the good old days. They lasted too long for them to have no benefits. The mere fact that a few women who didn’t like them spoke up loud enough to gather people together doesn’t mean that it had no benefits. You might argue that their usefulness expired, but you’ll need more to support the idea that they “never really existed”.

  3. Laziness doesn’t come into being the breadwinner OR the stay at home parent.
    Both are strenuous and can take a toll, both CAN be rewarding and both are essential.
    Each respective couple needs to decide between one another who will be doing what. All I know for sure is that one of the parents needs to stay home for ultimate family function.

    • Thanks for your comment Mike. I am curious though….why do you say one of the parents needs to stay home? Do you think women are up for marrying men who will be SAHDs? – so far it seems to happen by accident through job loss, or when a child is born and the mother has the higher pay/benefits.

      I feel that while men are up to it, many won’t pursue that path on purpose….and many women will not pursue men like that.

  4. Not buying it says:

    Calling a person or a group of people (Lazy) is passing a judgment based on what I or we think a person or a group of people should be doing or behaving accordingly.

    That being said if a person or a group do not do or behave according to a certain set of expectations, customs, believes or even rules, they risk being called lazy, for example in Japan there is a strange social new trend coming from the young male’s called (grass eaters) which is just a description of the most common trait they have in common(being vegetarian) anyway these male’s for one reason or the other refuse to behave as their fathers & forefathers as typical male’s, so they have been called lazy .

  5. @Albert: I think maybe one should be careful not confuse being jaded about women with someone who’s eyes have been opened to realities that been, for a variety reasons, hidden in plain sight and is simply responding to the new information. I think by and large, most of the commentary is thoughtful,reasoned and is cautionary in tone and texture.I wished I had someone to pull my coattail 50m years ago. And frankly, as I have read comments from most of the women who respond to this site, they don’t get it. I am sure that these are good women but it is their best interest to maintain the status quo.Here’s a personal example.I told my son’s that if a girl says that you are the father of a child she is carrying, the first order of business would be a paternity test. Secondarily,I told them that they had the right to decide, just as she has the right ,to not be a parent.Third, I said that you will not stop going to school in order to get a job so that you can “man up”( I freakin hate that term) and do the ‘right thing.” Needless to say, I was ridiculed by their mother, who couldn’t see beyond the needs of the female mind to be fair to her son’s.At the time, I was paying for private school and was determined not to see the investment go down the drain. My mother grew up on a farm in Texas and had a 7th grade education and had only one sibling go to college. Only one person in my immediate family went to college and I am in college now. My sons, graduates of USF AND UCLA, appreciated it and felt like someone was in their corner. I don’t hate women but I am as suspicious of their motives as they have been taught to be suspicious of mine and rightly so Peace

  6. John Anderson says:

    I think one of the problems is that families break up too early. Kids are moving out when they hit 20 so people are losing the economies of scale. If families stayed together longer, they could save money for a nice house. That way they build wealth instead of paying someone else’s mortgage. They’d also learn to support each other. Raising a kid is hard. Why should it be only two people to raise them? People should look at aunts and uncles, etc.

    An older cousin and her husband always wanted children. He worked mornings in a factory. She worked at night as a nurse. They bought a 3 bedroom house. My mom used to drop me off and my cousin would sit for me and a neighbor girl. My cousin eventually had one daughter, but I still remember times when my cousin would sit for me, my sister, another cousin as well as care for her own daughter. Is it really that much harder watching 2 children than 1.

    Families forgot how to help each other. I think it’s sometimes jealousy, but it is usually better for everyone in the long run as long as everyone pitches in.

    • I agree John. Divorce and broken homes are great for the economy. People will work more and buy more stuff.

      Take it to the next level. When I was little, we didn’t have a VCR until I was 10 – and I’m the youngest of four kids. We watched movies with the neighbors. That’s how I watched RAMBO and a bunch of other action movies.

      Isn’t it interesting that people with so-called “traditional” values end up the wealthiest?!

  7. Albert Okagbue (in the comments):
    “Pressure? Well…there is also strong data that women see parenting as something that requires their presence (“nurturers”) while men see it as something that requires them to create a context where it can happen – through earning, protecting, etc. I’ve read that women “feel bad” when not with their children…but men do not.”
    So in other words pre-feminist pressures are still alive and well in our post-feminist world. It’s easy to see how that causes problems.

    We call it “Having it All” however to me it seems more like an attempt to be both a 1950s dad and a 1950s mom at the same time. Women go off to work, trying to have full time careers equal to that of the men in that field, but they also feel to need to be there for their children. Obviously responsible parenting requires a lot of work, it induces a lot of stress, and means being on call 24/7. But equally obviously it is only half as hard if it is split among two people, or even more (i.e. outside the nuclear family). Men are also pressured to do both, but overall there is a much, much stronger push towards being the breadwinner.

    I think it is obvious that no one should simply give in to whatever their partner’s desires are, and that giving in to social pressures is even worse. So no a man shouldn’t necessarily throw everything into work just because his wife wants to be a traditional mother. However he should seriously consider it. We should all consider the needs of our loved ones, of course they should consider ours. If you can’t have this sort of conversation post-wedding, you have bigger problems to consider. Though apparently the pull of traditional values are stronger than some people realize. Sometimes it’s not that you really consider it a good thing, but when the opposite happens you lose attraction.

    • My favorites:

      “So no a man shouldn’t necessarily throw everything into work just because his wife wants to be a traditional mother. However he should seriously consider it.”

      That “consideration” is what this article is really about. The title may have upset people, but masculinity tends toward this desire. I know this site sort of “redefines” manhood in a more modern sense, but “traditional” manhood is still valid. Some men need to know that even though women CAN work, many of them DON’T want to. Those men won’t find it hard to pick up the slack – pressure or no pressure.

      “Though apparently the pull of traditional values are stronger than some people realize. Sometimes it’s not that you really consider it a good thing, but when the opposite happens you lose attraction.”

      This is a valid point, and another relevant idea. If women want to get their hair done, it means so much more when the man pays for it. It’s not because they can’t pay….they want HIM to pay. Some women even put money in a bank account and let the man treat them with it. The question is how to determine where you fit on the continuum. How to determine where your woman fits.

      • Albert, sorry but that is BS, I don’t sit around hoping that my boyfriend will pay for me to get my hair done. That is such a dumb, sexist example that makes women sound like we are frivolous idiots.

        • I gave an example. Every woman is different. I’m obviously not referring to the hairstyle that you get done everyday. It’s like saying you don’t wait for your husband to buy you food. Of course not. But you might never step into Fogo De Chao unless he’s paying. I can understand if this isn’t your view, but there are women who think like that. There are things in their lives they can get themselves, but those things have no meaning unless it is from a certain person.

          We are both speaking empirically. There are women who think like you…and women who think as I’ve described. My comment refers to the latter – so your attempt to make it a point of contention isn’t helpful to the discussion.

          In the case of a woman who DOES think that way, what are your thoughts?

          • I don’t know any women who expect a man to pay for their expensive hairstyles. But then I have my own career and my own mney. I actually make a bit more money than my boyfriend, and we pay for everything 50-50.

            • @Sarah,

              I applaud you for paying for everything 50-50 with your boyfriend. Unfortunately, that doesn’t mean he’s not spending beyond his means with you. It’s your relationship – I just want to point out that as long as the person with lesser income is paying ANYTHING, there’s always a good chance that he/she is spending more on that 50% than he/she would spend if single. Years ago I couldn’t even afford a date if the girl paid her own way. If you want to test my assertion, find out if he is saving a similar percentage of his income as you are. If the answer is no, then my statement is supported. Not true, supported.

              I’ll respond to your other comment about me being young in a bit. I appreciate your thoughts because they reveal problems I never knew.

      • But seriously, Albert. What is the argument here, really?
        Under what circumstances was the question asked, how was it phrased, and what were the alternative answers?

        And consider the opposite. If you asked a somewhat skewed sample of 1000 men whether they would like to stay at home or continue to go to work if they won a $10 million lottery. Would you really expect less than 84% to answer “Quit my job!” on that question?
        Cause I really think that’s the equivalent to what we’re discussing here.

        • @FlyingKal I’ve got a good response for that one.

          See my article “Money Is Just A Constraint”

          When you ask most people what they want, they assume constraints. When you take them away, their REAL desires come out. Dan Pink actually used this in his book “A Whole New Mind”. He asked “What would you do if you had $10M?” Why don’t you start working towards it now?

          Based on the above, I’m not convinced that these desires are not real. If your point is that men don’t want to work, then we can engage that. There IS a way for a man to only have to work 10 years or 20 years instead of 30 or 40.

          • Thanks for the answer.

            I think the point here isn’t that “men don’t want to work”. The point is what you do with your time. I talk to my friends, the unemployed or retired ones, they all seem very busy anyway, and they all say “Just because you don’t have a job, doesn’t mean that you don’t work…” 😉

          • Hi, and thanks for the answer. 🙂

            No, my point was not that “men don’t want to work”.
            My point was, under what constraints and circumstances do 84 percent of women want to stay at home and raise their children? (The first one being, obviously, to actually have kids, I guess.)

            When I talk to my friends, unemployed or retired, they always have a lot of work to do, they just don’t have a job,,, 😉

          • Sorry for the doublepost!
            During the 4 hours between them, I forgot that the first one was awaiting moderation. I thought I’d forgotten to send it.

  8. Albert Okagbue says:

    You must have missed this part at the end of paragraph 6:

    “The man himself might be the one to stay home.”

    In my view, the same procedures (financial) will apply regardless of who will stay home.

  9. So woman should have a choice to either work or stay at home, while the only choice men have is to work ?
    Funny how it’s always man who are told to sacrifice.

    The man’s interest should be first and foremost in weather he wants to become the sole breadwinner of the family or not.

    • I guess I associate with a rare breed of women because I haven’t met more than 1 in my social circles who would want to be a stay at home mother. Not for economic reasons either. Just because they want time away from the kids and with adults and because they want to feel like they are doing something more than just raising kids. In fact some of those same women I hang out with wouldn’t mind having a stay at home dad in their lives. I don’t know a lot of men who want to be stay at home dad either.

      Regardless of who is going to stay at home I am of firm belief that is one of those conversations that should be held prior to the decision to have children. Is anyone going to stay at home and who and why? Followed shortly by expectations of lifestyle conversations and fiscal realities of the person who will be breadwinner. I probably could support a stay at home father a child. I don’t want to. I don’t enjoy being the sole breadwinner in a household (been there and done that). I get kind of resentful about it. So I don’t hook up with guys with that expectation anymore.

      • Albert Okagbue says:

        Yes. I would say the breed you associate with are rare. Make sure they have had kids though…because this 84% is not women without children. Women’s views are career-career until they have kids and then it’s kids-then-everything-else.

        Your statement about feeling ” like they are doing something more than just raising kids” sucks. You make it seem like a woman is above raising her kids. I don’t know what to say to that. What I will say though, is that contrary to popular belief, stay-at-home parents can actually do A LOT. For example they can be self-employed, freelance, and they can interact with other stay-at-home moms (Adults). I think your comment is wrong, but it reflects conventional views about parenting…the idea that it’s not “enough” for a woman to be a mother, and that being a mother means having no adult interactions whatsoever. Simply not true – unless you want it to be!

        It’s no surprise that you don’t want to “support” a SAHD. Again, you think the person earning money is more important – or you’d realize that the SAHD is supporting you as well. Do you see how your views paint the situation in a negative way?

        I’m not judging YOU, just pointing out that your views are a choice. They are not the only way to see that situation. Not from a financial perspective, a psychological perspective, or even a cultural perspective.

        • My sister stayed one with her kids for awhile, and she said she couldn’t wait to go back to work. She’s not a career woman — she had an administrative type job with a government agency, not a fast track high paying job. She loves her kids and she’s a great mother. But she said she felt like her brain was turning to mush. She got tired of everything in her life beng baby-baby-baby all the time, she got tired of the tedium of constant domestic chores and child care tasks and she felt bored and trapped. Luckily by brother-in-law’s mom was able to provide child care so they never had to put the children in day care or anything. They were fortunate. They also needed 2 incomes because my brother-in-law is a schoolteacher and doesn’t make a ton of money. They have always had a modest lifestyle but raising 2 kids on my brother-in-law’s income, in California, would have been tough.

          • Pardon me, but I’d like to correct you a bit.

            “They also needed 2 incomes because my brother-in-law is a schoolteacher and doesn’t make a ton of money. They have always had a modest lifestyle but raising 2 kids on my brother-in-law’s income, in California, would have been tough [without having to live like poor people].”

            Even though a teacher doesn’t make much, he makes more than some FAMILIES. There are very few things that you can’t make up for with someone who stays at home – health insurance maybe….but wait, a teacher gets that.

            Priorities priorities priorities. People only want to stay at home if they can have enough money to buy XYZ. Do they need XYZ? Maybe not. Do they have to BUY XYZ – or can they make up for it? Usually.

            Food for thought.

  10. Just wanted to say that I really appreciated the lively discussion in the comments here. Also, @Albert I really appreciate the article and the fact that you have replied to most of the comments. I really like this site so far!

  11. In Australia stay at home parents are becoming rare, the cost of living is skyrocketing. Electricity prices shot up a bit, insurance, etc is rising, rent and house prices, cost for food, it all adds up. Often you need dual incomes to support a household these days.

    • Archy – that takes us back to the question of “lifestyle”. If a woman gets to spend lots of time with her kids (or man for that matter) and costs go up, he/she would only need to work more if the money was “barely enough” before. I doubt that is the case with many people.

      Obviously, money and the things it buys are ranked higher than say, family time. I’m not judging…just pointing it out. Glad to hear it’s not just in the U.S.

  12. My workplace is full of working women…some of the high-powered ones have SAHDs….some of the women are divorced and have grandparents helping out with child care….

    Meanwhile, in my suburban neighborhood, there are some women who stay at home, but also, quite a few who telecommute or write or sell vitamin water (Amway-like setup) to bring in extra income…some of these women have invented things that they market online or whatever….

    There are so many more creative solutions today for both women and men…

    • Yes Leia there are. Personally, I am working hard now so that I will be able to work from home when I have kids. I already have a growing tax & consulting practice. There’s also flex-schedules and telecommuting. 🙂

  13. First off, those survey statistics are misleading. The surveyed sample of 1000 women (hardly a large number) came from the online communities of ForbesWoman (a site aimed at working mothers) and TheBump (a site aimed at mothers of small children); therefore, the sample suffers from selection bias. The women who frequent that site most likely already have children and/or jobs and would be more likely to express a wish to have more time with their children than a more representative sample that would include women who had made other choices or were in different socioeconomic brackets than the readers of Forbes and mommy-bloggers (who tend to be white, middle to upper class, and educated). Furthermore, there is not information given as to how the sample was chosen or administered; did they post an online poll (in which only those people with certain convictions or interests would be motivated to participate) or mail out surveys (in which response rate is a major indicator of data quality) or conduct personal interviews? The accuracy and reliability of the information is directly related to the data collection process.

    Nonetheless, the “choice” of whether one parent can take time out from the workplace to raise children is simply not on the table for a majority of working parents in the US who need two incomes to get by. The article is misleading if it is interpreted as “84% of ALL women of childbearing age in the US would rather stay home and raise kids than work”. Even among parents who can take some time away from the workplace and do so, the majority of those will return to the workforce after their children are old enough to be in school full-time, and more male parents are choosing to or expressing a wish to be able to spend more time raising their small children. Many lower income/working class parents trade off primary parenting duties depending on shift work, periods of unemployment, and seasonal employment. Framing this as a women vs. men or stay-at-home-parent vs. working parent issue is polarizing as well as misleading. Most families piece together a joint plan for caretaking and raising small children in a patchwork of strategies that are driven by changing family needs, employment opportunities, and other responsibilities or events (elder care, major illness/disability, job transfers, etc).

    Furthermore, the age of first marriage is climbing as well as the number of couples who choose not to get married or choose not to have children is also on the increase. We live in a time of great technological, economic, and social change. No one group is becoming “lazy” or “entitled” or “ambitious” as a whole, but individual people/couples/families are finding individual ways to navigate their particular circumstances, same as every generation. That said, choosing one’s partner wisely, communicating openly and honestly, and assessing options and making plans as a team rather than as adversaries offers a much more positive probability of success.

    • wellokaythen says:

      You can tell the Forbes sampling was a little unrepresentative when the article talked about a typical woman as married, working for a nice salary at a corporate job, and owning a golden retriever. Please. All those women who fall into none of these categories, raise your hands.

      For one thing, in the U.S. today the majority of women are actually single, and the percentage of younger women who do not and will not have children is growing steadily, somewhere around 20-25% of all women I think will be childless/childfree. I’m not sure how 84% of women want to be stay at home wives when only 49% of women actually have husbands and only 80% actually have children!

    • Oho- @kaija thank you. The 1% do come in both sexes and they all have a sense of entitlement.

    • Albert Okagbue says:

      Kaija – are you a professional researcher? I think the question remains.

      It seems what you are saying is that the people surveyed are at a high socio-economic status and that they are married with kids. Well, most people that read this site are young enough and hard-working enough that THAT will be them someday. I don’t assert that ALL women want to stay home with kids NOW. The survey simply indicates that many women will want to stay home when they have kids.

      Look at it another way. If all the statistical failings you mention account for a 50% reduction in accuracy, my question would still remain. 42% of women would still be a number worthy of consideration.

      • A lot of women may answer “yes” to the question “would you like to stay home with the kids” because in a perfect world, it sounds like it would be the best option. I suspect many ofmthose women don’t see it as a realistic option.

        I think you asked men, “would you like to have enough money that you never had to work and could just do what you feel like”, you’d get a lot of men saying “yes.”

        • Actually it’s not impossible. Neither option is particularly difficult for a person well versed in how money works. Then again money is a building block I study and I know how to build cottages and mansions (whatever you like) with it. But then people like me are for hire in every city….

          Maybe people want financial results they think is unattainable so that they always have a financial status to aspire towards or complain about if they don’t have? I’d rather achieve financial goals that make sense, then work towards other goals for the rest of my life….

        • wellokaythen says:

          “A lot of women may answer “yes” to the question “would you like to stay home with the kids” because in a perfect world, it sounds like it would be the best option. I suspect many ofmthose women don’t see it as a realistic option.”

          Sarah makes an excellent point. If you asked me if I’d like to make enough money that I could fully support my wife as a stay-at-home mother, I’d say yes. I don’t have kids and don’t want any kids and don’t have any desire for my wife to be a stay-at-home mom, but if you’re offering me the money so we COULD do that, I’d take it. The women answering yes may be answering yes to the opportunity or luxury offered, not necessarily saying yes to being a SAHM.

  14. @Albert: Yo man what’s up? Good topic and I just wish someone had told me what to really expect.

  15. wellokaythen says:

    I think we probably agree, for the most part, but:

    I don’t think equality means sameness, but equality does require some common ground at some level. Equality does require some sameness somewhere, or else there is no way to measure the equality. A pound of feathers weighs equally to a pound of nails. That doesn’t mean feathers and nails are the same, but a pound is the same as a pound.

    So, with taking care of children, men and women may go about it different ways, but there is a lot of sameness. The kid still needs food and clothing and love. Getting up at 3am means getting up at 3am, no matter what’s between your legs. One person who prefers to stay at home cannot be called lazy while another person who prefers to stay at home isn’t called lazy, if the only difference is gender. I say not.

    Working outside the home is either harder or it isn’t. Not working outside the home is either lazy or it isn’t. If a woman prefers not to work outside the home, she should be considered just as lazy (or not) as a man who prefers not to work outside the home. The work inside the home is much the same.

    • Albert Okagbue says:

      By the way, I was mainly asking about whether we are preparing for ONE parent to stay home. The idea of men being “lazy” isn’t just about whether they are willing to work for their whole lives, it is about whether they are willing to work hard enough in various stages that ONE parent can stay home. It could be the man who stays home. See the end of paragraph 6:

      “The man himself might be the one to stay home.”

      Regardless of who stays home, the same financial/career decisions will apply…

  16. wellokaythen says:

    What a woman wants should be only ONE factor in how a man makes decisions about his career or budget or reproductive life or relationships.

    I missed the part of the article where men make their own decisions in their own individual best interests the same way that women do. Of course a man interested in a committed relationship with a woman should be aware of what the odds are, and he should be aware of what expectations are out there, but ultimately it’s up to him to make his own choices about how he seeks employment or not. Disappointing 84% of women is not the end of the world, frankly.

    Flip it around. Imagine if I wrote a piece saying that 84% of men want their wives to stay at home and not work outside the house. A lot of women would say, “too bad, I’ll decide for myself” or “what century are you from?”

    And, I’ll say what no one else will — parenting CAN be the hardest job in the world, but is it ALWAYS the hardest job in the world? As Louis CK suggests, any job you can do in your pajamas is not the hardest job in the world. Is being a stay-at-home parent never, ever the lazy thing to do? I tend to think sometimes it is. Either way, you can’t say a man is lazy for wanting to be a stay-at-home dad but not call a woman lazy for wanting to be a stay-at-home mom.

    • WELL OKAY THEN!!!! (get it?)

      I agree that what a woman wants should only be ONE factor. I get that. But I think when you know where you’re going, you can let someone else decide whether you’ll ride on a camel, or in a Ferrari. If it matters more to the other person than you, let them pick. As far as you’re concerned the end-goal might matter more. My question is because men DO want to achieve. Most men WILL work their whole lives. So I wonder whether they should plan to work so that the women can SOMETIMES choose not to. That’s all.

      But if equality means sameness (not sure it does), then you’d be right…. “you can’t say a man is lazy for wanting to be a stay-at-home dad but not call a woman lazy for wanting to be a stay-at-home mom.”

      • Albert writes:
        “Most men WILL work their whole lives. So I wonder whether they should plan to work so that the women can SOMETIMES choose not to. That’s all.”

        That’s admirable, but where in msm do we see an equivalent message to women to make sacrificial life choices that boost the happiness and life choices of the men in their lives.

        From most of the editorials, news programs, sitcoms and movies I have seen your article is just adding to the cacophony of voice that tell men to sacrifice to make themselves useful to others. If the mother wants the career track, then there are no shortage of articles telling men to pickup the slack at home. If the mother wants the SAHM track,then there is no shortage of articles telling men to “man up”. This is prevalent in “man down” “man child” “end of men” articles that seem to be coming fast and furious and are trying to shame men into their appointed role.

        The message I see to women is that they “have to start thinking about themselves” for a change.

        In order to have harmony, sacrifice has to be a two way street. If a person were to only read editorials it would seem that this hurricane of male responsibility and female choice is setting women up to be takers and men to be givers.

        Where does men’s happiness and fulfillment fit into this? Doesn’t our happiness and fulfillment matter too?

        • “Where does men’s happiness and fulfillment fit into this? Doesn’t our happiness and fulfillment matter too?”

          John D. This is just one blog post. With one line of questions. That means there are many assumptions. I have to assume that the woman is worth the trouble. Your concerns are valid – perhaps not relevant to this question however.

          There seems to be a “school” of men here who are either jaded towards women by experience, or because they read too many horror stories on the internet. My belief is that if you will choose a woman, it is a woman you will sacrifice for. You will sacrifice for her happiness as she will sacrifice for yours. You will sacrifice for her happiness not because of altruism, because as a man, you need to have some control over her happiness. If your wife wants something and you can’t do anything about it, she’ll likely never get it.

          We buy them flowers, and we rub their feet when their pregnant. The question I have is whether we also consider that they will want to stay home. It’s pretty much cut and dry. Either we consider that we can use our income to make their lives easier (and that we should)….or Not.

          Thanks for your question.

          • Albert,
            I’m not bringing any baggage to this except a neutral respect-for-all stance. I’ve actually been married for 9 years.

            This post you just made is a lot more fair minded than your original article. Yes, men and women do and should sacrifice for each other.

            But, that’s not what I am getting from this article. You’re stating that men should do more because…………..why? It’s the man’s role?

            This is 2012, and equality should be the name of the game. That being the case the hopes dreams and fulfillment of men should be on *equal* footing.

            Instead of the default presumption that men should sacrifice more, how about we let couples sort it out for themselves?

            • Albert Okagbue says:

              Thanks John D – but if we “let the couples sort it out for themselves” then there’s no point to this entire site. 😀

              • But a default belief that men are shirking their fare share (or as you seem to be implying shirking “manning up” and doing the unfair larger share to give women a boost) isn’t beneficial or fair or based in reality or equality.

                Shaming of men to “do more” isn’t any more beneficial than to shame women to “have less sex”. It’s all the same sh*t.

                • I think you’re reading far too much into my article. What I BELIEVE is that people should plan their finances based on the future as well as the present. I wonder how many men are planning based on a future in which a woman has more than 50% chance of wanting to not work. There are plenty of men who are planning to be able to afford houses, vacations etc….my question is if they have considered the idea of having a SAHM?

                  It’s really that simple. I’m not out to ruffle feathers – and frankly I’m a bit disappointed that the men responding here are so offended by the notion of “providing” that they rarely even answer the actual question. Everyone sets out to discredit the research – instead of answering the basic question. (You can move on to my reply to your next comment)

              • I wonder what a female equivalent to this article would look like? Maybe wives should be having more sex with their husbands?

                I don’t think it’s particularly fair to shame men into doing anything, just as we would never expect an article to be published that shamed women into doing anything.

                The funny thing is I have seen posts from Noah & Ozy’s book about the male straight-jacket of acceptable behaviors which was called the “man box”.

                This article reinforces this male-provider stereotype. I’m really surprised to see this article at tgmp.

                I hope this comment gets through moderation, as it is only through conversation that we can achieve anything. At least that is what is constantly said here on tgmp.

                • I take it that you’re not a “provider-type” male, and that’s perfectly fine. But please remember that the “provider-type” has been around for thousands of years and even “The End of Men” will not put him out of business. Rather, his “providing” will change.

                  This article does not lump all men in one category – read it again if you like. You must be particularly sensitive to the “provider-stereotype”…why is it? You don’t think you can earn enough so that your wife won’t have to work? Or you think you can but don’t think it’s “worth it”? The latter seems to be the consensus in this discussion – but it doesn’t mean that such men don’t exist.

                  We’re still expected to pay for dates. Even 50-50 – in a world where women really should be picking up the tab. Notice how Sarah (another commenter) pointed out that she and her boyfriend split bills 50-50? She should pay 100% since she earns more…that’s what men have done forever right? The reality is that no matter what happens, there is a certain responsibility (financial or otherwise) that we will never be able to run away from. Maybe it’s our fault for holding on to it. Maybe it’s the women for making us perform it.

                  Regardless, the questions in this article remain valid to men – whether or not they are valid to YOU, man though you might be.

  17. One of the many elephants in the living room of American society is that our notions about the nuclear family are incompatible the what we permit in terms of the distribution of wealth. When 1% of citizens own everything and everyone, it’s simply not possible for the rest to rear their children well. Good child rearing requires a huge commitment of time, resources, patience, energy, and cash, and the economic situation of the overwhelming majority of American children provides little of this.

    According to Save the Children, the US ranks 25th in the 43 Tier 1 developed nations in terms of the best places to raise a child. Whatever we say, in practice, we love our rich people far more than we love our children.

    In the US, The conventional two-parent nuclear family is no longer economically viable. We cling to our “Father Know’s Best” delusions, ignoring the statistics that show how our prescription-drugged, fat children grow up ignorant, greedy, and useless, accidentally pregnant and riddled with STDs, assuming they’ve survived an infant mortality rate which is the shame of the developed world.

    What else do we have the right to expect of them, as the luckiest of their parents lead anxious, miserable, meaningless lives in corporate veal fattening pens, popping antidepressants like breath mints, and the worst off subsist in fear, teetering on the brink of the gutter? The notion of a parent dedicated the bulk of his or her time to child rearing was a brilliant, mid-20th century invention with little historical precedent. Sadly and unsurprisingly, it proved incompatible with valuing wealth above all else. A nation of “temporarily inconvenienced millionaires” has certain priorities, and raising a generation of secure, knowledgeable, sane, caring children can never be high among them.

    America is run by and for the very few at the terrible expense of the many, and as always, our children bear the brunt of our failure to work toward a just, decent, and sustainable society.

    • “The notion of a parent dedicated the bulk of his or her time to child rearing was a brilliant, mid-20th century invention with little historical precedent. Sadly and unsurprisingly, it proved incompatible with valuing wealth above all else.”

      Bryan – you have touched on my problem with all “financial” discussions. The goal should never be to make the most money – or to beat the market. It should be to make ENOUGH for one’s particular needs.

      Thanks for your eye-opening comment. Now what do we do?

  18. @Albert:For me, a 57 year old former stay at home dad, who was treated rather rudely and miserably for doing the right thing, I have learned this.If men want to be happy they must stop defining their potential happiness through her eyes and through the aegis of marriage..You will be put on a never ending treadmill that will suck the life out of you. Why? I was told by the Oprah’s and Dr. Phil’s and the Bettye Freidan’s and the Gloria Steinem’s of the world that helping my wife by relieving her of the”‘BURDEN OF FAMILY” I would be respected and appreciated and culture at large would be better; I’m still waiting. These people don’t have a clue.To be fair, eventually my sacrifice, though it was never completely understood, did get appreciated by her but it was years in the coming.What they( culture) didn’t say and still haven’t caught on to is that women are mostly confused and never satisfied when it comes to these issues.Many men have who taken the plunge only to be rejected by said wife as unmanly, or as being too sensitive and sexually unappealing. Many stay at home dads notice immediately that they are treated very different; by by the very people, their wives ,their girlfriends,and culture at large because they are men. Which is definitely what I experienced. Furthermore, they have been told that it is the man’s responsibility to make whatever sacrifice she deems necessary in order for her to have it all.Whenever I meet a woman who is trying to have it all, I run as fast as I can in the opposite direction,with the quickness.To men I say get off the treadmill. If you want kids, adopt,use a surrogate, think outside of the box! Either that or risk throwing away your life trying to please someone who hasn’t thought through their own issues enough to have any sort of consistency.Stop providing and protecting. Women fight in the MMA ,they box in the Olympics, they run companies and they say they are independent, let them prove it.

  19. Valter Viglietti says:

    “84 percent of women want to stay home and raise their children”
    Mhh. You know, most people long for what they haven’t.
    When most women were stay-at-home, they longed for working, careers and financial autonomy. Now that they are having that (and it doesn’t feel as great as they thought), they long for being at home.
    Is it what they really want… or is it the classic “the grass is greener on the other side” event? :roll:

    Two incomes are a necessity depending on the chosen lifestyle: families “of yore” were single-income also because their lifestyle was MUCH lower than what we take for granted nowadays.
    I wonder: those 84% women would settle for a lower lifestyle, or would they put the economic pressure of a modern lifestyle on the husband’s shoulders alone?
    Are they ready to sacrifice “luxury” and niceties for the privilege of being at home, or do they “want it all”? 😕

    “According to […] author Megan Basham, educated women can “have it all.” ”
    Nobody can have it all (or, maybe, a lucky 0.001% of the populace). Life just doesn’t work that way.
    “The book cites research and anecdotes supporting the idea that men whose wives stay home earn the most in the long-term.”
    Likely, but those same wives usually complain about their men being always working, distant and not having time for their children.
    “Having it all” is a dangerous delusion, similar to the fairy tale “… and they lived happy everafter”.
    In reality, there’s always a trade-in: you gain something in exchange for something else, you choose something and renounce to something else. It’s a law of Nature: action and reaction.
    Thus the real question, the question that I would pose to those women, is: what are you ready to renounce, to get what you want?

    • Valter – I like your question. I have one better. Are women ever satisfied?
      Seems like they’re not…on the surface at least. I don’t know.

      You’re right that those women complain about their men always working. You’re right that women won’t give up luxuries…You’re right about so many things.

      • Valter Viglietti says:

        @Albert Okagbue: “Are women ever satisfied?”
        A good question. Here’s an even better one: Are humans ever satisfied?
        The answer is, obviously, no; never (save for a handful of enlightened people).
        That issue is not about women alone (although it might seem so, because the contemporary world has shifted the focus from men to women).

        The real issue, I think, it’s the delusion that “You can have it all”.
        As long as one believes that, he will keep wanting more and more, always struggling and complaining, always thinking that “That one more thing will make me happy”… and always dissatisfied. 🙁

        The problem is, we’ve been sold a hoax. And most people keep running after that hoax.
        In the USA that hoax has been called “The american dream”. 😉

        • @Valter Viglietti perhaps I am one of those “enlightened” people…because I don’t understand humans. Read my other articles, and you’ll see. There’s something everyone believes (“American Dream”?) which is making them miserable – but I will have none of it.

          I am 100% sure that a person can become satisfied with the MEANS of gaining satisfaction. Your house, car, whether you work at home or in a career, etc are all part of the means. They won’t make you happy, they will put you in the position to achieve happiness. They are a means to an end. I have decided what my means will be and I’m paying (student loans) for it…I want to make a life based on knowledge and thought – rather than “action”…I am an “artist” not a “technician”.

          I think perhaps people are far to extrinsically motivated. The solution to their problems is always OUTSIDE them – rather than within. Let’s just say that your comments have been both insightful and JARRING. I am reminded that many people (men and women) don’t really know what they want. The grass is always greener on the other side for most people – not EVERYONE – but most.

          • Valter Viglietti says:

            @Albert Okagbue: “I don’t understand humans”

            I think I do. 🙂
            – Humans are mostly emotional creatures, who believes they are rational.
            – Humans will do almost anything to escape these 3 (unavoidable) things: pain, fear and death.
            – Humans are never satisfied; “it’s never enough”.
            The above explains 99% of mankind troubles ever. 😎

            Yet, some people develop enough understanding to escape those traps, hence they develop reasonable happiness and contentment. You can call them enlightened, practical philosophers, wise or – simply – smart.
            You seem one of them. 😉

        • I agree with you wholeheartedly. Life is about choices. If I choose this path then I am knowingly not choosing another. We all have the option of getting off the fast track but many don’t choose it. They are too afraid of what others will think of them. This is why “should” is my least favorite word in the entire English language. Those who do what resonates with them, instead of what the Great They say they should, are almost always happier and more content with what they have.

          I appreciate the timing of this post as it coincides with my next post on 3 Ways to End the Battle of the Sexes.

  20. I’ve noticed there seems to be growing pressure during the past 10-15 years for women to be stay-at-home mothers, especially with the rise of extended breastfeeding and “attachment parenting”. A lot of young women feel that their children will suffer irreparable harm otherwise. However, the economic reality is that two incomes are usually needed to support a middle class lifestyle, and for working class parents, two incomes are needed simply for survival. Women may imagine that staying at home is preferable, at least while children are young, but I think most also realize it is probably not feasible.

    • Pressure? Well…there is also strong data that women see parenting as something that requires their presence (“nurturers”) while men see it as something that requires them to create a context where it can happen – through earning, protecting, etc. I’ve read that women “feel bad” when not with their children…but men do not. Perhaps “attachment parenting” is what happens when women whose husbands make enough choose what they think is best? There is plenty of research also that indicates a a correlation between trouble and dual income households. See for example.

      I guess my question to you is why is the middle class lifestyle more important than all the benefits that might come from one parent staying at home – not the least of which is the parents own satisfaction?

      • All I mean by middle class lifestyle is a home, 2 cars, health insurance, reasonable (not excessive) possessions, enough money for a few activities and a vacation once or twice a year. I think men want that as much as women. No one chooses poverty if they can help it.

        • Thanks for the clarification. My question would therefore be “at what cost”?

          I was just discussing with my girlfriend that when we’re married I can drop her at work and pick her up. Why, you might ask? We’d get to spend more time together!

          I think poverty is under-rated. It’s an income designation. I’d rather be poor than miserable – and many middle class folks are miserable.

          • I’ve been poor, and I’ve had enough money to live comfortably. Haing some money is better than being poor any day.

          • I haven’t lived poor, but I’d like to have enough income to have security and peace of mind. That said, my parents are from India and thus lived a frugal lifestyle – something which I’ve picked up. You’re absolutely correct that an increase in luxuries and extra possessions actually detracts from human bonding and relationships.

          • Avoiding poverty has a massive influence on stress and happiness levels. There is a strong effect of diminishing returns, but YES money affects happiness, and yes it affects how your children grow up. If poverty is a real possibility, the question of “Should there be a full-time parent?” is both irrelevant and ignorant. This has always been true. While there are some upper class children whose parents should work less and parent more, lower class parents will never consider that an option, nor should they.

            • Albert Okagbue says:

              I have to agree with you on this one.

              “If poverty is a real possibility, the question of “Should there be a full-time parent?” is both irrelevant and ignorant. This has always been true.”

              Sounds fair to me. But…

              “While there are some upper class children whose parents should work less and parent more, lower class parents will never consider that an option, nor should they.”

              It’s a matter of priorities and sticking to your guns. Having a stay-at-home parent is an environmental issue. That means that if you want it, it has to be either your ultimate goal, or the context for everything else. People work two jobs, but spend all the money before it can put them in that position. This goes for “upper-class” as well as lower class.

              At the same time, the so-called “upper-class” are sacrificing so that one parent can stay home. That family living in a $1M house with a stay-at-home house would live in a bigger house and have more if she worked – and believe me they would like it. But the difference is that they perhaps plan better and are more willing to stick to their guns.

              If you have a moment, check out my post about Maslow’s Hierarchy

              Most people don’t work “up” the pyramid, they constantly go back to the bottom and spend more. If you already have a house, why buy a bigger one? Instead, use money to free yourself more…but people don’t think like that. They just don’t.

              Mormons are the only group of Americans I can see who consistently insist on a family model, and make everything else work. Even when the man makes $40K a year, the wife stays home (does something part-time) and they share one car. They look crazy. Crazy happy.

              • A lot of people need two incomes to afford ANY house, even a small house.

                • Now you’re leading me to ask why a person needs a house in the first place. When you make that little, you probably should rent. But that’s another discussion.

                  Americans are convinced that everyone should “own” a home….

                  • Rents can be prohibitive too! The rent on a 3 or 4 bedroom house can be higher than a mortgage in some places.

                    Now you are going to say “why rent a house? Live in a studio apartment and sleep on the couch with your kids. You don’t need vacations – just walk around the mall, it’s free. You don’t need a tv, just look out the window and watch the crime going on in your crappy neighborhood. You don’t need a 401k plan, when you get old, you can live on charity and social security.”

                    I don’t think there is anything wrong with wanting a reasonable middle class lifestyle for yourself and your kids, rather than living in poverty. I get the feeling you are young. I suspect once you’ve had more life experience, you will understand better what I’m talking about.

                    • @Sarah

                      Actually you’re wrong in your prediction of what I would say – though in your cynicism you have some great ideas. Sure they can live in a studio (if code allows). Why not live in a studio with a baby, and move when the baby is too big for a studio? Of course they can walk around the mall too – they’ll be healthier for it – that’s where their kids will hang out as teens anyway. However, crime is not acceptable and charity and social security won’t be enough. Do you see my point?

                      You talked about rent…well, let me tell you a secret. Most workers earn about the same for the same job. BUT some cities and states are cheaper than others. Some have higher taxes too. The biggest way people screw themselves is by insisting on living in an expensive place. The economy is diverse, but most people will only get paid so much for any given job or business…so you have to pick your home wisely.

                      When I was in graduate school, I wanted to work in New York, LA, London, or Paris. London is where the modern Accounting profession started – most big Accounting firms are actually headquartered there (not New York) – so it was important to me. But guess what? It won’t work. Cost of living is too high. So I moved to the largest city I could afford – Houston – and I’m not leaving unless/until I’m earning $200K a year.

                      People that don’t want to have financial difficulties need to make decisions as such. Otherwise, they WILL have financial difficulties. Regardless of how much or how little you earn, or where, or the size of your family, there is someone living well on that income. They either have more discipline than you (not likely) or they have a different culture or philosophy about life.

                      These people don’t have preconceived notions about too many things, and understand that money is a constraint ( They create a happy life at their lowest income, and understand that if they want more, the money has to enter their bank account FIRST.

                      Some of these people are the teachers that never earn more than $40K a year, yet retire comfortably. Others will go on to become millionaires. BUT what you just read describes most people whose bank accounts make them smile at 40 or 50.

                      You say I’m young, and you’re very right. But what does that really mean? That I’m stupid? I’m sorry to disappoint you, but I learned 99% of the above from “old” people – through three years of research. I didn’t make any of it up. I get paid to help people make good financial decisions, so the only answers I can provide without being sued are the right ones. This has nothing to do with age.

                  • @Albert, I’m not trying to say that you are stupid because you are young. That’s not what I meant. I just look back on my attitudes when I was in my 20’s and I realize how I didn’t really understand the harsh truths in life then. As I’ve gotten older, I’ve seen people struggle with job loss and no health insurance and no stable place to live and no retirement savings and kids with educational problems and disabilities. All those things are easier to deal with when you have money. You get older, it becomes exhausting to survive from paycheck to paycheck. There is nothing noble about poverty. Money gives you freedom and options. Poverty is a prison.

  21. Women give birth.

    Men build civilizations.

    It’s a lot easier for a woman to give birth.

    • I can agree with that somewhat in the sense that the traditional feminine role is within the control of the parent. A woman can condition and train children to be whatever she wants….men cannot do the same with employers and the economy.

      However I could also disagree. I could say that most women give birth, whereas most men don’t build anything worth remembering after their dead (“civilizations”).

      My thinking here is inconclusive…..

    • “Men build civilizations” is completely false. Traditionally men have greater power and responsibility than women, on average, but the idea that women do not labor to “build civilization” is absurd. The work of women has always and will always be essential for the continued existence of civilization, which will always include more than raising children due to sheer necessity. Any civilization that ignored the capability of half the populace would…well not actually happen. Also the concept of “building civilization” is misleading. There is a lot of hard work and thought that goes into civilization besides building things.

      • Albert Okagbue says:

        That’s the best thing about the Good Men Project. Everybody gets to be very specific about what they think a man is or isn’t. We also end up defining ourselves by how we are NOT women….thanks for the comment QuantumInc.

  22. The title of this seems only tangentially related to the content, and seems deliberately written to be insulting. Pretty cheap attention grabbing tactic there. Or are you trying to imply that men are in fact lazy if they dont plan their own careers around giving women what they want?

    • There’s no cheap attention-grabbing tactic. Maybe I would have preferred “Are Today’s Men Lazy?”
      This exchange would work so much better if you share your response to the questions:

      Have men considered the apparent reality that women still want to spend time at home? Are we putting pressure on ourselves to facilitate this like our fathers did? Or do we think it’s impossible—that dominance both in the home and at work is too much for one gender to have?

      • Who says being the sole provider is dominating? The meat of your article seems to suggest something other than domination by being the sole provider.

        If 84% of women want to be full time caregivers, that is surely because they see it would benefit them? They would be freed of workaday issues of politicking with office employees, working against deadlines, working with antagonistic bosses etc..

        In other words you spend your entire article telling men they *should* plan on earning enough money to *provide the leisure* to their wives of staying home full time.

        If you are providing access to wealth for a non-working spouse, that’s the furthest thing from domination I can think of when that spouse will be freed of workaday troubles, and be able to plan their day and tasks w/out a boss looming over their shoulder.

        That’s not domination, that’s sacrifice. Men *used to be* respected for doing that. They no longer are.

        As Girl Writes What says: men used to charge full-tilt on the hamster wheel when they were meet with gratitude and appreciation. But, they no longer do that if when they look in the mirror they are going to see a Ray Barone.

        Men’s attitudes don’t happen in a vacuum. Men’s attitudes have a lot to do with women’s attitudes.

        The change in men’s attitude (mgtow Men Going Their Own Way, the marriage strike, the “man-down” syndrome in which men no longer buck for promotions, get married and start families, gain training has a lot to do with men who *do* execute these things being viewed and treated by women as chumps.

        Look at the divorce rate. 70% of divorces are initiated by women who (mostly) divorce simply because they are bored.

        That man’s willingly gifted sacrifice will be turned into a state enforced (upon incarceration) slavery. This man who is an economic slave will only be allowed to see his children 6 days a month.

        Additionally, the negligible parental rights of fathers flows through the mothers permission. If a mother wishes it she can obstruct his parenting time w/little consequences from family court. In most states she can also move 1000’s of miles away (or even to other countries) without the court weighing the destruction of the father child bond.

        When men are thanked for their sacrifice again, then more men will do so.

        But expecting men to just “slave up” without addressing the behavior and views of women (enacted against men who do “slave up” ) is just looking at half the story.

        • Thanks John D for your thorough response. I am speechless…

          The following is especially shocking:

          “That’s not domination, that’s sacrifice. Men *used to be* respected for doing that. They no longer are.”

          I recently spoke to a young woman about expecting too much. Maybe women expect results that aren’t guaranteed by the sacrifice of men? Men perhaps still struggle, but their efforts just don’t provide $$$ like it used to?

          This is a great comment. Thanks.

          • I appreciate this thread very much. It reminds of a couple I counseled where the woman had two antagonistic expectations: she believed the man should be the primary breadwinner; and she believed she was entitled to a certain lifestyle. The main problem was that she married a teacher. She resented having to work at a high level job to maintain their standard of living. Her solution was for him to change careers. I see some form of this argument all the time.

            We keep trying to run away from our biological, evolutionary underpinnings and spend an incredible amount of time blaming each other instead of finding a workable solution. Our culture’s unrelenting focus on acquiring stuff drives a lot of it. I mean, do we really need to spend two days in line waiting to spend $600 for a phone so we can spend more time avoiding being in relationships with the people in the same room? Do we really need ever bigger homes so we don’t even have to be in the same room with the people we live with?
            Couples need to honor and respect the contributions each partner makes. We are designed to work together but somehow have really lost sight of that.

      • Your preferred title still seems to be implying the same thing – that men are lazy if they don’t plan their careers around giving women what they want.

        As for your questions, yes, I initially did plan my career to allow the option of being a sole provider for a family, and I pushed myself hard (I certainly wasn’t lazy). I don’t think this way any more though. A man who pays attention to the divorce rate (over 50%) and the percentage of cases in which custody is assigned to the mother (over 90%), and to how men are devastated financially and personally by divorce soon comes to the conclusion that marriage is a very risky proposition.

        It’s ironic that now women seem to want the very same thing that Feminists, only a few short decades ago, struggled mightily to free them from. You know, the thing that they claimed was caused by oppression at the hands of men? Perhaps it wasn’t really oppression at all, and now that women have gotten to experience the great careers we men are so “privileged” to have they decide that they don’t like them so much after all, and would rather have what they had before.

        Unfortunately though, society has changed.  Now we have Equality. One of the outcomes of this are the serious risks for men now associated with divorce. We also have an educational system that favors girls  over boys, with the result that women now outnumber men in University graduations, meaning less men in high powered jobs. And we have a trend of delaying marriage, meaning that men don’t get the signal from women that they should start preparing to be a husband until their late twenties/early thirties (giving them more time to realize their growing relative attractiveness to women, and to become more aware of the risks of marriage before becoming committed).  Also sex outside of marriage is much more easily obtained than in the past. For some men at least. The men who can get easy sex have less reason to marry in order to get sex (why buy the cow…). The men who can’t get easy sex (coincidentally the very same hard working guys who probably could support a stay at home mum) get angry and drop out when they realize the script of being a responsible, good, nice man doesn’t get them the girl like they were told it would.  

        All this adds up to bad news for women who want to marry and be a stay at home mum. 

        Only now that women have been given the “privilege” of having a career do they realize it’s not really a privilege at all, it’s a requirement. Those women are going to NEED to work those jobs to support themselves, just like men do. Like men have ALWAYS done. Don’t complain ladies, you asked for it.

        • ***Applause***
          Well said! I’m going to send this to my editor. This HAS to make “Comment of The Day”!

          “Only now that women have been given the “privilege” of having a career do they realize it’s not really a privilege at all, it’s a requirement. Those women are going to NEED to work those jobs to support themselves, just like men do. Like men have ALWAYS done. Don’t complain ladies, you asked for it.”

          • Thanks for the kind praise Albert.

            By the way, in case it wasnt clear, “Apolloapo” in that comment above is the same “Apollo” who posted earlier in this comment thread – I just typoed my name in the comment above and didn’t notice until after I hit Post.

  23. There was a little bit running around the Internet last month to the effect that…
    “If you are anti-abortion, you should be pro- universal health care”
    So the analogy here would be
    “If you believe that Moms belong at home, you should be pro collective bargaining”
    How else are men going to obtain a wage that will support a family.
    Because I have,to tell you- the second income in a family no longer seems to be an option……
    How many of these 84%’of women wishing to stay home want to forego pillates, nail salon visits & dinners to go?
    “Are Men Lazy?” my bleeding ass…..

    • How many of these 84%’of women wishing to stay home want to forego pillates, nail salon visits & dinners to go?

      I think you make an excellent point here J.A. Drew Diaz. It is said that women influence over 80% of all purchase decisions. Your question leads me to wonder if they HAVE to work because of the lifestyle that they require? If you look at my other article “Dating While Broke” ( you might consider that male spending mirrors female standards…and that those women who can’t stay home are in that position because they wanted a nice house in a good neighborhood, and “pillates, nail salon visits & dinners to go”….

      Your comment is certainly moving this in a direction I didn’t expect when I initially wrote the piece. Thanks!


  1. […] This is a comment by Todd Mauldin on the post “Do Guys Fight For Their Friendships? (Hint: NYT says ‘No’; I say ‘Hell, Yes’…“ […]

  2. […] It sparked a serious discussion resulting in over 80 comments in one week. Check it out… […]

Speak Your Mind