Psychology Today article about marriage portrays husband as chimpanzee

I mean, never, ever, unless there are serious exigent circumstances-- eg, they cannot work because of a serious disability that is so bad it qualifies even for gov't disability. It is a supremely bad idea. In any case it's bad for one's mental health, generally, not to be at least somewhat gainfully employes, or at least that is what I have noticed. Even trust fund babies do better psychologically when they have a part-time job stuffing envelopes or something like that.

As for this article, well: BARF! The excerpt says everything, doesn't it? Man scarifies personal life for wife and kids, wife and kids repays this by leaving him (wife taking kids, that is), and the silly bastard eventually comes to blame himself for being what? "Too non-controlling" or some BS like that? Tell me, when is a man doing anything right? Either he is controlling (ie, too controlling) or non-controlling (ie, too non-controlling). Any way he is in this fashion vis-a-vis his wife and/or kids, it's wrong. This article is more of the same BS that we see in other places, just laid out in an shamelessly anti-male way.

What do you expect when the man in the photograph is portrayed as a chimpanzee? It's only natural that the article would be packed with misandric bs. It's basically a way of trying to get men to bend over backwards even more in relationships and blame themselves for all the problems.

I also completely agree on not dating someone who doesn't work. With the rare exception of a few stay-at-home parents who dutifully contribute, these people tend to be the most useless and self-centered people in the world and don't deserve the attention of productive people. Idleness should not be rewarded on any level.

Evan AKA X-TRNL
Real Men Don't Take Abuse!

I don't agree with you Matt. All my extended family have a high percent of stay-at-home moms and we have very few divorces and we all seem to be happily married and raise self-sufficient healthy kids. All my life including when I was a nanny I saw far less stress in one career families compared to dual career families.

If a man is determined to get married, I think advise should be this... If a working wife is what you desire, then don't marry a woman who wants to be a stay at home mom. And if you want your wife to stay home and care for children, then don't marry a career women. It's all about compatibility and making your desires known and the ability to be flexible depending on financial needs. Don't marry anyone that has different values then yourself when it comes to childcare, career, finances, and shared responsibilities. Otherwise what are you saying to men who want families but do not have careers that allow for a wife to easily pursue her career (like the military, or other careers that require relocating or have other obstacles that would make having a career wife difficult)? Based on your advise these men should not take a wife or have kids because she will be mentally unfit if she is not employed outside the home. I have one male friend that got chosen to do scientific work up in remote Iceland (a 2 year commitment). He took his wife so she had to quit her job to be with him, but according to your advise, he should have divorced her instead to avoid the mental illness she may suffer from not being employed outside the home. They are very happy as it is a once in a lifetime opportunity, but her career will suffer. I don't think she should have refused to go.

"it's bad for one's mental health [to not be employed]" -Matt

Really??? I know many people not employed outside the home that are perfectly mentally stable. These people like myself are busy all day long, physically fit, do stuff for other people, stay social, etc. And their spouses are very happy. As each spouse is doing their share depending on the couple's compatible values.

Could part of your problem with accepting a wife not working outside the home is that you don't think she is doing her share? That seems to be what you hint at in your comments. Fondueguy also says similar stuff. Last time him and I got on this subject he blogged about me at another site and said something to the effect that I would get more out of my husband and he would be happier if I worked outside the home. I am completely shocked by the audasity that he thinks he knows what makes my husband happy or what effect me going to work would have on our homelife (my husband and I both have careers that require working non-traditional hours and overnights, so daycares are not an option). Currently my husband and I are very happy and he would be stressed out and miserable if I decided to go back to work.

I think you are like fondueguy and looking at things through your value system. You would be miserable with a stay at home wife and can't understand how another man might find value in it. BTW, I don't recall you ever giving this type of criticism to stay at home dads, but now according to you they must not be mentally healthy.

I have not checked stats, but based on what I see, men with stay at home wives have more family time, happier families, healthier eating habits, healthier kids, etc. And I have not seen any signs of mental illness in stay at home moms like you suggest. But like I said above, both partners have to want this arrangement.

PS- Matt, I hope I am misinterpreting you....

(And BTW, the link to the article is not working for me -so I am unable to read it)

The page won't load on a mobile device if that's true. Anyway, I'll respond to your comments more later. Thanks as always to you and everyone else who takes the time to post substantive replies, esp ones that challenge the thought and opinions of the OP.

Sorry if my comment offended you, Kris. You may have noticed that I did acknowledge that there are exceptions to the rule, and I specifically had you in mind when I typed that.

A relationship works if there is a fair division of labor. Many women assume the role of homemaker in relationships, while their husbands assume the role of provider. If these relationships work, that's all well and good.

The only problem is, from a male perspective, dating anybody who doesn't work is extremely risky should things not work out. This would make the man liable to pay outrageous amounts of alimony and/or child support (if applicable). As well, generally speaking, it seems people in general, who don't show much ambition to be employed, are usually lazy and self-centered.

This is not to say that is the case for all of the people in this category, it just seems to be the case for the majority. I certainly wouldn't consider a mom who stays home to take care of the kids and home to be in the same category as an entitled princess who thinks she shouldn't have to work cause she's female, while thinking that being responsible for the domestic chores is sexist. Naturally, the same is true with the genders reversed. I would highly advise women not to date men who don't work as well.

Evan AKA X-TRNL
Real Men Don't Take Abuse!

Hi Xtrnl, I agree with much of your reply to Kris, but just to point out, she was replying to me. Still, I am down with much of what you said and you made the point about how when things don't work out, it's really usually bad for the man. Kris I think is assuming that marriages always seem to work out or that people always stay married, or do so generally. I don't know where she lives or who she knows, but that is not true everywhere else.

After a long day...

Anyway, here goes: I was saying that people in general have better mental health (ie, emotionally, and from a sense of self-worth, etc.) when they have jobs that allow them to contribute to society at large. This is a confirmed fact. It's true GENERALLY for both sexes. When certain women insist they want to be stay-at-home moms and get the husband to go for it, then 5 years later (or 2 years, or one year) start complaining bitterly about their burdens and how their husbands don't understand, etc., or divorce the man and get child support and alimony, well... you can see how men in general find the entire thing to be a daunting concept (ie, "traditional marriage"). As Xtrnl pointed out, it's fine if things work out 'til the last breath of the wonderful elderly couple, but in a decent majority of marriages, that is not the case. The divorce rate for second marriages is in fact 67% (see http://www.divorcerate.org/). Averaged together, the three divorce classes (1st, 2nd, 3rd) come to about a 50% split-up rate. (Why you would get married a THIRD time after a second divorce is utterly beyond me.) But anyway, it does not make sense from an actuary's standpoint for a man to get married to a woman who wants a "traditional marriage" given what happens to a man after the papers get served. It almost always leads to serious loss of income for him, separation from his children, and loss of his domicile. Why would any typical man take that risk? Maybe under extraordinary conditions, maybe with a woman he has known for perhaps decades and whose devotion to him is unquestioning, but how many people have that going for them in their lives? Very few I imagine.

If things as you have them between you and your husband are working for you, and you have a rare and special thing going, then I am very happy for you. I just want to stress that what you may have going on in your home is very atypical indeed. I hope that it continues to work out so well for you and he and I am glad it is.

Just in case you haven't done it already, just remove the right parenthesis from the end of the link.

I have to agree for the most part regarding a non-working spouse. Although, I have seen many non-working spouses make it work in the marriage and appreciate the work provided by the working spouse, I have observed a particular trend regarding people who do not work: The less work an individual performs, the more that individual feels entitled to. This has been observed many times as an apartment manager. Those who were on welfare or lived on child support payments had the most self-entitled personality I have known. They believe the world owes them something. This also applies to non-working spouses - they happen to be the most demanding and least appreciative.

MAJ

Thanks for catching that, and for this, too:

'I have observed a particular trend regarding people who do not work: The less work an individual performs, the more that individual feels entitled to.'

EXACTLY! People get all entitled when they don't work. They feel the world owes them something. It is a subconscious thing, I think they think that because they are getting something for nothing, they must be owed it (even if they are not), so they get an attitude that, well, if you owe me this, you must owe me that, too. It really is pitiable and a terrible and unfortunate waste of human potential.

Ironically, from a woman's perspective, having children with a man and staying home to care for them puts a woman at risk should the husband decide to divorce. As that would most likely leave her as a single mother, and then trying to enter a career that she has been absent from and starting at the bottom. I don't know many woman who have received alimony after a divorce, and if they did it was for a very short period, and I know many men who pay out less than half the cost to raise children. After divorce most women go straight into the work force if they were previously stay-at-home moms, and they are financially worse off then before the divorce as one household is then split into two households. This is why feminist frown on a woman staying at home and are always suggesting that a woman demand that her career get equal respect throughout her marriage (in other words, no relocating for a husband's promotion). They also tell women to never have more than 2 children. So it seems both feminists and MRAs have concerns about a wife staying at home to raise chidren or to put husband's career before her own, but it stems from each mistrusting the other gender and planning in case of divorce.

> "When certain women insist they want to be stay-at-home moms and get the husband to go for it, then 5 years later (or 2 years, or one year) start complaining bitterly about their burdens and how their husbands don't understand, etc., or divorce the man and get child support and alimony..." -Matt

Anytime a decision like this takes deep persuasion, it is a red flag. Just as it would be if a husband had to deeply persuade his wife to leave her career to relocate with him when his career requires it or if children have special needs and he wants her to take time off work. This is typically a sign that the couple's values and expectations are not the same. Of course income and desired lifestyle is a big factor. But for some couples the second income has no positive impact and becomes an inconvenience. If husbands always had to equally respect their wife's career you would get situations where a husband would have to make sacrifices in his $500,000/yr career so his wife could maintain her $40,0000/yr career. There are also issues of hired childcare and time with family that is a huge consideration if couples do not work typical 9 to 5 hours.

Personally I do not believe most couples can be "equals" when it comes to respecting careers (there a difference between a job and a career. A career involves training, education or an investment). Usually there can only be one dominate career in a family with children, and usually that is the one that earns the most (usually the husband). I don't think this is a bad thing; but if the risk is not worth it to the man or woman than they shouldn't get married.

I'm glad the Psychology Today article that began with an interview with me sparked this discussion. What is the underlying cause for so many men being in this situation? Many men today weren't taught the insights about being a man that fathers and other older male role models used to teach younger men.
What are these manly lessons?
Show leadership. So many men so fear being accused of being controlling they have gone to the other extreme and leave all decisions to the woman. This is why many women feel like single parents.
Make decisions. A man who avoids making decisions is shirking his responsibilities. I couldn't count the number of single women who told me how fed up they are when a man asks them on a date and can't even choose a place to go for coffee. He wants her to decide.
Take responsibility. Don't blame your wife, even if you feel she pushed you into doing something that you knew would turn out badly. Nobody has any sympathy for a man who says he's a victim of a woman. People will say, "You're the man. Why did you let it go on?"
My book, "Being the Strong Man a Woman Wants: Timeless Wisdom on Being a Man" shares these lessons and more that I learned on my journey seeking insights on being a man. The book is striking a chord around the world -- it's being translated into 22 languages by publishers in Europe, Asia and Latin America.

Elliott Katz

@ Elliott Katz

Although I cannot speak for everyone here, IMO this is not the place for your self-promoting comments

I have been reading men's websites for more than 15 years. My comment was to share what I've learned -- stop blaming, take responbsibiliy. Our job as men is leadership. The interesting thing since my book Being the Strong Man A Woman Wants came out is that women ask me how to get their man to start showing more leadership and start being a man.