"Why women still need husbands"

Submitted by Mastodon on Thu, 2013-11-28 09:26

Article here. Excerpt:

'In time, “never depend on a man” turned into the full-blown belief that men are superfluous. In 2010 Jennifer Aniston claimed women needn’t “fiddle with a man” to have a child.

This may strike you as an isolated case of stupidity, but Aniston’s willingness to put it out there speaks volumes about modern cultural attitudes. No actress would have said such a thing in the 70s, 80s, or even early 90s.

Fortunately, most women come to the realization that they do, in fact, need a man—at least if they want a family.
...
This is the conclusion to which most women have come. Research shows that what women want more than anything else is not to work full-time and year-round but to live balanced lives.

How will they do it? That’s the number-one conversation among women today.

... The answer is obvious.

Lean on your husband.
...
I know what you’re going to say. Where are these husbands on whom women can depend? And you’re right: there are fewer men these days who seem eager to be primary breadwinners.

But ask yourself why, and I bet you know the answer.'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

Really what she's saying is raising a chid/ren alone is hard because you need to make a living and be or pay for daily caretaking. That may work for high-earning single parents of either sex but it's not realistic for most single parents be they male or female.

Lesbian couples (or more generally, woman-woman couples, as one or both women can be bi or other-sexed in terms of "public gender" or sexuality) can use the model the author espouses but most single mothers or women who intend to have children are heterosexual. Also, the "working mom", or would-be "working mom" of the couple, may well have all the same concerns that a man might have going into such an arrangement: the non-primary caretaking parent gets shafted, usually, should the couple legally disintegrate. This is a concern for same-sex couples regardless of the people's sex.

So purely from a "primary breadwinner" standpoint, the couple need not be limited to a male-female arrangement; it could be female-female, but the issue of its attractiveness to the would-be "primary breadwinner" remains.

As for other alternatives, one is good old-fashioned public assistance. I don't like it but apparently the gov't does because they keep paying it out.

Of course the foregoing doesn't even address the wisdom of raising kids w/out a father, esp. boys, though girls also are more likely to develop serious adjustment issues, too, but perhaps of a different nature. Depends on the particulars.

By and large though, until the legal system stops in essence punishing the "primary breadwinners" during divorces and custody proceedings, regardless of the couples' make-ups, the reluctance of ppl to get all legal-like with women who want to be stay-at-home moms will only increase.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Thu, 2013-11-28 19:00