"Bridging the Gender Gap: Encouraging Girls in STEM Starts at Home"

... as they say.

Consciously or not, parents want their kids, esp. kids of their sex, to mimic their path in life. It stems from ego, but is usually benign in intent. Goes like this: I made the right decisions, otherwise, I wouldn't be alive and neither would my offspring (humans unconsciously gauge "success" by actions resulting in survival and propagation; thriving or comparative success w/in a society doesn't generally matter). Thus to be safe, my offspring should do as I do, generally. Especially, my same-sex offspring should do as I do since there's a split in sex roles in our species (humans have hard-wiring still left over from 10s of 1,000s of years of species experience w/ split gender roles). So even a "feminist stay-at-home mom" (which is a contradiction in terms) will consciously or not set an example for her daughters: "Look, this is what an adult female does: has kids, lets her husband work and pay for her and the kids." As for her sons, consciously or not, she will by example show that boys don't do much w/ kids (and their dad, not being around during much of the day, will also show it by example), and will ask them questions related to "what you might like to do when you grow up". Less so will they ask their daughters since they themselves are doing what they wanted to do so it's obvious what their daughters ought to do: marry, raise kids as a June Cleaver-esque housewife.

But how one's raised is less determinitive than is imperative necessity in adulthood. Housecats raised from kittenhood in a warm, comfy home, who couldn't hunt a stale Oreo cookie, will after just a few days stuck outside have somehow learned how to stalk and successfully pounce on mice, voles, birds, etc. like a feral -- which they will be well on the way to becoming. Hunger is a very good teacher. Humans are no different. Remember Tom Hanks in "Castaway"? Any one of us. And it's happened before, in real life.

If young women are told in no uncertain terms the following before heading into high school (as by HS graduation, it's too late for most):

1. You will not be able to live off your parents in any way after you graduate from HS/college. At that point, we will give you nothing further.
2. You cannot assume you will meet a man who'll subsidize your lifestyle choices, including motherhood or your life direction choices-- such as working when you want or staying at home to raise kids.
3. Employers are not hiring ppl w/out measurable skill sets that fulfill critical company/enterprise functions. Here's a list of in-demand skills and the jobs they fulfill: XXXXXXX, etc. Pick now. Don't want to do any of these things? Tough. Have you liked going to classes? Probably not but you have anyway. That 's the idea. So your chosen job requires some STEM classes? Get studying.

This works. It's proven; ppl in China and India do this with their daughters (esp. India) and the response from the young women there is that they are indeed pursuing STEM field work. The most important thing is to let them know this: 1) We won't support you when you become an adult and 2) You can't count in being supported by a man. Take those two assumptions American girls/women have away and that'll do it. But indeed, this starts at home. Parents have to stop thinking of their daughters as "their little girls," or else their daughters will never stop treating themselves as such, thus never fully attaining adulthood. And may I say, this is true for *anyone*. People are the same when it comes to this. If we treated our sons like this, they'd be the same way. And indeed, some boys are treated this way and the result is equally predictable.

I would never describe a stay at home mom as "lets her husband work and pay for her and the kids" any more than I would describe a stay at home mom as free maid service and free daycare for her husband. I consider it a partnership of both providing the lifestyle the parents want for their children in the most efficient way.

Women know they are biologically designed to have children. This is not selfish nor bad, this is nature and how our species survives. Women can opt to not have children, but they must be surgically or chemically altered to prevent pregnancy. I think it is logical for women to pursue careers that are most accommodating to their biological destiny. As most women know they will likely have at least two children and typically 1 to 5 years apart. For families who want and can afford a stay at home parent (even if temporary) it is most efficient to have this be the mother.

Feminist typically ignore biology and undervalue pregnancy and childcare. I hate to see MRAs make the same mistake of ignoring biology and the importance of children being raised by parents vs daycares. Many women ignore STEM fields and other fields which require climbing up the corporate ladder because is not in sync with their biological design. I see nothing wrong with this.

(duplicate post. Wierd. I dont know why this keeps happening to me. I swear I only submit once.)

I don't understand what your issue with Matt's post is. In a traditional set-up, is it not the man who pays the bills, and does he not accomplish this through working? Matt said nothing to trivialize the contribution made by the wife in this scenario. He just said matter-of-factly that such is the case in a traditional relationship.

I think Kris is saying she would not describe the kind of "traditional arrangement" that feminists, MRAs, and traditionalists all refer to using that phrase the same way I have. I interpret her objection to mean she doesn't concur with the idea that there is a willful/deliberate decision made by a woman seeking this kind of rel'p w/ a man merely for him to be a source of support for her decision to become a mother. And indeed, I believe most women do seek a far-more comprehensive kind of rel'p w/ potential mates and fathers of their children. But as you pointed out, my statement is indeed simply matter-of-fact about the gender-based roles in the family as pertains mom and dad. As long as mom stays at home and dad goes to work every day, she's setting a very clear example to her daughters: mom raises kids while dad works. Dad is likewise setting a very clear example to his sons abt what men should be doing in a family: go to work and not deal with kids. This is why I think "feminist stay-at-home mother" is a contradiction in terms: a central goal of feminism has always been the integration of women into the workforce in as many roles and at as many levels as possible, preferably in professions and higher-paying lines of work. This is irreconcilably at odds with woman-as-homemaker.

Re Kris' idea that a stay-at-home mom shouldn't be characterized as free maid service or child care for her husband: Agreed. She isn't. First, the kids aren't just his, they're theirs. So he's paying for her to look after their kids, not just his kids. In that way, she's being paid to fulfill half the necessary service of child care, while her half is her own legal obligation to look after her own kids, just not "outsourced" (which is what her husband is paying for from her). Likewise re "maid service", as she lives in the same house as him. Her husband's paying for her services in the form of paying for the house, food, healthcare, clothes, entertainment of all kinds, vacations, jewelry, tuition for the kids, retirement funds, and should she decide to leave her husband, he'll still be paying for a lot of that stuff even if he doesn't get to see his own kids much anymore because of the machinations of "family court". So while I do see what the husband is paying for in this arrangement, I don't see the wife paying for anything. Looks to me like she's being paid for though, like one would pay for a maid, etc.

As for the gender roles being flipped, such is very unusual. Typically, it doesn't last, usually because the wife leaves the husband. By and large, if one spouse must work and the other stays home to take care of kids, the wife doesn't want to be the one to work. She usually quickly tires of the arrangement and if she can't get her husband to switch roles, she'll high-tail it out of there before too much time has passed such that her soon-to-be ex can claim the same kind of spousal support women routinely demand as an entitlement. Every divorced man I've ever known who was married to a stay-at-home mother concurs: never marry anyone who doesn't work and isn't committed to staying on the job. In the event of divorce, regardless of who instigates it or creates a reasonable cause for it, the working spouse (ie, husband) will get shafted hard. I know few men who after a divorce involving kids ever even considers marrying again, though in the few cases I have seen, sometimes it works out, sometimes not. Alas, numbers don't lie. Half of new marriages end in divorce; 70% of second ones likewise, and 90% of third. That's a lot of alimony/child support if a guy gets married three times, has kids with all of his spouses in a "traditional arrangement", and all three divorce him.

Yeah, have no idea why this happens either. It hasn't happened to me though. I have noticed it's only associated it seems with particular users. I believe it may be related to some ppl's particular web browser settings, possibly involving page auto-reload behavior. But I can't say for sure.

"I would never describe a stay at home mom as...free maid service and free daycare for her husband."

hopefully my statement is more clear once you take out some of the words. (for those who may have thought I was saying the opposite)

My issue with Matt's original comment is that I thought he was too critical of girls and stay at home moms and ignores biology for why women avoid STEM fields (Matt and I often have this disagreement about biology - I don't think we will change each other's minds.)

I don't think more role models and how we treat our daughters is going to influence young girls to choose STEM careers. Until women stop having babies (which is what girls are biologically designed to do - so it's never going to stop) girls will always favor career paths which allow for motherhood and they are going to favor male partners who can pick up the financial slack during their pregnancy, childbirth, etc. This is practical, not bad or selfish, IMO.

I think all the effort and special programs to get females into STEM is a waste. STEM careers are there if they want it.

(duplicate. I'll try a different browser next time)

I don't think it's fair to burden a man to be the sole provider, or the majority provider for that matter-- especially with laws that put men in ridiculously vulnerable positions during divorce, a process initiated by the woman in two thirds of instances. I have to agree with Matt. I'd rather look after the home than have to provide. Agree to disagree. Like I said, Matt wasn't even expressing criticism really; he was simply calling a spade a spade. Stay at home moms are supported by husbands who work. Think what you will, but this is fact. I do have to give you credit for forgoing the pretense that being a SAHM is actually a form of oppression though.

@Xtrnl

Until men can be burdened with pregnancy, and women can maintain their careers while the unborn child is developing, husbands will usually be expected by their wives to pick up the extra financial slack while they are pregnant and recuperating from birth etc. Often couples decide to have at least two children, and some careers are not compatible with daycare hours making the need for a stay at home parent a necessity. The mother is usually the most practical parent for this role since she has already had to take time off for pregnancy, birth and breastfeeding. This is just a matter of practicality not fairness. It's how biology works. No amount of retraining women will change how and why women seek a partner who can pick up the financial slack while they are pregnant and after birth.

I am not disputing any of Matt's statements that husbands are paying for stay at home moms, but I felt he implied that stay at home mom/working dad is not a beneficial influence on children, or that girls and women just need to be retrained so they don't seek this arrangement. Even though most high-earning men seek out this arrangement and opt to keep working even after their earnings could allow them to retire early, stay home and co-parent. This is likely because they see their income as beneficial to the child and possible future generations (or maybe they would rather make money then be at home cleaning up shit and vomit). For example, my dad built a very successful company which will provide income and employment for many generations of his offspring. Although he worked long hours, he has had the most influence on my life.

If men don't personally want their wives to take any time off or give her any break in her financial contributions while pregnant or after birth, that's their prerogative to seek out a wife which will agree to that. She will likely have to have a career that would allow her to work up to delivery time. And if divorce is a concern about stay at home wives, I can understand the warning. What I don't like is implying that a stay at home mom/working dad is not a good influence on children when the success of these children proves otherwise.

Observations/judgments can feel critical if one perceives oneself to be in a category of ppl being talked about. But as xtrnl has said, my statements are simply observations abt what's going on vis-a-vis the whole traditional arrangement thing.

Actually I do agree humans have an issue w/ their biology v. their ideals, and it wouldn't be the first time. If equity of opportunities, likelihood of personal and general social happiness, and other such things have come to be popular goals, they are hard indeed to achieve; human physiology is still designed a lot better for living in forests and hunting and gathering instead of sitting at desks all day. Heck, animal-herding is practically brand-spankin' new to the human experience, much less getting food from vending machines. Arguably, modern life is poisonous to the human spirit. But I do think despite the "spiritual drawbacks", modern medicine, toothpaste, toilet paper, and central heating/cooling when temps get extreme make life a lot more pleasant.

These days, fathers (and a lot of mothers) go to work and kids are "managed" now by school teachers, coaches, etc., and moms only when the kids are pre-schoolers, and even then, only if they're stay-at-home moms.

At this point, given that marriages are unlikely to succeed these days and even women who want kids don't usually want more than two, the difference of opinion people like myself have with people like Kris, et al., on this topic is less a problem in and of itself needing resolution; it's more a symptom of a bigger issue. Really, if it was a problem that could be resolved, that'd be better. But it isn't. Three classes of ppl need to have their interests adequately addressed such that having kids (if ppl want to have them) represents a relatively safe and satisfying undertaking, insofar as one can count on having kids with a "low maintenance temperament" (you parents out there know just what I'm talking about).

IMO, it looks like this:

1. Men must feel it's a safe bet to go ahead and marry and (if they and the new mrs. both want to), have kids. The danger men face today from "family courts" are strong dissuaders for men on this topic. In addition, many men resent not having the same chance as their wives to be stay-at-home dads because it meets great generalized social resistence and is usually a very unpopular idea with present or prospective spouses. This dbl-standard is also a big barrier for women who want to spend more time pursuing careers and/or other interests since if men aren't spending more time raising kids, moms have to continue to spend all that time with the kids... the screaming, whining, kids...
2. Women must feel they will if they get married and also want kids that how they want to pursue motherhood will also be reliably safe. In addition, they want a reasonable guarantee that by staying home w/ kids, it will not work vs. them should they need or want to go to or return to the glorious world of cubicles or whatever.
3. Kids' interests around being parented by both their parents is protected.

At the moment, meeting all these goals is very problemmatic since how things in society are at the moment doesn't work for all interested parties as described above. As a consequence, our society is now "stuck".

Possible solutions:

1. Shut off all the electricity and invalidate the currency. We're back to mass agriculture by hand and mule and barter.
2, Campaign to modify general social attitudes so that ppl are encouraged to think some kinds of work is "men's work" and some is "women's work".
3. Require all high school girls to take "home ec" classes and use hypnotists to convince them all they *only* want in life is to stay home and raise kids, as noble an endeavor as it is.

And so on. In short, I dunno what the fix looks like. The toothpaste's out of the tube.

"Campaign to modify general social attitudes so that ppl are encouraged to think some kinds of work is "men's work" and some is "women's work"." -Matt

"Require all high school girls to take "home ec" classes and use hypnotists to convince them all they *only* want in life is to stay home and raise kids, as noble an endeavor as it is." -Matt

I know your not serious with those comments, Matt.

The whole point of my comments in this thread is to emphasize that no prodding is necessary to get people into the role and professions they want to be in and what they are efficient at, it happens naturally and is usually a result of their biological chemistry.

A woman knows her body is designed to get pregnant. She knows her tolerance for birth control (some women have health issues and have few options, some just don't like it) She knows, from age 20 to 40 she will likely have birth control failure, unplanned pregnancies, times where she is unsure if she is pregnant or not, planned pregnancies, unplanned miscarriages of planned pregnancies, health complications from pregnancies, early births, emergency c-sections, ect.

Because of this a woman is far morel likely to choose a career that will accommodate pregnancies and her need for time off from her career, like nursing or school teacher; instead of careers which are a danger to an unborn child like military, and careers which require air travel (pregnant woman can't fly as a passenger past 3 months, and not as all as a airline worker) Nor is she likley to choose careers which require climbing up the corporate ladder, require physical activity,etc.

Subsequently the few women who do choose dangerous jobs or jobs that would not be compatible with pregnancy and related time off, usually know they can rely on birth control (perhaps use surgical methods) are willing to abort, or know they have little to no chance of conception (i.e. lesbian).

And just for the record, I believe all young people should grow up with the expectation that they need a career to support themselves. People should pursue whatever career they want, but it is wise to be realistic and understand biology and how it effects your life plans including career.

... one needs some way to enable that lifestyle financially, at least until the kid(s) reach a certain age. Probably at least until they're 12 or 13, so at least that many yrs., longer if mom has 2+ kids. If she is independently wealthy (e.g., she inherited a fortune), or has a trust fund from her wealthy relatives, then she has the enabling income she needs. (But maybe she can become an Internet millionaire before she turns 20 selling stuff online; I've heard if that. Just sell the company for a zillion bucks and "retire" to become a stay-at-home mom!) This is much less than 1% of all adult women in their 20s so we can toss that category of potential moms. Next is women who go on welfare w/out trying to find work but who get pregnant by whatever means. This is a lot more common than trust fundees, but not a typical aspiration for would-be mothers since welfare doesn't get the typical recipient into a pleasant lifestyle (though some ppl manage to do it). But even so, most women prefer to have a husband/LTR BF or if they are gay/bi, a LTR partner to raise the kid(s) with. Since 85-90% (est.) women are categorically heterosexual for demographic purposes, this'd mean that, assuming for the sake of argument, 85% of 18-34 YO of heterosexual/bi women want kids and at least 82.5% of these women want a male mate to raise these kid(s) with (I assume 5% of women are demographically bi, and half of these end up seeking male LTR partners, so I use 2.5% to represent them), they'd need the same number of men in society, presumably in their age group, willing to act as sole providers for an indefinite period of time. Taking just the US population (src: census.gov):

313.9 million ppl. ttl.
People 18 to 34 years: 73.56 million
M: 50.7% (~37.3 million)
F: 49.3% (~36.3 million)

Now taking my conjectures, for argument's sake:

36.3 million 18-34 YO women x .87 (straight or bi) x .85 (want kids) x .825 (want male mate) =
22.146 million women fitting the description Kris provides as typical potential stay-at-home moms.

So to do this, they'd need as many men. Following the above formula for men, and assuming the same demographic ratios for preferences, it would result in a slightly greater number of men as the final result. However, I think a couple factors have to be considered, leading to a modified final number. The first is the number of men wanting kids. It's something of a truism in the human experience that generally, women, especially ones in the 18-34 YO age group, tend to want kids more than men in that age group. How much then to adjust the .85 value downward, I am not sure. But perhaps it is more accurate to use something between .5 and .6 for men. Second, there is the matter of men in that age group these days being just plain willing to assume the sole provider role to a woman and 1+ kids he has with her. (Since the number of women above is presuming any given woman in that number wants to be a stay-at-home mom, that's the presumed number of such women used for argument.)

It's this second consideration that has two factors within it to take into account. First, there's the willingness of today's 18-34 YO men to assume this sole provider role. In order for a would-be stay-at-home mom to be one, her would-be mate must be willing to assume that role. I don't know what sort of studies by modern anthropologists, if any, have been done recently to gauge the willingness of men in this age group to assume the sole provider role, but I'm pretty sure it isn't nearly what it was 40 years ago. So lacking a solid figure, I'll SWAG one, and based on the observed habits and expressed opinions of some of these guys, I'll be generous to the point and say 60% (I actually think it's more like 30% but this is a conjectural experiment, so I'll err on the side of what I think is excess.)

Second, there's the ability of men in this age group to actually be sole providers to 2 adults and 1+ infants. The earning potential of the *typical* man in that age group, esp. the 18-25 subgroup, is a lot less than it used to be. The factors are many and have been discussed on MANN and elsewhere, and the fact that single women in the 18-30 YO age group are outearning their male contemporaries, provided they're single and childless, complicates the issue in terms of practicality. The fact that the class of women in this group is further limited makes some sense since indeed, when women do decide to get married and then also have 1+ kid, *surprise!*, they often don't want to back to work; i.e., they want to be supported by their hubbies. But for some couples wherein against the trend, a woman may have married a man with less earning potential than her, this tends to make the question of who ought to stay home w/ the kids from one of mere preference to what is practicable. After all, if there's 2 adults and an infant in a household and dad can make only $30k/yr. to support all of them (ouch!) but mom can earn $45k, assuming access to healthcare/retirement programs are the same in both cases (but typically, the higher-earner gets a better deal on both), it's simply more practical for mom to work and dad to stay home.

But let's ignore the earning potential difference between the sexes in this age group for the sake of just keeping the argument abt the practical likelihood of American society moving back to the stay-at-home mom model. The trend of girls/women getting better and better educations than males is only increasing, not flat-lining. In addition, the girls-into-STEM juggernaut continues merrily foreward. Once a person gets a taste of the income STEM careers generate (esp. applied STEM, like engineering and IT), it's hard to walk away from it. It's a powerful incentive to defer having kids until one wakes up and realizes her egg count has dropped dangerously low for fertility purposes. But let's assume social engineering efforts around girls and STEM don't generally succeed (i.e., assume Kris is right abt this question). Still, while men remain the substantial majority of STEM field workers overall (fast-emerging exception: primary care medicine), most men simply aren't cut out for STEM work. Not everyone either has the right wiring in their brains or even if they do, want to use it 8-10 hrs./day for 45+ years, true for ppl of both sexes. American employers currently report a total of over one million unfilled IT positions alone -- and that's just IT. And it ain't like IT pays peanuts, either. Other employers needing other kinds of STEM specialists are also hard up, too. So if so many un- and under-employed people (men especially) could take up STEM work, they probably would. But like asking me to take up the equation mechanics of tensor calculus as applied to "M Space" theory, you could offer me $250k/yr. to teach it, but I'd have to learn it first. I could try that for the next 10,000 yrs. and I wouldn't even come close; my brain's just not wired for it.

Anyway, point here is that while women's employment prospects have skyrocketed the past 40 yrs., men's employment prospects, esp. in the 18-34 YO age group, have dropped quite noticably as compared to women's even just over the past 10 yrs. Again, this should come as no surprise; women getting better educations and virtually every gov't agency and NGO have been all about improving females' prospects while treating males' as inconsequential or at best, not needing consideration from the gov't.

So the formula I used to calculate the number of prospective stay-at-home moms who'd need a LTR male mate to pursue that option, I match with this:

37.3 million 18-34 YO men x .87 (straight or bi) x .55 (want kids) x .825 (want female mate) x .6 (willing to be sole providers) =
8.835 million men willing to fulfill the "traditional role" of husband/sole provider to wife and kid(s)

22.146 - 8.835 =
13.311 million shortfall in men who want the same thing would-be stay-at-home moms want

Now if you add in the factor of the viability of the model in terms of young men's ability to afford it even if they want it: Well, try multiplying 8.835 by .7 (again, a SWAG: assuming here that 30% of such men can't even afford to pursue this model, and again, I'm being generous with the estimate given today's painful job market). The number of men drops to 6.1845 million, and the shortfall becomes 15.96 million men.

6.1845 / 22.146 = 0.28, or only 28% of 18-34 YO women who want to be married/in an LTR with a man could find a mate who could enable her to fulfill her stay-at-home mom aspirations.

Well no wonder the US's fecundity rate (2.06) is in the ol' crapper. (2.1 is needed for simple replacement; US pop'n has been increasing merely due to legal and illegal immigration). And if you think this is bad, look at Russia's: 1.61, and China's is 1.55. But believe it or not, other countries have even lower numbers. Lookee:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_fertility_rate

The aggregate rate seems to be ~2.45, a bit over replacement. Much of the over-replacement births are in LDCs though and so a lot of these poor kids are being born into what used to be called "Third world conditions," which is a polite way of saying "abject poverty". (A few born into the wealthy families there are the exceptions, of course, but they're a relatively small number.)

Well I've already discussed my beliefs abt how I think humans have overpopulated the planet anyway, so I won't belabor it here.

At this point, I'm not really about the question of whether women should by and large be stay-at-home moms, should they a) want kids and b) can find someone (man or woman) or some way to enable it financially (home-based high-income business requiring only 2 hrs. of work/day? Sounds good to me!). Obviously, Kris and I will diverge in opinion on this matter probably until we croak.

I can see it now: my last act on this Earth x yrs. from now (who can say?) will be to reply to one of Kris' posts on this topic and just as I click "Save", I croak. =)

No, it's clear to me now that this is about a much bigger and harder issue to resolve. It's now an anthropological issue. A people can't survive as such (i.e., propagate their way of life, etc.) if it can't find a way to resolve the practical questions around reproduction and preparing its new additions (i.e., kids) to assume full membership in its society. Such a society need not prescribe gender-based roles, but historically, humans have used this approach to make life a bit easier to navigate for most of its members who found the use of such prescribed roles befitting to them. Now for those who didn't like/need them, they feel shackling, and I understand this.

So now the thing for our society (and others in this similar situation) is to come up with a workable solution. Otherwise I predict our society will continue to see more and more maladaptive behaviors or symptoms emerge and/or get worse: drug use/abuse, chronic depression, general lawlessness ("knockout game", "flash mob robberies", etc.), long-term unemployment, etc. And well-adjusted kids with a sense if purpose as they enter adulthood? Already a breed of ever-decreasing numbers.

Really, as much as it may surprise some ppl to read this from me, if getting the toothpaste back in the tube would turn our downward trajectory back upward, I'd be inclined to change my tune. I'd still want a better system however in our "family courts" to actually protect the interests of husbands/fathers, but as long as that could be guaranteed, I may say OK, let's go back to the whole June and Ward Cleaver thing. But like I said, the toothpaste's out, and "family courts" are still what they are. I want to be clear though: such would not at all be my first choice. Gender roles are smothering and often fatal for men. (Just ask the piles of dead men heaped up on battlefields throughout human history, but don't wait for an answer; you'll wait forever. And that's just one thing.)

Yeah, it's not pretty out there. As for the "alternate model"? Hmmmmm. That's gonna take some thinking about.

Gosh Matt, I don't know how long you spent on those mathematics, but I didn't have the concentration to follow it. I have no idea what your point is.

Oh well. I think you and I both know where each other stands on the issue :)

Happy New Year!

I'm sorry you went through all of those mathematics. I have no idea what you are saying. Let me put it to you this way.

A husband and wife are having a baby together. They are a waiter and waitress they each make $20K per year. The wife is 6 months along. Before her shift she goes to her Ob/GYN appointment. There is no heartbeat she has had a miscarriage, the unborn baby has died. She is emotional, they set up an appointment for more tests for confirmation, evacuation the next day, etc. Do you think she goes to work that day or for several days afterwards? And once a woman has one miscarriage it doubles her chance for another miscarriage in the future. Her next pregnancy she will likely be advised to stay off her feet after the first trimester.

So if she takes some time off to deal with this, who is working more, and therefore contributing more financially, her or her husband? Even if things had gone smoothly with the pregnancy, she would need time off for labor and delivery and recuperation.

It's really not that difficult to figure out, and not so much as a planned conscious effort as you make it out to be with all your mathematics. Just like you understand hunger, a biological factor, is a great motivator, so is the biology of pregnancy. It can't be ignored, You must face it and deal with it. For pregnancy and child birth in 99.9 % of the time the husband is going to work more than the wife (assuming he is employed to begin with). It doesn't matter at all what their income level is. Their income level probably only influences how much more he works or finacially contributes compared to her.

Happy new year back, Kris!