Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    Is the following an accurate restatement of .0 ?
    
        I would like to stay home and be a home-maker, and let someone else
        pay the bills, and that should be OK in our society.

Almost, but not exactly...

How 'bout...

"Of all the careers that women can have, homemaking is one of the most 
difficult and personally rewarding ones there are.  So why does homemaking
get dumped on by everyone?"

    Because your definition of homemaking doesn't agree with their
    definition...  Perhaps if you could explain what your definition (what
    homemaking means to you) is we could get a better idea of where you
    want to go with your question.  So, why do you feel homemaking is such
    a great career choice?  The old-fashioned picture we get is that
    homemakers were always women.  What's wrong/right about this picture?
    What are the characteristics of a good homemaker, why?

    "Most difficult and personally rewarding" -- there's an oxymoron for
    you. It is NOT difficult to do personally rewarding work. It is
    difficult to do work which has no intrinsic rewards at all, only
    extrinsic rewards (MONEY) which makes it possible for princesses to sit
    at home with Baby. Modern appliances have reduced house-keeping to a
    several-hour-per-week job (Saturday morning used to handle it for me).
    Mothering consists of dawdling at the park or lake with the toddler, or
    reading romance novels while the three-year-old sits zombie-like in
    front of the TV. It's a no brains, no talent, no training, no
    qualifications (except fertility and getting a man to do it to you)
    job.
    
    That could have something to do with why it doesn't get respect.

re: -1

>>			(Saturday morning used to handle it for me)

I hope you had a very small house. Being a homemaker entails much more than 
sitting around eating bon-bon's while the kids "veg" on TV. How 'bout the
laundry for the household, grocery shopping, meal preparation/clean-up, etc.
Not to mention trying spending time with the children; reading to them, playing
with them, fixing things for them, helping them along with ideals.morals.

All of the IS very rewarding, but that does not make it EASY. It very trying
mentally and physically.

John G.

    re.5  is this just to get a response or are you for real?
    
    I can't really say that taking care of my little ones was exactly
    difficult.  It was mostly fun!  Fortunately, while I was married,
    my husband  and I didn't  argue over it, but when our 1st baby was
    6 mos. I went to work at McDonalds while Daddy had her at night.
     We had parent share, you could say.  But, while I helped support
    bringing in the income, he had a satisfying job that he went to
    school for and I slaved for 6 hours flipping burgers.  I finally
    insisted on going to school, which eventually led to a divorce,
    (more complex than this), but the point is:
    
    we, both sexes, should have options, (money helps create more options).
     I think that by women saying that "homemaking" is hard that they
    are really trying to justify their occupation, (not career); when
    they should just say that they enjoy homemaking and to hell with
    anyone that doesn't appreciate that.  And if their mate can help
    them with that lifestyle than terrific.  (this mate can be the father
    or the mother by the way).
    
    If I just plain 'ole want to watch my kids grow up under my nose
    than that's all the reason I need.  (of course, with a little help
    from my mate)  and what if neither one of us has kids and just plain
    'ole want to stay home to pursue other pursuits, someone still has
    to bring home the bacon.  As long as the couple involved are satisfied
    in the arrangement, that's the ticket!

    Of the twenty-five million avid readers of romance novels in the United
    States, 99% are female. They read an average of ten novels per month. I
    infer from the rate that these are non-working women, i.e. Susie
    Home-makers.
    
    According to Nielsen, the average American household has the television
    on 54 hours per week. Our children are less fit than ever. Their test
    scores have fallen steadily, despite ever more resources going to the
    schools. TV is everyone's favorite baby-sitter.
    
    We eat more meals out than ever before. Dishwashers reduce dinner
    clean-up to a fifteen minute exercise. Convenience foods crowd out the
    real stuff in the groceries, so dinner takes fifteen minutes to
    prepare. Spending more than an hour cooking and cleaning up afterwards
    isn't work, it's either dawdling or entertainment (lots of people enjoy
    it).
    
    I have so much heat about this because Princess is just waiting for
    some schmuck MAN to take her away from her low-paying, unsatisfying
    job, which is what she's stuck with because she never expected to need
    anything better. Then she has lots of babies, so he has to take out a
    mortgage on a four-bedroom Colonial, eventually dying from the strain
    of trying to make the payments. Princess gets the hugs and adoration,
    Daddy gets the bills.
    
    I'll get over this when (1) Mom's role is larger than preparing
    mac'n'cheese and turning on Sesame Street, and (2) Dad gets to play Mom
    half the time. In the meanwhile, this "Momhood is all" crap is just a
    ticket to a DIFFICULT LIFE CHOOSING WHICH SELF-ACTUALIZING, NO-STRESS
    ACTIVITY I'LL DRAG BABY TO TODAY!

Gee, Hoyt, it seems this is a "hot button" for you.  I agree with Herb
(now don't faint, Herb!) that your espoused view of parenting is rather
far removed from reality.  I don't doubt that there are a few examples
which might resemble your description, but I would disagree strongly that
it is in any way a typical depiction of a mother's life.  (Or that of
a father who takes care of the children, either.)

Do you have children?  Have you ever been the primary caregiver for a child?
I have (and am).

Regarding the base note, it is true that the "homemaker" is ill-regarded
in today's society, and I think that is a shame.  Caring for children
full-time and keeping up a house on one's own is a daunting task that
challenges most anyone who takes it on.  That we've reduced a person's
worth to what they get paid is a sorry state.  But I think we have to
be careful in wishing for a "return to old-fashionedness" lest we
inadvertently roll back the advances we've made so far in equal
opportunity and protection of men and women.  (It's far from equal now, but
it's better than it had been 20 years ago.)

				Steve

re: -1

  > I have so much heat about this because Princess is just waiting for
  > some schmuck MAN to take her away from her low-paying, unsatisfying
  > job, which is what she's stuck with because she never expected to need
  > anything better. Then she has lots of babies, so he has to take out a
  > mortgage on a four-bedroom Colonial, eventually dying from the strain
  > of trying to make the payments. Princess gets the hugs and adoration,
  > Daddy gets the bills.

Then stay away from "Princess"!

In the mean time, try not to put down a lot of dedicated, hard working people.

My wife gave up a career because she felt it more important to raise her
children full-time. She initially wanted to try to juggle both, but wasn't
happy with that arrangment. Other women may feel differently, and that's their
personal choice.

She now works part-time at night (not at her intended career-strickly for the
money) and I get to "play mom" those four nights.

These sweeping generalizations make you sound like a very bitter person.

John G.

    Gee, Steve, what part of the depiction isn't on target? The romance
    novels get read. If you go to Walden Pond any weekday afternoon, you'll
    see hordes of Mommies reading them. Or the park. Or the tennis club
    (well, they don't read at the tennis club). You've been a primary care
    provider, Steve, a privilege of which I'm genuinely envious. Does this
    mean that dishwashers aren't prevalent, preprepared meals the norm, and
    that the TV really isn't on 54 hours per week? I missed the connection.
    
    I'm not a father. I'm a step-father (ref. MENNOTES 591 "John") but my
    relationship with my wife's children is more like "Mom's adult friend."
    HER relationship with her children is like "the house-keeper." The kids
    have explained in some detail that parenting (rules, conversations,
    family activities, chores) are NOT very 90's, so we've given them up.
    Mom is the food-money-transport object. I'm the math-help object. Like
    most American children, mine spend their lives taking breaks from TV to
    go to the movies. If THIS depiction seems rather far removed from
    reality, Steve, then I will bet you $20 that your child/children is/are
    less than 13 years old. Wanna bet?
    
    We have a woman living in the first floor of our apartment who has a
    three-year-old son and a three-month-old daughter, and finds their
    supervision too daunting to handle herself. Joey is in play-care three
    mornings per week. My step-daughters have a regular gig "entertaining"
    Joey while Elizabeth gets her bath. In the house with the dishwasher,
    clothes washer, etc. My mother's mother raised seven children by
    herself, when dinner was cooked over wood or coal, clothes were washed
    by hand (in her luxurious period, she had a hand-cranked wringer), a
    bath meant MORE wood/coal and multiple trips with the cauldron. And
    she raised seven outstanding children. While working to buy food.
    
    Expectations of parents role is so TINY nowadays. Expectations of
    children is so small. A great parent is one who develops Johnny's
    self-esteem (gag, choke). A great kid is one who stays in school, drug
    and pregnancy free. And we've been told so MANY times that Mommy has it
    SO hard, that even the Mommies believe it, as they drop Joey off at
    play-care so they can take Elizabeth for a tranquil walk around the
    park.
    
    No, on second though, you're right, Steve. I'm making it all up. It is
    some OTHER country where kids sit in front of TVs for 54 hours per
    week, where SAT tests continually fall, where the day-time leisure
    activities are enjoyed by 95% women. Maybe it's something I ate.

    <<< Note 646.14 by PENUTS::HNELSON "Hoyt 275-3407 C/RDB/SQL/X/Motif" >>>
             -< After all, Steve, YOU are a primary care giver!  >-

Since we're talking old fashioned here, it sounds as though your step kids 
could do with a good boot in the a$$.  It's always worked for me.

    	As a person_without_child, yeah, I can see how I might feel that
    	being the homemaker is an easy job requiring only a few hours a
    	week. Having fun taking an hour to cook dinner and clean up after
    	(on the few nights it's not re-heated left-overs or Budget
    	Gourmet's or streamed vegetables for the diet prone), taking no more
    	than two hour's time dumping your and your SO's laundry into the
    	washer then dryer once every two weeks, enjoying the high point of
    	the week in going grocery shopping, and taking another two hours
    	cleaning the bathrooms, vacuuming, etc once every two weeks (other
    	than daily 2-minute touch up). Not much work. In fact most of us 
    	who work can easily do it on top of a full time job and _still_ 
    	have plenty of free time left. Most of those 'chores' like cooking
    	and going grocery shopping my SO and I look upon as enjoyable
    	quality time we spend together. We look greatly forward to it.

    	Do this for a living? It must be great!

    	But I couldn't do it. No way. Not when children come on the scene.
    	Once I was hospitalized and had to stay with a friend's wife all
    	day, oh my, I could hardly stand it for that one day! Screaming 
    	children that have to be run after every five minutes, every time 
    	you turn your back some other catastrophe happens. It was enough
    	to drive you crazy! An unnerving experience. Would never want to
    	be in that environment and position. Not for twice what I'm getting
    	paid here.  Just not something I could do (well). At least that's 
    	what I say at this point in my life.

    	Under-paid and unrespected. You bet. Just like all social service
    	jobs (formerly called "women's jobs" in the 'good' ole fashioned
    	days). Though quite a few men would love to be able to take that
    	role too despite the obvious pay cut... Some people are just good 
    	at it (regardless of gender), and other people aren't. Me and 
    	Murphy Brown, we aren't... :-)

    	-Erik

    "My wife gave up a career because she felt that it was more important
    to raise her children part-time."
    
    Why didn't YOU give up YOUR career, John. Didn't think raising the kids
    was that important? Or was it that YOU didn't have that choice, and SHE
    did, because we live in a world where every Princess gets to make that
    choice, and her Prince gets to go to work. You're another victim, John.
    
    Every woman out there is a potential Princess. It's how they are
    trained, as we are trained to go to work to provide for the family.
    "Avoid Princesses" translates to "live alone and childless."
    
    I sound bitter, huh? Is that now on the proscribed list, along with
    angry and horny? If so, many apologies. Gosh, nice day isn't it. How
    about them Red Sox. [Manly grin and punch in the arm.] Happy now?
    
    Have fun as you "play mom", John. NEVER get confused and think of is
    as "play Dad" or (even worse) "be Dad." I suppose you're "playing Dad"
    right now, huh, working for a living. Be thankful for your four nights;
    I bet they don't last.

    Hoyt Nelson, the Al Bundy of MENNOTES...
    

    re.17
    I think you picked the wrong princess.  You speak of undisciplined
    kids of today.  Who the heck runs your house?  It's your own fault,
    not ours.  There are male homemakers.  Do you want to be a prince?
    Are you mad 'cause your wife has choices which you gave to her or
    you seem to justify by default.  Why the heck do you want kids if
    you' are bitter over them as well.  I guess you've chosen the better
    of 2 evils by your definition.  Take some responsibility!  
    
    By the way, do you like Romance Novels and wish you had more time
    to read them.  Just grab one while you're in the bathroom taking
    a seat next time.

    Re: Hoyt Nelson's comments:
    
    You show a bleak picture of motherhood in America very well. Now, how
    about showing us your "dream scenario"?
    
    Incidently your picture may have a few smudges: not all wives prepare
    instant meals, some cook almost every day from scratch. Also, I've seen
    many switchboard operators, receptionists, beauty salon workers,
    librarians, etc. reading romance novels. Even in Digital's temps !
    So much for your statistics!
    
    I value very highly the personal sacrifice of some women to provide a
    positive influence in the first few years of a child's life. So many
    toddlers I know who go to day care, spend many days per year ill due to
    the lack of hygiene of those places. 
    
    We have a two-year-old son and I have also had to modify my reading and
    playing habits to give him my attention not just because his self
    esteem is important but also because he is a joy in my life! It's
    really no "sacrifice" except for those late hours when he "refuses" to
    fall asleep!   

	I thought that there was a pronounced distinction between those who
were 'old-fashioned' about family life, and those who weren't, but I didn't
expect some of the really strong feelings here.

	What about opinions from m/f homemakers and from parents who have
their children in daycare (and outside opinions from us not-parents-yet
people) regarding the long-term effects of parental presence/non-presence
on the psychological development of the children?

    Sorry, Bridget, I've been waxing self-righteous. It's a character flaw,
    I sincerely admit regretting.
    
    Some replies, and I'll leave you in peace.
    
    I know who Al Bundy is, but I don't get the joke, probably. Al is the
    victim in his family, right, for whom they all have contempt, whose
    only purpose is to pass out cash? Then aren't we all Al Bundy's? Or is
    Al just dumb? I deny being dumb.
    
    Scarberry_ci:
    
    Obviously I don't run my house. I want to be a Princess, i.e. a
    home-maker. I want kids because they would be neat people I would enjoy
    knowing and contributing to the world. I'm bitter because I've been
    doing everything right, by the prescription society wrote out, and I
    find myself being the provider (Prince) for someone else's children,
    and those children are a great disappointment. I've never read romance
    novels, but from the way they are characterized, I think I'll avoid
    them like poison. They are Princess-training manuals.
    
    A positive view: Alright! Good idea!
    
    The person studies hard to learn a profession and thru work and talent
    becomes capable of supporting a family. The person marries a similar
    person, and together they bring some number of children in the world.
    The two persons share their two responsibilties, as parents and as
    providers. Both persons enjoy professional success. Both persons enjoy
    a close relationship with their children. Probably they share the
    physical care workload, by alternately leaving their jobs. They strive
    to avoid type-casting by gender: no Prince or Princess here, only
    loving parents who work for a living.
    
    Is that so much to ask?

    Barbara  Bush summed it up when she spoke at Wellesley College a few
    years ago: ( I paraphrase)
    
    'You will never regret or remember a report that you failed to write or
    spend time on when you are older, but you will regret time not spent
    with your children'  (this is a very loose translation)
    
    Parenting, especially in the early years of a childs life is extreemly
    inportant. To important to be treated as a 2nd class job. It is THE
    most important job in a persons life - to train and prepare the next
    generation for life in this complex world. To demean it, to say 'you
    can have it all (AKA super mom) is a lie. To say that day care is
    better? Better than what? Child abuse? I suppose. Better or equal to a
    caring, nuturing at home mother (or father)? I have a bridge for you...
    
    My wife has a friend who lived in some of the worst dives/dumps in
    Framingham MA that I have ever seen so she could raise her daughter.
    So she could be home for her. So she could teach her her values, not
    societies, not the 'values of the week', not what some book said. I
    went to her wedding last spring. That little girl I met 20+ years ago
    is one of the nicest persons I know or have ever met. Why, because of
    her mother and her very sacraficing committment to her daughter.
    
    Hoyt:
    
    I was surrogate dad/step dad to 10 year old and 13 year old girls for
    about five years. Some of my best memories of my life are my times with
    them. They wern't mine, I had no authority with them/over them, yet
    they are something I will never forget. I hope I changed their lives
    for the better, I know they did mine.... I loved and cared and was as
    concerned for them as much as for my own two children.
    
    It is how you react to a given situation, not the situation itself.
    
    
    Steve

Wake up Hoyt! How many companies allow you to take a leave of absense for an
undetermined period of time because it's your turn to be homemaker. "Sorry boss,
I've got to be out the next two years, it's my wife's turn to be the moneymaker."
Nice idea, but not very practical at this time.

At the time my wife decided to stay home rather than continue to pursue her 
career, I had been employed by Digital for 12 years and made substantially
more money than she did. The choice for who stayed home was based on logic, not
her unwillingness to work. The is real life Hoyt, right or wrong.

I enjoy "playing mom" (that was a tongue-in-cheek remark last time). I enjoy the
time I get with my daughters, and they enjoy me. I am not Mommy, I am Daddy. The
relationship and person are different. The play activities are different. Don't
continue to make light of this releationship that many families have because you
don't. 

BTW, when you quote someone, try to do it accurately. What I said was...
"My wife gave up a career because she felt it more important to raise her
children full-time."

Maybe you can sit down and discuss what you have said here to your wife and her
kids. Let them know how you feel about the situation. I might help.

John G.

That last line is suppose to be - IT might help.

John G.

    I had my rapier-like (bludgeon-like?) wit out yesterday, John... I
    apologize for inflicting in upon you.
    
    Your story is repeated thousands and thousands of times every year. "I
    make a little more money than my wife, so she stays home." In other
    words, the deciding qualification for mommyhood was her professional
    incompetence. I'm NOT trying to get personal here. Lets understand I'm
    not talking about anyone in particular. OVER 99% of the time, however,
    this is exactly the way the decision-making goes. Beginning in eighth
    grade, when Mary learns that boys are supposed to take care of her (and
    they don't LIKE smart girls), Mary makes choice after choice after
    choice that ultimately results in Mary being the one to stay home. She
    skips physics. She majors in history of art. She disdains that masters
    degree evening program. She quits her job and takes care of Baby. A
    very old story.
    
    So who is raising our children? We're systematically selecting the half
    of the partnership which is less effective in the workplace. And it
    worked for her, so she blithely passes the strategy onto the kids, esp.
    her daughters. The differential treatment of children is
    well-documented: daughters are smiled at more, coddled more; little
    boys are trained to tough it out, as preparation for those one-day
    office battles. And the injust gender-casting  is perpetuated into the 
    next generation.
    
    One irritating side-light to this is that the comparatively rare women
    who have made the choices to pursue high-paying careers are MORE likely
    to prefer still higher-paid men for husbands. High-paid women are MORE
    likely to remain single unless a really well-provisioned Prince happens
    along... because these Princesses can support themselves, and
    
        IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD, NO ONE HAS EVEN SUGGESTED THAT SHE
        SHOULD SUPPORT HER HUSBAND THE HOME-MAKER.
    
    The classic example of this is women MDs -- the modal husband for these
    well-paid women is another equally-well-paid MD. Tell me this is
    great family planning. "Let's see, honey, since I have an extremely
    high-stress, hyper-demanding, no-home-life job... why don't I marry
    you, since you don't have any time either!" Brilliant.
    
    I acknowledge the practical difficulties of starting/stopping careers.
    It happens that I'm well-positioned to do so: as a contractor, I can
    come and go with NO loss of pension (none to lose), etc. I've also been
    living on 75% of my income for four years, so I'd have cash in the bank
    that would let me meet my share of the bills EVEN WHILE BEING JOHNNY
    HOME-MAKER. Yes, we're talking Super-Dad here: spends all day with his
    Baby, and STILL pays his share of the bills (by accumulating the filthy
    lucre in advance). This has represented some sacrifice, e.g. my car is
    by far the most decrepit vehicle in the parking lot, our apartment is
    one step removed from a student-slum (but we own it!). I live this way
    because I am DETERMINED to experience that home-maker role. I wish that
    our society made it a little easier for ALL men.
    
    My heat here isn't for my purposes. I've been comfortable with these
    issues for a long time, like twenty years (the first time I heard about
    feminism, I thought "Great, wonderful, about time... she's going to
    take on her share of the financial responsibility" -- around 1970). It
    amazes me that 99% of men don't see this issue. "I make more money than
    my wife, so she stays home." Over and over and over. "...the most
    rewarding job in the world..." And she gets it because you (men) are
    more competent in the workplace.
    
    Well, it's really not my business if you want to watch your children
    grow up without knowing them, always being second-place in their
    affections, with your role limited to mean-Dad-the-disciplinarian and
    nice-Dad-the-source-of-money. Enjoy, if you can. More power to you.
    
    I say no thanks, I'll stay at home with the kids.

    I never look at anyone and say, "tsk, tsk, they're doing things wrong."
    Most of us do the best we know how.  My wife gave up her profession to
    be Mom.  Our daughters are very happy intelligent well-adjusted kids.  But
    because of the economic situation we've gotten into from being a single
    (albeit good) income family, I'm not sure we'll be able to send them to
    the schools of their choice.  I'm also not sure that we haven't built
    into them, just by the sheer force of example, the notion that women are 
    Mom's and don't have careers.  After all, it was my wife who had this
    urge to be mother, like her mother before her, not me.  There are lots of 
    families I know where both parents work, and I haven't yet seen any 
    problems in their kids, at least that I can with any assurance attribute 
    to the daycare situation and not just to toxicity in the relationship.  
    We're all trying to survive, and the decisions are not often easy or 
    obvious.  I feel neither superior or inferior to anyone who has done
    things differently from the way I've done things.
    
    							- Vick
    
    

    	The author of .28 seems to have had very unfortunate experiences.
    My wife has only worked full-time for about 6 months since we married
    over 20 years ago, but...
    
    	While the kids were growing up she organised and ran several
    pre-school playgroups. At one time most of the vegetables that we ate
    were what she had grown.
    
    	Currently as unpaid voluntary work she helps to run a local
    library and teaches English. She also has a part time job, where 
    "part time" means that it varies from 6 to 50 hours per week. She will
    be going away for three weeks soon, and has spent some of her time
    making (not buying) instant meals and freezing them for me and our 12
    year old daughter. She also organises all the family finances, making
    sure that bills are paid on time and that we do not exceed our budget.
    
    	Her contribution to the family income is small in terms of money, 
    but I am not complaining. (By the way, in her spare time she also 
    keeps the house spotlessly clean and does the swimming pool maintenance 
    and most of the cooking).
    
    
    	Our elder daughter has spent the last few weeks repainting the house
    to earn some extra pocket money, so I think we are bringing her up
    right.

    Hoyt --
    
    I think most men do *not* feel trapped in the way you have described.
    Many say quite forthrightly that they couldn't stand the life of
    running a household and raising children. Many others use the excuses
    you have outlined ("I earn more money, so, alas, I can't stay home").
    Most well-educated men think they have better things to do (as do, not
    surprisingly, a great many of their equally well-educated wives) than
    wash dishes and diapers. 
    
    They're wrong, by and large, but that's the way it is. Even among those
    for whom life at home would be easier and more interesting than working
    (i.e., the supermarket cashier and the loading dock worker), there is a
    lot of self-delusion about the attractions of work.
    
    And, yes, running a household can be easier than working a regular job,
    but only for the right person. It's a lot like being self-employed: no
    one's telling you what to do (so you do get time to read the paper or
    just sit down from time to time), but there's a lot that has to get
    done, or else. Also, if you're the type that can handle a dozen things
    simultaneously -- moving from one to the other and back without losing
    context -- the job's for you. If you work methodically and with careful
    concentration on one job at a time and expect perfection, you're in for
    a life of frustration at home.  
    
    It's not a male/female thing, it's what the couple wants. In my case,
    when we were ready for kids, my wife was more interested in a busy
    professional career, and we both agreed that I was better at the type
    of work I've just described. I've been home with our 3 children (ages
    7,4,2) up to as much as 1 1/2 years at a time, and worked part-time
    most of the rest of the time. She knew that meant she was "supporting"
    me completely, or at least earning a lot more than I can. 
    
    We chose that course. We did not allow society to impose on us any
    particular roles. The women's movement of the last 20 years certainly
    made that choice a lot easier. Women have opted for the choice of work
    vs stay at home. Men should do the same, and should not blame women
    when they do not.
    
    Kit

    I tried the traditional relationship. I worked a second job and managed
    two apartment buildings, AND did a 40+ hour to keep them home near the
    home fire. Got fleeced with the traditional courts in the process when
    she (the_future_ex_to_be) TFXTB, took the baby into the woods of Maine.
    Gee, I donno. I guess I am getting confused here. As in folks giving up
    carriers to become homemakers, but sometimes little credit is given to
    the folks who park their cars/trucks between the white lines in the
    parking lots every day. I don't want to take the thunder out of this
    lovely note..... But..... 

    Nice note, Kit! It sounds like you've had a very nice situation.
    Please tell your wife she has a secret admirer (whose never even
    SEEN her).

    Some responses:

>I think most men do *not* feel trapped in the way you have described.

    Agreed. They are trapped and don't feel it. 

>Many say quite forthrightly that they couldn't stand the life of
>running a household and raising children. Many others use the excuses
>you have outlined ("I earn more money, so, alas, I can't stay home").
>Most well-educated men think they have better things to do (as do, not
>surprisingly, a great many of their equally well-educated wives) than
>wash dishes and diapers. 

    Agreed. Men accept the role. 

>They're wrong, by and large, but that's the way it is. Even among those
>for whom life at home would be easier and more interesting than working
>(i.e., the supermarket cashier and the loading dock worker), there is a
>lot of self-delusion about the attractions of work.

    Yes! Software engineers, too. Dock workers WORK! :)

    Also rationalization: "If I have to work everyday, and she stays
    home with Baby everyday, and I'm 'happy' (!!)... then work must be
    rewarding and Baby mundane."

    I think your comments about parenting being like self-employment
    sound exactly on target, obviously the voice of experience.

>"...my wife was more interested in a busy career..."

    More interested in career than she was in parenting? Like, she had the 
    choice and made it, only it happened to be the unconventional choice? Or 
    more interested than YOU were in a career, in which case you're BOTH 
    unusual (in a way I admire). 

    My complaint is that women have the choice (e.g. your wife) and men
    don't. If the woman chooses to work, THEN the man has a choice, not
    before. There is a STRONG STRONG presumption that men are the providers.

>"...we both agreed that I was better at the type of work..."

    PRECISELY THE RIGHT CRITERION. Who would be the better parent? Not "who 
    has ovaries?"

>"She knew that meant she was 'supporting' me completely, or at least 
>earning a lot more than I can."

    This last sounds like the conventional decision rule, "Who makes more 
    money" only in this case her career competence exceeded yours. Or do
    you mean more than you can earn, part-time and/or working occasionally?

>We chose that course. We did not allow society to impose on us any
>particular roles. The women's movement of the last 20 years certainly
>made that choice a lot easier. Women have opted for the choice of work
>vs stay at home. Men should do the same...

    Good for you (sincerely). Absolutely. God bless the women's movement.

>and [men] should not blame women when they do not.

    You lose me here.

    Have men been blamed for women's role throughout the women's movement?
    [Yes] Does the pattern of 99% of stay-at-home parents being female have 
    anything to do with women? [Yes]

        IF WE ARE GOING TO CREATE FOR MEN A GENUINE OPTION TO BE THE
        STAY-AT-HOME PARENT, SUPPORTED BY THEIR WIVES, DON'T YOU THINK
        THAT WOMEN ARE GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE SOME CONSIDERABLE CHANGES?

    I'd say: YES!

    On the other hand, women aren't going to make any changes until men 
    wake up to the tragedy of their disciplinarian-money-tree role. In that
    sense, I sgree: we men should blame ourselves.

    re: .34
>>"...my wife was more interested in a busy career..."

 >   More interested in career than she was in parenting? Like, she had the 
 >   choice and made it, only it happened to be the unconventional choice? Or 
 >   more interested than YOU were in a career, in which case you're BOTH 
 >   unusual (in a way I admire). 
    
    Definitely more interested in a career than I.  I have steadfastly
    avoided a career since I first took a full-time job 28 years ago, at
    age 16. I am a dilettante -- broad but shallow! I love my work, but
    could not conceive of a life in which work became the dominant factor.
    
>"She knew that meant she was 'supporting' me completely, or at least 
>earning a lot more than I can."
    
 >   This last sounds like the conventional decision rule, "Who makes more 
 >   money" only in this case her career competence exceeded yours. Or do
 >   you mean more than you can earn, part-time and/or working occasionally?
    
    At the time these decisions were made, we made about the same. We both
    figured she'd likely be able to make more than I if she wanted. (That
    turned out to be true, but she's always been in non-profits, social
    service, government positions that require real entrepeneurial skills
    but no corresponding big-bucks rewards. In general, we've tried to
    resist the temptation to put too high a priority on money.)  
    
    
    I see your point about the fact that women, as much as men, may be
    responsible for the fact that it is usually women who stay at home. I
    can only say that, in my case, such issues are so fundamental to my
    outlook on life that I could not conceive of *not* having sorted this
    sort of thing out before settling down with someone.  Moreover, I fell
    in love with my wife precisely because of who she is: a woman who cuts a
    gutsy and magnificent swath through the world, with passion and
    purpose. How she does it mystifies and delights me every day, just as
    my combination of academic smarts and down-home efficiency tickles her.
    
    
    Kit

    What if the roles were *reversed*, however? I, for one, would love to be 
    more of a "homemaker". When I was married, at home, I was always the one 
    who did more of the cooking, cleaning, laundry, etc. took care of the 
    animals regularly; and would have preferred to remain at home more often 
    than my now-ex. She would do what I called the "Once_A_Month_Major_Chores_
    to_Prove_I'm_A_Good_Homemaker" cleanings, and she did them well...but it 
    would often be me to take care of what needed to be taken care of on a 
    regular basis. All this, in addition to working 60 hour work weeks usually,
    while she was busier *looking* for a "career" (which she *still* hasn't 
    "found" yet). 
    
    Not to pat myself on the back or anything like that...I'm merely saying 
    that *I* wouldn't mind staying at home, maybe running a business out of my
    home, in addition to taking care of my home on a regular basis. But, there
    would be a societal "stigma" attached if my spouse or SO were the one out 
    in the private sector "working".
    
    I know I can support myself...I don't need a spouse to do this for me. I 
    would hope the person who might be "next" has the same capacity; but if 
    she wanted to remain at home, I would hope that they would not be looked 
    down upon either, if that's what they wanted to do.

    re: .36
    
   > But, there would be a societal "stigma" attached if my spouse or SO
   > were the one out  in the private sector "working".
    
    If this is important to you, you first must identify specifically who you
    mean by "society". If it's a member of your family or a friend who
    looks askance at this proposed role, you can deal with it on that basis
    -- work it out, learn to overlook this quirk in their personality (as
    we all do and expect others to do for us), etc.  If it's "society" in
    general, you have to dig a little deeper to understand why you feel
    uncomfortable with some generic society-level disapproval.
    
    My experience has been that my going a bit against the grain is very
    rewarding, rather than intimidating. I proselytize unceasingly for a
    more involved role for men -- and I find people react very favorably.
    And I couldn't be bothered with those who are rude or who simply react
    with defensive ignorance (And these are very few).
    
    Kit
    

    re. last couple
    
    This kinda brings to mind the my wife earns more than I do deal.
    
    I'm the woman, I'm more ambitious than my mate, I make more money
    than he and probably always will, I think.  I've figured out and
    accepted this and so what what my Mom thinks or anyone else.  I've
    also left him alone to be comfortable with his style of living and
    he's done likewise with mine.
    
    That's about all you can do and all that I do.  I guess to some
    folks this could be embarrassing but I've come to feel comfortable
    with the decisions I've made regarding my priorieties thus far in
    my life.   
    
    I think once we, as in each household, decide for their own what's
    best, than the better off the situation will become toward equality
    or rather the freedom that one has to be him or her self.