totallygeeked -> totallygeeked general -> The REAL reason modern marriages end: Women more likely to divorce stay-at-home dads who fail to live up to breadwinner
Post Info
TOPIC: The REAL reason modern marriages end: Women more likely to divorce stay-at-home dads who fail to live up to breadwinner
PUBLISHED: 23:00 EST, 27 July 2016 | UPDATED: 04:36 EST, 28 July 2016
76shares
217
View comments
They may enjoy looking after their children while their wives go out to work.
But house husbands may pay a high price for their modern take on marriage.
Research shows that couples are more likely to divorce when the man does not work full-time.
The US researchers say that while the gender stereotyping of women has relaxed, men still suffer from the expectation that they should be the breadwinner.
+2
The risk of divorce is higher for men who are not employed full-time. This means that, a typical couple married after 1974, has a 2.5 per cent chance of divorcing in the next year, if the husband works full-time. However, if he works part-time or does not work at all, the odds rise to 3.3 per cent (stock image used)
The finding comes from Harvard University researcher Professor Alexandra Killewald, who analysed data on the lives, marriages and finances of 6,300 couples, including 1,700 who had divorced.
To look at the effect of women's increasing entry into the workforce from the mid-1970s, the professor split the couples into two groups, based on whether they were married before or after 1974.
Her analysis revealed division of labour to be key to marriages in both periods.
However, the type of labour changed.
Before 1974, the more housework a woman did, the more solid her marriage, conforming to the traditional expectation that a wife's place is in the home.
So, a wife who did three-quarters of the housework in 1968 had a 1.1 per cent chance of her marriage ending in the next year.
+2
The study also revealed that while a woman having a full-time job doesn't raise her odds of going to the divorce courts, easing off at work can be costly for men (stock image used)
But if she only did half, her odds of divorce rose to 1.5 per cent.
In more recent years, expectations of women's role in society have changed, plus men have started to muck in more.
As a result, the time spent on chores has stopped being a factor in a couple's happiness.
Professor Killewald said: 'For couples married more recently, expectations for the division of housework between spouses appear to have changed, so that men are expected to contribute at least somewhat to household labour.
THE RESULTS IN BRIEF
Before 1974, the more housework a woman did, the more solid her marriage, conforming to the traditional expectation that a wife's place is in the home.
So, a wife who did three-quarters of the housework in 1968 had a 1.1 per cent chance of her marriage ending in the next year.
But if she only did half, her odds of divorce rose to 1.5 per cent.
The study also revealed that while a woman having a fulltime job doesn't raise her odds of going to the divorce courts, easing off at work can be costly for men.
The risk of divorce is higher for men who are not employed full-time.
This means that, a typical couple married after 1974, has a 2.5 per cent chance of divorcing in the next year, if the husband works full-time.
However, if he works part-time or does not work at all, the odds rise to 3.3 per cent.
'In general, men seem to be contributing a little more than they used to and these contributions may now be expected and appreciated by wives.'
The study also revealed that while a woman having a full-time job doesn't raise her odds of going to the divorce courts, easing off at work can be costly for men.
The risk of divorce is higher for men who are not employed full-time, the American Sociological Review reports.
This means that, a typical couple married after 1974, has a 2.5 per cent chance of divorcing in the next year, if the husband works full-time.
However, if he works part-time or does not work at all, the odds rise to 3.3 per cent.
Professor Killewald said that while our expectations of women's roles have changed, the stereotype of men being the breadwinners persists.
As a result, those who don't work full-time may be perceived as breaking a 'central component' of the marital contract for husbands'.
It is also possible that men take unemployment harder than women, which puts a bigger strain on the marriage.
Interestingly, the results weren't driven by finances.
The study found despite what we might think, money worries don't generally increase the risk of divorce.
Similarly, the prospect of the woman being financially stable after a divorce doesn't seem to raise the odds of the marriage ending.
This suggests that the psychological strain of a man not working a 40-hour week is more important than any financial pressure that might come with it.
Professor Killewald said: 'While contemporary wives need not embrace the traditional homemaker role to stay married, contemporary husbands face a higher risk of divorce when they do not fulfil the stereotypical breadwinner role by being employed fulltime.
'Often when scholars or the media talk about work-family policies or work-family balance, they focus mostly on the experiences of women.
'Although much of the responsibility for negotiating that balance falls to women, my results suggest one way that expectations about gender and family roles and responsibilities affect men's lives, too: men who aren't able to sustain full-time work face heightened risk of divorce.
'Expectations of wives' homemaking may have eroded but the husband breadwinner norm persists.'
This is crap. They are talking about a .8 % increase in the odds of divorce. That's barely statistically significant. It doesn't even differentiate between men who choose not to work and men who cannot work for some reason. I'd like to know who paid for this dumb study.
Chronic unemployment is likely to put a strain on any marriage.
This article is spinning the results of the study in a very strange way.
This is crap. They are talking about a .8 % increase in the odds of divorce. That's barely statistically significant. It doesn't even differentiate between men who choose not to work and men who cannot work for some reason. I'd like to know who paid for this dumb study. Chronic unemployment is likely to put a strain on any marriage. This article is spinning the results of the study in a very strange way.
Personally, I could not be married to a man who did not work. Who wasn't the breadwinner. Sure, I know stuff happens, and hubby could become disabled. That's a different story. But staying home to be househusband and child rearer? No, I couldn't. Kudos to those who could. But having had a man (or two) decide to live off the fat of my cat, so to speak, I know my limits.
I have a very hard time believing that many stay at home dads do as much as stay at home moms in regards to housework and everything else that is entailed in taking care of a home and kids. Women just care about a lot more of that stuff than men do, most of the time. And if I was a working woman with a stay at home husband and had to come home and do or nag about housework, that would not go well.
__________________
LawyerLady
I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.
I dont want to support a man staying at home. I think most men need to work. If he makes less then fine as long as he's working. Of course if something happened and DH could not work then fine. Things happen. Or it would be ok to stay home for a period of time like taking care of a child or family member. But not home forever.
I dont want to support a man staying at home. I think most men need to work. If he makes less then fine as long as he's working. Of course if something happened and DH could not work then fine. Things happen. Or it would be ok to stay home for a period of time like taking care of a child or family member. But not home forever.
I tend to agree, I'm sort of traditional in that sense.
I dont want to support a man staying at home. I think most men need to work. If he makes less then fine as long as he's working. Of course if something happened and DH could not work then fine. Things happen. Or it would be ok to stay home for a period of time like taking care of a child or family member. But not home forever.
I tend to agree, I'm sort of traditional in that sense.
I dont want to support a man staying at home. I think most men need to work. If he makes less then fine as long as he's working. Of course if something happened and DH could not work then fine. Things happen. Or it would be ok to stay home for a period of time like taking care of a child or family member. But not home forever.
I tend to agree, I'm sort of traditional in that sense.
DH stayed home for 2-3 years when the kids were small and I worked. It didn't bother me in the slightest. He did most of the laundry (his and the kids, I wanted to do my own) and kept the house clean as well as doing the lawn etc. All I had to do was cook, which we all preferred ! Lol. It worked great for us. As a teacher, what he would have made at a job would have been eaten up by daycare costs. It didn't make financial sense for him to work. He still coached at night which got him out of the house and kept him active in the community. But at that time, at the level he was coaching, it was more of a hobby than anything else.
For the sake of the study I think it matters if it is a thoughtful decision made by both parties in the marriage with boundaries and clear cut "assignments" or if it's a case of becoming unemployed and just not seeking out work and ending up at home. Big difference.
__________________
Out of all the lies I have told, "just kidding" is my favorite !
My cousin was a SAHD while his wife was a teacher/principal/superintendent, working her way up the ranks and getting her PhD. He doesn't have a college degree. It works for them. He eventually got a job at the school library when the kids got older. But knowing my cousin, I have no doubt he kept the house immaculate, did the inside and outside chores, and was strict with raising the boys. They do a lot of things together as a family, and she is still permitted to have her girl trips every few years. I'll be getting together with them in October so it will be interesting to see how they are doing.
There have been stretches were one or the other of us has been out of work but our job then was to look for a job so the longest one of us stayed home was about 3 weeks. If he was just staying home with no thoughts of looking I would've been pissed just as he would have been if I wasn't looking.
__________________
“Until I discovered cooking, I was never really interested in anything.” ― Julia Child ―
Page 1 of 1 sorted by
totallygeeked -> totallygeeked general -> The REAL reason modern marriages end: Women more likely to divorce stay-at-home dads who fail to live up to breadwinner