I agree wholeheartedly that marriage should not be a business, nor should it be adversarial.  That’s precisely why I object to the traditional model of marriage.  The quid pro quo of traditional marriage is inimical to trust and intimacy. [Laura writes: If a man supports a woman, their relationship revolves only around money. It’s a business deal. Why do so many professional women prefer men who make more money than them?]  Men, as sole providers for wife and children, face enormous pressure, which often causes them to resent their wives. [You mean as opposed to wives resenting their husbands because they do not do housework to their standards or do not care for the children to their standards?]  Women have difficulty relaxing in their own homes as they struggle to care for everyone else, a situation which also breeds resentment.  [For thousands of years, women had trouble “relaxing in their own homes.” How did they so often create the sanctified milieu of a contented home if they had difficulty relaxing? Is an office relaxing?] Men, as the “leaders,” are hampered in sharing worries or uncertainty with their wives.  Women, in turn,  fume over decisions imposed on them by their husbands, who generally have the final say. [Why has the divorce rate soared?]  Neither spouse truly understands or empathize with what the other is going through.  I am not saying this happens in every traditional marriage, but structurally these kinds of marriages are conducive to the problems I describe. [Why is the divorce rate much lower in traditional marriages?] (And no, I don’t think the fact that women have difficulty leaving these marriages is an indication of their success.) [In other words, women stay in traditional marriages for the money. But given the availability of jobs for women, why should any woman be forced to stay?]

 

While I would never claim my own marriage is perfect or wholly immune from strife, I think the two-income model is less likely to thwart romance. [The unisex life does have its charms.] From the outset, I was able to marry for love without worrying about my husband’s earning potential. [As opposed to those of us who cared about nothing but money.] The pressure of supporting our family is alleviated by the fact that we each have the other as a safety net. [It’s true, there’s probably not much pressure in supporting two people with two incomes.] We understand each other’s problems at work because we have both had similar experiences.  I certainly compromise frequently, but I have never resented our family decisions because I have always felt that I have equal power in decision-making. 

 

 Certainly, I would never begrudge a woman’s choice to stay home, [That’s generous of you] though I question how many would freely choose this if not for cultural and religious pressures. [I see that’s not so generous of you.]  But I do object to ideologies which promote this as the way to go. [I think you show in these few lines the falsity of modern feminism’s claim that women should be free to choose. How can any woman be free to choose if one of the choices is never publicly promoted?]   

  

                                                                                                     — Comments —

 

Rita writes: 

Hmmmm. So do I understand correctly that Ms Fox married for love and didn’t have to concern herself with her husband’s earning potential and yet by her own admission, he is her safety net if she loses her job? 

I would contend that her being in a marriage with a dual income lifestyle causes her to be almost as dependent on her husband’s income as a stay at home wife is.  Perhaps though,  she is an outlier with such a high paying job that a job loss by her husband wouldn’t make a dent in their household economy but if this is the case, it’s irresponsible to promote this to the average American woman, who doesn’t have this freedom. 

Thank God for the Internet.  In the past, many of us poor commoners read these types of articles in newspapers and magazines run by elites and (foolishly) tried to emulate the lifestyle choices of people with financial support we could only dream of.  Today we can skip over this irrelevant drivel and get real, uncensored thoughts and advice from people more like us who have some of the same challenges we do.   Yay!

Lainey Serjenna writes:

I’d quite like to read Maggie Fox’s replies to you without your interjections, in bold, like some sort of interrupting child disturbing grownups trying to have a conversation. You don’t give anyone who agrees with you that sort of treatment. It’s very rude.

Laura writes:

That’s not true. I have interjected my own comments in the remarks of people who agree with me. Generally, I don’t like to do it but Maggie makes so many points and it would take me too much time to respond to them all below her comments. Besides, I have given her views plenty of uninterrupted and prominent exposure.  And, its not like you have never heard this argument before, is it? We’ve all been fed intravenously on it.  Unless you have just emerged from hibernation, you too must be very familiar with it.

So in essence my reply to you is: Tough luck.

MarkMark writes:

I just wanted to say that you did a splendid job of tearing up Ms. Fox’s BS. That was just beautiful, just beautiful! You tore through her garbage like a chain saw through hot, melted butter.