Wise Philosophers,
Per our home-making man, most of you rose to Albert’s defense as doing a valuable, perhaps the most valuable, job by raising successful, happy kids. Then, things took a philosophical turn: Are stay-home dads in less-happy marriages than those in more traditional roles? What’s the impact on kids? How do stay-at-home roles work when there are two moms—or two dads? What’s the role of science in values—and values in science? Of our laws on our values? Should homemaking be an at-your-own-risk endeavor? Are humans evolving to become “tamer”? And does wanting the traditional path make you “less evolved”? Read on…
Reader Comments (13)
I have always wondered what the long-term “happiness” statistics are for families with stay-at-home dads. I assume the children respond well, but how about each spouse (or spouse equivalent). And what about for gay couples? How does gender play out there when it comes to the classic dad-role?
February 8, 2010 | Monica
Monica, Thanks for a cogent question (or two). Indeed, children do well as long as the division of labor is working, regardless of who is handling it and regardless of the sexual orientation of the couple. And most couples, gay or straight, have one member who is primarily responsible for hearth and home, and another whose primary role is bread winning (although most often, both people engage in both activities rather than one or the other exclusively).
Another article is going to treat the subject of how gay and straight couples differ from one another. For now, very briefly, it appears that when homosexual unions function, they function exceedingly well—and are more egalitarian in the division-of-labor and decision-making than heterosexual relationships tend to be.
And children reared by labor-sharing straight parents grow up to be more egalitarian spouses, too, which is good for the happiness of the marriage. After all, one of the best predictors of marital success is simply whether the husband accepts his wife’s influence—and whether she influences with kindness rather than criticism.
Beyond that, though, I am unaware of the marital satisfaction stats for the stay-home dads and their partners versus the marital happiness for those families holding more traditional gender norm breakdowns, particularly with regard to whether the dad is staying home because he and his partner mutually chose that, versus the scenario where he’s staying home and the other partner is nursing active resentment about the arrangement. I suspect there’s quite a difference between agreeing on Dad’s presence in the home, and having it become the default because he can’t or won’t work elsewhere.
The data I know focus more broadly on worldwide results regarding how those interested in women (whether they themselves are lesbian or straight) vie for female attention by showing signs of commitment, provision and protection—whereas those who want men (whether they themselves are gay or straight) try to offer youth and beauty. And some of those data show, for instance, that a woman is more likely to ignore, leave, or cheat on a man (or a woman) seen as “beneath” what she can get on the mating market than one who’s a “good deal” in the looks-for-resources swap; this is why, in the last column, I recommended the woman seek elsewhere rather than commit to a man of low ambition if she herself is gorgeous in addition to youthful. Hence, a straight woman who has the youth and beauty desired by straight men is an affair risk if she is mated to someone who cannot or will not provide the economic security she can command on the mating market. And men seem to have some implicit understanding of this.
This ancient knowledge, then, is what I think drives psychological discomfort over issues that some facets of our culture have moved beyond. We’ve moved a very long way in the direction of open acceptance that men can be as nurturing as women, and that stay-home daddying can be as valid a choice as stay-home mommying. But in this, our culture is changing faster than our cave-man and -woman psyches.
That’s not a reason to stay in place. Rather, it’s a reason to acknowledge and understand where the discomfort comes from when what we want does not necessarily feel like what we need, and to understand that if this works well—leaving successful children in its wake—then someday, even our Genes will agree that Dads At Home are valuable, indeed.
February 8, 2010 | Duana C. Welch, Ph.D.
Yes, our culture is changing faster than my cave-woman psyche is. And I’m not convinced it’s going in a good direction. If the point is to perpetuate the species, then the cave-people had it right: Men provide and protect, women bear and raise children, and people are heterosexual. Today the folks who deviate from this formula are called “progressive” or “open-minded.” If I am still of the cave-woman psyche, does that mean they are more evolved than I am?
February 9, 2010 | Ann
Ann, Thank you for your comment. Love Science in general, and this article in particular, aren’t per se about whether The Ancient Psyche we’ve inherited is right or wrong (or left or right)—but whether and how it is working in today’s environments. Some aspects are usually helpful, such as our abiding love for our children. Others work out tragically in today’s first world, such as our abiding love for salts, fats, and sweets—once hard-to-get commodities that were life-sustaining and are today all too easily obtained and disease-promoting. Or, as psych author David G. Myers has pointed out, in some ways our Genes are “prepared for a world that may no longer exist.”
Data have been collected regarding whether different kinds of relationships and families “work”, from a standpoint of psychological adjustment, health, income, etc. What is most important from the data is not whether the two people are male and female, nor which one is in charge of what task, but whether the relationship is one where both parties are fully committed, feel respected and feel fairly and kindly treated. At an even more basic level, what matters most also is whether people are partnered at all— because loneliness is literally hard on the heart, health, wallet, and emotions, having important ramifications for early death and disability. But from a scientific perspective, being gay or straight, traditional or non, is not an issue of who is more evolved.
To get to the heart of your query, I think you are speaking for many of our readers here when you voice discomfort over cultural changes; others are upset when changes don’t come fast enough. Issues of heart, home, and sexuality are politicized precisely because they get at our core and humanity—they tap into our inherited psyche, a psychology which had to be quite interested in these issues just so we could survive.
Almost all Love Science readers may occasionally find themselves upset at or disbelieving of the science that does not agree with their viewpoint. To wit, some believe that divorce is the best solution if the parents have fallen out of love; I used to concur, but after seeing just how vehemently science disagrees, I changed my mind since the data would not budge. Same with living together prior to marriage; unless the commitment is there in the form of a firm wedding date at move-in, it’s become abundantly clear via data that cohabitation is a divorce risk and is strongly tied to less-happy marriage. Again, this isn’t what I would have expected from my personal views—but I changed those views when I saw that the data wouldn’t shift. Others want to think that gays and lesbians are unnatural, can’t have good relationships, make poor parents, or “convert” their adopted kids to being gay as well; science flatly disagrees. I, too, disagree, and am happy that science supports my viewpoints in this case.
Science disagrees with my own personal values and ideals about as often as it backs them up; it doesn’t give results that fall neatly into one particular political camp or ideology. And so science challenges us to face facts rather than preferences. It gives us the best data we have from the past 60 years and more—and those are the data I’m honored to present to you weekly.
Thanks again for your comment.
February 9, 2010 | Duana C. Welch, Ph.D.
I appreciate this column’s emphasis on science. However, when the science conflicts with my personal values, I’m going with my personal values. Otherwise, it would be too easy to use science to manipulate.
February 9, 2010 | Ann
Ann’s point about science vs. values is an interesting one. We generally cling to our values, and (usually) well we should, but what ARE values if they contribute to a decline in civilization?
As an example (on an unrelated note), I spent most of my childhood severely rejected by my peers. Adults thought the world of me, but I was mercilessly tormented by kids, and it affects me to this day. As much as I would like to blame these kids for many of my current problems, I still have to look at what they did as nothing more than a survival mechanism. It’s human nature to single someone (or group) out, and those who don’t join in run the risk of becoming the target. How can I reasonably fault my peers for participating in this sort of survival of the fittest? It goes completely against my values to pick on someone, (especially to the degree I personally faced,) but perhaps my lack of willingness to engage in such activity is what put me in that position in the first place.
So even though this is not the issue at hand, the point I want to make is that values don’t seem to have a place in human survival. I don’t quite know what to do with that, but it’s there, nevertheless. Just because our value-system calls for us to “rise above” base animal instinct, that instinct is still there and must be recognized. We can’t effectively deal with an issue we don’t know exists, and this column has been amazing at pointing out phenomena many of us like to pretend aren’t real.
February 9, 2010 | Penelope
Penelope, hi. Your note is at once sad and fascinating. I offer this in response: We can reasonably fault bullies, even though bullying has served people well enough in the past (and sometimes in the present) that it persists, much the same way that we can find fault with rapists, even though raping may have served a Genetic purpose in the past (and is still used in this way in wars and leveraged by men of very low status today). Although you’re right that it’s been basic to human psychology to find tribal and individual differences and aggress based upon those, the cultural changes we choose to make will shift our evolution. They have already done so—witness how language has altered what we do, how we do it, and with whom. We humans have a hand in shaping what we become culturally, and in so doing, ultimately genetically. (If you’ve not seen the PBS series, “Evolution”, and want to know much more about how human-created environments are shaping our own evolution now, I highly recommend it.)
In “Before the Dawn: Recovering the Lost History of Our Ancestors
Of course, these records are so ancient, and the conjecture so abundant, that it’s impossible to say for certain that this is what has happened; but enough evidence, assembled in enough different ways, creates a fuller picture.
Which brings us to your provocative idea that maybe values don’t have much place in our survival. I think they do. And as you and Ann have caused me to point out, I think so based on…guess what…data ;). Some anthropologists think language primarily evolved to allow us to gossip about one another—really. I can’t make up stuff that good. With or without controlling one another’s behavior via gossip, we’ve been excellent at directing our own evolution through culture ever since language emerged. So bullying occurs—but our schools are pushing more and more towards a zero-tolerance policy, and we no longer blame the victim. Rape happens—but is considered abhorrent nearly everywhere, no matter how advantageous it is from the male’s reproductive/Genetic standpoint, and in our society we are at least headed towards not blaming the victims. And people still spend most of their resources on themselves and their immediate family—but they also have developed an ability to send relief and aid to the poor of Haiti, whether they will ever be affected by or know anyone from that country, and even if their money could be spent on the family they live with.
Some people even write about science and love, for almost free, and find value therein ;). Thank you for your support in reading and contributing to Love Science. It makes my day that you’re finding it useful and, I hope, fun, as I do.
February 9, 2010 | Duana C. Welch, Ph.D.
Well, the science certainly explains why Albert feels as he does. But I consider raising healhy, happy children to be the Most Important Job in the World! Good for you, Albert!
Duana, I get that women want a provider and protector. But isn’t having a reliable guy at home a huge comfort and relief? And it’s not that Albert cannot earn money and have a career - he’s just choosing children over that at this point. And something attracted Victoria to Albert in the first place - probably his compassionate heart, which of course, is always there no matter the profession.
But I like your advice and Albert should certainly make a change if this is bothering him.
Personally, I am looking forward to the day when my current project pulls in enough dough that my husband can quit his job (ok, I admit that he hates it) and be a … kept man :)
February 9, 2010 | Gillian
Hi, Gillian, I love your “kept man” idea. My husband eagerly awaits the day when he can live likewise :). And my Inner Nerd and Outer Mom most certainly agree that raising successful kids so their own kids are successful is the be-all and primary Genetic directive (our Genes may not care whether we’re happy, but I do).
Genes aren’t the only motivator of our emotions, of course. The culture, community and family in which we originate are of great importance, too. Albert’s wife may have come from a family of women who embrace careers, and men who make those careers possible; Albert may arise from a string of wonderfully nurturant men. To the extent that we inherit our desires, though, I just wanted Albert to see why he might feel uneasy. Ironically, that may make him easier about his situation. I hope so.
Thanks as ever for the thought and levity you bring to these discussions.
February 9, 2010 | Duana C. Welch, Ph.D.
Another wonderful article Duana! My only comment is on Albert’s comment on Victoria’s explanation to her colleagues “what it is I don’t do for a living”. I can see how Albert can feel less worthy if Victoria is sending those strong signals out. I hope this is something they can work out, besides Albert’s own desire for more “manly” accomplishments. It takes a great man to be able to show the patience and stamina for being a stay home dad. Women have been doing this extremely well for most of time. Men, well, they still have a long way to go to make this a natural feeling. Maybe some home improvement projects around the house might fill in some of the void. No matter what though, I wish Albert the best on whatever path he chooses. And hope he pats himself on the back for a well done job!!!
February 9, 2010 | Vincent
Vincent, I love your comment, and hope Albert sees it and the other words of encouragement here. Thank you!
February 9, 2010 | Duana C. Welch, Ph.D.
It’s hard to select a favorite column from Dr. Duana, but at this point in time, I am choosing this one. Oh my, so many thoughts swirled through my mind as I read it. Yes, the quote about our genes not ready for the 1960’s, much less 2010, was delightful! But the one I glommed upon was “Homemaking may not pay much in income, but it’s of tremendous economic benefit.” This subject has been discussed quite a bit through the past several decades, and it hits a nerve with this Kept Woman.
Hubby and I are so traditional it’s almost embarrassing, as you well know, Duana. But we chose this traditional cultural model at a time when cultural models were evolving, in a positive way, toward the acceptance of 2-career families. I was disturbed, however, by the inevitable backlash (the pendulum always swings) which suggested that a person (in my case, a Woman) could not truly *fulfill* oneself without a Career. I thank the Powers That Be every day that when Social Security was established, Kept Women such as I were considered of some economic benefit to our society and deserved some measure of economic stability in *Old Age.* But that discussion is not On Point on LoveScience, other than underscoring our culture’s acceptance of the genetic survival mode revealed in Dr. Duana’s research. I will not blab on about the *I Want It All* schtick…none of us can *Have It All* at the same time. Nor will I blab on about an article in the Tulsa World several years ago, about a couple who determined when they married that everything would be *equal*…they had a lovely little outline and Plan of how marriage and parenting could be Politically Correct. Funny, though, they found themselves slipping into a more Provider/Nurturer style, because it just seemed to work better that way. And they were happy with it. Dr. Duana’s research reveals that there is a reason it worked better that way. Whoops…I blabbed on, didn’t I?
LoveScience has provided an excellent opportunity for me to learn more about Why We Do What We Do and Why We Feel The Way We Do About What We Do. As Duana pointed out, many women have angst about the Home Stretch….how much harder it must be for a man to face that same scenario, given not only our Culture, but our Genetic Survival Mode! EXCELLENT ADVICE for Albert from the Doc, as usual. I also enjoyed the comments regarding Values/Science….the data about Divorce For The Sake Of The Children (as revealed in another column) was fascinating.
I’m one of those gals whose values came from a very traditional grounding, and despite my rebellion against them the Core remains. I’m also one of those lucky ones who never had a problem with Low Self-Esteem…because it never occurred to me that I was not worth something, I never felt I had anything to prove. Just wanted to live out my chosen Role as Homemaker well, and have a little fun at the same time :-). Thanks again, Duana.
February 10, 2010 | Carmen
Dear Carmen, How very kind. Your good opinion is very worth the having, and it’s heartening that this article was so affirming for you.
I hope the Capital-H Homemakers of both genders find this article supportive of their efforts. Too often, we confuse “not bringing in a paycheck” with “not contributing”. Sociologists and economists have pointed out that if a homemaker were to do the exact same jobs for another family, he or she would suddenly be considered a valuable wage-earner. And independent financial planners really do recommend term life insurance for full-time homemakers because of the economic cost of replacing the work they are doing for free. (When my baby was a baby, I was advised to take out even more insurance than my husband—that’s how valuable I was, lol.)
Similarly, the legions of people who are caring for an elderly parent, disabled spouse, or special-needs child, are saving our society tremendous money, often almost solely at their own personal expense. Even today, gerontologists point out that well above 2/3 of elder care in the USA is provided by adult family members, usually the spouse or adult daughter, even when the parent/spouse could qualify for a nursing facility at low- or no-cost. And older adults who are volunteering are serving and producing, regardless of what their income may state. Sum total: Productivity and income are not entirely intwined, just as they are not entirely separate. Productivity—all of it, in all its forms—matters.
All of which is why laws have and (decreasingly) do protect stay-home spouses in the event of divorce or death of the wage-earner. Sacrificing oneself for the benefit of others and society is, in my opinion, not something a person should be expected to do entirely at his or her risk. To the extent that we have created a “parent-and-homemake-at-your-own-risk” scenario with our divorce and death laws, however, sociologists such as Linda J. Waite have found that women are choosing to bear fewer and fewer children; do so later; stay home more briefly, if at all; and invest less of their emotions in their marriages. For those interested in a breathtaking journey into how our laws and social values are changing marriage and the way people feel and behave in marriage, Waite’s book “The Case for Marriage
Carmen, another point you made, about the division of labor (DOL), merits more (as you put it) blabbing. Sociological and psychological studies have for decades shown that even among the best-educated and/or most liberal male-female households, the DOL remains fairly traditional. Women usually take on the lioness’ share of child-and-family upkeep (while earning bread); men usually take on the larger portion of wage-earning (while helping at home). Although the DOL is rarely equal in the sense of being identical, the happy couples are those who agree that it is fair. More about this another time.
Finally, thanks for tapping into one of my favorite sayings: “You can have it all; just not all at the same time.”
Blab on ;).
February 10, 2010 | Duana C. Welch, Ph.D.