Being a double X myself, I can't even fake trying to understand what a man feels like as a SAHD. Is it emasculating? Dunno.

But here's my question (to the female Fraysters, and be honest!): For all the PC, progressive, forward-thinking crap we spew about men, money, and their masculinity, do we really believe it? Do we really believe that a man is more manly when he's pushing his kid on a swing or teaching him how to read, as opposed to taking over the world (a la Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Rupert Murdoch, etc.)? Captain of Industry vs. Captain Kangaroo?

king charles I:

For all the PC, progressive, forward-thinking crap we spew about men, money, and their masculinity, do we really believe it?

Now there's a self-answering question if I ever saw one.

My husband was the SAH parent when I went back to work after our first child was born, and he continues to be home more than I am. I admit that there have been times when I've been frustrated and stressed by this arrangement, but those times have corresponded to periods of stress or insecurity in my worklife or our finances, not to feeling a lack of manliness in the house. My husband is tall and handsome and rugged and can build and fix things, and he can also cook a great meal with a toddler hanging on his pantleg. The attention and admiration he gives to our young daughter melts my heart. But certainly, the arrangement is unusual, and I often detect a little pity and wonderment along with the lip-service kudos we get from many of the progressive families around us. That sometimes bugs me, and sometimes it's hard to be one of the few fullish-time working moms in our school community. But I deeply appreciate that I've gotten to maintain my career and independence without worrying that our kids were being shortchanged on the homefront. I deeply appreciate my husband's willingness to go against the grain and ignore the social pressure put on men to earn. Traditional gender roles aren't ones I ever bought into, and I didn't fall in love with or marry my husband because he conformed to them. I'd certainly be horrified if my husband expected me to conform to a gender script.

In general, I think our lifestyle gives me more sympathy for men, at least the kind of upper middle class men I'm around. They're still expected, implicitly, to be the bread winners, as well as to participate actively in home life, but the women can sort of pick and choose what traditional tasks they'll take on. Cooking and cleaning are optional, and are often hired out. Babysitters and whatnot leave time for yoga and self-improvement projects. Work is chosen for reasons other than income.

But I digress. My husband is plenty manly.

zoe

I know you aimed this at the ladies, uh... "king charles"... (was ER I too early? Never mind.) But anyway, I have occasional stints as a SAHD, and it doesn't feel particularly emasculating to me. When I'm working, I make about as much money as my wife does when she's working (though my hours are longer), so there's no particular advantage to the household in general if I assume the breadwinner mantle. The key thing for me and my ego is that, whether I'm working outside the home or staying home with the kids, as long as my efforts are effusively appreciated, I do not feel the least bit emasculated. The appreciation is what turns otherwise dreary quotidian necessity into a glad duty. From leaden requirement into glittering opportunity, as it were. We all need to feel appreciated.

But I do look forward to the XX viewpoint. I rather cynically expect that old-school ideals of masculinity unfortunately persist in the minds of too many women.

I like my men a little from column A and a little from column B. Too far in either direction and he starts to come off as either too hard or too soft.

To be fair, as a woman I strive for that same balance in myself.

NJ: I phrased the question that way because I'm all too familiar with how we can talk out of both sides of our mouths. For example: We want a man to be sensitive, but if he starts crying (and we're not at a funeral), we're screaming in our heads to man-up! We get caught up in trying to be politically correct, yet our feelings/urges/inclinations veer towards the traditional. So I wanted to put it out there that I "get" that what we say and what we really believe might be two different things.

I asked this question because I'm watching a friend change over time. She and her husband have three boys, and she's been the primary breadwinner for the past 2+ years. At first, she loved that he was there to take them to school and pick them up and do all the parental stuff that comes with having kids. Ever since the summer, though, she's been prone to making subtle comments to the effect that she's saddled with all the financial responsibilities and he's obviously not trying to pitch in (in terms of money). I wasn't sure if the comments started because she hates her job and she's lashing out or because she's starting to want a more traditional set-up (three years ago, she raved about having a SAHD). I, for one, can't say for sure I'd want to support a man, even if he was being "daddy." I think that, as progressive and PC and forward-thinking that I am, I still want a man who contributes as much as I do. I don't want to be taken care of; that arrangement makes me queasy. Having taken care of myself for all these years, though, I'm afraid I wouldn't be able to see us as equals. Does that make sense?

It does make sense, charles, and your honesty and self-knowledge are admirable. I don't think you're alone in this viewpoint, even among progressive, "enlightened" women. There are those who make the argument that some foundations of traditional gender roles are "hard-wired," such as aggression in men and "nesting" in women. I, personally, prefer to ignore such arguments and try to the best of my ability to "soft-wire" my beliefs and expectations into forms that suit me. If an emotional response or expectation strikes me as unnecessarily destructive, unhelpful, or under-evolved, I try to discard it, with varying (but usually high) degrees of success. For instance, I enjoy providing for my wife and my family, but I do not define myself in terms of being The Provider. When circumstances dictate that I must forego that role, I am not threatened or otherwise made uncomfortable thereby. Similarly, I do not find ambitious, self-contained women to be unduly unattractive, nor do I especially feel drawn to helpless damsels in distress, either. In fact, I really prefer competent, self-reliant women who also know and appreciate that they can rely on me. I am competent and confident in my masculinity. I'm quite handy around the house, I do all my own car repair and home-improvement work, and I can both read a map and ask for directions.

I like a relationship that is a true partnership, with both parties contributing and both being available to backstop the other during changing circumstances. I can see how some men might feel threatened by a woman who dons the breadwinner pants, and how some women might feel a bit of contempt for a man who prefers to stay home and nurture the kids... I can see it, but I think it's hopelessly regressive and under-evolved, and possibly destructive. I also reject the idea that it's legitimately "hard-wired." It is, I strongly believe, simply a cultural reinforcement that can, and should, and eventually will be eliminated.

Call me Pollyanna. I won't be threatened. ;^)

I wouldn't be able to handle a SAHD situation for a long period. I think there would be resentment, jealousy and an alteration in the family dynamic that just wouldn't work for either of us.

But do I think other SAHDs are less manly? No.

Well, actually, maybe. Once I met this SAHD who had been working on the same 'book proposal' for years while his wife worked and I kind of, yeah, thought he was pathetic, but that was an isolated case. Incidentally, he had a babysitter and a home office too.

Women are so far behind men in making changes in their attitudes and behaviors. Along with the lifestyle changes that improve your lives come the risks, responsibilities and burdens. You'll have to get used to a man demanding a divorce and child-support payments (alimony in disguise) for 100% custody of the children while you work in the office and make those payments for two decades, fearing jail time if you fall behind.

It seems like many of the responses here are from men, and I thought I'd chip in with a female perspective. I have to say, I kinda agree with King Charles - although more from observation than anything else. My girlfriends frequently moan about how they want a man who is sensitive, who will take care of the kids and help around the house more, etc - however, those who have found men like that then take to complaining that he's not much of a man. I think it's a classic case of women thinking they should want something (i.e. SAHDs) but in the end, it turns out those biological roles are pretty darn hard wired. I wouldn't go so far as to say a SAHD is not manly, but for myself, I will admit to preferring a more traditional set of gender roles....

I'm married to a SAHD, so I this seemed like an interesting topic to weigh in on.

Personally, I kind of wonder how much of the ambivalence that women express about stay-at-home guys actually originates in the stress that goes along with finding yourself as your family's primary breadwinner.

This has kind of been on my mind a lot lately, since I work in a profession that makes considerably more than my husband, and even when we got married we had agreed that I would be the one that works while he'd stay at home. (He's a freelance artist, so chances at a job with a regular salary and health bennies are slim to none.) I'm now in a position where I have steady income, health insurance, and the like, and now we have a kid and are in the process of buying a house. It hit me recently, though, that if something happens--if I get fired, get disabled and can't work, etc.--not only am I hosed, but now I've got a husband and a child that are hosed as well. I can't not work. It's just not an option. It's not something that keeps me up at night, and I'm trying to do all the stuff you're supposed to do to plan for emergencies (get life insurance, etc.) but it does freak me out a little when it comes to mind.

I wonder if some women in a similar situation actually end up resenting their husbands because of that (I don't, BTW)? These "breadwinner" issues are things that men have traditionally had to deal with, are some women less prepared for handling these worries? In many ways, it's much less stressful to know that someone else will be making the money and providing for you and I think most people--men and women alike--would opt for that kind of role if given the chance.

Ian: You say women are far behind men in adjusting their attitudes about gender roles. Why do you think that?

Grungie: You say it's less stressful to know that someone else is saddled with the responsibility to provide. Is it really? I think one of the reasons why I could never see myself as a (willing) SAHW/SAHM is that entrusting someone else with my health and wellbeing (THE ROOF OVER MY HEAD!!!) is huge. I mean, if I eat, if I'm warm, if I have shoes on my feet, if I can see a doctor... All that is up to someone else. That's scary to me.

As for my friend w/the three boys, I think she's becoming (or is way past) resentful, and I'm starting to question myself when I say stuff like, "You know those boys love him to death," and "He's saving you a bundle in childcare." Is that what I'd want to hear? Would it ease whatever I was feeling? Dunno.

king charles I:

I, for one, can't say for sure I'd want to support a man, even if he was being "daddy." I think that, as progressive and PC and forward-thinking that I am, I still want a man who contributes as much as I do. I don't want to be taken care of; that arrangement makes me queasy. Having taken care of myself for all these years, though, I'm afraid I wouldn't be able to see us as equals. Does that make sense?

Total sense. Ideology has its limits.