[Mamzelle]

Sigh. So we should train up our daughters to be homemakers (like myself, BTW)with such poor prospects to achieve this position? Mine is a rare privilege, getting rarer. My daughter will be able to support herself, but I hope she'll be in a position to enjoy a home and family as I have.

I meet no men who really want their wives at home. THEY WANT THE INCOME. Not to mention the bragging rights of a two-career marriage.

That they won't pitch in with the housework is more a factor of immaturity and selfishness than the more usual accusation of sexism.

But I can tell the writer of this article that men are made miserable by their careers, as well.

[patton]

I want my wife at home - as soon as she has finished her teaching contract for the year (37 DAYS), she is done.

We had to move all sorts of money around, pay tax penalties, and agree to eat a lot of spaghetti.

So what?

I want my wife at home, and she wants to be there.

[Aedammair]

I meet no men who really want their wives at home. THEY WANT THE INCOME. Not to mention the bragging rights of a two-career marriage.

I couldn't agree more. Men have been big beneficiaries of feminism in that it took away the imperative dictated by society to provide. It used to be that if a man couldn't provide for his family, he wasn't much of man at all, barring any tragic circumstances.

In fairness to the new generation of men who want to diversify more than provide; a dollar doesn't buy what it used to. In 1958 (when my parents emigrated to the US) their rent totaled slightly less than 25% of their income; that is unheard of today. But be that as it may, men are just as ready to chuck childrearing to a disinterested third party as are women.