Laurie, there is one thing you and your friends should be aware of if you are going to take the "female provider" idea seriously. There is a striking correlation between the percentage of income in a marriage earned by the wife and the likelihood of divorce.

As the percentage of income earned by the wife increases, the likelihood of divorce increases in a very steady line.

If a woman earns 60% or more of the marital income, the chance of divorce almost doubles. Amongst the wealthiest 25%, which would include many uni educated professionals, the chance of divorce soars if the woman earns 60% or more of the marital income.

The instinct of most women not to "marry down" (in socio-economic terms) is therefore arguably a sound one. The problem is, of course, that there is a decreasing number of men for uni educated women to "marry up" with - though the fact that many female doctors, lawyers, vets etc choose to work part-time after marriage and motherhood would effectively keep many marriages below the 60% female income line.

(Seeker, this is more provocation, I know, but it's presented in good faith.)

You know Mark, that does not bother me in the slightest. Because I believe that the situation there is caused by people having different 'norms' of behaviour. But I feel that the norms are changing, that men are expecting their partners to do as well if not better than them.

Perhaps I am foolishly young and idealistic. But surely it is better to be hopeful that the world is changing for the better, where men and women can both achieve their dreams, than to be bitter and wishing for a age that is long gone where the little woman would go and keep house after marriage for evermore.

Glenwriter- young male suicide rates are shocking. But the problems suffered by these men are not to be remedied by limiting the options of others. Also, I understand that young women actually attempt suicide more, but as they tend to choose less violent options (swallowing too many sleeping pills, as opposed to hanging or shooting themselves), they tend to be more likely to able to be rescued/revived than young men. Clearly, we need more effort in mental health and useful career/social pathways for people.

Ena's article has certainly brought out those who either have a chip on their shoulder or a longing for the 'good old days' when men were men and women knew their place.

Laurie, excellent points regarding youth suicide, it is significant that any social problem from divorce to mental illness is frequently posited as the fault of feminism. We, as a society, are responsible for all our members; it is simplistic to argue that people seeking equal status to others are to blame for every ill.

I commiserate with Glenwriter and Seeker as I too have suffered at the hands of an abusive, manipulative partner. Unlike them, I don't hold the entire opposite sex to blame and have managed to move on with my life; albeit with scars.

Richardson, longs for the days of arriving home after a long days work, demanding dinner and sheltered from his offspring 'daddy has worked hard and needs his quiet time' and of course when retiring to bed takes his full conjugal rights while his wife lay and thought of the good of the nation. I guess there were no back rubs to, er, 'get her in the mood'.


As for 'rule of thumb'; a broad term covering many uses with regard to rough measurement. As for whether the term was enshrined in law, it is unlikely, however British common law once held that it was legal for a man to chastise his wife in moderation (whatever that meant), interestingly there has never been a right in law for a wife to chastise her husband.

Christina Hoff Sommers explains the confused business in her 1994 book Who Stole Feminism? How Women Have Betrayed Women:

"The husband also, by the old law, might give his wife moderate correction . . . . (however) in the politer reign of Charles the Second [1660-'85], this power of correction began to be doubted; and a wife may now have security of the peace against her husband."

In other words, once upon a time in olde England, a man could beat his wife. But don't try it now."

And another historical correction, Mark, as I understand it, women who left marriages a century ago had no legal right to even ask for custody and, worse, no right to even see their children - at all - if their husband so decided, no matter what the circumstances - children, and wives, quite literally belonged to their fathers and husbands.
Whether the courts always award custody fairly these days or not, no-one has ever seriously attempted to enshrine laws that exclude fathers from their children in the way mothers were once routinely excluded.
You may hate what has happened to women's status in the last few decades, Mark, you may yearn for the past, but, rightly or wrongly, there is no going back. Women voted with their feet and their hearts, they want to control their own lives and make their own choices - just as men do. And, just as occurs with men, if those choices don't work out they are prepared to live with the consequences. I vastly prefer to suffer as a conseqence of my own mistakes than chafe against the misery caused by having to live under the yoke of mistakes made on my behalf by someone else.
And Glenwriter, whenever I write something, think something or ponder a decision, I ask my husband what he thinks, and I value his opinion. He read this piece - and the comments - and had some interesting things to say, in my support. That's why we are partners, sometimes he takes the lead on something, sometimes I do, depends on who knows more about it, who cares more about it and who is going to end up doing the lions share of the work.

I love this!
Ena wrote:
"Whenever I write something, think something or ponder a decision, I ask my husband what he thinks, and I value his opinion. He read this piece - and the comments - and had some interesting things to say, in my support. That's why we are partners, sometimes he takes the lead on something, sometimes I do, depends on who knows more about it, who cares more about it and who is going to end up doing the lions share of the work."

Now let's take a business or a marriage or any other partnership such as the Federal Coalition.
In all sincerity do you think the other partner would agree with this statement?

GlenWriter what is the bit that you don't like about Ena's comment?

What she proposes (if she means what I've read) sounds like a very practical and satisfying way for two adults to manage the most important partnership of their lives.

I was going to comment on what I thought to be your disagreement but I may be completely wrong about it so I'll hold off.

R0bert