I have attempted to choose the words in my question quite carefully, so before anyone jumps down my throat:
- "capable" - having both significant independent earning power in the job market AND the skills to maintain a household and educate children broadly
- "elects" - supposing the wife and husband each are highly educated and have high earning power and ability to support a family with one of the two incomes, the husband chooses to spend time raising and educating the children instead of progressing in career, knowing that his skills will remain marketable should the need arise to return to work
Think back to pioneer times, or rural farms/ranches. Essentially, before "public school" existed (and even well into its establishment), both parents "worked" and "stayed at home" to contribute in raising children and working the land, cattle, homestead, workshop, whatever.
These days "work" necessary to make money to support a family, takes one or both parents "out" of the home and "away" from children... and children must often go to government-run school too.
Given the opportunity to have one or the other possible "breadwinners" stay home and even possibly homeschool, it seems that we most often societally choose for the wife/mother to do so. I wonder if this is necessarily a "mothers must raise the children and keep the house" decision, or how much does the "well father can make more money than mother can, and that works out better for all" play a role.
I would totally trade off years with my wife "running the house" so that, in this non-farming/ranching world, children see their parents and get plenty of interaction with both while growing and developing and learning. I'm talking husband and wife with high income and high demand for their skills in the workforce, so there is no worry of "falling behind" or being unemployable.
Also seems to make divorce-rape very difficult... if the wife is an equal or greater provider (like pioneer days), low incentive.
I have attempted to choose the words in my question quite carefully, so before anyone jumps down my throat:
* "capable" - having both significant independent earning power in the job market AND the skills to maintain a household and educate children broadly
* "elects" - supposing the wife and husband each are highly educated and have high earning power and ability to support a family with one of the two incomes, the husband chooses to spend time raising and educating the children instead of progressing in career, knowing that his skills will remain marketable should the need arise to return to work
Think back to pioneer times, or rural farms/ranches. Essentially, before "public school" existed (and even well into its establishment), both parents "worked" and "stayed at home" to contribute in raising children and working the land, cattle, homestead, workshop, whatever.
These days "work" necessary to make money to support a family, takes one or both parents "out" of the home and "away" from children... and children must often go to government-run school too.
Given the opportunity to have one or the other possible "breadwinners" stay home and even possibly homeschool, it seems that we most often societally choose for the wife/mother to do so. I wonder if this is *necessarily* a "mothers must raise the children and keep the house" decision, or how much does the "well father can make more money than mother can, and that works out better for all" play a role.
I would totally trade off years with my wife "running the house" so that, in this non-farming/ranching world, children see their parents and get plenty of interaction with both while growing and developing and learning. I'm talking husband and wife with high income and high demand for their skills in the workforce, so there is no worry of "falling behind" or being unemployable.
Also seems to make divorce-rape very difficult... if the wife is an equal or greater provider (like pioneer days), low incentive.
(post is archived)