Traditional gender roles include a bread-winning, disciplinarian husband/father and a "nurturing" stay-at-home wife/mother. You think these roles still hold up today and is this a setup that you'd want to have in your own personal life?

I think that the notion of a mom staying at home to raise the children is very outdated. Most families think they need that double income in order to make it. My personal opinion is that many families could trim the fat off their extras in their budget, but then again, a parent staying at home is not for everyone. I know a family that has a stahd and mom is working 12-14 hour days. They cut back on everything, and are living at about where they were when they had daycare. But, I think mom is becoming resentful, so even though dad is loving it, it is going to cause stresses on their relationship if it already has not.

Personally, I could never be stay at home mom without being able to make my own money. I work from home and have for ten years so that I am able to be here for my son all the time. But I have to have my own money so that I can pay 50% of the bills. I could never have my money not separate and not contribute. But for those who can, I think it is a pretty cool thing for someone to be able to be able to stay home with the child(ren).

^^^^That's just it, most families THINK they need dual income. I think more often than not, that's an illusion. I think the source of it is that we've elevated a lot of luxuries to necessities.

Although, I think the "traditional" gender roles mentioned in the OP are a bit, skewed, perhaps? I do feel that when possible, the mother needs to stay home and the Dad goes out to work merely cause I think it's a natural(not traditional) thing to do. I realize sometimes this isn't possible and I can understand that, but I think a lot of times people just want extra cash to go to Disney Land and have the highest cable package.

So I think people are trying their damnest to escape from the gender roles. But you can only do so much to change things. Nature has it's purpose and you can only dodge it for so long. That doesn't mean women aren't capable of working by any means though like some try to spin it.

I personally cannot stand gender roles and will never participate in them. That said, as stupid and screwed up as I think they are, it might work for some couples – as long as they’re truly happy in those gender roles.

Society is not yet where it should be. For instance, women still make less money than men in the exact same job. How does that make any kind of sense? I’m still young and I hope to see things like that change before I die, and maybe they will. Women outnumber men when it comes to getting a college education now, so maybe women will start demanding equality and fairness.

I love the fact that so many women are going to college now, but I don’t like the fact that they outnumber men – I wish the numbers were even, because I’m paranoid that the roles will be reversed and men will become discriminated against in the workforce. I want equality, all around.

Anyway, sorry. It’s my opinion that gender roles destroy people emotionally. Men can’t cry or be emotional without feeling like some kind of wimp, and likewise, women can’t express anger or any kind of aggression without being labeled a bitch. If men weren’t supposed to cry, they wouldn’t have tear ducts. If men weren’t supposed feel sad, they wouldn’t be able to. Women would not be able to feel angry, or like they want to punch something if it’s unnatural.

Screw the roles. Live your life as a human being with a full spectrum of emotion.

Today I think traditional gender roles more likely happen more out of circumstance or necessity than tradition. My brother works while his wife stays at home, but that's just because both felt it was important for one parent to be with the kids, and not stick them in daycare. In their case it made more sense for her to quit her job because he makes more money and gets better benefits. So I guess they do sort of perpetuate a stereotype, but she's no submissive housewife, and he's no king of the castle. They are equal partners in their marriage and in their home, they just do different jobs.

Other people can have the lifestyle they choose, but personally I see housewife/mother role as a depressing one that has the potential to be both belittling and oppressive. I'd go out of my mind staying at home 24/7 with the kids, while my husband goes to work and gives me a weekly "allowance". Marriage is supposed to be an equal partnership, but the way I see it it becomes too easy for the "breadwinner" to feel a sense of control and supremacy over the domestic spouse. I'd never agree to it, at least not for the long haul. A friend of mine is a housewife, but only because she returned to school. Once she's finished, she plans to go to work...and her husband will then either quit his job, or lessen his hours so he can go to school. That I can see, it seems fair. But I'm not going to play Donna Reed.

These ideas of 'traditional gender roles' usually pertain to parents, wife stays at home because she's a mother with kids who need raising, the husband goes out to work because he needs to support his family. This all goes back, in my opinion anyway, to the nuclear family idea, which in some rare instances (my own being one of them) can work, but it's not for everybody. Personally I think families could gain from taking a more 'tribal' approach instead of it just being the parents and their kids, having a mulit-generational household with grandparents or aunts or uncles or whatever relatives are around, living together so everybody helps raise the kids and if mom's at work and dad's at work, there's still somebody there to help raise the kids and supply the family environment they need.

That's the way I see it anyway, as to where there are no kids and it's just a married couple, to each their own, if she wants to stay home, fine, if she wants to work, fine, if she wants to go out and earn the money and he wants to stay at home and clean the house, fine.

I can understand that some women may have a maternal need to tend to the children, but two incomes are better than one, especially if we aren't particularly well off. I'm attracted to career-ambitious women who have as much of a desire to carve out her nitch in the working world as she does being a wife and mother. I can see being married to a Clair Huxtable, or even a Roseanne Connor, but not a Peg Bundy.

Though let's be honest, Chris, who could??? How Al ever got suckered into that one is beyond me.

Chris wrote:

I can understand that some women may have a maternal need to tend to the children, but two incomes are better than one, especially if we aren't particularly well off. I'm attracted to career-ambitious women who have as much of a desire to carve out her nitch in the working world as she does being a wife and mother. I can see being married to a Clair Huxtable, or even a Roseanne Connor, but not a Peg Bundy.

Basically. I'm not in the business of supporting layabouts, I only carry kids. Wifey gotta bring home a pay check to help the lights stay on too.

Chris wrote:

I can understand that some women may have a maternal need to tend to the children, but two incomes are better than one, especially if we aren't particularly well off. I'm attracted to career-ambitious women who have as much of a desire to carve out her nitch in the working world as she does being a wife and mother. I can see being married to a Clair Huxtable, or even a Roseanne Connor, but not a Peg Bundy.

Two incomes may be better than one but I think it's often at the cost of the family stability. The pattern I've seen is that all the dual income families I know got a lot more family problems that the single income families.

And I don't buy that you need two incomes to keep the lights on, at least not in the long-term. I think people just have materialistic wants that dual income supplies. I think the pressure for women to always have to go out and work is a symptom of a bigger problem. If they wanna work, it's their business, but expecting them to work seems to be just a symptom of other problems in the modern world. All in all, I've seen that living for that fancy vacation just doesn't make you happy, and neither does dual income really.

There is a ‘motherhood penalty’ in the workplace. A study involving two equally qualified women of the same age and race and similar appearance and personality was done on it once. These two women, one identified as a mother and one not, interviewed for the same position with multiple employers. The non-mother received the majority of job offers, and the mother received offers paying considerably less. When asked why, employers noted that mothers are typically less reliable, not committed to the job/career, and more tired and emotional. On the flip side, two men interviewing the same way had the opposite results. The father received more job offers and a higher pay.

AtownPeep wrote:

There is a ‘motherhood penalty’ in the workplace. A study involving two equally qualified women of the same age and race and similar appearance and personality was done on it once. These two women, one identified as a mother and one not, interviewed for the same position with multiple employers. The non-mother received the majority of job offers, and the mother received offers paying considerably less. When asked why, employers noted that mothers are typically less reliable, not committed to the job/career, and more tired and emotional. On the flip side, two men interviewing the same way had the opposite results. The father received more job offers and a higher pay.

Never heard that before but I'm not surprised. I can see employers deeming mothers as unreliable (late because they had to drop the kids off or calling off because they can't find a sitter) and fathers as being more reliable because of the responsibility he has. It's sexist as hell but I can believe it.

^^^^Is it sexist or is it just the result of experience?

With the exception of working out of home [as RedBedroom mentioned she does], I personally cannot see myself as a stay-at-home mom, while my husband goes to work and financially supports the household on his salary alone. I do want a husband and children some day, but I wasn't bread on the idea of making a life out of being the happy homemaker. Working gives me a sense of independence, structure and purpose. And if I have daughters, I especially want to instill these values in them.

The most I could see myself doing would be taking a few months off (no more than a year) following my giving birth, but as soon as he or she is old enough to go into daycare, then that's what will happen, and I'm going back to work. If two salaries can make it so the children can be more comfortably provided for financially, and that the cell phones and cable television stay on, then that's all the better.

The 'motherhood penalty' sounds like – bring on the flames – good business sense, at least if the businessmen assessments are accurate.

Similarly the married male is a better bet than the unmarried male. Married and especially babied (so to speak) men behave more responsibly because they have a lot to lose. They also don’t go out on drinking binges or long ski vacations.

If you put yourself in the position of the employer the choices, however unfair they may be to the people involved, affect the bottom line and that is what employers have to look at.

The answer depends on the couple. Some couples are happy with a traditional arrangement, while others prefer to assume different roles. I believe that people should be free to choose based on their abilities and interests. If the wife is the better cook and she wants to stay home, then she should (within reason) be allowed to do that. Alternately, there’s nothing wrong with a guy being a house husband if he has a better command of domestic skills and his wife wants to be the breadwinner.

As for child rearing, I think traditional gender roles can be harmful if parents are too rigid in their assignation of said roles to the children. For instance, if a little girl wants to play with Hot Wheels and her mother insists that she plays with pink clad Barbie dolls, then that’s not healthy. But I also think it’s possible for parents to occupy traditional gender roles without forcing them on the children.

The answer depends on the couple. Some couples are happy with a traditional arrangement, others prefer to assume different roles. I believe that people should be free to choose based on their abilities and interests. If the wife is the better domestic and wants to stay home, then she should (within reason) be allowed to do that. Alternately, there is nothing wrong with a guy being a house husband if he has a better command of domestic skills and his wife wants to be the breadwinner.

As for childrearing, I think traditional gender roles can be harmful if parents are too rigid in their assignation of said roles to the children. For instance, if a little girl wants to play with Hot Wheels and her mother insists that she plays with pink clad Barbie dolls, then that is not healthy–but I also think it is possible for parents to occupy traditional gender roles without forcing them on the children.