Dear conservatives, men should desire to be the sole breadwinner

Even non-conservative Penelope Trunk says so, and explains why in simple, obvious terms.

While I disagree with her about mothers providing sole childcare at young ages, she is correct that it’s Just Better for one person to focus on income and the other to focus on home and children.  We live in a society molded around working outside the home, and if both husband and wife are doing that, it’s way harder to have kids and raise them in a way that conservatives claim to want.

“There are two jobs for adults in a family. Kids or money. Grow up and take one of those jobs. Because while yes, it is a lot of pressure to be an adult and earn the money, it’s a lot harder to be a kid who doesn’t have a parent around when they need one.”

The comments are also enlightening (when they aren’t horrifying).  Women with rare and expensively compensated STEM skills, along with women who are CEOs or CTOs of companies pop up to argue that working outside the home part-time without losing career opportunity is easily doable, after all, they do!  Other women also pop up to talk about the shame of a husband berating a pregnant wife about her desire to stay home with her baby when he could be taking college classes and continuing to live off her instead, doesn’t she understand how UNFAIR she is being?

A lot of young men are being encouraged to use cheat codes even in marriage rather than accept tradeoffs and responsibility.  Women can’t do it all, and men can’t either.

 

Advertisements

45 thoughts on “Dear conservatives, men should desire to be the sole breadwinner

  1. I read the post and the comments until I couldn’t take it any more. Of course, none of the women commenting are those who are paid by the hour; work shifts in factories or fast food places; none of them have jobs where they ACTUALLY HAVE TO BE AT THE PLACE OF BUSINESS to do the work (like a waitress, or receptionist, or hotel maid service).

    Oh, and BTW – about those stratified types who can leave at 3 or 4 to pick up precious, or take all the half-days they want for school-events – someone always ends up picking up the slack for them (I’ve been that someone) and they’re just too self-absorbed to notice.

    Actually, I once had an argument with a dear friend of mine, PhD in biochem, works in her husband’s lab PT (has permission from the University because they ordinarily don’t allow one spouse to work for another). Anyway she was upset because she didn’t have a designated parking spot and b/c she had to drop off Son #1 at school in the morning, she always ended up in the back-40 lot and even then, sometimes had to PAY for parking in public garage and it wasn’t fair. She complained didn’t they understand that she was a MOTHER??????

    I wasn’t at all sympathetic. Told her it wasn’t her employer’s responsibility to prioritize HER because she was a parent and a PT worker, over the FT students in the lab (all PhD candidates). Also told her she needed to dump the entitled attitude and be grateful the University even allowed her to work under the terms she desired and please stop whining because tons of women would love her perky set up – oh and STFU already! (because we’re extremely good friends we can argue like this – to her credit, she allowed that she was being something of a princess).

    As for the single income – given my own experience, I’m dead grateful I had my job, even though I hated working when my children were little. Really sad part is both my girls are adamant that they have degrees and maintain an ability to support themselves in case of getting dumped. I’d be lying if I didn’t mention that I support their position (even though I don’t like that I feel this way).

    Liked by 1 person

    • I don’t know if I’d think it’s unfortunate for your daughters to want to support themselves. Although I’m not a parent, I can say without a doubt considering the current trends that the likelihood of many young people, and the younger people after them, of marrying well is low. It’s a depressing thought, but we all know the idea of young marriageable Christian men who can provide for a wife and family is far and in between. Unless people resort back to arranged marriages (which Western civ won’t because although no one will admit it, Westerners can’t hide their romanticism), or starting daughters on looking for a husband from age 14-16, I think it’s wise for them to know how to be self-supporting. It’s also wise for them to know they could provide for their parents into their age.

      Liked by 1 person

      • I said that totally wrong – I don’t think it’s unfortunate that they want their education and want a skill set which is valuable and enables them to support themselves; it bothers me that they rather have assumed a degree of likelihood that they’ll have their husband leave them. That’s the sad part.

        Like

  2. I have noticed the two following views on Dalrock, which nobody ever tries to reconcile:

    1. They don’t like career women.

    2. They don’t think a wife has a right to expect much in the way of help at home, unless she’s bringing in at least 50% of income.

    Dalrock being the hellhole that it is, I’m not going to venture in there to explain to the guys that if having a job is the price of having help at home, a lot of women are going to choose to work.

    While I’m on the subject, the belief in those parts is that traditional “male” jobs at home balance traditional “female” jobs at home. Since our family outsources both lawn and heavy cleaning (and both are done twice a month during lawn season), I am able to do a totally scientific comparison of the two. Here are my results: the two lawn guys are able to knock out our lawn in no more than 30 minutes, while the two cleaning ladies do a large house in just under 90 minutes. Also, each housecleaning costs over 3.5X more than each yard visit.

    So, I think it’s fair to say that heavy cleaning is roughly 3X more laborious than yard (assuming a large house and a small yard, which is common these days).

    Obviously, there are other traditionally “male” household duties.

    Fortunately, I also have pretty good stats on that, as in our family, I try to reserve traditionally male household projects for Saturday morning and try not to ask my husband for any non-emergency project-type help outside that window. I just asked my husband how long he spends on household projects on Saturday, and he said 90 minutes (and we do in-source a lot of basic repairs at our house). Let’s spot him an extra 30 minutes, for a total of two hours.

    I think I have fairly good evidence that the feminist writers are correct, that the amount of hours spent on traditionally male household tasks (yard and home repairs) is totally swamped by the number of hours necessary for traditionally female tasks (childcare, groceries, meal prep, dishes, laundry, cleaning).

    Liked by 3 people

  3. It is sad that so many men are comfortable insisting that their wives work and earning little money themselves. A lot of husbands are crumb bringers not breadwinners. Then these same men will wonder why they aren’t highly respected by their wives or by society.

    @ Maeve -I don’t worry about being dumped, but I can support myself and raise all my children to be capable of doing the same. It just one of those skills that adults should have IMO.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. While I’m on the subject of Dalrock and breadwinners, one of the oddities in those parts is that the guys invariably assume a standard of living that requires $100k a year to support. But they don’t seem to realize that it takes $100k a year to support it, and that an SAHM mother of 2 living on $60k a year is not actually living in the lap of luxury.

    The $100k+ household is their paradigm, but at the same time, they ascribe to it the same level of divorciness and dysfunction found in the median American household–whereas in reality, the $100k+ household is only 20% of American households, and people at that level tend to be pretty good at taking care of stuff–including their marriages.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I think I have fairly good evidence that the feminist writers are correct, that the amount of hours spent on traditionally male household tasks (yard and home repairs) is totally swamped by the number of hours necessary for traditionally female tasks (childcare, groceries, meal prep, dishes, laundry, cleaning).

      This is easily observable to anyone not blinded by their own misogyny. But because feminists are the main ones pointing it out they pretend that it isn’t true. If a feminist claimed that the sky was blue a manosphere type would argue with her.

      The $100k+ household is their paradigm, but at the same time, they ascribe to it the same level of divorciness and dysfunction found in the median American household–whereas in reality, the $100k+ household is only 20% of American households, and people at that level tend to be pretty good at taking care of stuff–including their marriages.

      I am convinced that most of the men who post there are poor and dysfunctional people. 100k sounds like the lap of luxury to poor people, but anyone who has actually lived on that or even gotten close knows better.

      Liked by 2 people

  5. I believe the reason why the Dalrock folks aren’t particularly comfortable with the idea of a husband being the sole income provider– or of any domestic life surrounding it– is because they must imagine the homemaker just sitting around at the pool eating bon-bons. But really, did homemakers ever do that en masse? Were homemakers even given the rare luxury they could sit down for hours enjoying their soap operas and eating bon-bons? Don’t get me started about having a pool. The Real Housewives of Orange County are not reflective of the reality most homemakers experience.

    I’ll admit, my husband comes from a family that doesn’t believe in the idea of the husband as the sole breadwinner. My ILs would argue they couldn’t have afforded parochial school, and that was a huge non-negotiable. They would argue they couldn’t have paid off their house as fast, live debt-free, or save for retirement. They are very frugal and simple people. But FIL always says “at the end of the day you need to eat.”

    Like

    • Maea said:

      “I believe the reason why the Dalrock folks aren’t particularly comfortable with the idea of a husband being the sole income provider– or of any domestic life surrounding it– is because they must imagine the homemaker just sitting around at the pool eating bon-bons. But really, did homemakers ever do that en masse?”

      Definitely not if there were any 0-3s at home and probably not with 4-year-olds.

      Also, mid-century housekeeping standards were very high and there was a lot of more at-home socializing than our generation does.

      Like

  6. Nonya said:

    “But because feminists are the main ones pointing it out they pretend that it isn’t true.”

    Right. “That’s feminism!” is the “That’s racist!” of the manosphere.

    “I am convinced that most of the men who post there are poor and dysfunctional people. 100k sounds like the lap of luxury to poor people, but anyone who has actually lived on that or even gotten close knows better.”

    Or just that they have a very poor sense of the difference in standard of living available to one person living on an income, and the same income taking care of 4-6 people.

    I’ve run into a related issue elsewhere, where single people sincerely believed that their two loads a week of laundry is the same as the laundry experience of a mother of 2+. (This seems to be a very common delusion.)

    I blame solipsism.

    Like

    • I’ve run into a related issue elsewhere, where single people sincerely believed that their two loads a week of laundry is the same as the laundry experience of a mother of 2+. (This seems to be a very common delusion.)

      What a bunch of pansies! Everyone knows if you’re single, you should be doing all your laundry in one day. I get all our laundry done in 2-3 hours because I don’t have children. It was the same when I was working.

      Two loads the same as the laundry of a woman with children…wow. Just wow. I have a feeling my mom woulda smacked some sense into those people if they were her kids. lol

      Like

      • Pansies. LOL

        I do the laundry for the hubs and myself (also table linens, our bed & bath linens, and kitchen towels) – so at least 5-6 loads a week. Girls do their own. If they’re only doing 2 loads a week, they’re not doing it right. Currently the hubs and I are having a bit of a battle over the laundry. He thinks I work too much/hard and wants to help. I want him to leave my clothes alone. I have to make sure I reach the hamper before he notices there are clothes in it – which reminds me that I’d better check now.

        Like

    • “I blame solipsism”.

      LOL, are you sure its not hypergamy or feminine imperative? Little men have to give themselves big words to sound important. Some of it has merit, but really I am starting to see through it all. I guarantee you by this statement alone they will brandish me a feminist.

      Like

      • ANY criticism toward that rhetoric is brandished as feminism.

        If you point out the lack of empathy toward struggling families with an overwhelmed SAHM, it’s feminism.

        If you point out how a woman who’s a SAHM should expect her husband to be the primary breadwinner, and take on the responsibility, it’s feminism.

        If you say religious people online place a lot of undue pressure on women to reach certain standards, it’s feminism.

        I could go on all day, but everyone gets the point.

        Like

  7. I finally went back and read the piece. (Bad, bad AmyP.)

    Penelope Trunk is quite correct about the logistics. Some more thoughts to add to hers:

    1. She’s right about what works, but it is likely to result in mom getting too much home and kids, and dad getting too little home and kids.

    2. Good family-supporting jobs tend to be much more than 9-5.

    3. She’s right that splitting everything 50/50 is unworkable.

    4. I think this piece didn’t have enough coverage of the importance of the post-school shift and the changing demands that schools place on parents–you are not home free once you drop your child off for kindergarten.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. I see one thing we’re not addressing is a huge point. Yes, in traditional circles men should desire to be the sole breadwinner but the question now is how do they seek that desire? Is there anything to motivate men to want to take on the responsibility? The ‘spherians would say the quality of women is sooo low these days, marrying isn’t worth it. But if men do meet a marriageable woman, she has to demonstrate her worthiness for the work.

    Why should men desire to take on the work and responsibility when divorce is so high, especially with Christians?

    Based on what I’ve read and observed, I think the only way a lot of men would aspire to that goal is if they met a marriageable woman who was submissive to him before marriage. Once she proved she was submissive enough, then there’s security in her submissiveness to follow his lead in marriage. I know, blasphemous but the words have been written by many that this is what they believe.

    Like

    • Maea said:

      “Yes, in traditional circles men should desire to be the sole breadwinner but the question now is how do they seek that desire? Is there anything to motivate men to want to take on the responsibility?”

      I think it comes pretty naturally when the husband has a high-paying career that he is passionate about, and he values a streamlined and lower-stress home life over having more income.

      My husband has a career that is his passion (although there are less fun parts), and one of the things I as an SAHM contribute to our family is flexibility for him. If a kid is sick, it’s OK. If there’s a half day at school or a weird school vacation day, it’s OK. If a meeting runs late, it’s OK. If he has an evening event, it’s OK. If he’s out of town for a week, it’s OK. If he wanted us to go overseas for a summer or half a year, we could do it.

      If I had a “big job” too, none of this would be possible. Then, as Penelope Trunk describes, we’d get to fight it out over every inch of the weekly schedule or hire a lot of help.

      “The ‘spherians would say the quality of women is sooo low these days, marrying isn’t worth it. But if men do meet a marriageable woman, she has to demonstrate her worthiness for the work.”

      Which is going to go over like a lead balloon with all the traditional girls who expect to be wooed and courted.

      And there’s some sense to that expectation–a guy is never going to be nicer to you than when he’s courting you, so if he’s demanding, cheap and mean during courtship, expect more of the same if you get married.

      “Why should men desire to take on the work and responsibility when divorce is so high, especially with Christians?”

      Because, as PT points out, it’s really stressful and logistically difficult when both spouses are working full-time at demanding jobs. It’s much more feasible to have either two moderately demanding jobs, one big job and an SAHM, or one big job and one little job.

      “Based on what I’ve read and observed, I think the only way a lot of men would aspire to that goal is if they met a marriageable woman who was submissive to him before marriage.”

      I have the awful suspicion that they might want that intellectually, but find it boring and unsexy if they actually got it.

      One thing the manosphere misses is that a lot of men prefer sexually assertive women.

      Liked by 2 people

      • What happens when a lot of men can’t get the high-paying job? Financial security through employment is no longer plentiful for my generation. A lot of men who aren’t working high-pay jobs have to work overtime, spend long hours away from the family, or end up going from job to job. I had a Christian coworker a while ago who told me she wished she had more children (she has 2), but her husband’s insecure employment was the #1 reason why they didn’t. She was still able to stay at home and homeschool, but after some time her husband expected her to go back to work.

        I honestly believe a lot of people are concerned about the current market, and it leads them to become fearful for their own circumstances. There are a lot of men who end up losing their jobs through no fault of their own, and they can’t obtain those high-pay jobs because of the lack of opportunity, competition, or weren’t able to pay for the education to help them. A lot of men work really hard, but this isn’t a market that rewards people who work hard. It just isn’t.

        Like

  9. Maea said:

    “What happens when a lot of men can’t get the high-paying job?”

    Right. The SAHM formula works best when daddy has a really good job.

    “I honestly believe a lot of people are concerned about the current market, and it leads them to become fearful for their own circumstances.”

    Yes to that, too.

    Like

  10. The high paying job issue is a catch-22. It would be easier for men to earn relatively less if people were more close-knit. But that in itself depresses income.

    The other way to go, for conservatives who are all “muh Western European/Anglo-Saxon ancestry” is to do what Western Euros/Anglo-Saxons did, which is be a lot more relaxed than conservatives I’ve seen online and offline are about other people doing the childcare who aren’t Mom and Dad. Older siblings serving the parental role, grandparents, uncles/aunts, masters and mistresses with their apprentice, fostering infants and toddlers, richer neighbors educating the smartest and/or best looking kids, etc. Even offline I’m really struck sometimes by the sheer anti-social tendency of conservatives. They just don’t like socializing as much among the ones that have kids. It’s got to be related to who’s having kids these days.

    And you read even stuff from the early and mid 20th century where it’s normal even among American middle class types to go on long vacations without the kids. That’s a lot more affordable than taking them everywhere. There’s a huge stunt parenting aspect to modern American parenting that wasn’t there pre-internet.

    Like

    • My family, being chock full of non-Western immigrants actually follow the lifestyle of being more relaxed with rearing children. My niece has spent a lot of time with my parents and she’ll spend a lot of time with the other set of grandparents. It’s not a big deal at all. A lot of immigrants wouldn’t be successful rooting themselves in the US if they had to restrict themselves to only-mother caregiving. IME.

      I’ve come to the conclusion Americans in general are against being close-knit on so many levels. People do a pathetic job of attempting to blame it on introversion (of all things, seriously?), mobility, and the internet. The truth is we can still have all 3 of those things but people have to choose to make different decisions in their lives. I guess I have a different idea of community, as a lot of people refer to it as the place they live, but I see it more in terms of a broader locale and the people you consider your kith and kin. One can live in a place for 30 years and never establish a community there, but have a network of kith and kin within a 20 mile radius. I think I’ve moved around too many times in my life to have a sense of community rooted in a place. Kind of the story of my experience.

      So…why is it that reading the ‘sphere, so many men write about being on their own isolated piece of land? Why is it they talk about driving hours to one’s church as if it’s some kind of badge of honor? Why is it that it’s always the men who profess the accolades of living out in the middle of nowhere with their future 10 kids and somehow…everything’s going to be okay? Seriously guys, who are your kids going to marry if you don’t bother with a community? What are you gonna do if your wife needs medical care if you’re an hour away from a hospital or even a doctor?

      These are choices people have to act upon. I think the American attitude has been for many decades, or even 100+ years, to be the “independent, pioneering spirit.” This “spirit” has take individualism to self-worship, and pioneering to dismissing common sense.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Maea said:

        “So…why is it that reading the ‘sphere, so many men write about being on their own isolated piece of land? Why is it they talk about driving hours to one’s church as if it’s some kind of badge of honor?”

        Good questions.

        Because they’re ornery and don’t play well with others?

        “Well, Why is it that it’s always the men who profess the accolades of living out in the middle of nowhere with their future 10 kids and somehow…everything’s going to be okay? Seriously guys, who are your kids going to marry if you don’t bother with a community? What are you gonna do if your wife needs medical care if you’re an hour away from a hospital or even a doctor?”

        Or the kids!

        All very good questions.

        “These are choices people have to act upon. I think the American attitude has been for many decades, or even 100+ years, to be the “independent, pioneering spirit.” This “spirit” has take individualism to self-worship, and pioneering to dismissing common sense.”

        Yes.

        Like

    • Here are some thoughts about TPC’s last post:

      1. There is a lot of leaning on sibling help in today’s American large family households.

      http://www.tlc.com/tv-shows/19-kids-and-counting/michelle-duggars-blog/michelle-duggar-her-familys-buddy-system/

      Mrs. Duggar explains their buddy system starting at the 4 minute point here and you can see it in action:

      2. People today are less innocent about the prevalence of sexual abuse and hence less likely to have confidence in people outside their “circle of trust”. And unfortunately, nowadays the circle of trust is often very small. Even more unfortunately, it sometimes seems like the the more insular families are, the more likely they are to put their trust in predatory people.

      3. Unfortunately, a lot of people do not see eye to eye with grandma and grandpa and other extended family on politics, religion, and lifestyle issues (even just basic stuff like not swearing or using ethnic slurs in front of the kids).

      4. Related–I think Facebook and similar cause a lot of unnecessary bad feelings between people who in the normal course of events would be able to give each other a lot of help.

      I’m from a small town, and my sister tells me that Facebook has a really toxic effect on neighborliness. People air political and religious opinions on Facebook that they would normally keep to themselves and get into fights that they wouldn’t otherwise get into–and in a small town, you can’t escape each other.

      5. With regard to leaving children home for trips, I think a lot of even mid-size families have the problem of overwhelming our support network. For instance, in our family, we have three children. At this point, we are probably over the line with regard to having a number of kids that the helpful set of grandparents could cope with. I don’t think we’ve ever left all three of our children with the helpful grandparents for any length of time. We do have a promise that they’ll take the kids when we do a 20th anniversary trip, but I’m not totally sure that they can manage (even thought the older children are very helpful).

      Like

      • #3-5 might be major reasons why a lot of people aren’t into the community thing or even the close knit family thing. Let’s face it, who wants to be close knit with family when you don’t share the same religion? Or argue about politics? I remember when my family ganged up on me for voting for Romney…it was a bad year for many reasons.

        #5 could be what people refer to as “sacrifice.” A sacrifice for a married couple could be “no taking trips without the kids until they’re all over the age of 10.” I don’t know if it’s kind to grandparents, or aunts and uncles to have them get overwhelmed with their own children and the children of others. What I’ve heard of, and experienced is the flipside. An aunt, uncle, or grandparent will offer to take on the older kids for a trip or a few hours respite for the parents and the parents decline. My mom always said it wasn’t fair to my younger siblings that they couldn’t experience the same activity because they were too young. Being the oldest child sucked in so many ways.

        Ah facebook. Bad old facebook that millions are addicted to. Social media’s provided a vehicle for people to not be politically correct but all it does is alienates everyone. The problem I see is the political correctness in society where people can’t express what they think or their preferences without getting a nice label. No one knows how to “agree to disagree” anymore. Apparently doing so makes you a racist or something. Not exactly a neighborly way to go about things.

        Like

      • Ideological purity has got to be one of the biggest wastes of time and brain power in the human race. NOTHING is pure or flawless, except for God. Why does this purity stuff remind me of orthopraxy vs. orthodoxy? Shouldn’t we concern ourselves with orthodoxy?

        Ideological and theological purity can f- off.

        Like

  11. On the topic of providing I saw this comment at Dalrock
    “theasdgamer says:
    March 9, 2016 at 8:09 am

    A wife does not have the right to demand or extract resources from her husband. Providing resources is HIS choice—his responsibility… it is NOT her right to demand them!! Not ever.”

    Then I presume, the flip of this should also apply….A husband does not have the right to demand sex from his wife. Providing sex is HER choice! It is NOT his right to demand sex!! Not ever.

    BUT, nope it doesn’t work that way, the meme in the manosphere is you can have a lazy, unemployed bum husband, but you still must give sex, respect, and other affections. Women don’t deserve or should even expect anything in return for that. I totally see now how so much of ‘sphere doctrine is feminism in reverse. There would be outrage if a woman said with such vigor whether I provide sex or not is my choice and immediately be summed up as a feminist.

    Like

    • lgrobins said:

      “A wife does not have the right to demand or extract resources from her husband. Providing resources is HIS choice—his responsibility… it is NOT her right to demand them!! Not ever.””

      I saw that thread and in context, that was exactly his point–if submission is hers to offer, not his to demand, then supporting the family is his to offer, not hers to demand.

      The logic of that kind of works–if you accept both. But if the husband expects submission while not accepting the obligation to support, then he too is trying to have his cake and eat it too. He may also find that dinners are light on meat, the thermostat is set low, and there isn’t any cable at home.

      However, I don’t think the resource/submission analogy actually does work. A household cannot function without material resources–you have to buy food, cleaning products, laundry detergent, diapers, electricity, running water, etc. to have a reasonably comfortable home, but it is quite possible to have a happy marriage without wifely submission in the Dalrockian sense.

      Like

      • Aw so he is being sarcastic. Maybe I jumped the gun there, but it is so hard to tell anymore as some actually do believe that.

        Like

    • It seems across the ‘sphere is women shouldn’t teach other women. People need to start differentiating what kind of teaching they’re talking about. If they’re talking about leadership and exercising authority, that is a different issue.

      Who are young women supposed to learn from about homemaking? How to be wifely? How to be feminine?

      Like

      • For some reason the manosphere types don’t get that you can be under the authority of more than one person. Anyone else holding any kind of authority in a woman’s life is an evil plot against her husband.

        Liked by 1 person

      • This whole “husband authority” stuff mildly reeks of husband worship idolatry. As a Catholic, that’s my own observation.

        Like

      • Maea,

        One thing I think that the guys don’t get is that when you marry young, both spouses still have a lot of learning to do. A 25-year-old bachelor who was previously lord and master of a studio apartment doesn’t instantly upon marriage turn into an expert on car maintenance, home maintenance, efficient housecleaning, household organization, economical marketing and cooking for a family, pest control, laundry, prenatal care, child development, first aid, K-12 educational trends, homeschooling and personal finance. The Dalrock guys tend to talk as though every husband is eternally 35-40 years old–never younger, never older and an expert on everything.

        It’s sometimes really funny what they don’t know. I remember recently seeing a Dalrock guy talking about how women make a fuss over nothing with cooking dinner–all he wants is just a steak and potato. MEMO TO DALROCK GUY: YOUR FAMILY CAN’T AFFORD TO EAT STEAK EVERY NIGHT. YOU’RE GETTING A CASSEROLE BECAUSE IT ALLOWS THE MISSUS TO GET AWAY WITH SERVING TINY PORTIONS OF MEAT TO EACH FAMILY MEMBER. I guess that steak remark is the manosphere version of “let them eat cake.”

        My husband and I married relatively young, and it’s amazing how much we’ve both learned over the last two decades–my husband has picked up skills I never would have expected him to. But it would have been a lot harder for him to learn stuff if he had had to keep up an image of infallibility and omniscience the whole time.

        Liked by 1 person

        • They don’t want the other family members to have meat. There are quite a few conservative families where Daddy gets all or nearly all of the meat. Low protein is very very common for the economic reasons you note. Very much not talked about as a backdoor way to minimize the natural high energy of children so housework can be done.

          Like

  12. TPC said:

    “They don’t want the other family members to have meat. There are quite a few conservative families where Daddy gets all or nearly all of the meat. Low protein is very very common for the economic reasons you note. Very much not talked about as a backdoor way to minimize the natural high energy of children so housework can be done.”

    Holy cow.

    I read Free Jinger pretty regularly, and underfeeding and tiny portions of protein (two chicken breasts for 10 people) do come up frequently there.

    That approach is actively scandalous to mainstream middle class America.

    Like

Comments are closed.