Does the "traditional" set up of families really benefit the father?

Question

There have been posts concerning "natural family" or "traditional family", and the idea that these forms of family are the best for all involved--and all others are dysfunctional.

However, I have to question if the "father as the provider and mother as the caregiver" is the most fair form of family--for the father.

My aunt and uncle are a "traditional" family. She raises the kids, he works. However, while he works, my aunt becomes the disciplinary, the care giver, the one who knows what her children love or hate, the one who holds her children while they suffer through break-ups or knows which friends are good, bad, etc. Essentially, she runs the house and children. My uncle, who loves his children and his children love him, plays no real active part in the family. Because of his heavy work load to provide for his family, he has no real interaction.

My question is, is this really fair to fathers? In a traditional family, they are expected to work so long and hard and as a result, miss out on their children as they grow.

So how is adding a second income a bad thing? How does this hurt the father or children if the work load and full responsibility is shared on two shoulders instead of one?

Answer 1

When I grew up, a second income was necessary just to survive. We were hardly wealthy, and I have honestly encountered few people who could maintain a single income household. I think all of the back and forth about traditional families is waste of time. You do what you must to get by, and sometimes that entails both parents working.  

Answer 2

Moot point, we, for the most part, are dependant on the second income anyway.

"Children are a major risk factor for middle class financial calamity. In 2001, 7.4 out of 1000 childless married couples filed for bankruptcy. The number more than doubled for parents. Warren's research found that two income families are surprisingly more vulnerable to becoming poor than one income families. In the past, if the father was laid off, there was generally a worker in reserve who could step in. Even if the mother did not have an equal earning potential, at least the family could gain a small income plus an unemployment check."

http://marketoracle.co.uk/Article5810.ht...

Traditional is a luxury. Watch for a dramatic spike in the divorce rate because of financial problems in the coming decade.

Second wave feminism seems to have a lot to answer for.

EDIT, IMO and experience, its normal for dad in todays one income setup to do the bulk of the child minding whenever he is home.

Answer 3

because wives/mothers who work alot, especially if she's young and attractive in a male dominated field, has a higher chance of cheating or divorcing.

If the women works she might help out financially but the minuses are greater than the pluses.

that's of course one reason.

there are other reasons too.

Answer 4

The benefit for the father, in the opinion of many, is that his status as the provider is secure. That has been the definition of masculinity for a LONG time.

Answer 5

For starters, life isn't always fair. In a traditional family, one parent needs to work and the other needs to care for the home and kids. One spends more time with the kids than the other. Fair? Nope, but necessary. Each parent makes sacrifices. The working parent has to sacrifice time spent with the kids. The at-home parent sacrifices much of their time as well - giving up hobbies and opportunities for the sake of the family.

Fathers in a traditional role don't have to be inactive though. My husband works hard to provide for us, but he is a wonderful father. He knows his children pretty much as well as I do, and he is as active and involved as he can be.

Adding two incomes may make things more "even" between the parents, but now you have the added burden of dealing with 2 careers instead of one. Not to mention, it isn't so fair for the kids. Now instead of getting to see one parent all day, they are stuck in daycare being raised - yes, raised - by a daycare worker instead of being at home with mom. It is not better for the children.

So what is most fair for the parents isn't the most important consideration to a traditional family - what is best for the *children* is.  

Answer 6

There should always be some time to spend with the children. My father worked 2 jobs and my mother stayed home. I have more memories of the things my father and I did than I can count. It is the quality that counts.

Kids grow up fast and understand the things parents have to do to benefit the children very fast. The one thing I remembered when my father passed away was not everything he did, it was everything he gave up for his children.

All the studies in the world will not say what is best. It varies with every individual. All kinds of kids (good, bad, smart, lazy) come out of every single family structure. For every study out there that says it helps, there is one that says it does not. We generally only see the ones that already support our own beliefs.

Answer 7

the guys that say they are involved in this set up are not modern fathers who do feed, go on outings, bath and spend many hours a week looking after their children. they may think they are but they never met my husband or dad

Answer 8

It's by any single person's choice to be involved with their children whether they work or stay at home means nothing.  A father or mother can come home and be involved with their children just as much as the parent who chooses to stay at home all day.

It's personal choices that makes a difference not family structure.

Answer 9

Yes in my opinion it is fair. I get to go to work and provide. I come home to a clean house, hot dinner and i can spend time with the children. Later, me and the wife can have our own time. What's the problem?

Edit: Fathers can find time for their children. It all depends on one's lifestyle. Personally, i don't need to earn alot of money because i'm not so big on material c**p i don't need. If a man chooses to work long hours so he can buy a third car at the expense of seeing his kids, thats his choice.

Answer 10

Well, for one thing, if you look at society today there are many, many problems with teenagers because the one person that gives love and attention, and shows them the way is working.  Children cannot raise themselves.  I have struggled with this for a long time.  The family unit is becoming twisted and our kids are suffering.  A parent needs to be there for them to guide them.  Daycare cannot quite do this.  More money does not mean better for family.  Sometimes it does the opposite.  If I had the choice of being rich or better off, but not being able to see my parents, or not having much, but there is always someone there to guide me, I would take not having much.  guidance is better than materialistic things, in my view.  

Answer 11

No offense, but your uncle is a a bad example of a good traditional father.  My father provided very well without being a stranger. He is still close to all of his kids now that we are out of the house.  It's really not as impossible as feminists make it out to be.

Answer 12

In my mind, the ones that require the first priority in any family are the children.  Whatever will best meet their needs and ensure a healthy upbringing and socialization is what has to be regarded as the most important.  

In my mind - as is my personal right - I believe that children benefit from a parent being at home, rather than a babysitter or a daycare centre.  There is no question in my mind that there is a direct correlation between the lack of respect children now hold and display for adults and the lack of present parenting.  So, to me, at least one parent should be home - doing their level best to raise good, contributing and respectful children.  To ensure they work hard at school, eat properly and get a balanced lifestyle including physical activity and social interaction.  

In your example, I completely agree that it isn't necessarily fair for a father to have less time with his children - but again, I will have to consider the needs of the children before the father's....

Adults make the choice to become parents - to have a family.  If they are unable or unwilling to take on the role of proper parenting, then really, I don't think they should go forward with the family plan.

Answer 13

I have never suggested that 2 working parents are a bad thing but my husband does not "work" more than I do and he has a good life. He puts in his 8 to 5, comes home to a hot dinner a loving wife and funny kids and has his needs met. I wouldn't want to do all I do and have another job on top of it and he wouldn't want it either. We both have enough energy at the end of the day (usually) to meet each other's intimate needs and unless one of us expresses unhappiness w/the ways things are, there's no need to change. We go w/out a lot of "extras" so that I can stay home and so he doesn't have to work like a mad man and miss out on seeing his kids.

ETA: as far as being used for a paycheck, if a woman stays at home, it is a mutual decision between husband and wife. How anyone can suggest the man is used when he agreed to it, is beyond me. The other thing I meant to bring up is that staying at home saves money on daycare, offers the mother or father total control of what the child is seeing hearing eating etc....and when the father comes home, he is usually adored because the children haven't seen him while he was at work (that's got to be a good feeling).

Answer 14

I have never been a big fan of quantities. The amount of time a father spends has nothing to do with the effect on a child, as long as he loves them and gives them SOME time. Same goes with the money. If more money was the answer to all the problems, US would have been number 1 on the Happy list, not 22. And from my personal experience, children don't' want the fancy prep schooling or designer toys and clothes to thrive. They just need constant love and attention. They couldn't care less about paychecks. I was in a single paycheck, big family. But we were so happy to gather, none of us siblings have ever forgotten the time we spent with our mom and the things we did with our dad. And we all did fine. I am not past my mid 20s and none of us is below 6 figures in paychecks, and I have sisters too.

It is liberating to a woman, I agree, to earn her own pay. But making that argument in the name of children is not proper.

Answer 15

"my aunt becomes the disciplinary, the care giver, the one who knows what her children love or hate, the one who holds her children while they suffer through break-ups or knows which friends are good, bad, etc."

So you think an institution can replace what your aunt currently supplies, while she is at work?.

People make decisions based on their own circumstances.  

Answer 16

No it's not fair to fathers, it literally uses them.

People often ask where the stereotype a father is a paycheck came from....i dont think it started with child support, it started with the traditional mind set.

Majority of current studies, are showing that children do better in school if they go to a good childcare facility over staying with mom at home.

Second pay checks cant be bad, "two pay checks are better then one"

studies have also show that male children grow up to respect women more when there mother worked in a job.

Still trying to find perks...

Answer 17

Traditional roles implies individuals have to accomplish a role, and the traditional ideal of women and men implies disadvantages for men too.

Answer 18

No, it's not fair. Many of these fathers end up leaving for work before their children get up in the morning and often don't get back home until after they are in bed. As a result, the children grow up barely knowing them. Even when the fathers are home, they often are too tired to want to interact with their children. Not only that, but there are other chores they need to catch up on. Being a father is more than just being home on weekends and late in the evenings. It's also more than occasionally taking the children out to a fast food place or playing catch in the yard. It's actually being a part of the children's lives instead of being someone who only does fun things with them when he can find the time.

Answer 19

I don't really see how it would benefit your cousins if their father and mother were both out working long hours and neither of them seeing much of their children.  Isn't it better that they have one parent around?

The 'traditional' form of family in the pre-industrial era was for home and workplace to be one and the same, with wives and children all mucking in.  Houses were as much factories or offices as they were homes.

However, given the split between home and workplace that occured with industrialisation, we are left with the question, who is going to raise the kids?  I personally think that they are better off being raised by their mother than being shoved into daycare.  Why pay someone else to look after your kids when you could do it yourself?

Have you asked your cousins how they feel about it?  Would they prefer it if their mother was out at work as well as their father?  Would it make them happier?  Would it make your aunt happier?  And would your uncle really be likely to work less if your aunt worked more?