Why Do So Many Christian Marriages Struggle?

[Kurt Warner]

I disagree. I think we need to dissect successful marriages because if we don't, we have no idea what we are actually teaching the younger people.


Dr. John Gottman did a lifetime of research into marital health and marital satisfaction. There are 7 principles that he has found based on 40 years of scientific research. The principles can be supported by scripture, but they are also effective in non-Christian marriages. I recommend his book if you are really interested in this subject.

Additionally, There is a lot of research out there that says traditional marriage counselling does not work. But Gottman's approach to marriage therapy is yielding some very successful results.


I wholeheartedly and emphatically agree with this.


I wholeheartedly and emphatically DISagree with this, and knew from the OP that you have an agenda.

Women absolutely can have it all, when they have a spouse who actually supports them to have it all. When a woman can't have it all is when her husband does not live up to his commitment, his vows, and his obligations to her and the home.


Which is why this will never be enough:

Hello,

Thank you for your response. If you review the question and response about "dissecting" I was responding to the assertion that we don't need to dissect wonderful marriages. I indicated that we need to understand why good marriages are good so those principles can be passed on to others.

There are many, many books, models and principles about how to have a successful marriage, repair a damaged one and how to sustain a great one. I can't comment on Dr. Gottman's work as I have not seen it. My OP is designed to highlight issues/dynamics which cause fractures in marriages, which are often not recognized or acted upon. When you boil down all the books, models and principles you see common themes. My assertion is that if we are not careful we can become overly focused on one approach or one set of issues and ignore other salient issues. It should not be spiritual vs. psychological, but spiritual and psychological. Correctly assessing/diagnosing a problem is essential to properly addressing it and often it is multi-faceted.

With regard to "women having it all"... let's consider a couple of scenarios. If you work outside the home, who is watching your children? Even if your husband or family member is watching them, you are not the primary influence in their lives, someone else is. If you stay at home with your children and work an opposite shift than your husband than you will rarely see your husband and he you. If you are fortunate enough to be a high energy person you might have sufficient energy to work all day and then come home and give your children the attention and focus they need and deserve, but many people are stressed out, exhausted and start to see their children as "takers" rather than themselves as givers.

As I mentioned, I did not address all the variables associated with the 2nd and 3rd wave of feminism and possibly now the 4th wave and the dramatic impact it has had on how men and women see themselves and each other. In the 70s and 80s prominent magazines ran articles about "Supermoms" who were having it all. This was pure propaganda. It was created by and dispensed by individuals who were and are very interested in social engineering. They elevated career and demeaned stay at home mothers. You were considered a traitor to the cause of equality if you stayed home to raise your family. Motherhood shaming was born. When you are away from your children you are away from your children. If you feel that a vocational pursuit justifies that absence that is your decision. I know many men who would be more than happy and consider it an honor to stay home with their children, but someone has to work to support the family. Men are very aware of what they give up in order to fulfill that role. If you fulfill that role in your household, that is your choice, but don't be in denial about what it costs you and your family.

 

[Kurt Warner]

I will second this. Even in cases where the couple during pre-marital counseling identifies and discusses red flag issues, lack of agreement on spiritual matters, issues of history or current issues which are likely to create pain and hurdles, they rarely consider delaying or cancelling marriage plans.

I have refused to marry people previously for the reason you cited, so that they would consider that the step they are taking requires agreement on some of the most basic spiritual principles to really function well.

But in most cases where it is not so severe that the minister should not conduct the wedding, you have to work with where they are at. Within that framework, once you have identified issues, you have to discuss possible ways to address them when they will come up, and prepare them for some of the difficulties.

Also, when there are large known difficulties it can be helpful to encourage them to seek further help if this is needed down the road.

Hello,

Thanks for your response. Agreed. Sometimes that actual benefit to per-marital counseling is planting seeds and introducing them to the process of therapy they may very much need down the road. The decision for a pastor to go ahead with a ceremony is based on their discernment of how broken the situation is. If a pastor didn't do a wedding based on imperfections, they wouldn't do any ceremonies. ;-)

 

[tall73]

I wholeheartedly and emphatically DISagree with this, and knew from the OP that you have an agenda.

Women absolutely can have it all, when they have a spouse who actually supports them to have it all. When a woman can't have it all is when her husband does not live up to his commitment, his vows, and his obligations to her and the home.

It really depends on what the "all" is.

If you work full time, you can't be home with the kids full time. You can choose somewhere in between if you want, but it is a trade-off. And as he indicated, that is true for both genders.

Some career choices involve far more than a 40 hour work week. So just as an example, there is a campaign to encourage women to go into STEM fields currently. Women are under-represented in the field, in comparison to men. There are several reasons that could be the case. Those in favor of the campaign indicate that young ladies may be discouraged from certain fields culturally. And since there are more men already in the field, there could be bias.

Well I am sure there is some of that. But it is also true that some folks, male or female, do not want a STEM career. And since to a large degree we self-select our career path, that is likely a larger factor in the disparity.

But let's say someone saw one of these commercials, decided to pursue a career in STEM, and settled on becoming a doctor.
That may involve schooling and work hours far beyond the usual. They do have to realistically evaluate whether that is compatible with a family and children. There is just less time to give.

Going to college in general is now more common than it was previously, and folks are encouraged to delay children to establish themselves. Women currently enroll in college more than men. This too is a choice that needs to be looked at. You are committing time to schooling, and resources, usually into the future in the form of debt, to pay it off. And then once you have invested it, the general trend is to try to maintain work in that field so as to not start all over.

Now in my wife's case she went to college, got two degrees, and was working on her masters. But then after we got married and had children, she decided she would rather be at home with our children.

Now when she went back into the workforce decades later, the degrees are worth basically nothing. If you haven't used it they don't even consider it.

So was it really worth it for her to pursue the degrees, and the debt involved? Well I suppose it depends on how you look at it. But it is something to consider. If she wanted to be with her kids most of the time, she had to give up the career path she was considering before. If she wanted the career path she was pursuing before she had to give up being home with the kids full-time.

This is not a new thought to most of us who have lived a while, and had time to reflect back. But it may not be something that young people intentionally think through.

In my kid's school they have to all draw up a life planning form. It has them look at possible career paths (one of which is STEM). Then they ask about post-secondary plans, and list such things as college, military, apprenticeship, entering workforce, etc. So even the public schools recognize the need to plan. But they don't ask questions on the form about their greater goals in life. They don't ask about whether you want to be married, or have a family, and how that might impact your career plans. They don't ask about what you plan to do for for humanitarian or political or ministry goals, etc. And those all impact future career planning.

And delayed family can potentially result in declining fertility in later years, more health risks, but could also result in a better financial position. So these are all things to consider. And if parents sit with their kids and talk things through with them on a spiritual and practical level they can make choices that look at all these factors.

Speaking to your children might involve them thinking over what they want out of their life. But it should also look at what they think God is calling them to in their life. Both Jesus and Paul affirm that some may have a calling to singleness for ministry. And that is good if that is what God wants for a person. Others may feel that they are not called to this gift of singleness, and so marry.

And then you have to weigh what God wants from you in those roles as well.

Now if young people are just encouraged to go to college and start a career, taking on debt which cannot even be removed through bankruptcy usually, without thinking through what they ultimately want, or what they think God is calling them to, they may look back with some regret.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Most people, when they marry, are terribly ignorant or in denial about the many elements which are going to impact them in their marriages. Here's a list of some issues which are rarely considered and even if considered often ignored with magical thinking that everything will just work out.

1. Almost anytime a person starts their rationale for a decision with "I feel..." the foundation upon which that decision is being made is unstable. There is a common phrase going around, "Facts don't care about your feelings", and that is true. Despite an ever growing segment of our population which relies on their "feelings" to make decisions, it is not a healthy trend and will only accelerate misery. Our minds should govern our emotions and our minds should emulate the Spirit of God. The Fruit of the Spirit is borne of daily decision making not daily feelings.

2. Using God/Scripture to justify bad behavior/bad decisions. People want to feel good about the choices they make and if they can use God/Scripture to justify them they believe they have credibility. Unfortunately, upon closer scrutiny the context is often terribly distorted. People use all sorts of faulty reasoning/justification to avoid being wrong about a decision and God/Scripture in on that list as well.

3. Too much or too little infusion of psychology into a marital situation. Seems like people in the church can't figure out that we are multi-faceted creatures with many spheres of health: spiritual, medical, mental, relational etc. You can have someone who appears to be a modern day Apostle Paul in the church, but in their relationships is markedly dysfunctional. If and when the dysfunction comes out, people will often offer a one dimensional solution either psychological or spiritual. Or the person may simply be dismissed as being a "bad" person. Bottom line: if a person is exhibiting toxic or dysfunctional behavior in any area of their lives there is a reason and all possibilities should be considered both in the source of the problem and the solution as long as it is not in conflict with God's Word.

4. Expectations. This more than any other topic (outside of adultery and violence), can sink a marriage. Sadly, expectations are often not even discussed prior to engagement or marriage. Even if one or both start to see red flags they resort to excuse making rather than scuttle the marriage plans. Think about it. Conflict almost always has to do with what we expect from the situation and the other people in the situation. Sex, money, chores, in-laws, overall behavior, attitudes etc. When our expectations are not met, we become angry, disappointed and eventually resentful and bitter. The trick is determining if your expectations are unreasonable or if the other persons failure to meet your expectations is the legitimate source of the problem.

5. Natural consequences. Relationships are subject to them just like any other area of life, except that we often time promote the idea that they are not. The vows with which many of us were married indicate that we will endure and be committed as a couple during times of distress. Unfortunately, one partner will often times use the vows to emotionally blackmail the other to keep them from taking necessary steps to address dysfunctional behavior in the marriage. The vows assume that both parties are equally committed to the covenant and will work jointly to ensure its success. It is not a license for one person to shift daily responsibilities and burdens to the other out of convenience. There must be accountability within every context where people interact. Without it there will be inequity and exploitation. Relationships don't magically crumble. They crumble because of unaddressed dysfunction.

6. It doesn't always take two to tango. A popular notion is that both parties in a broken marriage are responsible. Certainly the case can be made that because we are all imperfect it would be silly to say that both parties don't bare blame, but that doesn't mean it is a 50/50 split. Often times the source of the dysfunction can be found primarily in one person. And often that person doesn't want to hear it because they can't handle the reality of the situation. In Christian marriages this can be especially brutal because the first course of action, which may last months or even years, is to pursue a spiritual solution or a unilateral change of behavior/approach on behalf of the more healthy partner. Meanwhile, the more unhealthy partner continues to function without accountability or potential consequence for their bad behavior. Commitment and accountability have been somewhat vilified in our culture, but are cornerstones of effective and healthy systems and relationships.

7. Time to grow up. Not understanding the emotional age of your partner BEFORE you get engaged/married can have devastating effects after. There are many individuals whose emotional growth is stunted in adolescence. They learn to compensate and project a more mature persona, but over time and under pressure they will resort to behavior which is more typical of a struggling teen-ager than a maturing adult. This breeds all kind of problems in the relationship and often morphs into a parent/child dynamic more than two equal adults. The "parent" can be accused of being controlling and even abusive by the "child" especially when the "parent" tries to hold the "child" accountable for their childish behavior. If this cannot be fixed the relationship is almost certainly doomed emotionally even if it survives legally.

The church bears a great deal of responsibility for the fact that the divorce rate among Christians is not much different than for non-Christians. We don't spend much time teaching our young people (and older people) what is required for a successful relationship and we avoid discussing the type of individuals who should be avoided. We mistake discernment for being judgmental and have foolishly bought into the notion of feelings before all else. The old women and the old men should be teaching the young, but what are they teaching them?? Are we simply passing on generational dysfunction or actual Biblical principles for how to be successful??

That is a very good question. If I could offer up a few ideas on why the appalling state of divorce in the Church:

1: Many Christians go into marriage with a worldly view, based on feelings and wrong expectations.
2: Many Christians consider getting a divorce and getting a new spouse to be a birthright, if not a holy sacrament.
3: Many churches permit this to go on, and refuse to practice church discipline on the partner-swapping that goes on through D&R
4: Many Christians do not follow God's instructions for marriage, which include sacrificial love, headship and submission, bearing children, training up children in the Lord and being a unique witness to Christ and the Church.
5: Many Christians have bought the lie that divorce isn't really all that harmful and it isn't really all that bad for the kids.
6: Many Christians voted for politicians who liberalized divorce laws, even going all the way to no-fault divorce.
7: Many Christians ignore the fact that it is an obligation as a Christian to forgive one who sins against us, so they harden their heart to their partner, divide from them , and refuse to reunite.
8: Instead of teaching the younger women what Titus 2 instructs to teach, many women in the churches imitate men instead and become "preachers" when they should be modeling and teaching the younger women for the home.
9: Many men do not accept their responsibility as men, to care for, protect and lead their family. They refuse to be priests of the home.

One of the best things you can do is go into marriage with the understanding that you will need to forgive. Be prepared to forgive, before you would ever break up a marriage.

 

[Kurt Warner]

Many good points. The practice of forgiveness used to be more visible in mental health treatment, but fell out of favor in the 70s as it was seen as being a religious practice rather than a therapeutic one. It was during the same time that Judeo-Christian principles were being replaced by Far Eastern philosophies. Sadly, forgiveness as a therapeutic intervention was no longer in vogue.

Forgiveness (asking and offering) should be a DAILY part of our lives. Many do not understand its profound healing effect and may misunderstand the elements of forgiveness altogether. Some believe if they forgive someone they have to continue to associate or have a relationship with them. Others believe that if they forgive that somehow the offending party gets away with something and avoids justice. What we need to understand is the freeing power of forgiveness and its primary benefit to the one who forgives. Forgiveness does not mean a person can't have boundaries. It should not be used as an excuse for why a person stays in a dysfunctional/toxic environment. It is like the washing machine of the soul. I choose not to be in bondage to your bad behavior (or my own once it has been addressed) and it allows me to experience the freedom and joy with God who instituted the concept of forgiveness to begin with.

 

[DZoolander]

I "forgave" my ex wife years and years and years ago.

Doesn't mean that forgiveness entails me staying with her.

 

[RDKirk]

The old women and the old men should be teaching the young, but what are they teaching them?? Are we simply passing on generational dysfunction or actual Biblical principles for how to be successful??

I have yet to find a congregation that puts their older members to use in this way. Generally, the blind lead the blind.

 

[RDKirk]

Women absolutely can have it all, when they have a spouse who actually supports them to have it all. When a woman can't have it all is when her husband does not live up to his commitment, his vows, and his obligations to her and the home.

But men can't have it all.

And 3+ wave feminism does away with men all together.

 

[Kurt Warner]

I "forgave" my ex wife years and years and years ago.

Doesn't mean that forgiveness entails me staying with her.

You are correct. Forgiving her allowed you to be free from whatever the offense was. It did not obligate you to continue to associate with her.

 

[Kurt Warner]

I have yet to find a congregation that puts their older members to use in this way. Generally, the blind lead the blind.

I have seen the mentoring model used in limited ways. When Promise Keepers was a force, there were a lot of men positioned to mentor and learn. Sadly, in many situations, it wasn't sustained. And then you have to vet the older men because age does not always equate with wisdom or spiritual maturity.

 

[DZoolander]

But men can't have it all.

And 3+ wave feminism does away with men all together.

I agree to a large extent.

I consider myself to be a "feminist" insofar as I think that women ought have the same opportunities as men. I do not think they should suffer discrimination socially for whatever choice they make.

But - the line that was sold to women during the 70's and 80's that they were somehow being left out of the "meaningful stuff" - or that they could "have it all" - was a myth. They were sold a bill of goods. Nobody "has it all" - at least in the way that it was framed back then (highly successful career, ample time for family, etc etc)

The truth of the matter is that MOST work is not fulfilling. MOST work is monotonous, soul crushing, repetitive and done only because you need to do it. There are virtually no highly successful people in any career that only work 40 hours per week. That's just the reality of it. People that work 40 hours per week are viewed in the work force as those that are putting in the minimum amount of time to just keep their job. They're not viewed as highly motivated individuals worthy of lots of promotions into the higher echelons of the corporate ranks.

I work, and while I enjoy it to some extent, it certainly doesn't give me "fulfillment". I'm not going to at the end of my days go "Wow, I sure worked out that database issue in a really efficient manner back in 2018, leading to fractionally higher speeds on a website that had a shelf life of about 3 years anyhow." I'm good at it - but that's an honest assessment of what I do.

My dad was an attorney. He went to work every day - but didn't love it. But he needed to - because he had a family to support, its the thing he was best at that could earn him the most money to provide, and it didn't offend him (on most days).

That's virtually everyone I know. Insurance people, lawyers, advertising people, account executives, programmers, etc etc.

So while women ought not have any barriers to entry to the work force - understand that's what it is pretty much 99.999999% of the time. Have at it. But don't expect 9-10 years down the line that you're going to be saying "Wow - I really had it all". Brace yourself for the reality of it...lol

The truth of the matter is that while women had their "roles" in the past - so did men. Neither side really had freedom. Now I suppose if you were a sociopathic dude that really cared nothing for his family/etc - maybe yeah - that kind of guy had more freedom. Because he really could have his cake and eat it too.

But for MOST people...guys were just as limited as women were.

What's expected of me as a guy? It's expected that I go to work and provide for my family. I don't have any issues with that - but it is expected. How free would a man be (socially) if he decided "Well, I've had about enough of that. It's not fulfilling. I think I'm going to give not working a shot?" Is that really any man's option?

No, his lot in life is to start working right after school, a minimum of 40 hours per week at something he likely secretly loathes, until he's around 60 years old. He gets to see his wife and kids for maybe 2-3 hours per night - just before they go to bed. Maybe the occasional vacation here and there. Most likely he'd rather be spending time with them - but he can't. It's just not in the cards. That's a man's lot in life...and if he wants to be REALLY successful - he needs to spend even more time at it and have a spouse that is tolerant of that.

Nobody "has it all". Everyone prioritizes what's important to them and required of them - and makes sacrifices based upon that. That's the world. Enjoy! lol

 

[RDKirk]

The truth of the matter is that MOST work is not fulfilling. MOST work is monotonous, soul crushing, repetitive and done only because you need to do it. There are virtually no highly successful people in any career that only work 40 hours per week. That's just the reality of it. People that work 40 hours per week are viewed in the work force as those that are putting in the minimum amount of time to just keep their job. They're not viewed as highly motivated individuals worthy of lots of promotions into the higher echelons of the corporate ranks.

I work, and while I enjoy it to some extent, it certainly doesn't give me "fulfillment". I'm not going to at the end of my days go "Wow, I sure worked out that database issue in a really efficient manner back in 2018, leading to fractionally higher speeds on a website that had a shelf life of about 3 years anyhow." I'm good at it - but that's an honest assessment of what I do.

I'm in my mid 60s, and as I look back on my life, I realize that none of that stuff I thought was so important, that I put so much of my life energy into actually matters in the long run. None of it.

One day a few years ago, Ecclesiastes suddenly made sense. Not an academic sense--I've read plenty of commentaries on Ecclesiastes. But suddenly I got it in my gut, I grokked it.

We see all these things that look so important and substantial, but when we reach for them we discover they are just vapor, just smoke. We work so hard for stuff, and no matter how much we amass, when we die it's going to someone else who is probably going to spit it away.

I was listening to Talking Heads "Once in a Lifetime" and realized for the first time that it was saying the same thing as Ecclesiastes. And with the same end point: "My God! What have I done?"

Nothing really matters that we do, except for the people. People matter. Believing as a Christian, nothing in this world crosses into the next except people. So nothing we do in this world will matter except what we do with the people in our lives and the people we bring into our lives.

 

[Kurt Warner]

I'm in my mid 60s, and as I look back on my life, I realize that none of that stuff I thought was so important, that I put so much of my life energy into actually matters in the long run. None of it.

One day a few years ago, Ecclesiastes suddenly made sense. Not an academic sense--I've read plenty of commentaries on Ecclesiastes. But suddenly I got it in my gut, I grokked it.

We see all these things that look so important and substantial, but when we reach for them we discover they are just vapor, just smoke. We work so hard for stuff, and no matter how much we amass, when we die it's going to someone else who is probably going to spit it away.

I was listening to Talking Heads "Once in a Lifetime" and realized for the first time that it was saying the same thing as Ecclesiastes. And with the same end point: "My God! What have I done?"

Nothing really matters that we do, except for the people. People matter. Believing as a Christian, nothing in this world crosses into the next except people. So nothing we do in this world will matter except what we do with the people in our lives and the people we bring into our lives.

Very well said. I was discussing Ecclesiastes with my wife last night and talking about the same theme. "Everything is meaningless..." It is about people, which goes back to the issue of the propaganda we are fed by the culture and the lies from Satan (the two often intersect). Casting Crowns song "Voice of Truth" illustrates the challenge. There are many voices reaching out to us claiming to be truthful, but many are not. The idea that we can have it "all" (within the context of children and work) becomes even more salient when one considers how we spend the limited amount of time we have. Are we making the decisions we make to satisfy ourselves or are we making decisions which are in the best interest of those who are dependent/rely on us? As I indicated in my OP, we just need to be steeped in reality about the choices we make the consequences which go with them. You either live in reality or you choose an alternate reality constructed by lies which helps you sleep better at night, but isn't based on truth, which we are told will set us free.

 

[mkgal1]

We see all these things that look so important and substantial, but when we reach for them we discover they are just vapor, just smoke. We work so hard for stuff, and no matter how much we amass, when we die it's going to someone else who is probably going to spit it away.

I was listening to Talking Heads "Once in a Lifetime" and realized for the first time that it was saying the same thing as Ecclesiastes. And with the same end point: "My God! What have I done?"

Nothing really matters that we do, except for the people. People matter. Believing as a Christian, nothing in this world crosses into the next except people. So nothing we do in this world will matter except what we do with the people in our lives and the people we bring into our lives.

Exactly. And just like Solomon said, "there's nothing new under the sun". It all comes down to how well we loved others in our life. There are people that have spent years in palliative care, and no matter the economic status of people, patient's analysis of their life comes down to them being concerned most with how they managed their relationships (never...."darn, I wish I'd taken more opportunities to work overtime so I could have gotten more raises in my life").

 

[ValleyGal]

But men can't have it all.

And 3+ wave feminism does away with men all together.

Men can have it all, just like women can. Despite the growing equality of women in most fields such as business and politics, men still hold the power, especially when it comes to policy development.

I have had it all: a career I loved, a church I volunteered in and was seen as a leader, tons of energy, a terrific kid. I did not sacrifice time with my son to be in the job I loved. Instead, I chose to work nights so I could be with him in his early years, and then when he started preschool, I took a day/evening position. My work schedules allowed for him to spend time with his grandparents and auntie. When he has children, it will be I who takes care of his children if needed. I worked hard, volunteered hard, played hard doing activities I loved. And today, I am in a different career that I love almost as much as the first.

I know nothing at all of waves of feminism. I believe that women should have equal access to equal jobs for equal pay as men. I also believe that men should have equal access to equal services as women do (ie safe houses for those fleeing abuse). I believe in equal division of work in and out of the home, equal contributions to the home, etc. It's not difficult. But I know nothing of any groups trying to "do away with men altogether."

With regard to equality, we have a long way to go, as demonstrated in recent threads here.

 

[RDKirk]

I have had it all: a career I loved, a church I volunteered in and was seen as a leader, tons of energy, a terrific kid. I did not sacrifice time with my son to be in the job I loved. Instead, I chose to work nights so I could be with him in his early years, and then when he started preschool, I took a day/evening position. My work schedules allowed for him to spend time with his grandparents and auntie. When he has children, it will be I who takes care of his children if needed. I worked hard, volunteered hard, played hard doing activities I loved. And today, I am in a different career that I love almost as much as the first.

You had blessings the vast majority of people have not and will not have. You were an outlier, not representative of what most people male or female can ever have--which was the point Zoolander made.

 

[Paidiske]

Marriage counseling should be mandatory, it should happen before any marriage planning begins and the Pastor should feel a sense of responsibility to opt out of officiating a wedding which they believe is doomed to failure due in large part because of the couple's unwillingness to address the issues identified.

I don't know how practically possible it is to do marriage preparation before the planning begins, though. By definition, by the time the couple come asking a minister to take their wedding, they've already started planning. I do encourage them to do it earlier rather than later.

I'm very aware that I'm under no obligation to go through with a wedding if I believe it is wrong. Only once have I seriously considered it, in a situation where I was concerned the bride was being pressured into the marriage; on the whole, I don't see couples I think are "doomed to failure," but I see plenty of couples who have a lot of work to do.

Going to college in general is now more common than it was previously, and folks are encouraged to delay children to establish themselves. Women currently enroll in college more than men. This too is a choice that needs to be looked at. You are committing time to schooling, and resources, usually into the future in the form of debt, to pay it off. And then once you have invested it, the general trend is to try to maintain work in that field so as to not start all over.

Now in my wife's case she went to college, got two degrees, and was working on her masters. But then after we got married and had children, she decided she would rather be at home with our children.

Now when she went back into the workforce decades later, the degrees are worth basically nothing. If you haven't used it they don't even consider it.

So was it really worth it for her to pursue the degrees, and the debt involved?

Well, it depends what you think the purpose of education is. The education level of the mother (both parents, in fact, but particularly the mother) is one of the best indicators of long-term outcomes for the children of that household. So even if your wife never used her qualifications again, the likelihood is that her having them contributed to better health, educational, employment and social outcomes for your children. Is that not worth something?

What's expected of me as a guy? It's expected that I go to work and provide for my family. I don't have any issues with that - but it is expected. How free would a man be (socially) if he decided "Well, I've had about enough of that. It's not fulfilling. I think I'm going to give not working a shot?" Is that really any man's option?l\

I think this is shifting. I see a lot of social acceptance of stay-at-home dads while their wives work. My husband is not only accepted, he's applauded for taking on the role.

You're right about a lot of work being fairly meaningless, but I think we need to be talking a lot more about not just career but vocation; and how we help people to discover and live out their vocations (whether that's paid or on the side).

 

[DZoolander]

I think this is shifting. I see a lot of social acceptance of stay-at-home dads while their wives work. My husband is not only accepted, he's applauded for taking on the role.

You're right about a lot of work being fairly meaningless, but I think we need to be talking a lot more about not just career but vocation; and how we help people to discover and live out their vocations (whether that's paid or on the side).

Could be - but at least not within my life - lol!

I cannot imagine a conversation where I would begin with "Ya know, this working thing really isn't for me. I lack fulfillment, so I think I'll stop and find something else to do."

Because - the next natural questions would be:

1. How is the house going to get paid for
2. How is the new car we bought yesterday to replace my wife's old car going to get paid for?
3. How is the health insurance going to get paid for?
4. How is the food going to get paid for?
5. How is everything else going to be managed financially?

Essentially, by me saying that I decided to go find fulfillment and stop working, that puts the onus of all of those other things (because they're not really optional) on my wife. My wife is a very capable and intelligent woman, but the simple fact of the matter is that she would be entering the workforce at an entry level position. Whatever she could make would not even begin to cover the base expenses. Which then would lead to:

1. I guess we sell the house, and downsize incredibly to who knows what kind of apartment, moving our kids from the good school district they're in to somewhere else...yanking them from their friends, making them start anew, making them give up scouts, etc etc etc.
2. I guess we default on some payments, taking a hit to our credit and thereby making things more difficult and expensive to lease/rent/etc...return the cars...maybe get some used Yugo's in their place.
3. Maybe file bankruptcy and live with the consequences of that for the next 7-8 years.
4. Put ourselves into questionable status when it comes to health insurance, and God forbid that someone gets injured or sick.

...and in the midst of all of that...know that my wife is working her hardest to pay what can be paid while all of that is going on....while I go "find fulfillment"

I can tell ya - that wouldn't fly very well...lol Either with myself or anyone else that we know. I would become a pariah. I would be seen as a selfish, soft, jerk. So, "to heck with your fulfillment" - lol

Now truthfully, I don't WANT it to be any different. I'm happy with my life. I take the good with the bad, and the good far outweighs the bad. But this idea that men have had all of this freedom to do whatever they want - while women had strictly defined and limited roles assigned to them - to me has always seemed a little shortsighted. A man has the option (maybe) of picking what soul crushing busywork he wants to do for 40 hours a week, from the moment he graduates HS to his mid 60's. But that's the only real choice in the matter. His role traditionally is just as strictly defined (and confining.)

 

[Kurt Warner]

Men can have it all, just like women can. Despite the growing equality of women in most fields such as business and politics, men still hold the power, especially when it comes to policy development.

I have had it all: a career I loved, a church I volunteered in and was seen as a leader, tons of energy, a terrific kid. I did not sacrifice time with my son to be in the job I loved. Instead, I chose to work nights so I could be with him in his early years, and then when he started preschool, I took a day/evening position. My work schedules allowed for him to spend time with his grandparents and auntie. When he has children, it will be I who takes care of his children if needed. I worked hard, volunteered hard, played hard doing activities I loved. And today, I am in a different career that I love almost as much as the first.

I know nothing at all of waves of feminism. I believe that women should have equal access to equal jobs for equal pay as men. I also believe that men should have equal access to equal services as women do (ie safe houses for those fleeing abuse). I believe in equal division of work in and out of the home, equal contributions to the home, etc. It's not difficult. But I know nothing of any groups trying to "do away with men altogether."

With regard to equality, we have a long way to go, as demonstrated in recent threads here.

You have made a couple of references to agendas and bias in this thread. Would you mind being specific? I don't know of any men who are opposed to equality. Regarding your bio, was there a husband/father involved? If you worked nights so you could be with him as a baby <4, when did you sleep and who watched the baby/child the 16 hours you were either working or sleeping? You say your work schedule allowed for him to spend time with family. You use the word "allowed" like that is preferable/equal to you spending time with him. Do you believe that is accurate? You volunteered hard and played hard... with your child in tow or was he being watched by others?

You see, whether you are a man or a woman you still only get 168 hours in the week. Figure 50 hours is gone if you work outside the home (prep, travel, actual work) and 56 hours for sleep. That leaves the average person approximately 62 hours total to get everything else done. You then have to subtract another approx 40 hours of time away from your child if you are working nights and sleeping during the day while he is awake. How much time to you have left with your child? You seem to be trying to make this a bias/prejudice issue against women, but in fact it is simply a numbers game regardless of whether you are the mom or the dad. If you had to work to live that is one thing. If you chose to work instead of spending that time with your child it is just that... a choice. If you chose to work to fulfill your needs instead of being with your child, you chose to allocate 50 hours a week to something that you set as a priority over your child.

Maybe that is your definition of "having it all", but as stated earlier, I don't think most men consider that as "having it all". Most men, who aren't trying to make excuses or dodge their responsibilities, recognize the sacrifice they need to make to support their family, which comes in the form of spending almost 50% of their waking lives away from their pre-school children and if they have to work an off shift they end up being weekend dads. The agenda here is truth, facts and reality. That is all.

 

[Paidiske]

Could be - but at least not within my life - lol!

I cannot imagine a conversation where I would begin with "Ya know, this working thing really isn't for me. I lack fulfillment, so I think I'll stop and find something else to do."

Because - the next natural questions would be:

1. How is the house going to get paid for
2. How is the new car we bought yesterday to replace my wife's old car going to get paid for?
3. How is the health insurance going to get paid for?
4. How is the food going to get paid for?
5. How is everything else going to be managed financially?

Essentially, by me saying that I decided to go find fulfillment and stop working, that puts the onus of all of those other things (because they're not really optional) on my wife. My wife is a very capable and intelligent woman, but the simple fact of the matter is that she would be entering the workforce at an entry level position. Whatever she could make would not even begin to cover the base expenses. Which then would lead to:

1. I guess we sell the house, and downsize incredibly to who knows what kind of apartment, moving our kids from the good school district they're in to somewhere else...yanking them from their friends, making them start anew, making them give up scouts, etc etc etc.
2. I guess we default on some payments, taking a hit to our credit and thereby making things more difficult and expensive to lease/rent/etc...return the cars...maybe get some used Yugo's in their place.
3. Maybe file bankruptcy and live with the consequences of that for the next 7-8 years.
4. Put ourselves into questionable status when it comes to health insurance, and God forbid that someone gets injured or sick.

...and in the midst of all of that...know that my wife is working her hardest to pay what can be paid while all of that is going on....while I go "find fulfillment"

I can tell ya - that wouldn't fly very well...lol Either with myself or anyone else that we know. I would become a pariah. I would be seen as a selfish, soft, jerk. So, "to heck with your fulfillment" - lol

Now truthfully, I don't WANT it to be any different. I'm happy with my life. I take the good with the bad, and the good far outweighs the bad. But this idea that men have had all of this freedom to do whatever they want - while women had strictly defined and limited roles assigned to them - to me has always seemed a little shortsighted. A man has the option (maybe) of picking what soul crushing busywork he wants to do for 40 hours a week, from the moment he graduates HS to his mid 60's. But that's the only real choice in the matter. His role traditionally is just as strictly defined (and confining.)

I get all that, I do (having left full time work to go back to full time study, and worked through all of the issues involved).

But I think there's more cultural acceptance of men taking a step back from being career-driven; choosing to work less or be the stay-at-home parent or whatever, than there was, say, when I was a kid.

I think there's also a lot of cultural narrative about this stuff that's very black-and-white. Either you don't work at all or you work full-time, for example. The couple of years when I had a young child and both my husband and I each worked three days a week, and each had time with her, worked very well for all of us; but so often that kind of arrangement isn't even considered as an option.