several couples where the woman is the high earner and the man earns much, much less (one is a local musician, one is an artist who sells on Etsy, etc.) but picks up a majority of the housework, kid's dr appts., etc., because he essentially works part-time. That, to me, is a fine way to distribute the workload, and it proves that at least some men are willing to do what it takes to hang on to a high-income woman.
Now, it is true that these high-income women did not marry low CLASS men; they were all college-educated and from middle class homes. That may have a lot to do with why they react as they do to the idea of being a 'house husband.' HiPointDem is probably on the money when she noted that LIM who never were middle class, never got an education, etc., have an additional problem of low self-worth that makes them walk around demanding respect, services from women, etc. High-paid factory jobs MUST come back for these guys, IMHO.
The difference with the low-income men in the article is that they don't seem to have that mindset. They think that they should be able to sit at home, do nothing (or, disturbingly, make more messes), and wait for the wife to come home and clean up/cook dinner. The studies cited report that men who are unemployed do LESS work around the house than men who work full-time! What makes some low-income men bad marriage prospects is their entitled attitude, not necessarily their low income. In fact, in Rothschild's book "The Second Shift," she interviews a black low-income couple where he was unemployed and had taken over the house, she goes to work, and they are very happy. Women certainly aren't opposed to this sort of arrangement; but there does have to be an acknowledgement by BOTH parties to a marriage that it is indeed a partnership, not a master/slave relationship.
= new reply since forum marked as read