Adventures in Reverse-Traditional Families

Our family is what's known as a "reverse-traditional family." We are traditional in the sense that one of us works outside the home, and the other stays home with the baby. We are reverse because I'm the one who works, while Jeff stays home.

This is an arrangement that works well for us. I make more money than he can. He doesn't want to work at a job anyhow. He's a much better cook than I am, and he is a much tidier person than I am too. So it all works out well for us.

Oh sure, there are some times when I am envious of him: the pressure of work gets to me sometimes, and I wish I could stay home with the cutest baby in the history of the planet. But there are times when I am happy to be walking out that door, like when Vinny is crying for no apparent reason. And it's nice to be out in adult-land where I don't have to talk about myself in the third person. (I do sometimes find myself speaking with exaggerated emotion at work, though.)

I recently read an article from the New York Times, referenced by this entry at Half-Changed World, the blog of another mom in a reverse-traditional family situation. In this article, the author seems to lament her role as primary income earner. While she considers herself feminist and believes in equality and sharing roles, she can't seem to jump the hurdle of women assuming a role that in the past was exclusively limited to men.

She says that the women she knows who are the breadwinners for their family are "seething -- with uncertainty, resentment, anxiety and frustration." The patterns that feel normal when the man is the breadwinner can't be mirrored in this sort of family set-up.

Well, evidently she doesn't know me. Yes, there is a degree of uncertainty that I struggle with -- do I have what it takes to go from postdoc to staff member? -- but that has nothing to do with our so-called role reversal. A man in my situation would have the same worries.

I think the difference is that Jeff doesn't derive his self-esteem from how well he can provide for the family (at least not in the monetary sense), and I have a very positive opinion about the value of the "women's work" he does. His unpaid labor allows us to live a higher quality of life than we would have if he didn't do it, because our income production is so skewed. If he worked outside the home, his income would scarcely cover the cost of child care, and neither of us would have the time or energy to cook the kind of quality meals that he makes. Furthermore, as Jeff observed the other day, if we both worked, I would have competition for getting my baby fix every evening. He gets more than his fill during the day.

The author of the article also mentions her fear of what other people would think of her husband. Ideally, it shouldn't matter what other people think about their arrangement. Personally, I've observed several different reactions. Most of the women I meet think that it's the greatest thing, and probably wish that they could have a husband like mine. When I went back to work after my family leave, a lot of men asked me who was taking care of the baby. They were surprised to hear that it was my husband, but they were happy that it was working out for me that way. I had only one negative reaction, in which a man (not someone I work with, just to be clear) said, "but, the man is supposed to work, and the woman stay home!" and then laughed uncomfortably. I think these reactions from people in such a conservative state show that reverse-traditional families are becoming more accepted.

She also feels pangs of guilt about the fact that her husband is better at comforting their baby than she is. I don't feel like I'm not a good parent to Vinny. I see him a lot less than Jeff does, to be sure, but I think that in my case, this means that the time that I do spend with him is higher in quality, because I know I don't have much time with him and I focus my attention on him while I can.

I guess the thing that allows me to feel happy with our reverse-traditional family setup is the fact that I don't subscribe to sex roles. Why should one's chromosomes mean that he or she must act in a certain manner? While it's possible that on average, women are more nurturing than men (assuming that one's degree of "nurturing" can even be quantified!), that doesn't prove that I am more nurturing than Jeff. I don't believe that I'm "supposed to" be the primary parent, or even anything but whatever I am. If that means I go against the traditions of our society, so be it. This is not the only way I defy the norms.