Traditional Roles. Inspired choice or Path of Least Resistance?

Question

There is a lot of debate on this forum about whether feminism opposes the tradition "nuclear family" model comprising stay at home mum, kids and breadwinners, which is usually greeting with the response that feminism is about choice, and that there is nothing wrong with traditional roles.

Yet I do wonder how the dice fall on this. Do those who adopt traditional roles do so because it is what their parents had done before them, and because it is heavily promoted as a cultural ideal.

Are people choosing traditional roles simply because it is the path of least resistance, or is it as an inspired choice having tried other options and simply finding that traditional roles work best for them?

If you are in a traditional type relationship, have you ever been in one that is not? How do they contrast?

If you are in a non-traditional type relationship, have you ever been in a traditional one? How do they contrast?

What are your opinions?

Answer 1

My parents were classic traditionalists. My father is old-family Sicilian, and my mother is a country girl from outback Australia. Dad worked (and controlled the purse strings), and Mum looked after the kids and had dinner on the table by 6pm.

My first marriage was similar, although the reasons were different - tradition had nothing to do with it. I was the breadwinner, and at the same time I put her through college, the idea being that she could then work while I completed my education (she was one smart lady, and the idea was that she had more earning potential, so her education was a priority over mine.) Unfortunately, she passed away 6 months after graduating (and with a 4.0 GPA, no less!)

My current wife is the breadwinner in the house these days - also for practical reasons - she has more education and earning ability - especially since I was injured a few years ago. I'm still seeing doctors and hoping for a resolution soon - meanwhile, someone has to be home to look after her son (my step-son - I have no children of my own), get him from school, etc. From a practical viewpoint, it makes more sense for me to take on that role. Eventually, my hope is to both be able to work, sharing the workload along with the housework and child-rearing.

In fact, both of my brothers have similar households. They and their wives all work and all look after the kids to varing degrees. Only my sister opted for the "stay at home housewife" scenario - a difficult choice, considering the problems inherrent with living as a family on one income.

Not entirely traditional, huh?

Some people (men and women) undoubtedly would prefer to work, and others to stay at home. However, the current cost of living pushes us into non-traditional roles as a means of survival - or at the very least, a means of keeping up with the Joneses. Necessity will almost always take the place of tradition, if said tradition causes you to fall behind.

Answer 2

This is interesting. I think the media tends to try and sway women to have a career more, and I get the feeling that career girls would look down on women that choose to stay at home.

I don't let society govern what I do. My husband and I believe there is no difference between the gedners so there are none for us. He works fulltime and I work part time because we can afford to. We don't really want any children, as we are more pet people. I don't know that it's so much about having a non traditional or traditional relationship, but more about having teh freedom to choose and if BOTH partners want the same role. I do the DIY around the house and my huisband the cooking, because that's what we are both good at but I wouldn't want to be with someone that EXPECTED me to do one thing or the other.

Answer 3

Water takes the path of least resistance as it is pulled downhill by gravity. No one would suggest that this is the "wrong" path, it is just the path that is determined by the laws of nature. Because water always takes the same least resistant course, it carves out its path. You could say that the grand canyon is a result of eons of water traveling along the path of least resistance. Yet, when the concept is applied to human behaviour, it somehow connotes laziness or lack of ambition. The least resistant path does not have to be an easy one. Is there merit in struggling, just for the sake of the struggle? If two paths lead us to the same place, is it not wiser to take the least resistant way? I'm not sure, but I do think that we could all benefit from being more like water. We're mostly made of it, after all - maybe we shouldn't be fighting our basic essence.

Answer 4

First off I don't give a damn what feminists say on the matter and or do not say on the matter I will not be beholding to them; just wanted to clear the air on this issue. I am a housewife because that is what suits me end of story; though when needed I can and will work outside the home, a position I do not favor cause I cannot be in two places at once. Such an odd way to put the choice of being a housewife because it is of less resistance; for resistance is met by all and cannot be avoided; only a fool would believe that. In my first marriage I worked till I became pregnant; it was then that I told him I will dedicate all I got to the pregnancy and the raising of our son; meaning I will not work. I kept my word. Only when my 2nd husband and I were going through a hard time did I work again. We all must rise to challenges or be devoured by them..
These are my opinions.

Answer 5

I was raised by a career mom and a SAH-Dad/real estate agent. I went to prep school and college. The path of LEAST resistance for me would have been to go to grad school , not to be a housewife. My parents actually got condolences when they told people I was planning on being a SAHM. While in college, I daydreamed about what I would name my children and spent time researching homeschooling and parenting practices. I accidentally missed a few assignments after throwing an improptu engagement party for a friend.

Don't get me wrong - I was a great student and enjoyed school as well.

But luckily I realized that if I could do anything in the world as a "first" career, it would be as a fulltime mom. I've had to endure insults over it, so it was no easy choice. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Answer 6

Of course, traditional roles have been passed down from generation to generation, and different societal structures have their own elements of traditionalism, which in large part are linked to religious beliefs.
Some people feel comfortable within these confines, and some don't, some also wish to find a balance between some traditional views and liberal ones.

As for myself, I have been both in a monogamous and open relationship, was very happy in both.
In the relationship prior to my last one, initially, I did not think that polyamoury or sex with others was really an option, but he was much more liberal than myself and I was religious at the time (late teens to early twenties), yet he encouraged me to open my mind and explore myself in ways I had not imagined, which I later took into the following relationship with my ex, who was supportive of me expressing my attraction to women, as I was of his sexual nature and way of being.

If I was to find myself in another relationship, I would simply want to be accepted as I am, not necessarily agreed with (except for some political and religious issues), but accepted as a person, no matter what kind of relationship it is, and I will do the same in return.

Answer 7

I’m in a traditional relationship, but the roles we take were not decided because of gender – neither of us believe that women are inferior to men. The roles were defined by us as individuals. The cultural ideal where I’m from (UK) is for both the man and the woman to work, to be financially independent and to have equal say in making decisions; this is how my parent’s relationship is, and it works for them. If anything, I feel I was encouraged during my teenage years, by teachers and friends, to be ambitious and assertive.

I have been in non-traditional relationships: I didn’t feel comfortable and I wasn’t able to be myself. They weren’t the kind of guys I’d want to spend the rest of my life with, and it was obvious that I didn’t fulfil their expectations either.

The nature of my relationship is an inspired choice; I know myself well enough to understand that this is what works for me. I don’t usually put up much resistance to anything, but I knew I couldn’t live my life the way they expected. My lifestyle was chosen, and I can’t see myself changing it.

Answer 8

Path of least resitance? Hardly. I have often seriously considered legally divorcing my husband for no other reason than finances and tax. If we were divorced my kids would get perks from the government. I would pay less tax. He would pay less tax.

I would love for us to assume an even more traditional role as a stay at home mom, but finances just don't allow it. We have tried in the past, but basic needs cannot be met on his salary (or mine for that matter).

If the traditional roles were the path of least resistance I would be the first one there.

Answer 9

Read the book Opting Out? by Pamela Stone. It contains stories of women who use to be high-powered and career-minded, then later ended up being Suzy Homemakers. She explains that most of them were pushed out by their employers' inability to accommodate the needs of working mothers.

Some adopt traditional roles because they genuinely want to, just like I genuinely want to adopt the least traditional role possible. My mother works because she didn't find her years as a homemaker fulfilling enough. Her job is stressful much of the time, but she freely admits that she would continue to work, even if she could afford to stay home.

Answer 10

It is my nature to think outside the box, so let me first say that I don't think relationships can be reduced to categories of "traditional" v. "non-traditional." I have been in many types of relationships. My ten-year marriage was the closest I've ever come to a monogamous, heterosexual union, for ex., but we were far from "traditional," by most definitions. We lived most of our years together as a commuter marriage--e.g. lots of travel, time together punctuated by time apart for study, work, and creative endeavors. This marriage ended because my husband was not able to let me grow and become more and more the woman I was becoming. He needed me to remain the little girl he married. So, even though we had a basically non-traditional marriage, he was attached to the role of husband as boss or being, as I used to call it, "my benevolent jailer." Even though he considered himself a "non-traditionalist" he couldn't release his tendency toward male dominance. We had terrific (or terrible) fights. :) This was a very explosive and steamy Scorpio-Aries connection.

In addition to my marriage and to one other ltr of four years, I have tended to attract "non-traditional" liaisons. How do they contrast? I try not compare or contrast one relationship with another; and I don't think "traditional v. non-traditional." I just go with the Flow and maintain my own integrity.

For marriage or a long-term relationship I prefer a deep, monogamous one-on-one with a love partner who is on the same wavelength with me spiritually, sexually, intellectually, artistically, and politically--because I don't do anything superficially. Yet in the dating arena or for short-term relationships I am open to other forms of relationships as long as they are grounded in mutuality, equality, honesty, respect, and compassion. There is no pegging me. Seasons change.

Long story short, for me it's all about following my heart and creating the type of relationship that suits who I am in the present moment or season. I don't follow anyone else's rules, no cultural mandates, no religious mandates, and no sexual mandates outwardly imposed by people who think that their way is best for me. I am open-minded, but I do what is right for me, what feels good to me--respectfully and hopefully ecstactically. I follow my bliss.