I found this article to be rather intresting, what say you?


Housewives make their men healthy and wealthy


Last week, the Institute for Social and Economic Research reported that being married to a housewife - as opposed to an executive wife - makes all the difference to a man's success at work. Married men earn more than single men, but only if their wife stays at home - and does all the chores.

Housework: can a housewife make all the difference to a man's success at work?
The results are designed to irritate feminists, and their author, Mark Taylor (male, of course) - a labour market economist at Essex University, where the institute is based - attracted many abusive e-mails.

Taylor defended his study by saying: "It is important to point out that the man benefits from his wife not working, but the household benefits when she does work.

"Men whose wives contribute to the domestic chores - rather than going out to work - are able to spend more time developing the skills and contacts that increase their labour market productivity."

The research comes at a time when about 75 per cent of women work; 45 per cent, full-time, and 30 part-time. According to the Office for National Statistics, the number of working mothers is almost 65 per cent.

advertisementFurthermore, a new study by sociologists Vincent Duindam and Ed Spruijt of Utrecht University in The Netherlands is set to generate even more controversy; it confirms that, the more hours the mother works, the worse the father's physical and mental health.

The study, published in Patient Education and Counselling, is unique in investigating two groups of fathers: modern, caring fathers (those in less than full-time employment outside the home) and more traditional fathers (in full-time employment).

Surprisingly, Duindam and Spruijt found that, for both groups, the longer their wives' working hours, the worse the fathers' physical and mental wellbeing.

An important conclusion from both studies is that, the more their wives work outside the home, the more the fathers' mental wellbeing deteriorates. Intriguingly, women working had more negative effects on the health of caring fathers than average fathers.

One theory for this striking effect is that the mother plays a "director of health" role; she seems to shoulder responsibility for the household's healthy eating, ensuring everyone goes to bed on time, and that they take medication. If the woman takes on many hours of paid work (and is, therefore, often absent), this function could be threatened, which could lead to a decrease in the male partner's health.

Duindam and Spruijt argue that, even as young girls, women learn to attend to their own health and that of others, whereas, boys do not. They are more likely to be encouraged to engage in risky - and sometimes unhealthy - behaviour. After starting a family, it will, therefore, be more likely that the woman cares for the health of her husband and children.

A second theory - nicknamed the "unfulfilled husband" - focuses on the symbolic, psychological impact that a woman working has on her partner. If a man's wife works more hours than he does, or earns more, he is likely to feel inadequate. A woman contributing a considerable share of the family income could lead to psychological insecurity in her husband, who may feel that he is failing in his role as breadwinner. He could perceive this as a loss of power and status, which could be detrimental to his mental health.

Duindam and Spruijt's research has made the first attempt to resolve whether it is the "unfulfilled husband", or the "woman as health director" theory which explains this astonishing negative effect.

The data they collected part-confirmed both theories, but there was more support - from results for their first and second studies - for the unfulfilled husband hypothesis. Apparently, fathers feel particularly good when they can see themselves as the main breadwinner.

They argue that the role of upbringing, for girls and boys, is vital in both the "unfulfilled husband" and the "woman-as-health-director" hypotheses. In the first hypothesis, young boys learn that work, a career, and earning money are the most important things in life; in the second, meanwhile, from an early age, girls understand that they have to take good care of their own and others' health.

Much of the Government's policy promotes women's participation in the labour market, but it offers men far less encouragement to learn to look after themselves and others. Duindam and Spruijt argue that the Government should motivate men to look after themselves and others better.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/main.jht.../hworking30.xml

I have no doubt that article is very accurate

However, where's the part that explains how housewives benefit from being married to successful career husbands??

How about you go look for it yourself? You claim to be a successful career husband, so it shouldnt be hard right?

Why would it need to be explained? If you are married to a successful career man you get the status, you can afford to send your children to proper schools, swell living conditions, and someone to tell you how good the roast is

Right.

But then I didn't write the article.

If you don't have an answer then why not just stay quiet?

You are looking for an explaination on how housewives benifit from being married to successful carreer husbands....noting realted to this article(This article simply explains how housewives can benifit the family, nothing about a successful career husband)...totally seperate, therefore look for it yourself. Dont have her dig for stuff you want to debate about, you do it.

Wrong.

I'm not looking for an explanation, I already understand it completely

I'm wondering why this discriminatory article only presents one side of the story, other than the obvious ingratiating answer which is to appeal obsequiously to a largely female audience

No problem. I never understood women who want to have both a career and a job. I don't consider giving yourself twice as much work to be progressive.
The article didn't need to explain it because:
A. the article wasn't about women and
B. as stated, you don't need to point out something that's so clear

If it's all so clear why write the article at all??