In my broader social environment where there are fairly decent numbers of professional women heads of households and either lower-earning or outright stay-at-home men anyway, I’ve noticed that the phenomenon currently known as “male mid-life crisis” might instead be an artifact of structural advantage and/or senses of stress, frustration, or entitlement, or even existentialist despair.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not disputing the characterization of male mid-life crisis. It’s at least historically apt. But historically the distinction between “male” and “primary breadwinner” was effectively nil.

To the extent that continues to change… to the extent we begin to see more heterosexual couples in households where there’s not just income and status parity but reverses of the historical norm… I think you’re going to see a shift away from certain assumptions we make about behavior we’ve historically assumed to be gendered male or gendered female.

The behaviors we’ve been (correctly!) attributing to male gendered behavior is perfectly apt. But, I’m going to argue, that’s much more because that’s how we’ve tended to construct it: as male behavior! What I’m going to say is you’re still going to see the same behavior. And in households that conform to social expectations about “male” breadwinner and “female” domestic partners I think you’re going to keep right on seeing those things. And, face it, that’s going to continue to be the majority experience at least until the boomers pass on. But in households where the “male” breadwinner happens to be a woman… I think you’re going to see the same behavior in those households as well.

If you’re skeptical that’s fine. I think, though, that you’ll agree that if there haven’t been enough counterexamples to support my claim there’s… also not been enough counterexamples to… support your counterclaims.

My currently still-anecdotal but perhaps more finger-on-the pulse experience makes me pretty sure I’m going to turn out to be right — that many of the virtues and vices of domestic roles that we construe as gendered are instead structural dynamics and comparative advantage.

We’ll see.

Note: Some stories don’t fade over time. I’m not sure why I didn’t post this last December when it was still current, but… it’s annoying enough to be worth posting now.

The typical “gotcha” story’s already been circulated so I won’t go into much detail, but on the proposal to “protect” marriage in California even more than the loathsomely homophobic Proposition 8 did by outlawing divorce, I thought BarbinMD of Daily Kos did a great job interpolating her comments with a Associated Press newswire story

“Since California has decided to protect traditional marriage, I think it would be hypocritical of us not to sacrifice some of our own rights to protect traditional marriage even more,” the 38-year-old married father of two said.

Shockingly, the group that led the fight against gay marriage in California isn’t supporting Mr. Marcotte’s efforts:

As much as everyone would like to see fewer divorces, making it illegal would be “impractical,” said Ron Prentice, the executive director of the California Family Council who led a coalition of religious and conservative groups to qualify Proposition 8.

Funny how it’s suddenly “impractical” to peddle hate when the result would actually save traditional marriages.  

Read the quotes in context here.

Ron Prentice’s claims just smell bad here. And I don’t just mean his claim about impracticalities.

Note: Prentice is still blogging about the “homosexual agenda” at his “protect marriage” website.

I noticed the other day that the Ashley Madison website is now advertising on television. The ad I saw invites a woman who’s burdened with an, um, inattentive husband to consider an affair with a soulful-looking customer… or maybe waiter.

I wonder about all the websites and alt-weekly personals that are designed to facilitate adultery. I’m not personally opposed to people having relationships outside of their primary partnerships. Although I do think they ought to be conducted as responsibly as, well, any other kind of social relationship ought to be.

Thing is? The tagline for that ad is “When divorce is not an option.”

The common assumption, as expressed in that ad, that one pursues an affair to escape one’s main relationship. When it seems like a much better idea to seek affairs that enhance one’s primary relationships by, say, providing outlets for expression and activity that aren’t otherwise available. In other words, instead of when divorce is not an option how about when divorce is the last thing you’re even interested in.

Note: Obviously I’m not limiting this notion to sexual affairs. The kind of “outside” intimacy I’m thinking about, the kind that gives one perspective, say, rather than distraction, appreciation rather than relief, and re-creation rather than neglect or abandonment is larger than that.

Note #2: Neither am I proposing that those inclined to relationship-affirming affairs attempt to bring in the entire infrastructure of polyamory. (As Sigourny Weaver’s character said to Kevin Klein’s in Ang Lee’s “how-not-to” The Ice Storm – Criterion Collection, “I’ve already got a husband.”)

Oh, and note #3: given that 50% of relationships that make it to marriage end in divorce it’s not like the present model of 100%-investment-till-failure-or-nothing is so durable all we need to do is just clap louder to make it all better.