The househusband trap

Is there anything wrong with a man who stays home to take care of his children while his wife goes to work and makes all or most of the money for the household? Is he a loser, a joke, a “fag,” a “womanly Mr. Mom?”

No. What a wonderful opportunity for that man and his child or children. Children thrive on close contact with their fathers, and despite every stupid lie the culture tells us, men are as a rule excellent nurturers, when they’re allowed to be, with massive evidence from the evolutionary record that close father-child bonding goes back hundreds of thousands if not millions of years, a bond as deep and as important as the mother-child bond.

So what’s the problem? The problem is that in our current culture, a man who chooses this option may be taking a bigger risk than any other man who gets a woman pregnant. More than one such man has found out the hard way that not only will his woman not respect him anymore, but, even if he is the primary caregiver for the child, the family courts will usually not give a damn and will award custody to the mom if she decides to leave him anyway. In his usual no-holds-barred fashion, Barbarossaa lays it down:

(You can subscribe to his channel here by the way.)

One of the major things I believe many of the more prominent MGTOW thinkers on YouTube miss is the biological realities of fatherhood. There’s a lot of myths that run around on that subject even among people who think they’re fairly well-informed on the science. For example, the frequently-cited claim that only 40% of our male ancestors but 80% of our female ancestors successfully reproduced is flat-out false; it’s a rather destructive woozle. The notion that males just want sex while females seek reproduction is also pseudoscientific nonsense; evidence goes back hundreds of thousands of years showing this to not be true either. Men as a rule want to be fathers, and that is a biological urge and not merely an urge to fuck.

But that discussion can be had another day. Here is the fact gentlemen: there is no good reason for most men to even think about trusting a woman in today’s legal and social climate. Being a househusband would be a great thing, and it’d be a choice I’d be proud to make myself if I could have firm reassurances that I wouldn’t wind up mocked and scorned by society (and by “society” I mean women every bit as much, if not more than, men), and that I wouldn’t find myself out of the workforce, lacking a resume employers would respect, and homeless, destitute, and stripped of my children anyway even though, despite the legal claims that the “primary caregiver” should be the one who gets the bulk of the custody of the children in a divorce, the legal definition of “primary caregiver” is, de facto, “the mother,” no matter how much or how little time she actually spends with the children.

Until the laws and the culture change, gentleman, get this through your head: you are a disposable commodity and nothing more. If you make lots of money, maybe your woman will stay with you, or maybe she’ll leave and take you for all you’re worth anyway. If you stumble and can’t keep up your old level of income, maybe she’ll be honorable and stick with you and her promises, or maybe she’ll kick you to the curb and throw you away like useless garbage. Even if you devote your entire life to actually raising the children yourself, if she decides she wants a different arrangement, the law will back her up and you my friend will still wind up in the garbage dump, and smirked at, called an abuser, a loser, possibly falsly accused, maybe even jailed, because you trusted someone in a climate where “trust” for a man frequently means “playing Russian Roulette.”

I have often said this, and I mean it: I consider the growing trend of permanent bachelorhood for young men a tragedy, but not because I think there is anything tragic in the choice of anyone who chooses to go his own way and stay celibate because it’s simply in their nature to prefer a solitary life. I don’t think a man who makes that choice is a “loser” who “can’t get laid” or sad or cowardly or any of that bullshit.

No, I consider it a tragedy because it is a biological fact that most men don’t want just sex, they want a biological mate, they have a natural and normal desire for attachment, and most men, consciously or unconsciously, want fatherhood and even grandfatherhood–and we have constructed a social and legal climate in which any man who tries to fulfill those very natural and beautiful desires is playing with fire, having effectively no protection offered by the state, charitable instititions, and frequently, not even family or friends.

And then as a nice little rotton cherry on top of that turd pie, they’ll call you “bitter” and a “loser” if you object.

I’m a married man. I love my wife. I trust my wife. I respect my wife. But can I recommend that choice, especially to any man who is young and thinking he’d like children?

No. No I cannot. My own son will be old enough for that soon, and for the life of me I have no idea what to tell him, except to arm him with as much information as I can, and do my best to be there for him if he makes an unwise decision and trusts the wrong woman, whether it be in a long-term relationship or even a one night stand.

Until we live in a social and legal climate that actually makes this sort of thing a safe choice–or at least, a choice that’s about equally perilous for both sexes–I can’t recommend it to anyone I give a damn about, and I’m not even sure I could wish it on my worst enemy.

Recommended Content