Why is it so difficult for a working man to be sole provider and leader of a home?

Welfare spending
Welfare spending

So, I’ve noticed that many men who are interested in marriage have been running into problems with their plans. One challenge is the problem of the financial costs of marriage. In order to undertake a marriage enterprise, men have to believe that they can pay the bills. And this is especially challenging to men who want a stay-at-home wife to raise their children.

*Please note that I am talking about unmarried (never married, divorced) women throughout this post.

Here’s my argument for why I think that feminism has made it harder for men to afford to get married:

  1. Feminism caused no-fault divorce.
  2. No-fault divorce laws led to more frequent divorces.
  3. Divorced women turn to government for financial support.
  4. Taxes increase in order to pay for more government spending.
  5. Men who were interested in marriage were hit with higher taxes, which made marriage enterprise financially unfeasible for them.

Here’s the evidence for each point.

1. Feminism was behind no-fault divorce, according to this feminist, pro-no-fault-divorce writer.


Households of 2010 don’t look quite like they did in 1969, when no-fault divorce actually was a controversial topic and these counter-arguments held some weight. The working dad/stay-at-home mom model of the middle class has been replaced by two-parent earner households and a growing number of working mom/stay-at-home dad arrangements. In working poor and impoverished families, the one-parent provider model was never the norm. No-fault divorce seemed scary when it had never before existed, but the truth is that its introduction was long overdue. Feminist groups at the time supported no-fault divorce, as it provided women an escape hatch from desperately unhappy marriages in a society where they were already disadvantaged on almost every level, regardless of their marital status. Imagine an abusive marriage in 1968, when the court-savvy abuser could actually force the victim to stay in the relationship forever. Imagine that now, and you know why domestic violence attorneys are in full support of introducing no-fault divorce to New York. And the judges aren’t the only problem.

Note that the author of this piece thinks that it is not women’s fault that they choose men who they then want to divorce. It’s not the woman’s fault that she is unhappy with the man she courted with and then chose and then made vows to. She isn’t responsible for choosing a good man with chastity, sobriety, moral convictions, etc. She thinks that women shouldn’t be held responsible for their choices. Also, feminists think that children do fine without fathers.

2. Easier divorces means more divorces.


This paper analyzes a panel of 18 European countries spanning from 1950 to 2003 to examine the extent to which the legal reforms leading to “easier divorce” that took place during the second half of the 20th century have contributed to the increase in divorce rates across Europe. We use a quasi-experimental set-up and exploit the different timing of the reforms in divorce laws across countries. We account for unobserved country-specific factors by introducing country fixed effects, and we include country-specific trends to control for time-varying factors at the country level that may be correlated with divorce rates and divorce laws, such as changing social norms or slow moving demographic trends. We find that the different reforms that “made divorce easier” were followed by significant increases in divorce rates. The effect of no-fault legislation was strong and permanent, while unilateral reforms only had a temporary effect on divorce rates. Overall, we estimate that the legal reforms account for about 20 percent of the increase in divorce rates in Europe between 1960 and 2002.

It seems obvious, but more evidence never hurts. About 70% of divorces are initiated by women, either because they chose to marry the wrong man, or because they become unhappy with the right man.

3. Marital instability causes women to vote for bigger government for security.


Giving women the right to vote significantly changed American politics from the very beginning. Despite claims to the contrary, the gender gap is not something that has arisen since the 1970s. Suffrage coincided with immediate increases in state government expenditures and revenue, and these effects continued growing as more women took advantage of the franchise. Similar changes occurred at the federal level as female suffrage led to more liberal voting records for the state’s U.S. House and Senate delegations. In the Senate, suffrage changed voting behavior by an amount equal to almost 20 percent of the difference between Republican and Democratic senators. Suffrage also coincided with changes in the probability that prohibition would be enacted and changes in divorce laws.

[…]More work remains to be done on why women vote so differently, but our initial work provides scant evidence that it is due to self-interest arising from their employment by government. The only evidence that we found indicated that the gender gap in part arises from women’s fear that they are being left to raise children on their own (Lott and Kenny 1997). If this result is true, the continued breakdown of the family and higher divorce rates imply growing political conflicts between the sexes.

Bigger government must be paid for by higher taxes, which makes it harder for one working man’s income to provide for a family. In fact, feminists wanted men to be displaced as sole-providers. They would prefer that women are “equal” to men, and that means making women get out and work like men. It was no concern of theirs that children would be raised by strangers in daycares and government schools.

4. Women are in fact observed to vote for bigger government.


On Tuesday, the nation made history. It made history in electing the first African American president; it made history in building a bigger margin for the first female Speaker of the House; it made history in delivering the biggest Democratic margin since 1964; it made history in sending a record number of people to the polls and the highest percentage turnout since the 1960 election. Analysts will spend the next few months sifting through the data, trying to figure out what happened and why. Historians will likely spend the next several years and decades studying this election, as well. But one thing is immediately clear. Unmarried women played a pivotal role in making this history and in changing this nation. They delivered a stunning 70 to 29 percent margin to Barack Obama and delivered similarly strong margins in races for Congress and the U.S. Senate. Although unmarried women have voted Democratic consistently since marital status has been was tracked, this election represents the highest margin recorded and a 16-point net gain at the Presidential level from 2004.

In fact, there was a recent (2011) study showing that unmarried women do in fact vote for higher taxes and more government as a substitute for a husband’s provider role.


The last three decades have witnessed the rise of a political gender gap in the United States wherein more women than men favor the Democratic party. We trace this development to the decline in marriage, which we posit has made men richer and women poorer. Data for the United States support this argument. First, there is a strong positive correlation between state divorce prevalence and the political gender gap – higher divorce prevalence reduces support for the Democrats among men but not women. Second, longitudinal data show that following marriage (divorce), women are less (more) likely to support the Democratic party.

What follows from voting Democrat?

If more people vote for Democrats then we will get higher taxes to pay for all the government spending. Higher taxes means that a married man can no longer retain enough of his earnings to support a family. And that means his wife has to work, and that means that his children will learn what the daycare workers and government school teachers decide they should learn.

But what do men want out of marriage? Men don’t want to marry a stressed-out competitor, and be yelled at in their own home. They want a homemaker who is focused on her husband and children. They want their children raised by someone who shares their worldview. Men want to produce moral, influential, independent children. Men want to be respected in their homes as sole provider. Men marry in order to lead on moral and spiritual issues. And men understand that a woman who doesn’t work outside the home usually makes a more feminine, supportive partner in the marriage enterprise.

If society, including the parents of daughters and the pastors of daughters, have decided that women don’t have to care about what men want out of marriage, then they should not be surprised that men don’t want marriage. Men may have no-commitment temporary sexual relationships with a secular left feminist who has been focused on her own feminist projects: travel, student loans, promiscuity, career, etc. But they certainly do not marry those women. When it comes to marriage, men want women who embrace the roles of wife and mother. And unlike shoes and handbags, we get a vote about whether or not the marriage happens.

14 thoughts on “Why is it so difficult for a working man to be sole provider and leader of a home?”

  1. Plus market economics. Liberals cry about a living wage, which actually that up until the 60/70s. Before that point, the market wasn’t flooded with labor, and paying for your family was built into your pay.

    Now employers don’t even cover the cost of education to meet basic entry level requirements.

    For a single earner to provide for his family today, you have to make enough to handle an increase in all utility bills, groceries, health insurance (300-500/month), co pays for spouse, life insurance, and maybe $ for second vehicle.

    Meanwhile, for someone like me, the extra deduction on my taxes would only give me 4K more a year, so I would still be at a “net loss” if you will.

    I would barely scrape by, thanks to student loans.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. Great post, WK. I read a study a while back that looked at average household disposable income in the US that then compared it against the rise of dual income households, from the early 1970s to somewhere in the past decade. Crazily enough household disposable income has actually decreased during that time. Vastly more dual income households.

    I’ll try and find the link and post it at some point. Definitely an angle worth additional consideration. This has all sorts of social impacts that should be examined as well.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. Unfortunately, most people don’t realize that government has a direct incentive to tear down the institution of marriage and feminism is the engine through which they have done so. In tact families have less need to depend on government and will therefore be more resistant to government intrusion in their private matters. Stay at home moms do not provide taxable income. Children with caring parents are not as easily indoctrinated by state propaganda. Thus, sooner or later, power hungry politicians will always try to tear the family down. Feminism, no fault divorce, social security and all such state sponsored activities are yet another example of how the government breaks your leg, then hands you a crutch and says, “See you couldn’t walk without us.”
    I’ve made a video essay about this for all those interested: https://youtu.be/L3lhVPmZbqw

    Liked by 2 people

    1. You have the strategic view. If marriage-minded women were serious about marriage, they would be fighting the irresponsible women instead of taking part in the sexual revolution and delaying marriage to “some day”. But they don’t have the strategic view, and they aren’t voting for marriage friendly policies.


      1. I couldn’t agree more. Women, even so called Christian women, are fully participating in the breakdown of marriage by their refusal to condemn the bad behavior of other women.

        Liked by 4 people

        1. The sum of their effort to get married is 1) pursue fun and thrills in the moment and 2) expect Gof or the universe or whatever to provide for them a man who takes on all the responsibilities of husband and father, with none of the rights, under the threat of being no-fault-divorced into oblivion, should he fail to make her happy. It’s a nightmare for men looking to make their marriage produce results for the Kingdom of God

          Liked by 1 person

        2. Even Christian women who consider themselves conservative have been influenced by feminism in ways that they do not even question. It is discouraging that the lies and propaganda of feminists are too often unquestioned and uncorrected. For example, I was 24 in 1969, and I was not oppressed, as the feminist states in the excerpt quoted by Wintry Knight. What she writes is hogwash. I was newly married, had a college degree, and worked until I had my first baby (of six). EWWW!

          Liked by 2 people

      2. But for this to happen, marriage must be a priority. For the generations under 40, I’ve noticed that and child bearing are at the very bottom of their list. I don’t think I’d call that marriage minded exactly. So if marriage isn’t a priority, I don’t see why anyone would really vote for laws that encourage it. Just my 2 cents, I see it all as cultural.

        Liked by 1 person

  4. Agreed, and I’d like to add massive increases of overburdening mandatory government fines, fees, and taxes to the mix. We’d all be well off without them.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. I’m actually fine with women doing real degrees (engineering, etc) and working before children arrive. But they should be debt free and quit when children arrive. This is because men don’t trust anyone to raise their children except the mother of them. But I do think that there is discrimination against boys in the schools, which make it harder for boys to get into university and do well there.

      Liked by 3 people

  5. Reblogged this on Free Matt Podcasts and commented:
    ***Re-blog from Wintery Knight. Obviously a hat tip to WK. This was a very interesting article, especially for the people I know that have considered getting married and looking at traditional roles. It is a new world we live in. (Im enjoying the weekend and I didnt feel like writing). ***

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s