The definition of the word breadwinner is as follows: One whose earnings are the primary source of support for one's dependents; a person supporting a family with his or her earnings. More than 50 percent of all households in the USA have a woman as its prime "breadwinner."
The social norms of the past have changed and the "alpha-wife" has emerged.
This turn-about in primary salaries hasn't arrived suddenly. It has been steadily on the rise for the past 20 years but is only now being studied by sociologists. In the traditional past, men's salaries have been the primary source of family income. Much of that had to do with society's ideas that men had careers and women were homemakers. Past generations of men were made to feel uncomfortable if their wives "had money"; usually inherited and not earned I may add. It was seen as a definite blow to the male ego and to his masculinity if he depended on his wife's money. The few strong, successful women were seen as enigmas and the epithets used to describe them were not at all flattering. Unfortunately the word "bitch" became a synonym for a successful woman.
The simple fact that educational and job training opportunities were geared more to men than women, left no doubt over who would become the "breadwinner." It was a man's world.
However, the women of the past 20 years have been fortunate enough to have excellent opportunities in education and training available which enabled them to enter fields once dominated by men.
Men coming of age in an era where it was commonplace for Mom to work outside the home in a well-paying job, see women as competent and strong. A woman's earning power has increased dramatically and with that power comes responsibilities. Many men may feel that it is only fair that their partner's salary be the primary one; the supposed blow to the male ego seems to be non-existent. A recent survey from California states that men are actually relieved to no longer be the sole breadwinner and decision-maker, a burden many watched their fathers shoulder.
Statistics show that of wives who earn more than $100,000, one in three is married to a husband earning less. In the past men were considered a good catch if they were high earners and a woman who was married to one was considered to have done well for herself. Now this same attitude applies to top-earning women and the men who marry them.
Men seem to be very comfortable with a woman whose salary tops his own.
"I like being married to a strong, competent woman who earns an excellent salary. It doesn't matter to me that her income is significantly more than mine. It actually frees me to be more selective in my job choices. I no longer have all the financial pressure to stay in a job I dislike. Michelle's salary enabled me to make a career change." says Jon.
His wife Michelle added, "I very much like being in a strong financial position. I never had any intention to not use my education to obtain my career. Who earns what is not important as long as we're both happy in our choice of lifestyle."
Sociologist, Catherine Bartlett says the alpha-wife has begun to replace the so-called trophy wife.
"The trophy wife was wanted for her youth, beauty, and body. She earned nothing on her own and truthfully wasn't someone who was sought after for her brains. The alpha-wife is desired for her intelligence and her power as a top money earner. She's independent and savvy. Her looks, though certainly visible, are secondary."
If the pressure to support a family is no longer solely a man's domain it may have created a problem for a few women. There are some women who don't relish the role of being the breadwinner. The very same educational and training advantages that helped women to achieve in the workforce can become a domestic dilemma. The idea of shouldering the complete financial burden of a family sometimes causes a subtle resentment. This is compounded by the fact that their equally well-educated husbands are content to have jobs with less pay or no jobs at all. Barring stay-at-home dads who take over child-care responsibilities, most women feel their husband should work a full-time job the same as they do.
Change always follows success and the fact that women are achieving financial success makes it easier for men to change their own ideas about working. Laboring simply to "get ahead" is no longer satisfactory for men; they seek more job satisfaction. The majority of working women say that job satisfaction, though important, now takes a back seat to getting ahead.
Sometimes "change" needs a little tweak to benefit both spouses. Couples need to evaluate both their marital and individual goals. Each needs to contribute either financially, or in other productive ways, to make their lives together work.
Still most women are happier and more satisfied in their new role as the alpha-wife. Men seem to enjoy being with a woman who can not only match, but exceed them, in salary. Strong earning power brings a healthy confidence along with it to anyone's life, male or female. Whether we choose to use the title of alpha-wife or not, we have earned the right to enjoy the benefits of our careers and working lives.
To read more from Kristen Houghton, peruse her articles at KristenHoughton.com and visit her Keys to Happiness blog. You may email her at kch@kristenhoughton.com. Unhappy? Read the book critics call "a book of sane and savvy advice for all", "And Then I'll Be Happy! Stop Sabotaging Your Happiness and Put Your Own Life First."
Follow Kristen Houghton on Twitter: www.twitter.com/kristenhoughton
For 2 million years we were hunter/gatherers. For ten thousand we were agrarians. For a few hundred we've been the children of the industrial revolution.
And women have been significant economic contributors to their households for virtually all that time.
For 2 million years we *gathered*. This meant getting up every day, leaving camp with nothing, and coming back with our arms and carry sacks full of wealth. Food, Water, Firewood. We climbed, picked, dug, chopped, and hauled. Gathering is more boring than hunting, but far more reliable as a food source. A woman to lazy to gather would make a poor wife and would be shunned by men.
Then came beer, and with it agriculture. We became settled, and soon stripped the area around are farms clean. But it didn't matter because the fields fed us, not gathering. Our old work became a quaint past-time while the new work of tilling, weeding, and harvesting became dominant.
So we found new work.
The shepherds son needed a wife who could weave. Cloth sells far better than wool. The inn-keepers son could not settle for a woman unskilled in brewing to take to wife. The fisherman needed a fishwife with a shrewd tongue, quick wits, and a strong back to sell his catch from her wheelbarrow before it rotted.
Then came the machines that took our jobs.
Your typical factory makes more clothe in a day than I could make weaving for my entire life. Probably more in an hour. And much higher quality than I can make. It means that if I weave I am now doing it for fun, not for need. Just as newly agrarian women still walked the woods to pick berries. Not because they needed to, but because they wanted to and berries are tasty and easy to get to (unlike, say, digging up roots in a riverbank).
Same for sewing, brewing, baking, distilling, dyeing, the manufacture of ropes and nets, soap-making, preserving etc etc etc. All the industries that for 10,000 years were the realm of women.
You see, the great wealth of the industrial revolution created a couple generations were every man could provide for an entire family all by himself. With no real help from his wife. A few men in every generation have always been able to do that. Kings, aristocrats, the very wealthy. These men could select mates for beauty and personality alone.
But now every man could do this as the prices of things they relied on women for plunged further and further down.
Even worse, sexual division of labor had become a prison. It was not always a prison. When it forbade men from competing with us it protected our various trade monopolies and kept our skills in demand. Women in the early gold rush towns sold baked goods for gold because none of the bachelor miners knew how to bake and it would be un-manly to learn. But our monopolies were almost all in the realms of manufacture, the creation of goods, and as such were prime candidates for mechanization. Only teaching remained untouched by the industrial revolution and there simply weren't enough teaching slots for every woman who wanted one.
So we were forced into dependency on husbands who didn't need us anymore. Wanted us? Yep. Needed us?
No.
This is not normal. Normalcy is co-dependence. Both spouses needing each other.
Thank you for your question, Nicole.
Nothing like being a free man enjoying your own money (no matter how much that is) and living life with your trusty and honest 4-legged brother. Peachy-creamy as they say ;-)))
I do agree, however, that our 4-legged relatives are a joy in our lives!
That being said, I don't think we can generalize about resentment in males or females; some will feel that way but certainly not all. So much depends on honest communication and respect for each other. Thank you for your comment Bravofett.
My daughter has already figured out that she might have to need to go this route as well.
I will say this in response to your statement that "It's women who tend not to be able to stand with a man while doing (earning a higher salary) it". From my observations that isn't true at all. Top earning women have no problem making the grade on that count and stand on their own very well.
I think the idea is that a woman is unlikely to respect or desire a partner who seems overall less effective or impressive than she herself.
The idea of " a guy who can provide" for a woman is based on society's outdated perceptions of the role of men and women in a relationship. When I was engaged to the man who became my husband while we were still in college, my parents did ask him how he was going to support me!