12
votes
Goodbye to the era of the professional spouse – There are not many jobs left in which people are expected to appear, smiling and waving, by their partner’s side
Link information
This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.
- Title
- Goodbye to the era of the professional spouse
Overall, I don't disagree with the articles overall points, and maybe I was just less politically aware, but I don't think I'd ever carried about the 'second' spouse? I didn't even know Jill Biden until she became First Lady outside of the fact that she existed and had been mentioned. I couldn't name Pence's wife, Cheney's... You get the picture.
Obviously, they're right about the outdated model that surrounds the whole thing but I'm less interested in the 'second' politicians when the actual politicians are such a shit show. I'd honestly love to be able to care about such stupid things.
I think it's also a question of how much everyone else cares. This has been a role which quite a few women have been pushed into historically and I think it's good to point out the double standard and to celebrate the fact that this model is ending.
I feel like this opinion piece was quite short. I do like the point being made that yeah, it is stressful, no wonder they don't want to do the job. Still, I would have liked to see more around the point of "marital serenity." What is the benefit of marriage to such busy and stressed-out people? Is it purely in having a companion? Or is it the ability to offload all concerns to someone who owns that domain? I would like to know how power couples fare in happiness and stress vs. 1 highly successful partner + and a stay at home spouse.
My friends and I are relatively successful women, a decent portion single. Looking at the way we get stressed, I tend to think that we weren't really "meant" for these super-isolated lives where we do so much on our own. We were meant to rely on our community, have less / simpler commitments in general, and / or (if we imagine a classic 1950s well-to-do stereotype) offload a lot of the social / emotional labor to a partner to specialize in.
Well, think about the second half of your comment. The leader of a group (no matter the size) is the figurehead for the group. If you're led by a womanizing idiot that reflects on your group. So, we'd ideally want our leader to be reflective of (our own personal) best self. Someone who has a steadfast and stable relationship obviously is a bit more mature and hopefully levelheaded.
This also plays into the historical "women's role" of being the moral and educational compass in a household. If there was a 'morality' problem, it was the women's fault. Therefore if our figurehead has a moral failing, it likely reflects on who shares his (or her) bed. Sexist, yes, don't get me wrong. I don't personally assign that role to anyone but you can't have the phrase "behind every great man is a great woman" if you don't scrutinize the woman to ensure that she's really as great as you think, right?
Archive link