Yesterday, I pointed you all to a splendid post by Jane Galt who speculated that it made sense for there to be a mommy war from an economic point of view. Gains for one group meant a loss for the other. Elizabeth also responded to it.  So did Jo(e).

I really liked Jane’s analysis because she assumed that women were rational creatures who weighed alternatives and made decisions that maximized the benefits for themselves and their families. Like that rational choice theory.

While I loved her approach, I didn’t always agree with her results. For example, I’m not sure that most women are aware of the Two Income Trap. You can only weigh alternatives, if you know what they are. I’m also not certain that she got men right. Jane writes,

Many men, especially high-earning men, want women who will stay at home and take the burden of childcare and housework off of them. The more that working women manage to establish working as a social equilibrium, the less competition they will have for those men.

I think most men want their wives to work.

Most guys of SAHM aren’t aware of the amount work that their wives put into raising the kids, making the dinners, and doing the homework. And they want the added income from a second salary. I’ve heard from more than a few friends that their husbands were pushing them to get a job. The women respond, "Yeah, he expects me to get a job and then still keep up the cleaning and the dinner making. He says he’ll help out, but he won’t." Women get a second shift.

Guys also assume none of the guilt and concern over their kids in childcare. All the guilt and concern has been delegated to the women.

Men’s lives aren’t changed that much by women returning to work. The women assume the guilt and the second shift. The guys get better vacations from the second income. Unless the woman goes on a real tear and forces the guy to assume his half of the housework and child responsibility, he benefits from her employment.