Those folks who want to go back to "traditional" marriages where Mom stays home and cares for a pack of kids, loves/honors/obeys etc. have to want and push for the rest of the package too.

In order for that sort of "traditional" thing to happen again, there need to be millions of good-paying stable 9-5 jobs with excellent benefits that the Average American Dad can get and keep so that Mom can stay home and do the "traditional" thing without working outside the home.

There need to be millions of quality, affordable homes in safe, supportive communties for those Average American families to live and grow in.

There needs to be a high quality health care system that the Average American family can afford on what Dad alone earns.

There needs to be an affordable-on-what-Dad-makes preschool-through-Ph.D. educational system that adequately trains all the kids of the next generation for the good-paying stable 9-5 jobs with excellent benefits that will be there for them.

There needs to be an affordable-on-what-Dad-makes high-quality old-age system so that people are not sandwiched between trying to care for their elders and children at the same time.

There needs to be a tax system that is fair and reflects the reality of what things cost today, not the fantasy of decades past.

Put all those things in place *first* and then we'll talk about "traditional" marriages. Not just for the few but for the many.

Conservatives have long talked about "family values" but then don't say how the Average American is supposed to afford them after all the traditional support of those values is removed by their own actions.

It's not a new trick; I recall a story where the workers were told they had to make bricks without straw.

"Obey is probably not accurate, although we both love and honor each other. go back is also a reach, since the majority still have "traditional" marriages."

The "traditional" vows of many years ago often had the bride promising to obey the husband.

The term "traditional marriage" in this context is in reference to the idea that married-women-with-kids should not work outside the home.

"We couldn't afford a home in connecticut so we moved to georgia where we could afford to live on one income."

But there had to be a good job for you in Georgia.

You bring up a good point, though: widely differing costs of living in different parts of the country.

"We drove beatup old cars, we scrounged. It worked. And we are decidedly middle class."

You are using the past tense, which means this all happened many years ago. Things are different today.

"Always had good healthcare for the family based on my job. My wife works now, but she is still on my plan."

More and more jobs either do not provide health insurance, or make you pay a considerable amount of it on your own. One reason many families have both adults working is for health insurance.

"I fully expect to afford to pay for my children to go to college based on my salary. Although, for sure I expect them to pay some as well. Builds character."

How much do you expect college to cost? When I was in college, (1972-1976), tuition was about $4000/yr. At an Ivy League school. Same place charges at least ten times that now, but wages and financial aid are not ten times what they were back then.

(I previously wrote): "Put all those things in place *first* and then we'll talk about "traditional" marriages. Not just for the few but for the many."

"Those things are generally in place for families that have fathers."

Not the way they were in past generations. That's one big reason you see so many families with both adults working; it just takes more today.

Another reason is that, in many fields, not working for several years makes one unemployable in that field because things change so much.

"Sounds like you have it backwards."

I don't think so.

"By breaking up traditional families, and having no positive male role models, the american dream is disintegrating."

I agree with you that breaking up families is a very bad thing. But that's not what I'm talking about.

What I'm saying is that, over the past few decades, it has become harder for intact middle-class American families to achieve the same level. A little here, a little there isn't noticeable in the short term but it adds up over time.

"The government will not be your daddy."

Not asking for that. Just for a fair deal.

"Democrat talking here. Republican AND Democrats have enabled most of the middle class erosion.....so have feminists by devaluing men."

From what I have seen for the past several decades, the "conservatives" have done far more damage.

But I do agree about the lack of traditional role models and the devaluation of men by *some*. Again, a little bit here and a little bit there adds up.

For just one example, look at popular TV sitcoms of the past several decades. Those which center on an intact nuclear family are almost all copies of "The Honeymooners" with children added and the grittier realities removed.

"But its essence boils down to this: "Its the economy, stupid.""

Not really.

What I was trying to say is that American society has changed in ways that make it more difficult if not impossible for the average American nuclear family to have the kind of life that was described and promoted in the article as "traditional marriage" (meaning Mom stays home with the kids and only Dad works outside the home).