Yes, but also it's not like having maternal instinct wouldn't make this decision easier for you.

And keep in mind, statistics say than one of the divorce factors is husband making less than wife. From her perspective: this isn't sexy at all.

I'd interpret these results with a grain of salt. They are, after all, culturally (and circumstantially) bound. If making money wasn't so important to raising kids, then women might express quite different preferences in partners. I believe there is some evidence for this if you look at mate preference in nations with more social support.

Just anecdotally, women seem to be interested in men who excel in some area, not just in salary. Successful musician's, artists, scientists, etc all do pretty well, even if they aren't top earners.

I guess what I'm cautioning against is reading your "studies" as suggesting that women don't find lower earners "sexy." Much simpler economic circumstances could plausibly explain the higher rate of divorce.

Please keep in mind, I said socio-economic status. But, homeless looking, constantly drank, smelling of urine Charles Bukowski had plenty of young, attractive and willing lovers. My point being exactly his high socio-economic status. We're talking about one of the best American poets. How many of these you get to meet? Hey, he might even write a poem about feeling he has for you if he likes you. That's what was so damn hot about the guy. Not money. With no money at all, his status was extremely high. I'm not pushing this vulgar simplistic idea here that women are all about money. They are after men who are really, really good in their niche. Even when the niche doesn't provide any money. It's about status they're after. This usually translate into money, but not always. Bukowski was dirt poor. With high status.

EDIT: grammar

Right, but what you are saying now borders on tautological: women like those with high socioeconomic status. But socioeconomic status is just the combination of all things which makes people like you.

I think the parent comment is saying that his paternal instinct is clashing with society and culture.

wait, are you saying that staying at home with the kids is not work?! It is arguably a harder job than most white collar jobs out there:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWcJZ210AaM

Harder doesn't mean worse, necessarily. There are lots of things I'd rather do than my white collar programming job, and most of them are at least as much "work" as it is—they just don't pay nearly as well.

[EDIT] that includes staying home to teach my kids—much rather do that, and it'd 100% for sure be much harder. Pays zero dollars though, and someone's gotta keep the bills paid.

Yeah but kids can smile and bond with you. Computers can't. It's hard work, but it's a bad idea to compare the two either way. One might come naturally to some people, even if they're (gasp) computer programmers.

Unless parent edited their comment, sounds like you're way over-interpreting their comment. I wouldn't mind being a stay-at-home parent if my SO made bank, it's not because I think it'd be "not work" though.

Something can be, at the same time, both more work and more enjoyable than office work.

With a possible exception of before they can talk and are potty trained, child care is not harder. And it is far far more enjoyable spending time with your kids.

100 hour workweeks kills people, 40 hours of work and 60 hours of parenting doesn't, 100 hours of parenting doesn't. Parenting therefore isn't work, parenting is life on the work-life balance spectrum, so it isn't soul crushing in the same way work is. Parenting can still be a lot of work of course, but it isn't work in the same way a job is work, it is more work in the way a vacation trip is work or a hobby is work.