Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The issue is is that the wife is tired and wants to see the kids more often but cannot because she has to pay all of the bills.
He cooks most times and the house is usually clean.
Isnt she like a "sugar momma" and taking care of him?
And now you know what breadwinning dads have been facing since roughly the dawn of breadwinning. Now that gender roles have been made more fluid, women get to see the other side of the coin for a change and are finding out men didn't always get the long end of the stick after all.
Welcome to the brave new world, ladies. You helped create it, now it's time to reap the logical consequences.
The child is better off with the lazy father in his life. Kids hold their parents to different standards than other adults and time spent with the child means everything to them.
A stay at home dad isn't a "lazy dad". A lazy dad is one who stays at home, but who plays no role in the household. He is no different from that of an uncooperative adolescent male. And potentially disruptive if his male ego makes him think that he is the "head" of the household even though he does nothing to deserve being seen as such.
A FUNCTIONAL 2 parent family is the best. A NON functional 2 parent family is the worst because the disruptive adult is present and so prevents the family from attempting some level of normality which might be possible were he (its normally the men) weren't around.
And now you know what breadwinning dads have been facing since roughly the dawn of breadwinning. Now that gender roles have been made more fluid, women get to see the other side of the coin for a change and are finding out men didn't always get the long end of the stick after all.
Welcome to the brave new world, ladies. You helped create it, now it's time to reap the logical consequences.
That seems like an angry male rant. Most families now need two income earners. Indeed the ONLY reason why household incomes increased in the 70s and 80s is because more women went out to work.
The reality is that the economy is shifting from one based on producing goods, to a service based economy, and at the lowest levels employers (USUALLY MALE) seem to prefer females.
I agree. If he's cooking and cleaning and taking the kids to/from school . . . what's wrong with that??
A good friend of mine made this arrangement with her husband (mainly because she was making a TON of money) and he was good with it.
He was a great SAHD and we never, ever thought he was lazy ~ because he wasn't!
It makes more sense for the parent who can earn the most to be the one to work outside of the home, if it is important that one parent be at home.
Long gone are the days when it is "obviously" the man who has the best earning potential. I thought that we began to learn this since the 1990s. Those who still subscribe to those views need to join the rest of us.
In addition, a stay at home dad isn't necessarily an unemployed dad, as many self employed people can work at home. That way one parent is at home when the kids come in from school, and can do the driving kids to various activities, without seriously disrupting the household income. He can also often schedule his meetings for school hours and so reduce the need to bring in third party child care providers.
That seems like an angry male rant. Most families now need two income earners. Indeed the ONLY reason why household incomes increased in the 70s and 80s is because more women went out to work.
The reality is that the economy is shifting from one based on producing goods, to a service based economy, and at the lowest levels employers (USUALLY MALE) seem to prefer females.
"An angry male rant..." have you been following the OP's contributions to this thread? And I'm the angry one?
If you switch the genders then what you just described is a stay at home mother. Imagine the uproar if they were being branded 'lazy'.
I think that may be the point of the thread. Should this dad be considered lazy for doing what countless moms do?
Personally, I've weighed in here with my belief that it is wrong of any parent to expect the other parent to work extra long hours or a second job so they can SAH. Kids have two parents and IMO benefit from time spent with both.
And now you know what breadwinning dads have been facing since roughly the dawn of breadwinning. Now that gender roles have been made more fluid, women get to see the other side of the coin for a change and are finding out men didn't always get the long end of the stick after all.
Welcome to the brave new world, ladies. You helped create it, now it's time to reap the logical consequences.
It's not fair either way. In the past there was no choice because women couldn't support the family. Now there are choices to be made because women can. Personally, I think it's more fair if both parents work so that neither has to work long hours or a second job.
Which is worse for kids in your opinion,having a non abusive, non working father in the home or no dad in the home?
What i mean by lazy is a non working dad who watches and feeds the kids etc while the wife works a full time and part time job.
I cannot find any stats on this.
One of the things Republicans(well,everyone) likes to push is that marriage is best for kids.
However,what if they have a dsyfunctional marriage(like the one above)?
How is it healthy for kids to see a lazy bum in the home?
How will boys know what a real man does if they see Dad home all day?
So, do you think all stay-at-home MOMS are lazy bums?
You call it dysfunctional. They call it family. Your opinion carries no weight. It works for them, and their kids will grow up with a hands-on dad who they know love and care for them. Tell me, exactly, how that is a BAD thing? A "real" man supports his family -- this is an non-traditional way to support them, but if his wife enjoys working and is pulling down big bucks, then he IS supporting her and his family by helping create a safe, loving and nurturing environment.
I think the one with the problem here is you, if you think a loving, hands-on dad is worse than NO dad . . . that's warped.
It's not fair either way. In the past there was no choice because women couldn't support the family. Now there are choices to be made because women can. Personally, I think it's more fair if both parents work so that neither has to work long hours or a second job.
More fair to who? The parents? Or the kids?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Should this dad be considered lazy for doing what countless moms do? 