Monday, November 04, 2002

The nice folks at Fox news weighed in with an article on stay-at-home dads today. It followed the formula: requisite Mr. Mom reference, quote from one of the small number of "experts" (Libby Gill, in this case), the two million estimate, the anecdote from a real-life at-home father. All in all, nothing offensive.

But at the risk of getting back on my high horse, I wish someone would uncover why this is a trend. Gill points out that 40 percent of women (she says two in five) outearn their hubbies. That's a wonderful statistic, if it's true, and it further adds to the confusion about stay-at-home parents. If women rule the economic roost in only 40 percent of families, why is it that the percentage of husbands of working mothers provide -- at best -- 10 to 15 percent of the time?

There's a strong social pattern established here that needs to be destroyed. For those families where it's economically and personally viable to have one parent stay home, Gill's statistic would suggest that homemoms would barely outnumber homedads. But it ain't that way it works out in reality.

Perhaps dads are, on the whole, less likely to be interested or willing to raise children. That's not entirely implausible -- the warm, fuzzy Alan Alda-type men are still probably a tiny minority. But that doesn't explain it all. I'm convinced there remains a body of capable would-be homedads who aren't doing the kid duty because the idea it never occured to them. All moms face a choice: work or stay home. It's ingrained in the culture. When will society extend dads that choice?

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home