The transformation continues ... Rebel Dad is now living at rebeldad.com, which is a much more sensible address than the old one. I apologize for the lack of a Friday posting, but with the move and the FTP stuff and the redirection coding, blah, blah, I didn't quite get around to posting.

This is bad because I'm already more than a week late in bringing a bombshell to your attention. (OK, it's not a real bombshell, but everything is relative in the blogosphere.) The fine folks at careerbuilder.com has released this study that supposedly shows that 40 percent of working men would chuck it all to stay home if their wives brought in enough cash for them to live comfortably. That suggests there's a huge upside to this at-home dad thing: if you believe the Census numbers (which I don't, but for argument's sake ...), less than one percent of dads are now at-home dads. That means there are 50 times more potential Rebel Dads than there are current Rebel Dads. And I find that most encouraging.

The Census report was a jumping-off point for this Victorville, CA article, which actually seemed more interested in at-home moms (which the same reporter covered the day before.)

And my head is still spinning from the Census stats. One remaining area of confusion: the number of children cared for by at-home dads is apparently up 18 percent since 1994. (I can't find that stat specifically, but it's being reported over and over in the media, and there is a graph in the report that seems to show the 1994 number as around 160,000, which makes the math work). But the report then goes on to note that "The level [of children cared for by at-home dads] is not significantly different from the level in 2002." Does that mean that the 18 percent jump is a statistical fluke as far as demographers are concerned?