Last week's comments threads made for some interesting reading -- thanks to all who participated -- and I wanted to flag one post in particular, from Amy:

I got a question for you ... what I'm reading is that doesn't matter who you're caring for, from the looks of it, you're still going to be hit pretty hard careerwise and financially, both of which are serious in a country where it's essentially up to you to provide for yourself throughout your life, and where a breadwinner spouse has little or no obligation to take care of you in return for your work. At the same time, I'm hearing more about finding men who're willing to stay home and be househusbands while the women go out and do the heavy-duty career thing. And I have to ask why you're even interested in doing that, given the built-in penalties.

Chip weighed in on his blog, as well as in the comments, and a handful of others replied as well. I wish I could respond to Amy's point directly -- she is talking about full-time, no-other-income at-home dads, and (confession coming) I have always hedged my time at home with a dose of freelance work. But I think the general belief held by most of the at-home guys I've spoken with is in line with the posted sentiments.

There is a line in the cover story of the current Utne Reader that says it all:

Back then [early 20th century], [Ben] Hunnicutt [, professor of leisure studies at the University of Iowa] says, "the American Dream consisted of two things: more wealth and more time to live."

That's what we're talking about: more time to live, even if it means a financial sacrifice. Even if it means a step back career-wise. Or a state college. Or used car. To give up a present and future income stream for something like "time at home" is a radical element in a nation of consumers, and -- as Chip notes -- that's really a shame.