Stay-at-home dads? Are they 'emasculated'?

"Being a stay-at-home dad makes me feel manly"
By John Hart

TV’s Kate Garraway thinks I’ve been emasculated. She said it to my face, live on ITV’s Lorraine, in front of everyone. This troubles me. Despite leaving an extremely butch career in software (I wasn’t Vin Diesel enough to do any coding, but I did write leaflets and order promotional USB sticks) to look after my children, I certainly don’t feel emasculated.

In fact, I feel rather, um, masculated. Taking the lead in parenting doesn’t just make financial sense, it also gives me the chance to pursue personal ambitions like taking a really hands-on role in my children’s upbringing and getting myself elected as a local councillor. But Garraway implied that I was less of a man. On TV. With my mum watching.

Sure, I lead a surreal double life of carrying out council casework in the only part of the leisure centre where phone calls aren’t drowned out by Let it Go or fending off plastic watermelon and bacon proffered by a two-year-old Blumenthal while presenting an image of reliable professionalism to clients and constituents.

And yes, politicians are supposed to kiss babies, but having one on me at all times was becoming gratuitous. But emasculated?

Stay-at-home dad is a derisive term. It has connotations of being a loser. It’s a completely redundant phrase
Then it struck me. I despise the idea of being a stay-at-home dad. “I am not a stay-at-home dad,” I find myself exclaiming increasingly often, before tersely citing the example of a female friend who went freelance when her son was born and yet she’s never referred to as a stay-at-home mum.

I realised I thought of myself as a councillor first, writer second and dad third. I was giving my children third billing. Why?

Was Garraway right? Deep down, do I feel less of a man? Am I secretly ashamed of being thought of a failure, or a freak, or effeminate? And am I selling my kids short as a result?

Much more: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/dec/26/being-a-stay-at-home-dad-makes-me-feel-manly

Kate Garraway should concentrate on her own marriage.

It annoys me when people make comments about others like this. Two people meet, form a partnership, then a family...and it's up to them to work out responsibly the best way that suits them, not other people...to live their lives happily.

What right do others have to cast doubt on people when they are doing their best for themselves and their loved ones?

Exactly Syl. As long as the parents are happy in their role then the children will be happy.

I always thought the best way a society could raise a child was to make it so that the parents could job swap; dad does two weeks work then two weeks at home whilst the wife does vice versa.

How happy would that make most people?

It would drive me mad tbh.

My role was mum and homemaker...and I loved it till son was 13.
OH's role was breadwinner......and we shared everything else that came between.

Believe it or not I was criticised by some for being happy being 'just' a wife and mum.
That doesn't suit everyone...it suited me...and it's up to everyone to find their own 'role'...and other people should mind their own bloody business.

It's nice to have a balance and not everyone has a balanced life.
I miss going to work and doing something that uses my very active brain but I wouldn't want a stranger bringing up my children though.

eddie wrote:Exactly Syl. As long as the parents are happy in their role then the children will be happy.

I always thought the best way a society could raise a child was to make it so that the parents could job swap; dad does two weeks work then two weeks at home whilst the wife does vice versa.

How happy would that make most people?

Not very practical really though.

It's only impractical because we never started society out that way.

It's not impossible is it? Nothing is impossible really.

eddie wrote:It's only impractical because we never started society out that way.

It's not impossible is it? Nothing is impossible really.

It would have to be a job with no continuity of any kind - ie, low pay. It would also be a pain for employers.

Anyway, I'd hate to be dependent on a man, unless they were rich.

SURELY it depends on who is earning more ???

EPECIALLY if the wife was something like a doctor, engineer, lawyer or executive, maybe earning four, five, six times the busband in some cases..

IF THE husband was something like a teacher or nurse, he shouldn't have much trouble getting back into the workforce.        

AND IF he happens to be a tradie, craftsman or artisan, then chances are he could still 'keep his hand in' part-time;  especially so once their kids get to high school..

THEN there's farmers and orchardists, who usually work from home anyway...


THE WHOLE concept that being a "stay-at-home dad" is somehow 'emasculating' must surely have originated with that kind of minority of shallow, vacuous and narrowly-focussed boofheads working in an office, factory or retail environment --  and whose whole sense of identity and self worth is overly dependent on what their job is  ?               

Raggamuffin wrote:Anyway, I'd hate to be dependent on a man, unless they were rich.

It didn't bother me to be dependent financially....my OH was dependent on me for lots of things too.....so it worked out fine.

I know women who think the opposite way though, and they always maintain their earning power....usually by letting other people bring their children up if they have any.

eddie wrote:
Exactly Syl. As long as the parents are happy in their role then the children will be happy.

I always thought the best way a society could raise a child was to make it so that the parents could job swap; dad does two weeks work then two weeks at home whilst the wife does vice versa.

How happy would that make most people?

UNFORTUNATELY, once you step out into the wider world, you will find that only around 30% or so of jobs/occupations are suitable for that kind of 'job sharing' model...

IF ONLY the majority of job descriptions could be tailored to suit each indiduals expectations for whatever life stage they're in at the moment..          

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

SURELY it depends on who is earning more ???

EPECIALLY if the wife was something like a doctor, engineer, lawyer or executive, maybe earning four, five, six times the busband in some cases..

IF THE husband was something like a teacher or nurse, he shouldn't have much trouble getting back into the workforce.        

AND IF he happens to be a tradie, craftsman or artisan, then chances are he could still 'keep his hand in' part-time;  especially so once their kids get to high school..

THEN there's farmers and orchardists, who usually work from home anyway...


THE WHOLE concept that being a "stay-at-home dad" is somehow 'emasculating' must surely have originated with that kind of minority of shallow, vacuous and narrowly-focussed boofheads working in an office, factory or retail environment --  and whose whole sense of identity and self worth is overly dependent on what their job is  ?               

Absolutely spot on, and the first green from me to you, in a while.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Anyway, I'd hate to be dependent on a man, unless they were rich.

It didn't bother me to be dependent financially....my OH was dependent on me for lots of things too.....so it worked out fine.

I know women who think the opposite way though, and they always maintain their earning power....usually by letting other people bring their children up if they have any.

Not necessarily - once the child has gone to school, they can work part time.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

It didn't bother me to be dependent financially....my OH was dependent on me for lots of things too.....so it worked out fine.

I know women who think the opposite way though, and they always maintain their earning power....usually by letting other people bring their children up if they have any.

Not necessarily - once the child has gone to school, they can work part time.

Unless you have a really well paid job, working part time bringing up children will not allow many to be financially dependent within a partnership.
It might give you a bit of spare cash if the OH is paying all the bills though .

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Not necessarily - once the child has gone to school, they can work part time.

Unless you have a really well paid job, working part time bringing up  children will not allow many to be financially dependent within a partnership.
It might give you a bit of spare cash if the OH is paying all the bills though .

It's not just about money though is it? It's also about not wanting to sit around or do housework.

True, but I was addressing what you said about being "financially dependent on a man"

Syl wrote:True, but I was addressing what you said about being "financially dependent on a man"

Well they'd be doing their bit wouldn't they, even if they didn't earn much.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:True, but I was addressing what you said about being "financially dependent on a man"

Well they'd be doing their bit wouldn't they, even if they didn't earn much.

Unless, like I said you have a well paid job, of family locally, school holidays are a nightmare, most part time jobs don't cover the cost of child care, and most employers don't allow their part time workers a 6 week break in the summer plus all the other breaks schoolkids have.

Mums do have to juggle an awful lot when they choose to work when the kids are small.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well they'd be doing their bit wouldn't they, even if they didn't earn much.

Unless, like I said you have a well paid job, of family locally, school holidays are a nightmare, most part time jobs don't cover the cost of child care, and most employers don't allow their part time workers a 6 week break in the summer plus all the other breaks schoolkids have.

Mums do have to juggle an awful lot when they choose to work when the kids are small.

Well they would still be earning a bit of money to put towards child care. Each to their own, but I wouldn't like to sit around whilst a man paid for everything.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:


Unless, like I said you have a well paid job, of family locally, school holidays are a nightmare, most part time jobs don't cover the cost of child care, and most employers don't allow their part time workers a 6 week break in the summer plus all the other breaks schoolkids have.

Mums do have to juggle an awful lot when they choose to work when the kids are small.

Well they would still be earning a bit of money to put towards child care. Each to their own, but I wouldn't like to sit around whilst a man paid for everything.

The cost of childcare is a lot more than many part time workers earn.

So would you only sit around doing nothing if the man was rich then?

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well they would still be earning a bit of money to put towards child care. Each to their own, but I wouldn't like to sit around whilst a man paid for everything.

The cost of childcare is a lot more than many part time workers earn.

So would you only sit around doing nothing if the man was rich then?

Obviously, I'd be a lady who lunches - every day.

The point is that at least if the woman earns some money, she's putting something into the pot so to speak rather than just living off a bloke. Whether or not that money gets spent on childcare is neither here nor there.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

The cost of childcare is a lot more than many part time workers earn.

So would you only sit around doing nothing if the man was rich then?

Obviously, I'd be a lady who lunches - every day.

The point is that at least if the woman earns some money, she's putting something into the pot so to speak rather than just living off a bloke. Whether or not that money gets spent on childcare is neither here nor there.

Oh I get your point, lots of women like to earn their own bit of money....I did myself, though it took a bit of juggling around when son was young.

A person should never depend upon anyone but themselves.

eddie wrote:A person should never depend upon anyone but themselves.

Financially??
Thats not logical as long as women are the ones who get pregnant and take the bulk of the childcare on Eddie.

Emotionally......could not agree more.

Syl wrote:

eddie wrote:A person should never depend upon anyone but themselves.

Financially??
Thats not logical as long as women are the ones who get pregnant and take the bulk of the childcare on Eddie.

Emotionally......could not agree more.

I don't rely on anyone Syl. I wouldn't let money worry me as a single mum.
I'm not afraid of much. I know it sounds odd, but I'm not.

eddie wrote:

Syl wrote:

Financially??
Thats not logical as long as women are the ones who get pregnant and take the bulk of the childcare on Eddie.

Emotionally......could not agree more.

I don't rely on anyone Syl. I wouldn't let money worry me as a single mum.
I'm not afraid of much. I know it sounds odd, but I'm not.

It sounds admiral not odd Eddie. My mum was the same, albeit in circumstances she had no control over.
I honestly take my hat off to people who manage bring kids up single handed...whether they work or not.

My mum says I live in the clouds and if I didn't have to, time would be meaningless for me, which isn't strictly true. I can appear to not be listening or noticing, but I'm taking it all in.
An iron fist in a velvet glove. I wrote a song based around that phrase once.

eddie wrote:My mum says I live in the clouds and if I didn't have to, time would be meaningless for me, which isn't strictly true. I can appear to not be listening or noticing, but I'm taking it all in.
An iron fist in a velvet glove. I wrote a song based around that phrase once.

Time is meaningless when you can afford for it to be.
There is nothing better than going out without a watch or mobile.....no plan, just go with the flow.
Obviously you cant do that on a school or work day, but it's blissful when you can.

Now my OH has retired we often do that. It's really freeing.

Yes I bet. My mum was waiting for my dad to retire, they were both looking forward to it but it never happened. It still makes me sad to think about that. P

Make each day count Syl x

I do Eddie...we all should. x

Thats sad about your dad....your mum has you though, so she is still blessed.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

SURELY it depends on who is earning more ???

EPECIALLY if the wife was something like a doctor, engineer, lawyer or executive, maybe earning four, five, six times the busband in some cases..

IF THE husband was something like a teacher or nurse, he shouldn't have much trouble getting back into the workforce.        

AND IF he happens to be a tradie, craftsman or artisan, then chances are he could still 'keep his hand in' part-time;  especially so once their kids get to high school..

THEN there's farmers and orchardists, who usually work from home anyway...


THE WHOLE concept that being a "stay-at-home dad" is somehow 'emasculating' must surely have originated with that kind of minority of shallow, vacuous and narrowly-focussed boofheads working in an office, factory or retail environment --  and whose whole sense of identity and self worth is overly dependent on what their job is  ?               

Yes attitudes are quite different here

If ya missus can afford to keep you and the kids in the life of luxury than surely you have 'won'