In article ,
 "Heidi Graw"  wrote:

> >"Mark Sobolewski" 
wrote in message 
> >news:mark_sobolewski-E7E691.19045517012005{at}news.central.cox.net...
> (snip)
> 
> (snip)
> 
> >>Heidi wrote:
> >> In BC Homeschooling is also quite popular, especially now with the 
> >> internet
> >> and "free" correspondence schooling.  So, while
more women may be at home
> >> supervising the children's learning activities, province-wide
there's got 
> >> to
> >> be more than a few *men* doing the same.  I found 2 within a District 
> >> with a
> >> population of 32,000.  I would think the likelihood of other men doing 
> >> the
> >> same across the province is quite high.  They may be rare, but they 
> >> exist.
> >>
> 
> > Mark wrote:
> > But Heidi, what's the point?  So there's a few househusbands
> > out there.  Great.  But how does this information help the majority
> > of men and their place in society?
> 
> Mark, every trend has to have a starting point.  During the 70's only about 
> 1,000 men in Canada were stay at home dads.  Now, there are 77,000.
> 
>
http://www.todaysparent.com/lifeasparent/fatherhood/article.jsp?content=4109&p
> age=1
> 
> So, it seems to me women are quite prepared to support their families, 
> including hubby. 

Let's look at other statistics on the page:

Percentage of families with kids in which dad is the sole breadwinner, 
today: 23; in 1976: 54
Number of stay-at-home dads in single-earner families today: an 
estimated 77,000; moms: 1.2 million
Number of stay-at-home dads in 1976: 1,000; moms: three million - 
Average age of stay-at-home fathers: 42 
Average age of first-time fathers: just under 27

I've extrapolated from 3 million mothers (in 1976, this is probably
higher today) with 54% of men being the sole breadwinner of all
families at the time to imply a total of 6 million families. 
If that number is the same today, that would mean 77,000 families have
a stay at home dad or 1.2%.  

As you can see, the average age of stay-at-home dads is FAR higher
than the normal population.  This is probably because
a very high percentage of these men are retirees and NOT
being supported by the women.  

So yes, 77,000 up from 1,000 is pretty high growth but it's
still only a total of 1 percent AT BEST.  It reminds me of
the comedian Sam Kinneson, God rest his warped soul, who observed that
500 lb women (yeah, he's one to talk :-) who were overjoyed
at losing 200 lbs still weighed 300 lbs.  They had a LONG
way to go!!!!

I like you Heidi, I really do, and I don't think you're a malicious
person but you do realize that most men cannot take your
assertion at face value, don't you?  "Women" are NOT
quite prepared to support a family including hubby.

What you're asking is for men (and many women too) to play
Russian roulette with their personal lives (and with
incredibly bad odds.)  I'm giving you the benefit of a doubt
but Andre and others are not so kind hearted and sentimental as me.
I think you're just being incredibly stupid and idealistic.
Take it as a compliment.

Seriously: I tried to tilt at windmills too and remind liberated
women of their obligation to pay for dinner dates and be
eglitarian.  Then I gave up and moved on and accepted women
for who they are.  More in a moment:

> When men see this as a viable and acceptable option, they 
> may discuss it with their wives. 

Even if this was true, doesn't this sound incredibly like
a chicken and egg type of situation?

Let's say a woman wants to marry a very successful man.
Should she first make herself up as pretty as possible
to attract him and then, after she starts walking down the aisle,
put on her "ugly face" and see if he'll view staying
married to an ugly woman as a viable and acceptable option?  

Sure, sometimes love conquers all but how many men
are going to want to take that gamble?  Why should men
view something as an acceptable and viable option when
99% of what they see around them tells them otherwise?

> And when women see that more and more men 
> are accepting those stay-at-home positions, they'll be more prepared to not 
> think it odd.

Since when did women think oddness was a bad thing when it
worked to their advantage?  If they met a rich man, would
they dump him because it was rare for them to know people
who married up?  Was Marie Antoinette odd?  Are role
models for women "odd?"  

If women find househusbands unattractive, it's simply
because they do whether they are "odd" or not.  

Next, I don't doubt there are plenty of men who aren't
willing to accept such positions but especially because the
risk is so much higher for them.  A man whose a professional
is going to risk losing not only the protection of his
career, but also the respect of most other women
and little protection from the legal system.

> Dad-at-home is still pretty much a radical idea.  But, I think it will catch 
> on given *time.* 

HAHAHAHA!

I'm sorry and I'm not taking a jab at you, personally, but
that sounds like such bull.  If women truly wanted such men,
wouldn't they want them NOW just like jobs that pay more
money and voting rights, etc?  The question here is whether
women truly want such men.  We don't have to force kids to
eat chocolate and ice cream.

Here's the thing Heidi: The clock is ticking (and in more
ways than one.)  Sooner or later, society might just stop
trying to force a square peg into a round hole (pardon
that visual) and accept that round things are round and square
things are square.  

Saying that someday reality is going to go away sounds
like denial.  Now, wait, it IS denial!

> And the more women are earning equal wages for same work 
> done, and if that income is high enough to support the life-style the couple 
> wants, you never know...things can and do change.

I used to think that.

And then I saw that 99% of such women only were MORE demanding
about how much the many made because her standards had gone up.
So maybe 1% of such women marry down and more than half
wind up as single moms or childless.

How is that a change for the better?  

The fact is that such women have a choice and they're making it.
If the women who are empowered today don't want such men TODAY
what makes you think they'll want them tomorrow?  

So far, equality for women is entirely a construction of a legal
system based upon the assumption that inequality between
the sexes is totally due to hateful discrimination.  If women
themselves create conditions that generate these inequalities,
how long before people realize this social construct is a fallacy?

> I actually think it quite remarkable to go from 1,000 to 77,000 over 3 
> decades.  It is slow but steady progress.  I find that encouraging.
> 
> Heidi 

That's wonderful.  I'm just glad I got out of this game before
I actually put my chips on that particular table.

regards,
Mark Sobolewski

--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 1/19/05 2:34:37 AM ---