• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Stay at home dads.

Is it acceptable for the man to stay at home raising the kids while the woman works?


  • Total voters
    77
In a perfect world every mom would stay home and raise the kids but in the real world both parents often have to work. Other times though the women chooses to work for "self fulfillment" reasons. If you cant feel good about yourself raising your kids, if you need a career to feel important, don't have kids. Then theres women who need stuff. They want a bigger house and a fancier car and are willing to let others raise their kids to have more and better things. These women shouldn't have kids either.
 
Ok, so you think you can get away with being a 50% parent and a 50% employee/businessman. I know what would happen to me if I only gave 50% at my job and I think we're seeing the societal results of people only giving 50% to their kids at this point in time as well.

I have been doing this since the day my son was born. There is no percentages to give here each day comes with it own set of circumstances and I have a schedule as well. My earnings and professional effectiveness have not suffered nor has my son been deprived of my attention, in fact I volunteer at his school on a regular basis and am a very involved and proactive father.
 
In a perfect world every mom would stay home and raise the kids but in the real world both parents often have to work. Other times though the women chooses to work for "self fulfillment" reasons. If you cant feel good about yourself raising your kids, if you need a career to feel important, don't have kids. Then theres women who need stuff. They want a bigger house and a fancier car and are willing to let others raise their kids to have more and better things. These women shouldn't have kids either.

In a perfect world people could live their lives without being criticized for it by people who obsess over how they run their family.
 
In a perfect world people could live their lives without being criticized for it by people who obsess over how they run their family.

I am here to express my opinion on issues, I guess you are here to slam anyone that has a different opinion than you, to each his own I guess.
 
I am here to express my opinion on issues, I guess you are here to slam anyone that has a different opinion than you, to each his own I guess.

I'm deeply sorry I don't take kindly to people criticizing others on things they know nothing about.
 
Sorry if this is in the wrong area as I'm not sure if it is political enough but I did want it to be a poll so this seems the logical place to put it. Feel free to move it to an appropriate section if you think it doesn't belong here. :)

I often hear people say that it is perfectly legitimate for the woman to stay at home raising the kids while the man goes off to work. While at the same time I hear people say that it is wrong for the man to stay at home raising the kids while the woman works.

What do you think? Is it acceptable for the man to stay at home raising the kids while the woman works? Or is the man just a lazy bum (a phrase that I hear often when refering to stay at home dads) that should get off his butt and get a job?

In this reality, people must survive however their talents and skills allow them to.

If such survival demands that a man stays at home raising a child while the mother goes out and works, then that is what is demanded by the law of survival.

So no - nothing wrong at all with stay-at-home dads.
 
I was never a stay at home Dad, but with my first son I was the more involved parent as far as raising him was concerned. I was the one who took him places, arranged his play dates, got him off to school and bonded with him in general.

I sure see nothing wrong with any dad staying at home full time to raise kids. The only consideration should be the welfare of the children, since once you have them it is their needs that take precedence over yours.
 
I have been doing this since the day my son was born. There is no percentages to give here each day comes with it own set of circumstances and I have a schedule as well. My earnings and professional effectiveness have not suffered nor has my son been deprived of my attention, in fact I volunteer at his school on a regular basis and am a very involved and proactive father.

I don't know what you do for a living (nor do I care); but I would tell you that your experience is not necessarily the norm from what I have seen. There is only so much time in the day. The company I work for at times requires me to be available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week; sometimes at locations that are not within communiting distance of my home. That is not conductive to being the primary care-giver for a child as well as working. Not everyone has the capability of working from home.
 
My keyboard player's wife landed a fat job at a huge lawfirm that pays her boo-koo bucks. They bought 2 new cars and an awesome house. He then quit his measley 62k a year job to stay at home and raise their two daughters. He is Mr. Mom and has dinner ready for Mama when she gets home each evening to their sparkling house. He's awesome at that role and they are one big happy family. He and his wife are talking about having another baby. They are an awesome couple with an awesome family. It's the perfect set-up.


Sounds good, but I hope they are being smart with their money and putting at least 20% in savings each time she gets paid. We've all heard the stories of people having "cushy" jobs only to loose them. It's hard getting to that standard of living only to go back!
 
In our circle of friends there is a stay at home dad. When we go to party's he ends up with the women talking about kids instead of with the men talking about everything else, I find it kind of weird. I tried talking to him once about something and as his eyes glazed over some woman walked by with a baby and he just sorta walked off and started talking to her.Takes all kinds I guess.
So are you assuming that all stay home dads are like this guy that you know?
 
If the woman is the bread winner then sure it is acceptable for the man to stay at home.If one partner makes enough to support the whole family then it doesn't make any sense for both people to work.

That was my point with my "suffering poor" statement
If you were able to afford cell phones cable and game systems out side of income tax checks then y I wouldn't consider you poor. While I had thoes thing growing up I also had times of Kraft dinner (and just dinner) 3 nights in a row and had the heat shut of in the middle of winter.

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2
 
I put yes...25 yrs ago I would have put a firm NO...my family doctor is a female, she has 4 kids and her husband works part time in the office doing the books, hes an accountant and he works full time taking care of the kids.....not a think wrong with that in my present opinion. Aside from that anything that a husband and wife agree too is all good right ?
 
I don't know what you do for a living (nor do I care); but I would tell you that your experience is not necessarily the norm from what I have seen. There is only so much time in the day. The company I work for at times requires me to be available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week; sometimes at locations that are not within communiting distance of my home. That is not conductive to being the primary care-giver for a child as well as working. Not everyone has the capability of working from home.

I do not know what the "norm" is, I have prioritized my life in this way.

I have given up the socialization that a work environment would have afforded and there is a measure of isolation that comes with being a male in a world that is rife with females and very few, if any, males. It simply is a trade off for me, nothing more, and I would not have it any other way. On the flip side I have a "hands on" perspective of where my son is academically and socially. I can watch his development and the relationships he is building. He sees me cook, food shop, sew and take care of professional situations. He sees me in almost all of the roles I fulfill in my life. These are the life lessons he is learning, it is through my example rather then my words that he gets his information of what my definition of a responsible man is. As far as I am concerned this is exactly what I am supposed to be doing right at this point in my life and his life. There will come a time when he will move on and I can only hope that remembers these times and uses them as while he forms his own definition of what a man is and what a man does.
 
A house divided against itself cannot stand, Freedom. One cannot put 100% into raising a child AND 100% into doing something else (like a career). Unless you're a siamese twin, that's 200% and it just doesn't work. I'm not suggesting that you pawn your kid off on the daycare industry. I'm suggesting that the proper parent stay home with the children and raise them.
The proper parent? BWhahaha you're funny. 200% is what any good parent puts into their children. That is the commitment that one makes when they have children. Look at it this way childcare costs a parent a certain amount of hours of work to pay for it. That same amount of time can be spent more wisely by one parent just staying with their children. Well unless one thinks its ok to let underpaid people care for their children. Personally I do not trust any childcare provider with the job. Plus like I said I am here anyways, which makes me the proper parent to be at home.
 
The proper parent? BWhahaha you're funny. 200% is what any good parent puts into their children. That is the commitment that one makes when they have children. Look at it this way childcare costs a parent a certain amount of hours of work to pay for it. That same amount of time can be spent more wisely by one parent just staying with their children. Well unless one thinks its ok to let underpaid people care for their children. Personally I do not trust any childcare provider with the job. Plus like I said I am here anyways, which makes me the proper parent to be at home.

FFA, I'm all for one parent staying home with the kids while the other one works.... so long as it's the right parent staying home and the right parent working.
 
In our circle of friends there is a stay at home dad. When we go to party's he ends up with the women talking about kids instead of with the men talking about everything else, I find it kind of weird. I tried talking to him once about something and as his eyes glazed over some woman walked by with a baby and he just sorta walked off and started talking to her.Takes all kinds I guess.

Sounds like he's a playa. Bitchez love men who're good with kids.
 
..particularly alpha males!

Actually a true alpha male would have no problem with that (see: lions).

Only an insecure ***** who defines his manhood based on projecting an image rather than basing it on substance would have a problem with it.
 
Only an insecure ***** who defines his manhood based on projecting an image rather than basing it on substance would have a problem with it.

Not at all, Tucker. See, some of us believe that it's not about "us". It's about something much larger than our individual ideas. It's about how society SHOULD run and exist, not how someone (or even the majority) WANT it to exist.


But but your prospective president wants mothers to work or lose benefits.

Not MY perspective President, RDS. Romney is a moron and always has been. He's saying things he THINKS will excite the Conservative base without realizing, we already know who and what he is and tuned him out a long time ago. Besides, the things he's saying are not what we would want to hear anyway.
 
Not at all, Tucker. See, some of us believe that it's not about "us". It's about something much larger than our individual ideas. It's about how society SHOULD run and exist, not how someone (or even the majority) WANT it to exist.

I like how you say "not at all" about my claim while simultaneously providing evidence that it is accurate.

When someone is insecure in their their subjective view, the first thing that they do is pretend that it's not "merely" their subjective view by making up a fantasy about it being the "objective TRUTH" about reality, i.e. how things SHOULD be rather than "just" being how they WANT it to be.

Such nonsense absolutely screams insecurity.

A person who has that view can blame their failures on fate or bad luck or whatever they choose to blame their failures on. They wallow in the victim mentality when reality doesn't match up with their fantasy of how reality "should be". Thus, they end up clinging to the image thy seek to present rather than accomplishing anything of actual worth.

Confident people, however, can accept their failures as their own, treat those failures like learning experiences, grow from them, and then actually make some progress towards accomplishing their goals in life.

Confident, secure people don't fear admitting that their views are subjectively derived because they are confident and secure. They don't consider the subjective nature of their views to be a detriment to those views. In fact, they see that as a benefit. Because they are confident in themselves. They are secure.

Only someone who is insecure in themselves would think that they'd need to invent an outside source for their perspective. They can only reach that kind of conclusion if the foundational premise that they are using is that they (as an individual) are not a good enough source for such a perspective to be sound. they believe that in order for such a perspective to have worth, it cannot come from them and them alone because they do not perceive themselves as worthy enough to present anything of value.

And this perspective is often totally unconscious. It's so ingrained that they aren't even aware of it. It becomes the untested and unquestioned assumption inherent to all of their perspectives on life and society.

If you really want to test someone's confidence, ask them how they think the society SHOULD be. Then, after they give their description of their Utopian society say "Of course, that's just your opinion of how things should be."

The insecure person will say "No, that's just how it SHOULD be" and the secure person will say "Of course it's my opinion. And it's a damned sight better than any other opinion I've encountered on the matter."
 
FFA, I'm all for one parent staying home with the kids while the other one works.... so long as it's the right parent staying home and the right parent working.

Both parents are working even if one is staying at home. Its not like stay home parents are just lazying about licking their balls like the pet dog. Plus it is the parents decision not yours, so it really does not matter what you think should be going on with other peoples liberty. Are you suggesting that Government should force parents to keep the right parent home?

In the end you are only expressing your opinion since you have no power to enforce your ideas on other people.
 
Both parents are working even if one is staying at home. Its not like stay home parents are just lazying about licking their balls like the pet dog. Plus it is the parents decision not yours, so it really does not matter what you think should be going on with other peoples liberty. Are you suggesting that Government should force parents to keep the right parent home?

I never said that a stay at home parent is lazy. Trust me, I think the exact opposite.

As to the bolded sentence..... YES, if necessary to ensure that society continues to operate in its proper order.
 
I never said that a stay at home parent is lazy. Trust me, I think the exact opposite.

As to the bolded sentence..... YES, if necessary to ensure that society continues to operate in its proper order.
Wasn't there an episode where the real Tigger lost a bet (to Piglet, IIRC) and wasn't allowed to bounce... and had to conform to what somebody else wanted... and was a very sad Tigger?
 
Back
Top Bottom