I really couldn't agree more-- WHAT ABOUT THE DAD??? I have a good friend who is a SAHD to triplets. He's like the UBER DAD, and used to watch Finn when I worked outside the home. Other than my own mother, I trust him THE MOST of all my sitters. The discrimination that family faces in unconscionable (hope I spelled that right). The wife gets shit for 'abandoing her kids to the inferior parent' (not in so many words... but you get my point). The husband is continually rejected from 'parenting' groups for making SAHMs uncomfortable. I feel bad because they are good people, and its shocking how deep seated discrimination based upon a parent's sex is, and how socially accpetable that discrimination is.
This is a serious topic in our house, as well, as my husband (who is our primary breadwinner) was raised by a single dad. Moms get a 'sacred' place in society dads don't often get, even when they do the same job, or a better job.
I wish things were more egalitarian, but I can only hope people like you who speak out, and who engage discussions like this will make the world a little more accepting of 'alternative' gender roles in families.

I see your point about societal expectations, for sure.
Neither my husband nor I have ever qualified for any kind of paid parental leave. We did not have that safety net available to us, and we haven't been especially lucky: I have a severe chronic illness. :) If I lived in the U.S., I'd never get health coverage.
I think my larger point is that if we wait for this to be "easy," or comfortable, or practical, or for expectations to line up with our outcomes -- it isn't going to happen. And I don't think you are disagreeing with that, at all.
I do think you and I are essentially saying the same thing (and I hope that doesn't seem dismissive or reductive or anything but aligned with you), but from very slightly different viewpoints. It would be nice to have this discussion over a cup of coffee! Thanks for providing the space for the conversation.

@Alexandra, you have a good point, except I will say that things are VERY different for men here in the States than they are in parts of the world where there's such thing as "parental leave." Women and men in this country have zero federally mandated paid parental leave, and in cases where a company offers it, it's a few weeks/months for the mother only. I feel safe saying we could count on one hand the number of fathers in this country who have access to paid parental leave, which makes staying home with their children next to impossible.
I will also say that this post isn't about individual choices, it's about Societies Expectations, and if all of society says it's okay for a little girl to grow up and be supported by somebody else, then they're also saying that it's the man (or whoever her partner is) that's going to have to be the one supporting them. That IS a choice being made for them. And we don't have a policy structure that encourages any change. Obviously individuals can (in some lucky cases) change their own circumstances, but this is about what our country is setting them up for.

OK, I am coming back to this, because I thought about it today. FB: of course what you are saying is right. If I decide I want to stay home with my kids, then my spouse needs to work (or we need to win the lottery or something).
But FamilyNature's original post was about when SHE was a little girl, right? Long before she'd met Mr. FamilyNature. My thought is that for a girl or woman to say she does not want to engage with the paid labour force (Canadian spelling there), that in itself does not diminish the freedoms of anyone else, nor does it create obligations for any other person. YES, when she meets Mr. FamilyNature, and they actually have kids, there are implications for Mr.FN.
But my point is if a woman (or man) -- or, more to the point, a girl in this case -- wants that, they then need to set up their life so it happens. Which means having kids with people who are on board with that idea. People who actually choose that same outcome ("my wife is going to stay home with our kids"). Right? But ipso facto, one little kid sitting in her classroom saying "I want to be a mom when I grow up" -- that does not diminish the freedoms of any of the little boys sitting in that same class.
And: while it may not be socially acceptable everywhere for men to be the SAH parent, it's what we do in my family. My Mr. and I have gone back and forth on who is engaged with the paid labour force since our kids were born (nearly 8 years ago now), and right now I am the one with the job, and he's the SAH parent. And he's not the only one we know, either.
I personally think it is a cop-out to say that men don't have that choice because someone somewhere may judge them. (Even a lot of people, everywhere.)
Men already have that choice. Some men and some people may not like the consequences of exercising that choice, but that doesn't diminish the choice which is already available to men. To say that men can only exercise the choice and freedom to be SAH parents when it becomes "socially acceptable" -- well, how is it going to happen unless men start actually doing it?!

Seriously...SERIOUSLY...you have some of the smartest commenters I know, and I love how your thought provoking, yet extremely civil, style promotes discourse.
I go back and forth on this issue frequently, as my spouse's choice of career (which I knew about and supported from the get-go) requires such an intense amount of travel that for me to work outside the home full time would not allow me to parent the way that I want to. We can financially afford for me to stay home, although we don't have much of a safety net.
But as I've started to do more and more writing and consulting from home, the expectations of our roles haven't changed. Partially because I don't have the discussion, but I feel like I must constantly demand the time I need for things, whereas for men, it's taken for granted. He leaves for a month at a time, but if I leave for 5 days, the other moms in the carpool line sigh, "Oh, you're so lucky that you're husband lets you go." WTF?
Rant over.

@Alexandra - I actually think the opposite of what you're saying, and here's why.
In a family, one person's choices DOES affect the other person's choices. If a GirlA decides SHE's going to be the one to stay home - somebody has to go to work and bring home the bacon. That means that person is BoyA. Giving the freedom of that choice to one person (and only one person - being mom, because as I argue, men don't have the choice) means limiting the choice of the other person. Unless you're suggesting that neither parent has to work, which... well.
Also, the fact that it is not socially acceptable for a man to make this choice means that women are still oppressed. We say we won the right to work, but how can we work if our husbands haven't won the right to stay home? Society expects us to work AND be the primary caregiver, and that means we really haven't come as far as we thought we have.

Well, at the risk of being argumentative, I think a number of things are collapsed in this post, to wit:
One person saying she wants a particular outcome does not diminish the choices available to others. Choice and feminism aren't zero-sum games (i.e., if I win, it doesn't mean someone else loses), and I find this a distressing characterization of feminism.
Specifically: if GirlA says she wants to grow up and "be a mom," that doesn't mean that BoyA has any less choice about his own particular desires and outcomes. I don't think feminism "takes away choice" from anyone -- indeed, I think it calls for people to think about what their choices actually are.
I also think that the original post was about the market orientation of discussions about what people can aspire to "be" and "do" -- that is, the expected answer in that discussion is to identify a "career," not a life path. I personally think the discussions about parenthood and "how you are going to make money in life" are quite separate, and I usually don't think it makes sense to talk about them as if they are the same thing -- which this post does, to some extent.
It's entirely possible that people don't ask boys about whether they are going to become fathers when they grow up not because it is expected that boys will need to do "something else" than be fathers, but because men's contribution to parenting is so systematically undervalued.
Of course the discussion about how the family unit is going to survive economically is important. Feminism opens up a way of considering options for women and men that go beyond entrenched gender roles. But suggesting a desire to "be a mom" (and not participate in the market economy) necessarily constrains the choice of men -- I don't buy it. I think it suggests that if you want that, you and your family are going to need to orient yourselves in a way that makes this outcome possible. But I don't think it diminishes the options or choices available to anybody!

Here I am, the blogger in the above mentioned post. The post Gina is referring to is http://familynature.wordpress.com/2009/04/15/i-am-...
When I wrote the post (which still remains one of my most popular posts) the point I was trying to make was how undervalued mothers are and that nobody ever saw my desire to be a mother as a valued, respected choice.
I understand the point Gina is making here, and indeed it is a good one. It raises some good questions.
I think all the time about feminism and what it means to me -- because I think it's a little bit different for everyone. Some feminists want partners who will do half of everything, splitting everything equal down the middle. Personally, I don't think the lines are that clear. To me equal and fair do not necessarily mean exactly the same or exactly split down the middle.
For example, neither my husband, nor I ever felt the need to share breastfeeding. I know some couples split this responsibility (mum will express BM so dad can feed baby with a bottle). To us this seemed silly. And while I do think that our relationship and responsibilities are equal, our roles are still somewhat stereotypical and perhaps what many would consider non-feminist-like. My husband deals with all the trash/recycling/compost, I do most of the laundry and the cooking and he probably does a bit more housework than I do. Overall, we think it is very equal and fair.
Mums staying at home (if a parent is going to stay at home) seems to me (and certainly for our family) to be what makes the most sense. Obviously, this isn't for everyone and that's not to say that dads can't or shouldn't stay at home -- quite the opposite. Because for me feminism is about choice and this is not what everyone would choose.
So, would I think it's funny if a man said all he ever wanted to do was stay at home. Well, I have to be honest, I guess so. But the truth is, that is not what is practical for most families. Should they have the option? Absolutely, positively, without a doubt. But this raises so many other questions -- which have been brought up in this post and the comments.
Indeed, this is a great post and a really fantastic discussion. A discussion about this issue (and I agree, I haven't really heard it discussed like this before) can be the beginning; a realization that there are still -- and probably always will be -- things to work on.
Amanda
aka Family Nature

Well, one of the problems that feminism (or humanism) has yet to solve is the wage gap. It's real. When I look for a new job, I know that I won't be looking for one that will pay as well as the husband's. That's partly because he's a private contractor who commands more hourly than I could get. But this was also true when I was in management at a resort hotel.
I was a single mom at the time, and the difference between me and EVERY other person in upper management was that of the women who met in the boardroom, I was the only one with a child under the age of 18. If I mentioned to parenting/work conflict (which is a bit more amplified when you're doing it alone, though I had a bunch of great help), other parents there--men, mostly--wouldn't really "get" it. They'd say something about their wives complaining about them working too many hours, and I thought it was indicative of gender roles and corporate expectations that they had that "luxury" of someone at home. I actually even had one of my higher-ups cite the fact that those men "had a family to support" if I brought up the wage gap. (I had more management experience yet was paid less than these guys.) That was just that business and that [very sexist] director, but I could see it playing a role across other fields, too.
Now, I'm at home with the kids mainly because my working outside the home wouldn't make sense because after all is said and done (childcare, commuting), my salary would basically go to supporting putting the kiddos in daycare. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense at this point, but we definitely could use a second income. When my older son goes to preschool, I'll be looking for an outside the house job.
Honestly, our "dream" is for me to go to law school and then me be the wage-earner. My husband would then be the SAHD (does anyone else find it weird that the acronym for that is like "sad"?), but that's also because we want to raise our own food and live a more self-sufficient life, and his talents would come in handy from home. Also, he could pick up jobs in a way that I could not.
But you're right. Feminism gives women the "right" to "just" be a mom, but not the other way around. It's true for a lot of gender roles. Think of the connotations of "tomboy" versus "mama's boy". Our fight has given girls and women more freedom, but as mothers of boys, we know that there are stricter rules for them.
FWIW, I never wanted to "just" be a mom when I grew up, and I go a little stir-crazy at home with them, too.

At different points in our marriage both of us have stayed at home with the kids. Now we actually BOTH stay home with the kids and work from home, but for us it's always been about who could get the better paycheck at the time. We try to be flexible, and the only true goal is to keep the kids out of daycare. The only dogma I want pressed into my brains of my young this early on is my own and my husband's.
This baby around, I decided I wanted to take a break from working. A total break. I want to breastfeed and be a zombie for a while. So I started an online project to give me something to do and make side cash. Because, it seems, I'm *incapable* of not. working. for. cash.
You can take the girl out of the business, but I don't think you can take the business out of the girl. At least in my case.
I envy stay-at-home-moms that don't work (for money ... we ALL work in some way) from home. But I don't envy the actual choice or daily routine, I envy the FANTASY SAHM - the one that has everything clean and neat without breaking a sweat. The fantasy where just by telling people I'm a SAHM my house is cleaner and my kids are bathed regularly. The one where I get to eat bon-bons and watch "mah stories" ... the one that doesn't exist :)

I could really write a novel in response to this. I've been on all sides of this fence. I've been the primary wage-earner, my husband has been the primary wage-earner while I worked, and now I'm at home (after a lay-off).
I think that there are many couples who share the belief that the mother should stay home. Often they have a religious motivation. If you held these sorts of beliefs I imagine you would seek someone out who shares them, so in that sense I suppose your husband does have a choice. I think it's great if everyone is on the same page and it's working for them, but I'm not sure it's necessarily 'feminist'.
I guess for me the question is - is this really a choice? If you honestly believe that a woman can make the decision to combine work and mothering, but you choose not to, or choose not to right now, OK. But if you really think that all moms should be at home then it's different. Because, you know, that's not really a choice for you then. I don't disagree that you can live your life in your own way and raise your children as you see fit, but I do disagree that it's an exercise in emancipation or gender equality. Because those rigid gender roles are exactly what feminism fought against, you know?
Anyways, thank you for some very well though out posts. You've made me further define my ideas, and I appreciate it.

My husband would love this post. I'm aching to get back to the real world workforce and he is dying to get out and let me the breadwinner for awhile. Right now we are both equally contributing. Some months I make more than he does staying home and doing daycare, but in the end, money-wise we are about at par. But he bought the house and has worked harder and longer than me over the past decade or so, so he would love to opportunity to be a stay-at-home dad. He considers himself a feminist but sometimes tells me he thinks it has gone too far in taking the freedom of choice away from men. I'm never sure what to say. I think he means, like you point out, that men don't really have a choice in what they are going to do. They have to provide for the family. Even if the wife "chips in." It's ingrained into them at a young age.

I think something else to consider in here is that, WHATEVER one may "dream" of being when one grows up, it takes a helluva lot of work and planning and guts and stick-to-it-ness to make it happen. Honestly, and I'm trying to tread lightly here, while I think it's a fine and wonderful dream to want to be an at-home primary caregiver for one's children, whatever one's gender, in this day and age it seems a bit unrealistic to assume that one is *entitled* to have it. Maybe I'm being naive about gender stereotypes, but to say "I am going to be a stay-at-home parent" sounds a lot like saying "I am going to be a novelist." Either one, IMO, somewhat legitimately gives rise to questions (whether voiced or not) about, "Um...and how do you plan to eat while you're doing that?"
Then again, I, like Gina, grew up in an environment that would have kicked my butt if I'd ever announced that I planned to be a stay-at-home mom OR a novelist, or for that matter what I ended up being, which is a musician. ("Honey, at least get your education degree so you'll have something to fall back on when--if--you don't make it.") Independence and the ability to take care of onesself was always stressed, as was the reality that in order to achieve my dreams I would have to work my butt off for them.
If we're truly going to be "equal," and if we are genuinely going to consider Primary At-Home Caregiver as legitimate work and a valid profession, it seems like the strings attached to achieving in any area of work need to be applied here as well. It's not that I think men should or shouldn't be able to make SAHD an entitlement-based choice, I just am not sure we should assume that women can either.
--Jennifer
(whose husband did the SAHD thing for a year while I, desperately jealous, worked my tail off because I had the job with the health benefits. He was good at it, too.)

Compared to places where women still have far fewer choices, men do have more choices in the US. (I'm speaking from my experience living in both the US and in Bangladesh. I'm sure my Bangladeshi brother-in-law has no intent of being the type of parent my husband is.) I know a number of successful, hardworking stay at home dads here in the US. However, MEN have those choices, not boys, whereas I think WOMEN who came before me fought the battle to give me choices when I was a girl. I hope that the next step in the process is for men and women to fight for such choices to be available for our sons.
My husband and I discussed this a lot when we decided to have children. We were delighted to learn that we were having two girls, because we couldn't see eye to eye on how to raise boys. He felt that boys should be raised within the reality that their options are more limited (oh, the historical irony!) than girls', whereas I thought that if we had sons, we should raise them to fight The Man, if they wanted to. Girls can do karate, but a boy doing ballet is considered aberrant.
If a single woman chooses to reproduce, sure, she faces judgment from some corners of society, but it's considered quirky at worst. If a single man chooses to raise a child alone, all sorts of assumptions and presumptions are made, and there are often insurmountable barriers. It's really very sad.
My mother-in-law told me that my husband started saying, at age 2, that he wanted to grow up to be a Dad. She was proud of him, but I'm sure she also assumed that he'd have a career. I wonder if she'd have made the same assumption if her daughter said she wanted to grow up to be a mom. The fact is, he's an excellent, devoted and nurturing father who has considered being the stay-at-home parent and decided it's not the right call for our family. Only the current economy (and the displacement implicit in my husband's military career) has made me even consider, and then summarily reject, being a stay-at-home mom.
I'd like to think the boys of my daughters' generation will have all options on the table, but we have to make it so.

For our family what it came down to was the fact that men can't breastfeed! Once our daughter is one nursing we have decided that it would be just fine for me to go to work while he stays at home with her. But for the the first year, he knew that wasn't a possibility. When we first discussed marriage and kids, one thing he said is "I'd love to be a stay at home dad someday". I told him how I felt about on demand nursing and he agreed with me. He said being a stay at home dad doesn't have to start at birth, it can start at the end of nursing. I wanted to be a stay at home mom until my child self weaned. Not all women who want to be stay at home moms get the opportunity either, sometimes they don't have a choice. Sometimes, women who wanted to stay at home end up being single mothers, whose only choice is to work. I know there are a lot of feminists that wish they could kick their biology and wouldn't mind having a baby just to leave babe at home with dad and a bottle of formula (or if mom is lucky enough to let down for a breast pump, some pumped milk). I know women that would be just as happy to let dad get pregnant and do the birth if that was possible. Well, I'm glad that our biology is the way it is. I'm grateful that I was born female and had the biological opportunity to get pregnant, give birth, and nurse my baby. Women can do just about anything a man can do, but a man just can't do those things, when it comes to biology, no a man doesn't have that choice.

@pamcee - I think you make a really good point. I have to wonder, though, if this is a chicken/egg scenario. Perhaps women will start to earn what men do when men become primary caregivers? Maybe equal pay will be forced then? Maybe, if either sex were seen as the potential primary care-giver, then maybe society wouldn't look at women as though they don't need money.
One of the reasons women earn statistically less than men is because they take time out of their careers for children. Even though 2 candidates might have the same degree and skill set, if one has been in the workforce for 10 years, and one for only 5 because 5 of those years were spent home with her children, then yes, she will be paid less.
If men did the same thing, we'd see pay start to even out - I think.

In My Opinion: For men to have that choice, feminism has to succeed. How can he have a choice if Mom isn't making enough money because she still earns what, $7 to his $10? Ironically, more choices for Dad will come when there is equality for Mom.

Interesting point that I can honestly say I never considered.
Perhaps it's that I didn't grow up in a very "feminist" driven part of the country (small town, avg. family income less than 30k, very few college degrees floating around), but I can tell you that I never knew any adult, as a child, who would have supported *me* or any other girl if we told them all we wanted to be when we grew up was a mom. It was driven into my brain that I had to have a backup plan, a college eduction, a career goal other than motherhoood. Now, I *am* a SAHM for the time being, and have a degree collecting dust... for now, but none of those adults are upset with me for that decision because I had a choice and that was what I wanted, not what I was forced into for lack of better options. I think that's what the fear was for my parents and other's who encouraged me to complete higher education and set other goals.
Now, would a man from my small town be looked at as lazy if he decided to stay at home? Yes. He would be ridiculed, he would not be accepted. Thus, one of the many examples of narrowmindedness that made me leave that place far behind. However, I do think there are parts of the country where this is more and more acceptable. Certainly the coasts and major cities are always more progressive, but even here in Dallas I imagine it wouldn't be too terrible for a SAHD. In fact, when I snag a super awesome book deal and make bajillions of dollars, my husband is totally ready to step in as a SAHD while I go off on my book tour, after vowing not to fall in love with my body guard ; ) But really, if I could bring in the kind of $$ my husband does, I would go to work and he would stay home. We would both be fine with that.
And, yes, there are days when I'm feeling a little guilty for staying home, but my husband doesn't have an ounce of resentment toward me. This is the ideal situation for him, so that always makes me feel better. Also, knowing that this is not permanent, that I can always go use that college degree if I need to get a job, helps because this was a choice we made together.
Great, thought provoking post!

Perhaps men haven't mobilized because it is not socially acceptable to do so. Until only recently (I'd say really since the age of Betty Friedan) it wasn't socially acceptable for women to want anything different than what they had, and even though many DID want something different, they were conditioned to believe they were the only ones. That was the whole point of her book.
So, for using the word "equalist" - I thought I explained that in Post 1, but perhaps not. I use that word in lieu of feminism in this case because most people do not realize that feminism MEANS equalism. The word has been taken by so many to mean nothing more than "choice" and I don't think that's what it means at all - which I explained here: http://thefeministbreeder.typepad.com/the_feminist...

Just regarding your use of the word 'equalist,' because I find it interesting when people use that term: while I have no problem with whatever people want to call themselves, it feels a little redundant (to me) to label myself an equalist because, essentially, feminism IS about creating equal opportunites for BOTH sexes. It just so happens that at the moment, the male sex has all the power and so it is women who need to gain it and be protected from the consequences of that power. Feminism isn't (or shouldn't be, anyway) about promoting women over men just for the sake of it, but because women have to get on equal footing before we can work on maintaining that status. So to me, 'equalism' would only be relevant once we are actually on a level playing field -- legally, politically and socially. That's just my take on it though, I'm not criticising your use or interpretation of it!
As for whether it's fair that boys know that they'll have to work and don't really have the option (in most cases) of staying at home caring for their children...no, of course it's not fair. But I think the reason this has been much slower to change than the reverse (women fighting for the right to work) is because men haven't organised and mobilised themselves to bring about this change. Feminists DO fight for more rights for men -- we fight against gender stereotyping that tells boys that they should be tough and strong and not into 'sissy' stuff like housework or cooking or caring for children; we fight for more paternity leave for new dads and encourage men to share childcare responsibilities; we reject the notion that mothers are biologically predisposed to better care for their children and the home and discourage societal commentary that reinforces this rubbish idea. But things won't change until men themselves want things to change. And that the moment, they aren't banding together to affect change because, well...they don't really have a vested interest in it. At the moment they benefit from being the biggest dogs on the block and don't have a good resaon to want to relinquish that. They undoubtedly see how women struggle with balancing working, children, the home, etc.. and must realise how tough it is. They must know that putting your family first usually means career suicide (as it does for most women, currently) and don't feel willing or able to take the steps necessary to fight for change.
Feminists can only do so much to free men from the gender stereotypes that constrict their lives...the real change has to come from them. When will it happen? I have no idea. I think it will be a long, long time though, at this rate.

I am LOVING the way your son talks! I can only hope that our sons grow up to be the same way. The Husband and I do everything we can to set an example of equality in the house, so I don't think there's any chance of them growing up as unthinking misogynists. I just want my boys (and hopefully girls someday) to think critically about these things, instead of just assuming the position.

At different points in our marriage my husband and I have each been the one to stay home with the kids. It's worked well for us. We have different parenting styles, but the kids know that and adapt easily from one to the other.
Daddy is more likely to don a cape and play the third musketeer than Mommy, but you're pretty much stuck with sandwiches, cut up veggies and leftovers for a meal.
Mommy will dance and sing songs to make clean-up go faster, but she can't get you past the 'boss' in whatever video game is causing you issues.
I love that my kids expect their father to be as involved as I am, and that my sons fully expect to be involved with their kids. My almost 15 year old, raging feminist son, often talks about having a career that will allow him to take a couple of years off, or work from home so that he can have his 'turn being a full-time parent'. It's something that he actually takes into account when going over his possible career choices (for example, nothing that requires too much travel or 80 hour work weeks, politics is out because he wants his children to be able to have private lives). On the flip side of that, he expects his future partner to have both a rewarding career AND a desire to put that career on pause for a time to raise children, something that is much easier here in Canada with roughly a year's worth of paid leave. (Of course, he also says things like 'my spouse' instead of my wife, because he rejects the idea that his preference for girls, at age 14 guarantees that he will always identify as heterosexual... my kid is pretty unusual.)
I think that while the men of my generation are more likely to place value on a more active parenting role, the level of choice that you are reflecting on WILL come for the future-Dad's that are now our sons and will be our grandsons.
I think it's total bollocks that women are assumed to automatically be the better parent by virtue of their gender. I know several couples, personally, that work much better, and make for a happier family, all-around, when Mom is the breadwinner and Dad is the homemaker.