Stay at home Dads

redandwhiterob said:
Given the hours our lass can work and the amount of time she can be away for its the only thing we could do. Without going into details we have a son now who's not had the best start in life and we felt in his early time with us it was best to have it as stable as possible and having a constant parent around was the best thing to do. Our lass obviously plays a active role in his life but obviously the majority is down to me. Me packing in work also coincided with our lass taking 6 months off maternity leave. So for 6 months both of us were here which we feel benefited our son massively in what obviously can be a hugely emotional and tricky time for all concerned
Click to expand...

Spot on that, cap doffed. Obviously not quite the same but the few months I had off coincided with her being off full time, so took a weight off her too. Mind I have a few days off each month just me and him and I love it. Certainly better than graft.
 


Mrjardine said:
Same as me. The missus works part time and her money certainly helps but I’d feel very uncomfortable if she was the one beinging in majority of money.
Click to expand...

It purely depends I do excatly the same as you, work full time and our lass works part time and my wage is 2 and half times more.

However if she had a fabulous job before we got married and before we had children with a really good pay.

Then if would be silly to not let her stay full time and me either me part time or not at all if the money she was earning was very good and we did not have childcare
Basically there is no right or wrong,it purely depends on the circumstances of the people concerned and what is best for the whole family, not just the males ego.
 
Last edited:
Voice of fair play said:
It purely depends I do excatly the same as you, work full time and our lass works part time and my wage is 2 and half times more.

However if she had a fabulous job before we got married and before we had children with a really good pay.

Then if would be silly to not let her stay full time and me either me part time or not at all if the money she was earning was very good and we did not have childcare
Basically there is no right or wrong,it purely depends on the circumstances of the people concerned and what is best for the whole family, not just the males ego.
Click to expand...
Money is secondary when it comes to kids. A mother’s place is to be at home with them especially in those first 6 months.
Men taking the women’s maternity leave is outrageous in my opinion.
 
Mrjardine said:
Money is secondary when it comes to kids. A mother’s place is to be at home with them especially in those first 6 months.
Men taking the women’s maternity leave is outrageous in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Well yeah take your second point.

But your first point is simply naive.

As a general point money is of course secondary to kids, but in real life it simply does not work like that.

It’s what’s best for the family all round, if a bloke was on 20k a year and a woman on 60 for example, it would be crazy if you had no childcare and one of you had to stay at home, for it to be the woman is this example, leaving the family and child to live of 20k when they could be on 60k.

Plus not only that but if just the bloke worked in that example then the family if surviving on just 20k would need to claim in work benefits and the tax payer would fit the bill.

So like I said I agree in principle because I was brought up to be the bread winner and always have been, but it’s not as black and white as that as my example shows.

In the example shown of course it would be better for the woman to work and the man stay at home for all round.
 
Mrjardine said:
Money is secondary when it comes to kids. A mother’s place is to be at home with them especially in those first 6 months.
Men taking the women’s maternity leave is outrageous in my opinion.
Click to expand...
I don’t think anyone is saying they should stop a woman taking maternity leave (most places offer either 3 or 6 month’s full pay anyway). What most are talking about is, instead of the woman going part-time or giving up work, the man does instead.
 
Harry Angstrom said:
It would be a piece of piss but all your mates are at graft so it would be dull as fuck eventually.
Click to expand...
Harry Angstrom said:
It would be a piece of piss but all your mates are at graft so it would be dull as fuck eventually.
Click to expand...
I took a week off recently and got lazy as fuck because I had shit all important to do and everyone else was at work.

Weed, cuppas & Netflix was a good leveller but killed evenings.
 
Mrjardine said:
Money is secondary when it comes to kids. A mother’s place is to be at home with them especially in those first 6 months.
Men taking the women’s maternity leave is outrageous in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Don't think anyone is disputing the woman being off on maternity. It's after that where it's a no brainer that the one to drop hours is the one on less cash.

Mickdundee said:
I don’t think anyone is saying they should stop a woman taking maternity leave (most places offer either 3 or 6 month’s full pay anyway). What most are talking about is, instead of the woman going part-time or giving up work, the man does instead.
Click to expand...

Correct. People mustn't have read the thread properly.
Voice of fair play said:
Well yeah take your second point.

But your first point is simply naive.

As a general point money is of course secondary to kids, but in real life it simply does not work like that.

It’s what’s best for the family all round, if a bloke was on 20k a year and a woman on 60 for example, it would be crazy if you had no childcare and one of you had to stay at home, for it to be the woman is this example, leaving the family and child to live of 20k when they could be on 60k.

Plus not only that but if just the bloke worked in that example then the family if surviving on just 20k would need to claim in work benefits and the tax payer would fit the bill.

So like I said I agree in principle because I was brought up to be the bread winner and always have been, but it’s not as black and white as that as my example shows.

In the example shown of course it would be better for the woman to work and the man stay at home for all round.
Click to expand...

Anyone disagreeing with that is a bit simple tbh.
 
Last edited:
Mickdundee said:
I don’t think anyone is saying they should stop a woman taking maternity leave (most places offer either 3 or 6 month’s full pay anyway). What most are talking about is, instead of the woman going part-time or giving up work, the man does instead.
Click to expand...
I don't think most places offer full pay.
 
All the replys in here just show the age gap between the posters. The older folk can't grasp the fact that people now make logical decisions based on incomes as opposed to their sex.
 
AndrewP said:
I don't think most places offer full pay.
Click to expand...
I assumed they did. Mrs Dundee got 6 months full pay with both of ours (although we appreciate they had very good maternity benefits - it was just about the only thing they did treat their staff well with) but both our current places and my last job do 3 months full pay. We must have just been lucky.
 
Taggartis said:
All the replys in here just show the age gap between the posters. The older folk can't grasp the fact that people now make logical decisions based on incomes as opposed to their sex.
Click to expand...

And that women (and their men would be happy for them) now would happily be the breadwinner tbf unthinkable some years ago
 

Back
Top