Posted on 19. Oct, 2005 by Brian Reid in General
It’s been a while since we’ve had a straight, by-the-numbers at-home dad newspaper story, but now the Chicago Sun-Times is on the case, with an unusually well-reported piece. There are some nice profile bits, and the author manages to track down Peter Baylies, which is always a good thing.
Bonus points, too, for being the first offline publication to mention the At-Home Dad Convention coming up next month. The Chicago folks are so well-represented it’s hard to know if it’ll boost turnout, but getting the word out is always a good thing.
Finally, it looks like I may have missed the annual report on my favorite statistic. According to the Sun-Times, the Census Bureau has our number at 147,000 (you’ll remember I was trying to read the tea leaves earlier this month). I have no idea where that number is published (convention beer to anyone who can find the data on the Census site), but it looks like its popped up a couple of other places in the last few months. By those numbers, stay-at-home dads have risen 50 percent in a single year. Even given the usual statistic caveats, that should merit a closer look by the media, no?
I confess: despite the introduction of an at-home dad character, I haven’t been watching 7th Heaven. But Blogging Baby has, and they highlight the current state of affairs over there.
Coming (eventually): I have some new blogs to add at right, some additional info to add to the wiki and — always putting you the reader first — a black RebelDad bumper sticker. And there’s a whole bucketful of news I hope to get to one of these days.
Elizabeth
19. Oct, 2005
It’s hard to read, but the stat is in this table, cell I7:
http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/hh-fam/cps2004/tabFG8-all.csv
Rebel Dad
19. Oct, 2005
Cool. I don’t suppose I can buy you a beer at the convention, but I can always leave it on your doorstep. Thanks!
chip
19. Oct, 2005
I still think it would be worth it to track down whoever determines the official definition and to get that definition changed, as has been pointed out so many times here, it’s a really ridiculously restrictive definition. Is the definition of stay at home mom just as restrictive?
Elizabeth
19. Oct, 2005
Yes, the definition of SAHM is just as restrictive.
What’s interesting about this table is that you can add back in other groups who aren’t included in the “official” definition — parents whose spouses weren’t in the labor force for the full year, and parents who didn’t give “caring for family” as the reason they were out of the labor force.
rD, are you guys going to the K’s Halloween party this year?
Dave
21. Oct, 2005
I start to get dizzy when I see more than 3 numbers next to each other but when I see a black bumper sticker, I must say Hip Hip Horray!