Thursday, March 05, 2009
"The Week the Women Went": Dumb TV Not Relegated to the U.S.
Very few of you probably remember "Meet Mr. Mom," an ill-fated, summer-fill-in reality show from NBC a few year's back that was built around a spectacularly dumb concept: fathers forced to fend for themselves when mom was suddenly taken away to a spa (or somesuch) by evil television producers. The reason you probably don't remember it is because it was a colossal failure (giving me hope for my fellow citizens).But the fine folks north of the border are trying a higher-concept version of the same thing. CBC is now six episodes into the latest installment of "The Week the Women Went," which is following the fathers of a Nova Scotia community as they deal with a week of momlessness. This is apparently the second edition of the show, which has done well by viewers and critics. For obvious reasons, I'm not a big CBC watcher, but my Canadian sources tell me that this is not a one-joke show designed to highlight men's incompetence.Still, color me unimpressed by the idea of a "social experiement" that is based on the idea that there is something dramatic (or comedic) about guys being pressed into service as fathers. It's not that I don't think that anything interesting willing happen -- most families are a finely tuned ecosystem that turn topsy-turvy whenever something changes -- it's just that pegging this all to the idea that guys don't exactly know how to cope is a bit tired. I'm speaking without the benefit of any perspective, though, so I'd love to hear from my Canadian readers ...Labels: at home dads, cbc, reality tv, SAHD, stay at home dads
|
Wednesday, March 04, 2009
Donate Your Dad-Ness to Science
I get contacted from time to time by researchers who want to conduct inquiries into the heart of fatherhood. And I pass a lot of them on, especially if they sound legitimate (have IRB approval, etc.).The latest to cross my desk is this one from Temple that seeks a better understanding of "attitudes towards fathers as primary and secondary care givers." Sounds worthwhile to me ...Labels: at home dads, research, stay at home dads
|
At-Home Dad Playgroup Map Update
Many of you have written to let me know that the playgroup/dad's group map gobbled up your listing in the last couple of months, and I am happy to report that things appear to be working fine now. Unfortunately, due to incompentence on my part or legitimate technological gremlins, I can't seem to add new groups. So I'll be making an effort to move the whole enterprise over to a different, more stable system in the coming weeks (or months -- to be honest).This is going to mean some culling of groups that have dropped off the map and some additions of new organizations. If I should be including you (or if your group has moved on), please let me know.Labels: at home dads, dad groups, playgroups, SAHDS, stay at home dads
|
Tuesday, March 03, 2009
Wingnut Declares Dads Can't Match Moms in the Nurturer Department
Before I go on an rip a Missouri lawmaker for a staggering stupid comment about fathers, let me first say that I am in favor of tax breaks and other government incentives to at-home parents. I feel even more strongly that *all* parents, regardless of employment status, should get some government largess.That said, let me be the latest to call Missouri state rep Cynthia Davis out for a bill that would give at-home moms -- but not at-home dads -- 600 bucks a year to spend on their own education. Without the blatant reverse sexist, it's a great idea. With Davis' contention that the bill should benefit only women because "Mothers are natural nurturers. Fathers are not. It goes back to the hunter and gatherers type," it becomes borderline idiotic.I can't possible hope to add much to Peter Baylies' take, so go back and read his last couple of posts on the matter.Labels: at home dads, at home moms, gender wars, legislation
|
Monday, March 02, 2009
It's Stat Time Again! (At-Home Dad Numbers Drop)
Before I get into the Census Bureau's estimates for the number of at-home dads in 2008, I need to acknowledge the fact that I totally missed the estimate for 2007. For some reason, I never saw the number, which was buried in this Excel spreadsheet. I don't feel terrible about it; the Census Bureau apparently completely missed the number, too. So ... even though it is a year late, lets get a drumroll. The number of at-home dads in 2007 was ...165,000.That's 6,000 more than 2006 number, a modest 4 percent rise, and the highest figure ever.But ...The 2008 stats are now out, and they are less, ahem, robust. According to the Census Bureau, 140,000 guys were staying home with the kids in 2008. Let me put that in historical context:2008: 140,0002007: 165,0002006: 159,0002005: 143,0002004: 147,0002003: 98,0002002: 106,0002001: 81,0002000: 93,0001999: 71,0001998: 90,000So you're probably saying "Whoa! what the hell is going on here?" As am I. Here is my honest answer: looking closely at the numbers, the number of "all married couples with kids under 15" (the group from which the Census Bureau plucks the at-home dad numbers) is down more than 1 million between 2007 and 2008. The official explanation for this is that the Boomer kids are finally out of the house, and us Gen Xer and Gen Yers are waiting longer on having kids, so the number of parents capable of staying home is down big (more than 5 percent). This suggests that a bunch of at-home dads are now essentially empty nesters. (This would explain the huge, 200,000 drop in at-home moms, too.) This strikes me as suspect, but I'm no demographer, so draw your own conclusions.This statistical blip is happening on top of all of the other statistical blips that make the current way of calculating at-home parents so dumb. This nutty economy will only exacerbate the difference between "official" at-home dads and the growing number of guys who are doing the gig.Lost your job in February and been staying home since? You're not counted (you have to be out of the labor force for 52 weeks). Quit on Christmas Day, 2007 but consult a couple of days a month? You're not counted either (you're not technically out of the labor force). Fired in 18 months ago and going to night school? You're probably not counted (you have to out of the labor force specifically caring for your family). Did your spouse loose her job, only to find another one 3 weeks later? You're not counted. And don't even get me started on divorced dads, gay dads or unmarried fathers.I've always thought these are bogus numbers, but I take what I'm given. As always, the full accounting of the various ways of describing the at-home dad population are on my at-home dads stats page.Labels: at home dads, census, census bureau, numbers, SAHD, statistics, stats, stay at home dads
|
