To wonder why nobody ever worries about the impact of WOHDs

[WoodBetweenTheWorlds]

Well, what it says in the title really.

So many threads about SAHMs and WOHMs but I never see anyone expressing angst about WOHDs.

Do dads just not matter?

Of course they matter but usually its women who are engaged with their experiences and arguements.... as a woman I have many choices, but being a Dad isn't one of them!

I think its just expected really isnt it, sad really. I was and still am very close to my dad, but I remember wondering where he was when I had been to bed for three nights and still hadnt seen him, as he used to come in long after my bedtime and be gone before I was up for school.

That said, I do remember the excitement of seeing him and spending time with him was so much fun! My mum probably hated it cos I dare say it was typical that she does all the discipline, routines, etc and dad comes home and gets to break all the rules for a hour!

I think dads do matter completely as much as mams do.

It was mentioned on the other thread.

Ah, but WOHD's are "normal" and represent the continuation of men "being in charge", etc, etc. Plus, sadly, many women seem to be more comfortable attacking other women than considering the wider implications of their views.

Because no matter how 'modern' we are and no matter how many 'feminist ideas' we read, the fact is nature means we get the pregnancy's, the births and the breast feeding.

Therefore by default, babies become closer and more settled with the Mother (imo) in the early days until they are old enough to interact more.

Also...again traditionally and in 'nature' the Man has been the main 'hunter and provider'.

Even though that's changed over the years, I don't think it's unreasonable for the majority of people not to view WOHDs in exactly the same way they would view WOHMs.

Maybe in years to come they will.

I think many women still see the role of a man as a "provider" and that they should work to allow the woman not to.

Until we see both sexes as equal parents then no one thinks twice about mens choices and often the lack of them.

I totally agree. Many of the SAHMs on the other threads mentioned that their DHs worked incredibly long hours in high powered well-paid jobs, often travelling widely. And apparently if the SAHMs were to work, that would mean their DHs would need to take a less well-paid job.

Surely it would be better to have two parents that were around for a good part of the DCs day, rather than one they see hardly at all and one they see all the time! So surely two parents working pt or ft but with reasonable hours, would be the ideal??

Can I add that my mum was a SAHM, and my dad a WOHD (long hours). I have a brilliant relationship with my mum, and a quite detached relationship with my Dad.

sorry but not true about in nature men are the bigger providers. simply not true. hunter gatherer societies usually involved the greater percentage of substenance food being provided by women's labour. higher prestige meat certainly was from the men but that wasn't the bread and butter that the tribe lived on.

But worra, that's not really true about traditional hunter-gatherer societies. The men did the hunting, yes, but the women did the gathering, and this formed the staple part of the diet. Families might go several days without meat, but the gathering had to be done daily. So the women were "providing" at least as much as the men.

Just saying.

Swallowedafly - x post :)

Well that's interesting about the 'hunter gatherer' thing....I've learnt something new

I still think for a lot of people it's 'natural' that the Mother does more of the nuturing though...therefore they don't worry too much about WOHDs.

I have a masters in anthropology worra - know lots of interesting but rather useless "facts".

You're right of course, women have historically done most of the childcare. But doesn't mean it has to stay that way - my DH was a SAHD for a while before dd started school. He loved it, and he was very good at the whole "nurturing" thing. I do think that many men miss out on this by leaving much of the responsibility for childcare to their wives.

Now - that confused me! I came to this thread having just read a newspaper article on the falling satellite and how to avoid being hit by it. So the thread title made me wonder if we should be worried about the risk of being hit by WOHDs too....

Hopefully not, then....

I agree, it's great to see SAHDs if that's what they want to be or if that's what's best for the family.

But I still think (at this moment in time) it's logical not to pay as much mind to WOHDs when arguing discussing on internet forums because there are still far more of them so it's still seen as the 'norm' if you see what I mean.

@ oakmaiden. But that's kind of the whole point really - we don't really use the label WOHDs so you don't recognise it!

It's precisely because it's seen as the norm that we don't think about it, butthat doesn't make it any less worthy of our thought or consideration does it? Does it have to be the norm? Do we want it to be the norm.

But bringing things like that into a discussion can often confuse it, because surely then any subject we discuss, should include the minority?

You're right it doesn't have to be the norm. I'm not sure about wanting it to be (doesn't bother me one way or the other) but while it is the norm, people generally won't bring WOHDs into the discussion.

A bit like discussing religion and including Jedis

I was at a conference recently where a woman professor was pontificating on the importance of infant health (0-3) and how mothers needed better education on the value of certain foods. I had on that day left my DD with DH, while the woman by me had left her DCs with her DH too.
I wanted to stand up and shout raaaaaaa but my colleague grabbed me and wouldn't let me stand up when the mikes were passed around for comment and questions.
It's never the fault of fathers, only the fault of mothers.