To feel irked by Times article about 'superdads'

[holdyourown]

Basically men who have given up a career to look after their dcs. Would this article be written about women and they'd be called 'supermums'

Didn't see the article but it sounds annoying. Millions of women have done this without any one writing an article about it.

Not seen the article but no parent should be called "super mum or super dad". All parents should aim to do a good job.

Giving up a career to be reliant on another adult and not contribute towards family finances isnt something that should be encouraged.

I don't think they were giving up their career to be reliant on another adult rather that as a couple they'd made a joint decision that one person would do the childcare while the other focussed on a high powered career, as they'd decided to bring up their dcs that way.

meaning to say they are contributing to family finances by raising dcs and saving cost of a nanny/childcare, as well as being there for dcs which is a valid choice.

Well there was a time when being a 'superwoman' meant doing it all - having a career and a family.

We obviously set the 'super' bar lower for men.

Lifeissweet I will quote that forever and I love you

Same old story isn't it, a man a hero if he can change a nappy and run a vacuum cleaner around. In order to be afforded the same level of praise, a woman needs to raise 3 kids, run a home single-handedly, work 50 hours a week, win a Nobel prize and never fucking break a sweat (or a nail) while doing so.

To be honest it pisses me off that some people think it's great if a man does his bit in looking after children.

I did a lot of childcare when my first was born and put work on hold. I got loads of praise and people telling my other half how lucky she was ect. But it just pissed is off, I'm not different to anyone else who's trying to bring up their children.

So super dad is a tag I can do without.

Yup, never been any articles about 'supermums' or similar.....

But yes - overall point is correct. Looking after your children and working is normal, for either sex.

So annoying isn't it?

I hate the attitude at work, that a woman who wants to leave early/book a half day to take a child to the dentist/go to sports day= unreliable, child centric, not career focused.

Man who does the same = Superdad! He's soooo lovely, such a great guy. Never affects the perception of his professionalism.

Not fair at all on all the perfectly normal dads who just call it parenting

Giving up a career to be reliant on another adult and not contribute towards family finances isnt something that should be encouraged.

Completely ridiculous comment. For some careers it's just plain impossible to do a good job of raising your kids while working the hours required. If both parents are working 80+ hours a week they're not raising their kids someone has to give up a career.

Having a SAHM parent is a wonderful thing for many kids and great for many families. In any family set up you are a team and you're reliant on your partner one way or another.

But back on topic yes the article sounds annoying.

Article in itself is not annoying. It is about dads giving up high-paying jobs to be sahd and how they feel. It is a relatively new phenomenon, so I think it does need more coverage to encourage other men to do the same. I have to agree though a similar article about mums would be unlikely to be described as 'super mums'.

I do know one of the wives and she is awesome!

lifeissweet Bloody brilliant post

lol people have weird issues with SAHM/SAHDs. lifeissweet there's nothing wrong with being financially dependent on someone a long as you have contingency plans. If you live your entire life not choosing what might be best for you and your family in case of death or divorce you'll be massively limiting yourself. The point of marriage is to legally protect both partners when they as they dependent on each other.

I didn't say anything of the sort, actually.

The thing I found irritating about the article is that they put the dads in order of how much money they earned (they didn't include details of the partners' earnings). Perhaps as if giving up the most pay was the biggest/most important factor. But otherwise I liked that the article was written at all, could have done with a bit more pointing out of the many similarities between women and men who give up work to look after their kids.

I think Bottle must have meant Littlemonstersrule .

Stay at home dad here, let’s get this in perspective
Hold your own > Nowhere in the article does it mention the men being superdads, it’s just a social commentary piece on how more Dads in high earning careers are choosing to give it up to look after their kids. It does not say this makes them good or better dads.
The superdads bit is just some Subeditor who probably didn’t read the article (Like half the commenters on here) choosing a single word to sum up the article and stick it on the front page.
Catgirl > Yes there are loads of articles about high flying women jacking it in to look after children, I read one the other day in the Telegraph I think.

what annoyed me is that all the couples seemed to be really surprised that if they were out of the house for 12 hours a day, they wouldn't see much, if anything, of their child.

didn't they think of that before they got pregnant?

you can't have it all, regardless of gender. If you have a job that involves these long hours (all bankers/financiers BTW so no actual need for long hours, just the usual presentee-ism to justify the huge salary) then you need to give it up if you want to see anything of the kid.

also startled at the chap being asked to leave baby group because 'the presence of a man made the women uncomfortable'. Do women REALLY think like this?

Err special subject - it's not always presenteeism. Some jobs just can't be done in less hours (this is a different issue) plus most will have chunky commutes too.

maybe. But doesn't change the fact that if you have one of those jobs, whatever your gender, you can't bring up a child at the same time.

Obviously.