|
|
|
|
|
|
by fragola
3588 days ago
|
|
|
What exactly is wrong with a man wanting to stay at home with the kids? Even if the mom does it during infancy (when, due to breastfeeding and so on, she's arguably a better fit), the dad could take over later, maybe the second year. How is this unnatural? Take my situation: I'm a woman, I make way more than my husband. I'm not the most lovey-dovey/maternal person in the world, my husband is. He did not have the resources while staying home that are available to women. In fact, he was jeered at in the streets and discriminated against. IMO, people who smear a loving man being the primary caregiver for his baby as being "unnatural" are cruel and backwards. |
|
|
It's completely unnatural. So is you going to work. So is your husband going to work. The only thing that would be natural is both of you living in the woods as hunter-gatherers, as part of a tribe of hunter-gatherers.
As soon as we start talking about "jobs", "careers", or any kind of society that's bigger than a small tribe, and certainly anything involving technology beyond the spear or any kind of written communication, naturalness has completely gone out the window.
>IMO, people who smear a loving man being the primary caregiver for his baby as being "unnatural" are cruel and backwards.
They're also stupid, because as far as we know, there's nothing at all natural about having monogamous relationships. We really don't know how our distant ancestors lived socially, and the best we can do is look at primitive tribes that survived to modern times like the Native Americans, Australian aborigines, pre-contact Hawaiians, or various South American tribes. Not all of those were monogamous (Hawaiians in particular were highly promiscuous).
Anyway, back to modern society, what kind of craphole do you live in where your husband was "jeered at in the streets"? You might want to think about relocating to a better city.