Chiming in a little late here... but I'm in the same boat. I've generally been the primary or sole "breadwinner" since DS1 was born 2.5 years ago. It just worked out that, between DH and myself, my degree and experience lend themselves more easily to a stable and flexible "career"-type job. DH has been a SAHP, a part-time WOHP, and (briefly, due to child care issues) a full-time WOHP. Most recently, we scrambled schedules and worked mostly-opposite shifts.
I'd happily choose this option over living in a tent. 1) DH is a loving, competent parent. Just as loving and competent as I am. 2) Living in a tent in Alaska in January would SUCK.
And a big "YEAH THAT" to all the PPs who mentioned the historical inaccuracy of the SAH-WOH distinction. I read an article in National Geographic (not sure when it was from... It was in my parents' bathroom
) about one of the last surviving true hunter-gatherer groups in Africa. One thing about the article that struck me was that to an outsider, other than nursing infants currently in a carrier or attached to the breast, the author found it difficult to tell whose kids were whose. Everyone took care of each others' kids at some point or another. This is where our modern, "AP" take on babywearing and work kind of becomes a little... I'm not sure the best term... FORCED at times. Yes, "traditional" societies wear their babies. But what about kids who are too heavy to be comfortably worn while doing hard work, but are not yet old enough to stay safe on a foray into the bush to gather plants (my 2.5 year old is a good example of this). Generally, mom would go out and kiddo would stay back with grandma or auntie or random other woman with some kids, and then everyone would share the food that mom gathered. Or maybe grandma would go gather. Or auntie, with auntie's kids staying home someone else. There is NOTHING unnatural or inherently "bad" about leaving your kids to go do things that aren't kid-friendly. In fact, I'd say it's pretty darn cave-woman-esque
Now, the fact that we so often do it in such an all-or-nothing kind of way in our society is probably a bit off. I mean, our society has set itself up so that you either "work outside the home" or "stay at home." A few manage to "work at home," but really, honestly, if we were true to our roots, there would probably be very few kids in full-time child care, and very few kids whose parents proudly announced that their kid has NEVER stayed home with anyone but mom (and once, in a crazy moment of wild abandon, Dad got a shot at kiddie-wrangling, but only while mom went to get her hair cut
). We'd all fall somewhere in between and there would be no real distinction, but rather a continuum.
But... society is what it is, and health care is what it is. I think that, if health care weren't employment-based and good, solid, challenging part-time work so difficult to find, DH and I would probably both choose to work part-time to equal a full-time salary, but that ain't gonna happen at this point.