Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Men that wont babysit their own kids...


TheSaint

Recommended Posts

You can't babysit your own kids.........I have always found it funny that you will never hear a woman refer to babysitting their own kids but if I man spends time with their kids while the mom is away it is babysitting. :D

And yes it is real....2 of my wife's good friends have husbands that are that way.....the wives have to bring their kids everywhere. When the girls get together for dinner, go to get their hair or nails done, grocery shopping, etc....the kids have to go with them. It is a shame not only for the wives but for the dads and kids as well. Maybe boys wouldn't grow up to be such pussies/punks and girls wouldn't grow up doing anything for the attention of a man if dad spent more time with them. Can you tell this is a pet peeve of mine?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its just an excuse to get the wife to ok hiring a hot young babysitter. :)

From the time my son was born until he was 3 years old, my wife worked second shift, and while I worked during the day so that one of us would always be with him. My mom did cover the two hour overlap between her going to work and me coming home. It was rough on our sex life, but we tried to make up for it on the weekends. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love hanging with my kids. The realy early days with diapers and such I might have considered it more babysitting. But now we go everywhere and they crack me up and love my music. Win win.

Yeah once you get past the first 2-3 years its just not that hard. Just little people hanging out

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't babysit your own kids.........I have always found it funny that you will never hear a woman refer to babysitting their own kids but if I man spends time with their kids while the mom is away it is babysitting. :D

And yes it is real....2 of my wife's good friends have husbands that are that way.....the wives have to bring their kids everywhere. When the girls get together for dinner, go to get their hair or nails done, grocery shopping, etc....the kids have to go with them. It is a shame not only for the wives but for the dads and kids as well. Maybe boys wouldn't grow up to be such pussies/punks and girls wouldn't grow up doing anything for the attention of a man if dad spent more time with them. Can you tell this is a pet peeve of mine?

This!

I spend as much time as I can with my daughters, which is hard sometimes because I don't live with them. I enjoy the time we spend together for two reasons; 1) every day that passes they are one day closer to leaving for college. 2) they are actually a lot of fun to hang out with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • In my opinion Fitterer was probably right about not paying McCaffrey. Now not wanting to "pay RBs" in my opinion isn't something you want to set in stone, to me it all comes down to the individual.
    • Maybe I'm just not understanding, but everywhere that I have read says that signing bonuses go against the cap prorated by as much as five years. The following example uses Andrew Luck's rookie contract as an example. "Take Andrew Luck, the first overall pick in the 2012 NFL draft. Luck signed a four-year contract with the Colts worth $22.1 million and included a $14.5 million signing bonus. Rather than a $14.5 million cap hit in 2012, the Colts spread out his signing bonus over the life of his contract. The hit against the cap would be $3.625 million per year over four years instead of a direct cap hit of $14.5 million directly in 2012. This gave the Colts more leverage and cap flexibility in signing other players." https://www.the33rdteam.com/nfl-signing-bonuses-explained/ I don't know why some of you think that signing bonuses aren't counted against the cap over the length of the contract, but whatever.   "The bonus with a signing is usually the most garish aspect of a rookie contract. Bonus is the immediate cash players receive when they ink a deal. It factors into the cap, but only for the whole contract duration, in terms of salary cap calculations. In the case of Bryce Young’s $24.6 million signing bonus, that’s prorated to approximately $6.15 million per season over a four-year deal. This format allows teams to handle the cap and provides rookies with some short-term fiscal stability, which is important given the high injury risk in this league." https://collegefootballnetwork.com/how-rookie-contracts-work-in-the-nfl/ I understand how signing bonuses can be a useful tool in order to manage the cap, and as one of the article suggests, signing bonuses may become important if you have a tight cap, but the bill is always going to come due. I'm not necessarily referring to you Tuka, but it seems to me that others simply don't want to understand that fact which is why they're reacting to what I'm saying negatively. How odd. In any event, I have a better general understanding of why signing bonuses are used now, and it's generally to fit salaries under the cap. Surely players, whether they be rookies or not, love a signing bonus because they get a good portion of their money up front. This in turn gives them more security and probably amounts to tax benefits as well. I also understand why teams would not want to use signing bonuses, particularly for players or draftees who have a higher probability of being gone before a contract even ends.
    • Get any shot you can at humane society, so much cheaper
×
×
  • Create New...