Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Thursday, April 03, 2014

Francesa delivers screeching anti-paternity-leave rant

Francesspool: Asleep at the mic…asleep at the wheel.

Mike Francesa isn’t a big fan of paternity leave.

The WFAN radio host blasted Mets second baseman Daniel Murphy for missing the team’s first two games to be with his wife, Victoria, in Florida for the birth of their son, Noah, who was born Monday.

MLB rules allow a player to take three days away from the team on paternity leave, but Francesa believes they should never take the time.

“You’re a major-league baseball player. You can hire a nurse,’’ he said on his Wednesday show. “Whaddya gonna do, sit there and look at your wife in the hospital bed for two days?”

Murphy will be back with the Mets for Thursday’s series finale against the Nationals at Citi Field, but Francesa was under the impression he was going to be gone for 10 days.

“First of all, the first two days, your wife is in the hospital anyway, you’re there with her,’’ he said. “And the baby’s in the hospital. So you’re not taking the baby home usually till the third day. You think the third day that Daniel Murphy’s going to be in charge of nursing that baby the third day? … That’s my point. He’s not there to take care of the other kids, he’s not there to nurse the baby.”

Repoz Posted: April 03, 2014 at 05:15 PM | 454 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: media

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 1 of 5 pages  1 2 3 4 5 > 
   1. The elusive Robert Denby Posted: April 03, 2014 at 05:33 PM (#4678777)
He is the second son of Michael Francesa, Sr., who abandoned the family when Francesa was eight years old.


See? Mike's dad hated him, and he turned out to be a huge success. And an unrepentant douche-nozzle.
   2. Dudefella Posted: April 03, 2014 at 05:41 PM (#4678789)
“You’re a major-league baseball player. You can hire a nurse,’’ he said on his Wednesday show. “Whaddya gonna do, sit there and look at your wife in the hospital bed for two days?”


It's called "bonding," Mike.
   3. Jim Wisinski Posted: April 03, 2014 at 05:42 PM (#4678790)
Such a loathsome person
   4. cardsfanboy Posted: April 03, 2014 at 05:48 PM (#4678796)
As if his job description wasn't enough reason to think that this Mike Francesca person was a crappy human being, these comments just sealed the obvious.
   5. Hang down your head, Tom Foley Posted: April 03, 2014 at 05:50 PM (#4678799)
Francesa married his current wife, Rose (whom he usually refers to as Roe), on July 14, 2000 and they have three children, fraternal twins Emily Grace and Jack Patrick and Harrison James.
Francesa looks forward to meeting his children after he retires.
   6. Publius Publicola Posted: April 03, 2014 at 05:50 PM (#4678800)
Mike has obviously never heard of the medical term "complications during delivery".
   7. Tom Nawrocki Posted: April 03, 2014 at 05:56 PM (#4678804)
C'mon, it's the Mets. What does Francesa think they would have done if Murphy had been at the games? Win? Don't make me laugh.
   8. The Yankee Clapper Posted: April 03, 2014 at 06:26 PM (#4678821)
Never lived in NYC, so I've only heard snippets of Francesa, but I've never seen the appeal. This is the best they can do in the largest media market?
   9. JE (Jason) Posted: April 03, 2014 at 06:30 PM (#4678826)
C'mon, it's the Mets.

And the Mets are no longer on WFAN, meaning we can expect many more Francesa anti-Mets rants in the weeks and months to come.
   10. tfbg9 Posted: April 03, 2014 at 06:43 PM (#4678834)
Harrison Francesa? Really rolls off the tongue, no?
   11. Arbitol Dijaler Posted: April 03, 2014 at 06:47 PM (#4678835)
They should fire this idiot.
   12. Tilden Katz Posted: April 03, 2014 at 06:51 PM (#4678839)
They should fire this idiot.


Into the sun
   13. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: April 03, 2014 at 06:59 PM (#4678848)
He's such a funny guy.
   14. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 03, 2014 at 07:09 PM (#4678855)
He should have his children taken away. Not that he'd notice.
   15. Karl from NY Posted: April 03, 2014 at 07:14 PM (#4678858)
This is the best they can do in the largest media market?

A market that itself is chock-full of self-important blowhards, so no surprise that we eat up Francesa's douche-baggery.
   16. The District Attorney Posted: April 03, 2014 at 07:24 PM (#4678862)
He has to have something to talk/argue with callers about for, like, six hours a day, every day. Don't even worry about it.
   17. spycake Posted: April 03, 2014 at 07:41 PM (#4678868)
Devil's advocate: what if it wasn't an early regular season game, but a playoff or other important game? Have there been any quality MLBers careless enough to father a child to be due in late September or October?
   18. Publius Publicola Posted: April 03, 2014 at 07:46 PM (#4678871)
He's such a funny guy.


What do you mean funny? Funny how? How is he funny?
   19. Dudefella Posted: April 03, 2014 at 07:51 PM (#4678874)
Devil's advocate: what if it wasn't an early regular season game, but a playoff or other important game? Have there been any quality MLBers careless enough to father a child to be due in late September or October?


Well, Koufax famously chose not to pitch Game 1 of the '65 WS because it fell on Yom Kippur. The analogy isn't exact, but my point is, major life events don't always schedule themselves around the playoffs.
   20. Pat Rapper's Delight Posted: April 03, 2014 at 07:59 PM (#4678878)
I've only heard snippets of Francesa, but I've never seen the appeal. This is the best they can do in the largest media market?

Consider Francesa's target audience.
   21. spycake Posted: April 03, 2014 at 08:15 PM (#4678885)
Has any player skipped a significant game for the birth of a child? Or the reverse - has a player notably missed a birth for a game?
   22. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: April 03, 2014 at 08:15 PM (#4678887)
Consider Francesa's target audience.

That remains the greatest gif in the long and treasured history of gifs. There's as much richness and texture and contemplative fodder there as in the very best work of a Picasso or a Miro.

(Yankee Gothic?)
   23. Super Creepy Derek Lowe (GGC) Posted: April 03, 2014 at 08:15 PM (#4678888)
It wasn't exactly the Algonquin Roundtable, but I thought that show worked better when Mad Dog Russo was paired up with him. Then again, it was the first sports radio talk show I heard that lasted over an hour (there was a local one in Hartford back when I was a kid, but it was only an hour or half hour, s)o I may not have known better.
   24. Jim Wisinski Posted: April 03, 2014 at 08:17 PM (#4678889)
It's amazing that all I needed to see was the word Yankees when hovering over the link in #20 and I already knew exactly what it was linking too.
   25. Kurt Posted: April 03, 2014 at 08:25 PM (#4678893)
Has any player skipped a significant game for the birth of a child?


Yes, in the NFL - in a 16 game season I think every game is significant.


Or the reverse - has a player notably missed a birth for a game?


I don't know how you'd define "notably" but players have missed births for games thousands and thousands of times.

And I agree with GGC - Mike and the Mad Dog were much much much better together than apart.
   26. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: April 03, 2014 at 08:28 PM (#4678894)
Somewhere between a World Series game and the first of 162 games in significance: In his rookie year, Mark McGwire skipped the last game of the season (and his chance for a 50th home run) when his son was born.
   27. Howie Menckel Posted: April 03, 2014 at 09:15 PM (#4678913)
"A market that itself is chock-full of self-important blowhards, so no surprise that we eat up Francesa's douche-baggery."

It's fantastic.

It seems like whenever Francesa makes an official pronouncement - always very solemnly - the opposite occurs.

One acolyte called up a couple of weeks ago re Kentucky maybe knocking off Wichita St.
"cannot and will not happen," Mike decreed. and his will be (not) done

around the same time, a Wisconsin fan wondered if The Great One gave them any chance at all at a title. Mike mulled, then decreed, "No."

watch out for Wisconsin this weekend!

he kept a dumb caller on the air for 3-4 minutes today because the guy claimed that Mike was afraid to criticize awful Yankees color radio person Suzyn Waldman because now the Yankees are on his FAN station. it didn't really make sense, but Mike's ego is such that it killed him for his audience to hear even a dope question his "courage."

the show would almost be workable even if it was just a parody. the fact that the protagonist has no idea how many are laughing at and not with him (and he does have his star-crossed fans, admittedly) is what makes it comedy gold.


   28. base ball chick Posted: April 03, 2014 at 09:34 PM (#4678920)
I'm sure that 50 years ago BITGOD and the Golden Age and all that, mickey mantle and gang were too busy adulterizing/abusing alcohol to have anything to do with going to the hospital when their wife had his baby - i guess they'd tell the wife to give em a call so as they'd know there wouldn't be no breakfast ready on the table.

I'm not sure when daddys started being there during labor and delivery, but my mama told me when us kidz were born (1970-1980) there was more than 1 woman in a room when you were in labor and then you went into ANOTHER room to deliver and you don't want some strange man there when you are having your baby.

how many men these days do NOT go with their wife/partner/gf/baby mama to the hospital to be with her when she has the baby? and afterwards?

jeezus - and the woman does not necessarily have the baby right away neither. and you best believe he gotta be there to share the pain and get yelled at a little. every man i ever knew, even the toughest meanest brotha, wants to see his baby get born, and hold his baby. and feed him/her too.

i am sure there are plenty of men who are agreeing with that a$$swipe - the same kind of shttheads that think all men should be playas, screw em and throw em out the door, hit em, make em subservient- blahblahblah. but i wouldn't think there would be enough to support a show like that

who listens to that crap???
   29. Kurt Posted: April 03, 2014 at 09:56 PM (#4678929)
how many men these days do NOT go with their wife/partner/gf/baby mama to the hospital to be with her when she has the baby? and afterwards?


I'm honestly interested to know the answer to this question.
   30. Howie Menckel Posted: April 03, 2014 at 09:59 PM (#4678930)
"I'm sure that 50 years ago BITGOD and the Golden Age and all that, mickey mantle and gang were too busy adulterizing/abusing alcohol to have anything to do with going to the hospital when their wife had his baby"

Francesa always says his favorite player growing up was - you guessed it, The Mick.

   31. Dudefella Posted: April 03, 2014 at 10:00 PM (#4678931)
i am sure there are plenty of men who are agreeing with that a$$swipe


Sadly, yes. From the Deadspin (I know, I know) comments thread:

As a Mets fan, I'm actually pretty worked up about it. Back in the day you dropped your wife off at the hospital and went back to work. ...

Three days, man. THREE DAYS. There is a point where this has to stop and we've clearly passed it.


Mike is 100% right. There's 24 hours in a day. Murphy doesn't have to be there for 24 hours a day for like 5 days. Ridiculous. ...

how can you disagree with him on this? A grown man fawning over his wife and infant for 5 days? Give me a break. So ridiculous. Sack up and go to the ballpark for 5 hours, dude.


The only reason this is OK is because the Mets suck. If Murphy was on a potential playoff team in a close wildcard race, I'm pretty sure everyone would agree that it's a bullshit move by Murphy.


   32. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: April 03, 2014 at 10:33 PM (#4678944)
I'm surprised that Francesa hasn't demanded that players and their wives only have sex between mid-February and mid-May.
   33. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: April 03, 2014 at 10:38 PM (#4678949)
Couldn't Daniel Murphy just stay up with the baby, and then go to Citifield and sleep at his job, like Francesa?
   34. crict Posted: April 03, 2014 at 10:43 PM (#4678951)
Tom Browning and Game 2 of the 1990 World Series. TV/radio broadcasts sent a message for him to return to the ballpark to potentially pitch in extra innings.
   35. base ball chick Posted: April 03, 2014 at 10:44 PM (#4678952)
hey deadspin maroons,

you tell your woman - yo bytch, you gotta have a baby, you call your mama or your gf and go deal with it and i'll see you when you get back from the hospital and be sure you remember to stop off at the store and get me some beers.

my daddy told me it was really he!! for dads back in those "good old" days because you had to stay out in a waiting room and you didn't know if your wife/baby were ok. and after your baby was born, you didn't get to see your wife and they just showed you your baby through a window. he told me that the new way is wonderful.

it is great to have your males bonding with the brand new baby. there really must be something about a brand new baby that really strongly affects males. i mean, us mamis are all full of hormones and stuff, but men?

who knows when it comes to Yew Peeple

   36. valuearbitrageur Posted: April 04, 2014 at 01:52 AM (#4679003)
how many men these days do NOT go with their wife/partner/gf/baby mama to the hospital to be with her when she has the baby? and afterwards?


I wish I hadn't gone, I still have nightmares. The doctor said she's coming out, take a look, I did, and still have no idea why I did not vomit: Afterwards she bragged to me how easy a delivery it was, said it they call it a "shade tree delivery" cause it was so easy my wife could have given birth under a shady tree.

It was a freakin cesarean. I wouldn't be cutting her open under a tree or anywhere else.
   37. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: April 04, 2014 at 06:10 AM (#4679028)
Yeah, why stay home, Murphy? Your newborn is fungible.
   38. Shooty Is Disappointed With His Midstream Urine Posted: April 04, 2014 at 07:34 AM (#4679042)
Everyone is talking about him. As usual, Francesa wins.
   39. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: April 04, 2014 at 07:40 AM (#4679044)
Everyone is talking about him. As usual, Francesa wins.


Seriously. It's as if we don't understand how Francesca makes money.

It's the same with TV/radio blowhards like Bayless, Cowherd and others. I doubt any of them really believe half the stuff they say; indeed, I doubt they even think about an issue long enough to care one way or the other. They understand that they get paid to generate controversy.

And we like controversy, so we pay them.

You remember Jim Everett punching Jim Rome out on the air? While that doubtless felt good for Everett in the moment, and most of us who watched it felt happy he did it, what Everett didn't understand was that he couldn't have been doing Rome a bigger favor if he'd actually sat there and written him out a check for one million dollars. However much Rome got in the lawsuit settlement, even, was secondary. He made Jim Rome famous, and Jim Rome understood that he got paid to be an #######.
   40. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 04, 2014 at 07:53 AM (#4679047)
I'm not sure when daddys started being there during labor and delivery

It is kind of odd to have any guests there during the actual delivery. I've had multiple surgical procedures, and they didn't invite my wife into the room for any of them.

In the room where you wait before, sure. But during the actual medical procedure, especially if it's a C-section, I don't see why there should be any non-medical personnel in the room. And the people who film the delivery and just freaking insane.
   41. Random Transaction Generator Posted: April 04, 2014 at 08:12 AM (#4679052)
My father was there for my birth, but only for the 3 hours before and the one hour afterwards. He was expected to be at work later that day (1971).
My father was there for my sister's birth, but then had to go on a 2-day business trip 36 hours later (1974).

I was there for the birth of my daughter (2013) and, if I was working at the time, my old job would have let me have the day off and the next two days as well.

Personally, I can't imagine NOT being there.
   42. Lassus Posted: April 04, 2014 at 08:26 AM (#4679057)
It is kind of odd to have any guests there during the actual delivery. I've had multiple surgical procedures, and they didn't invite my wife into the room for any of them.

Snapper, please. You can't compare those as if it's 1:1, that's nonsensical.
   43. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 04, 2014 at 08:35 AM (#4679060)
Snapper, please. You can't compare those as if it's 1:1, that's nonsensical.

It's pretty close. The reason your at the hospital, instead of waiting at home for a call, is that you're concerned for the health and safety of your wife and child. Just like when someone is having surgery; you're there at the hospital because you're concerned about them.

I would no more "miss" my wife having surgery (like she did last summer) than her giving birth. In neither case do I have any desire to view the actual procedure, nor am I contributing anything by being in the room.
   44. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: April 04, 2014 at 08:37 AM (#4679062)
And we like controversy, so we pay them.


I must be missing the gene that allows people to enjoy fake, ginned-up controversies, because I have never understood the appeal of this.
   45. Random Transaction Generator Posted: April 04, 2014 at 08:40 AM (#4679063)
I would no more "miss" my wife having surgery (like she did last summer) than her giving birth. In neither case do I have any desire to view the actual procedure, not am I contributing anything by being in the room.


My wife is going through the most painful hours of her life.
She's surrounded by strangers (and her ob/gyn) in a strange room, and experiencing the biggest life changing moment you can have as a person.

You don't think I'm "contributing" by being there to help her remain calm, keep her breathing in rhythm, and also providing emotional support?

I'm not tooting my own horn when I say that my wife has repeatedly stated to her friends/family that she couldn't imagine going through all that without me being there. Almost every mother in my generation I've talked to has stated pretty much the same thing.
   46. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 04, 2014 at 08:46 AM (#4679066)
My wife is going through the most painful hours of her life.
She's surrounded by strangers (and her ob/gyn) in a strange room, and experiencing the biggest life changing moment you can have as a person.

You don't think I'm "contributing" by being there to help her remain calm, keep her breathing in rhythm, and also providing emotional support?

I'm not tooting my own horn when I say that my wife has repeatedly stated to her friends/family that she couldn't imagine going through all that without me being there. Almost every mother in my generation I've talked to has stated pretty much the same thing.


I think it totally depends. Some husbands maybe contributing something, others are simply adding to the confusion and stress.

Every mother in pretty much every previous generation didn't have their husband there. Pre-hospital delivery, child-birth was a female-only event. The men would usually be sent out of the house, to be called when the baby came.

I'd think the mother of the woman giving birth would have a much better chance of being useful than the husband.

I also don't understand why women aren't under much heavier pain medication while giving birth.
   47. base ball chick Posted: April 04, 2014 at 09:07 AM (#4679073)
no snapper, no
this is not like getting your gall bladder out. giving birth is NOT a "medical procedure"

in the old days, males, except for the MALE physician, were not allowed anywhere near the female because it was seen as unmasculine.

if you are the father of that baby and all you are good for is "adding to confusion and stress" then you are a shttball. seriously. there is no confusion. and you need to be man enough to not ADD to the stress. you are not a ****ing sperm donor, you are a FATHER.

it is your MAN'S baby, not your mama's. he got you pregnant, not her. it is between the 2 of you. and you as the daddy gets to see his new child and hiold it. it is something special you just don't understand. it is not your wife bringing home some groceries, or something.

as for csections, when you go in, you sit next to the mother's head. you do not have to look. you can sit and wait with your woman until they bring the baby to you. I went to a csection with one of my gf because her bf was too chicken to go in the room with her. she was really pissed at him, but I told her - you know men, they faint if they see blood and stuff and he's afraid he'll faint and you'll laugh at him and he would prefer to be mad at than pissed off at.

   48. Blastin Posted: April 04, 2014 at 09:11 AM (#4679074)
100% agreed, Lisa.
   49. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 04, 2014 at 09:18 AM (#4679078)
no snapper, no
this is not like getting your gall bladder out. giving birth is NOT a "medical procedure"

in the old days, males, except for the MALE physician, were not allowed anywhere near the female because it was seen as unmasculine.

if you are the father of that baby and all you are good for is "adding to confusion and stress" then you are a shttball. seriously. there is no confusion. and you need to be man enough to not ADD to the stress. you are not a ****ing sperm donor, you are a FATHER.

it is your MAN'S baby, not your mama's. he got you pregnant, not her. it is between the 2 of you. and you as the daddy gets to see his new child and hiold it. it is something special you just don't understand. it is not your wife bringing home some groceries, or something.

as for csections, when you go in, you sit next to the mother's head. you do not have to look. you can sit and wait with your woman until they bring the baby to you. I went to a csection with one of my gf because her bf was too chicken to go in the room with her. she was really pissed at him, but I told her - you know men, they faint if they see blood and stuff and he's afraid he'll faint and you'll laugh at him and he would prefer to be mad at than pissed off at.


And the father can hold the baby 2 minutes after the birth. I'm not saying he shouldn't be in the next room.

I have had two incredibly painful surgical procedures in the ER, effectively without any anesthesia (you can't anesthetize internal organs). It's basically the equivalent of being stabbed in the belly with an ice pick, my Dr. described it as barbaric.

My wife was there, and it wasn't helpful. Seeing her suffering along with me just made me feel worse.
   50. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: April 04, 2014 at 09:29 AM (#4679083)
in the old days, males, except for the MALE physician, were not allowed anywhere near the female because it was seen as unmasculine.


Yep. It's part of the same general category of things as the Old Testament prohibitions on contact with menstruating women, due to their ritual uncleanliness.

Not really useful in the modern world.
   51. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: April 04, 2014 at 09:36 AM (#4679085)
Personally, I can't imagine NOT being there.


Me neither, but I also can see ValueArb's position. I think it's perfectly reasonable to feel differently about being there during a C-Section.
   52. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: April 04, 2014 at 09:43 AM (#4679088)
Childbirth is painful and traumatic and fathers owe it to mothers to be onsite when it's happening. End of discussion.
   53. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 04, 2014 at 09:48 AM (#4679090)
Childbirth is painful and traumatic and fathers owe it to mothers to be onsite when it's happening. End of discussion.

Nobody's owed anything in this life. It's clearly a matter of deliberation/negotiation for the individual couple.
   54. Kurt Posted: April 04, 2014 at 09:51 AM (#4679091)
Me neither, but I also can see ValueArb's position. I think it's perfectly reasonable to feel differently about being there during a C-Section.


I was there for one of each (one "regular" birth, one C-section) and I'm pretty sure my wife needed me more for the C-section. As bbchick says, you just stand by her head and look at her face rather than "down there".
   55. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 04, 2014 at 09:54 AM (#4679092)
I was there for one of each (one "regular" birth, one C-section) and I'm pretty sure my wife needed me more for the C-section. As bbchick says, you just stand by her head and look at her face rather than "down there".

Do women not get anesthesia for C-sections?
   56. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: April 04, 2014 at 09:56 AM (#4679093)
As bbchick says, you just stand by her head and look at her face rather than "down there".


It's not a question of looking at it. It would be my real fear of getting in the way in what I have to imagine is a more delicate procedure than traditional childbirth.

But I'll cop to not knowing enough about them that I could be wrong. I suppose, like most decisions, I'd have left it up to my wife. (-:

   57. Greg K Posted: April 04, 2014 at 09:56 AM (#4679094)
This brings to mind Dylan Moran's cameo as Dr. Slop delivering the baby in the Tristram Shandy movie. One of the best cameos I can recall.
   58. Shredder Posted: April 04, 2014 at 10:01 AM (#4679099)
Every mother in pretty much every previous generation didn't have their husband there. Pre-hospital delivery, child-birth was a female-only event. The men would usually be sent out of the house, to be called when the baby came.
Then we decided there was a better way. It's called progress. It's not uncommon in a society.
   59. The Good Face Posted: April 04, 2014 at 10:01 AM (#4679100)
I was there for one of each (one "regular" birth, one C-section) and I'm pretty sure my wife needed me more for the C-section. As bbchick says, you just stand by her head and look at her face rather than "down there".

Do women not get anesthesia for C-sections?


For scheduled C-sections, the woman is typically awake and conscious.
   60. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 04, 2014 at 10:07 AM (#4679101)
Then we decided there was a better way. It's called progress. It's not uncommon in a society.

All change does not equal progress. Thing often get worse.

A rule that every father has to be there is just as bad as a rule that no father can be there.
   61. Kurt Posted: April 04, 2014 at 10:07 AM (#4679102)
For scheduled C-sections, the woman is typically awake and conscious.


Ours was unscheduled, and she was awake. She had the shivers and felt miserable and scared. For some reason the doctors asked me to hold the bucket they were siphoning blood into, which I still don't understand but whatever.
   62. ASmitty Posted: April 04, 2014 at 10:07 AM (#4679103)
My father wasn't allowed in the room during my brother and sister's births, but by the time I was born things had changed.

Personally, I was there when my children were born and I can't imagine having missed it. When my oldest was born, the firm I was working for at the time attempted to prevent me from leaving the office to go the hospital, so I told them I quit and walked out the door.

Cooler heads prevailed in about a week.
   63. The kids disappeared, now Der-K has too much candy Posted: April 04, 2014 at 10:11 AM (#4679107)
Dude should be on site. If she wants him to leave, he can leave the room. If she wants him there, he's already available.

I was there for one of each (one "regular" birth, one C-section) and I'm pretty sure my wife needed me more for the C-section.

Both of mine were c-sections, the second planned, the first a "v" birth that turned emergency "c". I was "needed" (source of help/comfort/whatever) both times.

Ours was unscheduled, and she was awake. She had the shivers and felt miserable and scared. For some reason the doctors asked me to hold the bucket they were siphoning blood into, which I still don't understand but whatever

I held a bucket for projectile vomiting during that one - whole affair (again, our first) was a mess.

Medical professionals - chime in - but I believe that there are medical reasons precluding sedation during delivery, regardless of delivery method.
   64. CFiJ Posted: April 04, 2014 at 10:16 AM (#4679110)
I also don't understand why women aren't under much heavier pain medication while giving birth.

The anesthetic deadens sensation. Give a woman enough anesthetic to completely knock out the pain, and the labor stops. And that's not good for the baby. So-called "painless delivery" (it's not really painless) generally take longer than unmedicated deliveries. The idea is to give enough medication to take the edge off, but not delay or hinder the labor process.

Do women not get anesthesia for C-sections?

Yes, but it's local, not general. They aren't knocked out. She isn't opened up like in open heart surgery, unless things have really gone to hell (and in that case, the father won't be there). Typically, you're looking at a 4 to 6 inch incision.
   65. BDC Posted: April 04, 2014 at 10:16 AM (#4679111)
Isn't there a story about Ted Williams missing the birth of one of his children because he was on a fishing trip?

To avoid the Wrath of Lisa, I will proudly say that I was present when BDC Jr. was born. Of course that was long before BBTF and we didn't actually name him that.
   66. ASmitty Posted: April 04, 2014 at 10:18 AM (#4679113)
and we didn't actually name him that.


Coward.

Dude should be on site. If she wants him to leave, he can leave the room. If she wants him there, he's already available.


Agreed. If my wife had wanted me out, I obviously wouldn't have stayed. But no way was I not going to be at the hospital.

   67. Greg K Posted: April 04, 2014 at 10:21 AM (#4679116)
All change does not equal progress. Thing often get worse.

A rule that every father has to be there is just as bad as a rule that no father can be there.

I suppose it depends on what we mean when we say rule. As a social convention I would think the history of men being present for deliveries depends on fluid gender dynamics as well as relationships between man and wife, or even father and child, mother and child. I'm sure there have always been men who said "nuts to this" and didn't let anyone stop them being there. Just like I'm sure today there are men who wait outside. Probably the number one concern is the expectation of the wife. For a high-strung gentry woman in the 18th century having her husband barge in would likely be unwelcome and cause all kinds of dangerous stress. For a woman in the 21st century there's probably an expectation that the man will be there and it could likewise cause stress (or at the very least some tension at home the next day!) if he's not there. I assume the most important thing is that the husband and wife be on the same page. If she has no expectation that you be there, or would feel more comfortable with you not there, then that's clearly the proper thing to do, and (I might be wrong here) no one is going to force the two of your to do it otherwise. As for wider society, what is the penalty for breaking the rule today? The nurses look at your funny at the hospital while you sit outside? Your friends think less of you when you tell them?
   68. PreservedFish Posted: April 04, 2014 at 10:21 AM (#4679117)
Every mother in pretty much every previous generation didn't have their husband there. Pre-hospital delivery, child-birth was a female-only event. The men would usually be sent out of the house, to be called when the baby came.

Then we decided there was a better way. It's called progress. It's not uncommon in a society.


Back in the day, when birth was "female only," the mother surely expected to be surrounded by her family: mother, sisters, aunts etc. The husband being in the room has become more necessary because families are sprinkled across the nation more so than they had been in the past. I am pretty sure that women have always wanted emotional support during childbirth, and that the burden has just switched to a new family member.

I was there for my daughter's birth - I was helpful and appreciated except for the actual peak of labor, the painful and intense part, at which point I wasn't really able to soothe my wife in any real way. So I get Snapper's point, a bit. But I wanted to be there (and my wife wanted me there) for every other moment, and leaving during the nastiest part would have been really really strange.
   69. Tom Nawrocki Posted: April 04, 2014 at 10:22 AM (#4679121)
I'm not sure where I heard this, but as I recall the story, Mantle wasn't present for the birth of any of his sons. Three times the births happened during the season, and one time he was off on a hunting trip with Billy Martin. But hey, they had that hunting trip planned for a long time.
   70. bunyon Posted: April 04, 2014 at 10:24 AM (#4679124)
A rule that every father has to be there is just as bad as a rule that no father can be there.

Right. No one should be telling anyone how to handle this very personal situation. I will say that, yes, most couples I talk to today say they want the father in the room and, like many of you, "can't imagine him not being there". On the other hand, when pressed, it's clear the father makes no real contribution beyond some sort of vague "he was there" that could be solved any number of ways. It's a beautiful thing and I'm not telling you guys you shouldn't have been there but it's not like you were necessary. It's more of a luxury than we'd probably care to admit.

I do get the point though that you have a job, you're being paid a lot of money, you should make every effort to be there. For instance, if a wife gives birth in the city whree the games are being played and has no complications, I don't think the guy should take off except for the actual birth - and if that is in the morning, not even then. He should be excused from the hours of pre-game stuff and the hours of post game stuff but get to the park in time to loosen up and go play. OTOH, if the wife is in NY and the game is in Seattle or if she's had complications of some sort, let him go. In other words, beyond hard and fast "you should be there" "you shouldn't be there" there is a whole range of experience in between. But for an awful lot of these, everything goes fine and the event is mostly sitting around and eating crappy food and smiling at everyone. Nice, but not worth giving a day off (whatever the job; personally, I'd think you'd want time off later when the kid is at home and teething. While your wife and kid are in the hospital, things are more tranquil than they're about to be).

I also find it interesting, not being a parent myself, that it is vital for a guy to be there at the birth but then absent for massive chuncks of time during the raising of the child. I suppose the focus at birth is on the mother but taking three days off for the birth and then vanishing for 180 days is weird. But it's a weird ol' world.

But each to his own. If an employer wants to give the time and an employee wants to take it, not my concern. I'm certainly not calling anyone names over it.
   71. PreservedFish Posted: April 04, 2014 at 10:28 AM (#4679127)
All change does not equal progress. Thing often get worse.

A rule that every father has to be there is just as bad as a rule that no father can be there.


I do think that this shift is probably one little piece of a wider societal shift towards objectively better parenting. That fathers form secure attachments with children is a good thing. That children aren't farmed out to wet nurses is a good thing. That child abuse isn't commonplace is a good thing. These are all related, and while it's very difficult to get a handle on these huge trends, it's all a contributor to our society's gradual movement that has caused modern first world people to be more empathetic and less violent than in the past.
   72. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: April 04, 2014 at 10:30 AM (#4679130)
He is the second son of Michael Francesa, Sr., who abandoned the family when Francesa was eight years old.


Much as I hate to say it, if I had a kid and he acted like Mike Francesca does, I'd be tempted to abandon him, too.
   73. ASmitty Posted: April 04, 2014 at 10:31 AM (#4679131)
I do get the point though that you have a job, you're being paid a lot of money, you should make every effort to be there.


You're not being unreasonable at all, but I think the point here is that Murphy wasn't going to play 162 games this year anyway. The guy is going to get days off, so why bother getting up in arms about him taking this particular one? Outside of Francesca's obvious financial interest in trolling.
   74. BDC Posted: April 04, 2014 at 10:34 AM (#4679137)
vital for a guy to be there at the birth but then absent for massive chuncks of time during the raising of the child

Of course, the birth happens once, but there will be plenty of diapers to change in the next off-season. In fact I would imagine that MLB players, seasonally and highly-paid, have more of an opportunity to be present for large periods of child-rearing (if they value that), than fast-track corporate or professional fathers (and even some fast-track corporate/professional mothers).
   75. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 04, 2014 at 10:38 AM (#4679144)
I do think that this shift is probably one little piece of a wider societal shift towards objectively better parenting.

Maybe among the upper and upper-middle classes. But fathers are increasingly disappearing from lower and working class families.

Being at the birth doesn't mean #### if you then don't live with or support them for the next 18 years.
   76. PreservedFish Posted: April 04, 2014 at 10:43 AM (#4679154)
Being at the birth doesn't mean #### if you then don't live with or support them for the next 18 years.


Oh, of course, I just mean that the impulse is definitely good.

Maybe among the upper and upper-middle classes. But fathers are increasingly disappearing from lower and working class families.


Yes. This is a very bad trend.
   77. smileyy Posted: April 04, 2014 at 10:49 AM (#4679169)
Do women not get anesthesia for C-sections?


My wife reported feeling them put her organs back in her body. Not pain, but...feeling it. That made her barf.

Being at the birth doesn't mean #### if you then don't live with or support them for the next 18 years.


Keep it up and the NFL will pass a rule making it a penalty to move the goalposts.
   78. smileyy Posted: April 04, 2014 at 10:51 AM (#4679172)
On the other hand, when pressed, it's clear the father makes no real contribution beyond some sort of vague "he was there" that could be solved any number of ways.


Supporting my wife through 36 hours of labor and a C-section is a vague "I was there" and "no real contribution"?

Go do that act that makes babies to yourself.
   79. Random Transaction Generator Posted: April 04, 2014 at 10:52 AM (#4679173)
Childbirth is painful and traumatic and fathers owe it to mothers to be onsite when it's happening. End of discussion.


I completely agree, except for the "end of discussion". It really does need to be an agreement between the partners.
(man/woman or woman/woman if it's a donated sperm situation)

Being at the birth doesn't mean #### if you then don't live with or support them for the next 18 years.


I'd guess that the percentage of absent fathers is lower for those that were there for the actual birth than those that were not in the room.

On the other hand, when pressed, it's clear the father makes no real contribution beyond some sort of vague "he was there" that could be solved any number of ways.


During my daughter's delivery, my contribution was to provide a single voice to guide her (she actually told one of the attending nurses "No offence, but please shut up so I can hear my husband and the doctor.") during the process. I helped her keep her breathing on track, I gave her a familiar face/voice to listen to during the times between pushing (encouragement, instructions, calming), and (right at the end) I encouraged/forced her to keep pushing for an extra 10 seconds each time by pointing out that the 10 seconds now was saving saving 30 seconds later (an extra push).

Yeah, I didn't provide a real medical need during the delivery, but given the stress/fear/pain my wife was going through I know that having me there did make the delivery easier/quicker/less fearful.
   80. Blastin Posted: April 04, 2014 at 10:59 AM (#4679184)
But snapper doesn't understand how that could be valuable, so it's not.
   81. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: April 04, 2014 at 11:01 AM (#4679187)
In Germany there is 14-week mandatory maternity leave; 6 weeks before birth, 8 weeks afterwards, with the addition option of an addition 12 paid months after that. Fathers also get 12 months of paid paternal leave if they wish; either parent (but not both) can take further unpaid parental leave until the child turns 3.
   82. Shredder Posted: April 04, 2014 at 11:03 AM (#4679189)
A rule that every father has to be there is just as bad as a rule that no father can be there.
Similarly, a rule that said we had to wake up every morning and punch ourselves in the face for 15 minutes would be worse than a rule saying that we couldn't punch ourselves in the face every morning. Fortunately, neither rule exists, just like there's no rule saying a father must be in the delivery room, and no rule saying a father can't be in the delivery room. What the hell is your point?

You realize that when I say "we found a better way" it doesn't necessarily follow that having the father in the delivery room for every delivery is "better way", right? The "better way" is giving the option to the expectant parents to choose whether they would like the father present. That choice really didn't exist forty years ago. This is the problem you get into when you see every single issue you debate as black or white.
   83. Shooty Is Disappointed With His Midstream Urine Posted: April 04, 2014 at 11:03 AM (#4679190)
In Germany there is 14-week mandatory maternity leave; 6 weeks before birth, 8 weeks afterwards, with the addition option of an addition 12 paid months after that. Fathers also get 12 months of paid paternal leave if they wish; either parent (but not both) can take further unpaid parental leave until the child turns 3.

They'll never have a strong economy doing that!
   84. GregD Posted: April 04, 2014 at 11:08 AM (#4679194)
Much as I hate to say it, if I had a kid and he acted like Mike Francesca does, I'd be tempted to abandon him, too.
He should have had his parents taken away!

I think it's crucial to have someone in there with the mother. Even in a good medical setting, there are going to be shift changes for the nurses and doctors or midwives covering multiple women, and someone needs to be there to articulate the mother's needs and condition. Where we delivered, they only allowed you to come in with a partner for that reason. These were hospital-attached birth centers not pure labor floors.

I would agree that the mother is the best judge of who should be in there.

I would also say that whoever is in there is doing an important job, sometimes only mildly important, sometimes moderately important for morale, sometimes crucial for the health of the mother and baby. Labor does not always proceed smoothly, and medical staff are, despite their expertise, not always able to cover everything at the same time. Any serious medical procedure, you should have an advocate with you.

I was at both of children's births and also at my little brother's birth (a little strange in retrospect to other people.)

There are some conflations going on here. Being pro-father at delivery is compatible with, not antagonistic to, being pro-fathers involved in people's lives. I doubt that there's a statistically significant number of fathers who are present at delivery and then disappear. Being pro-fathers at delivery is compatible with, not antagonistic to, being pro-paternity leaves that stretch beyond delivery.
   85. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Posted: April 04, 2014 at 11:15 AM (#4679204)
(man/woman or woman/woman if it's a donated sperm situation)


Why do you feel the need to discriminate against the man/man couples that give birth?
   86. Shredder Posted: April 04, 2014 at 11:17 AM (#4679205)
There are some conflations going on here. Being pro-father at delivery is compatible with, not antagonistic to, being pro-fathers involved in people's lives.
Sure, but acknowledging that wouldn't allow snappper to try to change the subject with a ridiculous non sequitur, so...
   87. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Posted: April 04, 2014 at 11:18 AM (#4679206)

Right. No one should be telling anyone how to handle this very personal situation. I will say that, yes, most couples I talk to today say they want the father in the room and, like many of you, "can't imagine him not being there". On the other hand, when pressed, it's clear the father makes no real contribution beyond some sort of vague "he was there" that could be solved any number of ways. It's a beautiful thing and I'm not telling you guys you shouldn't have been there but it's not like you were necessary. It's more of a luxury than we'd probably care to admit.

I do get the point though that you have a job, you're being paid a lot of money, you should make every effort to be there. For instance, if a wife gives birth in the city whree the games are being played and has no complications, I don't think the guy should take off except for the actual birth - and if that is in the morning, not even then. He should be excused from the hours of pre-game stuff and the hours of post game stuff but get to the park in time to loosen up and go play. OTOH, if the wife is in NY and the game is in Seattle or if she's had complications of some sort, let him go. In other words, beyond hard and fast "you should be there" "you shouldn't be there" there is a whole range of experience in between. But for an awful lot of these, everything goes fine and the event is mostly sitting around and eating crappy food and smiling at everyone. Nice, but not worth giving a day off (whatever the job; personally, I'd think you'd want time off later when the kid is at home and teething. While your wife and kid are in the hospital, things are more tranquil than they're about to be).

I also find it interesting, not being a parent myself, that it is vital for a guy to be there at the birth but then absent for massive chuncks of time during the raising of the child. I suppose the focus at birth is on the mother but taking three days off for the birth and then vanishing for 180 days is weird. But it's a weird ol' world.


Assuming you are a man, is your significant other expecting at least for you to have come up with these beliefs? Nice to be around, but not worth a day off work, whatever the job? Seriously? You do realize the birth of their child(ren) is frequently spoken of as the most important day(s) in their lives for a lot of people, correct?
   88. BrianBrianson Posted: April 04, 2014 at 11:31 AM (#4679221)
Jeez, am I the only person from a working class family here? The day I was born, my father went to work. My mom did her best to hold me in 'til he got off, but come quarter to five she couldn't hold on any longer, so he wasn't around 'til I was a half hour old or so.

Now, I got a pretty white collar, work whenever you feel like kinda job, so I'll probably show up (and assuming I'm still living in the UK, I think I get two weeks off at 90% pay), but one can't expect that of everyone.
   89. GregD Posted: April 04, 2014 at 11:34 AM (#4679224)
Jeez, am I the only person from a working class family here? The day I was born, my father went to work. My mom did her best to hold me in 'til he got off, but come quarter to five she couldn't hold on any longer, so he wasn't around 'til I was a half hour old or so.
Is it the class difference or the time lag difference?

My father wasn't at my birth (though he had a white-collar job.)

I know plenty of working-class guys who are at their kids' births in my adulthood.

Certainly job type must play some role, but I'd be surprised if it is anywhere near as large as the shift in cultural understanding of fatherhood.
   90. Shooty Is Disappointed With His Midstream Urine Posted: April 04, 2014 at 11:37 AM (#4679230)
Jeez, am I the only person from a working class family here?

My father was in Vietnam when I was born. The jerk!

In all seriousness, though, paternity leave for men can only be a good thing, no? You don't have to take it, but it's good that it's an option now. Let's chalk this up on the pro side for modern life because god knows there are plenty on the con side.
   91. The Polish Sausage Racer Posted: April 04, 2014 at 11:42 AM (#4679238)
Father in the birthing room, fine, but it seems dubious to me for him to be there for a c-section. It's unsanitary; do you know how filthy guys are? Jesus. We're walking cesspools.
   92. bunyon Posted: April 04, 2014 at 11:47 AM (#4679242)
Yeah, I didn't provide a real medical need during the delivery, but given the stress/fear/pain my wife was going through I know that having me there did make the delivery easier/quicker/less fearful.

For those ready to lynch me, this is my point. I'm not saying the father, who is present, does nothing important, I'm saying they're contribution isn't as a father. It could be, and has through much of history, be duplicated by many other people close to the mother. Or a health professional. Or not at all.

Of course, I forgot the cardinal rule of being a non-parent: Never, ever, have any opinion about parenting and the role of parents and children in the world.


I'm sure that it's a beautiful moment for mother and father (even though an earlier generation of mothers would have blanched at the idea of the father being present) and I think employers and society should go a long way to making it possible. I think what Murphy did is fine. I think Francesa is an idiot. However, because I say that maybe, occasionally, it gets taken too far (not the being present - the days afterward), I'm an evil man.

Sheesh. You had a kid. Happened billions of times. It's beautiful and I don't understand,* I get it. But it's not like you invented the ####### wheel or something. Most of us posting on this board were born without benefit of a father in the room. As Brian says, still most of the time kids are born without parents in the room. I completely agree, it's not ideal. But it isn't the end of the world if dad isn't there, either. There are many bigger fish to fry in terms of societal problems.

You do realize the birth of their child(ren) is frequently spoken of as the most important day(s) in their lives for a lot of people, correct?

In the event it ever happens to/for me, I'm sure it'll be the most important day in my life, too. Of course, it will be that whether I'm in the room or not.

* I do really get that. Parenting is obviously a life-changing experience and I'm in awe of parents who do it right (which is, IMO, the vast majority of them). I regret that I've not had the experience. Just give a little thought to the idea that maybe, occasionally, you guys need an outsider to point out you're letting emotion get the better of you and you need to chill the #### out.
   93. bunyon Posted: April 04, 2014 at 11:48 AM (#4679244)

In all seriousness, though, paternity leave for men can only be a good thing, no? You don't have to take it, but it's good that it's an option now. Let's chalk this up on the pro side for modern life because god knows there are plenty on the con side.


Yes. In case there is any question, yes, it's a good thing.
   94. GregD Posted: April 04, 2014 at 11:52 AM (#4679248)
bunyon, there is a beautiful cycle in life:

Before you have kids, one is annoyed by kids and, increasingly, their parents and so develops lots of high-minded views to make that annoyance seem like a principle. Because one feels like an ####### if one says one says kids and their parents are annoying. Better to have deep social theories.

Then one has kids and becomes super-annoyed by people who don't have kids expressing their social theories, since those social theories don't have any basis in reality. And it would be better and more honest if those people just said, hey I'm annoyed by you. That's fair enough. The rest looks mostly like bullshit.

Then one's kids have kids and you get the best of both worlds. you get to lecture your kids about their improper ideas and actions AND you feel bulletproof to criticism since you've had kids. Of course you also give your kids the gift of eviscerating you as a parent in response, which is one of their few joys in an otherwise-exhausting phase of life.

So enjoy where you're at...just don't mistake it for anything you'll believe or even care about when you're at a different stage.

Same as it is with most things people opine about (me too!) based on abstractions rather than experience.
   95. Gaelan Posted: April 04, 2014 at 11:56 AM (#4679250)
I do think that this shift is probably one little piece of a wider societal shift towards objectively better parenting. That fathers form secure attachments with children is a good thing. That children aren't farmed out to wet nurses is a good thing. That child abuse isn't commonplace is a good thing. These are all related, and while it's very difficult to get a handle on these huge trends, it's all a contributor to our society's gradual movement that has caused modern first world people to be more empathetic and less violent than in the past.


On modern parenting.
   96. smileyy Posted: April 04, 2014 at 11:56 AM (#4679251)
It's beautiful and I don't understand


No, you don't. And yet you keep talking about it.

I'm saying they're contribution isn't as a father.


You have a funny definition of fatherhood. And apparently little-to-no concept of partnerhood.
   97. GregD Posted: April 04, 2014 at 12:00 PM (#4679254)
On modern parenting.
The data in that is out of date and/or has been refuted. The piece is based in part on a claim that parents spend less time with kids than previous generations of parents, but study after study shows the opposite is true.
   98. Shredder Posted: April 04, 2014 at 12:00 PM (#4679255)
As Brian says, still most of the time kids are born without parents in the room.
Well, presumably at least one of the parents is there.
I'm saying they're contribution isn't as a father.
No, it's as a spouse and life partner. My guess is that the father is there to assist his partner, not the baby. That doesn't make it any less important to the couple who makes that decision.

I don't think most people would argue that you can't have an opinion on something unless you've been through. Plenty of people have opinions on abortion and the death penalty even though they've never had to decide whether to have an abortion, or been convicted of capital murder. I just think this is a subject where an abstract opinion on what is better or worse is just dumb. It's a very personal decision, and it should be made between the parties involved. But more impotantly, no one should be criticized by someone else for making that decision. If a couple decides that the father need not be present, then fine! That's their decision and they shouldn't be criticized for it. If Daniel Murphy decides to take a couple days off to be with his wife for the birth of their child, then great! That's their decision, and they shouldn't be criticized for it.

Generally speaking, the decision between the spouses on this matter affects absolutely no one aside from the spouses themselves (it doesn't even really affect the unborn child). In this case, at worst, a few Mets fans get bent out of shape, but I've found that a good general rule of thumb in life is "screw Mets fans" (or Angels fans for that matter). FWIW, I am currently a non-breeder.
   99. GregD Posted: April 04, 2014 at 12:04 PM (#4679257)
I've found that a good general rule of thumb in life is "screw Mets fans" (or Angels fans for that matter).
Even though I'm not a Mets fan, I feel entitled to say all right all right all right
   100. bunyon Posted: April 04, 2014 at 12:11 PM (#4679264)
That's their decision and they shouldn't be criticized for it. If Daniel Murphy decides to take a couple days off to be with his wife for the birth of their child, then great! That's their decision, and they shouldn't be criticized for it.

Hey, look! That's what I said.

I've been arguing all along that it's a personal decision. Yet a lot of the fathers here are acting like not being there is a huge moral and ethical failing. It's either personal or there is a right answer. If there is a right answer, everyone's opinion matters.

So enjoy where you're at...just don't mistake it for anything you'll believe or even care about when you're at a different stage.


Sure. Doesn't make one's opinion at another stage right. FWIW, like I said, I think most parents do a good job. I think kids are great. I don't mind wailing kids on planes or restaurants. I'd make many more legal exceptions for parents both financial and otherwise. I still don't think having dad in the room is a necessity, no matter how nice it is. I think this because kids have been being born forever and dad's for the most part haven't been around. Sure, it might be a little better to have them there but isn't going to make a huge difference at the end of the day. Having fathers more involved IS a very good thing. But that is a long term time committment that can be met many ways. Being in the delivery room isn't the same thing.



Oh, and smiley, I keep talking about it because this IS a social issue and people get to have opinions about social issues that don't directly affect them; I'm a white man, should I have no opinion about civil rights and women's rights? A mother in delivery could use a partner, no doubt. It isn't required and doesn't have to be the father. It's great if it is. I expect this will elicit another angry response.

And congrats on the family, I hope they bring you, and you them, many years of joy and love.
Page 1 of 5 pages  1 2 3 4 5 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Martin Hemner
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogFemale Sportswriter Asks: 'Why Are All My Twitter Followers Men?' | ThinkProgress
(29 - 10:34pm, Nov 20)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogExamining our assumptions about Pablo Sandoval
(19 - 10:33pm, Nov 20)
Last: tfbg9

NewsblogOTP Politics November 2014: Mets Deny Bias in Ticket Official’s Firing
(3871 - 10:30pm, Nov 20)
Last: JE (Jason)

NewsblogSwitch-pitcher Pat Venditte is ready to take a major step. | SportsonEarth.com : Howard Megdal Article
(25 - 10:11pm, Nov 20)
Last: PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth)

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - November 2014
(890 - 9:55pm, Nov 20)
Last: PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth)

NewsblogMLB Transaction Trees «
(11 - 9:46pm, Nov 20)
Last: Boxkutter

NewsblogThe family legal fight over Ryan Howard's finances
(54 - 8:29pm, Nov 20)
Last: Bourbon Samurai

NewsblogAthletics To Sign Billy Butler
(50 - 8:28pm, Nov 20)
Last: Bourbon Samurai

NewsblogOT:  Soccer (the Round, True Football), November 2014
(354 - 7:30pm, Nov 20)
Last: Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class

NewsblogRanking the top 25 prospects from the Arizona Fall League | MLB.com
(7 - 7:14pm, Nov 20)
Last: Cblau

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 11-20-2014
(16 - 6:22pm, Nov 20)
Last: RoyalsRetro (AG#1F)

NewsblogThe Phillies shouldn't settle for a rational Cole Hamels trade - SBNation.com
(15 - 5:41pm, Nov 20)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogOT: NBC.news: Valve isn’t making one gaming console, but multiple ‘Steam machines’
(1126 - 5:33pm, Nov 20)
Last: SteveF

NewsblogOT - November 2014 College Football thread
(499 - 5:01pm, Nov 20)
Last: AuntBea

NewsblogYoan Moncada Is Affecting All of International Baseball | FanGraphs Baseball
(1 - 4:57pm, Nov 20)
Last: Joe Kehoskie

Page rendered in 1.0107 seconds
52 querie(s) executed