Pieces of a Whole » Blog Archive » Stay at home dads
I am saddened by this post for a couple of reasons. If I can assume that this person is a member of the so called "Christian Evangelical Right" then how does this kind of an attitude "focus on the family". I would have thought that anything that would build good strong families would be welcome, especially ones that seem to reinforce the importance of males in the rearing of children. There are some that say that fathers are no longer essential for modern families. Oh well here are some thoughts on the post:
The post sets forth two arguments:
The first is an ideal of strict gender roles that are based on some conception of scriptural hermeneutics apparently from 3 Genesis.
There is a lot to be said against this kind of straight-jacketing. Few
fathers regardless of whether they stay at home or not would accept the
kind of gender roles for their daughters so why should they accept it
for themselves? So, unless you are willing to raise your daughter to
believe that they have one purpose in life that is predefined by her
gender then so might the fathers. But, I think most fathers are willing
to raise their daughters to believe that their daughters can play many
roles in life, and what better way to show that to them than as a
father who too is willing to have many roles.
The second
argument is one that is much easier to agree with: More fathers ought
to spend time with the kids even if that means taking a pay cut. My
problem is that by railing against stay at home dads the post is
removing the one option that might best achieve that aim. Parental
leave taken by fathers is one of the ways many men (including yours
truly) get the opportunity to stay at home. And here is the rub it
often comes with legal protections against job loss and discrimination
- unlike taking a 10% pay cut as the post suggests in order to work
less and play more.
Technorati Tags: Parenting, stay at home dad, fatherhood, family, christian evangilism, focus on the family
powered by performancing firefox
Posts
2 comments:
Hi!
I figured I'd parse my response in order to accurately represent myself against some of the comments you've presented here.
"If I can assume that this person is a member of the so called "Christian Evangelical Right" then how does this kind of an attitude "focus on the family"."
~That assumption would be mistaken. Also, anything that brings a family more into a state that mimics the best possible situation DOES as you put it, "focus on the family". Since you link to them I think I should add that they don't speak for all Christians.
"I would have thought that anything that would build good strong families would be welcome, especially ones that seem to reinforce the importance of males in the rearing of children."
~You're absolutely right! That's one of the areas in which I do agree with much of family.org's presentation.
"The post sets forth two arguments:"
~Actually more than that, but that's something for later.
"The first is an ideal of strict gender roles that are based on some conception of scriptural hermeneutics apparently from 3 Genesis."
~If you read more carefully, you'll see that I gave the 3rd chapter of the bookof Genesis as avery good starting place for the foundation of gender roles. There is no way to honestly read that chapter and deny that it reveals intended gender roles.
"There is a lot to be said against this kind of straight-jacketing."
~For example?
"Few fathers regardless of whether they stay at home or not would accept the kind of gender roles for their daughters so why should they accept it for themselves?"
~What interviews/studies have you done to back up what you are saying? To what kind of gender roles for daughters are you referring?
"So, unless you are willing to raise your daughter to
believe that they have one purpose in life that is predefined by her
gender then so might the fathers."
~If that is the conclusion about the human life you have drawn, then you have completely misunderstood what I have written. I was very clear so I can only think that you are reading what I wrote not for itself, but with your own beliefs imposed upon it. I very cleary stated that I was describing a normative best-case scenario, and in no uncertain terms.
"But, I think most fathers are willing to raise their daughters to believe that their daughters can play many roles in life, and what better way to show that to them than as a father who too is willing to have many roles."
~See above statement. Many roles are possible, butin some areas there is a definite best.
"My problem is that by railing against stay at home dads the post is removing the one option that might best achieve that aim."
~Using "railing" is quite a pointed term, no? Please, define "railing" for me according to your usage.
"Parental leave taken by fathers is one of the ways many men (including yours truly) get the opportunity to stay at home."
~You won't find me denigrating a temporary leave anywhere in any way. It's doing it by choice as a full time situation when there is the option of mom doing it that is the clear focus of my post.
I hope you'll take the time to objectively read my post to gain a better understanding of what I actually wrote.
best,
Mark La Roi
AAAArrrggghhh. I find few things more frustrating than self righteous, people who interpret the bible (or other book) to support their narrow minded point of view.
There is no reason why a man shouldn't stay home with the children. Some men are not suited to this position, just as some women are not suited to this position, but a lot of men are faubulously suited and should be encouraged to consider any role that may halp their family, including the role of stay at home dad.
I am a stay at home mom, and this is a role I never thought I would be comfortable or suited to. I have since discovered that not only am i suited to it, I am good at it. This is not because I am female but because of my own strengths and weaknesses. A lot of the stay at home moms I know are NOT good at it and can't wait to go back to work.
I do not see any reason that the situation would be different because of gender.
Sorry for my rant, but aaarrgghh.
Susie
Post a Comment