Feminism, Wimpy Men, and the State

LRC | Brad Edmonds

[Tax-chick]

Whoa, asking me to make sense? Your mileage may vary! But what I'm trying to say, is that once people are married and produce children, the main thing they're going to do of lasting value is to parent those children. Parents will be held responsible for what the children do, legally for many years, and to some extent eternally. (If you're not a Christian, disregard that last bit - the concept works on a secular level, too.)

So what's your Real Life? Is it your job? If so, the concept of "paternity leave" makes sense - a little break to play Daddy, just like you'd take a little break to go skiing. But if you define yourself first as a husband (you married her, after all!) and then as a father (you were there, too ...) then it's almost like you're taking "leave" from fatherhood to go be a (doctor, lawyer, engineer, Indian chief).

Did that clarify, or muddle further? The point is what you, I, anybody, think their life is really ABOUT.

[joesnuffy]

The rise of effeminent/emasculated men and shemale rulers is nothing new....

[Lorianne]

Well they had racial problems in mixed troops at first too, until they made it clear that it would not be tolerated. Get tough on those breaking the regulations and fraternization will end.

Furthermore, there has always been illicit sex going on in the military women enlisted or not. There is an easy way to put an end to it if the military wants to. The fact is they tolerate a certain amount of rule breaking when they need people.

[Cathryn Crawford]

"...FReepin' "self-actualization" to pay attention to the kiddies!"

I actually find this rather offensive to the moms and dads who genuinely want to stay home with their kids and cannot due to economic circumstances. You are completely cutting them out, and painting all parents who work as selfish.

[unixfox]

Not this crap again...

[Tax-chick]

fathers are just as vital to a child's well being as mothers

You missed my point, and it comes back to the whole question of what "equal" means. We all agree men and women are equal in value, but it doesn't mean they are intended to do exactly the same things in life. For example, it's obvious that women have babies, and men don't, so far.

In exactly the same way, mothers and fathers are equally vital to children, but do not meet the children's needs in exactly the same way, or at the same times. An interesting book on the subject is "Fatherneed," by I forget whom. Moms and Dads are just different!

[Scenic Sounds]

Well, it just seems to me obvious that BOTH parents play an important role in a child's early development. As I understand it, you acknowledge the important role to be played by the mother and have no objection to her taking leave from her employment for some period of time. (You know, at one time, the pregnant mother just moved to the perimeter of the field that she had been working and had her baby - lol.) But it sounds to me as if you have come to the conclusion that the father's role is not sufficiently important to justify his taking leave from work.

What factors did you weigh in coming to that conclusion?

[Cathryn Crawford]

Where do you stand?

[Cathryn Crawford]

So what you are saying is that it is less vital for fathers to be around than mothers? What's your logic behind that thinking?

[Tax-chick]

painting all parents who work as selfish.

Did not intend to, and sorry if I offended. Nonetheless, the "economic circumstances" that lead both mothers and fathers to hold paying jobs, not to mention the circumstances of single parents, are part and parcel of the devaluation of traditional family roles.

[Cathryn Crawford]

Not if "economic circumstances" refers to "the need to eat and feed your child".

[Jhoffa_]

Others have written already that feminism – particularly government-sponsored abortion and the end of shame over sexual promiscuity – has been an outright fantasy gift to irresponsible, immoral men.

Pretty much.

"Equality" Abortion on demand and "sexual freedom" were desired..

The Feminists got what they wanted, but it came at a heavy price and it's not over yet either.. There's still a whole generation on the way with even less respect for motherhood, marriage and women in general.

Right now you can find them putting condoms on banannas in (ahem) "health" class. But they will be the leaders of tomorrow soon enough.

[Cathryn Crawford]

I agree. Feminism devalued women, in a lot of ways.

[StriperSniper]

Bump for later.

[Tax-chick]

So what you are saying is that it is less vital for fathers to be around than mothers

No, not really. What I'm really saying (or wish I had) is that I feel the whole discussion is framed in a way that devalues both fatherhood and motherhood in favor of paid work.

Maternity and paternity leave will not make a significant difference in the life of a baby, if after a few weeks he's relocated to nonparental care. It might even be worse, for the child, because he'll grieve the loss of his parents before accepting the new "caregiver," and the next, and the next. The research on attachment disorder caused by serial caregivers has been out for some years. One book that comes to mind is "Being There," author I dont' remember, but there are plenty of other sources.

My ideal is pre-industrial revolution, pre-modern American economy. Family business, family farm, family craftwork. Husbands, wives, and children working together for their own support, producing a readily discernible value for the community. We had it in this country once! I don't get my "homestead" this time, my husband has another corporate job, and I'm already (unproductively, I know) anticipating the separations, daily and longer term, disrupting our family life.

[Scenic Sounds]

My ideal is pre-industrial revolution, pre-modern American economy. Family business, family farm, family craftwork. Husbands, wives, and children working together for their own support, producing a readily discernible value for the community.

Well, I do appreciate that. And I don't think you're alone in looking back fondly on the pre-industrial world.

Maybe I should have been more clear. When I stated my position, I was really only talking about the world in which we are living now.

[Cathryn Crawford]

We do not, unfortunately, live in a perfect world. People have to work to live.

Now, for anyone to say that maternity leave is more important than paternity leave is very arrogant, and rather discriminatory towards men.

I wasn't discussing the ideal life, I was discussing the real life.

I wish it were the way you wish, too.

[Tax-chick]

I wasn't discussing the ideal life, I was discussing the real life.

And I suppose I was discussing the "ideology," risky as that is. If we accept the status quo - "employment as the center of the universe" - as normative, we begin to lose our ability to envision any other situation

discriminatory towards men

and at risk of being redundant, I think we need to guard against using "discriminatory" to mean "bad bad bad." We "discriminate" among things that are different. There is useful discrimination, and pernicious discrimination, but recognizing and evaluating differences is essential.

[Cathryn Crawford]

Well, you're right, you can shred the lingo to bits.

Let me ask you point-blank: Do you believe that fathers are less important than mothers, when it comes to the development of children?

[Tax-chick]

No, I don't think fathers are less important. In fact, I'll go out on a Biblical-interpretation limb (following Doug Phillips of visionforum.com, among others) and venture to say that over the course of a person's life, his or her father may well be the more influential parent. The Bible describes a fatherless child as an "orphan," whether or not his mother is living. The father is the covenant head of the family, the image of God the Father to his children. If the father fails, it is very difficult for that need to be filled by others. So am I a total nutcase, or what :-).

Nonetheless, in the case of babies, my personal feeling is that a mother is more (feeling for words ...) immediately essential. Not that babies aren't mad about their fathers, not that fathers don't derive great and lasting benefits from caring for their babies ... I never feel better about my husband, than when he's with our babies.

But men don't experience pregnancy, childbirth, or the care of an infant quite the way women to. For example, I had a miscarriage last month, at 5 weeks. Having guessed I was pregnant for only three weeks, I'd already "discerned" the baby's sex, named him, planned what he would wear home from the hospital, posed for pictures, imagined the early weeks of nursing him ... my husband, although he was saddened that we wouldn't be having the baby we expected, had not experienced the "relationship" I had.

There's a physical sense of motherhood, particularly of a young infant, that is not as typical of fatherhood. Now I'm not nearly as cool a parent when the kids get older ... "Oh no, we're stuck with Mama? Clean the house and take naps!"

As always, opinions are significantly conditioned by experience. My father was a Navy officer, and was gone up to a year at a time when I was a child. My husband's work has often involved considerable travel. (We all hate it - I really wanted to move to the farm and raise goats!) I may incorrectly diminish the necessity of fathers because of the periodic absence of fathers in my life, and my children's lives.