Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Tax-chick
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?
49 posted on 06/02/2003 6:31:15 PM PDT by Cathryn Crawford (Save your breath. You'll need it to blow up your date.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies ]


To: Cathryn Crawford; Scenic Sounds
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.

55 posted on 06/02/2003 6:42:27 PM PDT by Tax-chick (Visualize whirled peas ... no, kids, that's not another tornado!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson