Letters to the Editor
-
Poor David Brooks
David Brooks is not a bad guy. He's just stultifyingly, monolithically, unrelievedly clueless. If the guy had any awareness or sensitivity - he'd get his teeth fixed, for crying out loud. Every time I see him blathering on the TV, all I can think about is, "Why doesn't he see a dentist. They're doing wonders with cosmetic resin applications."
Brooks is earnest. He's not really stupid. He just doesn't get life, yet has managed to convince some people to greatly overpay him for his insipid observations. America IS a a land of opportunity. Heck, look at the President.
-
Fathers are important, too;If Brooks believed this, he'd stay home
If home were as important as he makes it out to be, why isn't her there? Charles Murray's been discredited for years, more men are staying home. The real answer: you lose over a million dollars in income and retirement credit if you stay home. Some women (NOT ALL) have been willing to make that sacrifice (Linda Waite's book The Case for Marriage, and another good book, The Price of Motherhood) makes the case that motherhood, especially stay at home motherhood, has financial costs in retirement and MASSIVE costs in divorce.
Brooks and Traister overlook the fact that the overemphasis on motherhood hurts children. Children need fathers who spend time with them, do chores with them, do ordinary things, not just the "coaching and fun stuff". But if we start valuing fatherhood, corporations, who have built themselves on the model of overworking workers, especially male ones, would have to make concessions. Men have a harder time getting parental leave, time off to go to plays, etc. They are missed there.
The answer is not stay at home versus work; it's getting fathers' more time off so they can play, clean, and generally be there to model sane male behavior for boys and girls. A father is the first model of manhood. Let's stop ignoring them.
So I think David Brooks should quit his job and stay home to raise his kids' IQs and keep that family intact. Practice what you preach.
-
Men can stop leaving the chores and housekeeping and child rearing to women, if they choose, or if they are given incentives to do so
Well then, the problem is as good as solved! because all women need to to do to bring this about is to start sleeping with men without regard the their earning power, career prospects, social standing, etc, etc, etc. actual or potential. While I hold my breath waiting for this to happen, though, everyone should probably resign themselves to the fact that, in the meantime, these issues aren't likely to go away.
-
It's the environment, really
It appears that the problem here is not as much the inherent badness of one worldview or another, but that the respective ideas are mismatched. For example: if one is to maintain that a woman does belong at home, then simultaneously one MUST require a man to be unable to divorce her. If a man is free to divorce his wife whenever he so pleases (or, to be fair, she is free to divorce him), then by all means, a woman should be (for her own safety) interested in getting a career that pays. This is logic, I'm aware that reality is much more complex, but after all, one of the reasons the patriarchy lingered so long is because, while women were restricted to the profession of a homemaker (or something that resembled it), the family was much harder to dissolve through divorce. Therein lies security, folks, and what people want most of all is security, isn't it?
The point of the article, as I see it, is that contrary to what Brooks says, it's far more dangerous for women, financially, to NOT have a career outside of the family, because it's so easy for them to be left high and dry when their husband tires of them. On the other hand, it's more dangerous for MEN to be married to a woman with a career, because... what if she tires of HIM? If she earns more than he does and leaves him, HE takes the financial hit. Columbo is full of stories where a hapless guy kills the wealthy woman he's courting or married to because somehow he's in financial trouble and she's not bailing him out anymore. THAT is why men are threatened by women who have better careers than them. It's not logical or anything to condone, it is what it is.
You know what, though? It would be SO much easier if nobody told anybody what they SHOULD or SHOULD NOT do. This world is far too complex for blanket statements.
-
I've been on both sides now ...
I've been on both sides of this debate. Once I was entranced with the idea of staying at home with the kids. Then I was a full time workerbee. Then it hit me:
200 years ago, EVERYONE worked at home! Really! Before this thing called the "Industrial Revolution", a woman didn't choose between "work" and "kids". People worked: their kids hung around and watched. And helped. Reading the "Continuum Concept" and lots of anthropology changed my worldview.
Anyway, I am fortunate enough to live in a time and place where I could revamp my life. I work at home (mostly) with my hubby and others. Our life resembles more of a ranch or farm than a software shop, and we grow a fair bit of our food besides doing coding. But the kids are always around the adults, and learning the trade. We have home-cooked meals, and lots of hugs. I don't earn as much as my hubby, because I have more of the "domestic" side of things, but I feel quite satisfied with my contributions to the world and not bored at all. I can't imagine a life *just* cleaning and cooking. Nor can I imagine a life in Cubeland, entrusting my kids to others.
Neither extreme works! It's time to take this debate out of the realm of the Culture Wars and figure out *what works* for human beings. Women were neither meant to be full-time caregivers nor full-time workers for the Industrial Complex. I suspect the same is true for men.
Also, there is biology. The healthiest kids are breast-fed. Until we can invent a culture where mothers can earn a living AND feed their babies, we don't have a workable culture. I fed my daughter while I was coding: she was in her sling, woke up and suckled when she wanted. It was wonderful! I was earning good wages AND babysitting.
-- Heidi