Hey folks!
This is my first post...I've been a casual observer for several months,
lurking in the shadows while I reread Zen and read Lila for the first time
(now on my second).
To be polite, here is a little bit about myself. I'm 28 and I live in
Temple, TX (just north of Austin) with my wife and my son (19 months old).
I telecommute for a software company doing all kinds of things from
development to web work to SQA (software Quality assurance). I'm also the
CEO of a very small startup software company (5 people, a couple small
products, and we can only go up from here). In college days, I studied
Philosophy (mainly symbolic logics and computer languages such as LISP and
Prolog) and Computer Science. I read Zen for the first time in between high
school and college.
Back to the thread. Mary's comments on Affirmative Action intrigued me...I
like her take on it (as did my wife who read the post at 3 am...).
Likewise, her comments on the need for parenting and the need for society
to support parenting (more than they support birthing for example) are
things which I agree with wholeheartedly.
However, I'm a stay-at-home dad who telecommutes. Yes, I work and I'm a
primary care giver. Her post (accidentally, I'm sure) seems "conventionally
sexist" to me. I admit there is a cultural bias against fathers as primary
care givers...I mean, I live in a very small town, I know. I can't go to
the park without someone assuming that I either took off work for the day
for a special occasion, my wife is sick, I'm a bum without a job, or some
combination of the three. I don't go to "mothers groups" or "mother's day
out" and the like.
This bias is just not something I like. As a result, I'm not even sure the
comments below are appropriate for the group (feel free to correct me). I
might just be recoiling from the prejudice I have felt in the last 19
months. If so, my apologies.
Anyway, my first thought when reading Mary's post was that these ideas on
parenting should be cleansed of some of their cultural baggage. That's not
entirely true though as the culture is already changing. For example,
fathers can get time off from work for the birth of their children (not
universally, of course). This is, from my male point of view, a good step
in the right direction.
It makes sense to me that as gender roles are blending in one direction
(both parents work, both parents drive, both parents have checking
accounts) they should blend in the other (both parents take care of the
children, both parents feed the children, both parents get time off for the
birth of their children). IOW, is there any reason why, if women are now
intellectually considered the equals of (to have the same quality as) men
"in the ways of the world," men should not be considered the equals of (to
have the same quality as) women "in the ways of the family?"
Granted, I couldn't breast feed (my wife pumped when she went back to
work), but other than biological differences which do exist and some
outdated social constructs, are there problems with a father being a
primary care giver if the mother is actually the better provider (so to
speak)?
On 6/3/99 at 12:17 AM -0500, Mary Wittler wrote:
> But asking a corporation to subsidize a working Mother to stay at home
> with a tiny infant is something else again. Other than possibly through
> peer pressure, there is really no motivation for a corporation to pay a
> woman to stay at home during those critical early months with her
> child.
Is there any reason for a man not so stay at home with his child during
those critical months? Could the couple decide which parent would be best
suited to the task (have the most quality) for whatever reason (type of
job, salary, experience in child care, etc)?
On 6/3/99 at 12:17 AM -0500, Mary Wittler wrote:
> But raising healthy, well adjusted children is (or should be) a top
> priority for the state.
Absolutely...and the United States seems to only pay lip service to that
(more so during times of "national crisis" like the one in April).
On 6/3/99 at 12:17 AM -0500, Mary Wittler wrote:
> What if we also compensated working Mothers in the same way?
I think this should be working families, one person per household after the
initial six weeks (which most "progressive" employers give off to both the
father and the mother). We should also, frankly, stop penalizing married
people with higher taxes but that is another discussion.
On 6/3/99 at 12:17 AM -0500, Mary Wittler wrote:
> What if being a Mother to a young child was actually considered so
> important to the nation that it was honored and funded along the same
> lines as the nation's military?
Or what if being a Father to a young child was actually considered so
important to the nation (and society) that it was honored and funded along
the same lines as being a Mother? <G>
I do have one more comment. If a couple truly feels that they should be
the parents of their children, not the daycare, there are options other
than losing a salary. I telecommute, mainly working nights and weekends
and during naps. I've met other stay-at-home dads who work night shifts 3
or 4 nights a week so that the child is always with a parent. It is
possible for the children to have parents instead of daycare and for both
parents to work...it's not easy to find jobs like that and its not easy to
not be "in synch" with your wife or husband, but it might be better for the
children.
I'm sorry if I rambled or if these comments were out of place. I know they
were not entirely on topic.
Cheers,
Mark
________________________________________________________________________
Mark Brooks <mark@epiphanous.org> <http://www.epiphanous.org/>
How do you know who wrote this? <http://www.epiphanous.org/mark/pgp/>
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:04 BST