There has been more discussion on the Chinese "tiger mother" approach to mothering than I, as a single man, have any keen interest in discussing in detail. I do, however, find it interesting that some women have noticed that what is substantially absent in all of this is a discussion of what fathers do. This can be taken, at some level, as a feminist question of "Where's dad?" The question more accurately posed, in their words, is why this debate has been about mothering techniques and goals and not about childrearing in general.
It is here that as a unmarried man who has observed parents and fellow Christians for years, that we could spot an interesting conundrum. Evangelicals are upset that "dad" has been absent and not doing enough to "man up" and be there for his children. But let that dad become so involved in the lives of his children that he decides to be a stay-at-home dad then he's denied the faith and become worse than an unbeliever. If he lets his wife work because she has more earning power than him during a "mancession" then he has rejected the faith depending on which evangelicals we consult about the subject.
So it would appear, paradoxically, that there are some evangelicals who want dad to be more involved than they already are but not too involved in the actual upbringing of his children. You need to be there enough to financially support your child but not so much so that you avoid spending the majority of your days ten hours away from your kids in the day job earning money so that you can spend a few hours with them a day! So evangelicals will be happy if dad is involved by earning money but not happy if dad stays at home to be more directly involved in actually raising his kids? In the hands of some (not all!) evangelicals this looks like yet another double bind.
No comments:
Post a Comment