Succinct and powerful. Both you and your subject say it so well, Dawn.
Pr. Walter Snyder | Homepage | 04.30.07 - 3:35 am | #

Being a devoted parent is the most important job in the world. We should never forget that.

What you say is so counter-cultural in our pop culture milieu, Dawn, it is like saying "Walking on your hands in Manhattan is the best way to see New York."

But it's true (the former, not the latter).
Athos | Homepage | 04.30.07 - 5:01 am | #

Thank you, Pastor Snyder and Athos. It's a great feeling to wake up and learn that what I wrote upon arriving home last night touched hearts.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 04.30.07 - 8:44 am | #

Yesterday in church I sat behind a family with four young kids. The mother I had worked with some years ago, the fsther is the nephew of an old friend of mine, and I think my wife taught a couple of the kids.

What I couldn't help noticing was the ease and comfort level of the whole family. It was, well, like yesterday's quote of the day. The love they shared was palpable.

I'm sure their life isn't a bed of roses. I know they lived in a pretty crummy apartment for a long time after they were married. I suspect they've had their share of arguments and disappointments.

The older boy hugged his father, the mom picked up the baby gently, the other two clung softly to one or the other. I wanted to lean over and say, "You have chosen wisely." But I didn't.

After Mass we nodded, smiled and waved and I felt ever so warm and delighted.
Robert N G | Homepage | 04.30.07 - 9:10 am | #

Nice to hear that, Dawn. My decision to work part-time in order to "parent" (an unfortunate verb) something closer to FT has cost us dearly, not just "extras" like cable and vacations but "basics" like home maintenance and savings. But after seeing female colleague play out the nanny script, I knew it was not the way I wanted to live. I'm not taking sides in the Mommy Wars--I've seen kids do fine with good nannies or other day care--but it wasn't the childhood I wanted for my daughter or the parenthood I wanted for myself. What I treasured in my own childhood was "quantity time," not "quality time"--and it was there, in the everydayness with my parents (and particularly my stay-at-home mom) that I absorbed the values that sustain me to this day. Although this choice has been financially costly, we were fortunate to be able to do it at all. My daughter, now almost 12, understands why we can't afford I-Pods or Disneyworld and--to my deep joy--says she wouldn't trade the time we've had together for all of it. It's particularly inspiring to hear about dads, like your conductor, who treasure this "job" as well...
Brenda from Flatbush | Homepage | 04.30.07 - 11:38 am | #

Ah, but like a philosophy professor told us when I was in college, if a woman spends her life focused on raising children, she will never be a complete human being.
Dave G. | 04.30.07 - 12:39 pm | #

"If a women spends her life focused on raising children, she will never be a complete human being."

Ah, but will she be a complete human being without raising children?

I wonder if any of us will ever be complete this side of heaven. If we were, then would we really need God? Maybe its not so much what we focus on but based on the quality of our relationships with others that determines how complete we are or will become. :)
susan m. | 04.30.07 - 1:37 pm | #

Susan,

You just put more thought into the statement than the professor who made the statement did when he made it in the first place.
Dave G. | 04.30.07 - 3:31 pm | #

Will somebody please tell my parents this?
Engaged for too long | 04.30.07 - 3:41 pm | #

Why should being a mom be a full-time job when being a dad, in the great majority of cases, isn't ?
Of course, the problem really started when work was taken out of the home.... Back in the day, women were responsible for what are now whole industries- making clothes, brewing beer, gathering milk and eggs, etc.
Now 'going to work' means 'leaving the kids behind'- when it used to mean 'mother and father at home (or right outside in the field) producing something for the family and/or something to sell.'
I'm not pushing for deindustrialization - just pointing out that the "mom home with kids/dad in the factory or office" pattern is not really the 'traditional' way at all....
Donna Marie Lewis | Homepage | 04.30.07 - 4:13 pm | #

Um, I don't think that anyone forgets that "Being a devoted parent is the most important job in the world."

But it doesn't pay the bills.

That's why there are gov't programs to help poor folks with day care etc.
A friend | 04.30.07 - 5:45 pm | #

Government should not be in the business of daycare. Period.
Barb the Evil Genius | Homepage | 04.30.07 - 7:31 pm | #

We need to "emancipate domesticity" - to paraphrase Chesterton. I don't have any kids, but as an "unskilled" laborer I agree wholeheartedly. Trying to find a gal with the same values is the real trick. Our culture is mad on materialism.
JV | Homepage | 04.30.07 - 8:32 pm | #

First of all, being a dad is still a full time job. Second, if you know how to get my wife to brew beer, let me know.
John J. Simmins | 04.30.07 - 9:54 pm | #

After over 34 years of a traditional marriage (wife stayed home) and 3 children, I long ago came to realize that women are more important in the family and the nation because they're the "home makers." It's not that we men aren't important, they're just more important. They do the work that no one else wants to do, day in and day out, and in that process produce the next generation for the nation and saints for God - not to mention happier families. What "work" is more important than that??

Sadly, I think many modern women have bought a bill of goods, and it's no longer a value for them. If God isn't the center of your life, why would you want to do all that sacrifice? For what? Where's the payoff? It's the "me" generation.
Theofile | 04.30.07 - 9:54 pm | #

As a full-time SAHM (though we are often not at home) with a husband who is a half-time SAHD (he works out of town 14-16 days a month, then is home the rest of the time), I would like to put my two cents toward an ethic that embraces men and women choosing more time with their families over extra pay. Granted many families in our economy have to have both parents in the workforce just to keep the lights on and food on the table, but the majority of families where both parents work, something could be worked out to give at least one parent more hours with the kids than away from them. The most obvious reason moms need to be the full-time parent more than dad in the beginning is breastfeeding. The other reason is that we are more wired for nurturing and multi-tasking. Thank-you for this story, Dawn.
pam | 04.30.07 - 9:56 pm | #

pam :
Forget the hardwiring business. Even if it is true, (considering the number of nurturing men and driven women I've come across, I've got my doubts) isn't the ability to ignore our instincts one of the marks of humanity ? Unlike the beasts, we are not shackled to instinctive patterns. And what's so all fired great about nature, anyway ?
Mr. Simmins : Yes being a dad is a full-time job- a full-time job which the majority of men combine with gainful employment without shame or angst. So why shouldn't women do the same ?
Donna Marie Lewis | Homepage | 05.01.07 - 12:07 am | #

I've been doing the full-time mother thing for the past - let's see - nine years now. I cannot tell you just how much I'm looking forward to the younger boy being in school full-time next year. Believe me, some of us are much better parents when we aren't doing it every minute of the day.
Ledasmom | 05.01.07 - 1:35 pm | #

Ms. Eden, I enjoy your blog, and I admire your courage in trying to live a chaste life, particularly in New York City. It must be one of the hardest places in America to follow Judeo-Christian teaching.

I agree that parenting is a very important and noble vocation. I appreciate my parents' love, and I think that there are many wonderful parents. I am single, and I live in another large city on the eastern seaboard. I think that you and many of your readers are good hearted people.

However, I think that many married people consider single people to be losers or maybe homosexual. I think that there is a widespread view that there is something wrong if one is not co-habiting with another person.

Moreover, I think that many married people have advantages that single people do not have. They receive tax benefits for having children. I believe that there have been studies that married men get higher salaries and more promotions than single men, also.

On April 26th many businesses and governments offered activities for "Take Your Child To Work Day".
Many employees who do not have children had to spend time preparing activities. Businesses and government agencies spent money that could have been used in more useful matters. I did not receive any benefit from the event, but I had to work on the event. It was "voluntary" in name only. My preference is that parents should be released from work for several hours to visit the schools their children attend. I think that would do more good for parents and children.

Plus, some parents are not doing a very good job teaching their children. Taxpayers pay high taxes in my city to support the public schools, and there is a high drop-out rate. Plus, the test scores are very poor.

In addition, I have to ride the city bus and subway system, because I can not afford a car. Many students are loud, threatening, cursing, and all the rest. The taxpayers are subsidizing their education and their transit fares. This is the thanks society receives. It has gotten so bad that the police have visited several schools to lecture students how to behave on mass transit. Some schools actually are forced to have a police officer escort the students from school to the subway station to minimize disruptions.


Meanwhile, several churches are not particularly welcoming to middle-aged single people. Many activities are built around family activities. That is probably more the case in the suburbs, but it exists.

I understand my views may be dismissed as sour grapes, but I think that it needed to be said. I realize that your book and blog are largely about living chastely and following God's teachings. Yet, I think that your comments about parents deserve some comment. Thanks.
Jeff | 05.01.07 - 1:40 pm | #

Donna,
The ability to ignore some instincts--say in the case of living chastely, or not taking that second helping of chocolate cake-- does show us to be more than "beasts". Following our instincts in other cases, such as the instinctive protectiveness we feel for our children or loved ones can sometimes show us to be more than animals as well. I would call giving up a 40 hour work week to stay home and nurture a newborn an instinct worth preserving for the sake of humanity--for that child and the rest of society. Like Theofile said above, the most important job is raising our children to love and glorify God, so why shouldn't caring for them be a full-time job? Do day care centers do a better job? Do tired parents who work all day relate better to their children? Or is it more important that a woman feels "fulfilled" because she is making money or doing "adult work" than that the children are in the best situation?
Pam Ferreira | 05.01.07 - 8:45 pm | #

Two notes:

1) In graduate school, I was blessed to have Fred Brooks as a professor. Dr. Brooks is a giant in computer science, and has maintained that stature over a long career of major technical innovation and distinguished teaching. But when my wife got pregnant about halfway through her studies and many in her department were quietly writing off her professional prospects, Brooks's comment was, "Raising children is the most difficult and most rewarding thing I've done in my life." He didn't say that to denigrate his professional accomplishments; he continues those to this day. He was just saying that being a father was a higher call.

If that's true for a legend in his field like Fred Brooks, how much more so for us ordinary folk?

2) The one group of people I can think of for whom Brooks's comment does *not* hold is singles (like Jeff, above). Those of us who are married and parents are (pretty much by definition) called to those things, but there are an awful lot of ways to serve God that don't involve marriage or parenthood. (Indeed, I thought one of the central ideas in Dawn's book was that you don't need to be sexually active to be a complete and attractive human being, that the whole point of chastity is looking at people *as* people apart from their sexual potential or lack thereof. Did I get it wrong?)

Peace,
--Peter
Peter Brown | 05.01.07 - 9:18 pm | #

...is it more important that a woman feels "fulfilled" because she is making money or doing "adult work" than that the children are in the best situation?

I can only speak for myself, but my children truly were in the best situation when they were in institutional daycare and I was "fulfilled." I am now a SAHM, and we`ve gone through some very hard times (and I don`t mean financially -- we`re relatively well off).

Being a devoted parent is, as Dawn says, the most important job in the world. But there are many ways to do it, and the "best" way is going to depend on a particular family`s situation.
L. | Homepage | 05.02.07 - 10:30 am | #

Amen, L.
Donna Marie Lewis | Homepage | 05.02.07 - 4:59 pm | #

What I'm sick of is the argument "men/women are hardwired a certain way, therefore men/women should do x/y". Hardwiring, even if it exists, is beside the point. Say something is good or bad, we can get a good argument going. Say something is 'natural' or 'hardwired' and my response is 'so what ? '
Donna Marie Lewis | Homepage | 05.02.07 - 5:07 pm | #

L., I did not mean to denigrate women who combine working and raising children. All situations are different and I can not judge other families. I was really responding to Donna's comment that mothering should not be "full-time" (without outside work) because fathering hardly ever is. There are people who don't think women should ever stay home or have that option because they are betraying the feminist cause and not using their talents. I have had to be confronted with so much more about myself as a mom than I ever did as a working woman, not to mention the benefits to my children that nursing and nurturing have brought. It is NOT easy for me either. I like to sleep in and take naps. I like not having to make decisions or be the one in charge. Both of those have had to change--and that is only the beginning. Parenting is the hardest job because it makes us confront our own selfishness. Working does not change that as much as parenting. If you work while you have young children you still have to confront those things, of course. I don't think all women should stay home, I just think we should have the option to do so and the option to say it is better for the children. Also Donna, I wasn't trying to kill an argument with the "wired" comment, but your argument there is rather tired as well. If it is all nurture and no nature, then shouldn't that mean even more that one parent should give children her/his complete time at least for the first few years? So, forget that nature (or God) has designed women for childbearing and nurturing for now. My opinion is that full-time stay at home mothering (and having a father married to the mother is best too) has a positive impact on children especially in the first three years of life. Would you like to argue that in general this is not true?
pam | 05.03.07 - 11:28 am | #

Yes, I would argue in general that full-time stay at home mothering has a positive impact on children.

Too many variables!
L. | Homepage | 05.03.07 - 5:20 pm | #