"Current feminist ideology says that we can de-couple the traditional male role of breadwinner, provider and protector of the family and not have any deterioration of the male connection to the family. The next part of this theory is that male and female roles in the family are completely interchangeable and the male is just as capable of nurturing a child as the female. Conversely, the female can have the lead financial and societal role with no effect whatsoever on the family or the children."
Um no! That is not what I said at all. What I said was that fathers DO have a positive influence on their child and working 80/90 hours a week is not going to provide said influence.
"We have plenty of evidence from Europe and the US that males are losing interest in marriage and the job of raising their offspring. "
And yet this is EXACTLY what you are advocating with your attitude of men are breadwinners and women stay home and raise the kids ALONE.
Make up your mind dude.
LL
I see you still aren't getting it. I'll clarify more later.
Short version:
Men have to work as life is hard. By showing their kids the example of working hard to provide for the family, not only is the man more tied to the family, but the kids learn about what it takes to get through life.
I'll flesh it out more, but a father's role isn't as flexible as many would like to think.
Good Lord. How in the world are you presenting "a father's role"? I mean seriously. In abstract?
Here's a question: Dad puts in that 60 to 80 hour work week and comes home to kids that may or may not have seen him all day. They may have got up in the morning and gone to bed without ever seeing him. What has he taught them about work? What example has he made? Has he provided any detail? Are they capable of understanding the nobility of his actions? To a child's mind there has only been one true affectation: absence.
You go on and flesh it out more. It's becoming truly amusing.
Stick with topics you know -- cigars, scotch -- and stay away from those with which you have no familiarity -- raising kids, idigenous people.
Tracy: I think if you control for income, the gender roles/parenting thing looks a lot similar with the rest of the US for hispanics. And there's a growing segment of the low income hispanic population that's falling into the welfare trap like blacks so even that is eroding.
Kermit, you've gone a bit too far in suggesting that a Dad who works a lot can't give an example.
I had a Dad who worked 80/90 hours a week during my childhood. I remember the Christmas when we opened presents and then he had to go to work. It made an impression on me and I never once thought he was doing it because he loved his job more than us. The takeaway for my brother and I was that he was doing it for us. I don't know if we were told that or if we just knew it but otherwise, it was a no brainer.
Maybe the problem is that today we equate work with self-fulfillment rather than sacrifice or at least deferred gratification. That's a huge lesson that a lot of people don't seem to be passing on to their kids.
Let me put it in very personal terms.
My father was a member of the BYA 24/7 club when I was growing up. Because he worked 80 hours a week and was virtually ABSENT from my life (and my sisters life) we had ZERO relationship with him. The teen-age years were spent in open rebellion of him and his authority in my life. I think the words we something along the lines of me accusing him of loving work more than his family.....
The good news is we have repaired that relationship...
The Logical Husband, on the other hand, has had a very, very hands on with the Junior Logician. While there are some rough patches ahead, I know that we will be able to weather them with a lot less stress than I put my poor parents through.
LL
Are they capable of understanding the nobility of his actions? To a child's mind there has only been one true affectation: absence.
Fast forward that child to his twenties. NOW what does the "child" feel about the actions of the father to provide for his family?
MY father was a Type A workaholic. Not as bad as some, he was able to keep his family, but he was gone A LOT. He coached my hockey team for a few years, and he made it to every one of my sister's dance competitions, but he was gone an awful lot working.
At the time, that is what I considered "normal" so I didn't even really think about it. But now that I am a parent, I see what he was trying to do. He was trying to make sure that we had every advantage that he didn't growing up.
I was bitter about it when I was in my teens...but when I got to be an adult, I realized that it really wasn't as bad as I thought it was.
Am I the same as my father?
Hell no...at least not as a father...I would like to think that I am just a bit better...but as an employee, I am the same. The difference is that I come home at 5, play with the kids, and when they and the wife go to bed, I go back on the computer for a few more hours of work.
It IS different, but it is also the same.
Three sides of the same coin. Excellent. I think we have proven that this can't be reduced to a simple, formulaic example.
"Kermit, you've gone a bit too far in suggesting that a Dad who works a lot can't give an example."
Margaret, you cut me to the quick. I never meant to imply such. I was merely trying to see the equation from the POV of the child. That is what this is really about, is it not?
At least 2 people got it.
When you see a guy in a new Mercedes, do you ever say "There goes a guy that works harder than me."? Nope.
The guy in the story is pissing off his boss by his cavalier attitude toward work. The guy will pass that shitty attitude off to his kids and they will become liberals hating the "man" just like their under performing dad.
Life is tough, there are a few ways you can teach your kids this and busting your ass so they have a better life than you had is a tried and true method.
I worked with my dad on nights and weekends so I skipped that rebellious stage of the teens. I always knew that getting up at 5:30 AM some mornings and getting home at 11:00 PM or later some nights was his way of taking care of his responsibilities. Can you imagine how important family must be if your dad is wokring that hard to keep it going? Pretty damned important to lazy teenager that hated to get up before 10:00.
People that got pissed off that daddy was gone too much providing them with sneakers and food piss me off. You are just showing your ignorance of the real world.
You will always have to work harder than the next guy to get ahead. The sooner your kids get this, the happier they will be in life.
I can't comment on the POV of a child, except to say that as both LL and Brent suggest, that what a child wants/needs varies a lot over time. And the amount of weight that a child's desires have needs to be balanced with a dose of adult experience and responsibility.
Would I have liked it if my Dad had stayed home a lot and played with me when I was little? Sure. I probably would have loved it if he never worked at all, unless we starved to death. But he knew better and he made his choices a life lesson, that Dads have to go to work to earn money to support themselves and their families.
As people grow up and become parents themselves, they may try to do things differently, but in the end, unless their parents were complete and utter failures, drug addicts, felons etc., they usually end up understanding the choices that their Parents made, even if they didn't totally agree with them. Sometimes they even come to understand the failure, because none of these choices are easy. The only thing that's hard to respect at the end of the day is selfishness. We expect people to put their childrens' interests first, at least at critical moments. If they always put themselves first, then we would judge them to be bad parents and probably bad people too.
We are fortunate to be living at a time and in a place when 80+ hours of physically demanding work is not required for most people. Rather than coming home, gobbling up dinner and falling into bed, we have enough spare cycles from our middle class jobs to do things like get into fights on blogs. And spend more time with the family. A lot of our Dads never had that. If you had told them when they were in their 20s and 30s that if it had been 20-30 years in the future, that they'd have plenty of time after work and they'd spend it arguing pasionately in writing with total strangers, they'd probably tell you you were insane.
I read the story that Tracy posted below and I thought the gentleman who worked 60-80 hours per week was a complete PUSSY! I have much more respect for the guy that only works 40 hours and gives a shit about his family. Obviously, we don't know the whole situation, but if 40-hour guy is passed over for a promotion because he gives a shit about his family, I hope the company folds. Promotions should be given to people that contribute to the organization. So you worked 80 hours this week? BFD. Show me how you contributed 80 hours of productivity and maybe I'll give a shit. At least in my experience, the losers that work 80 hours a week are 1) Too stupid and unproductive to accomplish their work in the usual 40 hours; 2) Pussies who want to kiss ass to the higher-ups by patting themselves on the back for how many hours they work; 3) Married to a spouse they can't stand and don't want to go home.
I think the whole stereotype of the male being the sole "breadwinner" and "providing for his family" by working all the time and never being home is left over from our days as an agricultural society. In those days, you really did have to work 15 hour days to survive. Thankfully, people realized how much that lifestyle sucks and we've figured out ways to progress and not live like that any more.
I can see that our varied backgrounds and upbringings has a huge affect on how we view this story.
I came from a middle class family and my dad worked very hard to provide for his family, ditto both of my grandfathers. I took away from this that 40 hours a week was the bare minimum required to just stay afloat. You had to do more to get ahead.
I see that many people here are doing just fine with 40 hours, so I guess the Democrats are wrong about any wage issues.
With the constant conflict the guy in the article was having with his boss, most likely the owner of the company, I'd suggest that he quit and find a nice government job. It has been my experience that bosses don't bitch about your hours when you're a performer. They tend to only bitch when you're not cutting it.
I also don't know anyone that is really successful that works 8-5 M-F. But maybe they have happy kids that will grow up expecting life to be easy. Time will tell.
Tracy, I also don't know anyone that is really successful that works 8-5 M-F. indicates that maybe, just maybe the issue here is defining "success".
I would suggest that it's on a sliding scale, with a few firm, non-negotiable aspects.
I suppose that depends on your definition of success. What does being successful mean to you. Happiness and contentment would seem to me to be a sign of success. Being respected by peers for your skills would be another sign. A big bank account can certainly be a sign of success as well.
"I took away from this that 40 hours a week was the bare minimum required to just stay afloat. You had to do more to get ahead."
Maybe not everyone wants to "get ahead". There are more workers than there are executive positions or heads of business. Some people are going to have to be worker bees, and some people like doing that. Not everyone wants the stress, responsibility, and extra hours that being a senior VP, CEO, or small business owner.
er, "that being a senior VP, CEO, or small business owner requires."
Maybe not everyone wants to "get ahead".
While I am 100% sure that this is true, I will never be able to wrap my mind around the concept for three reasons.
1. That's just who I am, nothing will change that.
2. People that don't want to "get ahead" risk falling behind. Just look at the complete mess the ARM's created. The people that got into those were paying the bare minimum and now can't afford the increases.
Doing the bare minimum to survive leaves you exposed so that small changes can have huge effects. Too many people living this way leads to liberalism. You read the stories everyday about family XYZ that was just getting buy and then something happened and now they are completely screwed. The story always ends with a prescription for a government program to help people who are just getting by.
The more we encourage people to do the bare minimum, the more they will rely on government for their safety net.
3. Just getting by is a moving target. You maybe fine one day and then totally screwed the next. By trying to get ahead, you at least have a better chance of maintaining where you are.
In my new attempt to do the bare minimum and just get by, I am cancelling all future Anti-Strib parties!
My checkbook will be happier, but I'd guess that the mood of the MOB may not be.
Any other suggestions on how to be happy by just "getting by"?
I'm warming up for a real Jack Nicholson style rant!
That's not good for your blood pressure. Do you want to be a successful corpse?
I just got the conversation rolling.
"I also don't know anyone that is really successful that works 8-5 M-F."
Are you serious? What's your definition of success? It's my goal in life to one day work 9-5, M-F and make obscene cash. I admire those people the most. Those people are WAY smarter than us dumbasses who work too much.
Don't you feel like you're the one who is only "getting by" because you're constantly trying to "get ahead?" I'm all for never being satisfied and never being 100% percent content, but it gets ridiculous after a while. Then again, I'm still trying to decide where I'm at in my life life, ridiculous or near content.......
I don't have a lot of sympathy for the 40 hour a week guy. Nor do I for the boss. If the boss needs someone who is there more than 40 hours, then he should hire an additional employee and make sure that Mr. 40 hours isn't being overpaid. If Mr. 40 hours job description is based on accomplishment rather than just sitting somewhere for 40 hours and he no longer fulfills the description then he should be let go. It's great to have ambitious employees who will put in extra time for special projects and deadlines (with no additional incentive) but if you make it a regular practice, it's not healthy for the company in the long run because people will feel exploited and the best and most ambitious will leave. It's different for people working on comission, or with billable hours obviously but then, it should be easier to hire another employee if one guy's productivity is going down, he's getting paid a lot less.
If Mr. 40 hours can't make it on a 40 hour a week basis, then maybe what he needs is a flex-time job that will allow him to work more hours or be more productive but at his choosing.
It seems to me what people want is part time work for full time pay and bennies. Nice work if you can get it, but the company owner has a responsibility to stay afloat--to the rest of the employees, to the investors, etc, unless he's running a non-profit, then his responsibility is to the board and if they are OK with paying people on some other basis than the hours they put in or accomplishment well, then OK.
Margaret, have I told you lately that I love you?
Damn, I love smart women. That's why I've been married for 25 years.
Personally, I think that what Tracy said in his original post is pretty right on. Now we can quibble over whether the right approach to breadwinning is 40 or 80 hours per week (I choose the former), but when we tell a man it's not his job to provide the basic for his family, we might as well do a Bobbitt on him.
Then again, I'm still trying to decide where I'm at in my life, ridiculous or near content...
I hear ya barking...and based on the phone call I got from a head hunter yesterday...I think I'm heading for continuing being ridiculous...
And Margaret...if you ever get tired of David......
Tracy - the point that YOU are not getting is that it is a CHOICE. If people choose to put work ahead of family or family ahead of work, what business is it of your or mine? I am responsible for the choices that I make for myself and my family. I choose to live a less affleunt lifestyle because my son needs me right now, that is MY CHOICE. If you and the LME choose to be DINKS that is YOUR CHOICE.
LL
But I thought choice was a code word for killing babies?
Brent,
Don't belive the headhunters they lie.
You keep that minimum wage job and play it safe man!
Whow L.L._ go easy on Tracy, how do we know he's not just sterile? Or has been going through may years of fertility treatments
??? .....Perhaps he lashes out out of envy. On the other case he could just be insensitve or the Scotch has killed his swimmers.
- A NON Y MOUSE
LL...I also think it has a lot to do with how the family functions as a whole.
If I thought for one second that my boys NEEDED me around more than I am, I would be there. But, to this date, I have a GREAT relationship with them. MUCH better than anything I EVER had with my father growing up.
In the future, if #1 or #2 start having issues, and I need to start putting some foot to ass, believe you me, I'm going to be there to do it.
I think I have struck a pretty good balance with my boys...but in the end, it isn't MY opinion that will count...it's going to be the kids and they way that they turn out. THEY will be the judges of me and my parenting skills.
The only thing that I can hope for is that the balance I feel I have stuck is close to the balance that they need/want.
A NON Y MOUSE...for that matter, how do we really know that Tracy is a guy?
I mean, there is NO question that the LME is a woman...and a FINE looking woman at that...but Tracy?
Pink shirts...
White wine spritzers...
Dancing with the stars...
I'm not saying...I'm just saying...
Not that there's anything wrong with that......
Good point about the needs issue, Brent. Not every kid is low maintenance. Try coping with a 200 lb 14 year old with anger issues. "RING...Hi Honey, how's it going? I'll be home around 8:00."
Don't believe the headhunters they lie.
Yeah...almost as bad as consultants!
My swimmers are just fine!
As for being a woman, Brent prances around in public in spandex and has admitted that his kids look too good and are way too smart to have come from his pathetic excuse for a gene pool.
I don't know A Non Y so I'll have to assume some sort of weird suburban baby envy has taken hold there. I'm sure that someone here can send you a dirty diaper and some baby puke so you can get your fix.
And I don't watch Dancing with the Stars damm it! It you suburbanites that live your "lives" throught the idiot box.
I don't prance...I BIKE in spandex...get it right.
And I'm not sure that someone who dresses up like Tattoo from Fantasy Island, in the dead of winter, has ANY grounds to criticize what OTHERS wear.
Wearing white after September. (shaking head) Someone is going to get banned from the Country Club.
Kermie and Brent: AWWWW!
Tracy: Somebody needs a time out!
Heh, she called me Kermie.
Tracy, you know me more than you know.
I'm also a DINK and can get my baby fix any time
I want to see my friends 2, 3, 4. and 7 yr old.
And I live in with in walking distance to downtown.
-just giving U a friendly raz.
lol,
A NON Y Mouse
Commenting by HaloScan
