NationStates Jolt Archive

Not George Will this time, but it seems to be my week for running into people who still dwell in caves.

Fathers need to be good husbands first

The response to my recent "I can't wait for the 1960s to be over and done with!" series has been overwhelming, so here's another installment.

A fellow recently told me he didn't want to be the sort of father his father had been.

"And what sort of father was that?" I asked.

"You know," he said. "Remote. Distant."

"I'll bet he wasn't," I said.

"You bet he wasn't?" he replied, as if I'd just asserted that the world was flat.

"Right. If my experience serves me well, you've just bought into the anti-traditional-male propaganda. I'll just bet that your dad was a responsible guy who worked hard, maybe at more than one job at a time, trying to provide well for his family, which was his first priority, and that when he came home he wanted nothing more than to spend time with your mom, his wife."

He stared at me for several seconds, and then said, "Well, I have to admit, you're absolutely right. That describes my dad to a 't.'"

"Then you should honor your dad by emulating his example," I proposed.

Forty-plus years ago, men (I am aware I'm speaking in general, but nonetheless accurate, terms) understood that one became a good father by devoting oneself to being the best husband one could be. Those men came home from work not to get down on the floor and play with their children, but to catch up with their wives. Today's men (and I speak in general terms again) are trying so hard to be good dads that they've all but forgotten how to be husbands. (In all fairness, however, today's typical wife is acting as if she took a vow on her wedding day that said "I take you to be my husband until children do us part.")

Today's dad tells me that when he comes home, the first thing he does is play with his kids. His rationale is that he hasn't seen them all day. He doesn't stop to think that his wife hasn't seen him all day either. Neither does he realize that his kids, if they knew the difference, would prefer that Mom and Dad spent that time together. They would prefer to be pretty much ignored, left to do their own thing, while Mom and Dad renew their relationship.

Mom says she appreciates that he takes the kids off her hands for a while, but she is suffering her own form of marital amnesia. She doesn't realize that (a) her primary need is for quality time with her husband and (b) the kids can be off both of their hands if they simply insist upon it, as in, "We're spending some Mom and Dad time here."

My theory is that all too many men have bought in and therefore caved in to feminist propaganda to the effect that we're insensitive aggressors who only want to subjugate women and children so they will not hinder the progress of the patriarchy or some such nonsense. In the process of cooperating in this emasculating, a father ends up providing his kids with a second mother of sorts.

The only vestige of masculinity that remains in his fathering is the high-five he frequently gives his kids. But the high-five completes the transformation: He's no longer a truly masculine father, and he's no longer an adult either. He's his kids' best buddy!

The more I think about it, the more convinced I become that the good old days--when dads came home fully prepared, at a word from their wives, to strike terror into their children--were far preferable to the current state of affairs.

Is it too late to bring back the patriarchy?

Family psychologist John Rosemond answers parents' questions on his website at

www.rosemond.com
http://rgj.com/article/20090426/COL22/904260322/1103/COL

Let me be the first to say that this guy sounds like that list of rules for wives from the 1950's (http://www.snopes.com/language/document/goodwife.asp), but it does provide an interesting debate question and one I was thinking about (Now being a dad myself), how involved with their children should fathers be? Is it best to be just the guy bringing home the bacon or be more involved in raising the kids? Ladies, what's your take on the situation?

Seems like that guy wants to bring back the fifties forever, sans the rock & roll, of course.

What I notice almost more than his explicit assumptions and dictates about how a Real Husband should be is his implicit assumptions and dictates about how a Real Wife should be; at home, looking after the kids. Looking after the kids is her job, and God help any "man" (who surely should hand in his balls and wear a frock, the emasculated jessie) who stoops to care about them.

His argument fails when you realize that this is no longer the 1950s, and those social stereotypes no longer apply. The husband is no longer the sole breadwinner. The shape of the family has changed, as it has always done to adapt to changing times. There seems to be this fake history which has stretched the 1950s into one long hot eternal Arcadian summer of the American Dream. It is a myth (just ask a black person).

What I notice almost more than his explicit assumptions and dictates about how a Real Husband should be is his implicit assumptions and dictates about how a Real Wife should be; at home, looking after the kids. Looking after the kids is her job, and God help any "man" (who surely should hand in his balls and wear a frock, the emasculated jessie) who stoops to care about them.

Yeah, I noticed that too - no where in the article does he raise the issue that maybe his wife might also be working and thus the burden of caring for the kids should be shared equally between the two.

He does have a point that it's important for couples to have some time away from the kids - and similarly that kids can probably quite happily play by themselves without parental input - but reverted to traditional 60's gender roles is hardly the solution to that one.

What I notice almost more than his explicit assumptions and dictates about how a Real Husband should be is his implicit assumptions and dictates about how a Real Wife should be; at home, looking after the kids. Looking after the kids is her job, and God help any "man" (who surely should hand in his balls and wear a frock, the emasculated jessie) who stoops to care about them.
I know what you mean. It just filled me with joy to read this today too given that I spent the whole day holding my sick son who decided that the only way to be comfortable enough to sleep (poor little guy) is on his father's shoulder.

That guy is so full of shit....

I've had a bad father, and I want my kids to have a good one.
Why should dads not play with their kids? Why would they not want to be involved in them growing up? Because that guy says so???

And no, a guy who goes to work and brings home the money, and then sits in the corner all evening is NOT a dad.

Whups, was editing whilst you two were posting, and said much the same thing.

Oddly enough, I had been wondering recently what the world would be like if men could get pregnant. Never mind the rather drastic anatomical changes necessary for that, but it was interesting to consider what would happen to gender relations in that case. If God looked down upon the Earth and said "Hey, I done screwed up. Time to install the patch, come on H. sapiens 1.3".

There seems to be this fake history which has stretched the 1950s into one long hot eternal Arcadian summer of the American Dream. It is a myth (just ask a black person).

Now it's unlikely, but he would be consistent when his next column deals with the many advantages of segregation. He just seems to be that kind of guy, which stinks.

:gas:

Whups, was editing whilst you two were posting, and said much the same thing.

Oddly enough, I had been wondering recently what the world would be like if men could get pregnant. Never mind the rather drastic anatomical changes necessary for that, but it was interesting to consider what would happen to gender relations in that case. If God looked down upon the Earth and said "Hey, I done screwed up. Time to install the patch, come on H. sapiens 1.3".
It'd make my wife happy if nothing else. All during her pregnancy she kept complaining how it wasn't fair that men don't have to go through the same experience. :D

Not George Will this time, but it seems to be my week for running into people who still dwell in caves.


http://rgj.com/article/20090426/COL22/904260322/1103/COL

Let me be the first to say that this guy sounds like that list of rules for wives from the 1950's (http://www.snopes.com/language/document/goodwife.asp), but it does provide an interesting debate question and one I was thinking about (Now being a dad myself), how involved with their children should fathers be? Is it best to be just the guy bringing home the bacon or be more involved in raising the kids? Ladies, what's your take on the situation?

Your debate topic is off because it isn't the point - that being, husbands and wives don't have enough alone time, usually because of forced attempts to spend time with children. It only seems the point is a disagreement with fathers spending time with children because (a) you didn't like his argument and just read it spottily and (b) the guy totally fucks up causation.

It is a myth (just ask a black person).
Like black people need any prodding to wax racist.

Your debate topic is off because it isn't the point - that being, husbands and wives don't have enough alone time, usually because of forced attempts to spend time with children. It only seems the point is a disagreement with fathers spending time with children because (a) you didn't like his argument and just read it spottily and (b) the guy totally fucks up causation.
Re-read the article and no... I don't see it that way given that his point is all about how men should be manly men and NOT play with their kids. Yes, he is saying that men should maintain their relationship with their wives, but he says this is to keep them masculin and not provide, in his words, a second mother, to the kids by getting on the floor and playing with them.

Jeez, so I'm not masculine now because I make time to play with my kids AND boink my wife (not at the same time of course)?

I wonder how horrified he would be to discover that I do most of the cooking and not just on an outdoor grill. :tongue:

Jeez, so I'm not masculine now because I make time to play with my kids AND boink my wife (not at the same time of course)?

I wonder how horrified he would be to discover that I do most of the cooking and not just on an outdoor grill. :tongue:

Don't you know you're supposed to hunt for your food with nothing but a spear and shield? For all these violations, LG, I must ask you to hand in your man card.

Don't you know you're supposed to hunt for your food with nothing but a spear and shield? For all these violations, LG, I must ask you to hand in your man card.

I had it laminated to my left testicle. :D

Not George Will this time, but it seems to be my week for running into people who still dwell in caves.


http://rgj.com/article/20090426/COL22/904260322/1103/COL

Let me be the first to say that this guy sounds like that list of rules for wives from the 1950's (http://www.snopes.com/language/document/goodwife.asp), but it does provide an interesting debate question and one I was thinking about (Now being a dad myself), how involved with their children should fathers be? Is it best to be just the guy bringing home the bacon or be more involved in raising the kids? Ladies, what's your take on the situation?
oh thats dr rosemond. he is a very old fashioned advice columnist for parents.

he, like all advice columnists, is sometimes right on and sometimes full of shit.

i found this column to be .......in need of picking out the true bits and ignoring the rest.

but as a newish father, nervun, you should take to heart the idea that you need to keep your relationship with your wife as the most important. it is far too easy to get caught up in parenting and leave your marriage to languish on autopilot.

I had it laminated to my left testicle. :D

Well then, we'll just have to call in the experts who have developed a delaminating process specifically designed for cases such as yours.

Whups, was editing whilst you two were posting, and said much the same thing.

Oddly enough, I had been wondering recently what the world would be like if men could get pregnant. Never mind the rather drastic anatomical changes necessary for that, but it was interesting to consider what would happen to gender relations in that case. If God looked down upon the Earth and said "Hey, I done screwed up. Time to install the patch, come on H. sapiens 1.3".

Now that would make for a rather cool SF story. One of these days, I'll try and write it.

Well then, we'll just have to call in the experts who have developed a delaminating process specifically designed for cases such as yours.

That doesn't involve a cow with a blackbelt does it?

I had it laminated to my left testicle. :D

Well we'll still need it back - testicle included if need be :p

Well we'll still need it back - testicle included if need be :p

You can have my testicle when you pry it from my cold dead fingers. :p

You can have my testicle when you pry it from my cold dead fingers. :p

Now I'm worried that you may regularly walk around holding your testicle in your hands in case people come for it :p

Now I'm worried that you may regularly walk around holding your testicle in your hands in case people come for it :P

Sometimes I just do it for shock value. :)

I had it laminated to my left testicle. :D
I don't want to know what you've got laminated to your right teste.

That doesn't involve a cow with a blackbelt does it?

Yes! If you replace blackbelt with super charged milk cannon...

Why can't both the father and mother play with the kids together? You know...family time...reconnect with the kids and the wife at the same time? Two birds, one stone and all that rot?

Yes! If you replace blackbelt with super charged milk cannon...

*readies some cookies*

oh thats dr rosemond. he is a very old fashioned advice columnist for parents.

he, like all advice columnists, is sometimes right on and sometimes full of shit.

i found this column to be .......in need of picking out the true bits and ignoring the rest.

but as a newish father, nervun, you should take to heart the idea that you need to keep your relationship with your wife as the most important. it is far too easy to get caught up in parenting and leave your marriage to languish on autopilot.

Indeed. Wife first, kids second. Hug/greet your wife. Play with the kids. Put the kids to bed. Play with the wife.

Remember, kids move out when they grow up.

Ay what a balancing act...your relationship with your SO and your relationship with your kids.

I agree that it's unhealthy for a couple to spend all their attention on their kids, and none on each other. It does happen. I don't think enough people starting families (intentionally or otherwise) really plan out how they're going to maintain 'couple' time once the kids are there. It could be because they don't yet realise how much time children suck out of your life. It could be that desire to compensate for all the shitty parenting they received...you know, that guilty feeling that tells you that you should be uber mom/dad even when you're fairly certain you're doing a good job.

I agree that kids are quite often happy to be left to their own (supervised) devices. We overschedule our kids a little too much. There's nothing wrong with them playing with sticks instead of taking ballet lessons.

I don't agree that fathers or mothers should ignore the kids in favour of the relationship with their SO. It makes it sound like parenting is secondary to being in a romantic relationship. I think that's a silly idea. You can parent as a couple, spend time with your kids...your kids can have alone time, you can have alone time, and you can also have couple time. It's about making ALL aspects of your family relationships important.

Jeez, so I'm not masculine now because I make time to play with my kids AND boink my wife

THIS I have to see!
(not at the same time of course)?
You have disappointed me LG.:(

I wonder how horrified he would be to discover that I do most of the cooking and not just on an outdoor grill. :tongue:
:eek2: How unmasculine! You aren't taking care of the family the way you should!

...Neither does he realize that his kids, if they knew the difference, would prefer that Mom and Dad spent that time together. They would prefer to be pretty much ignored, left to do their own thing, while Mom and Dad renew their relationship.

Mom says she appreciates that he takes the kids off her hands for a while, but she is suffering her own form of marital amnesia. She doesn't realize that (a) her primary need is for quality time with her husband and (b) the kids can be off both of their hands if they simply insist upon it, as in, "We're spending some Mom and Dad time here."

Apperantly this jackass has some sort of mystic powers where he knows not only what kids are thinking and would prefer (they just dont know enough to realize this yet!) but he also knows what Moms really want, despite what they say.

Clearly this man is a sorcerer.

My favorite bit:

Mom says she appreciates that he takes the kids off her hands for a while, but she is suffering her own form of marital amnesia. She doesn't realize that (a) her primary need is for quality time with her husband...

"Mom thinks she knows what she wants, but she's a silly stupid woman, so we obviously know better. What's she going to decide next, that she likes having her own job? Ha ha!"

My favorite bit:



"Mom thinks she knows what she wants, but she's a silly stupid woman, so we obviously know better. What's she going to decide next, that she likes having her own job? Ha ha!"

Clearly you are just prepetuating feminist progaganda with the sole intent of emasculating men.

I'll bet you wear jeans, too.