Time has made the online version of its "The Case for Staying Home" story available only to subscribers, so I can't weigh in until I drag myself to the newsstand and buy the damn magazine. But it did make available an accompanying essay titled "Men Want Change, Too."
It was as frustrating a piece to read as any I have seen in quite some time. The thrust is that the author (journalist Michael Elliott), a product of the anything-is-possible late 1970s, is trying to figure why he didn't have the all-roses, egalitarian parenting experience that seemed promised by the era of Alan Alda and Marlo Thomas. Instead, his wife stayed home and he "allowed work to take over my life."
Why men never become equal partners is childrearing is an excellent question, one we struggle with over here on a daily basis. And Elliott seems to have ignored all the obvious culprits. The worst problem is clearly that despite two decades of efforts to make work more family-friendly, it's less family friendly than ever. Innovative proposals like the Four-Thirds Solution and Joan Williams' constant push for pro-rated benefits for part-time work have gotten nowhere, despite their promise of giving guys like Elliott what they claim they missed: the opportunity to have work and family.
Elliott asks "Why did we get it so wrong?" His answer: labor-saving household technologies stopped being introduced in the 1960s. This is as right-field an argument against men staying home as I have ever heard. Did he assume that technology would allow more parenting in less time, as if there was a childrearing equivalent to the large-load washing machine? (Of course, the idea that no labor saving devices have been introduced since the 1960s is a bit strange, too. I have a microwave oven -- perfect for chicken nuggets -- an a TV/VCR/DVD hooked up to cable TV. Parents who have never ever used that device to grab a moment of calm are much, much better people than I.)
And then he complains that the unit cost of information is dropping, meaning it is easy to bring work into the home, extending the hours that work life can reach us. But this has been a boon to the numbers of at-home fathers, making it easier to be a freelance computer programmer, consultant or journalist. But until we realize that the new technological realities mean nothing without a work culture that pays more than lip service to work-family balance, we're likely to keep churning out more men like Elliott, who never realize exactly how their youthful idealism slipped away.
He ends by writing "Thirty years ago, we dreamed of something different. Pity it didn't work out." I feel bad for Elliott. He didn't get what I have. And he doesn't seem to understand why.
It was as frustrating a piece to read as any I have seen in quite some time. The thrust is that the author (journalist Michael Elliott), a product of the anything-is-possible late 1970s, is trying to figure why he didn't have the all-roses, egalitarian parenting experience that seemed promised by the era of Alan Alda and Marlo Thomas. Instead, his wife stayed home and he "allowed work to take over my life."
Why men never become equal partners is childrearing is an excellent question, one we struggle with over here on a daily basis. And Elliott seems to have ignored all the obvious culprits. The worst problem is clearly that despite two decades of efforts to make work more family-friendly, it's less family friendly than ever. Innovative proposals like the Four-Thirds Solution and Joan Williams' constant push for pro-rated benefits for part-time work have gotten nowhere, despite their promise of giving guys like Elliott what they claim they missed: the opportunity to have work and family.
Elliott asks "Why did we get it so wrong?" His answer: labor-saving household technologies stopped being introduced in the 1960s. This is as right-field an argument against men staying home as I have ever heard. Did he assume that technology would allow more parenting in less time, as if there was a childrearing equivalent to the large-load washing machine? (Of course, the idea that no labor saving devices have been introduced since the 1960s is a bit strange, too. I have a microwave oven -- perfect for chicken nuggets -- an a TV/VCR/DVD hooked up to cable TV. Parents who have never ever used that device to grab a moment of calm are much, much better people than I.)
And then he complains that the unit cost of information is dropping, meaning it is easy to bring work into the home, extending the hours that work life can reach us. But this has been a boon to the numbers of at-home fathers, making it easier to be a freelance computer programmer, consultant or journalist. But until we realize that the new technological realities mean nothing without a work culture that pays more than lip service to work-family balance, we're likely to keep churning out more men like Elliott, who never realize exactly how their youthful idealism slipped away.
He ends by writing "Thirty years ago, we dreamed of something different. Pity it didn't work out." I feel bad for Elliott. He didn't get what I have. And he doesn't seem to understand why.
posted by Rebel Dad at
9:01 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home