Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    Would I stay home?  No way.  I know where my skill set lies...

    with each of my four kids, I have to admit that I failed
    miserably at breast feeding...  I suppose I could have
    stayed home and run the kid over to my wife's place of
    work, each time s/he seemed hungry, though.     ;-)

I'm unmarried, and have no children, so I speaking purely from dealing with
other people's kids.

I'm not sure that I would go for a full-time home-maker position, but if
possible I'd would be interested in a part-time position.  In such a situation
each partner would work a partial week, and spend the remaining portion taking
care of the children.  This would probably be even harder to negotiate with
the employer!

Rich

I find the title of this topic rather puzzling.  Just what is a "Father mom"?
Or, Jerry, do you believe that the task of caring for a child is necessarily
a mother's role, and that by a father staying home to care for his child, that
he is taking on someone else's role?

Digital does have "parental leave", which theoretically would allow a father
to take time off, unpaid, to care for his newborn child(ren), and have the
same guarantees when returning to his job as would a mother.  Pragmatically,
I don't imagine this would be invoked often, as there would be strong
pressures against men who tried it.

					Steve

    I think Steve understood that.  I think Steve was making a point.
    A good one, too.
    					- Vick

Vick is correct.

Be that as it may, I know of one couple where they decided that the father
would stay home with the children and the mother would continue her career.
It seems to have worked out well for them so far.  But I only know of one...

The whole issue may soon become moot, though, as the number of families which
has any sort of full-time caregiver parent, mother or father, is falling
rapidly.  The two-career couple is now the norm.

			Steve

    How about if you re-title this to Mr. Mom or something like that.

    RE: .4-.6 I'm sure Steve had a point but I missed it. Sorry.
    
    RE: .0 When my son was little and the person taking care of him while
    my wife and I worked had to stop we discussed this. I wanted to stay
    home and let my wife continue working. We were making about the same
    money but I thought her prospects were better. I lost and my wife
    stayed home. In hindsight she probably did a better job then I could
    have at that time. I think I could do a better job now then I could
    have then. I think I was also right about her work prospects too. I
    was working for DEC. :-)
    
    			Alfred

My point was that names like "Father Mom" and "Mr. Mom" are meaningless, 
except in the context of our society's prejudices against men as capable
caregivers.   "Mom" is "female parent".  It makes no sense to say "Mr. Mom",
or at least, it ought not to make any sense.  That it does to many is an
indication of our biases against men as parents.

			Steve

    This has always been our plan. My wife has already been a stay-at-home
    mom, in her first marriage. In advance of our wedding, we agreed that I
    would be the primary child-care provider. Since then we've worked to
    make my not working (for a wage) feasible, by keeping our cost of
    living low and saving money.
    
    - Hoyt

>My point was that names like "Father Mom" and "Mr. Mom" are meaningless, 
>except in the context of our society's prejudices against men as capable
>caregivers.

 Malarkey. They are far from meaningless, except to the hypersensitive. The role
of mother is a very special one, and pretending it is not displays either
a lack of understanding that this is true or the presence of underlying
prejudice.

 This is not to say that men cannot be capable caregivers; far from it! Mom
has been more or less synonymous for primary caregiver and nurturer since
time immemorial, and for good reason. Women have certainly been the primary
caregivers and nurturers in the vast majority of cases traditionally. There's
no reason to ignore or deny that out of a sense of despair stemming from 
society's unwillingness to accept men on an equal footing with regards to child 
rearing.

 There is alot of meaning in a term like Father Mom or Mr. Mom when one chooses
to suppress one's personal biases.

 The Doctah

    Seems to me that the argument below the level of "words" is
    whether a man can give the same kind of nurturing that a 
    woman can give.  
    
    (My reply about breast feeding points out one item of
    nurturing where men simply can't do it, but it's only one item,
    so I am not about to throw out a man's nurturing ability
    simply because he can't lactate.  There are plenty of 
    other things that a baby/child/teen needs in the way of 
    nurturing besides human milk.)
    
    So, the PC thing to say these days is that men and women can
    do the nurturing equally well (with the exception of the 
    nurturing that goes on while the foetus is in the womb and
    the breast feeding that goes on after birth).
    
    Her is what I think Robert Bly would say.  You can dump on it, 
    if you like.  I won't take offense or defend it.
    
    I think Bly would say that "nurturing is needed from both the
    man and the woman for the baby/child/teen to grow up healthy,
    but the man and woman give the child different things when 
    they are nurturing.  In the most general sense, both the man
    and the woman fill a need that the b/c/t has, but in addition,
    they each supply the b/c/t with a sense that there is a caring
    person of a specific gender who is filling this need."  Bly talks
    about "cellular" communication, as if the cells of the b/c/t
    are getting the message, not just the "mind" of the b/c/t.
    
    Think about it.  The baby wakes in the middle of the night,
    crying.  A parent gets up, checks diaper, the time since last
    feeding, general appearance/condition, the "tone" of the crying,
    etc, and decides to simply hold the baby, rock it, hum a
    lullabye, say some soothing words, until the baby calms down
    and goes back to sleep.   Does it matter which parent does this?
    Does it matter if the same parent always does it?
    
    The baby surely senses totally different things if that person
    is male or female.  First, male and female bodies don't smell
    the same.  They have different degrees and textures of hair
    on arms, chests, necks, faces, heads, etc.  Their voices are very 
    different, resonances occur in different places.  (This baby 
    has its whole body lying along the upper body of the parent.)  
    The parent's body may be bare, or covered.  If covered, the feel
    of the night clothes is probably very different.  If there is
    a light on, the baby sees the different look of the male or
    female caretaker.   The male and female care-takers may say
    different words, and sing different songs.  And the differences
    are not simply that they are different people, but that they
    have typical female or male characteristics, which are easily
    sensed by the baby, and NOT EASILY IGNORED by the baby.
    
    The baby gets the same general soothing message from either
    nurturer, but the details are very different.  After awhile,
    the baby understands that there are two different care-givers
    and s/he associates one set of sensations with one and a 
    different set of sensations with the other.
    
    I don't think you can deny that that happens for the  baby.
    The question for MENNOTES is
    
          Is this difference important?
    
    And if it is important, do we judge the difference to be good
    or bad?  That is, do we want the baby (whether boy or girl)
    to feel the difference between the sensations from one parent 
    and the sensations from the other parent? 
    
    And if we think those different sensations are good, what other 
    qualities would we like the baby to associate with that difference?
    
    And as the baby/child/teen progresses through the years,
    what other differences do we think the b/c/t will get in the
    way of nurturing its growth (physical, psychological, mental,
    etc) from each parent, and how do we judge the worth of those
    differences?  Are there differences that we would like to 
    avoid and are there differences that we would like to keep,
    even enhance?
    
    Bly says it is vitally important for the baby to resonate to
    those female cellular vibrations while it is in the womb.
    It dies if it can't "tune" to the mother.  And the same 
    for the months following birth, at least with respect to 
    breast feeding in our culture, and in all respects in more
    primitive cultures where babies are raised to initiation
    age by the women.
    
    Well, we don't have initiations in our culture.  And the PC
    thing to do these days is to erase the differences that 
    would require an initiation.  Mom and dad both cook, clean,
    teach, guide, scold, praise, earn money outside the house,
    etc.  So what qualities would we like b/c/t to associate
    with facial hair, with voice quality, with particular odors,
    body shape, etc?
    
    *****************
    
    I painted a picture of an infant crying in the night.
    
    You can paint your own picture of a five year old who has
    fallen from a bike and is crying over a scraped elbow.
    Or a ten year old who has returned home with a failing
    grade on a report card.  Or a thirteen year old who has
    a crush on someone and has been cruelly rejected.  Or a
    sixteen year old with a speeding ticket.
    
    Wil
    

    I guess it's all up to the individual families.  Some are brought up in
    the Athenian way and others the Spartan way.  The diversity in family
    structures ensures the diversity in the individuals.  And we need all of
    them, Spartans and Athenians.
    
    Eugene  
    
    
                                                 

 re: Wil

 Excellent and thought provoking note!

>    So, the PC thing to say these days is that men and women can
>    do the nurturing equally well

 I'm not convinced that this concept is based on mere political correctness.
You seem to be questioning whether this is true here. Do you really think that 
men are inferior nurturers? On what do you base this conclusion? Have you never
met a "real man" that was also a good nurturer?

 You raise an interesting and important point that each parent contributes
something subtly different in nurturing the child, and that it is far better
to have two loving parents than it is to have one because the two parents
tend to complement each other and provide more varied and complete nurturing.

>          Is this difference important?

 I do think that the difference is important. To me it is a matter similar to
listening to a stereo recording versus listening to one channel of a stereo
recording or a mono recording. Many single parents are like listening to one
half of a stereo recording. They offer all of the nurturing and experiences
they would if they were in a dual parental situation, and a little of what
the other parent would offer. Some parents are like a mono recording; they offer
the nurturing and experiences they would have if they were in a dual parental
situation, plus most of what the other parent would offer. That's about as good
as you can get from a single parent. But when the other parent is there, you
have stereo, an entire new dimension in caregiving. By obtaining the stereo
separation, we add definition to the same experiences and nurturing that the
mono parent brings, and more. While one parent can be very good, adding a second
parent opens up so much more potential.

>And the PC thing to do these days is to erase the differences 

 In many ways this is true. In an attempt to bring about fundamental fairness,
many have simply ignored the subtleties of the male and female difference
and declared that men and women are equivalent. Well, roughly speaking, this
is true enough. But when we get beyond the point of "men are good at only
these things" and "women are good at these things but not at those things," 
we get to a point where the granularity is such that we can recognize and
indeed celebrate the subtle differences between men and women. Eventually we
will reach a point where the differences are not used as barriers, but instead
are used as enhancements of the human experience. And the same will ring true
for cultural differences (one would hope.) Our children will be far better off
for it.

 The Doctah

    I'm a man and I have the main responsibility for our 3 kids. I'm
    convinced that at least 90% of the "differences" in the attitudes and
    capabilities of men and women with respect to caring for kids is
    cultural.
    
    I simply don't relate in the least to most of the sincere but
    self-absorbed ruminations men seem to make on this subject.
    
    To me, the issues are practical, and non-sex specific: Do you like the
    style of work that requires a lot of simultaneous "multi-tasking"? Do
    you like being self-employed? Can you handle unstructured situations?
    Do you find something to enjoy, or at least to be interested in,
    in almost anything you do? Do you find delight in guiding, teaching,
    including? Do you define yourself primarily by your values or by your
    place in society?
    
    Depending on your answers, you may be a good candidate for involved
    parenthood. Plenty of women stuck at home would be happier (and so
    would their kids) if they weren't there. They know that, and have
    fought for the chance to live their lives differently. Men haven't.
    They either throw up their hands and say they hate the idea, or they
    wistfully talk about it but don't do anything about it. (I by no means
    discount the two-earner issue, as I am fully aware of the decline in
    the living standard of the last 15 years that requires it - but that's
    another [semi-]topic.)
    
    I only urge those who are interested to think hard, plan, and take a
    chance.  I'll give a concrete example of how perceived barriers are not
    always as insurmountable as they seem.  After the birth of our second
    child, I took the 2-month paternal leave, *and* arranged to come back
    part-time.  After the birth of our third, at my first "one-on-one" with
    my new boss, I told him that I would be quitting, because part-timers
    could not take parental leave, and because I didn't want to settle for
    a mere 2 months at home with the new one (I had been home 1 1/2 years
    with number one, before I came to work for DEC). My bosses went to work
    and got me a year's leave, then I came back part-time again. Situations
    (and degrees of enlightenment) vary. The point is, I'm good at what I
    do, the company needed me, I already had my priorities straight, and
    they accomodated me.
    
    Kit
    

RE:603.16
    
    >>    So, the PC thing to say these days is that men and women can
>>    do the nurturing equally well
>
> I'm not convinced that this concept is based on mere political correctness.
>You seem to be questioning whether this is true here. Do you really think that 
>men are inferior nurturers? On what do you base this conclusion? Have you never
>met a "real man" that was also a good nurturer?

I am not questioning whether men and women can do the
nurturing equally well, but rather whether it is the "same", in 
the sense of interchangeable.  I think it is a question of detail,
of granularity as you called it.

If I can go back to the example I gave of a parent rocking a baby
back to sleep in the middle of the night, I would say that either
parent can do that equally well.  The baby needed (we assume) some
kind of assurance that it was being cared for, it needed to be held,
crooned to, fussed over, whatever, and a "real man" can certainly
do that to the baby's satisfaction.  So can a "real woman".

But along with getting the satisfaction that the baby needed,
s/he got a lot of other messages about the parent that did the 
nurturing.  I agree with you it is like stereo.  Either channel
delivers enough to get by, but two channels deliver a much 
richer message, because they aren't the same.
                ----------------------------
And part of what the baby needs over the long run is to be able
to hear and appreciate both channels, as the INDIVIDUALS that they
are and as the MODELS that they are for maleness and femaleness.
The baby is going to grow up and have to be either a male or a
female and have to relate to males and females.  The baby does 
not grow up to be a "person."

The baby's body and the society in which it grows up are both
going to conspire to make it either male or female.  The parent's
job is to help it grow into the best man or woman that they can.
If the man does not like being a man and the woman does not like
being a woman, if they insist that they are "persons" and if they
work to make the baby grow up into the best non-genderized "person" 
that they can, I think they are doing an incredible disservice to 
the child.

(Don't make the assumption that I think there are specific tasks
for men or women.  Women can be CEOs if they want to and men can 
run the home if they want to.)

That takes me back to the same questions:  As a man, what do I
want my kids (both male and female kids) to know about what it
is to be a man?  And what is it about being a man that only I 
or another man can model?  

(There's a perfect parallel here regarding how my kids learn 
about what it is to be a woman, but only a woman can MODEL it.)

Finding the answer to those questions is very hard work.  Fifty
years ago, everyone knew the answers.  Today, everything is up in
the air and we are trying to find what feels right for ourselves.
"The women's movement" and the "men's movement" are wrestling
with those questions.

We have Rambo, Robert Bly, Mister Rogers, our fathers, mentors,
etc, all modeling it for us.

Wil

    re: .18  
    
    >  The baby does not grow up to be a "person." 
    
    I disagree. First and foremost, the baby is a person. Maleness and
    femaleness are attributes of the person, as are height, temperament,
    intelligence, etc, etc.  
    
    I submit that almost all attributes attached to maleness or femaleness
    are culturally derived (other than the obvious physiological). Over the
    centuries many of these have been shed, and look entirely foolish when
    we read of them, but many more remain.  It's not a question of not
    liking being a male, or not liking being a female, but of speciously
    defining sex by attributes that have nothing to do with sex.
    
    Kit                

>I am not questioning whether men and women can do the
>nurturing equally well, but rather whether it is the "same", in 
>the sense of interchangeable.

 You threw me with the "PC" and "equally well" part there. Thanks for 
clarifying.

 The Doctah

    This has been a good discussion - and I wanted to share with you what
    my cousin and wife are doing.
    
    They have 2 year old triplets - and guess who has stayed home with them
    thes past 2 years?  Yep, Dad.  Mom went back to work after 6 weeks, and
    has been working full time since.  Dad has been at home, actually since
    before the birth, since it was a rather difficult pregnancy, and was
    taking care of mom during that time.  
    
    One of the reasons, for this was because mom is a corporate lawyer (not
    with DEC) and frankly, makes more money.  This arrangement has worked
    out very well, everyone is happy and fine.  The only people who were
    upset were Dad's parents.  They were shocked that the roles were
    "reversed" like this and couldn't understand why there son could "give
    up his career" and why his wife "could leave her children like that."  
    
    I personally, think children should be with a parent (if at all
    possible) and NOT placed in day care!  (Thats a REAL HOT issue with
    me! Maybe should go into another note.)  
    
    Becky

It was good to see this note; our third child is due in Novemeber and we've
come to the conclusion that daycare just isn't 'it' anymore (especically
with shows like Prime Time). In anycase, we've been discussing that a parent
will suspend their career for at least a few years, and that's dad. In all
honesty, I believe he's better at it that I am when dealing with coming up
with activities, etc to keep the kids amused, stimulated, etc. When they
were just little babies, I seemed to be more in tune with them; the four
year old has more fun playing with dad and that's that. For the kids, I think
it's best for both parents to contribute where they can. He does worry that
when he goes back to work outside-home, people might wonder why he choose
to stay home (people still expect mom to do that); I hope it won't be
a problem. I think my 2 daughters are lucky their dad doesn't let that stop
him from doing what he feels is right.

julie

That is my plan - luckly I've been able to pump milk in the past (previous
baby)while at work - it is dificult but worth it  - thanks for your reply