Sunday, July 23, 2006

Troutsky's Comments Merit a Response

Yo ,traditionalist, what about guys raising their kids? To out of the box?

I fully support men taking a greater role in the raising of children. Father's are immensely important. Wee see this in the rate of poverty and crime among children in single mothers, and the single biggest indicator of whether or not a child will attend church is whether or not his father does so. If my ramblings were construed as to mitigate the responsibility of the father I must correct you.

How about communal raising of children and sharing of resposibilities?

I am not a parent, and perhaps this failure makes me a poor judge upon this subject; though I hestitate to note that most parents are not competent to give advice either. A parentss number one responsibility is to one's children. I do not subscribe to Hillary's theory--really Plato's--that "it takes a village". Christians view this world as fallen, and though it is repugnant to do so, must see much of the population of the world is damned. St. Paul reminds us not to be equally yoked with unbelievers. As such, the only acceptable commune would be one comprised of like-minded Christians, but if this is your meaning, I wholly applaud your idea so long as ultimate control resides with the individual parents.

I hate to break it to you but June Cleaver was a mythological creature. In reality, because her life of doing dishes and scrubbing toilets was so unfulfilling, she took to Prozac, affairs and martinis.

I have a mother who does not have affairs, does not take Prozac and does not drink martinis--though she has been known to have a half glass of wine on Thanksgiving, when prodded. Women have been told that they cannot find happiness as a mother, which is odd considering that this may be the most important role in all of mankind. We have all of us, I think, sprung forth from some womb, the owner of which often played a prominent role in influencing us. But happiness is found elsewhere I suppose--in drugs, other men and alcohol of course. Conversely, women may become happy by spurning their calling to becomes mothers and instead opting to enter the corporate workforce. I find it curious that you are, unintentionally I believe, sanctioning the capitalist status quo. Ask the plutocrats whether they wish women to work or stay at home. The answer will be telling.

Provide statistical evidence please that financial considerations do not drive working class citizens into two-earner situations.

I cannot provide such evidence because to suggest such a thing would be idiotic. Many couples are forced into two-earner situations, and families that are not ought to be supremely thankful. My point was not that such things do not exist, but that this situation is not an ideal, and it should be avoided if it is possible to do so. Further, feminism contributes to two-earner situations by compelling women who do not need to work to do so. This also contributes to consumerism, and we observe another curious coincidence in which the feminists have aligned themselves with the patriarchal plutocracy which they are supposed to loathe. Then again, feminists have never been terribly good about adding two and two to make four.

Think about the forces which sustain capitalism (consumerism, constant expansion, growth)and then read some "utopian" socialist projections of family life in a collectivist world.Little House on the Prarie is not really an option anymore despite the Pope, or Dobson or Paglias best efforts.

You note that Little House is not an option while calling for a socialist utopia. The former has a distinct advantage over the latter in that while the utopia has yet to be realized anywhere on the globe at any time in history, Little Houses have actually graced this planet. Chesteron comes to mind, "Men invent new ideals because they dare not attempt old ideals. They look forward with enthusiasm, because they are afraid to look back." I am unaware of what has changed to disallow a "regression" but I have never been sufficiently progressive as to believe in progress.

You know by now that I do not believe in utopia, but I am, in my better moments, a respectful fellow. I challenge you to offer a better solution for the role of father's and mother's in a modern society. Take your time of course, and should you choose to accept, thank you in advance.

1 comment:

troutsky said...

Well argued my friend, sorry for the at-times snarky tone of that particular post, it is to hot and the the world is collapsing further into barbaric violence (all the usual excuses).
Do you support men taking enough responsibility to equally empower women to pursue equally fulfilling lives outside of child rearing? This power issue lies at the heart of the feminism to which I ascribe.

Sure enough,the Church is exactly the type of commune/community/village which provides an alternative model to the nuclear family. As for your use of the word control, I don't have time to get to philosophical but that is a loaded word, I think you libertarians would agree.

while your mother may have been fulfilled with her child raising role and whatever other activities she pursued, i believe it is acknowledged empirically that this was not the general case and that race and class issues were also contingent factors.Women are not so much "being told" they can't find happiness being a mother as much as they are discovering the power issues on their own and rising up.All big questions witha great deal of depth, don't you think?
As for "sanctioning the capitalist status quo", it is hardly a socialist protest to stay home and not work, socialists want women to share equally in all phases of building a just society, in work, the cultural sphere ,the political etc. so men have to concede a little space.

You take exception to the women who are "compelled" to work, who are "victims" of social pressure.Big Bogeyman I think, invented by traditionalists who like their patriarchy just as it is.

i believe Little Houses is also a myth, the reality being dysfunction and repression. I find it more than a little ironic that Christians disavow utopianism. If Love Your Enemy and Do Unto Others are not utopian sentiments I'll quit fishing forever. thanks for the exchange.