I have nothing positive to say about last night’s Colombia-USA friendly. To be fair, the South Americans had their "B" team on the field, but apparently some of the top Yanks were absent as well. The USA played superbly; in all my years of watching them, I’ve never seen the Americans so crisp and fast and focused. Honestly, Colombia was lucky that the score wasn’t worse than 3-0, USA. Still, we had fun, though it was a bit odd to have an international match played in a run-down old football stadium in far-off Fullerton.
Perhaps rightly, I’ve been taking some heat (particularly at Amanda’s place and from her commenters) over this sentence from Tuesday’s post:
I’ll catch some flak for this, but in my opinion one of the greatest gifts a husband can give his wife is the freedom to choose to what degree she wishes to remain in the public sphere after they’ve had children.
Aside from the economic limitations and the inherent privilege indicated here, there’s the idea that a wife’s "freedom to choose" is something that resides with the husband, which is his to give or withhold. *That* bugs the living crap outta me.
Well, put that way, the idea causes me similar distress — and was not what I intended to convey. Let me see if I can clarify.
Biology necessitates that women, rather than men, give birth. (Even the most ardent anti-essentialists will presumably make that concession.) Few would argue that the burden of pregnancy is borne equally by men and women. Even after birth, assuming that a mother is interested in breast-feeding (among other things), she is better equipped biologically to care for her newborn. As time passes, of course, her "advantages" (or burdens, depending on your perspective) decrease to the point where all of the tasks of nurturing and caring for a child might be equally well-performed by a father.
In more families than not, it is going to be preferable to have the mother work as the primary care-giver for very small children. This may be because of cultural pressures; it may be because of innate preferences, it may be some combination of the two. Each couple will have to work this out for themselves, of course. Some may choose a counter-cultural approach in which the male partner assumes the primary care-giving role. I certainly have no problem with that!
My concern is with the attitudes that so many men bring to fatherhood. Far too many men — we don’t have to look far for this — still refuse to take an equal role in parenting their children and performing other domestic tasks. I think my generation of fellas is getting considerably better at this, but both hard evidence and anecdotal observation tends to suggest we males have a ways to go.
But back to my inflammatory sentence. Folks, I ought to have made it clear that my views came out of a Christian perspective. As I’ve written before, I’m convinced that Ephesians 5:21 is the greatest sentence in Scripture on marriage:
Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.
From the standpoint of radical mutual submission, marriage is the willing and voluntary surrender of one’s freedom to one’s spouse. Spouses become, in a very real sense, guardians and defenders of each other, each with claims on the other’s time and effort and flesh. Paul writes elsewhere:
The wife’s body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband’s body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife.
(It’s amazing how many folks, conservative Christians and secular progressives, fail to reflect on the radicalness of the second sentence in that passage.)
To me, this is about much more than the expectation of sexual fulfillment. It’s about a life of mutual self-sacrifice. Frankly, looking at the way in which household chores and child-rearing duties have historically been divided, I don’t think we fellas have been pulling our weight. We’ve demanded submission without offering it in return; we’ve asserted ownership rights over our wives without humbly offering our bodies and our lives in service in return. Husbands and wives do guard each other’s freedom, I think — and we give each other a gift when we make it possible for the other to both be an effective parent and an active participant in the outside world.
I’m not claiming to be an expert on marriage. Three divorces leave me with little claim to expertise in maintaining successful relationships! (The California legal system, on the other hand, is more familiar.) But since my last divorce my sense of what marriage is has continued to grow and change. I am convinced that both men and women are equally called to serve their partners. And though each ought to surrender his or her freedom to the other, each ought to be willing to "give back" what has been given to them. It was in that spirit that I wrote the offending sentence, and in that spirit that I defend it.
I’m not sure that even the Christians among my readers, much less my secular feminist and Men’s Rights critics, will have much to agree with here.
OK, if you’re looking for disagreement, you’ll have to look elsewhere. FINALLY, someone online (other than my husband) who pays attention to that second half of the commands to husbands and wives! To me, that is extremely refreshing.
As for husbands giving their wives freedom to do XYZ, how else do you address the issue of what happens in *any* marriage, no matter how enlightened? If one partner wishes to do something and does it, the success of the endeavor and the satisfaction of doing it often depend upon how much support the spouse gives to the partner involved in the activity.
When my husband was spending a lot of time away from home because he was involved in search and rescue, I could have made his life absolute living hell if I’d chosen to do so. Or I could simply have gone off and done my own thing and let things fall by the wayside around the house. Instead, I filled the gaps whenever he had to be gone. By doing so, I gave him the freedom to follow that pursuit.
Husbands giving their wives the freedom to choose to stay home or to work outside the home runs along the same lines, in my way of thinking. It’s ultimately the wife’s choice, but neither choice is going to be its most effective without the support of the husband.
A marriage is teamwork. A team isn’t going to work effectively if the members aren’t doing all they can to support each other.
Hugo, I don’t mean to kick you while you’re down, but I do have to add a note to your match report from last night. Indeed, the Colombian’s fielded a “B” team — but the US squad wasn’t just missing a few top players. They started 6 guys who had never played a minute in an international game for the US (including the keeper, I believe), and only 2 who played in the WC qualifier against Trinidad & Tobago in February. I’ll keep this short, since I know people don’t come here to discuss soccer. But the US has come a long way since losing to Colombia in the ‘94 WC. Good clean crisp futbol isn’t unusual these days. Keep an eye on the ESPN networks for the away match against Mexico on the 27th and home against Guatamala on the 30th. And keep wearing red.
I thought Colombia lost to the US in ‘94 on that awful own-goal that got the Colombian killed… or am I remembering incorrectly?
Sometimes divorce can give you a new perspective on what a marriage takes. My dad has been divorced 3 times, and at 64 he has pretty much decided against looking to get married again. However, he’s given me possibly the most useful relationship advice I’ve gotten from anyone. He said that in a relationship, its never 50/50…you always have to give 75% to make it work, because you never see all the times your partner is giving, like they never see all the times you give. I thought that was pretty good advice. Those who have been through divorces aren’t all useless on the advice front. :-)
Hugo, you are absolutely right. Somehow I managed to confuse that game with the next one against Brazil (where we didn’t look so good).
it is going to be preferable to have the mother work as the primary care-giver for very small children
Interesting passive voice. Preferable to whom?
Breastfeeding is always dragged out as the reason a woman should be primary caregiver of her children until they are in kindergarten–never mind the cost to the children’s bond with their father, or that most women breastfeed until six months (hardly until age 4-5).
Mythago, I would hazard a guess that when economically possible, it will be preferable to a substantial majority of new mothers. How you and I will ever prove our respective points on this without resorting to anecdote, I don’t know.
And Caitriona, excellent point about freedom and support in marriage. Thanks.
Hugo, I’m really less interested in the whether than the why. “Well, they just do! It’s probably biology!” is not a very thoughtful answer, nor a feminist one. It’s not as though women and men have the exact same social and economic pressures, and it’s merely a matter of calculating how long one will breastfeed.
One reason I hear a lot is that the woman makes less money, so she has to quit. One wonders then if women had wage equality would fathers do more of their share or would we have a new reason that it’s “preferable” for mothers to stay home.
“So if she made more money, you’d quit?” If I had a buck for every yes answer, I still wouldn’t be able to buy a cup of coffee.
Hugo, it’s taken me and my husband a while to work these things out in our heads. :-) This is my 2nd marriage and his 5th. (OK, so it took him a little longer to figure things out. But he got there.)
We’re still growing, making mistakes, hurting each other, and healing those hurts. Marriage is HARD work. The only other work I’ve done that meets it in level of difficulty is raising children.
There are so many things to consider, so many things we learned growing up that just don’t work well, so much growing to do. No one person has all the answers for everyone else.
But I’ve found that Dr. Ed Wheat was right when he said that the best advice on marriage is found in the Bible. Dr. Wheat especially liked to quote Song of Solomon.
Now if my husband and I can just focus a bit more time studying that book. ;-)
mythago,
You’ll have to come to Texas for that cup of coffee. If I made enough money that my husband could stay home and farm, he’d do it in a heartbeat.
But I’m not leaving HIM home to teach the kids because I’m the better teacher. So I’ve got to find something I can do from home that will allow me to earn enough that he can quit work.
Caitriona, I believe you, but again, you’re in the very distinct minority in my experience. Virtually all of the time I’ve asked “Which one of you is staying home?” or “Oh, your husband isn’t staying home?”* I get a blank look. Most people don’t even get to the salary-comparison stage. Mommy stays home; that’s Just How It Is, and the only issue the degree of staying-home-ness, not the whom. I have very rarely heard anyone say that they’ve sat down and done both short- and long-term income projections and, yes, right now it makes sense economically for Mom to be at home.
Right now, if my husband went back to his former job, he’d make more than I do. Should I quit my job and stay home? No. In five years my salary is likely to be double his. And, bluntly, he’s a much better at-home parent than I could be, while I’m better at being a ruthless career-ladder climber than he is.
I’m fortunate in that we live an extremely culturally laid-back area, and I work at a company that doesn’t have Issues with parents or with the idea that I am not the at-home parent. (As one wise friend of mine says, if you find yourself at a company where all the men are married with stay-at-home wives, run.)
*For the record, I don’t go around challenging people to justify their life choices; I only ask these questions when the subject is brought up, and then in a friendly, not antagonistic, manner.
mythago,
For us, we didn’t take time to calculate income projections. Programmers make more than teachers, that’s just how it is. My husband worked EMS between programming jobs. He’d have stayed with EMS because he loves it, but medics get paid worse than teachers do. Where are people’s priorities?
I think Mythago is right on with her point that most people never question the notion that Mom should be the children’s primary caregiver– because that’s Just How It Is.
My pet issue lately is parental leave policies. It is amazing how many companies have maternity leave benefits (like paid maternity leave) that do not apply to men– even for adoption of children which does not require any participation by the mother per se. And when I say, “Wait, what about an equal amount of paternity leave?” I get blank stares of incomprehension.
The other problem is that when women do question this particular status quo, we are accused or perceived of being selfish/callous/insensitive to children, etc. It makes it difficult to have a candid discussion about the issue.
Hugo,
You have divorced three times…this is not possible. I’m sure it’s a typo…
And when I say, “Wait, what about an equal amount of paternity leave?” I get blank stares of incomprehension.
Call your state EEOC.
Programmers make more than teachers, that’s just how it is.
If you didn’t actually calculate it over time, how do you know? What if teachers have stable, union-protected jobs, so that you know (barring catastrophe) in ten years you’ll have a safe and steady, if modest, income, while your husband would have to risk layoffs and spend a lot of money keeping his job skills up to speed? I’m not saying this IS the case. But how can you know if all you do is compare today’s paycheck, and the smaller one quits to stay home with the kids?
I could just as well argue that people who really care about their kids don’t send one person out all day to make money and overload the other, but find some way to work split shifts or part-time so that both parents share in the childrearing. Priorities and choices, y’know. ;)
Absolutely right! Having a parental leave policy for women only violates employment laws and the EEOC can step in. (I come across the situation when I review employers’ policies and advise them on how they should revise their policies in order to comply with the law and avoid legal exposure.) But it is amazing how so many employers resist or don’t understand the notion of paternity leave.
And at least one state (Massachusetts) has a mandatory maternity leave statute that does not apply to men. The Massachusetts Commission against Discrimination has noted in its guidelines that the statute likely violates federal law– but still the statute is on the books and sends a terrible and confusing message to employers. Fortunately, the FMLA (federal Family and Medical Leave Act) is gender neutral and (with any luck)the tide is turning . . .
(At least one other state has a maternity leave statute that is limited only to that leave necessary during the time of disability caused by pregnancy and childbirth– I don’t really have a problem with that since there is a sensible reason for that type of leave to be limited to women.)
You’ll have to come to Texas for that cup of coffee. If I made enough money that my husband could stay home and farm, he’d do it in a heartbeat.
Interesting that you said your husband would stay home and farm, not raise the kids. Because farming is an honorable male activity, while childcare still is not.
toots,
Historically, boys learned farm skills from their fathers while girls learned household skills from their mothers. For us, if my husband could stay home, he would work with the two who are raising livestock (15yo dau raises ducks and heritage geese, 14yo son is beginning to raise sheep). He would also help them on any history and advanced science topics they wish to explore. I do MUCH better than he does working with them on their general academics, mathematics, emotional, and behavioral issues, plus anything else for which he doesn’t have enough patience.
He has his strengths, I have mine. We know our strengths and weaknesses, and we try to work together highlight our strengths and support each others in weak areas. Biblically, that’s how it’s supposed to be.