On Sarah Palin as a working mother VP

In the wake of the announcement of Sarah Palin as John McCain's running mate, and my support of her as his choice, I had wanted to make a statement regarding the fact that she is attempting to hold a career while also being a mother with underage children. It occurred to me that some people may think that those, such as myself, who both support Palin and also advocate that mothers should be about taking care of their children (in lieu of advancing their careers) are being, at worst hypocritical, and at least inconsistent. Bonnie, writing at Culture11, has inadvertently provided me some impetus, for putting my own thoughts down, by writing a post in which she essentially accuses those of us who hold to traditionalist values of forsaking our principles by throwing our support to Palin. Despite the thoughtfulness of her post, though, I think that Bonnie has made some errors in her analysis of this complex issue.

Let me first state my opinions and position on the issues of motherhood, careers, and that of Sarah Palin as a full-time mother, in the role of VP (much less Governor). To wit, I don't think that a full-time mother, especially one with a Down Syndrome child, has any business being employed full-time, whether it be in a career of choice, or in a public servant role such as that of Governor or Vice President. (as a sidenote, I had wanted to write a similar statement regarding the antics of swimmer Dara Torres who, after having a child, decided to train for and compete in her fifth Olympics) It's my opinion that the role of a child's mother is best filled by... the child's mother. It's my opinion that the time commitments involved in holding full-time (and over-time) careers can do nothing but negatively affect the vital impact a mother has on her children. It's my opinion that being a mother to your children is more important than having a career. It's my opinion that Sarah Palin (in this case) cannot provide, for her children, her maximum level of motherly care, as well as commit fully to the office of Vice President.

Of course, I certainly could be wrong. But I know firsthand what time commitments are necessary in achieving a substantial career, and I know secondhand what time commitments are necessary in being a mother; and 24 hours per day is not enough time to accommodate both. 

Yet, I support McCain's choice of Palin as his running mate, and I don't believe I'm being hypocritical or that I'm forsaking my principles, as a traditionalist, in doing so.

Before I explain how I parse out my support for Palin, let me give my analysis of Bonnie's post. In her post she states,

Since the mid-1980s, it’s been hip for religious conservatives to tout the overwhelming importance of mothers who, they say, should stay home and raise their children. The Mommy Wars have raged. Now some are saying that it’s fathers who are most important; they’d best be available at home too...

My gut reaction is that if it really is only since the mid-1980s that religious conservatives have voiced their concerns about the importance of mothers, it's because that is when we began seeing the impact of women entering the workforce, by choice, and attempting (in some cases) to juggle the responsibilities of having both children and careers. And with regards to the Strong Fathers, Strong Daughters book link, the claim being made by Meg Meeker (the author) is not that it's fathers who are most important, but that a young girl's father is the most important person in her life. As I stated in my review of the book, "Meeker has come to the conclusion that the father is primarily the one who shapes the path of his female children". Bonnie, I think you misrepresented Meeker's claims.

Bonnie goes on to say,

Well, dare I say, both mothers and fathers are equally crucial to the raising of their children. Does no one see the solution to our dilemma? Visualize this: mothers and fathers both negotiating employment arrangements so that, when suitable (and possible—perhaps after a nationwide overhaul of job structuring, and institution of much longer parental leave), both can be involved in the economic (not just financial) and domestic support of their children. As many already are.

While I agree that mothers and fathers are equally crucial to the raising of their children, I think that one must be careful not to blur the lines which delineate the physiological differences that are inherent in men and women. Being equal is not equivalent to being the same. Visualizing two-parent employment arrangements, only after nationwide overhauls, seems to beg the question that such arrangements are in everyone's best interests. Some people may choose to structure their family life in such a manner, but how does such a preference mandate the implementation of national reform, much less that it is a better arrangement than one based on physiological qualities?

I wonder. How pervasive is the effect of our culture on our thinking? David Kuo left a comment on Bonnie's post in which he states,

As a working father with a working wife - and a caregiver at home during the day - I’m able to be much more involved in my child’s care than I would if I was the primary breadwinner. With our current arrangement, my wife and I have both made the conscious decision to manage our careers and daily activities such that we have to balance the demands of our jobs. Thus, I generally have to be home by 5pm nearly everyday. Thus, I can’t travel as much as my job would otherwise demand. The same constraints hold true for my wife. As a result, our careers are no doubt compromised to a large degree. But by alleviating the pressure of having just a single earner, we are better equipped to place limits on how much our careers (my career especially) intrudes on our time with our child.

So, it's actually better that both he and his wife have careers while having children, because the responsibilities of their family act as constraints of sorts, thereby preventing him and his wife from staying at the office late into the night.

Huh?

How about just coming at home at 5 p.m., regardless of whether or not your wife is working? And if your career intrudes on your time with your child, then maybe you should find another career? Just a thought.

Okay, so how am I being consistent in supporting Palin? Autonomy. Sarah Palin, as well as Dara Torres, Bonnie Lindblom, David Kuo, Meg Meeker, et. al., all have the right to make choices for their lives. And while I have the right to disagree with Sarah Palin's choices, I certainly don't have the right to tell her how to live her life. While I may disagree with her decision to lead a life of public service while raising children, I don't have to let that choice negate my supporting her politically.

So, with regards to the 2008 Presidential race, here's what we're left with:

1. Palin has made her choice to be governor of Alaska, despite having underage children.
2. McCain picked her as VP candidate.
3. Given her positions on political issues, her background, and her worldview, I think it was a brilliant move by McCain.
4. Therefore, I support her because of political reasons, despite other misgivings I may have.

I'll take the McCain / Palin team over the Obama / Biden team in a heartbeat. You can call it being politically expedient, and you'd be right.

Comments

[Bonnie]

Rusty,

It's my opinion that the role of a child's mother is best filled by... the child's mother.

No one, as far as I’m aware (outside of those who support family arrangements other than those based on a heterosexual marriage), is suggesting that someone other than a child’s mother fill that role as long as the mother is available and capable. I think what’s at issue is what you are defining as the mother’s role.

The mothers-strictly-at-home movement represented, imo, a pendulum-swing, one in which the father was under-represented. Certainly there can be problems with women working, but there can be problems with men working too. A mother’s staying at home is no guarantee that everything will be hunky-dory...I know this from personal experience.

Regarding Meeker, I know what she said, and I disagree with her. Many others besides her over-emphasize the role of fathers. I would be a perfect case-history for her book, yet, while agreeing with many things she says about the importance of fathers, am certain – if only from my own experience, and I doubt I’m unique – that mothers have as much influence on a daughter’s self-esteem and sexuality as do fathers. Fathers and mothers are equally important to their daughters, as they are also to sons.

While I agree that mothers and fathers are equally crucial to the raising of their children, I think that one must be careful not to blur the lines which delineate the physiological differences that are inherent in men and women. Being equal is not equivalent to being the same.

Saying that mothers and fathers are equally crucial is in no way saying that their physiology need be the same, or any different than what it is. An inherent difference can’t be “blurred,” anyway.

David K. (not Kuo) was saying that having kids should put restraints on career pursuits (not necessarily just those of the mother). When this happens, it may necessitate another income. He’s also saying there’s no “one size fits all” model for employment distribution in families.

Your argument explaining your support of Palin sounds like this: A good friend drinks too much. Alcohol is definitely not good for him or his family. But he has the right to do what he chooses, so when we go out together, I’ll buy him a drink (or, at the very least, let him drink as much as he wants). After all, I enjoy a drink too.

It’s one thing to vote for Palin because she’s on the ticket with McCain, and another to actually support her as his VP choice.

Rusty, would you agree that “traditional” culture is not necessarily gospel-informed? How pervasive is the effect of “traditional” culture on your thinking?

P. S. Just so you know, my Ladyblog post on Dara Torres was not in response to your post – I actually wrote it over two weeks ago, and then posted at my assigned time. (I didn’t post it earlier b/c of the timing of the site launch, and the overwhelming Sarah Palin theme :-) )

[Rusty]

Bonnie,

I think what’s at issue is what you are defining as the mother’s role.

That would be the... the mother's role. (?) What's not to understand about roles suited to the physiological makeup of the person?

I know you disagree with Meeker. My complaint was that you misrepresented her claims. And while, Fathers and mothers are equally important to their daughters, as they are also to sons., Meeker is simply identifying those areas in which fathers differ from mothers in respect to how they influence their daughters.

An inherent difference can’t be “blurred,” anyway. Yes, I would agree... ;^)

Thanks for clarifying it wasn't David Kuo (but David K.).

No, my argument of why I support Palin does not follow your drunk analogy. I am not helping her to get drunk and destroy her life. It's simply how political choices are made. It's no different than when I threw support to Governor Arnold, here in California, despite not agreeing with many of his views. It's no different than my throwing support to McCain, before he chose his VP candidate, despite not agreeing with many of his political views. (or, it's no different than me rooting for Dara Torres to win because she's an American) I just happen to think she brings an excitement to the race and is the best chance we have in beating Obama.

Rusty, would you agree that “traditional” culture is not necessarily gospel-informed? How pervasive is the effect of “traditional” culture on your thinking?

Sorry, I don't really follow you there...

[Bonnie]

Rusty, can't respond in full, but --

In my post, I said, "...it’s been hip for religious conservatives to tout the overwhelming importance of mothers who, they say, should stay home and raise their children...Now some are saying that it’s fathers who are most important; they’d best be available at home too." I linked to a promo statement on Meeker's book, which reads, in part:

Dr. Meeker demonstrates that the most important factor for girls growing up into confident, well-adjusted women is a strong father with conservative values.

I don't see how this is "misrepresenting Meeker's views." I wasn't making a statement about Meeker's views alone. I linked to the promo because that line I quoted implies that fathers are more important to daughters than their mothers are, does it not? It accurately represents the portion of the book that I've read.* I had to choose one link and that was the best I could find that didn't contain extra "baggage" inappropriate for my post.

*In other words, she does more than "simply [identify] those areas in which fathers differ from mothers in respect to how they influence their daughters." Nor is she accurate about a father's influence in those areas vs. a mother's.

me: Rusty, would you agree that “traditional” culture is not necessarily gospel-informed? How pervasive is the effect of “traditional” culture on your thinking?

you: Sorry, I don't really follow you there...

From your post: "I wonder. How pervasive is the effect of our culture on our thinking?"

Rusty, the bottom line is this: If Palin hasn't any business working full-time (i.e., being VP; your words), then you haven't any business voting for her.

[Rusty]

Bonnie,

My post states how I think you misrepresented Meeker's views.

Regarding your "traditional" culture comment - I'm not sure what you mean by "traditional" culture. If you're simply asking if culture (in whatever form) informs my thinking, then I would say certainly yes. Culture informs everyone's thinking, in my opinion. It's but one part of our noetic structure that shapes our worldview.

Regarding, "If Palin hasn't any business working full-time (i.e., being VP; your words), then you haven't any business voting for her." I completely and wholeheartedly disagree. As I've stated, it's my opinion that a mother who chooses to work full-time should not attempt to raise children. Who I vote for, however, is my business, and just as I wouldn't go around telling Sarah Palin what to do with her life (in this context), I also wouldn't go about telling anyone who or not who to vote for.

[Bonnie]

Rusty, in your opinion, does the line from Meeker's book promo misrepresent her book? Yes or no?

How is "a young girl's father is the most important person in her life" (your words, from the post) different from "fathers are most important (i.e., more important than mothers) to their daughters" (who are children)?

Regarding your response about culture, let me ask: why did you ask, in your post, "How pervasive is the effect of our culture on our thinking?"

[Rusty]

Bonnie,

I don't do "yes or no" demand questions.

In your post you stated that some are saying that it's fathers who are most important (as compared to mothers) and that they'd best be available at home too. But as I've stated, Meeker claims that fathers, in the role of a father, are most important in shaping their daughter's lives. Nowhere does Meeker state that fathers are most important, as opposed to mothers.

I asked the rhetorical question about culture affecting our thinking because I was linking our culture's attitude towards mothers having careers with David K.'s comment (on your post).

[Bonnie]

Rusty, you said yourself, in your post, that fathers are most important in shaping their daughter’s lives. Of course this is in the role of father; what other role could it possibly be?

The quote, "Dr. Meeker demonstrates that the most important factor for girls growing up into confident, well-adjusted women is a strong father with conservative values" is from the inside flap of the book.

I really don't think that, in referring to this, I am misrepresenting her. It's right there in the book! It's in the promo material! If I'm misrepresenting her, then you are too!

I asked the rhetorical question about culture affecting our thinking because I was linking our culture's attitude towards mothers having careers with David K.'s comment (on your post).

I'm wondering what you are saying about culture affecting David K.s thinking. Is it good? Is it not good? What about culture, whichever one it may be, affecting your thinking? Is that good? Not good?

I don’t believe that we are to put our faith in politics, or in the government. I don’t believe in sacrificing proverbial children for the “greater good;” that’s utilitarianism, not to mention barbarism. If you truly believe that Palin is not doing well by her family and perhaps even the office of VP, then at best you’re inconsistent to vote for her. If you trust that she’s responsible and wise enough to make the right decision by both her family and the office of VP, then you're consistent to vote for her.

[Rusty]

For crying out loud Bonnie, Meeker is talking about a father in a father's role with regards to his daughter.

I don't think David K.'s decision is a good one. I don't know if culture affected his decision or not, but I would think it did.

Culture affects everyone's decision making process. Whether or not it's good depends on the decision made.

You and I part ways with regards to how we make our political decisions. If you want to view my voting for Palin as putting my faith in politically grounded barbaric utilitarianism, as my inconsistent beliefs allow her children to be sacrificed for the common good, then so be it. (where on earth did you get all that?) But the reality is that she's going to run whether or not I think she should. I can separate my opinion of her career choice from my actual vote for her; if you can't, that's your business. Vote your conscience... and let me vote mine.

[Bonnie]

For crying out loud Rusty, what other role can a father play in his daughter's life besides "father"? Why would it be necessary to say that a father is most important in shaping his daughter’s life if only to say it’s in the role of father? And what does “most important” in shaping... mean here, if not “most important in shaping...”?

Culture affects everyone's decision making process. Whether or not it's good depends on the decision made.

How do we evaluate the decision? Why would we need to blame culture if it’s not a good decision? Shouldn’t we then praise culture if it is a good decision? Why invoke culture at all?

But the reality is that she's going to run whether or not I think she should.

Sure. I’m not commenting on her choice to run; I’m commenting on your inconsistency in voting for her if you think she shouldn’t run.

I can separate my opinion of her career choice from my actual vote for her; if you can't, that's your business.

Why separate? How do you justify that? (Not how you do it – you explained that. How you justify it.)

Vote your conscience... and let me vote mine.

Rusty, I don’t need anyone’s blessing except God’s to vote my conscience. And I’m certainly not “not letting” you vote any way you want.

[Rusty]

Bonnie,

Your paragraph,
Since the mid-1980s, it’s been hip for religious conservatives to tout the overwhelming importance of mothers who, they say, should stay home and raise their children. The Mommy Wars have raged. Now some are saying that it’s fathers who are most important; they’d best be available at home too...

So, you reference those who tout that mothers are important and should stay home while they raise their children. Then you state that some are now saying fathers are most important and reference Meeker's book in the process. Again (and, for the last time), Meeker's claim is not that fathers are more important than mothers. And, her book is specifically about a father's relationship with his daughter. It is not in reference to mothers / children but fathers / daughters, and it does not fit in with your Mommy Wars accusation. You stretched too far with your statement. Plain and simple. (and... that's really all I was pointing out in my post)

As I've said, you're free to incorrectly think that I'm being inconsistent in voting for Palin. But the reality is that I'm not being inconsistent and I've explained why (you just don't accept my reasoning). It's the same reason why, imo, you have a difficult (if not impossible) time accepting Hugh Hewitt's premises and conclusions in his book In, But Not Of. You've presented an argument for your side of the fence... but an argument is not a proof.

Rusty, I don’t need anyone’s blessing except God’s to vote my conscience. And I’m certainly not “not letting” you vote any way you want.

Fine, you're certainly within your rights to have an attitude about it.

But, between the two of us, I'm not the one who's compared another's reasoning for political support to that of buying a drunk a drink (much less putting one's faith in government), or declared that another has no business voting for Palin, or compared another's reasons for voting to that of sacrificing proverbial children, as well as being barbaric, utilitarian, and inconsistent.

Maybe you need to take a look at your own rage, with regards to... the "Mommy Wars".

[Bonnie]

Rusty,

If your argument about my reference to Meeker was simply to point out that she only spoke about fathers’ importance to daughters and not to sons, rather than to all their children, why didn’t you simply say so? Second, in my post to which you referred, I did not single out Meeker and say that she said fathers are more important to their daughters and sons; I said that many are saying that fathers are more important to their kids than mothers. Meeker is an example of this, even if she only supports half of my claim (as I explained, I couldn’t find a good example that didn’t also include other topics, and I wanted a simple example). It seemed to me that you were disputing the fact that Meeker thinks fathers are the most important person in their daughter’s lives, when the promo from the inside flap of her book itself claims this.

[Bonnie]

Rusty,

me: Rusty, I don’t need anyone’s blessing except God’s to vote my conscience. And I’m certainly not “not letting” you vote any way you want.

You: Fine, you're certainly within your rights to have an attitude about it.

I don't understand your response. My statement was in response to these statements of yours:

I can separate my opinion of her career choice from my actual vote for her; if you can't, that's your business. Vote your conscience... and let me vote mine.

and

Who I vote for, however, is my business, and just as I wouldn't go around telling Sarah Palin what to do with her life (in this context), I also wouldn't go about telling anyone who or not who to vote for.

You seemed to be setting your voting choice against mine; i.e., making it personal. So I wanted to establish that I’m confident in my voting decisions regardless of others’ opinions about them, including yours, and that I wasn’t telling you who, or not telling you who not, to vote for.

Yes, who you vote for is your business, yet, if it's your business to decide that you don't think that a full-time mother, especially one with a Down Syndrome child, has any business being employed full-time, whether it be in a career of choice, or in a public servant role such as that of Governor or Vice President, (quote from your post), then you have no business voting for Palin.

If you say that Palin has no business being VP, then you have no business helping to vote her into that position. And you may not have any business deciding whether or not she should be offering herself in that position. (How do you really know?)

Maybe you need to take a look at your own rage, with regards to... the "Mommy Wars".

Rage? Come on, Rusty.

Note your reaction to something earlier in the thread: I asked you for a direct “yes” or “no” answer to a question it seemed you were evading. I said, “Rusty, in your opinion, does the line from Meeker's book promo misrepresent her book? Yes or no?” You answered, “I don't do ‘yes or no’ demand questions.” You interpreted my question as a “demand” question.

I’m wondering why that was your response. You could have answered it honestly anyway, or in some way kindly avoided answering it. But you chose to avoid answering it by making an assumption about the question and suggesting that I was doing something out of line, shifting the focus from you (and directing your ire) to me.

[Rusty]

Bonnie,

...why didn’t you simply say so?

It seemed pretty obvious to me. Evidently, it wasn't so obvious to you.

...Meeker is an example of this, even if she only supports half of my claim...

Regardless of whether or not Meeker is an example of it, I think her claim should have been clarified and, in not doing so, misrepresented her.

...So I wanted to establish that I’m confident in my voting decisions regardless of others’ opinions about them, including yours, ... Regarding, ...I don’t need anyone’s blessing except God’s to vote my conscience....

I stated for you to vote your conscience, to which you used the phrase in response linking it to a blessing, which should only come from God. I was not giving you a blessing for anything (by stating you should vote your conscience).

You seemed to be setting your voting choice against mine; i.e., making it personal. ...

No, that's not my intention, which is why I refer to voting by conscience.

If you say that Palin has no business being VP, then you have no business helping to vote her into that position.

And I disagree with your argument (explaining as such in my original post).

Rage? Come on, Rusty.

Yes, rage. Look at your words.

You interpreted my question as a “demand” question.

I view any question, in which the questioner asks for only a "yes or no" response, to be a "demand" question. It's a method by which the person responding is constrained in explaining their response. It's similar, in a way, to the complex question (e.g., "Have you stopped beating your wife? Yes or no?").

I’m wondering why that was your response. You could have answered it honestly anyway, or in some way kindly avoided answering it. But you chose to avoid answering it by making an assumption about the question and suggesting that I was doing something out of line, shifting the focus from you (and directing your ire) to me.

You're over-analyzing, now. I didn't avoid it, I just didn't answer it.

Here's your question again (sans the "demand"):
Rusty, in your opinion, does the line from Meeker's book promo misrepresent her book?

Here's my answer,

The promo line Dr. Meeker demonstrates that the most important factor for girls growing up into confident, well-adjusted women is a strong father with conservative values. does not misrepresent her book. The promo line also does not comport with tenet of,

"Since the mid-1980s, it’s been hip for religious conservatives to tout the overwhelming importance of mothers who, they say, should stay home and raise their children. The Mommy Wars have raged. Now some are saying that it’s fathers who are most important; they’d best be available at home too..."

Meeker is not pitting mothers against fathers and, as a matter of fact, says very little about the role of a mother, much less that of a working mother. This is not surprising, to those who have read the book, since her book is about fathers and their role as fathers (and men), as well as their relationship with their daughters. In other words, there is a specificity within Meeker's book, which does not parallel the debate regarding mothers having careers. Indeed, have we not overlooked the fact that Meeker, in having over 20 years of medical practice is, herself, a working mother?

[Bonnie]

Rusty,

me: If your argument about my reference to Meeker was simply to point out that she only spoke about fathers’ importance to daughters and not to sons, rather than to all their children, why didn’t you simply say so?

You: It seemed pretty obvious to me. Evidently, it wasn't so obvious to you.

If that was the point you wanted to make, why, in your post, did you not distinguish it from whether or not fathers are the most important person in (any of) their childrens’ lives?

In your first comment in this thread, you said:

Fathers and mothers are equally important to their daughters, as they are also to sons.

This contradicts what you stated in the post. Either fathers are the most important person in their daughters’ lives (or their sons’), or they aren’t.

I stated for you to vote your conscience, to which you used the phrase in response linking it to a blessing, which should only come from God.

Rusty, the common usage and definition of “blessing” includes “approval” or “acceptance,” not limited to God’s.

You seemed to be implying that I was overstepping my bounds somehow in my comments about your voting . Why did you say, Who I vote for, however, is my business, and just as I wouldn't go around telling Sarah Palin what to do with her life (in this context), I also wouldn't go about telling anyone who or not who to vote for, and Vote your conscience... and let me vote mine.?

Yes, rage. Look at your words.

Which ones, Rusty? That’s a pretty serious charge.

I view any question, in which the questioner asks for only a "yes or no" response, to be a "demand" question.

Is such a question always a demand, or intended as such? Is your view always accurate? Even if it is a demand question, and you view it as rude, you can still respond graciously. Regarding my question, surely you knew what I was asking. I didn’t ask for a “yes” or “no” answer out of the blue; I asked it after you’d failed to directly address it earlier.

It's a method by which the person responding is constrained in explaining their response.

No, it isn’t. You can still answer “yes” or “no” and then explain why you answered “yes” or “no.”

It's similar, in a way, to the complex question (e.g., "Have you stopped beating your wife? Yes or no?").

The only similar part I see is the “yes or no” part.

You're over-analyzing, now. I didn't avoid it, I just didn't answer it.

For heavens sake, Rusty. You assumed that I was demanding (by saying I asked a demand question), and shifted the focus. “I don’t do yes or no questions” is pretty terse. That’s not over-analysis, it’s simple observation.

Please tell me how the statement, “the most important factor for girls growing up into confident, well-adjusted women is a strong father with conservative values” (and other things Meeker says in her book) does not comport with “Now some are saying that it’s fathers who are most important; they’d best be available at home too...” in the context of raising children, except that it didn’t specify whether or not they are strong, or have conservative values (which is no guarantee, by the way), and is speaking of only daughters and not also sons? My statement did not specify, yet Meeker’s was still an example of it, if a more specified example. This is not misrepresentation, or even stretching.

How can a father do his fatherly job if he’s not available at home? Does a strong father not involve himself adequately in his family’s home life? Is a father who is not strong not still a heavy influence on his daughter’s life? (I would think that the corollary to “the most important factor for girls growing up...is a strong father...” would be “The most important factor in girls growing up into insecure, poorly-adjusted women is a weak father with non-conservative values.”)

Indeed, have we not overlooked the fact that Meeker, in having over 20 years of medical practice is, herself, a working mother?

This fact further makes my original point. But my point wasn’t just about who is working, and where. It was about who raises the children and how, and who is important, or most important, in those children’s’ lives.

[Bonnie]

Regarding my point about who is important, or most important, in children’s lives as it relates to Meeker’s book,

Meeker sets up her book (in the Introduction) by telling her personal experience in her own family. Many of the things she says about her father and mother are not due to her father being her father, or a man, and her mother being her mother, or a woman, but to their individual personalities and the way they interacted with her. She says that a father is the “epicenter of [his daughter’s] tiny world.” She says daughters might take their mothers for granted, but not their fathers. What is her proof of this?

When she talks of the drugs and sex that kids do, she says that fathers are what stand between daughters and this toxic world. She says that “there is only one thing that stands between” an unhealthy popular culture and a daughter: her father. What about mothers?

If a girl’s father dies, and her mother doesn’t remarry for awhile, is she doomed? No, because later Meeker quotes study findings that “parent connectedness is the number-one factor in preventing girls from engaging in premarital sex and indulging in drugs and alcohol." Why not father-connectedness only? She also mentions father-figures as positive influences.

Are the studies in which fathers are cited as the influence only examining fathers and their children (or daughters), or fathers and mothers both? If not both, how can we say that fathers have more influence in a particular area? When Meeker gives the example of the woman who was kicked out of college (Ainsley), she describes a poor (unhelpful) reaction by Ainsley’s mother, and a kind reaction from her father. From this, Meeker concludes that a father will make the difference in a daughter’s life, because Ainsley’s father made the difference in her life. But the reason Ainsley’s father made the difference was because he reacted much better than her mother did.

[LotharBot]

Bonnie,

Overall, I think I'd end up on your side when it comes to stay-at-home whoever -- I wouldn't be surprised if my wife keeps her career and I become a stay-at-home dad, or if we do some sort of 4-10s/3-8s no childcare schedule. I see no problem with working mothers, just a problem with both parents being too busy for their kids. But I do think you've unfairly equivocated the "fathers are important" statement with "fathers must stay home", and gotten stuck on a silly tangential point.

I also don't think it's fair to say of those who think mothers should stay home that they should also withhold their support from mothers who choose otherwise. That's akin to saying those who disapprove of premarital sex should angrily reject Bristol Palin. Even if I don't approve of someone's life choice, it's theirs to make, and once they've made it, I should respect that and do what's best from that point forward. Even if Rusty doesn't approve of Sarah Palin working full time (as governor of Alaska or as VP), once she's made that decision, it's perfectly reasonable for him to vote for her because he likes her qualifications or positions best in spite of disagreeing with that life choice.

[Bonnie]

Lotharbot,

Thanks for your input. I don’t believe I have equivocated the “fathers are important” statement with “fathers must stay home.” What I was saying, in the excerpt that Rusty quoted, was that those who are saying that fathers are important (whether “most” or not) to their kids (including but not limited to Meeker, and whether to daughters or sons), are saying that those fathers need to be available to their families. I didn’t say that they said that fathers must stay home, but that “they’d best be available at home too.”

Nor have I said I believe fathers must stay home. I said I think there is a legitimate and desirable range of arrangements for both economic support of a family and parental child care, from dad-working-full-time/mom-staying-at-home to mom-working-full-time/dad-staying-at-home, plus a whole variety of sharing both of those responsibilities, depending upon each individual family’s situation.

My point in that excerpt was to illustrate the pendulum-swing, narrowly-focused rhetoric that’s been presented on who should work, and where, and who should take care of children, and how, and where, and why. Rusty took issue with my inclusion of a link to Meeker for an inadequate reason, which I tried to explain.

As for the Palin issue, I don’t believe we must go along with the bad choices others make in the name of respecting their right to choose, if we have any choice in the matter. This is not to say that we wouldn’t help them with damage control, i.e., help them deal with the consequences of a bad choice. But that wouldn’t be the case with Sarah Palin, as it is with Bristol.