Have the whole batch. Via scubadive67 @ Flickr.
In its quest to chronicle the challenges faced by wealthy white people during the economic recession, the New York Times goes retro in this article about newly unemployed dads who find themselves playing “mom’s” role. In other words, they’re picking their kids up from school and making them snacks. The title of the article is actually “Mr. Moms (by Way of Fortune 500).”
Dads don’t “babysit” their own kids, nor should they ever, ever be referred to as “Mr. Mom.” Are these men’s working wives “Mrs. Dad?” Caring for children is not a mother’s unique purview. Men who spend time with, read to, make dinner for and/or comfort their own offspring are not doing anything unnatural. “Mr. Mom” is unnecessary when we already have a word for that: dad.
The gist of the story is this: High-earning men who’ve been laid off from their fancy jobs fall down the rabbit hole, which leads to a mysterious world once inhabited exclusively by women. They navigate Costco! Their financial expertise comes in handy at PTA meetings!
“A man is supposed to hunt and gather and bring home and provide, and when they don’t, that goes to their identity,” said Jane Robbins, a PTA member. “If they can find some solace in being the parent, if they can take that out of it, God bless them.”
Vom. One dad, Mr. Emery, describes his transition to motherhood as “humbling.” Another, Mr. Levy, admits that one uncomfortable aspect of his new life is the loss of power. It’s hard out there for an underappreciated, unpaid caretaker, ain’t it? By the way, Levy had saved 18 months’ worth of salary before losing his job. His wife is not working either but their nanny still has her job. Let that sink in for a minute.
Some of the out-of-(paid)-work fathers say when they return to the workforce they hope to pursue careers that allow them to stay involved with their children. The article suggests that the recession is forcing at least some upper-class white folks to discover and prioritize the important things in life. “Success” is about more than the number on your pay stub. It may also be an opportunity for men (and women) to learn they can do “women’s work” just as well as a woman!
Whenever someone–usually a man, usually older, usually criticizing my decision to prioritize my career–says to me “oh, but being a stay-at-home mom can be so REWARDING!” I always say “if it was that enjoyable and rewarding, men would have been doing it for centuries.”
And while I don’t agree with Jane Robbins–that’s not what men are SUPPOSED to do–I think the vast majority of men buy into that idea, so unemployment is hard on them emotionally.
That said, I just can’t work up much sympathy for them.
I’m glad you’ve addressed this article! It really bothered me that the NYT editors apparently believe that stay-at-home-parenting is for women only, and that any men who engage in it automatically must hand in their penises and become MOMS. Parenting: moms OR dads can do it!
Becky– I think the “men buy into it” thing is another example of “patriarchy hurts men too.” Some of the men in the article really DO find parenting to be challenging and rewarding, and yet because society pressures them to be the breadwinners, they either have to pretend to hate caring for their own children or must be called names like Mr. Mom (I hate how feminine terms are always used as insults, like pussy).
@Funnyface: I definitely agree that it’s an example of how patriarchy hurts men too. I know a couple terrific stay-at-home-dads who deal with a lot of bullshit because of their choice to raise their kids.
But it’s relatively little bullshit to deal with when compared to the intense judgement that society throws at women every day about our career/family choices. So while I still have a hard time working up any real outrage/sympathy on their behalf.
Also, I don’t know why the fuck the NYT always has such a stupid, narrow, predictable views on this issue.
But it’s relatively little bullshit to deal with when compared to the intense judgement that society throws at women every day about our career/family choices.
Right. Intense judgment from society for women when they work, but fawning articles about out-of-work men describing their woes.
Cry me a river.
I guess I might appreciate the message of the article a little more if it included a discussion of out-of-work women who share their expertise with the PTA also.
Rodriguez: I’m fine with an article focusing on just men in the PTA, because proportionally, this recession has thrown more men out of work than women (about which we could and should have a discussion about the gendered division of labor). The part I agree with is that women are intensely judged when they choose to work outside the home. I hope for a day when we can support families’ choices, whether mom or dad or a caretaker is staying home with the kids.
funny: I have heard the stats that say that more men than women being laid off in this recession. But hasn’t it been in blue collar industries, mainly? The Fortune 500 types are those people.
This hits very close to the bone for me I think.
I mean to say, more men than women are being
duh and that the Fortune 500 types aren’t those people.
I fail this morning.
I think you’re right about most of that being blue collar, but you can’t ignore the huge losses in the financial and banking sector, which also were disproportionally staffed by men (which, again, is because of sexism– economics and finance are just too too challenging for little laidee brainz). In those sectors, lots of white-collar men have been laid off.
I agree that overall I, as a woman, face a lot more judgment about everything. But the Stay-at-home dad down the street faces a lot more judgment on this one issue. He’s so outside the norm that he sees constant weird looks, sly comments, and outright disbelief. Men assume he can’t hold a job, women assume he can’t understand his own kids as well as they do . . . It’s pretty wearying. I definitely think this is one issue where patriarchy hurts men more.
Also, last time I went out alone, one of my friends asked if my husband was babysitting. I wanted to scream.
I have limited professional experience with the finance industry. If I had to guess why there are so many more men than women, I would put the sexism mostly on the boy’s club atmosphere in those professions, and less on sexism in schools.
I can see why the Times would choose to write such a trite article “Men in the PTA show the women double entry accounting!!!!!” and I do think such articles perpetuate sexism.
Just to clarify, this post is not an attack on SAHDs. It’s a criticism of the NYT for two things:
perpetuating sexist, retro nonsense like “Mr. Mom”
and
focusing so intently on the tortured inner lives of rich white people.
Yes, women face a lot of judgement for working outside the home. But that’s beside the point. Society continues to judge women for working outside the home AND men for not working outside the home partly because the media keeps peddling this crap a decade into the 21st century.
I guess I am turning over this thought:
In its quest to chronicle the challenges faced by wealthy white people during the economic recession
The layoffs for men are more blue collar than white, yet the NYT devotes an article to the white collar men. Fine. In examining this issue, they come up with this fine insight, “wow the professional men really add something to the PTA”
well puck that NYTimes. That’s insulting to blue collar men and white collar women and SAHMs all at once.
Rodriguez, the article even references data re: lost jobs in blue-collar industries! In an article all about Wall Street types.
@Av0gadro: The concept of SAHDs instead of SAHMs seems to confuse some people. Ever see Little Children? Everyone wonders what’s wrong with the guy who is a stay-at-home dad. Which is kind of hilariously wrong because it implies an insular world in which every man always has a steady job.
This aspect of it focusing so intently on the tortured inner lives of rich white people. is precisely what bothers me about this article. Mr. Levy came off like a martyr, trying to stay “relentlessly positive.” It’s easy to be positive when you have $$ in the bank and you’re spending a lot more time with your family.
I find it interesting that the articles about new SAHDs paint theirs as a noble undertaking, while articles about men who have had to take lower-paying jobs are all about the pity. From a feminist perspective, I appreciate a “woman’s work” being valued, but I don’t like the way it all reeks of classism.
I prioritized the children over the career for various reasons, the profiled men didn’t prioritize anything, they lost an option that still remains their first choice and being with the children is the consolation prize, if that.
My problem with this is the same as my problem with articles that focus soley on women who go from being breadwinners to stay at home parents: The transistion is going to be rough for either gender, and you’re going to feel strange at first, if you’ve invested a large part of your personality
Also, I think its interesting that some of the above comments referenced women being judged for for choosing to work outside of the home– I’ll admit that, at 24, I’m relatively young, but I’ve never encountered that sort of judgement. Indeed, I’ve encountered the opposite– women are expected to work just as men are, children are expected to be shipped off to daycare where they “learn to be social”. In a two-working-parent family it makes sense that, when both have “being an independant provider” as a part of their personality, if either is laid off, its going to be a major blow to self-esteem and self-worth.
@ Amanda, I’m a working mom and there is PLENTY of judgment coming my way. SAHMs get judgment too but if anything working moms get more. Of course it depends on where you live, socioeconomic class, etc.
BTW, whether it was intentional or not, “shipped off to daycare where they ‘learn to be social’” comes off pretty judgmental.
Amanda, I don’t know if it’s regional or age related, but when I chose to stay home, people fell all over themselves telling me how it was the best thing for my child, and what a wonderful thing I was doing for him. The tone was definitely judgmental toward women who don’t or can’t make the same choice.
That said, in actual parenting groups with real live mothers of toddlers, I don’t hear any of the judgment that I got from people who had their kids decades ago. I think most of us currently parenting are a lot more aware of the economic and social realities.
@Avogadro, I think that often the LEAST judgment comes from those still in the trenches raising small children. A lot of the judgmetn I observe comes from parents (usually women, but women are more likely to discuss these things) with older children or, funnily enough, those who don’t have kids.
The only person who has made a comment about my (laid-off) husband staying home with our son is my mom, who keeps insisting “a man needs to work.” Most of my friends are working moms who all think it’s great, and my SAHM friends are equally supportive.
@Maritsa
Sorry, I didn’t mean to sound judgemental. I tend to talk more informally, and as for “learn to be social”– its one of the reasons I’ve heard for why daycares are good for children, but I think I learned more about being antisocial at the one I went to growing up.
I do think for me its a part generational/part social issue. I’m currently in law school, and suggesting that a woman should stay at home rather than work would get a lot of surprise. That said, I do hope to stay home when I someday have children– and I already know some of my friends will be expressing shock at my decision to “waste my education” even though I won’t think its a waste at all.
@Amanda – Just tell them you’re part of the opt-out revolution. I’m a lawyer and while none of my female friends have left the workforce after having kids, and it is not the norm, several of my male friends’ wives (who were also lawyers) have done so, with little judgment that I’ve seen. Most people respect that you need to do what you think is right for your family.