Posted on 20. Nov, 2003 by Brian Reid in General
Between the start of the annual flu season at the Rebel Dad headquarters, the piling on of assorted small tasks and preparations for this weekend’s convention, I can hardly keep straight what I’ve been planning on writing about. So apologies in advance for jumping around (and liberal use of parenthesis).
Let’s see … American Baby magazine ran this piece on their website, which, while not the worst piece ever written on at-home fathers, could be the laziest. Best part of the story: the auto-generated disclaimer at the bottom of the page: “The information on this Web site is designed for educational purposes only. It is not intended to be a substitute for informed medical advice or care.” Remember, don’t try this at-home dad stuff before talking to your doctor.
I said I wouldn’t blog on the gawd-awful New York Magazine cover story from last week. Instead, let me point you to an insightful post from the Ms. Magazine blog. (It’s a two-fer … the gawd-awful NYT magazine piece of last month takes some more lumps, too.)
Finally, the Jackson, Mississippi Clarion-Ledger ran this Gannett News Service story on whether work is becoming more family friendly (you’ll have to ignore the headline, which was clearly written by someone who didn’t read the story …) There’s no clear answer, but Julie Shields, author of How to Avoid the Mommy Trap says she’s optimistic, in part because of Rebel Dads. (As an aside, Shields is looking for paternity leave stories on her message board).
Brian
20. Nov, 2003
Came away from the NYM piece with the feeling less that this was bad reporting on SAHFs (though it is that), and more simply reporting on bad SAHFs (and bad househusbands). These are deeply disfunctional couples who, given their attitudes, would have had marital problems almost no matter what. The househusband thing just seems like a scapegoat.
Rebel Dad
20. Nov, 2003
The story was clearly about bad SAHFs, you’re right, but the real sin was never realizing that a couple of dramatic anecdotes don’t make for a trend. The author never suggested the story was about dynfunctional couples or a small number of bad apples. In fact, ol’ Ralph goes out of his way to imply that even *good* apples can be bad husbands by dint of not working (” … even though some of the freeloaders are excellent fathers …” he writes.) I felt like I was reading a depostion in a divorce case (with one side of the story and no pretense of broad social implications), not a thoughtful work of journalism.