- By jwgustavson, via Flickr
I passed an noteworthy anniversary this week: the 8th anniversary of the launch of Rebel Dad, which began as a kind of online notebook for me to capture clips and thoughts that I wanted to preserve. Over the years it has evolved into something much larger. But it’s not only the site that has evolved; I have, too.
I’m not the guy I was when I started the site. Unlike that guy, I work full-time and have for the better part of 5 years. My writing here has reflected that shift, and I’ve turned my attention to broader topics. And while that’s been interesting to me, it also reflects the fact that I’m further and further from the day-to-day experiences of the guys doing the at-home thing (though I have appreciated the efforts of so many in the at-home dad community to keep me looped in).
Rebel Dad is not what it used to be, and I’m not sure what I want it to be. In the last couple of years, I’ve taken a couple of “official” breaks, and posting has become less and less frequent, as my schedule has filled and my goals for the site less clear. So out of fairness to you, the reader, I want to be transparent about what I plan to do next: take a couple of months off to figure out where I want to go next.
I may or may not begin to engage more over Twitter (you can follow me here) in the weeks to come, but I will, as always, be around via e-mail. Thanks to everyone for their support.
Albest,
Brian
Permalink
[Yes, I had a blast at the At-Home Dad Convention. Lots to unpack there ... watch this space. But first:]
I used to be a little obsessed with a writer named Caitlin Flanagan, who possessed a dangerous combination of talents: she was a razor-sharp and witty writer and she was absolutely committed to the idea that traditional family structures were not only intrinsically good, but that any other structure was suspect. She had a perch at the Atlantic (and then, briefly, at the New Yorker), where she was able to zing misguided social commentary to a huge and influential audience. But for reasons that I don’t really understand (perhaps the whole neo-traditional thing was as grating on her editors as it was on me), she kind of disappeared. She still shows up now and again in the Atlantic, but I suspect that no one takes her all the seriously any more.
Now, I occasionally have flare-ups with Penelope Trunk, who founded a site decided to dispensing job advice to and about Gen Y. Penelope has written often and scathingly about at-home dads, in no small part (I gather) because of her own dismal personal experience (which, honestly, I have no desire to rehash. I think that Trunk needs to be judged not on her decisions, but on the advice she offers). Despite her often-screwy columns, she has built an impressive personal profile, and — much like Caitlin, back in the day — has to be taken seriously, especially on days when she is given a platform to dispense her unique brand of career advice. Days like today, when she has a piece at tech heavyweight TechCrunch.
The post’s over-arching point is that women don’t succeed at start-ups because they want to have (or have) children. This is such an absurd argument that I won’t even bother deconstructing it, except to say that a variation on Trunk’s analysis has been used throughout the last 100 years to suggest that women don’t belong in law school or the operating room or the corporate boardroom. It’s well-disproven bunk, and to the extent that there is a problem, it’s with the start-up culture, not the women. (I mean, isn’t the whole start-up narrative moving away from the idolization of workaholism? Isn’t that the whole, hip Rework/4-Hour Workweek thing?)
I get that Penelope has been doing this a long time. And that entrepreneurship is hard work. And that her family situation made it harder. And that the tech venture world remains unfriendly. And I’m glad that she’s making decisions that reflect her search for balance. But what I don’t get is the defeatism: because it was too hard for her, anyone following in her footsteps is doomed to fail.
What makes Trunk so dangerous (the title of the post isn’t hyperbole) is that she not only declares that moms (or would-be moms) need not even attempt entrepreneurship, but she suggests that men are willing accomplices in shunting kid and household stuff to women, keeping them down:
Men are more likely to settle when it comes to raising kids. The kids are fine. Men are more likely than women to think they themselves are doing a good job parenting. This makes sense from an evolutionary perspective. Men have to trust that the kids will be okay so that they can leave and go get food or make more kids.
Before you tell me there are exceptions, I’m going to let you in on a secret: I’m a magnet for high-powered women with stay-at-home husbands. And when the men aren’t listening, the women always tell me that their men don’t pay enough attention and they (the women) are really running the household. They would never say this to the men. It would de-motivate them. So even the most child-oriented men are not as child-oriented as their wives.
What’s more, she says that this is innate. No use battling biology.
Did you know that in Farmville, women make colorful, fun farms, and men make big, sprawling farms? And I don’t think it’s a social pressure sort of thing. My sons are under no pressure from me to beat each other up with anything that they can turn into a sword, which is everything. And the girls who visit are under no social pressure to sit quietly, and watch. Boys and girls are fundamentally different even before they get to Farmville.
And what’s most depressing is that Penelope wants to be the voice of, and the counselor to, today’s 20-somethings. This is a generation that, according to survey after survey, is willing to say “shove it” to traditional gender roles, willing to re-order the workplace, and willing to make larger sacrifices for family than any generation in the post-industrial age. And the idea that Trunk is running around telling this generation of women that having a start-up and kids is “absolutely untenable” drives me nuts. Yes, it’s probably untenable if you have a kids, a desire for at least a hint of balance and a spouse that isn’t supportive and capable of managing the household. But — and this is the part that Trunk refuses to believe — there are plenty of guys out there that can keep things running. I talked to dozens of them last weekend.
That’s not to say that there isn’t a lot of work to do in the area of gender equity. I just happen to believe that we’re moving in the right direction, and that it’s worth the effort. Trunk, apparently, does not.
Permalink
As noted in the comments earlier in the week, CNN ran a short bit on blogging dads recently, filmed at the M3 Summit. For some reason, I can’t embed the video, but you can watch it here.
If you’re too lazy to watch, let me summarize: most of clip is a reasonable discussion among some of the more prominent dad blogs about what it means to be a dad blogger. But the first 30 second or so is the CNN’s Drew Griffin, Josh Levs and Reynolds Wolf musing aloud on whether or not they really *have* to talk about fatherhood. It’s pretty agonizing to watch.
Let me be clear: I don’t think that there ought to be any sort of father-coverage quota on any network. If CNN doesn’t want to talk about dads, I’m not going to hold it against them. But — geez — if you’re going to make the decision to pay some attention to a parenting topic, there should be at least a minimal level of respect given the topic. I mean, this is a network that is providing up-to-the-minute commentary on a Pee Wee football brawl and Kardashian baby news. At least keep a straight face at the idea that men should care about fathering.