I am amused at the recent spate of articles from liberal outlets about motherhood. They seem to regard the notion of a stay-at-home mom -- or for that matter, any woman who would like to bear children -- as some sort of curiosity. My wife is often greeted with shocked stares and dropped jaws whenever she mentions to certain friends or co-workers that she would like to be a stay-at-home mom in a few years, when we have children.
It is as though liberals have little grasp of history, such as when they see evangelical Christians as a threat to civilization, for we all know that the America of yesteryear was a shimmering utopia of secularism. Or when they assert that America is a despotic conqueror that has never done anything to advance the cause of freedom and justice. So, too, they regard our vision of a nuclear family where I work and my wife stays home and takes care of the kids as a freakish plan and a distortion of the human experience.
David Brooks, who serves as the travel guide to the Red States for the liberal readership of the New York Times, wrote a few months ago about the movement called 'natalism':
They are having three, four or more kids. Their personal identity is defined by parenthood. They are more spiritually, emotionally and physically invested in their homes than in any other sphere of life, having concluded that parenthood is the most enriching and elevating thing they can do. Very often they have sacrificed pleasures like sophisticated movies, restaurant dining and foreign travel, let alone competitive careers and disposable income, for the sake of their parental calling.
This column was a bit surprising, because what Brooks saw as a 'movement', I saw as 'normal'. It is the historical norm, for the U.S. and the world at large, for people to strive to build better lives for themselves and their families. It is historically atypical for people to swear off childrearing in favor of paying for season tickets to Broadway and annual trips to Paris-- or else, the present generations would not exist, right?
Hence the title of this post. So ungrounded in history is the knowledge base of the liberal establishment that it is prone to stand amazed or aghast at the simplest of concepts, such as motherhood.
Wednesday, March 09, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
It's not just liberals, my brother. Many conservatives too have decided that disposable income is far more important than parenting the children. The wife goes to work to help pay a few bills, then once the bills are paid that "extra money" is put to use doing something else. Soon the wife realizes she can't "afford" to quit her job. Meanwhile the kids sit in daycare and miss the person they'd most like to spend time with.
I see it happen on both sides of the ideological fence. Plenty of blame to go around.
My compliments to you and your wife's decision to parent your children. I encourage you to make it a priority you can't easily slip away from.
This is very true, and I see it at my own church. There are couples who are making a combined $200,000 a year, but insist that they both must work. That is the 'More Monster' at work.
Post a Comment