What about men?

There was a lot of buzz this summer about an article in the Atlantic about the idea of women "having it all".  The idea of separating work and home life began in earnest with the industrial revolution and men and women alike have had to figure this out.  The only group that didn't have to do this were middle or upper-class women who were denied employment or educational opportunities that would have forced them to do so.  This changed in the 1960s and 70s when more of these women began to pursue jobs and educational opportunities previously closed to them, at which point the discussion about "having it all" began.  Let's forget for the purposes of this post that the idea of "having it all" is heavily steeped in race and class privilege.  Let's also forget that success means different things to different people.  I am a middle-class white lady who has an advanced degree in science, a reasonably demanding job, and a small child so this conversation is relevant to my personal set of circumstances. 

What has annoyed me about this conversation is how it has evolved to exclude men.  The author of the article in the Atlantic mentions her supportive/loving husband and talks about their partnership.  A TED talk that proceeded this article by a few years also mentioned the importance of men.  Subsequent buzz has largely ignored the guys.  Why? Men balance work and family and have always been expected to do so.  All the men I know have a deep and abiding love for their families.  It's a different relationship than moms', but no less affectionate and nurturing.  No one talks about the anxiety a man feels when they leave a sick kid to go to work.  Likewise, there's radio silence about how sometimes a guy feels stressed about meeting his work and family obligations.  Are we that dumb as a society that we don't recognize a man's capacity for loving his children? That we exclude half the human race from this discussion? Are the ladies facilitating this conversation so short-sighted as to not understand that support is mutual and that men and women face similar challenges? The assumption that a man isn't/cannot be as caring and nurturing of his children as a woman makes me angry.  Furthermore, it is assumed that a man struggling to meet his work and family obligations can handle it and will suffer in silence.  We ladies can learn something about powering our way through difficulties quietly and gracefully like guys do.  Likewise, men can learn from us about the value of talking things through with a friend or asking for help.

Maybe I'm not seeing the problem clearly because my family is not a traditional one.  My husband and I both have careers that we're highly invested in.  We're both mildly obsessed with working out to the point where it always seems like we're training for a race.  We both want to support each other in reaching our career and personal goals and recognize that sharing responsibilities is an essential part of supporting each other.  We each want the other to be happy both for its own sake and so we can raise a happy, confident daughter.  Plus, there are a lot of places where traditional gender roles are reversed in our household.  He's a much better cook and is the more nurturing/permissive parent.  I'm often "bad cop" and am a bit more detatched, but we both love Ms Frog and want the best for her.

It's only stuff. Or is it?

When we go over to other kids' houses, there are lots of toys that light up, make cool sounds, etc.  We don't have a whole lot of these things and sometimes I feel like a bad parent for not providing them.  This isn't to say that Ms Frog has nothing to play with; we've got blocks, stuffed animals, plastic figures, hand puppets, and tons of books.  There's also a house full of things that make great toys from pots to big people books.  I do feel a bit guilty that her toys, like her clothes, are mostly gifts or yard sale/thrift store purchases, but maybe we're doing her a favor in the long run.  I'm sure we're going to run into problems with this as she gets older and notices that she doesn't have as many cool toys/trendy clothes as some of her friends.  We'll probably have to buy some of those things (or have her grandparents do it), but I really want to limit this.  I want her to learn that stuff really isn't that important and that fun doesn't require tons of props.  I'd much rather she roll in the mud or trash the kitchen baking a cake with her buddies than sit in her room playing with some silly toy.  I want her to realize that doing something or spending time with someone is much more important than having something.

The culture we live in is all about things; what someone buys is as much or more of what defines them than other qualities.  This applies to anything from the clothes someone wears to where they buy their groceries to where they don't shop.  This bothers me to no end because there are so many more things that define a person; relationships, values, hobbies, taste in books, etc.  Marketing to kids through media or peer influence brings them into consumerism before they are old enough to decide if/how they want to participate.  I don't believe it's necessary to put walls around what my child watches or who she plays with.  I do think, however, that it's necessary to (largely) say no to marketing campaigns.  I can do this by choosing not to buy her everything she asks for and by encouraging her to laugh at ads and go beyond the pitch.  For instance, if she wants a princess costume, we can make our own instead of buying it.  Ours can have more frills, sparkles, etc than the store version.  Or we can skip the thing and pretend to be princesses using our imaginations.  I imagine the latter won't fly and that we might end up buying that princess costume.  Still, I hope that placing some limits will encourage her to question who's telling her that she needs stuff and to realize that she usually doesn't.