http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0503/reviews/allen.html
What would JR say?
I never felt more secure and loved as a child when sitting next to my Dad at Mass. I can still imagine I smell his aftershave and tweed sport coat. I think when he stopped going to Mass regularly, it made a negative difference in my life.
I didnât like the substance of JRâs column and thought her reaction to the guy at the party was cruel. I think she confuses social ineptness with some kind of supposed over sensitization of men. In my view, society has only recently allowed men to acknowledge and express feelings that were always there. This is not a bad thing. The fact that some may express those feelings at inappropriate times is no different than the fact that some people talk with their mouths full of food.
That said, I read your link and almost couldnât get past the following: âThe idea was, as Wilcox writes, âthat conservative Protestantism domesticates men by linking male authority to a demanding ethic of male familial involvement. It offers men a âpatriarchal bargainâ that accords men symbolic authority in the home in return for the exercise of greater responsibility for the well-being of their families.ââ Why do we have to accord either spouse with any particular âauthorityâ â symbolic or otherwise? Marriage and family is a partnership in which each spouse bears the responsibility for the well-being of their family. Exactly which duties are performed by which spouse â economic support, housekeeping, child discipline, etc. â seems to me to be irrelevant so long as it works for the two people involved.
âIn my view, society has only recently allowed men to acknowledge and express feelings that were always there. This is not a bad thing.â
I am not sure it is not a bad thing. I think the potential for abuse, permitting men to be wimps, may outweigh any utility. I may be one of Tibbâs dinosaurs, but there is something to be said for the cathartic effect of a night of drinking with the boys or some quality time on a ride/run/football game.
âExactly which duties are performed by which spouse â economic support, housekeeping, child discipline, etc. â seems to me to be irrelevant so long as it works for the two people involved.â
I think this is a great theory, in theory. I was raised by a single mom, my father died in a car accident, leaving her with 5 pre-teen children so I have first hand knowledge that women can get the job done.
She would be the first to agree that it is a poor second best way to raise a family. The male/female stereotypes exist for a reason. There are meaningful differences between men and women (as a general statement. YMMV, of course). To say that the duties can be performed equally well by both parents is false, even if the parents agree or purport to agree on the role assignment.
Acknowledging that a man has feelings doesnât mean he canât have a night of drinking with the boys or quality time on a ride/run/football game. My point is that expressing feelings does not diminish masculinity and does not turn them into pussies. There is a time and place for everything, though. No one likes to hear some girl they never met bitch about the jerks sheâs dated and the same goes for guys. Vomiting emotions all over the place is for the dysfunctionals on Jerry Springer. Dealing with emotions in a mature, adult relationship is what Iâm talking about. Lots of tough guys have managed that feat.
As for your second point, I of course was speaking of a two-parent household where itâs possible to divide responsibility. How those responsibilities are divided depends on the the individuals involved. I know moms that stay home while dad works; dads who stay home while mom works; and moms and dads who both work. I know moms who are the tough disciplinarians, while the little girl has her daddy wrapped around her little finger. I know dads who never take an ounce of shit, while mom tries to cover up transgressions.
Of course there are differences between men and women, and yes, we can draw generalizations. But, the general is not the rule and I am suspect of a religion that automatically allocates âsymbolic authorityâ to one gender over the other.
Itâs not about acknowledging that a man has feelings, it is granting permission to express them as a woman does. That way leads to wimpdom. Not that there is anything wrong with women expressing emotion. That is the whole point, men and women do things differently. Letâs celebrate the difference, not say that men are wrong if they do not express or communicate the same way as women.
I agree that the example used in JRâs story is equally inappropriate for men and women.
Yes, lots of tough guys HAVE delt with emotions in an appropriate manner. I suggest that the appropriate manner may be different between men and women.
As for gender roles, I think we are saying the same thing. What I disagree with is the single parent family where, typically, the woman denies the need for a man. This is incorrect in my view. As for religion allocating symbolic authority to men, I canât think of one that expresses an opinion that does not give the nod to men. Is this an expression of the age old oppression of women? Maybe, but there is a factual basis for it. Whether those reasons apply currently is another debate.
Amy:
Thank you for taking the time to post something lucid on this topic.
-Robert
Marriage and family is a partnership in which each spouse bears the responsibility for the well-being of their family.
I guess Iâm not sure how that conflicts with the review . . .
It doesnât, especially since the fatherâs authority is symbolic only:) Looking beyond semantics, I think the substance of the review and the book is certainly heartening, and I commend the church for encouraging this type of responsibility.
** especially since the fatherâs authority is symbolic only:)**
To be honest, I think characterizing the fatherâs authority in these families is misleading. I donât think anyone involved in these marriages considers it symbolic- itâs real. I think âsymbolicâ might just be another way of saying ânon-despotic.â Or maybe itâs just a bit of sloppy writing.
While Wilcox considers that the idea is new, I donât really think so- I think itâs more a restoration of right thinking in regards to the nature of authority and responsibility.
Once again, I would like to know what Triple Threat thinks of all this, as he seems to me to represent the ânewâ model to a t.
"I donât think anyone involved in these marriages considers it symbolic- itâs real. I think âsymbolicâ might just be another way of saying ânon-despotic.â "
I was wondering about that. Iâm obviously no theologian, but I seem to remember the bible placing the father in charge of the family. I think Iâve pretty much said all I need to about my view of this.