Families and balance

Submitted by David on Wed, 2007-06-20 02:12

One thing that I stumbled across this week was an article in USA Today with the attached headline: Study: Real fathers fail to measure up to televised versions. Given the way an average TV father is portrayed, that's rather scary. This left me thinking of some contemporary Christian thinkers on the whole topic of marriage and family life, and how I'm not sure they always fit what's best for the family.

To quote a section of the article:

Many young people blame constant work demands — seldom portrayed on TV — for draining their fathers' energy and time from parenting, says Janice Kelly, a communications researcher at Marymount Manhattan College in New York. ... Comments invited during the study were revealing, Kelly says. One young person wrote: "My father works two jobs to support the family. I don't get to see him when he comes home, he's tired."

I seem to recall hearing some amongst self-proclaimed defenders of the family calling for a single-breadwinner family model at virtually all costs. This might mean them urging the father to take upon himself a second or even a third job on top of regular full-time employment. I'm not saying that the single breadwinner family model is a bad ideal, but that it doesn't seem to be the best in all situations. (And if you look in the Bible the woman described in Proverbs 31 does appear to be a businesswoman).

If you examine some of the problems regarding children leaving the church as they grow up, I'm wondering to what extent the enforcement of a single-breadwinner family ideal might be to blame for this. Consider the comment I quoted above about where one child complained that his father worked two jobs and thus never got to spend time with his children.

How would you expect a father working much more than "full time" might the relationship that they have with their children? Consider the immense impact that fathers have on their children's faith versus the , as mentioned in one article:

A 1994 Swiss study concluded, according to Anglican vicar Robbie Low, that "if a father does not go to church, no matter how faithful his wife's devotions, only one child in 50 will become a regular worshipper. If a father does go regularly, regardless of the practice of the mother, between two-thirds and three-quarters of their children will become churchgoers."

Food for thought. Feel free to disagree.

Comments

Mark (not verified)

Wed, 2007-06-20 09:30

Hey Dave. I will take up your offer to challenge your point of view on solo breadwinners. Of course I agree that it is a bad situation when children never see their dad because he is working too much. And I also agree that the mom of the family can often contribute to the economic pie as well. But to blame solo breadwinning as the cause of child neglect is going way too far. In most cases, working too much is a product of workaholism or a standard of living that is much higher than need be. We seem to "need" so much nowadays and think that it justifies getting a second job or working crazy hours.

The problem of child neglect is not usually from one parent working too long. It is from both parents being away too often. That is a result of the huge increase in mothers working outside of the home. There are some very interesting studies which show that this does not make much sense. Often when both parents are working, they spend so much money on child care, transportation, more clothes etc that the overall economic gain is minimal. At the same time, the effects of institutionalized care for the children are never good.

The best option is for both parents to spend as much time as possible with their children. Promoting two parents to work as an answer to one-parent neglect ignores the main problem of why so many hours need to be spent away from the family anyways. Does it really cost that much more to raise families now, or has our standards increased far beyond our means?

David

Fri, 2007-06-22 14:28

Sorry Mark for leaving your comment stuck in the approval queue for a few days - I don't always remember to check it. (If you have an account, comments are displayed immediately).

I'm not trying to argue that that solo breadwinning is the cause of child neglect, but a cause.

I would agree that often people seem to need too much these days, although housing can be extremely expensive. (I don't think that abandoning the cities as one FOTF resource seems to suggest is a great solution either. If Christians abandon the cities, where does that leave the inhabitants of the cities and the culture?)

The problem of child neglect is not usually from one parent working too long. It is from both parents being away too often. That is a result of the huge increase in mothers working outside of the home. There are some very interesting studies which show that this does not make much sense. Often when both parents are working, they spend so much money on child care, transportation, more clothes etc that the overall economic gain is minimal. At the same time, the effects of institutionalized care for the children are never good.

I would agree that there are downsides to both parents working - and I agree that in certain seasons of life it might be best to operate in mostly single breadwinner mode. I don't see an ideal solution to this one - part-time and/or home-based work might be an option.

Does it really cost that much more to raise families now, or has our standards increased far beyond our means?

I think that its both - the problem is that only the latter is really controllable. Consider housing costs as but one example of the former.