Another non-conforming minority under attack?

I'm confused about something. This stay-at-home dad business, it's supposed to be a healthy thing, right? Isn't it supposed to be good for America, good for equality between the sexes, maybe good for the economy (allows women more flexibility with their careers), probably good for men? Certainly, it would seem to be better for a small child than would two working parents dumping the kid in daycare, right?

What I'm wondering is whether there's some kind of unwritten rule that stay-at-home dads are supposed to be certified leftists.

Or else.

At the core of the vicious attack on Jeff Goldstein's child by a demented commenter was her disapproval of him being a stay-at-home dad.

While reasonable people agree that that commenter was way over the top, I do think that Jeff Goldstein's stay-at-home dad status generates considerable ill will. The animosity displayed here is typical:

As you may or may not know, Jeff is a domestic god which is a roundabout way of saying that he is a stay-at-home dad. Good for him. Nice work if you can get it. Kids are great. Got one myself. But beneath the frilly apron and microwaved bowls of EasyMac and handwashing his wifes delicate underthings lies the heart of a warrior or, if not a warrior, a Victor Davis Hanson wannabe dress-up action figure with the Islamo Deathgrip™ and camouflage-painted Ford Escort.
Hey wait a second! I read Jeff fairly regularly, and I don't think he ever mentioned the frilly apron. Or handwashing his wife's delicate underthings. What's that about? Surely no self-respecting leftist who believed in feminism would impugn a man's masculinity simply for being a stay-at-home dad?

Or am I missing something?

I'm not alone in raising this question:

[Goldstein] blogs with a decided point of view - even, one might add - a certain tone. Generally polite to those who are polite to him, he is nonetheless willing to tweak the self-righteous and beard the pompous. He isn’t afraid, in other words, to either pick a fight, join one, or accept an invitation to the field of intellectual battle.

This gets him in trouble at times with fools, whom, alas, he does not always suffer gladly. Some of those - you know, the ones who care so much more than you do, gentle reader, uncaring bassid that you are - express their concern through kindly observing that Jeff is a stay-at-home dad, because hey: How masculine is that? To raise a kid and all. While your wife pursues a career.

If you think that this is rather a strange line of attack for those who ostensibly advance the cause of feminism and non-traditional gender roles, it’s worth also pointing out that others of his critics note that he has admitted to taking prescription meds for panic attacks. Because nothing is funnier to those who care so very much than someone else’s misery.

Might it be that being a stay-at-home dad is only a good thing if you are on the left? If you're considered "right wing" (a term which now lumps libertarians in with Pat Buchanan) and you stay at home, get ready for the frilly aprons, dainty underthings, and insinuations that you're less than masculine?

Sheesh. I'm wondering, what's the goal here? To shame non-leftist bloggers away from their keyboards and back into the workforce where they belong?

Interestingly, according to Michelle Malkin, her stay-at-home husband has also been attacked in a similar manner:

My IQ, free will, skin color, eye shape, productivity, sincerity, and integrity are routinely ridiculed or questioned because I happen to be a minority conservative woman. As a public figure, I am willing to take these insults, but I cannot tolerate the smearing of my loved ones. Because I have always been open and proud about his support for my career, my husband has taken endless, hate-filled abuse from my critics. His Jewish heritage, his decision to be a stay-at-home dad, and even his looks, are the subject of brutal mockery.
I haven't had time to analyze these things in the detail that I perhaps should, so I don't know how many other non-leftist, stay-at-home-dad bloggers there are. James Lileks immediately comes to mind, and I'd be willing to bet that he too has had his masculinity slimed for his stay-at-home dad status.

(Oh yeah. He has.)

What I cannot understand is the relevance of any blogger's stay-at-home dad status to anything he says, unless the topic is child-raising. And since when do alleged masculinity deficits matter to people who hate gender roles? Or is there some twisted meme that it's "hypocritical" for a non-leftist to be seen as anything less than a suit-wearing, nine-to-five, kiss-the-wife-goodbye-every-morning, Ward Cleaver type? (As if he wouldn't be subjected to personal attacks for that lifestyle too. . .)

If that's it, then standards of hypocrisy have gotten very strange.

MORE: If you think attacks on stay-at-home dads are unhinged, Michelle Malkin has a post about a photographer who makes children cry -- apparently to fuel her anti-Bush wrath.

(No child left alone?)

posted by Eric on 08.03.06 at 11:01 AM





TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/3900






Comments

I think its real unconformism that's under attack here. Goldstein, Malkin's husband etc... are first and foremost, *individuals*.

We can't have that in the mind of the collective, can we?

Plus its the same old 'call them names' sort of thing---the same old emotional immaturtity that is demonstrated constantly by assorted leftards.

You'd think that they would grow up after a while, but they never do. Again and and again and again, its the eternal brat.

Eric Blair   ·  August 3, 2006 02:31 PM

You know, I've never read Tbogg's blog before today, when you and Ilyka Damen both linked to it.

And I think I'll never read it again. What an asshat.

(And I bet they don't like Lileks, either.)

Sigivald   ·  August 3, 2006 06:15 PM

(Which just tells me I should read the whole post before commenting on even the first part of it...)

Sigivald   ·  August 3, 2006 06:16 PM

What's confusing? The left's ideas assign roles and punish those who stray from their roles as surely as the right ever did. The conformity is different, but it is no less stifling. A right-wing minority is a category error, hence, something -must- be wrong with such a person.

Jon Thompson   ·  August 3, 2006 11:01 PM

Certainly it's right to criticize feminist hypocritical attacks on Jeff Goldstein & Jesse Malkin, but the role the two play is not the traditional male role. A right wing PC Phil Donahue is just as unmanly, sappy and repulsive as a left wing one. There are sensible reasons for the traditional male role of breadwinner, and unless dire necessity intervenes - a job layoff or the wife's negligence/incompetence or death - he should play that role, staying far away from any appearance of a layabout, a gigolo, or a pimp.

John Knox   ·  August 4, 2006 02:29 AM

"he should play that role, staying far away from any appearance of a layabout, a gigolo, or a pimp."

(I'm glad you didn't say blogger! That would have hurt.)

Eric Scheie   ·  August 4, 2006 01:30 PM


March 2007
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail




Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives




Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits