|
August 03, 2006
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.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
Comments
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
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
March 2007
February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
War For Profit
How trying to prevent genocide becomes genocide I Have Not Yet Begun To Fight Wind Boom Isaiah Washington, victim Hippie Shirts A cunning exercise in liberation linguistics? Sometimes unprincipled demagogues are better than principled activists PETA agrees -- with me! The high pitched squeal of small carbon footprints
Links
Site Credits
|
|
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.