Lori begins with a quote from the article:
“In simple English, it turns out that households with a homemaker who specializes in childrearing, while the other parent focuses completely on their career, tend to be more productive in the long run.” ......The author supports the notion of women being keepers at home and men being the providers and gives plenty of evidence why this is best.
I read the article and I'm not sure what "evidence" she is referring to. It's not at all detailed in its argument, or even very clear. For example, how is "productivity" defined and measured? As a result, it's difficult to evaluate the claim. From a purely monetary perspective, it may very well be most efficient for one spouse to work and the other to stay home and take care of the children. My wife and I do exactly that; we considered both continuing to work and getting childcare, but decided against it after seeing the cost. Having her stay home is what works for us, but ultimately it will be dependent on each family's unique situation and is up to them to decide. An academic study of this nature, even if it makes valid points, can only apply to averages and cannot be used to tell each individual families what they must do.
Also, the article goes out of its way to avoid saying which gender should work and which should stay home. It simply says one should do the former and the other should do the latter. I think Lori was too giddy over finding something that "agrees" with her to notice this small detail.
She continues with another quote from the article:
“In his 1981 book A Treatise on the Family, Becker analyzed the household as a sort of factory, producing goods and services such as meals, shelter, and child care. One of the interesting discoveries found was that, in order to maximize household output and wealth, once a family has kids, it’s generally better for one parent to stay home and run the household while the other parent with the higher income potential focuses 100 percent on work and maximizing their career."
There are a few disturbing points in this paragraph. First, the comparison of a household to a factory producing goods and services. To be clear, I have no problem with this assumption being used by the economist who drew these conclusions. That is, after all, not a statement about how family dynamics should be, but a deliberate oversimplification to make data-based analysis possible. However, when Lori presents it as evidence that "God's ways" (actually Lori's ways) are best, she is making a somewhat different point. She comes across as saying that the traditional family structure should be chosen because the goal is to maximize economic output. A simpler way to say that would be that it's all about money. Now, to be clear, I don't think she actually views the purpose of the family in this way, but she certainly could have clarified. And she does not.
The other disturbing point is that the article suggests one spouse ought to focus "100%" on their career. This point will be elaborated on later, and it doesn't improve at all. And again, although I don't think Lori believes fathers should completely ignore their children, it's unfortunate that she doesn't attempt to clarify that point.
And yet another quote from the article:
“When the members of a household specialize in their respective fields, they’re able to maximize the total output of their economic production. A breadwinner who doesn’t have to worry about housework can dedicate their focus on optimizing their career track. For example, a husband whose wife is a full-time homemaker can dedicate his focus completely on his work outside of the home. If their child falls ill, the breadwinner won’t have to worry about asking his employers for time off to stay home and care for the sick child.”
I suspect the economist used this oversimplified model in which one spouse focuses on career and nothing else only for the sake of developing a usable model. Certainly it is not being suggested that if the working spouse does a load of dishes in the evening, it would ruin their career track. But this oversimplified model happens to line up precisely with what Lori really does believe is the ideal. In other words, she has taken a simplistic model meant only for illustrating a broader point and declared that the model itself should be followed precisely!
And here I must make the obvious point: I work 40 hours a week, roughly 9 to 5. Just what am I doing in the evenings and weekends that prevents me from being able to participate in taking care of the children and home? Is Lori suggesting husbands should be spending evenings and weekends at work? Obviously not, but then she must be saying that those times must belong entirely to the man so he can relax. Lori claims feminists "devalue" homemakers, and yet here she is saying only those who have a career deserve to relax and take a break! As anyone who has stayed home full time knows, it's just as exhausting as any career, but the difference is that you don't get breaks on weekends, evenings, or even in the middle of the night. And, from an economic standpoint, I have to ask how one spouse sitting on their butt every evening and weekend and not contributing to the household somehow is more efficient!
Next, we're back to Lori's own words:
When the wife is a homemaker and stays home to care for her home and children, the husband can pour all of his energies into his job and not have to worry about sick children, running them to sports activities, cooking, and cleaning. There’s a good reason that God said that it was not good for a man to live alone, thus he needed a help meet.
When the Bible refers to Eve as Adam's "help meet" in Genesis,it meant "equal partner", not "domestic servant." It was about Eve coming alongside Adam to have dominion over the world with him. It was not about her cooking his meals and doing his laundry. But when has Lori's biblical interpretation ever been reliable?
I gave her the benefit of the doubt before, but now she really did come out and say it. She believes it's better if husbands focus entirely and only on their jobs; no "worrying" about sick children, cooking, or cleaning. It's funny how she complains about people who supposedly denigrate these activities when it's a woman doing them, but at the thought of a man doing them, suddenly she describes them as nuisances that he shouldn't have to "worry" about. Which is it, Lori? Is raising children the greatest and most important job, or not?
But this isn't all she says. She wants the husband to never have to worry about taking his children to sports activities. What exactly is left, in Lori's model, to allow fathers to spend time with their children? They shouldn't take care of them when they're sick, shouldn't help with and be present for their extracurricular activities, shouldn't help feed them or put them to bed. I desperately hope Lori is just poorly communicating her point, but doesn't it seem as though she is pushing fathers to be workaholics and as uninvolved in their children's lives as possible? I suppose this is the result if you arbitrarily define any activity related to the care of children as "feminine."
Yes, I work hard all day and would love to relax when I come home in the evening, but much of the time I am able to spend with my children involves dinnertime and getting them ready for bed. If I considered myself too "manly" to be involved in such things, it would be much more difficult to develop a relationship with them. Not only that, but my kids would also get the idea that I'm either incapable or unwilling to take care of them. How is that a good thing?
Bearing and raising children along with running a household is a lot of work but so it working in the workforce to provide for one’s family. When each spouse knows their role and works hard at it, much good is accomplished. There is beauty in order. Marriages are stronger and children are happier. Men and women weren’t created to do it all. A man who works hard for his family should not have to come home and clean the home and care for the children. If he does, great but if he doesn’t, that’s great too since he’s working hard so his wife can stay home full time with the children to care for them and the home.
Lori makes sure we don't misunderstand her point. Children and housework are nothing but a "nuisance" to men. If a man is a responsible adult and contributes to the household in which he lives and his own children, this should be considered a "bonus", as if he should be praised for going above and beyond, rather than simply being a responsible, normal, loving human being. No, Lori, if a man insists on only working his 40 hours a week and then sits on his butt and plays video games or watches TV every evening and weekend, he is not "working hard." He is a lazy bum who is taking advantage of the other members of his household.
Notice how she also says "there is beauty in order." This is one of her favorite false dichotomies. In her mind, there is either her way, or chaos. Unless the roles are clearly defined by her, there are no roles at all. Let me clarify: in my family, there are clearly defined roles. But they were mutually agreed upon by my wife and me, and are based on our own strengths and weaknesses rather than Lori's gender stereotypes. For example, my wife does the majority of the cooking because she's better at it, while I handle the finances because my degree is in business. On the other hand, I used to work for a cleaning company, so I do a lot of the cleaning, while she is more naturally talented at household repairs. And we both involve the other in decisions as well as try to learn in the areas in which we have weaknesses. This, to me, is most efficient, not randomly assigning responsibilities based on gender in a way that completely ignores individuality as well as strengths and weaknesses. I would argue that this results in greater order than what Lori suggests, because it is based on common sense instead of prejudice.
To conclude: I'm not an economist, so ultimately I can't comment on what type of household is most economically productive (though it should be noted that the opinion of one economist, singled out by Lori for obvious reasons, is hardly conclusive). But I can't imagine anyone thinking economic output should be the measure of a successful family. I would rather build healthy relationships and make sure I love my wife and kids as well as I can than be obsessed with playing arbitrary roles and maximizing "productivity."
Link to the original blog: https://thetransformedwife.com/traditional-families-are-more-productive-in-the-long-run/
No comments:
Post a Comment