I meant to blog about this last week. At book club, while we were waiting for people to arrive, we were discussing going out sans kids. One of the girls mentioned that she had to go and do something the previous weekend, so she asked her husband if he would mind babysitting the kids. I thought about this for a second. Why do we do that? Why do we ask our spouses to babysit, when it isn't really babysitting, but called "Being a Parent". (I am not advocating skipping the asking part, but shouldn't both people receive the same respect in terms of their needs?) So we started talking about this and it made me think about what women have done to themselves. I know I used to ask Adam if he could babysit Lulu while I ran some errands. I guess it is similar to asking a woman what they do and they reply "oh I'm JUST a stay at home mom". But, our previous bishop really changed my thought process in this regard.
We were having a hard time getting women to enrichment (with the old program), because a lot of the spouses in our ward are students, young professionals that work crazy hours, or men that travel frequently. So- we had to organize men to come to the church during enrichment so we had people available to watch kids. It got old and it seemed like it was always the same 3 or 4 guys doing it every month and those that used the service always left their kids at home the one time their husband was available, instead of him coming and taking a turn. Finally our bishop stood up and kind of chastised the men and pointed out that they needed to be available for their wives to go to enrichment. They needed to understand that men watching their own children was not babysitting, but their duty as a parent.. it was called being a parent. I really loved this. I couldn't believe that it took the bishop to finally get some of the guys in the ward to understand. I guess I always took for granted about how great Adam is with the Lulu and our commitment to making sure both of us have time we can get things done without taking Lulu everywhere (I love taking her, but y'all know what a nightmare it can be and how much more you get done in the same amount of time if you don't have to get in and out of the carseat). Although, I will admit, I still have to catch myself from asking him to babysit.
I was wondering how y'all feel about this? Do you find yourself falling into the trap of asking for a babysitter? Why do we assume the sole role of parenting and neglect to see that it is actually meant as a two person job?
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Basics
12x12 Project
You can find additional information here
I Read...
- .
- Bird on the Lawn
- Blogburn
- c jane enjoy it
- C'est la Vie
- Creative, musings and such
- Dinner With The Mitchells
- Everything Pink
- GummieSpazz
- Inchmark
- Inside the Black Apple
- Inside the Fishbowl
- Lee Press
- My Angle of Repose
- My Happy Little Life
- My Words
- Remarks from Sparks
- Simply Radiant
- The Adventures of Amy and Paul
- {chez moi}
21 comments:
I find myself doing this all the time. "Can you watch the kids while I...." I too know that Doug would do it in a heartbeat but I too find myself asking him to babysit. In fact, I just did it before planning my flight arrangements. Imagine that! If they have an engagement i.e. course to go to they never have to ask that to us! I think it is great that your bishop got up and said that. We all need to hear repetitive words to make things sink in sometimes.
this used to drive me insane, until one day I realized that Shad did the same thing. He would call from work and tell me that his boss was in town and he needed to go to dinner, but if I needed him home he could skip. Or he will ask if he can go and play basketball. I am the stay at home mom, if I want to go somewhere I do normally need to call him and see if we have plans and if he had plans. I think when it becomes "babysitting" is when the husband will not "allow" the wife to go, or vice versa. I have so many friends who leave enrichment early to put the kids to bed, what is your husband doing. I have friends who husbands will wait for them to come home to change a diaper. My one friend and I talked and she said that he just does not feel comfortable around babies, and that is why she plans a girl night once a month, to help him get comfortable.The baby does get changed by him if he knows she will not be home soon. i am with you and have been so blessed to have a husband who encourages me to get out. Who is always offering to take our friends kids so the wife can join us if the husband will not be home. I am always being told how blessed I am, and I know it. I love what your bishop did, ours had to do the same thing in our last ward. I think that we get so into the womens role, especially if she stays at home. My friends husband just said to her the other day when she told him that she was going out and he could take their son with him, "you were with your friends all day", her response, "with your son I was at a house for a play date for him, yes I had conversations, but most involved, don't hit, don't say that, come here, sit here, no you can't eat again.
As you can tell I have a lot to say on this topic, I think that both spouses need to know that they both need time together, and time doing other hobbies. I feel that we have a pretty good balance, I seem to take advantage of Shad more than I should, but I am also quick to remember what he does for me and so many of my friends.
I'm militant about this and was even before I got married. I distinctly remember walking through the Orem ShopKo parking lot and having this conversation with Randy (while we were dating). I was so terrified of becoming some passive wife that had to ask her husband permission for every little thing that I think I ended up going way in the other direction.
Randy is very easygoing and is a great dad so we've never had a problem with this. It's never a matter of me asking him to watch the kids, it's more a matter of us discussing our schedules with each other so we know one of us will be home in the evening with the kids. This works very well for us, and the kids love having "dad nights" because he's way more focused on them and much more fun than I am. I love that he's a good day and am thoroughly disgusted by men who don't change diapers, don't know how to put their own kids to bed, and who consider time with their kids babysitting. (I've said my peace, amen.)
I know what you are talking about but luckily this isn't an issue in our house either. In fact, Jimmy reminds me "I'm the dad, not the babysitter" or "they're mine too" when I get a little crazy bossing everyone around. Like Jill said it is more about scheduling than asking. I think all three of them love their break from me. I can't imagine the resentment I would feel (and hurt feelings) if he felt like he had to babysit his own kids.
I'm glad you posted on this...our bishop has chastized the men about enrichment (and the wives getting out in general) in our ward too, especially about wanting their wives home early. I think most men are pretty good about this but the ones who aren't give them a bad name, I always wonder why the wives don't set them straight?!
Ooooh, this is a touchy topic for me. I really have difficult time with this one. Those fathers who don't feel its a partnership really make me mad. However, sometimes I wonder (in some cases) if it is the mothers fault for not asserting herself and making this happen (wherein the father will be forced to learn to be comfortable in taking care of the children). I also think guilt plays a factor. I too have a great husband who I feel very comfortable leaving the children with and often do. But even I find myself feeling guilty when I go out at times--which is ridiculous and totally irks me when I feel that way (as if I don't have enough guilt issues). But in the end we are BOTH glad after I've gone out. I've had a break, have fulfilled my own needs and come back happy. Because I'm happy, then HE's happy--and then maybe, if he's lucky, he'll get one of HIS needs met:)
Amy- you crack me up. Adam and Brent Bastian think if they watch Pride and Prejudice it is a free ticket for some lovin.
tx girl - It is actually in the "Man's Guide to Being a Man" book. All men have been conditioned to lie about it's existence, but here is an excerpt from the book:
...
Conversion Units:
Gentlemen, these go back and forth. Remember that "Good Lovin" is a personal standard and cannot have a global definition as it will be different for all men.
2 hours of basketball = 2 honey do items
4 hours of golf = 1 day shopping
1 act of "Good Lovin" = 1 Romantic Comedy Video
2 acts of "Good Lovin" = 1 Romantic Comedy in the theater (obviously because of the public ridicule the men will recieve.)
...
- The Brother-in-law, J (of course there is 3 of us that start with J)
I am kind of struggling with this one myself. I feel really guilty about having my husband watch our daughter while I go do something. I am trying to establish "Daddy time" everyday so that my daughter and husband have a closer relationship, but it's hard because it's like I am the enforcer. I am meeting reisitance on both ends, neither of them really want to spend time without me there. I think I caused this problem by always having to do everything for our daughter so it will probibly take awhile to fix.
It's nice to hear that I am not being extravigent by wanting an half an hour alone...I just need to convince myself of that.
Here's your FMH comment, Lara:
With all due respect to Bill Benac, I think he's largely wrong on this issue. Consider what he's saying: the husband should come home from the job that keeps food on the table so that the wife can attend a non-essential church meeting. Seems to be a misappropriation of resources. That is (assuming a situation where the husband works and the wife takes care of the kids), you're effectively telling the husband that he needs to leave his primary familial responsibilities at work to come home and take care of what are most likely his wife's primary familial responsibilities at home. Moreover, the result is a break for the wife, but no break at all for the husband. If everybody is okay with that, then fine. But understand that's what you're asking.
I'm obviously not advocating that men have no need to be effective parents at home. But the idea that there is some ecclesiatistical responsibility to leave work so your wife can attend homemaking is doctrinally unsupportable to me. And given the difficulty of supporting a family on one income, it's possibly a little reckless. (Are you sure it wasn't Barbara who said that?)
oh Brent- those are fighting words. You really want to start this with me? No it was not Barbara. The point is- men usually think that the primary responsibility is the womans when it comes to raising kids. If that were the case, why does the church support and strongly encourage a two parent family. Better yet- if men are completely unnecessary, why do we need them to produce offspring? Your argument is ridiculous. Men want kids, but they don't want to help with them. We both know absent dads that like the idea of kids but do they actually want to be available to help with them. Granted some of them hate the baby phase, but do they think the mom enjoys it either? I won't name names, but I know a certain someone that said "his parenting duties were fulfilled and checked off his list"... they had the kid for about uummm a second. Hello- men think women sit home and eat Bon Bons all day. The argument that men cannot come home because they need to support the family- don't take a lunch break that day. Oh wait- heaven forbid. Men make excuses all the time for not being able to come home due to work, yet when there is something they want to do- they seem make arrangements rather quickly.
I realize that women are also culprits in this game. When the male gets home they immediately bolt the house as quickly as possible. But seriously- it boils down to men think they make the money in the family. How about they pay the $132,000 (est of what a housewife should be paid) and we will call it even.
Seriously!
Brent,
I can only hope that you are saying this to stir lara up. I would really find it hard to believe that you think this way. Sometimes it is fun to play devils advocate.
For me I find it kind of degrading that someone would throw in my face that my husband is working his butt off for me, and I in return must be doing nothing to support him. Sure, I could go and get a job out of the home, which would than be more expensive than if I never had the job.
I feel that providing a place for him and his children. That today when I told my husband to take my car so that I could load my three children in his car to get the oil change because he did not have time. That when I mow the lawn during the week so that he does not have to waste another Saturday home with his family, that I am not supportive or understanding. My husband works in a field that I like to call the "Day care", he is not in the medical profession, but he wears a pager 24/7 even when we go out of town. He has gone to work to work at 5am on Tuesday, come home for an hour or two than returned to work not to come home until 3 the next day. When he walked in the door I scooted him to his room and closed the door than tried my best to keep my kids quite. Is it wrong that while he walks away from his office, and mine never changes that maybe once in a while I would love to go somewhere and be given the same respect. We as mothers and wife have a lot of guilt, you know enrichment is not always that fun, believe me we would love to use our husbands as an excuse, but than I think of the blessings I am gaining for my family by going. yes it is great to have other women to talk to, and gather with, and than return to my duties that last all the time. So, I hope that as you "children" grow, and when your wife calls you in tears because she has just spent the last three days with sick kids, doing her other duties, and supporting you while you do bring home the money, that when she asks, you know could you come home just a little early tonight so I can go and feed myself and others, that you will stop and tell her that sure she deserves it, and hey why you are at it, why don't you schedule a "fun" night out with some friends, I would be happy to take care of our children.
But, knowing you and knowing my sister and her friends, I bet you are already this type of guy, but for the guys who aren't, maybe give them some pointers.
I don't know the men you're describing. You've set up a straw man who works not to support his family, but stays at work to avoid home and family. That was not the scenario I described, even if it was the one that made your arguments easier. I, instead, am describing the vast majority of couples you and I know (and which Bill Benac knows) in which the husband has a stressful job so his wife can stay home with the kids. In that case, the husband usually doesn't have the option of making it home early simply by skipping lunch. Instead, he must plan and turn work down and make himself less of an employee so that he can make it home by 6:45 so his wife can go learn about Mexican art at SMU. He thus possibly compromises his responsibility to provide for the family by coming home. That's the reality of the couples you know, Lara. Perhaps you can start discussing those instead of this fictional father who stays away from home because he hates his kids.
No one wants to work less than I do. I'd greatly prefer to change places with Kaycee. I joke about checking off parenting on my list of things to do that day, but the truth is that if Kaycee could support us both, I'd be home in a heartbeat. I don't need the stress, or adulation for that matter, of a corporate job to feel good about myself. It was simply the job I could take and Kaycee be able to stay home with Jonah. (And I'm pretty damn good with the boy too.) Thus, I find your intimation that I'm staying at work and sabatoging Kaycee's personal events simply so I don't have to feed Jonah a little insulting. I'm home as often as I can be and still be considered a "good employee", and that's the truth. And I believe it's the truth for everyone I know (save one, maybe).
Moreover, I do not think that Kaycee or you or anyone I know sits at home eating bon-bons while watching their "stories." Nor does my argument depend on such thinking. You can have worked at home as a homemaker from sun-up to sun-down; it doesn't change the fact that in order to keep my job, I need to have less things that demand I'm home earlier than other people in my office. And being significantly less reliable in my office, in turn, compromises my ability to be an effective provider to my family, which is certainly my responsibility. (Proc. Fam.: "By divine design, fathers are...responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children.")
Now, focus your arguments with the real people in real situations you know in mind. Why is it hard for them to make it home to take care of kids? And is coming home early for homemaking really worth the cost?
Katie,
I meant what I said, but only what I said. Don't read any more into it than what's there. I'm not belittling the difficulty of motherhood or the benefit of getting away from the kids now and again or the responsibilities of fathers to take care of their kids.
Brent,
I can respect what you are saying, and there are times that I might even agree, but I find it interesting that when you quoted the proclamation to the family, you missed a key sentence after the part about fathers and mothers... "In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners." I am not reading anymore into what you are saying, all I am suggesting is that for some of these women they might enjoy that cultural event, or how to learn Once a month cooking. I will say that I believe many women choose not to go, so there is a large amount of women missing from a program that is called of God. I really hope that you can see that I do respect your point of view and that I think it a very lonely and hard position that both spouses are in at times.
Let me weigh in on this important, and controversial topic. First, in this argument, I believe the following assumptions must be stated. The first assumption is that men are generally involved and engaged in the rearing of children and the activities of the family and are generally intersted in the well being of their wives. From the small sample of respondants in this page, it is clear that this is supported.
The second assumption is that being a stay at home mom is not a life of bliss and leisure, but one that requires patience, hard work and drive to do well in exactly the same manner that work outside the home requires. The exception to this is that those who work outside the home have more choice in the content of the work they pursue, while at-home workers must be limited to the management of a household.
Third assumption: While obligations to the family are established for both parties of a marriage, there is no clause or direction establishing detailed specifics of all those obligations. The specific items established in my mind are that the parties of the marriage are equal in partnership, the father is slated generally to the financial support, while the mother is endowed with strengths that put her primarily in charge of the management of the home. For each family the specific details of this arrangement should be worked out and agreed upon early and revisited when situations require it.
Now that those assumptions are stated, i believe that each of us needs the stimulation of our peers. No individual should be isolated. Given that work in the home tends by its nature to be isolating, there may be an opportunity for those who work outside the home to make an extra effort to allow for positive and uplifting interactions. This certainly should not be undertaken to the detriment of employment, because that is an area that is of critical importance. In the same manner that abdication of responsibilities of an at-home job should not be undertaken to provide for positive and uplifting interactions. In each case, the primary objective of the family is missed.
By the way, Brent. I am not a metrosexual.
wow- didn't mean to cause a firestorm. Brent you know me well enough to know that I would never imply you don't fulfill your obligations as a parent. I only quoted that, because I knew you would get it and we frequently tease you about it.
At the core of my argument, although maybe not articulated, is that women frequently view their husbands as a babysitter, when in fact they are a parent. Too many women see themselves not as the primary parent, but as the sole parent. I used Bill's speech more as a means to illustrate that the idea exists that when a man is watching his child it is babysitting. Obviously I would not expect for anyone to leave work, or shirk their responsibility as the provider for the family so their wife could attend enrichment. However, work doesn't absolve anyone from fulfilling their role as a parent, which includes spending time with their children when they are awake.
Should we hug and be friends again?
"...all I am suggesting is that for some of these women they might enjoy that cultural event, or how to learn Once a month cooking."
Katie: I think this would be an easy problem if homemaking was the only responsibility men needed to be home for. I would guess between callings and work and and other church meetings and obligatory social events, I can be home, on average, about 1 night a week before 9 PM. Meanwhile, for Kaycee, there's the option of book club, early childhood PTA, homemaking, her calling, and a variety of other events on any given night. I hate the idea that I'm not a good father because I can't make it home to "babysit" for all of them, which is what I read Lara to be suggesting is wrong with men in her post.
Moreover, as to the "left out" portion of the PoF, I would posit that I help Kaycee out by having a job that allows her to stay at home, and she helps me out by having a home that allows me to worry mostly about work.
Adam and Lara: stop being so damn conciliatory. I'm not angry; I just argue for a living. You don't have to find common ground for my sake. (Let me know if you feel this is taking away from the purpose of your blog, though, Lara. I'll stop commenting in this manner.)
Everyone else: Kaycee wants me to tell you that I'm really a nice guy who usually comes home to take care of his child during book club.
You mean outlaw you like the FMH group? I enjoy your comments, but would be remiss if I didn't apologize if I implied that you were a poor father to "the boy". I've seen you hug him at least once.
So law school teaches you to argue logically- I really need to look into going to law school again. It ticks me off when I can't argue logically.
I do take offense to the nonessential comment. I was the enrichment leader. Why do they even have the calling if it is nonessential? I did a lot of work for a nonessential calling?
Brent,
I can tell that I would really enjoy you. I appreciate that you were not harsh towards me, since you don't know me well nor I you. I can tell that you are someone who has put great thought into this, and that when you talk about that not being the only thing you would have to be home for, I completely agree. I am learning that a 9-5 career no longer exists. That my husband has just as much guilt when he cannot be home to help in the raising or attend those things that are important to the kids. I guess you got a taste of one of Lara's sisters, you probably would hate to be in a room with us. I am learning to not be too opininated, and I guess that sometimes what we write cannot truly imply how we feel, since I cannot help you understand right away what I really meant if taken differently. I would never think my husband a bad husband if he could not be home due to providing for our family. Thank you for a great conversation, and I truly hope that I no way implied that i judged you as a person or father. I learned a lot tonight. And thanks Adam for your take, and I think you pretty close to metrosexual, well at least in our family you are.
"I do take offense to the nonessential comment. I was the enrichment leader. Why do they even have the calling if it is nonessential? I did a lot of work for a nonessential calling?"
"Nonessential" means that I'm not asked about it at my temple recommend interview. I don't mean to say anything more than that by calling it nonessential. (I do have opinions as to enrichment's utility generally, but I'll keep those to myself.)
Wow. I'm late to the discussion, and it sure has been a volatile one! I'll just say that I bristle when the term "babysitting" is used for a parent. And I think that both mothers and fathers need a break and a chance to get out and spend time alone or with friends.
Post a Comment