In my last entry, I presented marketing and content for a hypothetical business magazine that referred to business managers as "businessmen" that should seem like something out of date by 30 years since it's no longer appropriate to exclude women from discussions of managing businesses.
Unfortulately, this marketing and content was taken from the September 2004 issue of Parenting magazine with parenting terms replaced by business terms and mothers replaced by businessmen. Click the image to see the cover in larger detail to see I'm not making this up.
I am proud to take equal part in raising my daughter, Lauren. As any fully-involved working parent will tell you, it's a tremendous effort to be an excellent parent, work effectively at your job, keep up a home and still try to retain some identity through personal activities. But, I highly recommend it to anyone willing to take it on as the effectiveness of involved parenting is obvious and rewarding. People tell me that they see something excellent in Lauren and I'm happy to be a part of it. I know a handful of dads that are doing the same.
While we can say that not every man wants to be involved in parenting (as they used to say that not every woman wanted to work outside the home), I do believe that significant factors are a societal expectation that a man's primary goal is to be the breadwinner and a societal invalidation of a man's involvement in parenting (as seen blatantly in Parenting magazine). Sure, many men are workaholics and don't know much about parenting. No one knows how to parent before they're given a chance to learn. In a society where many men's fathers probably had little involvement with their parenting and where many men's mothers never involved them in the raising of younger siblings, as they did the girls, men are at a handicap in knowing how to parent. This is why the resources that parents use to learning parenting (books, classes, parent support groups, magazines, etc) must include fathers instead of excluding them. The reward of doing this is that today's boys will grow up with better role models of involved fathers and more practical experience from involvement with younger siblings, just as the last two generations of girls have experienced better role models for working mothers.
The problem is widespread. Last week, the local newspaper published an Associated Press article about how employers are boosting benefits for working mothers. If the benefits being provided (more flexible schedules, childcare and telecommuting) would be applicable to working fathers as well, there is no reason to use "working mother" instead of "working parent" except for sexism (except when referring to Working Mother magazine). If the benefits weren't being offered to working fathers, maybe "working mother" is appropriate and the article should have discussed the gender bias. The only mention of fathers and parenting in this week's local newspaper was about help for improving parenting skills for batterers. Sad.
Please don't take this as a complaint about "reverse sexism". Sexism is sexism. I know that women still are at a disadvantage in the workplace, but much slow progress has been made and that makes me hopeful that things will improve over time for men who want to be excellent fathers. But we won't get there without having shame at the bias of Parenting magazine and hoping they clean up their act or change their name to "Mothering magazine".
Unfortunately, I've really shown them where I stand by recently extending my subscription an additional 3 years.
Parenting magazine is crap, but it's the only way to get the bundled Sesame Street magazine for Lauren.
That is a great picture!
I fear the monkey.
That dude sure looks young. For your information he (the man, not the monkey) got an allergic reaction to the green and had to take a long bath before the party was over
[...] t » Ken, my father (pictured above with myself and with Lauren and who you've seen previously) visited this weekend. While her kept up his usual pace of [...]