So, What Is a Dad to Do?

The New York Times ran several articles last week in their “Room for Debate” series on fathers’ role in the conversation about parenting. Many of the contributors noted the negative stereotype of men as played out in the media. While we as men may not be able to change that stereotype in the short run, we do still have influence in our own small spheres. And it is up to us to use that influence in a positive way.

The greatest influence we have, of course, is with our own kids. That being said, our greatest responsibility is not to bemoan the culture, but to be good stewards of that responsibility. So I want to lay out three areas where dads need to be dads, where they need to take an active role in parenting.

The three habits or responsibilities come from Paul’s letter to the Thessalonians. In 2:9–12, Paul writes these words: “For you remember, brothers, our labor and toil: we worked night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you, while we proclaimed to you the gospel of God. You are witnesses, and God also, how holy and righteous and blameless was our conduct toward you believers. For you know how, like a father with his children, we exhorted each one of you and encouraged you and charged you to walk in a manner worthy of God, who calls you into his own kingdom and glory.” (ESV)

The first issue has nothing to do with dads but with whether or not we can accurately use this passage which is not directly about dads as an example for dads. Paul is not a father, in the physical sense; he has no children. He is just simply making an analogy. He claims that his actions are father like. The reason we can apply these ideas to dads is because Paul assumes the Thessalonians would understand the analogy. If fathers didn’t behave this way, the Thessalonians could simply say, “Hey, Paul, you’re not acting like a dad to us. Dads don’t do those things.” For Paul’s argument to make sense, he needs to use actual responsibilities that dads participated in.

The second issue is motivation. We can often do the right things for the wrong reasons. The reason that we behave the way we should toward our kids is not for our benefit. It is not to relive our past. It is also not to make them successful, happy, rich, beautiful or well-adjusted. The reason we do what we do is so they will walk worthy of God. If that is not our sole reason, we are spinning our wheels.

So what are the three things that we need to be doing. We need to walk beside them, enter into their hurts, and speak the truth.

Paul uses three words: exhorted, encouraged, and charged. When translators are doing their work, they often want to translate word for word to avoid clutter. Each of those words captures a shade of meaning from the Greek words Paul used, but there are some nuances that are left out. It is those nuances I want to discuss.

The first word that Paul uses is the verb form of the word that John uses in his gospel for the Holy Spirit: paraclete. This term is often referred to as helper or comforter. It can take both of those shades of meaning. In general the Holy Spirit enters into the life (sometimes we use the phrase “comes along side”) of the believer and gives them what they need when they need it. He knows them intimately. He has a relationship with them, and because of that, he can provide encouragement when they need encouragement, and comfort when they need comfort and urging when they need urging.

Dads need to do the same thing. We need to know our children well enough to provide what they need when they need it. We need to have a PhD in our children, knowing their ins an outs, what makes them tick, what pushes their buttons, what makes them happy. And this is a never ending job description because, as you know, children are constantly changing. Even if I learned everything about my ten year old, she will be eleven next year, and her personality is still undergoing transformation.

The second word that Paul uses means to console, especially in the face of tragedy. It is to enter into someone’s hurt. What we need to keep in mind as dads is that this tragedy is from the child’s perspective, not ours. We may think something is no big deal. Well, it may be a big deal to our kid. Men, especially, have a I-can-fix-this attitude. We think we can explain why our kids shouldn’t cry over spilled milk or a broken toy or a disappointment at school. But if they are crying, that is not the time to try to fix it. It is the time to offer comfort, to enter into their hurts and console. There may be a time later when we talk about big deals versus small deals and the proper way to react, but in the moment that is not the time.

The third thing that Paul says that fathers do is tell the truth. This word means to testify or bear witness or to insist upon something as a matter of great importance. It is related to the word where we get our word martyr. A martyr is someone who holds to their convictions at great cost to themselves. And we as fathers need to make sure that we are telling our children the truth. Which means we need to live the truth. It is not only that we let them know right from wrong. We also need to make sure that we are modeling right from wrong. We cannot tell them one thing and do something else. That is not loving or helpful to our children.

Each of these three things is impossible to do on our own. We may come close at times, but we will fail to be consistent in them. That is where our relationship with God comes in. If we do not depend upon him, who loves our children more than we do, we will not be able to adequately fulfill our responsibilities as fathers. So our first priority is to develop a relationship with God through Jesus Christ. To know him through his word, by spending time with him in prayer, and in fellowship with other believers who can offer encouragement and exhortation to us when things get difficult.

Father’s Day and the New York Times Parts VI and VII

The sixth and next to the last contributor in the New York Times “Room for Debate” series on fathers in the parenting conversation is Andy Gertsacov. He is a professional clown and co-founder of the Digital Family Summit. But he seriously identifies the problem and sees a solution; though, I am afraid it is wishful thinking.

He blames the problem of the stereotypical inept male on the culture of the past (where dads were less than they should be) and the media. Perceptions are hard to change, he says, and the media has not kept up with the times in their telling of any healthy dad stories.

The solution: “fiction” that tells the truth. I really like the way he puts this. For it is in fiction: stories through movies and TV that have perpetuated the stereotype in people’s minds. Why can’t we begin a media onslaught that portrays dads in a better light? And do so in a compelling, well-done way? The answer: those in control of media don’t want to.

The last contributor in the debate is Dave Taylor, the author of a blog called GoFatherhood.  On his blog, he discusses his essay and the topic that he was given, which surprisingly, the NYT didn’t post in those same words at the beginning, at least not that I saw. Someone correct me if I am wrong.

Dave begins by talking about how he (even as a single dad) is seen as “the less important parent.” He also bemoans the fact that this stereotype—and worse—is highly visible through TV. He then gives some stats that show that indeed from both men’s and women’s perspectives there is a problem in the way dads are viewed.

The solution: engagement. Dads need to be dads and need to engage the community to attain the rights to be dads. Second, society needs to honor the differences between moms and dads and stop comparing apples to oranges. His last line is painfully true: “Our children desperately need more fathers, and everything we bring to parenting.” I couldn’t agree more.

Father’s Day and the New York Times Part V

The fifth contributor to the New York Times’ “Room for Debate” series on fathers in the parenting conversation is Jed Rubenfeld: a law professor at Yale, an author, and the husband of Amy Chua, who authored Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mom. His is by far the shortest column.

I need for someone to tell me that this really is meant to be humorous. That was my first impression, but when I came to the end, I got the impression that he was serious. But surely I am misreading it. For if he is serious, he is not helpful and paints a picture for fathers which is harmful for both them and their children.

He begins by saying that dads should stop complaining about women doing most of the work because that is the “last best bastion of patriarchy that we have left.” That was where I was first sure this was a humor column.

Next he gives three simple steps for dads to follow, and when they accomplish these three, they can “hang up the spikes.” Each of these needs to be accomplished when the kids are young (I am assuming pre-school age and younger). 1) Be all powerful so your kids feel safe. 2) Be all good so they know right from wrong. 3) Give them a sense of the deep magic (are we in Narnia?) and joy of the world before they start learning.

That’s it. Feel better dads? I didn’t. Do I want my kids to feel safe and know right from wrong and have an awe and joy in life? Sure. Is this the way to go about it? Definitely not. And to top it all off, he says when your kids get older, they will see through this facade. But that’s ok, because the truth makes them stronger. Right, this has to be a humor column, doesn’t it?

He finishes by saying that “…if, to be a good father, you have to start as a god but end as a man, I’d still call that a bargain—the best I ever had.”

So what about when they’re seven or ten or sixteen? As long as I start well, does it not matter how I finish? And we wonder why some people don’t think men should be engaged in the parenting conversation. This from someone who admits that his wife does all the work.

Surely, surely, he intended this for humor. Maybe he should read some Dave Barry.

Father’s Day and the New York Times Part IV

Antonio Brown is a single father, film producer, and author, and he is the fourth contributor in the New York Times “Room for Debate” series on dads’ role in the conversation about parenting.

He begins the piece discussing the pull between boys being taught that  “men are historically hunter-gatherers,” and what feminist society expects of them: supporting “evolving definitions of womanhood.” What this paradox sometimes returns to Brown is a suspicious glare at the playground by those who assume he should be working.

He goes on to tell of being chided for attending his children’s events and even being offered out of town trips at work so that he doesn’t have to go. This is in addition to suspicious looks from moms in what is naturally their turf, despite the fact that he should be applauded for not being a stereotypical absent black father. I think I would be more offended than he appears to be, much to his credit.

What begins as a clearly articulated problem and several specific examples of the paradox he faces, ends with a rather clichéd remark about his own parenting, stating that “love is love” and despite the challenges, things will turn out ok.

Whenever I hear someone throwing around the word love these days, I really want them to define it, for it seems that we have lost a good, clear picture of what that is. Despite the fact that Brown is a single parent, I don’t think one can necessarily assume that sacrifice is part of the definition; though, it seems from the article that he understands that and practices that. It’s just that in life, we can no longer count on that. I would have loved for him to continue the confident writing of the first part of the article and give one more bold example of the sacrifice he makes to be an involved, caring dad. That would show us love, and go much further, I think, in the conversation.

Father’s Day and the New York Times Part III

The third contributor to the “Room for Debate” discussion at the New York Times over father’s role in the discussion of parenting is a woman, and she paints a positive picture of the role of fathers and of their increasingly active role in the parenting process and—most importantly—that this role is different than a mom’s role.

Andrea Doucet is a professor at Brock University in Canada, a researcher, and author. And she gives a summary of advances in men’s being a part of the discussion in parenting. From men’s roles in the Family Research Network Conference to on-line parents’ forums including more space for men to the formation of men’s parenting groups, Doucet offers a different take on the men-absent-from-discussion (or too inept to participate) mantra.

I am curious, though, about men’s reactions to different forms of media. She gives the example of the backlash against a Huggies ad that showed apparently some inattentive fathers. The outcry was strong enough for Huggies to pull the ad. Why is it then that sitcoms continue to get away with portraying men as inept or uncaring or foolish? Why do advertisers get a different standard than the shows they sponsor?

Doucet closes with the observation that “we need to stop looking at men through a maternal lens.” She says that men are not following in the steps of women and that this is a good thing. I would agree. She also says that men are being “active agents in creating their own fathering culture.” This, also, can be a good thing. But only if it is based on the truth of what a father should be instead of a reaction to something else.

Again, I will lay out my thoughts on this after looking at each of the seven contributors. I hope to get one more in today, and then we’ll see if we have any time tomorrow. It is, after all, father’s day!

Father’s Day and the New York Times Part II

I know I shouldn’t judge a book by its cover, but the title of the second part in the New York Times “Room for Debate” series about dads didn’t do much for me.

First of all, we’re not just like moms. We are purposefully different than moms. That’s why we’re called dads instead of moms. And we are different because we have different purposes (more about that after going through the seven contributors). And we shouldn’t try to be just like moms. Ok, now that that’s off my mind, let’s look at the substance of the second article.

Neal Pollack is an author, and he rightly point out that dads are ignored in the main stream media and characterized as dopes or absent by entertainment. All true statements, but he gives no hope that this trend will change other than it must since so many dads are involved.

And Neal should know because he also has lots of friends. He knows hundreds, maybe thousands of dads. And these dads “with very few exceptions, are totally present and full contributors to the conversation, both in person and online.” I just want to know how in the world he knows this about thousands of people. How does he have time to keep up with the habits and conversations off and on-line of all these dads—and be a writer? So, now we have strike two.

Finally, I was annoyed that the only concrete example of these conversations was in reference to when dads should let their kids listen to hip-hop. Isn’t part of the issue that dads aren’t involved in the serious stuff of parenting? Sure, he says that dads are involved in things like what their kids eat, their education, their consumption of media, but the one concrete example he gives (out of the thousands that he apparently hears) is the (self-described) absurd one.

He says that dads voices are loud and obnoxious, and he assumes the news media will eventually catch up. They already have: they think we are absurd and obnoxious, and this particular addition to the conversation hasn’t changed that. Strike three.

 

Father’s Day and the New York Times Part I

The New York Times chose to do one of their “Room for Debate” series on the role of Fathers. I’ve never been overly impressed by the series. Maybe I am missing something. I thought that with the word debate in the title, that the authors would be arguing for something. Sometimes they’re not. Sometimes they are just talking. That’s ok; I don’t mind information or a conveyance of emotion, but I guess I’m just looking for someone to take a stand—and one that is backed up by more than “I think” or “I feel” or “I’ve seen.”

I will be looking at the seven contributors, one at a time and interacting with their points. Being a dad, I have a vested interest in what they have to say, seeing how they are probably being read by thousands of other dads who will undoubtedly agree with some of what they have to say—dad’s have to stick together, right?

The first contributor is Kevin Noble Maillard. He is a law professor at Syracuse and a dad. According to the intro, he is the one, in light of a plethora of parenting advice and media attention about parenting but with dads largely MIA in the conversation, who suggested the topic for debate. So his column is largely an introduction to the state of things.

He begins appropriately with a piece of advice he got when he became a dad: “…do whatever your lady tells you. She knows everything.” His take is that this stems from the “presumed” stereotype that men are not interested and mainly disengaged. I appreciate the word presumed. The media certainly portrays men this way, and we can often find examples in real life, but is this the real state of things? And if it is, have American males been conditioned by media to think they are not interested and should be disengaged? And has everyone else, especially women, been bombarded by the same media to think that dads are just inept? I would agree that dads do some dumb things—I certainly have, but have opinions been set in concrete by the endless barrage of negativity toward dads by the media?

With the focus on mommy wars in the media, the proliferation of feminists critique, and the state of our society which bemoans the gender “inequalities,” and the statistics that supposedly show that men just don’t cut it when it comes to parenting, the author is not surprised that men are left out of the conversation.

As an introduction to the series, Maillard does not give us any recommendations, but sets the stage for the rest of the debate. I am curious, though why he chooses to frame the situation as mostly negative. Is that because that is all he really sees? It may very well be. I am also curious if despite the “gender inequalities” that he mentions, if anyone will actually deal with the real gender differences that exist between the sexes and what role they play in the whole parenting issue.

Finally, at the conclusion of this series, I will provide my take on the role of fathers and how it is much different than what society offers.