It's been ages since I've posted to here, and I'm really going to try to be better about posts. I'm hoping to use it as a way to hash out some ideas that I'm working on for the dissertation and maybe just to write a little about whatever is brewing around in my head.
So today, I'm finally back in the saddle again after an uphill battle with this current chapter. It's not that I haven't had anything to say about this chapter (father's rights and adaptations), it just feels like the hampster may have had a heart attack in the wheel. I just couldn't get anywhere. But today I broke through. I wrote a little, I did some research and it's making sense. I'm not exactly sure what it was that gave me the kick in the teeth that I needed, but whatever it is, it worked. I charged upstairs to my loft office and despite the heat, plowed through some work on my introduction.
Of most significance today, I listened to a podcast of the Dave Fanning show about stay at home dads. The interviews were exactly what I expected - dads saying that they were ready to step up to the plate and help out and that it's not just women's work, etc., etc., - but what I thought was more interesting was that the show even existed at all. The whole concept of a stay at home dad is still so foreign and so almost shocking that there needed to be a feature on the radio. It's not to say that things are all that different here. I'm not actually concerned that we are shocked that there are "stay at home dads", but more that there is a need to identify parents by gender. Does it really matter what biological status a caretaker has? Why do parents still have to be labeled as workers or stay at home? The podcast is worth a listen. Of particular note is Dave Fanning's response (quite quick I might add) to one of the father's who noted that schools are often setup to cater to mothers rather than parents. His response: "There's nothing wrong with that, deal with it." I guess a women's work is never done.
No comments:
Post a Comment