I enjoyed the Bob Cratchit reference and the overall thrust of your piece but I would venture to say that your definition of marriage as trade-off plays into the immature voices who are sloppily confronting this problem.
Bob Cratchit was supposed to be a stand-in for the helpless Victorian workers who worked a lot and were paid little and treated poorly. This article’s argument is flawed because it imposes a modern ideal onto a story from a different era that was never meant to have such an ideal.
This article is the definition of reading too deep into things that were never meant to be that deep.
Also, can we please stop shaming sensitive men by calling them spineless and weak? You’re kind of asking to stop making positive father figures by making such complaints.
Great piece! We have a huge Bob Cratchit problem right now, and the men need to shake themselves out of it, not only for our kids, but our wives and ourselves.
This is why I’d add that making friendships and networking outside the home significantly helps one’s fathering and husbanding inside the home. A man who over-relies on his wife and kids for company can become an oppressive presence at home. Not abusive, but just this boring and bored all the time, setting up a poor role model for his children who will become equally boring and antisocial.
This is to say nothing of wives who have to deal with their dull husbands lying around all the time, listening to their BS. We all mocked the idea of man-keeping, but what if this was just describing the dynamic of a wife or girlfriend having to be her man’s one and only friend? And yes, this is a huge turnoff.
The struggle now is seeking other guys and persuading them to not retreat into wife-guy solitude. Too often, they’d rather get drunk and play video games alone than do the work of talking about themselves with another dude. There is nothing virtuous in this, and we need to get back to finding that third space outside the house and work.
Yes! I found the assertion that wives can't understand this early in the piece a bit strange, though maybe I just misunderstood. I know several women who know that their husbands need this and aren't sure how to assist or if they should, but it isn't good for him or the family to be on the endless work/home cycle vegging out in front of the TV.
My husband and I each have our own interests and our own friends (though there is some overlap, and many of his friends are the husbands of my friends), and when things are going well we each get time to do real things on our own and come back refreshed to the rest of our lives. If either of us gets in the habit of neglecting it our home life sours pretty quickly, so it's worth it to prioritize.
I’m gonna have to pitch an essay about man-dates to the NYT, which is sadly a real thing: wives arranging a playdate for their husbands since they’re socially incompetent engineers (always the engineers) who never leave the house except for work.
I don't think this necessarily has to be a bad thing, as women are often the drivers of social interaction for the family anyway. If wives are always arranging "man-dates," sad, but facilitating an introduction to Guy, husband of My Friend, Who Also Likes Thing, seems very natural and normal to me.
In thinking about this some more I'm considering the idea that there is actually a surprising parity between the sexes here, in terms of the expectation that one's family will completely serve all one's emotional needs and a spouse is the only adult friendship required. I'm used to thinking about this idea as a woman (naturally), and had not really considered before this essay that men experience this particular thinking trap too, though how it plays out may very well differ in some ways. It's very good food for thought, thank you!
I don’t think one should reject Bob Cratchit, but to synthesize the loving caring Cratchit father and husband mindset with the business acumen of Scrooge (minus the greed) but keep he self-interest.
I recently reread A Christmas Carol and watched the Alister Sims version. It was great, next year I’ll watch George C. Scott, or maybe I won’t wait. Hehe 😉👍
“Ebenezer Scrooge, who denies even basic warmth” it also said that Scrooge “iced the coffees in the summer.” Scrooge preferred a lower temperature at work, and since he was paying for the coal for the fire, he felt he had a right to set a low fire in Bob’s workroom. He wasn’t torturing or neglecting Bob, he was keeping the office comfortable for himself. If Bob didn’t like it, he was free to wear a muffler (scarf) at work—which he did.
I'm usually one to appreciate looking at how pieces of media enforce unhelpful and unhealthy standards, but this seems to be a rightist defense of 'hustle culture.' Cratchit wasn't longhoused--in fact, he admonished his wife for not showing enough Christian gratitude for the job he does have. He takes his son to church. His children respect him. He gets along with others in his community (the ice-sliding bit). Could he have been more cunning and cutthroat in his assessment of his finances and his family's financial planning? Okay. Merry Christmas!
I enjoyed the Bob Cratchit reference and the overall thrust of your piece but I would venture to say that your definition of marriage as trade-off plays into the immature voices who are sloppily confronting this problem.
How would you describe it?
Natural. Good. Normative. Hierarchical.
Rather than defining it as a begrudging task for men, marriage should be framed as a blessing.
Never thought about Bob Cratchit in this light before. Thanks for the analysis!
Bob Cratchit was supposed to be a stand-in for the helpless Victorian workers who worked a lot and were paid little and treated poorly. This article’s argument is flawed because it imposes a modern ideal onto a story from a different era that was never meant to have such an ideal.
This article is the definition of reading too deep into things that were never meant to be that deep.
Also, can we please stop shaming sensitive men by calling them spineless and weak? You’re kind of asking to stop making positive father figures by making such complaints.
Agreed. Not saying the OP outright says this, but the idea that a man lives to work and family comes second to that is very Mammon-coded.
Thank you, well written. As men, our friends are as much for us now as they are for our kids later.
Great piece! We have a huge Bob Cratchit problem right now, and the men need to shake themselves out of it, not only for our kids, but our wives and ourselves.
This is why I’d add that making friendships and networking outside the home significantly helps one’s fathering and husbanding inside the home. A man who over-relies on his wife and kids for company can become an oppressive presence at home. Not abusive, but just this boring and bored all the time, setting up a poor role model for his children who will become equally boring and antisocial.
This is to say nothing of wives who have to deal with their dull husbands lying around all the time, listening to their BS. We all mocked the idea of man-keeping, but what if this was just describing the dynamic of a wife or girlfriend having to be her man’s one and only friend? And yes, this is a huge turnoff.
The struggle now is seeking other guys and persuading them to not retreat into wife-guy solitude. Too often, they’d rather get drunk and play video games alone than do the work of talking about themselves with another dude. There is nothing virtuous in this, and we need to get back to finding that third space outside the house and work.
Yes! I found the assertion that wives can't understand this early in the piece a bit strange, though maybe I just misunderstood. I know several women who know that their husbands need this and aren't sure how to assist or if they should, but it isn't good for him or the family to be on the endless work/home cycle vegging out in front of the TV.
My husband and I each have our own interests and our own friends (though there is some overlap, and many of his friends are the husbands of my friends), and when things are going well we each get time to do real things on our own and come back refreshed to the rest of our lives. If either of us gets in the habit of neglecting it our home life sours pretty quickly, so it's worth it to prioritize.
Some of my guy friends have this frustration. This was written for largely a male audience, so you'll have to excuse some broad strokes.
I will say some wives practically scream for their introvert husbands to go out also.
I’m gonna have to pitch an essay about man-dates to the NYT, which is sadly a real thing: wives arranging a playdate for their husbands since they’re socially incompetent engineers (always the engineers) who never leave the house except for work.
I don't think this necessarily has to be a bad thing, as women are often the drivers of social interaction for the family anyway. If wives are always arranging "man-dates," sad, but facilitating an introduction to Guy, husband of My Friend, Who Also Likes Thing, seems very natural and normal to me.
Fair!
In thinking about this some more I'm considering the idea that there is actually a surprising parity between the sexes here, in terms of the expectation that one's family will completely serve all one's emotional needs and a spouse is the only adult friendship required. I'm used to thinking about this idea as a woman (naturally), and had not really considered before this essay that men experience this particular thinking trap too, though how it plays out may very well differ in some ways. It's very good food for thought, thank you!
So a family man can't stop at just being a family man, he must be a community man, a tribal man, a national man, etc.
I don’t think one should reject Bob Cratchit, but to synthesize the loving caring Cratchit father and husband mindset with the business acumen of Scrooge (minus the greed) but keep he self-interest.
I recently reread A Christmas Carol and watched the Alister Sims version. It was great, next year I’ll watch George C. Scott, or maybe I won’t wait. Hehe 😉👍
Public obligations, that's what I pay taxes for!- some guy who thinks he pays a lot in taxes.
“Ebenezer Scrooge, who denies even basic warmth” it also said that Scrooge “iced the coffees in the summer.” Scrooge preferred a lower temperature at work, and since he was paying for the coal for the fire, he felt he had a right to set a low fire in Bob’s workroom. He wasn’t torturing or neglecting Bob, he was keeping the office comfortable for himself. If Bob didn’t like it, he was free to wear a muffler (scarf) at work—which he did.
I'm usually one to appreciate looking at how pieces of media enforce unhelpful and unhealthy standards, but this seems to be a rightist defense of 'hustle culture.' Cratchit wasn't longhoused--in fact, he admonished his wife for not showing enough Christian gratitude for the job he does have. He takes his son to church. His children respect him. He gets along with others in his community (the ice-sliding bit). Could he have been more cunning and cutthroat in his assessment of his finances and his family's financial planning? Okay. Merry Christmas!