In response to “Stay Home with Your Kids,” many parents, including fathers, would love to stay home and raise their children for the first six years of that child’s life. Economic realities, …
This item is available in full to subscribers.
To continue reading, you will need to either log in to your subscriber account, or purchase a new subscription.
If you are a digital subscriber with an active, online-only subscription then you already have an account here. Just reset your password if you've not yet logged in to your account on this new site.
Otherwise, click here to view your options for subscribing.
Please log in to continue |
In response to “Stay Home with Your Kids,” many parents, including fathers, would love to stay home and raise their children for the first six years of that child’s life. Economic realities, particularly in this impoverished area, realistically do not allow for parents the choice of being “stay at home” mothers or fathers. To assert working parents are dong so simply to provide additional material goods for their children is ludicrous: food, clothing and shelter are basic necessities of life. Are fathers incapable of providing nurturing, unconditional love and secure attachments to their children simply by the presence of a Y chromosome? The inherent “mommy” bias underlying your premise does a disservice to all “working parents” and underscores the myth of the disposable father. Omitting the fathers continues to relegate fathers to non-existent entities inherently lacking agency, skills and necessity in a child’s life. Please bear in mind we need our fathers as well as our mothers, and not purely for their economic contribution alone.