Those damn women
I had been up for over an hour this morning before it registered with me that it is International Womens’ Day, but some people are not so lax, and I had an email from commenter Alan in my inbox by the time that I got to work. I am sure that Alan wouldn’t mind me quoting a couple of excerpts:
Well, there’s a most peculiar development going on in the churches at the moment.Archbishops and ethics lecturers are mounting a new campaign to get men into church.The argument runs like this:men hate the church(that of course will be news to women who look around and find its men who run the place),for five reasons:
*church meeting styles are feminine
*church leadership model is weak
*church is boring and safe:no risk
*church doesn’t relate to a man’s world
*blokes like to get their hands dirty
(”Five reasons why men hate the church”,Jeremy Halcrow,29.1.07 Syd Anglican website)
But maybe there’s another reason.
Perhaps men look around the church and don’t like the way other men are treating women.Maybe there’s too many men now comfortably and easily working with, working for,being directed by,in partnership with, women, that they are uneasy about the kind of blokey culture about in too many of our churches, and dont want to be a part of it!
I don’t know whether I agree with the latter commentary, but I find that there is a real paradox about the church/gender debate. First it seems clear that there are many more men in formal leadership in churches than women. If anything this is even more true of church plants and alternative model churches. As much as I embrace the “emerging” discussion, the movement does seem to have a more than usual affliction with the “angry young man” syndrome. No offence intended to any angry young men in the audience.
However, at the same time, there is a concern about the fact that men as a demographic are under-represented among church attenders. The NCLS says that only about 39% of church attenders in Australia are male and suggests a number of theories as to why. Part of this imbalance is almost certainly due to the fact that the elderly are over-represented in churches and women on average live longer than men. But what of the rest of the difference?
Increasingly, as Alan has pointed out, I have heard people discuss the idea that men are less likely to be involved with the church because church culture is somehow uncomfortable or anti-male. These are the arguments for people who endorse or at least condone a “bloke”inisation of leadership and culture in the church to “correct the balance”. I find these positions to raise some logical conflicts. I think we can point to the following facts that seem to be fairly well established.
- More women than men are regular church attenders
- More men than women are in formal leadership in the church
Which raises a whole bunch of questions. If the culture of the church is anti-church, then who creates the culture? If the leaders create the culture, then why are a group of predominantly male leaders creating such a “feminine” culture so as to be anathema to men? What about the culture of the church is feminine? The worship? The openness? The confessional? The singing? What?
In response to that, if the culture of the church is too female, then what changes will make the place more attractive to men? Surely most men are more sophisiticated than to respond to an increase on the ‘bloke’iness dial? So I have a couple of simple questions I would like an answer to, and I think that the commenters at signposts on this day are well qualified to give me those answers:
- Why are there more men than women in formal leadership in the church?
- What can be done to encourage more women into formal leadership in the church?
- Why are there more women than men amongst regular church attenders?
- What can be done to encourage more men to be in regular church attendance?
May 3rd, 2007 at 10:23 am
MN - I see some hints that your views on the pill and women is rooted in your experiences. This is not unusual - in fact, we all see things through our personal history and experiences.
I suspect that there is a particular reason why you feel this way - and perhaps it would be good for us to understand how you have come to this conclusion. I believe it would be good for me (and perhaps others) as a woman to see things from a male point of view. Are you comfortable to share with us how you have to this conclusion?
I recognise:
1. Your story is your story, and we have no right to know it - whether or not you share is totally your choice
2. This is a public forum, and you may not want to share details here - I respect that totally.
3. You probably will not want to say anything which could reflect badly on another person - and again that is respected.
Janet McKinney
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:34 pm
Emma
short answers - more tonight no I wouldn’t kill them but I live the legacy of being an unwanted child every day cause I was one. My grandmother brought me up, and my father had to pay maintenance kicking and screaming thru the courts. I met him once 12 years ago when I was 39 - do the maths - his wife was angry because they had 3 kids of their own and they had to pay maintenance for me which was food off the table for them.
Men don’t get away scott free although many are bastards and deserve what ever gets thrown at them. Neither are women innocent in this - my mother was as wild woman basically, and I don’t have much time for her, but the one major credit I give was that in the lat 50s she had the courage to have me and not have a coat hanger job.
Emma - I understand all you say and cannot speak with a clean conscience on some scores, but what you are saying is choose the leas damaging or consequential sin in our own eyes. I cannot escape thinking about what God’s views on this are.
My wife’s plumbing and hormanal balances are bloody awful - she has been on and off the pill with bad side effects both ways. She also went through death experience with our fourth.
But I have this nagging feeling that controlling our reproduction in this way has a bunch of other consequences that will only be felt over a long period of time.
Bluntly I don’t see our generation as child friendly because the emphasis is on earning, acquiring and comfort.
gotta go
MN
It for example
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:48 pm
hi mn, look forward to discussing this with you further. Like Janet very cleverly saw, you are talking from your own experience, and it’s always worthwhile hearing about someone else’s experience. I have no first-hand knowledge of what that must have been like for you…I was a much-wanted only child of a stable marriage.
still, my best friend is one of 5, and her dad walked out when they were all extrememly young. he did get away scott free - he never paid a day’s maintenance for any of them, and her mum was too wrung out from working 3 jobs to pay for them all to take him to court.
I think we both agree that selfishness and sin destroys lives, and I agree that the current generation seems to be one of the most self-centred yet.
I did actually stop taking the pill because I was worried what it might do to me long-term. But I think this health issue is different from the contraception issue, as in whether making it easier to have sex without getting pregnant is better or worse. I mean, if you don’t want to take the pill you can use a condom. I don’t know what God would think about someone choosing the least damaging sin - partly because many of the young people we are talking about are not Christians, and therefore are not expected (in my opinion) to live to God’s standards. I do think that if I’m serious about not wanting women (christian or non-christian) to have abortions, because I beloeve life starts at conception, then I have to offer viable alternatives. Like you say, your m other had you, which is applaudable.
anyway, thanks for your insight.
em
May 3rd, 2007 at 5:21 pm
Thanks for sharing some of your story MN.
It’s interesting your musing on long term effects of the pill… there are certainly some serious health concerns raised over long term HRT for post menopausal women… I am not able to take the pill because it increases the likelihood of clotting… so you’re right to speculate on long term (including generational health and fertility) effects from such a massive biological experiment. Although I think the societal changes are the most significant issues re. the pill. Materialism / consumerism combined with contraceptive choices has meant birth rates are significantly below replacement levels in most “developed” countries…
Perhaps the story of Pandora’s box reflects my musing more than the sword guarding Eden… it’s an image of the truth that we cannot turn back the clock no matter how much we wish we could… darn shame.
May 3rd, 2007 at 6:34 pm
I think we should keep in mind undeveloped countries in this dicussion. There are somehting like 40 millions aids orphans in Africa. I really like the appraoch world vision has to this crisis - a, b. c. A - abstain, which is the best way to live. B - be faithful, if you can’t abstain choose one partner (and be faithful to your spouse). then, C - if you can’t do either of those things, use contraception. Some might look “c” as the “least damaging sin” and say everybody should stick to a. But are we going to put children’s lives as risk because we’re holding African people to a legalistic standard of morality? I think in this case saving a life is better than letting someone die because they don’t adhere to a moral principal.
May 3rd, 2007 at 6:40 pm
I believe in a lot of developing countries with high AIDS rates, the theory being taught by aid agencies is
Abstain
Be Faithful
and use a
Condom
because even if you are faithful, your partner might not be
and because if you teach abstain without talking condoms, you’re fooling yourself.
May 4th, 2007 at 12:29 am
Emma, Janet(s) et al
My concerns around the pill is not that I am against it - many of the things it frees women up for are good - but rather what it represents for me is an increasing individual autonomy and control over our lives. This can be seen with other things to. Go back to the tower of Babel - I think a major theme here was about humanity’s creative powers being used for purposes antithetical to real relationship with God. My feeling is that broad brush our developments and advances go strongly towards distancing us from God. And its not just the “pill” - it is a lot of stuff mixed in together - as I said earlier - transport, computers etc. and its not women - it is all of us. I think every generation has this and in different shapes and forms, but ours has seen this grow exponentially for a range of reasons.
So - this is from my wife because I lack the words at the moments - the pill gives control. With control comes an increased capacity to work and for career. With increased work and career comes a desire and capacity for more - bigger house, more stuff, bigger mortgage, or anything that holds us back, plus access to a range of new and expensive addictions (like SP). With bigger mortgage we have bigger millstone (you know what I mean). Bigger millstone impacts on all the above, and when and how many children people have (if any), and also increased need for independent child care. While in many cases this may be “good” an issue may arise re the attachment bond formed between primary caregiver and child. The latter is absolutely critical and imperative in effecting whether said child is likely to grow up as a functional relational person, as opposed to myself and many others. I think it is fair to say that in Oz and increasing number of children are growing up with issues that have their genesis in the attachment that formed or didn’t in their earlier years. The effect on society over time is huge. Add in divorce, single parents, multiple families etc.
Now for me - I was actually lucky - because my grandmother looked after me - she was a strong stubborn woman in times when you weren’t supposed to be - and it cost her - and it literally saved my life (another story) - and she taught me about God and was the principal agent in me coming to a young faith.
But all this stuff gives me a nagging feeling the so-called advances that personkind makes are used to wedge us further away from God. Hence my scepticism on a number of fronts including feminism, capitalism, socialism, hermaneutics, doctrinal and all the other “isms”. The Bible warns us that things get worse, not better.
While I disagree with Rev on a few things, one of the things I think he has a handle on is the drive for a simpler life which frees you up to engage with God and other people in a way that the rat race I know doesn’t.
Janet Mc - one of things that will never leave me and explains a lot of how I feel or think is that I “lost” my grandmother for a year when I was 5 - custody battle - was the sheer brokenness that went with that. Gives me an appreciation for the stolen generation. But again I was lucky and God had mercy me - He kept me alive, whereas many never really “live” again - even if they do. So now I am now in a privileged and blessed situation with a wife who loves me, and four terrific kids. And even that came only after many years of dysfunctional relationship, which God then intervened in. A last comment - I am beginning also to appreciate that often the good things that God wants for us come only after many years of being in the wilderness or many years of perserverance. This again is at odds with a generation that wants what it wants, and wants it now - unfortunately I resemble that far too much. God’s grace towards me yet again……
Cheers
MN
May 4th, 2007 at 1:20 am
“More women than men are regular church attenders
More men than women are in formal leadership in the church
1. Why are there more men than women in formal leadership in the church?
3. Why are there more women than men amongst regular church attenders?”
Sorry don’t know how to do the quote thing here yet this is only my second post here. I think the answer to the question post here (at least in my mind) is related to my first post here in the “hillsongs - the next installment thread”.
At first it seems contradictory. That is men dominate the leadership but women dominate the congregation. In fact I think they are related. I think it is because men dominate the leadership or rather because of the type of man that dominates the leadership that women dominate the audience. In my opinion the “Alpha male” type (yes its all very contrary to Christ’s teaching) attracts the women but repels the men or rather repels others perceived to be potential competition. Sorry to use the term “Alpha male” on a forum like this but its a real phenomenon. The alpha male church leader will tolerate women and submissive men but not men with their own sense of self. In other words you don’t just need to hand in your brains at the door but your balls as well (for some churches, usually the charo ones). Some men are willing to do this some aren’t. The 22% that aren’t are your men missing from church.
I could write a whole essay on this but one essay per night is enough for me.
The solution is to literally obey Christ’s commands such as “call no one father” etc and “do not Lord it over each other as the world does”.
May 4th, 2007 at 9:07 am
NAPOP - I’d never thought of it that way, but that’s a really interesting point….
May 4th, 2007 at 9:25 am
Thanks for sharing your story MN… I do share your concerns about materialism and what we are “sowing” with the marginalisation of children… I heard of a UK study where unprecedented numbers of teenagers were displaying “institutionalised behaviours” (ie the kind of psychological profile and actions that you would normally only see in children brought up in orphanages)… because their lives from infancy had in fact been “institutionalised”… long day care, pre and post after school care, school holiday care etc… they actually did not have the kind of parental attachment… or attachment to any adult… that was once the norm.
I don’t know… these kinds of studies tend to find whatever the researchers want to find… but I think it should give us pause for thought.
Yes… interesting point NAPOP… it makes some sense to me. Although I don’t think men like “wimpy men” in church leadership either!!!!!!
May 4th, 2007 at 10:03 am
thanks mn. though I feel like I’m “betraying the sisterhood” I have to agree that children are better off in the early years with a parent (and it doesn’t have to be the mother, though I think generally mothers are more inclined to take on this role). One thing I do dislike about the “me” generation is the expectation we can have everything without is costing anything. If you want a full-time career go for it, just don’t pretend it’s not going to cost your kids somewhere down the line. If you want to stay home great, but be aware that you are going to miss career opportunities. Of course, lots of people (single parents) are in the position where they don’t have a choice, and then we must all do what we can to support them. But I have friends who have massive mortgages who when they had kids told me, “I have to go back to work otherwise we won’t survive”. It simply wasn’t true. If they would have been happy to lead a less expensive lifestyle, they would defnintely have survived. Other friends chose to sell their house and rent while their kids were little, just so one parent could be with them. In this day and age that doesn’t make “sense” financially but I really admired them for it….anf they have a great family life. I guess it’s about people deciding what is the most important thing for them.
May 4th, 2007 at 1:37 pm
Notaprophetofprofit.
You musings may explain, why some women have difficulty in church circles. Leaving your brains at the door is not an option for many woman as well, it can lead to major difficulties/problems and being labeled ‘trouble maker’ or worse.
May 4th, 2007 at 2:03 pm
Yeah I’ll elaborate in this point further later using some specific real life examples but have already used up my daily (self imposed) internet chatting allowance so have to go get some work done now (oh I so want to write something but I have to be self disciplined and stop now).
May 7th, 2007 at 10:13 am
And they give more to charity than men;interesting given that generally they earn less than men.
http://www.smh.com.au/text/articles/2007/05/06/1178390145490.html
May 7th, 2007 at 7:32 pm
‘Though I feel like I’m “betraying the sisterhood” I have to agree that children are better off in the early years with a parent’
The fact is… there is really strong evidence that ages 0 - 3 are critical developmentally in terms of capacity for attachment, self confidence, early learning etc…. and regardless of the heroic and underpaid efforts of childcare workers… “quality childcare” is not the same thing as familial love… especially when you factor in staff turnover rates in this “industry” and the child-carer ratios they work with.
It doesn’t need to be the mum… it can be a dad, it can be a grandparent, it can be an aunt or uncle, it can be a friend… and it can be all family members working together… but stability seems to matter, lots of physical contact matters, lots of eye contact matters, lots of talking (and / or singing) with a child matters, reading to a child on your lap matters, lots of stimulating experiences… parks, gardens, backyards, zoos, outings, beaches etc. matter… love and warmth really matter. It seems boys in particular are more prone to attachment difficulties, verbal difficulties, learning difficulties… writers like Steve Biddulph advise against putting under 3 males in childcare because so many seem to develop emotional, relational or learning difficulties unless they have plenty of “one on one” attention in early childhood.
I don’t think we do our “sisters” any favours by hiding the truth. As has often been said before… how many people on their deathbed say they wish they’d spent more time at the office?
I do think this discussion intersects with the one on materialism spearheaded by the Rev… I think there are too many people trying to “keep up with the Jones’s”, running themselves ragged… and giving their children an overly structured and overly institutionalised childhood.
I know speaking about this can make one sound “sexist”, but as I’ve said, I personally think it should be the normal “default” position for both parents to work part time and care for children part time when their children are young.
May 7th, 2007 at 7:35 pm
“I mean, if you don’t want to take the pill you can use a condom.”
Well… my first born is testament to the fact that doesn’t always work!
(That’s probably too much information!!!!)
May 7th, 2007 at 9:48 pm
ha ha. Thanks Janet. sctually you’re right that the “sisterhood” is best served by truth…I hate it the “you can have everything” line, because it’s just not true. You’re right, it does often come down to “keeping up with the Jonses”. I was made to feel like a terrible mother because my one-year-old hadn’t been to swiming lessons! crazy.
love steve biddulph btw.
May 7th, 2007 at 9:51 pm
Janet
What too much info? I didn’t see anything except the good post before.
Going back to my comments about the pill and control…while in our current environment it is women taking the pill or for the most controlling contraception generally clearly this an issue for women - I think that must sound kinda dumb, but anyway…
My question is how do people see or respond to the whole idea of “taking control” of our reproduction and all the appendant consequences (or not) as opposed to “letting God” run the show.
You mentioned the materialism issue spearheaded by Rev - I agree these are similar issues. I don’t go as far as Rev, but am trying to “get” the difference between “letting God” run the show as kind of fatalism v. taking control over our lives in a way that excludes God and is more about “me and my life first”. The ideal I guess is about actively listening to/for God on a moment by moment basis, while at the same time taking responsibility for and using our own creative, personal, and material power in the service of God and His purposes.
Not sure that this makes much sense. However I will say our fourth which did see my wife have a death experience going down the tunnel etc to the warm and light before she was turned back, was as a result of deliberately not wanting to exclude God from that process ( she was angry for two or three years after that she didn’t get to go thru the”door”). At the end of the day our fourth is a great blessing and we couldn’t imagine life without him (yes we can - less bills, earlier retirement - but u know what I mean) - and that last remark almost encapsulates my concerns.
Whilst this thread is about specifically about women and I presume in the church, this issue and the way life expectancy, contraception, medical advances have changed over the last 250 years has significantly changed our lives (for the better and worse) and therefore church.
This is no meant to be utopian misty eyed hankering for time long gone, but for example, one upon a time sons would have worked with their fathers from a youngish age. At the very least I think it fair to say the direct time parents and close family spend with children is less than it used to be (unsubstantiated and grandparent child minding apart).
Cheers
MN
May 8th, 2007 at 2:03 pm
Your one-year-old can’t swim yet? You’re a BAD mother.
I mean… it gets ridiculous for the “stay home with the kids set” too… I think this insanity contributes to smaller families… some kind of nutty idea that if our two year olds don’t do swimming lessons and music appreciation classes and kindergym and playgroup and dance lessons (etc.) they will be deprived compared to other children… and we will limit family size so we can afford to give our children “the best”. While the best gift we could ever give our children is love and siblings to play with!
MN… the Roman Catholics teach this of course… that artificial birth control is “playing God” and showing a lack of faith. I’m more inclined to agree with your ideal of “actively listening to/for God on a moment by moment basis”… ie being led by the Spirit in all our decisions rather than being locked into some kind of legalism… and being very open to testing our motives and values.
May 8th, 2007 at 5:09 pm
“an issue may arise re the attachment bond formed between primary caregiver and child. The latter is absolutely critical and imperative in effecting whether said child is likely to grow up as a functional relational person, as opposed to myself and many others. I think it is fair to say that in Oz and increasing number of children are growing up with issues that have their genesis in the attachment that formed or didn’t in their earlier years. The effect on society over time is huge.”
I do wonder what these spin offs are going to look like. My son was in a class for a couple of years which (to my surprise) was really dominated by the “family values set”… parents who took time off work (both sexes in some cases) to be at home with the kids as preschoolers… and I was struck at times by the fact these “old fashioned” kinds of kids were coming home to play… well mannered, not testing boundaries all the time, fun and creative and able to amuse themselves well, kind of secure in themselves (not fragile emotionally).
These are really difficult areas to talk about without sounding judgmental… but ask any primary school teacher, and they’ll tell you the “long hour long term daycare” kids are just different to the stay at home kids… more assertive in some ways, a bit less secure emotionally in others. And ask any childcare worker, and they’ll tell you it’s not the kind of childhood they’d want for their own kids. You do wonder how the early years environment will express itself in adolescence and adulthood.
In saying this I’m probably stirring a hornets nest… I’m waiting to be jumped upon!!!!
May 8th, 2007 at 7:31 pm
well not from me, because I think you are right. I think the only reason you’d be “jumped on” is if people thought you were saying the woman had to stay home…but you were very clear about that earlier. I’ll be honest and say it is hard for me to stay home some days. I feel like if I play trains or cars for another half hour I’ll scream, that if there’s one more fight over who gets to sit on the green stool i’ll throw it out the window and if I have to send someone to the corner once more I think i’ll just go there myself and cry.
but…I’ve seen every milestone, I have never wondered if my kids are OK because they’ve only been left with people that love them. I can’t understand the “they need to be socialised” argumement. I am an only chikld who had just two terms of preschool before school, and I’ve socialised quite well thanks. We force independence on these little people so young…
anyway enough of my rant. I do have friends who work and I suport them because I think we should all have a choice, but I defintely think both the parents and the kids are missing out.
May 8th, 2007 at 7:48 pm
OK Janet - I will jump in and join you. There does seem to be some correlation between the socially acceptable behaviour of young children, and the amount of time spent in day-care - noticeable when I worked in a school with a pre-school.
We made the choice to make sure one parent was at home while our children were at least pre-school age.
But I know the dreadful pressure on parents today, and how it breaks the hearts of many young parents to have to both work with a very young child. I think of a particular friend who was heartbroken not to be able to stay at home with her young son, and all I could do was cry with her - and tell her that I understood that it was hard - and I would support her whatever choice she had to make.
Janet McKinney
May 8th, 2007 at 7:49 pm
I’m leading a parenting course at the moment focusing on 0 - 4’s, and there’s very open (cathartic) sharing on just how hard it is sometimes… but it’s great to be able to say… what you’re doing is really important… it shapes the next 80? years of your child’s life profoundly.
I’d have to say I really don’t want to come across as judgmental, and I don’t think I am judgmental, because it’s pretty rare to find a parent who doesn’t love their children and want to do the best they can for them. I do think however, as has been thrashed out by the Rev so passionately, we can get seduced by a message of the importance of things… while real life… abundant life… is about love and right relationships with God and others.
It’s hard not to get a little bit brainwashed by the multi-billion dollar advertising industry though…
May 8th, 2007 at 7:56 pm
Thanks Janet… I know, it tears people apart to leave their children in care… I left my youngest in day care for a mere two hours to teach a class, and came back to a horribly shaken purple faced child who had cried solidly for two hours. Did I feel dreadful or what.
I begged my sister to look after him instead, and she caved in… and he was very happy in that informal kind of “family” care.
No… I don’t think people do this lightly, and yes, there is a lot of pressure on young families. I wish there were easy answers.
May 8th, 2007 at 9:32 pm
this relates back to the hillsong thread but I have found a lot of this pressure comes from trying to look as though God has blessed you financially. It’s not possible (generally) for a one-income family to have the car, the house etc etc and so rather than be honest about the situation they find themselves in, the double income is needed to make it look like they’re doing just great. Can i also say too the pressure to tithe often sends many young mothers back to work. This was very nearly the case with myself.
i know the decision to put kids into care can be heart wrenching especially for single mums and those who don’t have a choice. But I have to agree with Janet that there is a choice more often than we think. My parents chose not to buy a home until I was in school because they couldn’t afford a mortgage on one income. That was a huge sacrifice but well worth it…my parents live with us now and we have a great relationship.
May 8th, 2007 at 10:23 pm
There’s all sorts of complicating factors… the values of both partners (sometimes one partner is willing to make big financial sacrifices, but the other is not and puts pressure on the other)… the potential income of one or both partners… pressure and inflexibility from particular workplaces… some people really can’t stand looking after young children… (at least not on a full time basis)… because it makes them so depressed or cranky… the price of housing where you live, etc. Which is why we can’t judge individuals… but I don’t think we should be so “P.C.” we feel we can’t speak about the developmental needs of children, so people can make informed choices about work-family balance.
May 8th, 2007 at 10:23 pm
I love my my nice stuff, and so does my wife. But the kids are more important. Fortunately they haven’t done too badly etc etc.
I feel for anyone having more than one or two kids, cause I know what they’re facing, and unless one person is earning a motza, its just sad.
Since an election is coming up we should replace the mantra of “Its the economy stupid” with “Its the people stupid!”
Enough said from me on this one.
I could say similar things about caring for the olds given Emma’s comments about looking after her parents, but I might leave that for someone else to crank up.
Cheers
MN
May 9th, 2007 at 7:37 am
hi yes janet we shouldn’t judge another’s decision, but as we said before, let’s do people the honour of telling the truth and letting everyone decide what’s best for them…
btw shouldn’t make it sound as though my parents are old and decrepid and I’m looking after tham in their dotage! they’re very independent, still have their own business…but part of the reason they do live with us is that down the track that might happen
May 9th, 2007 at 10:52 am
I agree with you Janet - and others, at presenting to young mothers that there is a choice to care for your children. It really does make a difference, and it is your opportunity to change how the world will be in the future - one life at a time.
I agree with helping young parents (mothers and fathers) find ways through the maze of careers, income, needs and wants, and the requirements for healthy children.
But I suspect that most parents know this deep down to be true - they sometimes need assistance in finding those instincts, and going with them. You really don’t have to convince them, you need to encourage them to follow the instincts they know already.
I encourage you in this Janet - bless you
Janet McKinney
May 9th, 2007 at 8:07 pm
This is no good for controversy… we’re all agreeing with each other!
OK, let’s lob in another hot potato… the breastfeeding issue. Having postulated that both fathers and mothers would have a better work-family balance and quality of life if they worked part time and cared for young children part time (which makes so much sense to me) there’s also the breastfeeding thing for younger babies.
I tend to think breastfeeding is part of God’s design and we haven’t been able to improve on it… and most health professionals can throw research papers around showing it’s better for the health of babies than bottlefeeding (less hospital admissions, illnesses, allergies, etc.) And even though (in my understanding) breastfeeding breaks have been part of international industrial law for a LONG time, I don’t think many actual workplaces are terribly keen on it (or keen on carer husbands visiting to bring baby to mum).
I do know of people who’ve worked and breastfeed… albeit with unusually “easy” babies. I guess there’s working from home… how does one manage biological realities without starting to sound like one is “betraying the sisterhood”?