This comment that Sophia left is one that a lot of people won’t see (she is a very busy girl and doesn’t always have time to comment right away :) ), but it was so incredibly good that I thought it deserved some front page glory.

I always find it interesting how people view time away from children. If a busy father goes on a business trip for a month overseas, he’s supporting his family, so of course he would go, no problem. If a military father/mother has to leave for sometimes a YEAR at a time, that’s fine too, in the eyes of society. But if a parent takes time away from a child from something that society views less pressing- finishing school, perhaps volunteering overseas for a month, maybe going away to a writer’s retreat for two weeks because it’s a hobby- suddenly it’s all gasp and fear and you’re damaging your baby.

Let’s get logical- long absences either damage a baby/child, or they don’t. Because children are far from logical, and I can tell you that they really don’t care *why* a parent is gone, they just care that they are gone. We can either say that their caring about the parent being gone inflicts long-term trauma, or we can’t. So we can either say that military families and business people and parents that send their kids to summer camp are damaging their children permanently, or it isn’t. We cannot arbitrarily apply our own values as to what is “worthy” of a parental absence, and then extrapolate that into whether or not the child is going to be affected negatively. If we base relative trauma based on the “worthiness” of the absence, we’re truly being absurd, and we’re clearly showing our own biases and values (we all have them, that’s fine, but they’re not logical or pertinent to this discussion). If we don’t think Mr. Businessman.com or Soldier Mommy/Daddy are damaging their child, then we cannot turn around and say Jenna is.

Also? Remember last summer, when Jenna moved to her parents house with T1, and TH stayed behind to do school things and look for an internship? Why wasn’t everyone freaking out then? To me the outrage smacks of sexism, for what it’s worth. This is the EXACT same summer arrangement, only this time TH is going and Jenna is staying home. I think a lot of people bristle at the line about how her mother will be T1?s primary caregiver, but that’s because TH will be working on the farm making money to support his family [editors note: just wanted to interject and say he will be doing some stuff for my dad at Clearwater Supply, which isn't technically the farm, but that's a small detail that really only matters to my family :) ], so they can do things like have Jenna live in Provo for 6 weeks and finish her degree. Honestly, I think it will be a healthy change of pace for everyone. T1 gets time with his grand parents, TH gets to spend quality time one-on-one with his in-laws, and Jenna gets to spend quality time ALONE, working towards a goal. She’s been a SAHM since T1 was born. Again, if we want to get real here, we could say that this 6 weeks out of 2 years of life (he’ll be 2 when this all goes down) is a blip on the radar compared to moms who work outside the home, couldn’t we? I’m clearly playing devil’s advocate here, so please know that I do NOT think any less of a working mom, I’m just using it as an example of how far we could take the “time away from your child is terrible!!” logic.

I’ve told Sophia how much I appreciate her and her comments in the past, but I’ll say it again. She is an awesome contributor to That Wife! I really appreciate the ways that she adds logic and rationale to the discussion, whether she agrees with me or not.

My post on going back to school has been… more popular than some of you might realize, and not in the nicest way. Just wanted to say thanks to all of those who are a breath of fresh (honest, kind, genuine, real, heartfelt, etc) air in the blog world.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Print
  • Tumblr

Also:

  • No Related Post