# Daddy Day Care...Is it Biblical?



## Nse007 (Apr 3, 2008)

Tough question. I know that it is customary now-a-days to have the husband "help out" the wife with very young infants. My question is, "Is this a cultural norm that we have or has this always been the case?" In other words have women-folk in the past been soley in charge of the young infants while there husbands were away at work (or at war). Did Moses change diapers? I have a tendancy to question any paradigm that is handed to me and I feel that the husband-has-to-pitch-in ethic may be more symptomatic of our current egalitarian society than from anything else. Curious about your thoughts. Be direct but on topic.

[NOTE: I am not talking about a father not educating their children and leaving that to the mother, but specifically the ages between 0-24 months]


----------



## Pergamum (Apr 3, 2008)

I would like to poo poo modern American "the hubby has to do his fair share of changing the diapers" mentality.

This has never really been the norm until the last few decades in the West. The history of the world and even the biblical pattern shows a demarcation in roles.

The husband is to love his wife and help her, but his domain is primarily outside the home while hers is within the home. The better he does outside the home in bringing home the bacon, arranging necessities, etc, the better he is loving her. 

This is a much better way to love one's wife than try to match her mothering schools 50-50 or even 80-20. Mothers should mother. I serve my wife best by keeping out of the way and supplying her the materials she needs, and an occasional break ever so often to relax.

I say all this out of reaction because I am no good at changing diapers or doing dishes, or washing clothes, and I have no desire to be either. If I am to lead my family I need some time and thoughts free to do so instead of being a slave to every cry from the baby or being expected to "do my share". From experience, my marriage works best when we maintain mastery of our individual realms and don't try to mix roles.

In the past few decades child physical and sexual abuse have skyrocketed as have divorce. I simply do not think that men make good mothers. They forget kids in cars, drop them, shake them, resent their wives, etc when they have to become dady day care. If the husband frees the wife from the slavery of the 50 hour work week and dual income family and leads his home in such a way that the mother can stay at home and sink her time and effort into her kids, then the husband can focus on where God has gifted him and let mothers focus on where God has gifted them.

This will touch a nerve but I do not believe that women with small children should work even if the family is on the poverty line. The man ought to work 18 hours per day 7 days a week before he allows his wife to work. If she has no kids, this is different.


Of course, if a wife gets injured, etc, the husband will have to step in, but stepping in because "it's a good thing" or becuase the wife also wants to work is a recipe for a degradation of the situation rather than an improvement of it.

Call me a chauvenist if you will. But clear roles are the universal and historic norm and daddy day care is a modern, western fad..that simply doesn't work.


P.S. we had a family aquaintance where the wife demands the husband pulll his fair share. I was afraid my wife would feel cheated after seeing their family dynamics because this man does the dishes and watches the kids almost as much as the wife. Instead, my wife told me, "How can she respect him... he is not a manly man, no sane woman wants a domesticaed [i.e. neutered] husband..."



Okay, I am ready for the toe-maters to fly.


----------



## satz (Apr 3, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> This will touch a nerve but I do not believe that women with small children should work even if the family is on the poverty line. The man ought to work 18 hours per day 7 days a week before he allows his wife to work. If she has no kids, this is different.



With respect (and I mean it), I disagree. It is not mothers whom God has tasked with bringing up children, but fathers (Eph 6:4,Col 3:21 - and we can tell from the previous verses, the Holy Spirit knows the word 'parents'). The mother’s domestic duty flows out of her role as her husband’s helper and the fact that God has tasked men primarily with work and war outside the home, so the woman ‘holds the fort’ while her husband is away, so to speak. However, especially when it comes to the children, it is the husband’s primary responsibility to raise and train them.

In a situation of true need it is infinitely better for the wife to take on some kind of work rather than for the husband to work so excessively that he has no energy or time to look after his wife and children. There is no wisdom in having the head of the household either absent or exhausted all of the time, as he too has duties towards his family he needs to perform. 

With regards to the OP question, to be honest isn’t this rather a matter of common sense… a godly man will allocate his time and his wife’s time to achieve what is best for the family. If he is spending his time fulfilling his other God-given duties, he should not necessarily feel bad if the wife handles all of the activities described in the OP, but neither should we feel as if there is some huge role reversal if he just changes a diaper.

Just as a thought, I do think it is prudent from a man to at least be able to handle these tasks by himself… so the household does not fall apart if his wife is somehow prevented from performing them.


----------



## Pergamum (Apr 3, 2008)

If it is the husband's primary responsibility to raise the children, then why do most wives homeschool?

It is because they operate under delegated authority.

The admiral of the ship does not do all the work of cleaning the decks.

Therefore, it is not wrong to say that it is the wive's duty for domestic affairs even though ALL that occurs in and out of the home is the husband's responsibility.

A leader who does not know how to delegate is not a good leader. A man who is tied to the home due to a women who is either incapable or unwilling to do her role well is a curse to a man, and will handicap him from leading the family.




On the issue of what is the lesser of two evils; a man who works himself to death so his wife can take care of the kids well or a family that splits their time and daddy performs mother roles or, even worse, the kids are farmed out to daycare, I would still say that it is better for the man to work hard and for the mother to mother at home. But in America this is rarely the case and 2 cars and 3 televisions are not necessities for which the wife also needs to work.. "making due" is a lost art in America. ONe can live pretty lowly without the wife needing to enter the workforce.



Amen to your second-to-last paragraph - it could not have been said better:

With regards to the OP question, to be honest isn’t this rather a matter of common sense… a godly man will allocate his time and his wife’s time to achieve what is best for the family. If he is spending his time fulfilling his other God-given duties, he should not necessarily feel bad if the wife handles all of the activities described in the OP, but neither should we feel as if there is some huge role reversal if he just changes a diaper.

Well said.


The thread title might be needlessly provactive..."daddy day care". 

Changing a diaper once in a while is different than becoming a full-time Mr. Mom that often exist nowadays. Or even splitting the mother role 50-50% with a wife. 

And yes...helping out occasionally does make one's wife a lot more happy. However, if the wife always demands this as a regular practice...then something is wrong in her thinking...


----------



## satz (Apr 3, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> If it is the husband's primary responsibility to raise the children, then why do most wives homeschool?
> 
> It is because they operate under delegated authority.
> 
> ...



I agree with you about the delegated responsibility. However, as the verses I supplied state, it is fathers whom God expects to train children, although mothers have a very necessary and important helping role. A family does not benefit when the father is away from home too often or is too tired when he is home, to fulfill his duties to both children and wife.



> A leader who does not know how to delegate is not a good leader. A man who is tied to the home due to a women who is either incapable or unwilling to do her role well is a curse to a man, and will handicap him from leading the family.



Agreed.



> On the issue of what is the lesser of two evils; a man who works himself to death so his wife can take care of the kids well or a family that splits their time and daddy performs mother roles or, even worse, the kids are farmed out to daycare, I would still say that it is better for the man to work hard and for the mother to mother at home.



Firstly, if a wife works to help make ends meet, and not for covetous reasons, I do not believe God sees it as an ‘evil’. Second, I am not arguing for the father to be performing ‘mother’ roles. I am arguing for him to be performing fathering roles, which he cannot do if he is always at work, or always exhausted from work.

I am not saying it is always the right thing to do for the wife to work if a family is in financial difficulty. I am saying it can be a godly option that ought to be seriously considered.



> But in America this is rarely the case and 2 cars and 3 televisions are not necessities for which the wife also needs to work.. "making due" is a lost art in America. ONe can live pretty lowly without the wife needing to enter the workforce.



Agreed, but this was not the point of my post at all.



> And yes...helping out occasionally does make one's wife a lot more happy. However, if the wife always demands this as a regular practice...then something is wrong in her thinking...



Agreed, again.


----------



## Philip A (Apr 3, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> This has never really been the norm until the last few decades in the West.



I hardly think Luther was following a modern, western fad  Certainly there's an extreme to be avoided, but for a man to perform some domestic duties on occasion is hardly a surrender to feminism.



> *The Estate of Marriage*
> “Now observe that when that clever harlot, our natural reason (which the pagans followed in trying to be most clever), takes a look at married life, she turns up her nose and says, “Alas, must I rock the baby, wash its diapers, make its bed, smell its stench, stay up nights with it, take care of it when it cries, heal its rashes and sores, and on top of that care for my wife, provide for her, labour at my trade, take care of this and take care of that, do this and do that, endure this and endure that, and whatever else of bitterness and drudgery married life involves? What, should I make such a prisoner of myself? O you poor, wretched fellow, have you taken a wife? Fie, fie upon such wretchedness and bitterness! It is better to remain free and lead a peaceful, carefree life; I will become a priest or a nun and compel my children to do likewise.” What then does Christian faith say to this? It opens its eyes, looks upon all these insignificant, distasteful, and despised duties in the Spirit, and is aware that they are all adorned with divine approval as with the costliest gold and jewels. It says, “O God, because I am certain that thou hast created me as a man and hast from my body begotten this child, I also know for a certainty that it meets with thy perfect pleasure. I confess to thee that I am not worthy to rock the little babe or wash its diapers, or to be entrusted with the care of the child and its mother. How is it that I, without any merit, have come to this distinction of being certain that I am serving thy creature and thy most precious will? 0 how gladly will I do so, though the duties should be even more insignificant and despised. Neither frost nor heat, neither drudgery nor labour, will distress or dissuade me, for I am certain that it is thus pleasing in thy sight.
> 
> ...
> ...


----------



## Pergamum (Apr 3, 2008)

Whoever said that I was denying this "on occasion?" I certainly agree.


But, remember, the title of this thread is "Daddy Day care."

This thread name seems to indicate that a somewhat equal split in duties is going on, maybe even 50-50%, and this is what I want to react against.....

... and YES this is a Western fad.



It is clear in Luther's quote that Luther is advocating an occasional help for a hardworking wife, not a modern split in duties or an abdication of rules. Besides, if you want to go to Luther for all your moral questions read what he has to say about the Jews. The NT evidence is that the woman's domain is home life . While husbands can love their wives by helping in this domain, their domains should not swap (a okay place to visit but don't relocate roles)....


----------



## Pergamum (Apr 3, 2008)

NSE007 stated in his op the follwowing: "I have a tendancy to question any paradigm that is handed to me and I feel that the husband-has-to-pitch-in ethic may be more symptomatic of our current egalitarian society than from anything else."

My posts have merely been in agreement with his original OP opinion.

Pitching in and a mindset of "has-to-pitch-in" or two different things. Helping ones wife in her role and splitting roles are two separate things. The husband helping his wife out of love and society pushing a husband to take on part of the mothering with social pressures are two different things.


Pitching in and helping out are good things, but not when society believes it to be mandatory for the husband to share a role instead of helping out his wife's role.


----------



## user2022no1 (Apr 3, 2008)

Philip A said:


> > *The Estate of Marriage*... [to the end of Luther's quote]



What a beautiful call to one's duty!

Carolann


----------



## BertMulder (Apr 3, 2008)

Esteemed Pergamum:

Would add one caveat, although I agree with your sentiment here in general. No father should have to work 18 hours a day, and especially not 7 days a week. Then his family life would suffer. He is still 'priest' in his own home, and with that kind of workschedule, could never satisfy that duty, never mind his duties to his wife...

Although the wife should not be out in the work force either.

But God has provided the care of the diaconate for those that cannot make ends meet...


----------



## Jon Peters (Apr 3, 2008)

Is there an implicit assumption in this thread that a new paradigm is necessarily a bad paradigm? 

I work long hours, but I start very early so that I can be at home on most evenings to "pitch in." And yes, I think this is my responsiblity. I wash dishes, change diapers and I even do some laundry. 

We shouldn't follow a paradigm simply because it's old. We should test all things.


----------



## Pergamum (Apr 3, 2008)

BertmUlder: 

Yes, I agree. 

We shouldn't work 18 hours a day and certainly not 7 days per wek. 

But many speak of their wives having to work out of a neccessity and if we are talking about necessary evils, I think the evil of a man overworking is less than a woman working outside the home. Both are evils, agreed.

He should work himself hard to keep his wife in the home and raising the kids, even if he must work 18 hours per day (rather than having her work). 

In an ideal situation, he would own his own small business, train his children with it and spend only 8 hours per day there (maybe even in a home office) while his wife takes care of the children. No overtime, etc.


----------



## satz (Apr 4, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> BertmUlder:
> 
> Yes, I agree.
> 
> ...



I don't wish to start sounding like a broken record, but since this is a discussion forum, I will take the liberty 

It is not a man's role to work so that his wife can stay home and raise the kids. The man's role is to both raise the kids and work to provide for the family. God has ordained that the wife is to care for home and family while he is away earning an income, but it is wrong to think that God's ordained gender roles are that the man earns the income and woman raises the children. God expects fathers to primarily be the ones to train the children, and like any meaningful activity it requires time and energy.

As a _general principle_, it is far better for the man to work a hardworking but not excessive amount, and the wife to take on some work, even outside the home, so that the man still has the time and energy to perform his duties to his wife, children and church. In reality, this might not always be the best option - the question of who looks after the children if the wife works is very relevant. However, I disagree that as a general principle it is a greater evil, or even necessarily an evil at all, for the wife to work in times of genuine family need.


----------



## Sonoftheday (Apr 4, 2008)

If the wife must take on part of the husband's responsibility of bringing home the bread, then surely the husband should take on part of her responsibility. It seems that there is much liberty in how the Husband and Wife serve one another, so long as the primary care giver of the young children is the mother.

This is surely an area where the conservative can set extrabiblical laws and the liberal acts as if there are no biblical laws set.


----------



## Zenas (Apr 4, 2008)

I look forward to changing diapers and helping my wife with the kids after work. Maybe I'm a heathen though.

Also, the positive commands to honor both parent's word and submit to their discipline would lead me to believe that both parents are to have an active role in raising the children. 

"If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his *father *or the voice of his *mother*, and, though they discipline him, will not listen to them..."
Deut. 21:18

"Hear, my son, your *father’s* instruction,and forsake not your *mother’s* teaching"
Proverbs 1:8

"My son, keep your *father’s *commandment,and forsake not your *mother’s* teaching."
Proverbs 6:20

"Listen to your *father* who gave you life, and do not despise your *mother* when she is old."
Proverbs 23:22

"The eye that mocks a *father* and scorns to obey a *mother* will be picked out by the ravens of the valleyand eaten by the vultures." Proverbs 30:7


----------



## raekwon (Apr 4, 2008)

Generally speaking, I feel pretty comfortable saying that any husband who refuses to _help_ his wife with diaper changing or any other such duties is a jerk and has fallen prey to a grievous misunderstanding of his role.


----------



## Pergamum (Apr 4, 2008)

Bryan: 

Yes there is much liberty how a husband and a wife run their household. Amen. 

The thread title was "daddy Day Care" however, and I insist that Mr. Mom's are not usually a healthy norm, though some cases might be able to make it work.


----------



## Pergamum (Apr 4, 2008)

satz said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > BertmUlder:
> ...




Yes, the man is head of it all and all things fall under his ultimate command. 

He is the captain of the ship. The wife works under delegated authority, however, and thus has her sphere. Again, most wives choose to do the homeschooling and spend the most time raising the kids, even if this is a shared responsibility. Most husbands work outside the home and help out with chores within the home occasionally.


Again, I do think that a husband ought to bear the lesser evil of working very hard rather than ones wife needing to work, unless clear provisions can be made so that the kids are not left with others for long periods of time. I think we can agree to disagree on this point. In the name of "need" many families have both husband and wife working and long periods of time in which the children are left with relatives, babysitters and daycare. Again, first I question what constitutes "need" and again I stress that the wife ought to raise the kids herself and not by proxy.


----------



## Pergamum (Apr 4, 2008)

Zenas said:


> I look forward to changing diapers and helping my wife with the kids after work. Maybe I'm a heathen though.
> 
> Also, the positive commands to honor both parent's word and submit to their discipline would lead me to believe that both parents are to have an active role in raising the children.
> 
> ...




Yes, both parents do take an active role in rasing the children. And yes, it is good that you want to help your wife.

However, again, the thread title is Daddy Day Care. 

This seems to reflect many who say that a husband is not a good husband unless he "splits" the chores with the wife.. While it is good to help, many wives demand that their husbands help and many would advocate a 50-50 roles in direct hands-on child care, even in the baby and toddler stages.

So, it is good that you help your wife do her job...but this is far different from splitting her job and taking it over. One is a biblical love to wife; the other is an unbiblical splitting of roles and a stealing of a husband's focus outside of the home. 


So, again, in case I am not communicating the nuances well: Amen to helping your wife, and a big thumbs down to Daddy Day care.


----------



## Pergamum (Apr 4, 2008)

Sonoftheday: Yes, if the wife IS working outside the home it is considerably harder to do her work inside the home and extra husband help will be needed. 



Personal data: My wife is a nurse. It was good for her to work outside the home before we had kids, the money being the least of the reasons but the training and the help she provided being the greater benefits. After kids, however, any nursing she does is doen in the context of from our home (on our porch, etc, here). I am not advocating ogreship...but I ask you guys to look at the thread title (Daddy Day Care). We are not to be Mr. Moms except in dire cases where we must. Of course we should help out wives fulfill THEIR role, but we should not take their role as our own.


----------



## Zenas (Apr 4, 2008)

I would whole-heartedly agree that a Mr. Mom is an unhealthy change in the roles designated to us by God. One of the things that I think we need to be adamently consistent about is that no person is equal in ability. This is something secularism has attempted to shove down our throats; that all are equal in ability as well as quality. Only is it true that all are equal in quality, and taking on a role that is not within your God-given ability is a recipe for disaster. 


I am consistently amazed at the folly of God-haters and unbelievers. They ignore God's wisdom which leads to their lives being thrown into disarray. See generally modern marriage, homosexuality, pre-marital sex, and theism in general. I know of no stable God-haters who do not have a mountain of problems and calamities in their lives as a direct result of their rebellion, and they think "Oh, that's just how life is."


----------



## Herald (Apr 4, 2008)

I ENJOYED feeding my daughter at 1:00 am and changing her diapers. Well, "enjoy" may not be the right word, but I enjoyed caring for her. The majority of care was performed by my wife. I made sure to involve myself as often as I felt compelled, which was often.


----------



## Barnpreacher (Apr 4, 2008)

Zenas said:


> taking on a role that is not within your God-given ability is a recipe for disaster.



What advice would you give then to fathers who are raising their children alone because their wives passed away when the children were young?


----------



## Pergamum (Apr 4, 2008)

ZENAS: Awesome, then we agree totally! ANd yes, I might even change some diapers today!


----------



## Zenas (Apr 4, 2008)

Hmm, maybe what I said can't be universalized to all instances then and I was wrong.

Certainly, exchanging roles when both the husband and wife are present is an applicable situation though.


----------



## Pergamum (Apr 4, 2008)

Barnpreacher: That is a hard one. I fear this for myself. My wife is under strict orders not to die unless she gives 3 months notice and a replacement.


----------



## Barnpreacher (Apr 4, 2008)

Andrew,

I agree with your post concerning the roles of husbands and wives. Sometimes in the providence of God things happen though, and I believe God gives the grace to make a single father a "Mr. Mom", if you will.


----------



## Grymir (Apr 4, 2008)

You go Pergamum!!!!!

You are sooo dead on target and correct.

And yes, a husband will work 16 hrs a day to support his family if he HAS to...A real man will do whatever it takes to make sure his family survives. And so his wife can stay at home. Children or no children.

The idea of spliting the housework and/or earning $$ 50/50 is the worlds way of corrupting marriage. I have my Husbandly duties, my wife has her wifey duties. The bible spells them out clearly. When couples started to have the wife go out into the workforce, well, it was part of the beginning of the downfall of marrages and America.


----------



## kalawine (Apr 4, 2008)

*From a practicing Mr. Mom*



Pergamum said:


> Zenas said:
> 
> 
> > So, again, in case I am not communicating the nuances well: Amen to helping your wife, and a big thumbs down to Daddy Day care.
> ...


----------



## Pergamum (Apr 4, 2008)

GRYMIR: Thanks. I would qualify this, however, and state that the wife could work outside the home when there are no kids in the home, especially if she has a job like teaching or nursing that are easier to translate into ministry or humanitarian callings.

Also, if a wife dies or is disabled, well..that is far from ideal, but the Lord gives grace..


----------



## Grymir (Apr 5, 2008)

Pergamum. The only point I would quibble on is the no kids in home. I am soo lucky to have a housewife. There are no kids running through our house. Yea, we'd have more material things if she worked, but our marriage would suffer greatly. We sooo value our time together. Time to talk, time to eat, time to laugh, time to enjoy life together. I've been tempted to have her work, but what price would we pay? I think all the other things you say are dead on right. (Really, I'm not being argumentative, I'm making a point I don't hear to often) Usually the minute the kids are gone, people think out beloved wives should go earn a buck. While bad things can and do happen, they are the exception. And the Lord gives grace (and means, and $$, and support. I've seen it) 

Anyway, Thanks for the thanks! It's refreshing to hear people talk like you are about our wives. So many people don't today. It sounds very respectfull! God Bless - Grymir


----------



## Pergamum (Apr 5, 2008)

GRYMIR:

Okay, thanks for the thanks for the thanks.

I agree brother.


----------



## Nse007 (Apr 5, 2008)

raekwon said:


> Generally speaking, I feel pretty comfortable saying that any husband who refuses to _help_ his wife with diaper changing or any other such duties is a jerk and has fallen prey to a grievous misunderstanding of his role.



What is the husbands role then? I think it is unfair to call him "jerk" by the way especially if they are trying to discern what his role is...


----------



## Pergamum (Apr 5, 2008)

I could see several scenarios in which a husband who is not a jerk refusing to help his wife: (1) she demands a 50-50 split in mothering roles between her and herhusband. He thus refused to enable her in this regard, (2) She demands to get a job and goes against his counsel and he refused to take up a role that is not his.

Christian husbands will help their wives,when they need it. Praise God for those that require little help. Helping her do her role is different from being demanded to take part in her role however.


----------



## Neopatriarch (Apr 5, 2008)

Nse007 said:


> I have a tendancy to question any paradigm that is handed to me and I feel that the husband-has-to-pitch-in ethic may be more symptomatic of our current egalitarian society than from anything else.



I believe you are right in this. This is not to say that a husband should never pitch in and help out. Husbands are to love their wives sacrificially. But too often what motivates "the husband-has-to-pitch-in ethic" is egalitarianism rather than an admonition to love sacrificially.

If I suspected someone was encouraging me to pitch in and help because of his egalitarian ethic, I would probably ask him what the difference between being a father and being a mother is since egalitarians believe in role interchangeability for men and women in practically everything. That includes motherhood and fatherhood roles. You do believe motherhood and fatherhood are different, don't you?

So, if I change diapers, am I out of my element in doing so? I feel like I'm out of my element. Perhaps I just have too much testosterone to keep up a nurturing disposition for long.  Still, I will do it at times. in my opinion, nurturing infants is more properly in the domain of women than men, especially since they have some equipment we men do not. If feminists had their way, fathers would probably be receiving oxytocin supplements to improve their nurturing impulse.

If husbands worked full-time jobs while their wives concerned themselves with homemaking rather than pursuing careers (or simply working a job), I doubt that husbands pitching in and helping out with infant nurturing would be such and issue.


----------



## JBaldwin (Apr 5, 2008)

I must say from a woman's perspective, it is always a pleasure to have my husband jump up and help me when things get crazy, but I agree with what has been said. It is just wrong, wrong, wrong, for men to be Mr. Mom, unless there is no mom. I applaud the men who have lost their wives and have taken on that duel role. It would be extremely tough. 

I want to add this, and please guys, I'm not pointing fingers, but I felt like this thought needs to be added to the discussion. Caring for children is a 24/7 job. It never lets up. A sensitive husband who loves his wife will keep this in mind and allow her a break every now and then. While God gave women the responsibility of caring for the physical needs of children and staying home and caring for household, this does not give men an excuse to come home and sit on the couch and watch TV while she works from dawn 'til dusk. Though I don't see that kind of attitude here, it is very common in some Christian circles.


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Apr 5, 2008)

> While God gave women the responsibility of caring for the physical needs of children and staying home and caring for household, this does not give men an excuse to come home and sit on the couch and watch TV while she works from dawn 'til dusk.




But what about coming home at sitting at the computer on the PB?


----------



## JBaldwin (Apr 5, 2008)

> But what about coming home at sitting at the computer on the PB?



I won't touch that one with a ten-foot pole!


----------



## Pergamum (Apr 5, 2008)

Joshua:

Save your shock and outrage, brother, for bigger issues.

The thread is titled "Daddy Day Care". Either change the title of the thread or reduce your level of shock at our responses.

The OP talks about the ethic that says the husband HAS to pitch in. Not Can or may, but HAS to.

Coupled with this and the thread title, it appears the large chunks of time watching kids and doing mommy roles might be advocated, and that the husband of expected to feel fine about this. In fact, if we do not pitch in and do "our share" then we must be ogres. 



Also the poster of the OP asked if this is a cultural norm derived from our egalitarian West, and I would say Yes, it is. 

Finally, the poster targets babies 0-24 months, a time of intensive baby-mommy time (at least historically).


I have advocated (quite a lot here) that (1) yes, husbands ought to love their wives, which entails help with *mommy tasks *when needed (2) no, husbands are not obligated under normal circumstances, to take over *mommy roles*. And splitting babycare 50-50 seems to be taking over a mommy role.


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Apr 5, 2008)

Nse007 said:


> Tough question. I know that it is customary now-a-days to have the husband "help out" the wife with very young infants. My question is, "Is this a cultural norm that we have or has this always been the case?" In other words have women-folk in the past been soley in charge of the young infants while there husbands were away at work (or at war). Did Moses change diapers? I have a tendancy to question any paradigm that is handed to me and I feel that the husband-has-to-pitch-in ethic may be more symptomatic of our current egalitarian society than from anything else. Curious about your thoughts. Be direct but on topic.
> 
> [NOTE: I am not talking about a father not educating their children and leaving that to the mother, but specifically the ages between 0-24 months]


I just bathed, creamed and powdered my 5 year old and put him in his pjays. We are about to do our Bible lessons in a few.


----------



## Pergamum (Apr 5, 2008)

Joshua:

Okay, okay....I'll have to leave your hyperbolic shock (but no hyperbolic outrage) for next week. Blessingsand signing out for now. This neanderthal ogre might even help his wife a bit today...


----------



## gritsrus (Apr 11, 2008)

raekwon said:


> Generally speaking, I feel pretty comfortable saying that any husband who refuses to _help_ his wife with diaper changing or any other such duties is a jerk and has fallen prey to a grievous misunderstanding of his role.



I agree. That happens so much, I just never understood it.



kalawine said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > Zenas said:
> ...


----------

