> "generationally, [men] seem to have (quietly) decided that we don't want to be like our absent fathers -- that we want to be home for dinner and available on weekends."
Maybe we're not as physically absent, but I'm having a hard time seeing the younger generation of fathers as being any more present in a practical sense, given the "online and accessible" work-culture we've pioneered.
Whereas Boomer fathers sometimes worked nights and weekends, at least when they showed up for the big game, they were more-likely-than-not watching it. X-ers are barely watching even when we're recording it. And I think it's open question as to whether "sometimes dad has to go in to work" is necessarily worse than "whenever I'm with dad our time is likely to be interrupted by his having to deal with work".
Maybe by raising a generation of compulsive messengers this will just seem normal to them and not like a plague on family time. But for me? I don't see it as an improvement at all. It looks like a step backwards.
(And truly, not every X-er gave into this culture but -- generationally -- always-on is certainly the trend and looks to be the norm from where I'm sitting.)
I don't know, personally I think I would have benefitted from being able to see a father-figure-type-person doing their thing, even if that meant having to check his phone during the big game, etc. Hopefully a good parent would do so in a balanced way, and the kid would pick up good habits and expectations about what it really means to be a polite and functioning person of the time. IOW, my vote would be for my father (or any theoretical parent) to have been present and leading by example, even if part of that leading is about the necessary evil of being "online and accessible" all the time.
A "good" old-school parent would ideally have limited after-hours work as much as was reasonably possible and imparted solid lessons about meeting commitments without compromising family values as well. All of that sounds like a separate consideration.
The question at hand is more: assume X hours of 'overtime' work needs to be done: would we rather have that chunk be composed of unpredictable interruptions of unpredictable length through any and all 'family' time? Or gathered up into larger, fixed chunks of extra 'at work' time with advanced warning, discrete start/end times, etc?
Maybe we're not as physically absent, but I'm having a hard time seeing the younger generation of fathers as being any more present in a practical sense, given the "online and accessible" work-culture we've pioneered.
Whereas Boomer fathers sometimes worked nights and weekends, at least when they showed up for the big game, they were more-likely-than-not watching it. X-ers are barely watching even when we're recording it. And I think it's open question as to whether "sometimes dad has to go in to work" is necessarily worse than "whenever I'm with dad our time is likely to be interrupted by his having to deal with work".
Maybe by raising a generation of compulsive messengers this will just seem normal to them and not like a plague on family time. But for me? I don't see it as an improvement at all. It looks like a step backwards.
(And truly, not every X-er gave into this culture but -- generationally -- always-on is certainly the trend and looks to be the norm from where I'm sitting.)