Staying at Home

CNN.com ran a story a couple of days ago about wives, without children, choosing to “stay at home” while their husbands worked. It was an interesting article, with at least one “ouch” quote from an academic who chalks up the trend (if it is a trend) as a status symbol:

Daniel Buccino, a Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine clinical social worker and psychotherapist, says stay-at-home wives are the latest “status symbols.” “It says, ‘We make enough money that we both don’t need to work outside the home,'” he says. “And especially with the recent economic pressures, a stay-at-home spouse is often an extreme and visible luxury.”

Not really sure where a clinical social worker and psychotherapist fits in as an academic expert on this, but there you have it. One of the women profiled had a more generous take on her life.

Davis says her life isn’t luxurious. “Tuesdays are my laundry day,” she says. “I go grocery shopping on Wednesdays and clean house on Thursdays.” Mondays and Fridays are reserved for appointments and other errands. But her schedule also allows for charity work and leisure: reading, creative writing and exploring new hobbies, like sewing.

There were a couple of things missing, though. First was any sense whatsoever that keeping a house, and all that entails, was a legitimate occupation. Having a “regular job”? OK. Staying at home with kids? OK. Managing a household? Not so much. I had a professor at the University of Louisville who liked to pull out those annual Mother’s Day news stories about how much a stay-at-home mom could earn if all of her tasks were contracted out to paid employees. (A strange practice, since this professor herself had a full-time job outside of the house.) It strikes me as a feminist twist on a typically-capitalist mistake which privileges “paying work” over everything else.

The second element missing from CNN’s article was the question of “charity work,” as CNN so happily summarized the work of volunteering at a nonprofit, which can run from hands-on social work and physical care to management tasks like fundraising or running an event. Two generations ago, nonprofits of every stripe relied heavily on the volunteer efforts of housewives. These volunteers were smart, organized, and dedicated, and had the time and ability to run important causes. Many nonprofits today struggle to find skilled volunteers, and often hire employees to fill the roles once maintained by dedicated volunteers.

Technorati Tags:

Muslim Charities and the BBB

Before coming to work for InterVarsity, I reviewed charities for the Better Business Bureau. The BBB has one of the best charity accreditation programs in the country. Charities are asked to submit financial statements, governance documents, and copies of their fundraising materials, and the BBB reviews them against a set of 20 Standards for Charity Accountability.

Today, the BBB and a group called Muslim Advocates announced a plan to encourage Muslim charities to undergo the BBB’s accreditation program. Muslim charities have been under a great deal of scrutiny since 9/11 for supposed ties to terrorism, and ethical Muslim charities hope that this new program will encourage donors to trust them with their money. One of the mantras that I repeated while I was at the BBB was that it was nearly impossible for a donor to tell the difference between a “legitimate” charity and an unethical one, and that even the definition of “legitimate” was questionable. For example, the American Red Cross has been involved in a number of ethics scandals, regarding their executives, their handling of 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina, and their blood donation program. Yet the Red Cross unquestionably does a great deal of good. Are they “legitimate”? Are they “ethical”? This is why the BBB’s standards are so important. The standards provide 20 objective measures of a charity’s practices and policies, so that donors can make their own decision. According to the Wall Street Journal, one of the first charities to volunteer for the program is the Islamic Center of Greater Cincinnati, which would have been part of my territory.

Way to go, BBB!

The Olympics as a Cultural Artifact

Andy Crouch’s new book, Culture Making, offers 5 questions that you should ask about cultural artifacts (i.e. cultural goods, things that make up a culture) if you want to understand it better:

  1. What does the cultural artifact assume about the way the world is?
  2. What does it assume about the way the world should be?
  3. What does it make possible?
  4. What does it make impossible (or at least more difficult)?
  5. What new culture is created in response?

On his website, Andy is asking these questions about the Olympics, and asking others to join the conversation.  (At the very least, you should check it out for the cool response format Andy has set up.)

Postmodern Art Gallery

Yesterday, our daughters spent part of the afternoon painting outside on our patio.  When it came time to put away the paints, our 4-year-old had a stack of wet paintings that needed to be hung up and dried.  “Aha,” I thought, “I’ll just get some twine and clothespins and hang them on the deck.”  My next thought, however, was, “Twine and clothespins?  What is this – Little House on the Prairie? We don’t even have twine and clothespins!”

So I created a hanging wall with the contemporary equivalent: DSL cable and binder clips.  Problem solved.

Pictures drying on the deck

Pictures drying on the deck

DSL cable as twine

DSL cable as twine

Binder clips as clothespins

Binder clips as clothespins

Lively Latin

Joseph Bottum at First Things has written an essay about the benefits and demise of Latin education.  The study of “dead” languages is something near and dear to my heart.  The two languages I have studied for any length of time whatsoever have been Latin and Biblical Hebrew.  Here’s Bottum’s conclusion about practical benefits of Latin:

There’s a superior command of English granted by the study of Latin, but even to make that argument is to admit that Latin requires some practical result. For that matter, there’s plenty to learn from the ancient world’s experience of politics, social life, and art, and yet, again, that’s not, in itself, a reason to demand that students study Latin. Translations will do as well, if that’s all we want, and the real argument for Latin runs deeper than mere practicality.

However, as he readily admits, practical benefits are, ultimately, beside the point when it comes to Latin.

In fact, Latin was a measure of education, not a portion that could be added or dropped. Admittedly a somewhat arbitrary measure, though it kept us tied to the continuity of Western civilization. But without some such measure, the entire idea of education becomes vulnerable to the skeptic’s relativistic question of “Who’s to say?” Who’s to say what’s right or wrong? Who’s to say what’s true or false? Who’s to say what knowledge we should share?