A guest comments on George Will's column:

A reader writes:

I fail to see the problem with it.  I consider myself an equality feminist but think Will raises a few good issues.  You don't have to agree with him, or with Crittenden..., but I can't see cause for rage in what Will wrote -- and I did try.  So could someone please enlighten me on the precise cause for objection?

Another reader responds:

The problem is that Will is not willing to be a good father, to put HIS career on hold for a while, to consider his kids the most important thing in his life.  To refuse an assignment because it conflicts with a P.T.A. meeting.  To risk being branded a slacker or being fired for taking days or weeks off work to care for a sick child.  To work part-time in a less-than-ideal job, or stay home altogether, so that he can take better care of a special-needs child.  To refuse to work more than 40 hours a week under any circumstances, even if the children are doing well and have no special needs.

Upper-middle-class white males, generally the classic absentee fathers in all but money matters, are the first to complain about lower-class non-white "father absence," generally blaming the mother and not the father for the abandonment.  In fact, some of those unmarried poor fathers may be more available to their children than some of the successful married fathers who see their kids on Sundays when they happen to be in town.  Now, many men may fool themselves that money is all that is needed for fatherhood, but they pay dearly when their adult children ignore them or have pro forma relations because the father is essentially a familiar stranger.

Why does this apply personally to Will?  He divorced his first wife, after his wife found out about his extramarital affairs, and left behind children, including a Down's syndrome child. This is not a highly commendable father or a highly moral husband.  Many or most men would have a certain amount of guilt over the failure of a marriage, and might not want to have a high profile as a moral crusader over marital matters.  Will, being a certified pundit, has less shame than the average erring Joe.

Some of the other issues also revolve around class.  Why is it good for an upper-middle-class wife but bad for a poor wife or unmarried mother to be a stay-at-home mom?  Could it be that the upper-class men do not want competition for their jobs and want the sort of personal service that one used to get from the less-and-less-available servant class? A nostalgia for the world of "Upstairs, Downstairs"? That they fear the company of women who might demand something other than money from them, and who can leave without fear of absolute or relative poverty?

I would be more impressed with Will's support of female domesticity if he supported appropriate "welfare" provisions, provided quality job training or education for mothers who have served society by bearing and raising the new generation (call it the Women's G.I. Bill), provided preferential employment for women who interrupted their job history by bearing children (call it Childbearer's Preferences, and write it into state and federal civil service just as was done for veterans, whether or not they saw combat.) 

Above all, stigmatize the men who abandon wives who have given them the ultimate gift, a chance to be a father.

Naah, not a chance.