Sacrificial Care v. Self-Fulfillment

Pepperdine law prof Joel Nichols responds to our conversation on Hirshman's critique of stay-at-home mothers:

I think that this discussion has understated the primacy of sacrificial caring for others (especially children) as a priority for Christians -- even if that means that we are not able to realize fully other gifts (like intellectual stimulation) that God has granted to us.  That is, it seems that what hasn't been sufficiently mentioned in this discussion is that the care and raising of children has strong inherent value in its own right.  Amy alludes to this in terms of human flourishing and values that are different from that of the marketplace (and those otherwise stressed by Hirshman).  But in fact, there is a strong case to be made from the biblical text (esp. the Gospels) that the sacrificial care of children has priority status in terms of God's activity in the world.  It's not taking a break from a person's own self-fulfillment -- and I think not even just fostering some other component of human flourishing -- but that the sacrifical act of fostering the growth and success of other humans is in fact the very essence of what we are called to as Christians.  Put differently, we are building up and allowing for the flourishing of others who cannot do so on their own.  (This is especially true in the Luke's gospel and its understanding of the Kingdom of God breaking in to the present time. . . .)  So I, for one, am quite offended on a theological level when someone like Hirshman (or others) suggests that caring for children is a task that can be easily farmed out to someone else and that women (or men, for that matter) ought to make other values take priority rather than that children.  I think that is squarely out of line with the teachings and values of Scripture.

Now, I realize that this doesn't come close to addressing the gender question you raise below -- and I confess that I don't have a solid answer about gender inequity in the workplace and the effect that has on parents staying at home with children.  At the same time, there is good child development research that indicates that the role and influence of a mother is of primary importance for children until a certain age (I think 9 or 10 if I remember correctly) and that the influence of the father becomes primary in development after that.  That (as well as other data, I think -- though I'm now out of my expertise) would counsel toward the fact that there are in fact, advantages to a mother being the usual primary caregiver for young children [and interestingly, the father for teenagers, but that's another discussion entirely.]  Now, I'm certainly not dogmatic about that, as one of my very best friends is a stay-at-home dad and does a wonderful job with three very young girls, and I'm well aware on a regular basis of the difficult consequences and sacrifices in my household that my wife has made by choosing to stay at home rather than remain in the workplace (and some of the different career choices I, too, continue to make as I take things other than my own career into account as the highest priority).  But it seems to me that there are natural tendencies toward the typical pattern of maternal care-giving at early ages -- and I think that Hirshman's anecdotal evidence actually points to some of those tendencies even as she decries women giving in to them (because she thinks that other values ought to have priority).

Rob