A grantee shared an anecdote at a meeting this week that I absolutely loved and found so profound and meaningful. The previous week, he had been at an event where Archbishop Desmond Tutu spoke. During his speech, the Archbishop spoke at length about the influence his mother had on his politics, morality and character. The grantee had also seen former president Jimmy Carter, a man he equated in character to the Archbishop, speak and Carter also waxed eloquently about his mother's influence. The grantee observed that, in contrast, whenever he saw corporate figures speak, they inevitably commented on the influence of their fathers, whereas social activists credited their mothers, almost exclusively.
Carter and Tutu grew up in very different times when the roles of parents were very clearly delineated along gender lines which has to account for some aspect of this phenomenon. Do you think this differentiation in imparting character is still the norm? I would like to think it isn't.
I have had experiences that give me hope. I have been working in nonprofit/social change organizations exclusively for almost 23 years. During the 1980s and 90s I babysat extensively for a variety of fellow employees and the fathers were absolutely doing their parts to raise children with social consciences. But, honestly, in my experience, these guys are the exception rather than the norm.
I do think that, on the whole, fathers are freer to be more open and loving and involved with their children than in the past, that as society has evolved in terms of gender roles, fatherhood itself has evolved. Cultural evolution is, by its very nature, a slow process....
There's a popular old axiom "Slow and steady wins the race...." Here's to the slow and steady process of cultural evolution winning for the HUMAN race...
No comments:
Post a Comment