Full disclosure: I am a father of a young child, and at the risk of sounding like a total egomaniac, I think Iām a pretty dang good dad.
Why?
Because, frankly, itās not that hard to be a good father ā simply being present and loving is 80 percent of the battle.
But the fatherlessness epidemic in America is very real, and has become so rampant and omnipresent that people have convinced themselves that itās actually difficult to be a good father and that quality dads are an increasingly rarer species.
(There may be some merit to that last point.)
But good fathers do exist in the wild, and thatās a concept that is apparently completely foreign to the enlightened minds at The New York Times.
Last Monday, NYT Pop Culture critic Amanda Hess penned a critique of a pair of Childrenās shows for having ⦠present fathers?
Titled āThe Fantasy of the Fun TV Dad,ā Hess writes, āIn the Childrenās series āBlueyāĀ and its conservative knockoff, āChip Chilla,ā boundlessly attentive fathers step in to assuage parental anxieties.ā
The article, clearly written with a leftist bent, posits that the father characters in the two aforementioned Childrenās cartoons are a āfantasyā because theyāre good fathers.
āBluey,ā a show about anthropomorphic dogs, and āChip Chilla,ā a show about anthropomorphic chinchillas, both feature robust nuclear families (Iām starting to get a whiff of why leftists donāt like these shows) with present fathers as the main characters.
Bandit, the father from āBluey,ā and Chum Chum, the father from āChip Chilla,ā both figure prominently in their Childrenās lives ā and that, more so than the talking animal bit, is apparently a bridge too far for the sensibilities of Ms. Hess.
āI donāt know how keeps house, works as an archaeologist and serves as a full-time prop artist to his daughters, but he does it all while only feigning complaint,ā Hess wrote. āHe is not only a good father ā he is a fantasy, one crafted to appeal to adults as much as to Children.ā
How is a father who works a full-time job, helps with repairs and housework, and gives ample attention to his Children āall while only feigning complaintā some sort of modern day chimera?
If this generally unremarkable writer can do all those things with aplomb, quite literally, most men in America can.
But, again, Hess doesnāt think that to be the case.
āSo Banditās omnipresence is odd, and striking,ā she wrote. āHe is like Mary Poppins, stitching together a family with creative prop work. Or heās the Cat in the Hat, leading Children in controlled chaos while their mother is out.
āHis closest analogues in Childrenās media are not other parents, but the fools and tricksters that Children encounter when they are allowed to roam unsupervised.
āBandit represents a parent freed of drudgery, one whose central responsibility is delighting his kids.ā
Itās difficult to parse out exactlyĀ whatĀ Hessās problem with Banditās āomnipresenceā is.
Itās not clear if sheās aware that fathers can utilize ācreative prop workā and ācontrolled chaosā (or, as normal people often describe those terms, āfunā) and still be a good parent.
She does, however, offer a big clue into her mindset with that last line. She appears to be drawing a false equivalency that parents can only be one of either a drudgery-filled robot, or a pushover āwhose central responsibility is delighting.ā
Spoiler alert: Part of being a good parent is knowing when to have fun and when to parent. Balancing those two is difficult, to be sure, but far, far from impossible.
And a possible explanation for Hessās confusion on Parenting: Ideologically, she makes it pretty obvious sheās of the more left-leaning persuasion.
Her uncritical critiques (what in the world does it even mean that āChip Chillaā is a show that āfeels like Wikipedia should get a co-writing creditā?) of The Daily Wireās Bentkey and its take on a family-focused Childrenās cartoon make it clear sheās coming at these shows with a clear slant.
After pointing out that āChip Chillaā features Children being homeschooled (as big a taboo to the left as nuclear families),Ā Hess makes this completely unsubstantiated claim: āI suspect that Bentkey made Chum Chum the schoolteacher not because itās a modern choice, but because it puts male authority at the center of the show.ā
Cool.
I suspect the NYT got a feminist to write about fathers because it puts female authority at the center of their show, but thatās as backed up as Hessās claim.
Prospective fathers: Donāt let the NYT paint or flavor your view of Fatherhood.
Itās the best and most difficult journey you can take ā and it can absolutely be fun, no matter how much some may claim itās impossible.
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.