Any reasonably avid sports fan will have heard the news that Chicago White Sox player Adam LaRoche has announced his retirement from baseball in protest against the team asking him to limit his 14-year-old son’s time with the team and in the clubhouse. In doing so, he turned his back on $13 million in earnings for the season.
Reaction varies, but the thrust of what I’ve seen so far is that LaRoche is being unreasonable, and that the team’s request was more than understandable. Kids can get in the way, they or players can get hurt, it constrains other players (who may, for example, wish to express themselves in profane ways), and of course, there’s the “What if every player did this?” position. These negative reactions have surfaced even though the tolerance for kids’ presence varies among Major League teams. The Red Sox, for instance, are a team that is rather supportive of players’ children spending time with the team, although not without guidelines and limits. That this practice is somewhat common in baseball presumably reflects the reality that the sport requires massive stretches of time away from family, and therefore, the fathering role.
I wouldn’t dispute any of the above points in support of the White Sox’s stance, and haven’t spent any time in that kind of environment, so I can’t really criticize the team for it. But I sure do understand LaRoche’s desire to have his son around and underfoot. While most of us will never be in a position to turn down millions to gratify our desire for more family time, I do respect his willingness to walk away.
Throughout much of human history, children had the chance to see their parents for much of the day, to accompany them, and to learn at their feet, whether that learning involved how to do a particular job or craft, or just to learn how to embody the role of an adult. So many boys dearly need help in learning how to carry themselves in the world, and to see what it looks like, moment to moment, to be a man. It’s a loss to the human community that such chances are incredibly rare these days. We’re reduced to “take your children to work “ days, and even then, this tends to be a select part of the workforce who are in situations where this is viable. It seems hard to fathom what is lost by most adults’ work, and their way of inhabiting their societal roles, being rather “invisible” to their kids. And let’s remember the fathers who work two or three jobs out of necessity to support their families and, as a result, rarely see their kids and families.
Again, only the truly fortunate among us can leave money–even a little–on the table at work to have more time with our kids. And yet, maybe LaRoche’s dramatic move can be a spur to us fathers to think a bit. “Is there a way I can give my kids more of a window into my day-to-day world? Are there professional or even financial sacrifices I might be willing to make to give myself more time with my kids?” In many cases, perhaps not. In most cases, not easily done. But when possible, we may find that the rewards, for our kids and ourselves, are immeasurable.
David A. Whelan, Psy.D., is a clinical psychologist in private practice in Cambridge, MA, and is the former Clinic Director at Think:Kids MGH. He is the father of two sons, ages 8 and 11, and his enduring fantasy is to have a job that would allow his sons to accompany him to work.