[memyselfI]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Did you even read the article? If so, how can you read these quotes and state that they don't imply that McNair was a horrible father?

-----------------------------------------------------------------

The kids, they're victims of two horrific crimes: 1. the murder of their father; 2. their father's apparent abandonment so that he had time to wine, dine, vacation and shack up with his jump-off.

And this:

What we do know is that McNair had four sons. And based on the observations and comments of Kazemi's neighbors and neighbors at the condominium McNair rented, McNair spent so much time with Kazemi over the past few months that people assumed they lived together.

More:

We shirk our responsibilities as fathers. We don't have time for it. We think it's a part- or no-time job. We think our career is more important. We think charity work is more important. We think some young tail is more important.

We foolishly believe we're unnecessary in the rearing of children.

And even more:

Kids are game-changers. Kids require sacrifice. Kids are a daily and sometimes hourly responsibility. You don't properly raise them in your spare time with money, fame, gifts and glowing newspaper and magazine stories about your courage to play on Sundays despite injury and pain.

Steve McNair sounds like a warrior who fought the wrong war. He won a public-relations battle.

------------------------------------------------------

And Denise, you wonder why no one takes you seriously?

No, he is not describing a horrible father. He's describing a DISTRACTED one. Nowhere does he claim that when he was with the kids he mistreated them or did not tend to them in an appropriate fashion.

His argument is that he was distracted with things that made his kids not *THE* priority in his life but rather *A* priority in his life. He's arguing that children should be the priority. I agree with him but I don't think men who are busy with careers or charity work are necessarily horrible fathers. Both of these things could ultimately end up benefiting the children even as the time he spent away from them hurt them at the time. It's not the quantity of the time fathers (or mothers for that matter) spend with their children but the quality of it.

Where he went astray is when he added the skank distraction to the mix. He made bad choices as a husband and a father. He risked his family and their security and happiness for his own pleasure. But I do not see where Whitlock is saying that McNair was a bad father to his kids when he was a father to them...

on the contrary. I think Whitlock is arguing that McNair needed to spend more time being the McNair he created vs. the McNair he became. Had he done so his kids would still have their father even if he was distracted with his career or charity work.

And, as I said before, McNair probably thought he was being a good father to his kids because he was 1. there and 2.financially providing for them in ways his single mother could only dream of for her children.