> Millennial fathers have roughly tripled the amount of time they spend with kids.
I think this really undersells it. My mom parented a few hours a week. My kids (like most) lived under ceaseless 24/7 adulting. The time I spent with my sons was more like a 20x increase over my parents' generation.
Past that, it seems like it's taking forever for anyone to notice the radical changes in modern parenting/childhood. Along with eliminating adult-free peer time, we've eradicated free range areas. My generation could roam (w/o adults) for miles in every direction; my kids (like most) could go from one edge of the yard to the other (credit: car culture, trespassing culture, false stranger-danger culture).
The surprising part (to me) isn't how thoroughly adults have sabotaged kids growth opportunities, it's that nearly no one seems to have noticed it.
We’ve also eradicated the unsupervised peer socialization that kids experienced with the free range. It’s common for a child these days to only ever be around other kids in very supervised environments with adults present (play dates, school, organized activities).
Spending long chunks of time with no adults, in a large mixed-age group, is a less and less common experience.
I spent some time in a remote fishing village in Madagascar and that was one of the things that surprised me the most - kids would spend all day together in an unsupervised mob roaming around the village, from the youngest ones who were just old enough to walk independently to age 8-10 or so (older than that and you had things to do).
I'm very curious how much time you spend talking about parenting and consuming either social media or professional content about parenting, because those topics are so deeply embedded in parenting today that it's like saying "nobody seems to have noticed the internet".
Where I live in Western Australia, it is perfectly normal for 10-year-olds to be getting on their bikes and going round to their friends' houses after school.
The swing towards "Fuck Around And Find Out" parenting has been going for the last ten years here, and everybody gives you rapturous applause when you encourage kids to have their own independent playtime.
I have also never seen a man at a playground get dirty looks, in fact there are more men out with their kids than women on the weekends (fewer during weekdays).
Funnily enough, I know a guy who went into teaching early primary school in Western Australia 20 years ago, and got driven out by the constant suspicion and ever increasing supervision imposed “for his own safety” - no touching kids, at all, to the point of not helping up a kid who falls on the playground; get a female teacher to do it.
Speaking as someone who has gotten dirty looks and questioned by mothers who wanted to know who I was, why I was at the playground, and which children were mine, it does happen or at least it did years ago when my kids were much younger.
It’s a frustrating experience that changed how I interacted with other kids on the playground that weren’t mine. It made me more careful about whether I would let another kid join our game of tag or push the kid in the swing next to us when they asked. Sad really, and truly hope things have changed.
In USA bikes are often slow enough the Karens can still stalk them and have police/CPS snatch them for being out alone. So you find kids in groups on dirt bikes or motorcycle tier "electric bicycles." The Karens can't catch them so they can actually get away and be free. Glorious to watch, aint no one can keep up with kids who practice being on a dirt bike all day who can cut right off the roads into the backcountry they know better than anyone else.
I don't allege bad intent, but I wish people would stop using "Karen" as an insult, because I know some perfectly nice people with the misfortune to have been given that name.
> I'm very curious how much time you spend talking about parenting and consuming either social media or professional content about parenting,
I had minor children from the early 90s to the late 10s. Parenting discussions were pretty much an ongoing thing. When I contrasted my childhood with my kids', there would be a long pause while the other parents realize it didn't used to always be this way.
Perhaps in the last decade awareness has bloomed and for whatever reason, I'm not coming across it. I hope so. That would be great.
Foster Cline’s famous parenting book, Parenting with Love and Logic, was published in 1990 and contains warnings about helicopter parenting. The “free range kids” movement, an explicit counter-trend, was worldwide news in 2008 after a woman discussed letting her kid take the subway alone (https://onmilwaukee.com/articles/skenazy). The overprotective parenting trend is widely recognized to have been accelerated by the media saturation of stranger kidnappings in the 80s, including Adam Walsh.
Sounds like you choose to live in a place without free range area. My neighborhood is covered with kids. Lots of kids on e-bikes after school on the main roads too. Plus a lot of packed are revamping side walks to accommodate bikes, golf cars, e-bikes and everyone on foot.
I'm encountering people in their lower 20's who seem to really struggle emotionally, and use psychological lingo to describe themselves and each other in a way that really didn't exist when I was in my 20's.
On the one hand this is great - I am a huge supporter of understanding and accepting ourselves non-pejoratively - anxiety, depression, etc.
On the flip side they talk sometimes like the forces are from outside them, like they have no agency.
And they also talk like the words came from somewhere else, "My generation compared to previous generations..." <- unless you lived those previous generations, which is impossible, you heard that from somewhere, probably a paper, and probably from a professor in school.
I agree this is a terrible loss. On the other hand, new dads are actually learning how to feel their feelings, communicate those feelings in a healthy way, and tell their children they love them.
Millennial dads were (mostly) a distant mess who for whatever reason saw the expression of feelings as "weak".
I’ve noticed that people don’t notice when the kids are free range anymore, because they’re all connected to an international network and pinging their location every minute.
> Millennials on the whole are incredibly neurotic about all kinds of things.
Truly, this hasn't been my experience. I'm GenX (edit: not GenZ), my parents were Silent Gen (WWII vets) and my kids are Millennials. My 25yo kids understand behavior and psychology better than my parents ever did.
The reason my kids grew up imprisoned is there was nowhere for them to go. The risk to their well-being was never from strangers but from cars and police.
> I'm GenZ, my parents were Silent Gen (WWII vets) and my kids are Millennials.
My understanding is that Gen Z comes AFTER millennials, so if you are Z, your kids can't be millennials. Maybe you are Gen X? Also, if your kids are 25 now, then they would be gen z, not millennials.
P.S. Don't shoot the messenger, I didn't make up this dumb system or these dumb names ^_^
I agree with everything in your top level comment.
If your parents were WW II vets, wouldn't they be part of Greatest Generation (often considered to be those born 1901–1927)? Silent Generation are often considered to be those born 1928–1945. They weren't adults when WW II was fought.
I'm GenX, but had kids a little late, so most of my kid's friends either 1. have Millennial parents or 2. are raised by their Boomer grandparents (parents not much in the picture). The differences in how these two sets of caretakers behave is astounding. Take a typical visit from the friend to my house to play with my kid:
The friends who are with their grandparents show up. Grandpa parks his car in my driveway, and walks the kid to my door. We greet, kid runs off to play, and we shoot the shit for a while, asking how things have been going, maybe Grandpa wants to check out the latest on my woodworking project, whatever. Then Grandpa says goodbye, I'll be back later, and heads out.
The friends who are with their Millennial parents show up. Dad parks his car waaaaay out by the curb, never even going on my property. Kid gets out of the car and walks himself to my door. Dad speeds away in his car, never even acknowledging us. Dad comes back to pick the kid up, same thing. Parks way far away, texts his kid, and the kid excuses himself and runs all the way out to the car. I don't even know the names of any of my kid's friends' Millennial parents!
I'm a Millennial, and I do something much like this intentionally. I make it a point to explicitly put my kids into situations where they are responsible for themselves and are uncomfortable because of it.
The transition to adulthood was rough for me for several reasons, and looking back I think that was one of them - my parents always did things for me, but never expected me to do things on my own.
I almost certainly go overboard with this, but that's the nature of things.
No kids of my own, but my niece is 16. Wife and I took her to dinner when she was ~10, and afterward she said she wanted some ice cream. Sure. We drove to the grocery store on the way home (it's an older store, not huge) and handed her a $10 bill, told her to go get whatever flavor she wanted.
She freaked out. She'd been so terrified by a litany of "stranger danger" stories that the thought of just going into a store alone - a small store with one public entrance - was alien to her. We told her she could do it herself, or not have ice cream, because we weren't doing it for her. She went.
I'm glad to hear you're pushing your kids this way.
Since we're doing anecdata, I experience the exact opposite.
What's most crazy to me is how somehow almost all boomers are more addicted to smartphones than gen Z and Alpha. They'll have their grandkids over, and they'll be glued to their smartphone instead of interacting with those kids.
As a boomer, I'm sure it's because we didn't grow up with smart phones and therefore never learned good habits around them. Hell I was probably near 50 when I got my first one.
I think it's similar to kids who grow up with alcohol vs those who don't. The ones not exposed go off to college and go completely nuts.
Silent Americans are the most fucked up generation ever. They are the ones actually responsible for most of the bullshit that people attribute to Boomers.
I don't know if it's the parent that is neurotic so much as that it only takes 1 of 1000 assholes, who now have their little snitch device in their pocket 24/7, to call the child snatchers (CPS). And the child snatchers are legally barred from revealing who your accuser is, so the anonymous cowards can fuck up your life for weeks at no cost to themselves and with the utmost convenience. This effectively means every single person who views your child, now has veto powers on your parenting. The end result of that is people parent in the most paranoid, liability averting way possible.
When I was a kid the Karens against childhood autonomy existed but it actually cost them time and money to rat us out since they would have to drive home to a telephone, so long as we didn't play near houses. If an asshole raised hell we were gone by the time they could call the authorities.
Here's a few examples that's happened to me personally
(1) I didn't personally appear at bus stop, thinking my kid would be able to just walk the short distance from the stop to our house. Nope, school did not let kid off bus, given a timer to show up at the transportation office before child services will be called.
(2) Let my kid walk on our own property, someone drives up and starts interrogating them why they are "alone." Fortunately I was actually watching from further away and I managed to diffuse the situation before they alerted the authorities.
(3) Took my kid to the park so they could have a nice time outside in public. Whoops, looks like my child is a difference race than me. That means I am a kidnapper. Karen (from bodycam, a passing yuppie looking cyclist) calls police, who arrive and scare the shit out of me and my kid and detain us for about an hour. Not released until a woman's voice comes on the phone (they literally did not check, just any female voice) says the man can let his child play at the park. They also contacted child services of both the city of the park, and my hometown -- fortunately even though the city of the park looked like they were ready to fuck with me my hometown CPS did tell them to kick rocks and since I left town there was nothing further they could do.
I was in the process of creating a brochure about our family. It's be available at our front door, to help facilitate CPS agents on their visits. It'd have a map to the fridge and to the kids' bedrooms, the names of their schools and contact numbers for family.
All this due to a disgruntled neighbor who endlessly called cps (anonymously), with a variety of bizarre accusations. I suspect CPS got so sick of seeing us, they eventually ignored the calls.
Just a note for Dads doing more than their parents - it’s quality more than quantity. Be fully present with your kids more than trying to kill yourself fitting more hours in. That’s what matters.
Bad parenting tends to be more of the type that isn’t engaged. Kids don’t hate you for going to work. They are hurt if you come home and ignore them.
If you’re a dad and live in the same house as your kids the time comes naturally… men have been purposefully fleeing it throughout history.
So its not a matter of “killing yourself to get more time” … its a matter of not abandoning your kids and wife to make time for your hobbies or whatever
Ture, but also, know that sometimes that just happens - the kids want to be solo, not talk, etc. Easy to kill yourself thinking you need to be perfect.
Yeah, I'm a little skeptical as well. I remember dad being home, but not specifically focused on me. Sometimes seeing dad at home, doing his thing, was a great way of learning.
I think as kids we learned by example more than hands-on-taught.
You should definitely follow your instincts here, but wanting researchers to show you how to raise your kids is a fools errand IMO. Put those highly tuned parental instincts to use!
If you don't see a clear difference between the hard sciences of biology/chemistry/medicine and the opinionated "science" of parenting (prescriptive, no less), then you should check your eyes.
I see your point about different qualities of science, but the wording of "highly tuned parental instincts" is still bad. The instincts are the same in both situations, and they're highly flawed. Science should override instincts in lots of situations.
And if you ask basically any kind of science "how do I best accomplish x?", that science will have a "presciptive" answer, so I don't see how parenting science is any more prescriptive then chemistry.
Dad and millennial here and this change has been very noticeable in my circle of friends including myself and I’m all for it. Men have been doing their share of housework too. But I will say, it’s not all dads but enough that I think this will have a positive effect on the next generation.
Im gay and because of that was disowned. My partner has a brother “K” and K has three children. Watching K show up in basic ways for his kids, like remembering what songs they like and teaching them sports is the fastest way to make me ugly cry.
Thanks to anyone reading this if you’re trying to be a good dad. You’re making the world a better place in ways you don’t even see
I can honestly say that I don't have any time for a dad who isn't all-in for their kids. I understand if the responsibilities aren't 50/50, but if you're making mom handle everything I think you're a loser.
All my millennial dad friends clean, change diapers, cook, whatever. And make no mistake all the moms are incredibly hard-working and involved with the kids.
If I happened to meet socially a dad who wasn't doing those things I would literally make fun of them. "You're a grown man who can't change a diaper or clean a bathroom?"
I’m with you mostly. Some different specifics but the point in mind is this: it’s a common thread of rapport and conversation. I sometimes feel like an alien on earth when I spend time with friends or other groups where there seems to be a atrong “ughh my family and home life” vibe.
I was strongly encouraged by my own parents, particularly my dad, to play sports (baseball, a bit of basketball) as a kid; even though I wasn't very good at them and wasn't very interested in them (and got made fun of by other kids for this). At some point I realized that me playing sports was something my dad was more invested in than I was. When I was 11 or so, I finally decided that I had had enough, and quit the neighborhood little league baseball team I was on in the middle of the season; I suspect the team was happy to have me gone, and I was happy that trying to play baseball was no longer my problem. Suffice to say, I have no happy memories of playing catch with with my dad at any time in my life.
My younger siblings were a bit more intrinsically interested in sports than I was, and my parents shifted their attention to their sports extracurriculars. I actually don't really remember what they did sports-wise because I did not care at all; and although I was the older sibling I was not so much older that anyone thought it was important to encourage me to take a pseudo-parental or caretaker interest in what my younger siblings were doing. I would go to the baseball field where one brother played his games because my parents were going, and then amuse myself by playing alone in the dirt beyond the bleachers, because that was more fun than paying attention to the game. By the time I was old enough to, say, drive them places in lieu of our mom, they had gotten to the age where sports were meaningfully competitive and were not actually good enough to keep playing.
So not only do I find this dad's attitude extremely sympathetic, I think that I would've found it sympathetic even when I myself was a child. This makes me some kind of outlier, I'm sure. Anyway, 3 years is young enough that there's no actual soccer happening, just running around with a ball, any kid can enjoy that. It's quite possible that, depending on the interests and dispositions of his kid, that dad won't be compelled to be on a soccer field at 10am much further in the future.
My older daughter is on a competitive cheerleading team. Not something we (parents) suggested but instead she found through school friends. She loves it. Has boosted her confidence and athletic prowess.
There aren't many dads at the meets relative to moms. Not remotely surprising. I'm the first person to admit that I don't know how to do hair or make up.
I see quite a divergence among the men in commentary. Some are there and happy their kids are loving it - they're finding a way to make peace with the situation. Some are checked out, on phones, looking grumpy at best.
Some part of me gets it. Wild asymmetry in that sport. Performances are just a few minutes long, but there's a shit-ton of practice and weekend days/entire weekends dedicated to cheer.
It would be so so so easy to say "get me out of here" but I've found a way to enjoy and make peace and make a friend or two along the way.
Contrast with her other current sport: lacrosse. First season and it's kind of a shit-show. But I'm with her in the sun on a Friday night - and with the right weather - it is a great place to be. We (parents, dads, etc.) see our friends there too.
Woke up at 6am. Child 1 woke up at 7am. Dropped her off at daycare at 8am. All the other children were being dropped off by their dads, too. Full day of work ahead. Dinner at 6pm. Bath at 7pm. Bedtime and story at 8pm. Usually calls with Bangalore from 9pm to midnight but it's Labour Day over there. Sleep at midnight.
My one concern with this is the risk of eventual burn out + mental health issues which will have its own impact on the children. Full time career + very present parent during the weekdays might just not be possible. WFH definitely helps make it significantly more possible though.
Also worth not forgetting that in most cases the fathers of millennials were a hell of a lot more present and emotionally available than their fathers etc. I'm sure we'll make plenty of our own mistakes that our children will try to avoid when their turn comes.
Those household structures aren'tpopular, they're just common when women have no other options. I have nothing against those structures, they work great for some families. But the reality is that they often force the wife into becoming an unpaid caregiver for her in-laws (who constantly criticize how she runs the household).
I don't really understand this mindset that being at home and raising your kids is only something you do when forced to. For my family, if we had more options -- ie, more money -- then both of us would be stay-at-home parents. It's much more of a joy than going to work.
Your comment's framing makes no sense to me. My wife pushed for me to go into engineering instead of academia so she could stay home and we could be comfortable. We're married. We have kids. The entire point is we're not independent. That's what married literally means. Unioned. Joined. There is no her and me. There is us.
Why would you need or even want to be independent? Why would you plan to form a family while keeping your options open/having one foot out the door?
Plenty of women (and men) end up in relationships they hate, and if they have no independence they are pretty much fucked. They have no way to escape. Women having options makes a huge difference.
What you are describing is pretty much ideal for a lot of people, but it's not what everybody gets.
How does this happen though? It's not like you wake up one day, look around and see you've started life in the middle, you're married and have kids, and you hate your spouse. Did your spouse have a stroke and undergo some massive personality change or something?
Assuming you want a family, your very top priority when evaluating someone for dating from the very beginning should be whether that person would make a good spouse and help you to form that family. Otherwise what are you even doing? Someone who can't commit is its own red flag for that purpose. If you have kids, that's it. You're in it. You need to be committed.
And having a job doesn't mean you're independent of your spouse anyway. If one of us died or we split, it'd be absolutely devastating to our family regardless of the money (e.g. if life insurance/social security covered everything). I would be hugely screwed trying to raise the kids without her, job notwithstanding.
I think the simple fact of the matter is that most people have absolutely no clue what they’re doing when it comes to relationships, and think their social media hot takes are indicative of what they ought to want.
This is on top of societal pressures. In more liberal parts of the US (and the world) it's accepted that you will take your time finding a partner, or even stay single if you want. In more conservative societies the expectation that you will marry young and start popping out kids is intense.
I think it goes both ways. I moved from a liberal to a conservative area. Maybe there are people shaming those who don't pop out kids, but more so I I've noticed it's that they're not shamed if they want to just let loose to their instincts and get impregnated as an 18-year-old and yield to their natural desires and interests. In a liberal city a 18 year old popping out a kid and is often viewed as a pariah.
I mean people do not naturally grow up wanting to stare at a desk/PC all day deciding to become a scientist or a doctor and study a bunch of shit that his almost no relation to what humans were adapted for for millions of years. Our evolutionary programming was to bang, have kids, and roam the jungle and grab the resources and satisfy our short brutish lives.
Now the fact that something is evolutionarily natural or historically normal doesn't mean it is good or right. But just letting loose on that particular natural instinct tends to be more accepted in conservative societies while in the city or liberal areas teenage (past age of consent) pregnancy is seen maybe more of something they will shame you for. You're supposed to do a pretty unnatural thing of staring at books until you're 22 or 26 and then stare at a computer screen so you can get a good job to pay a gazillion dollars for childcare delivered by minimum wage workers. You're supposed to take your time and maybe about the time your biological clock has run out, you pay $20,000 for IVF and you do a speedrun.
So which is a greater imposition of societal pressure? I won't claim conservative societies don't exhibit more social pressure than liberal ones. But on this point, it's not clear to me the conservative one is doing the greater of the pressuring.
We don't have a trust fund, of course, which is why I'm working to earn an income.
My wife currently stays home with the kids, although that might change down the road. She doesn't have any trust fund or inheritance either, of course.
However, although I'm earning the money, it's 100% a shared resource. It goes into a shared account. I'm pretty sure that's a legal necessity since we're married, but it's how we'd choose to do it anyway. There's no division between my finances and hers.
We married each other to be a team together forever, but even if we separated, our finances would be divided in half between us. If we'd wanted to fend for ourselves, we wouldn't have gotten married, and certainly wouldn't have had kids.
She feels sorry for me having to go to work every day, but it's a logical division of labor because I have much higher earning prospects.
I say this because I want to understand your definition; are we a traditional household in your view?
In the context of the original comment by pkaler, and subsequent replies from basswood, mschuster91, purplerabbit, and nradov, I understood "trad household structures" to be one where the man in a husband/wife relationship sells his labor to someone else and the woman does not.
So yes, but, I would note that there is probably a difference (for the purposes of this conversation) between the following:
A couple that earns median income per year and still chooses to have only one income earning spouse specifically so the other spouse can spend more time with the kids, whilst making significant sacrifices in other aspects of life such as school district, kids' activities, vacations, material goods, etc.
And a couple where one earns significantly above median income and can afford to have only one income earning spouse without making significant sacrifices.
In the context of the entire chain of comments, I would assume purplerabbit was referring to the first type of couple, who choose to forego many of life's luxuries in favor of child rearing, and that is the type of "household structure" that nradov was saying is not popular, except "when women have no other options" (i.e. women's rights allowing them to be financially independent).
>However, although I'm earning the money, it's 100% a shared resource. It goes into a shared account. I'm pretty sure that's a legal necessity since we're married, but it's how we'd choose to do it anyway. There's no division between my finances and hers.
There isn't in my marriage either, but I would still advise my wife to maintain her ability to earn income in case I were to go crazy, lose my job, or some other risk. And I would advise my daughter of the same.
For what it's worth, we're the first type, which is why my wife will probably join the workforce in a few years too, for want of money. But while the kids are young she thinks it's really important to stay home with them, even if it means living in a cramped basement for now.
But the point is, we both would prefer to be home with the children, and it's only for want of money that either (or both) of us would work. The privilege is being able to stay home; the sad reality is having to work at the office to earn a living.
It just strikes me (and her too) that the conversation around this issue is framed so backwards, as though everyone deeply wants to spend their waking days at an office desk / driving an Uber / etc, whereas spending time with your children is a miserable burden that people only do if forced it with no other options. I get that might be the case for some people, especially if they hate their family or have an abusive partner, but to me it's an alien mindset. Work is the abusive partner that we can't escape from, but tolerate for the kids.
>as though everyone deeply wants to spend their waking days at an office desk / driving an Uber / etc,
I don't think this is it, which is why I brought up a trust fund in one of my previous comments.
This comes down to personal risk tolerances, but it seems evident that many people feel that volatility in job markets and shrinking economic opportunities mean that there is a sufficient gain in security of housing/food/energy/healthcare/future economic opportunities such that it can be worth a sacrifice in spending time with children.
My parents moved to the US, along with their extended families from a developing country, and they almost all spent 24/7 working to develop businesses or whatever to ensure the kids had more opportunity than them. And they succeeded, most of my cousins do very well for themselves, and they can have a spouse that stays at home without decreasing their kids' future chances, but some don't (perhaps because their parents ended up in a stagnant metro rather than a growing one, that one factor is the single biggest difference in trajectories in my family).
It is easier than ever to be outcompeted by someone else around the world, so there is kind of an up or out situation for those that aim for maintaining a certain quality of life. It's also fine to opt out of that rat race, but from my perspective, the biggest cost is less access to healthcare.
I would note that the whole one spouse spending time with kids thing is probably a post world war 2 American/British phenomenon. Even in village life in developing countries, both the husband and wife are out working in factories or fields while grandparents who can't work anymore or older siblings and cousins are taking care of the kids. It's a grind for most people, most of the time.
Your framing makes perfect sense to me, and I agree with it. It comes down to economic forces requiring parents to sacrifice time at home with their children.
In this framing, being able to have a stay-at-home parent is a privilege to be treasured. Not everyone can manage it, which is a tragedy.
Of course, for those who don't want to be a parent and prefer their job, that's fine too. Some people, whether men or women, just yearn for the mines. I wouldn't say that any such people should be pressured to be a stay at home parent. Hopefully they can be happily childless, or else partner with someone who enjoys raising children, or else get support from grandparents or the community.
What I simply object to is a framing that views being a "traditional" stay at home parent as an intrinsically miserable or undesirable role, when it's what so many of us factory workers wish we could do ourselves but can't afford to. When a (loving, non-abusive) couple can afford to have one parent stay at home, my wife and I both view that stay-at-home parent as the lucky one.
My wife self-reports as very happy and talks a lot about how proud she is of the decision. I'll acknowledge that we are privileged in terms of support -- 3 relative families within 30 minutes and most people in a 100 meter radius attend the same church. Even in our setup, however, we really wish we could swing a multi-generational setup and have grandparents around all the time.
Women are just as responsible for enforcing traditions as men are. You could just as easily argue that men are the ones with less choice; after all, it is much more socially acceptable for a woman to work than for a man to be a stay at home dad.
It's also false that a stay at home has essentially resigned themselves to ruin in the event of divorce/disagreement. Someone who has been a stay at home long enough to be unemployable, in the vast majority of states, will be rewarded with alimony and if applicable child support to the point they will easily be taking about 50% of the spouse's salary for long enough to retrain.
Of course the spouse has the risk the other ex-spouse will sabotage themselves and end their incomes to avoid paying the order, at which point they may be thrown into prison if they are found. But are they worse off than the employee who can be fired at a moment's notice and go broke by a boss who isn't sabotaging himself at all and bound by no such judicial order? Maybe so, but it's not by some gigantic long shot.
Severely missing the point here. It’s about being criticised and not recognised while doing so. It’s about lack of choice – and no, when you’re 25, you don’t know what this does to you over time. And when you finally do, it’s too late, you’re not going to run away with your kids and no job.
My comment was a response to its parent, beginning:
> Those household structures aren't popular, they're just common when women have no other options.
I agree with what yours, and point out that it applies equally to men. I was 25 when we decided to have our first child and while I would make the same decision knowing what I know now, I didn't have anything near an accurate idea of what the impact would be on my life as a whole.
Basically, I wasn't taking exception to the idea of an irrevocable decision made with incomplete context; I was taking exception to the idea that it's somehow unique to women - because it's not.
I would add though that while making bad choices is not unique to women, when it comes to mariage, lots of society used to make it so much easier on men. Men could/can escape home in work, hobbies, etc with much less judgement than women. It’s gotten better in some parts of the world, definitely not all, and last years the trend is rather backward I feel.
Except "trad" households (full time SAHM in a nuclear home) are not traditional. Tradition is not something only the upper-middle class in a post-war boom attained for a short period of time.
Throughout human history, it was rare for only two people to raise a child, let alone one. Or for women to not bring money into the home.
Like many "trad" trends, it's based more on advertising and television than history.
At the very least, you need a whole society of aunts and uncles and grandparents and cousins, and deep friends to truly do any kind of traditional family structure in the traditional way. Otherwise it's just emulating an extremely narrow portion of the trad that didn't exactly exist in the first place.
> At the very least, you need a whole society of aunts and uncles and grandparents and cousins, and deep friends to truly do any kind of traditional family structure in the traditional way.
"It takes a village to raise a child" was meant literally. However, the glory of capitalism required people to move to where the jobs were, turning that millennia-old principle upside down ever since industrialization. And car culture was the ultimate fatal blow, when children can't even walk their own neighborhood any more.
I remember when Hillary Clinton said "it takes a village to raise a child" and she was mocked by conservatives and accused of undermining parental rights and wanting governments to control families.
And when BLM made it part of their charter to encourage community support for children beyond the typical nuclear unit they were accused of a radical Marxist agenda to "destroy families."
For some reason the very concept of extended families and community engenders deep anger and hostility from some Americans, and that's odd for a nation of immigrants considering how common the "whole society of aunts and uncles and grandparents and cousins" is in the rest of the world.
> For some reason the very concept of extended families and community engenders deep anger and hostility from some Americans
I think because excessive individualism plays into the hands of large companies. There is an individualist culture that has naturally grown over time in the US, but it has also been pushed by big corporations because if you can't depend on your neighbors and extended family, you need to spend money to fill the gaps.
But when leftists says things like community support, it doesn't bring up images of traditional villages and extended families. It brings up images of communists saying things like abolish the family. Naturally, due to their history.
It's not like leftists are known for their traditional family values now or then, so why should it be taken that way?
Yes, when you intentionally take what leftists say in bad faith and stereotype them negatively, then the bad faith interpretation and negative stereotypes make sense. But normal people don't hear "communism" when leftists say "community support."
Also given how many people espousing "traditional family values" among the right turn out to be abusers, pedophiles, rapists, deadbeats, etc, what you might consider "traditional" values don't actually mapped to the left-right political axis at all.
And I assume you didn't bother reading my comment or this thread very hard and just wanted to dunk on the left, but the American nuclear family isn't "traditional family values" to begin with.
Are the 9pm and later calls w/Bangalore an every day thing?
Here's my routine.
5am: wake up/coffee
5:30ish: gym
6:30ish: back, clean kitchen, take out trash, make lunch for 2 kids
7:30: nanny arrives, and I sit down at desk, and kids are now awake
8:30: walk older kid to school
9-5:30: work or whatever else. I run my own business so some days feel very busy, some the opposite. I just try to be intentional with my time.
5:30 p: start dinner
6:30 p: dinner (or earlier depending on demands)
7:30 p: kid bed time
8:15-8:30: done w/kids. time for a bit of TV or wind-down, catch up with my wife about her day for as long as I can manage to stay awake
9:30-10: bed time (ideal day)
I stopped working at night unless it is critical for a next-morning thing. That leaves me absent from some opportunities that I might otherwise get spending more time on work, but I also have more time to focus on me/marriage/non-work-life
My point in sharing is that I make space on purpose for me. Your schedule sounds (and I am presuming) like you don't have much time for you. Is that right?
Don't take this as criticism, but I wonder if you could ask the Bangalore folks to get to their point faster and get some more sleep. Very important for health.
Not directly relevant to the article, but I'm curious if anyone else has connected the fact that fathers are spending more time being close with their children at the same time average global testosterone levels have dropped without a solid explanation?
To be clear, I'm not trying to point a causal arrow here, or even say it's good or bad. I read a study the other day that asserted that fathers who spent more time parenting have measurably lower testosterone levels, and that the delta correlates to the amount of time spent.
> testosterone levels have dropped without a solid explanation
There is a solid explanation.
First, before the adoption of mass spec, studies used a less accurate method of measuring testosterone that overstated testosterone levels.
Also, the studies showing the population level decline in testosterone generally controlled for obesity (which naturally lowers testosterone) using BMI. But BMI is a very crude measure.
When studies control with better methods like BMI + waist circumference, and only compare samples using the mass spec measurement method, the unexplained population level decline goes away. After fixing the measurement method, what remains of the decline can be explained by BMI + waist circumference. In other words, modern men are more prone to obesity and metabolic syndrome, which naturally reduces testosterone. Case closed.
That study appears to be US only, while global studies have shown the effect.
For that matter, some _animal_ studies have shown declining testosterone as well. That doesn't seem to be well-studied, but if it holds up it would make me lean toward it being something environmental (e.g. microplastic pollution)
I linked that study because it is particularly interesting because they run the mass spec test on archived blood samples.
But there are other studies and meta analyses which cover other countries and come to the same conclusion.
I think many of the studies claiming to find significant population level decline are older and overstate the issue due to the methodological errors outlined in my previous post. If you are thinking of a particular one, please share a link.
I am not familiar with the research on testosterone levels in animals. In humans, while not conclusory, I do think the evidence suggests that increasing rates of obesity and metabolic syndrome are the proximate cause of testosterone decline.
I think this only applies to certain segments of society. My child has type 1 so I'm active on Facebook groups for parents. The number of mums who say their partner is not involved really at all in their child's care is so sad. The child's own father can't supervise their child solo because they can't manage the care. And then the divorced parents. Oh boy...
"The number of mums who say their partner is not involved really at all in their child's care is so sad."
While that can be true, I wonder how much of it is true. It's pretty common in therapy to hear partners saying the other one doesn't contribute, but further investigation can often turn up observation biases.
Without proper statistics we can't know. But I do wonder why is it that if you spend any time on parenting websites you find lots of mothers complaining about deadbeat husbands, and so few fathers complaining about deadbeat wives. Purely anecdotal, but it is very lopsided, and it has made me wonder why is it.
I'm a dad, too. The lopsidedness could come from many places: mothers being drawn to parenting websites (marketing), women feeling more compelled to voice complaints online (if they are stay-at-home-moms, they don't have coworkers to chat with), women actually getting treated unfairly (very true... patriarchy), etc.
I've heard this from many moms, "My husband does so little in terms of housework, childcare, play and mental load, that it is actually easier when he is out of the house; when he is home, I essentially have to take care of an additional child." I even know some moms that organize playdates for their husband, as in ONLY the husbands, so that that the husbands are out of the house.
On the other hand, I know of two separate marriages that fell apart because the husband worked, did all the child care and housework, while the mom stayed home and doomscrolled. After a few years of no improvement, divorce. Of course many things could be at play here... screen addiction, post-partum depression, etc.
Raising kids is complex, time-consuming, hard, and amazing. It takes a lot of energy, people, and love. I always try to assume people are doing their best, though sometimes even that's tough.
You can see why men don't share often. The women get excuses (addiction, post partum, etc) and it's naturally assumed that men are dead beats. Probably not your intention but as one of those divorced dads I can tell you the bias is overwhelming.
It depends on the site but when I was a SAHD, I found many of those parenting sites were not welcoming to dads, even dads doing the exact same work as the moms. Moms there wanted a place to vent about their husbands and men who were pulling their fair share or were handling most of the parent duties simply weren't allowed.
This, it's well known that women want to vent and men want to fix the issue. This difference in communication and perspective has been supported in various research.
Yeah, seriously. Anyone with some experience in life understands that men and women are (on average) wired very differently, and this is one of the ways.
It seems like a safe guess that very few of the moms complaining about their partners on r/parenting are also married to the dads who are posting on r/daddit.
It's like how /r/steak is just dudes posting steak pictures, and there is some new cooking sub where it's just women posting food pictures and complaining about their significant others. Women be complaining.
> there is some new cooking sub where it's just women posting food pictures and complaining about their significant others
If you are referring to /r/girldinnerdiaries, that is not a cooking sub, nor is it intended to be. The whole point is pairing a photo of dinner with the situation and mood of the photographer.
It's right there in the name: Girl Dinner Diaries.
I'm not sure how serious you are about the dismissive "women be complaining" comment. A big part of your perception may be that women have more to 'complain' about; society is measurably unfair for women. Another part could be that when women voice their struggles it is called "complaining," and when men voice their struggles they are "being serious." Also, men get shot down for showing vulnerability and seeking support, so their struggles are internal. And this isn't always good for mental health.
My comment was descriptive, not normative. I’m not ascribing moral valence to it, just stating what’s happening and speculating why. For example, men probably complain less because men get shot down for showing vulnerability in public settings like online forums. Women probably complain more in public because they get sympathy. Whether one is good, or one is more mentally healthy, I don’t think either is healthier or unhealthier, but I don’t particularly care.
Being a deadbeat is defined as not paying. It's not about caregiving. These roles may not be equally distributed by gender, but then why is there not as much complaining by men about women not being equal partners financially? It's has to do with bias.
You can also find that much of the research about household duties is biased against the type of work that men have traditionally done (eg excluding yard work, maintenance, etc).
> But I do wonder why is it that if you spend any time on parenting websites you find lots of mothers complaining about deadbeat husbands, and so few fathers complaining about deadbeat wives.
My ex wife does this. I take my issues with her to a therapist (instead of online forums). FWIW I have always been more present than her in our child’s life and certainly pay a lot more too. One data point, but it’s in the population you’re referring to.
Some people want sympathy at the expense of their partner’s reputation.
That's the thing about trends in aggregate data. It tells very little about the details of any particular situation. There are almost certainly a wide variety of subgroups where this particular trend doesn't hold, and others where the changes are even more dramatic.
The data is reasonably reliable, at least in the view of the team that published the paper, and those who reviewed it. No one claims it is perfect.
And the post that started this sub thread was about how their experience didn’t show the trend. But no one in the social sciences expects every sample to follow the trend. There will be numerous exceptions. Just like sometimes when one rolls a pair of dice one gets a twelve.
That twelve is an absolutely an accurate sample from the data but just because one sometimes gets an outlier it doesn’t mean that there is no central tendency.
> EDIT: if you downvote this comment it means you don't think there are deadbeat dads out there.
No, it means that when your attempt to extend the metaphor failed. People who avoid strength exercises just don't get stronger knees. They don't "get stronger knees but by not doing weights".
I feel there is a trend of not fully appreciating what fathers who spend less time with kids actually do. I think that's unfair, frankly. Many of them do things that contribute to the family in other ways.
What was my Dad busy doing? Focusing on his career in order to provide for his family. Doing hobbies that increased his skill set. Fixing the house to ensure we all had a nice safe place to live. Tending to the garden to keep the neighbours happy. Building ties with the community to increase our family's standing in the community and being able to call in favours in emergencies etc.
The 4 days off he had from his primary job, he worked multiple other jobs, creating multiple streams of family income.
It's so easy to view many of these things as him not tending to his family directly. That's incredibly short-sighted.
My mother appreciated very little of those things, and constantly nagged that he never did enough. She admitted many years later this was a big contributor to their divorce.
I think some modern opinions of parenting come from a very individualistic, transactional and reciprocal mindset. Eg "I spend 1 hour doing the dishes, you have to do something, today, and of equivalent value, to show you love us". What kind of foundation for a relationship is that? What happened to the power of a family?
I think you have a point: many men work hard to provide stability for their family, and are effectively sacrificing family time to provide that. This kind of hard work feels undervalued in modern parenting discourse, which seems to put most value on time directly spent with children or on direct day-to-day tasks (dishes, cooking, etc).
An example anecdote: my friend works construction. Lots of long hours of hard labor. His wife is unhappy because he doesn't do more childcare, but left unanswered is how he could do more. He can't work fewer hours or move to a new job without a giant income hit. His wife can't earn enough to offset daycare costs. They already live on a fairly thin budget. From the outside, I can see how he'd feel unappreciated.
That said though there are definitely also men who aren't doing childcare OR working hard, and they're happy to have their wife do everything.
Often there’s unsaid things that have “comparative” simple solutions - not working less but getting the wife a few hours a week “off duty” kind of things.
Strongly agree. I know so many men who are the sole provider for their families and their wives are unhappy about how things like childcare and household chores aren’t split more fairly, but they seem to have zero appreciation for the crushing burden of financially supporting a family for decades. It’s hard, stressful, and wears you down. Almost all of the stay at home moms I know get more sleep, more exercise, and more social time than their husbands do, once the kids are old enough for school.
I’ve also now watched many friends divorce, and I have to say, the wives who stayed at home seem to struggle a LOT more with the transition of now having to parent AND have a job, and the husbands mostly seem to be fine. And that’s despite them now paying a big chunk of their ex’s bills!
> but they seem to have zero appreciation for the crushing burden of financially supporting a family for decades. It’s hard, stressful, and wears you down.
Absolutely. They will though, when two parents working fully becomes a requirement instead of an option, as we are seeing in many HCOL areas. Or even, as many wish, to be the primary earner and the man stay at home.
In fact, the burden on the sole earner as you point out, is /increasing/ during this transition - costs are rising due to the expectation that two people will contribute financially to the mortgage and other expenses. Another issue that women don't tend to appreciate.
At that point, neither parent can catch a break, and the family and children suffer.
But this equality of opportunity is exactly what women fought extremely hard for. It's a shame that marriage and the kids are sometimes the victims of the side effects.
(I'm gay fwiw and not a misogynist. I do root for women's rights but not blindly. Demanding massive societal change comes with responsibilities)
Correct. As I've grown older as a man I've realized how much pressure dad was under and never said anything. Women have the space to complain about the responsibilities foisted on them. Men have never had that and still don't.
You can see this in how people respond to complaints of lazy spouses. If a woman complains, everyone is by default on her side. If a man complains, even if it's obviously true his wife is not doing enough, he is still the one blamed because maybe he wasn't nice to his wife or something.
> The fact that richer and better-educated parents are freely choosing to pour more of their valuable time into childcare makes raising children sound practically like a “luxury good,” akin to buying a Rolex watch or a fragile Fabergé egg.
It kind of reflected an unawareness to me. Unless one crosses the threshold of wealth where they can afford full-time 24/7 nanny, the richer parents spending more time in childcare seems obvious and non-counterintuitive. It is more likely jobs that pay well also provide flexible working hours and locations so these parents can really afford to spend more time in childcare. And this would much more prevalent category then families who could afford hired help for child care.
On the other hand poorer parent with much stringent job conditions would be mentally and physically exhausted to provide much childcare.
> I think some modern opinions of parenting come from a very individualistic, transactional and reciprocal mindset. ..
I think family unit like almost every other thing in modern economy has fallen victim to financialization of society.
I can't help but wonder about the relationship between fathers (and, in fact, all parents) spending more time with their children, and people choosing to have fewer children, and later.
I think it's unquestionably true that fathers spending more time with their children is, on the whole, much better for those children.
But it's also true that it's a huge problem for society that people are having fewer children. And I think you can make a reasonable argument that increasing expectations around the quality of parenting are party of that trend.
I think it is. It's discouraged and unspoken, but a lot of men don't like spending time with children. I mean for weeks or months, sure, but when you have a kid it drags on for years 24/7 and nothing but having your own child will really reveal to you how that turns out for you.
As it turns out, I don't enjoy extended time with children. My bad, but I power through it for the sake of the child. In older times that would be no problem, my wife would deal with that. Instead I stopped at 1 when I realized I am not the kind of person who enjoys being equally involved with children.
In the same way you power through taking care of your kids, not because you enjoy it but because you prioritize their well-being, how likely is it that moms are generally doing the same? It seems to me like men have been historically avoiding this child-rearing responsibility, moreso than women enjoying doing so.
I can tell you that my wife and I are both exhausted of taking care of them 24/7. It is not something we do for funsies.
I think it's natural that someone, whether you believe in biological differences or not, will relatively prefer child-rearing to some other tasks that the family needs to do. Modern society has brainwashed females in particular into believing that equal-childcare should be a thing and they're being robbed if one is "avoiding it" (even your rhetoric exhibits this brainwashing).
It doesn't have to be the wife per-se. When I was building our house, I did most of the carpentry. My wife hated it and did very little of that. My wife hates driving the tractor. My wife hates driving any vehicle. My wife hates doing the plumbing and electric. My wife hates taking care of the pets, so I take care of them. My wife doesn't like practicing self-defense and security for the house, and there are lots of dangerous animals and criminals here, so I handle that. I do not ask my wife to do any of those things except at worst a few small % of the time compared to when I do them. This does not bother me at all because different people prefer different things.
Modern society has brainwashed people to think they need to share child-care and ideally equally. I think this is highly misinformed utopian vision. Voluntary preference based division of labor is smart and helps us all enjoy our lives more. Very rarely do couples have absolute equal relative preference for all the tasks, even if they dislike all of the tasks.
It seems obvious that if you brainwash people to think labor sharing by exchanging tasks is "avoidance" that you increase the chance one of the two parties will just veto any additional children. But if you bring this up then it's straight to whataboutism but women also don't enjoy it which totally misses the mark about relative preference that results in imbalanced childcare, which can be evaluated even when both people dislike a task. Unless you totally reject sexual dimorphism, you should be at least open to the possibility as well that females on average might have higher relative preference for child-rearing than other things, as long as feminists aren't shaming them left and right with artificial impositions that somehow they're being robbed if a man is "avoiding" it by exchanging labor to do something else.
Treating childcare as a chore to be assigned to whichever parent dislikes it the least is not in the best interest of the children. They benefit from having two engaged parents.
It's truly glorious that what's in the "best interest of the children" is whatever matches the stranger outsider's philosophical goals. Of course who could argue with "engagement." That sounds great! The devil of that is in the details, and not necessarily mean anything approaching equal time spent child-rearing. "Interest of the children" spoken by some outsider to try and force others to act towards their philosophy, might be responsible for more atrocities and misdeeds than anything else in history.
Personally I don't take your omniscient approach. I believe the parents are nearly always better position to determine the interests of their children than some random dude on HN, than the outsider trying to impose their goal of their particular vision of "engagement."
I am merely explaining why I take care of my kids. Your reaction suggests that you feel attacked by that, when it is not my intention at all. Where do you think that reaction may be coming from?
You're not saying what your position clearly - instead you're "just asking questions", and it's rubbing some people up the wrong way (including me, sorry). It looks like you're not apologising for that because "it wasn't your intention".
If you're sincerely trying to engage in good faith, I feel you should be apologising for your role in sending it in the wrong direction unintentionally.
To be clear, I'm not taking a position in the debate here, just commenting that the way your engaging is legitimately a bit annoying if you're not aware. The other person getting really angry isn't the best look either, but I'm sure they already know that.
I see, this is all one big misunderstanding and you were only talking about taking care of your kids, not referring to how anyone else might take care of their children. And now I need personal introspection for my psychological weaknesses. You are fucking good at this. I might suggest a career in family therapy or family law, because although this gas lighting won't work on me, they use the same kind of duplicitous rhetoric and you'd fit right in and get it to work on plenty of people.
I think a lot of it is the type of things you do while spending time with kids.
I watch my friends raise young children, and to be blunt it largely looks miserable to me. You effectively are babysitting children activities 24x7. Basically running a tiny daycare.
The families and adults seem to simply exist as caretakers for their child's lives.
I ascribe to "the kid is just now part of your general life" for 90% of your adult activities. Could be working in the shop, outdoor chores, cleaning the house, fixing the car, shopping, whatever. The point is the kid primarily exists in your life and does whatever it is you are doing, not the other way around.
Yeah, some things are impossible to do with a kid of course. But not nearly as many as currently believed for most children. If properly socialized, kids can exist non-disruptively in plenty of situations. And the danger to them in a lot of spots is wildly exaggerated. I brought my 5 year old into warehouses and lumberyards with a bit of instruction and teaching them to pay attention. They pretty quickly adapt.
If I have another kid I'd plan on not modifying my life a whole lot. The kid will simply come with to most things and liberal use of babysitting and such will happen. I have friends who are terrified to even leave their toddlers with babysitters these days for a few hours - it's absurd.
Kids imo do best in a balanced life where the get to learn by watching and doing. Not catering to their every whim and desire and shielding them from every possible danger.
There are certainly some age ranges (infant through ~3 or 4 years old or so) that are much more difficult, but after that parents seem to prefer life on hard mode these days for some reason. Paranoia and peer pressure from my standpoint drives most of it.
My older (25 now!) son would have been a miserable experience for me if every single day was a "rainy weekend" style thing where we're stuck inside playing children's games and the like with near constant 24x7 attention and direct interaction at his level. I'd have gone insane. Having him "around" most of the time while I did things with an hour or two of direct "kid time" engagement was totally sustainable, and he seems to have gotten a lot of enrichment from most of it. Note that wasn't staring at screens though - it was physically and actively doing stuff. And part of learning as a parent and a child of a parent is the parent making mistakes. Shit happens, just correct for it moving forward. So long as no major injuries occur life moves on and typically everyone is better off for it.
I can tell you that as you have more children the time you can spend and need to spend drops - because there’s more of them, but they also play with each other.
Three are running around yelling and I can’t even join in, as they want me to be “the base” apparently.
I can't believe I'm asking this, because it isn't even something I would remotely consider (and it is too late anyway), but, is three actually easier than two children in some ways?
I have two children and I find parenting to be utterly draining. They are 4 and 6. They are *constantly* fighting. They play together a bit, but when they do, after 5-10 minutes it leads to real fight where we need to intervene. And they still demand an enormous amount of attention.
It turns out I am one of those fathers with a personality that doesn't deal well with constant sensory overload. I was medicated for ADHD myself as a child and one of my children is AuADHD. It isn't his fault and we're trying to find ways to help him (and everyone else), but his meltdowns make life so, so hard for the whole family. He wants to control and dominate every situation, whether it is his brother or his parents.
I was wondering if the dynamics of three would have made it easier because he couldn't dominate his brother so eaily, or if that would just mean he became the isolated child.
Yes... Father of four here. I can't imagine having one . It was way more work.
Taking my one kid to things was much harder because they'd have to be played with.
My four kids just play with each other. Yes I play with them too, but most of the time they run off on their own to play and want the adults to go away.
It's magical. Ironically I have more free time as a dad of four. Still the same number of diapers to change but the older ones do stuff themselves.
The biggest issue is logistics of getting four kids the various places they need to go.
Two of my three kids are always getting along! Actually the fighting among my two girls has fallen off pretty dramatically as they have both matured. They are 12 and 14 now. They have learned to compromise on activities instead of getting into fights over it. They still snipe at each other occasionally, but it seems to be taken more in stride than it used to.
It ... can? It really depends on the children, the dynamics, and other factors (so I'm not saying "have another kid and everything is fixed").
It does increase the network, so that if one kid doesn't want to play, the other might. Sometimes all the kids are playing together, sometimes one is off doing his own thing, sometimes there's still a meltdown.
Three might be the nadir as they outnumber you but each kid only has two other kids. But when older you likely can deal with one kid at a time and the other two play.
If it makes you feel better 4 to 6 is about the worst for "normal" kids, too, as they know that the outside world is something they have influence over but can't always control the way they want to.
the question is, where does that feeling come from? from your own time growing up, based on how your own father interacted with you? from your friends/peers? others?
i can relate. when my kids were young i didn't know what to do with them. but it's not that i didn't like spending time with them. before we had kids, working part-time so i could spend a lot of time at home was my dream. it was what i wanted. when the dream became real my inability to initiate play with the children was unexpected.
i figure it was because i had no rolemodels from my time growing up, no childhood experience that i could replicate because i grew up with a single dad who wasn't as close to me as i wanted to. every interaction was initiated by my children. it got easier as they got older because our interests became more compatible. (we could play games together that i also enjoyed, etc)
all the other stuff, taking care of them, feeding, putting them to sleep, etc. was easy because it's clear what needs to be done. and it wasn't/isn't exhausting either. i relish every interaction and moments of success where we achieve something together.
If your limit for being slightly out of your comfort zone is a year, why did you have a child? You don't have to be a parent to know that you are going to be challenged when a baby arrives.
If fathers spending more time with their children is better for the children but worse for ~~society~~the economy, is that really even a question worth considering?
In the 1960s when single-parent households were a thing, it was not unusual for households to have little to no indoor plumbing or regular electricity.
Nowadays such a lifestyle will get social workers on your ass, unless you can get some Mennonite or Amish preacher or something to vouch for you. After a long enough period of failing to meet some arbitrary modern "quality of life" that can only be afforded by going along with the mainstreams economic system and expectations, the legal system will likely get involved in some capacity.
Economy is a bit of a one way valve. If you don't flow with it they'll rip away your children and then you'll be dumped to the curb along with the homeless or other inmates at the jail.
Ugh... In the 90s, people were screaming and panicking about the future of over-population. Dystopian scenes of dense and dirty tiny living-quarters stacked on top of each other.
Now everyone's screaming about a declining population.
We should embrace and prepare for degrowth for a better chance at a wonderful future, not shout at the sky hoping people will make more babies for the economy.
And guess what, if we prepare for degrowth, where a generation or two or three of the entire planet never goes hungry, never goes to war, and has the freedom of movement, creativity, innovation, interaction... Those people will want to have many many babies, and we can once again start worrying about overpopulation.
Those outcomes seem an extraordinarily optimistic take of what population decline would lead to. I don't think it'll be all doom either, but the world was not an ideal place when the population was previously billions fewer either.
Especially when pretty much all modern political and economic systems are fundamentally incompatible with population decline, and leadership fights changes tooth and nail.
Dad of 2 under 5: would be curious to know if there has been a change in the role of grandparents and especially how parents (particularly Mums’) desire to get along with grandparents (in-laws) and what role is that playing in the increase in the ‘mental load’ and the stressful part of Mums’ parenting.
Can a good part of the mental load be attributed to the need for the parents to ‘do it all’ themselves rather than share the load and responsibility with other loved ones and caregivers without the need to tightly control all aspects of parenting?
On a separate note - Insta is constantly feeding my wife with versions of parenting which is completely unattainable. That really is at the heart of the mental load we are experiencing in our situation of raising two under five. If only Insta was banned, life would have been far more better for parents.
Its kind of shocking after having an infant myself and hearing from his grandparents how little my wife and I's fathers did. One never changed a diaper and has never cooked dinner and the other looked like he had never held a baby in his life despite having 3 kids. I can't imagine not being incredibly hands on and involved.
There’s often been a “kids are mom’s until they’re dad’s” thing going on - dads do whatever with babies and younger children but the older children get heavily involved.
Of course, 50+ years ago diaper changing was often skilled labor (as was cooking) - it’s much easier to change a modern diaper and cook a modern ready-to-make meal.
It is just as easy to cook a meal from fresh ingredients. What exactly do you classify as "ready-to-make"?
I am incredibly allergic to the U.S.-American understanding of cooking as this unfathomably difficult task. No wonder there's an obesity crisis across the pond. The worst thing is, this unhealthy relationship to food seems to be exported all across the world these days.
We were latchkey kids. The key to the house door was tied around our neck using a shoelace. When the street lights came on, it meant going home. Both parents worked to afford the house and the kids' expenses.
It is also kind of forced. Modern industrial society wants to extract as much productivity out of workforce as possible. What that means is in 1965 one income was able to sustain a household but now we need two incomes. There is no dedicated support for kids now so fathers have to give up time and mothers have to exchange child-mother bonding time from kids to the company.
The real benefiter of this is the capitalist who can now have twice the workforce at the price of one.
How about we start paying market price to the parent who takes care of the kids irrespective of mothers or fathers ? Investing in next generation is way more important than making useless widgets faster.
My spouse and I are single-income and I still try. It's not about economic output, but rather there are things I want my son to know that I can only teach him by being present in his life.
> How about we start paying market price to the parent who takes care of the kids irrespective of mothers or fathers ? Investing in next generation is way more important than making useless widgets faster.
Considering that the current political majority in the US wants people to have more kids, this would be a really reasonable thing to do if they were serious about that.
I help with my kid a lot, and I'm remote so I do it around the clock. I take contact naps, change every diaper, watch her for periods of time so my wife is free.
my wife doesn't work. and she didn't work before we had a baby. because one of our salaries was enough, so instead we work less. and again due to remote work, work has barely been top 5 in my life focus areas for the last decade.
The benefit comes from women being able to work, not from each household needing two incomes to raise kids. When a woman needs two incomes to raise her kids that means there is still a significant obstacle to leaving their partner.
Have to disagree as a father. The real benefit is the father and child who are now bonding. That doesn't mean the mother can't also bond, it just means it's not one sided.
I got to spend a bit more than 2 years doing math homework 1:1 with my youngest. Now, she's moving up to honors & gets 100% without any help. I miss all that time we got to hang out, do homework, watch videos of cats, etc.
Except if anyone bothered to read the damn article you'd see that the research showed the highly educated were more likely to have involved fathers. Those are not going to be forced as the person seems to imply.
In the 1950s, fathers worked and paid for everything. Mothers raised the kids. This was taught in schools, girls were steered into marriage, motherhood, and housekeeping and men into vocations or college.
Let's not pretend that many women didn't go to work so they could have more, and feel like they were a more complete person. Many people just don't want to be pigeonholed into roles defined by tradition, and the 1960s were a huge rebellion against this. This wasn't some grand capitalist scheme.
It's still possible to raise a family on one professional income, if you live like most people did in the 1960s. Can you do it on minimum wage? No, but you couldn't do it then either.
Don’t imagine that it wasn’t heavily promoted by industrialites after they saw that after ww2 they could increase the labor force by 30 percent without paying more than they were before.
Everything that starts out with a few well meaning people is, especially now, immediately turned into an astroturfing campaign to fuel some specific economic or political (is there really a difference?) end.
Yes, and it also points people away from pathological overconsumption, which is arguably a very good idea on a number of axis. And also would shrink the economy significantly if it was widely adopted… which maybe hints at the inconvenient fact that an economy based on ever-expanding per-capita extraction is ultimately unsustainable.
Fundamentally, the economy is sustained by energy. In preindustrial society, that energy was provided by agriculture, which tends to be somewhat sustainable. Fossil fuels fuelled explosive expansion, leading to the paradigm that unlimited geometric expansion of the economy was desirable, which led to delusional theories that it was uncapped even in limited space.
Now the world is near its carrying capacity in several dimensions, and we are going to find the limits to our delusion. Automation may help us find the economic limits of this paradigm before we hit the physical wall, which might turn out to be a good thing or a bad thing.
At any create, I am convinced that the next century will be marked by systemic change that fundamentally reorganises global priorities and might best be described in terms of collapsing paradigms as economies move away from human labor, in the process changing focus from the accumulation of money, which is mostly useful for paying wages, to pure power and resource control.
> The real benefiter of this is the capitalist ...
Tired old socialist rhetoric.
The real benefiter of this is the state which can now have many times the tax base at the price of none. Where women used to take care of the children and do the housekeeping those tasks are now often done by paid day care, taxed by the state and paid help, again taxed by the state. From a single tax payer a family - father, mother, two children - now supplies two tax payers and several 'downstream' tax payers.
It's hilarious how the government used Rosy the Riveter to convince women that being liberated is slaving away building death machines for the state to literally blow up all our money, while sending your kids to people who don't give two fucks for them, all while moving all that domestic stuff to the GDP so they can tax the shit out of it.
That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. Yes, it’s not the capitalists making trillions from the free doubling of labor supply, it’s the politicians taking their 10%…
My mom left the house as a kid. Dad worked and did it all during the week. Definitely felt like this was a rare thing growing up. I did spend time with my mom on the weekend though.
As a father I try and balance it out but I definitely don’t do as much as my dad did growing up.
It's a good article and, as a father, I experience and certify what it says. It presents the causes of the main observed fact (more time for kids) which happens anywhere in the Western world at least. But it can't go further and explain what general social changes cause all that. For me, in no order, they are:
Financial strains (family disposable income, high cost of living, wealth inequality)
Expand of electronic device use (from TVs to modern ones) and their apps
Convergence of gender roles, making males less masculine
General loss of classical values, promotion of easy life, short term goals and superficial qualities leading to misery and deactivation
Second sibling born - turns out I didn't get to be the parent, I get to look after the parents. I'm tired, exhausted, utterly miserable, barely scraping by. All those fancy ideals I thought old age provided for don't exist. Nursing homes? Hah, that's $340 a day up here in the middle of nowhere. I ain't making that a day. I get to do it myself.
I wonder what percentage of folks are now stuck in caretaking instead of raising their own families themselves. I basically predict my family line is extinct after my generation.
My well being is judged now by whether I took the time to watch a movie with my daughter, take my son out to fly a rc plane and so forth... so easy to dig into the daily grind ... not sure what life is about but I sure a shit know misery it born from abandoning your kids and the sickness that brings inside is insidious.
If I do nothing both will be in their rooms all day. Makes me sick.
This measures fatherhood in terms of time spent with children. I question whether that metric is of any value what so ever. Is a farmer a better farmer because he/she spends hours in the field? Or is the correct measure of a farmer the crops?
This article, and the place it has on Hackernews and the quality of "commments" raises serious questions for me about Hacker News as a whole, the moderation, the readers and mechanism.
My complaint is not that this kind of thing exists. My complaint is that something better does not.
> Is a farmer a better farmer because he/she spends hours in the field? Or is the correct measure of a farmer the crops?
At the risk is stating the obvious, crops do not have the ability to notice whether or not the farmer spends time with them. If you think that a child won't notice that one of their parents doesn't spend time with them and will be affected by it, I don't know what to tell you.
To make the analogy proportional (according to the article), the difference would be something like "do they notice the difference between 1h 40m and 5 hours" (i.e. 3x more). My money would be on yes, they'd very much notice.
When it comes to kids, quantity has a quality all its own. Yes, there are better and worse ways to spend time with kids, but between engagement, enrichment, play, laundry, cooking, feeding, changing diapers, etc, there's just an immense amount of time to fill and work to do. By these metrics, doing the dishes probably isn't counted as "parenting", but since it lets your partner spend time with the kid, or rest and recuperate, it's a good proxy.
If you don't believe me, fold a load of laundry the next time you visit a friend with little kids. Or play with their kid for half an hour so the parent can let their guard down for a bit. It has an incredible impact.
Yes yes the goal of life is to flourish and this metric doesn't measure flourishing directly so what's the point? And indeed is the fact that we talk about observable metrics rather than whatever else I had in mind not an indictment of this forum, nay, society at large?
> I don’t know who told MacRumors what (and their sourcing is just “MacRumors has learned”), but I know for a fact that it is not true that the teams working on the Vision platform have “been redistributed to other teams within Apple.”
Good to know! I thought it was a bit weird for the team to have been disbanded so abruptly. Perhaps if this aspect of the story is not correct, other aspects will turn out to have been untrue as well.
It isn’t said in this article, but as an elder millennial and a guy that’s talked about this exact thing with peers, it’s that we don’t want to repeat the mistakes of our parents. Boomers, the parents of millennials, are perhaps the worst generation to have ever existed and we carry a lot of baggage over it.
Mostly in the short sleep period, but also in the 'free time' too. I tend to get about 30 minutes at the end of the day, after all have (finally) gone to sleep, but still.
> Millennial fathers have roughly tripled the amount of time they spend with kids.
I think this really undersells it. My mom parented a few hours a week. My kids (like most) lived under ceaseless 24/7 adulting. The time I spent with my sons was more like a 20x increase over my parents' generation.
Past that, it seems like it's taking forever for anyone to notice the radical changes in modern parenting/childhood. Along with eliminating adult-free peer time, we've eradicated free range areas. My generation could roam (w/o adults) for miles in every direction; my kids (like most) could go from one edge of the yard to the other (credit: car culture, trespassing culture, false stranger-danger culture).
The surprising part (to me) isn't how thoroughly adults have sabotaged kids growth opportunities, it's that nearly no one seems to have noticed it.
We’ve also eradicated the unsupervised peer socialization that kids experienced with the free range. It’s common for a child these days to only ever be around other kids in very supervised environments with adults present (play dates, school, organized activities).
Spending long chunks of time with no adults, in a large mixed-age group, is a less and less common experience.
I spent some time in a remote fishing village in Madagascar and that was one of the things that surprised me the most - kids would spend all day together in an unsupervised mob roaming around the village, from the youngest ones who were just old enough to walk independently to age 8-10 or so (older than that and you had things to do).
I also enjoyed this essay on the topic: https://unpublishablepapers.substack.com/p/where-do-the-chil...
> nearly no one seems to have noticed it.
I'm very curious how much time you spend talking about parenting and consuming either social media or professional content about parenting, because those topics are so deeply embedded in parenting today that it's like saying "nobody seems to have noticed the internet".
Indeed. _everyone_ has noticed it. Nobody really has any plan to fix it. IMO the urbanism movement comes closest to having some practical plans.
Where I live in Western Australia, it is perfectly normal for 10-year-olds to be getting on their bikes and going round to their friends' houses after school.
The swing towards "Fuck Around And Find Out" parenting has been going for the last ten years here, and everybody gives you rapturous applause when you encourage kids to have their own independent playtime.
I have also never seen a man at a playground get dirty looks, in fact there are more men out with their kids than women on the weekends (fewer during weekdays).
Funnily enough, I know a guy who went into teaching early primary school in Western Australia 20 years ago, and got driven out by the constant suspicion and ever increasing supervision imposed “for his own safety” - no touching kids, at all, to the point of not helping up a kid who falls on the playground; get a female teacher to do it.
Speaking as someone who has gotten dirty looks and questioned by mothers who wanted to know who I was, why I was at the playground, and which children were mine, it does happen or at least it did years ago when my kids were much younger.
It’s a frustrating experience that changed how I interacted with other kids on the playground that weren’t mine. It made me more careful about whether I would let another kid join our game of tag or push the kid in the swing next to us when they asked. Sad really, and truly hope things have changed.
In USA bikes are often slow enough the Karens can still stalk them and have police/CPS snatch them for being out alone. So you find kids in groups on dirt bikes or motorcycle tier "electric bicycles." The Karens can't catch them so they can actually get away and be free. Glorious to watch, aint no one can keep up with kids who practice being on a dirt bike all day who can cut right off the roads into the backcountry they know better than anyone else.
I don't allege bad intent, but I wish people would stop using "Karen" as an insult, because I know some perfectly nice people with the misfortune to have been given that name.
This is a weird take but I think I like it?
> I'm very curious how much time you spend talking about parenting and consuming either social media or professional content about parenting,
I had minor children from the early 90s to the late 10s. Parenting discussions were pretty much an ongoing thing. When I contrasted my childhood with my kids', there would be a long pause while the other parents realize it didn't used to always be this way.
Perhaps in the last decade awareness has bloomed and for whatever reason, I'm not coming across it. I hope so. That would be great.
Foster Cline’s famous parenting book, Parenting with Love and Logic, was published in 1990 and contains warnings about helicopter parenting. The “free range kids” movement, an explicit counter-trend, was worldwide news in 2008 after a woman discussed letting her kid take the subway alone (https://onmilwaukee.com/articles/skenazy). The overprotective parenting trend is widely recognized to have been accelerated by the media saturation of stranger kidnappings in the 80s, including Adam Walsh.
“As of April 30, 2018, the term ‘helicopter parents’ yielded 2 million hits on Google. From March 2014 to February 2018, the keyword ‘helicopter parents’ was searched monthly”. https://scholarship.shu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3922...
The discussion about the negative aspects of helicopter parenting is as old as the term itself.
Sounds like you choose to live in a place without free range area. My neighborhood is covered with kids. Lots of kids on e-bikes after school on the main roads too. Plus a lot of packed are revamping side walks to accommodate bikes, golf cars, e-bikes and everyone on foot.
I'm encountering people in their lower 20's who seem to really struggle emotionally, and use psychological lingo to describe themselves and each other in a way that really didn't exist when I was in my 20's.
On the one hand this is great - I am a huge supporter of understanding and accepting ourselves non-pejoratively - anxiety, depression, etc.
On the flip side they talk sometimes like the forces are from outside them, like they have no agency.
And they also talk like the words came from somewhere else, "My generation compared to previous generations..." <- unless you lived those previous generations, which is impossible, you heard that from somewhere, probably a paper, and probably from a professor in school.
I agree this is a terrible loss. On the other hand, new dads are actually learning how to feel their feelings, communicate those feelings in a healthy way, and tell their children they love them.
Millennial dads were (mostly) a distant mess who for whatever reason saw the expression of feelings as "weak".
I just realized I completely missed the grammar on this one: I meant dads of millenials.
I’ve noticed that people don’t notice when the kids are free range anymore, because they’re all connected to an international network and pinging their location every minute.
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
Millennials on the whole are incredibly neurotic about all kinds of things. Why that is is a matter of debate.
> Millennials on the whole are incredibly neurotic about all kinds of things.
Truly, this hasn't been my experience. I'm GenX (edit: not GenZ), my parents were Silent Gen (WWII vets) and my kids are Millennials. My 25yo kids understand behavior and psychology better than my parents ever did.
The reason my kids grew up imprisoned is there was nowhere for them to go. The risk to their well-being was never from strangers but from cars and police.
> I'm GenZ, my parents were Silent Gen (WWII vets) and my kids are Millennials.
My understanding is that Gen Z comes AFTER millennials, so if you are Z, your kids can't be millennials. Maybe you are Gen X? Also, if your kids are 25 now, then they would be gen z, not millennials.
P.S. Don't shoot the messenger, I didn't make up this dumb system or these dumb names ^_^
I agree with everything in your top level comment.
> My understanding is that Gen Z comes AFTER millennials,
You're right. I fat fingered my post.
25yo is solid GenZ
>...my parents were Silent Gen (WWII vets)
If your parents were WW II vets, wouldn't they be part of Greatest Generation (often considered to be those born 1901–1927)? Silent Generation are often considered to be those born 1928–1945. They weren't adults when WW II was fought.
You probably meant GenX.
Millennials seem to have their shit together more than any generation since the silent generation, at least in the UK.
I'm GenX, but had kids a little late, so most of my kid's friends either 1. have Millennial parents or 2. are raised by their Boomer grandparents (parents not much in the picture). The differences in how these two sets of caretakers behave is astounding. Take a typical visit from the friend to my house to play with my kid:
The friends who are with their grandparents show up. Grandpa parks his car in my driveway, and walks the kid to my door. We greet, kid runs off to play, and we shoot the shit for a while, asking how things have been going, maybe Grandpa wants to check out the latest on my woodworking project, whatever. Then Grandpa says goodbye, I'll be back later, and heads out.
The friends who are with their Millennial parents show up. Dad parks his car waaaaay out by the curb, never even going on my property. Kid gets out of the car and walks himself to my door. Dad speeds away in his car, never even acknowledging us. Dad comes back to pick the kid up, same thing. Parks way far away, texts his kid, and the kid excuses himself and runs all the way out to the car. I don't even know the names of any of my kid's friends' Millennial parents!
This pattern repeats across N = about 6.
I'm a Millennial, and I do something much like this intentionally. I make it a point to explicitly put my kids into situations where they are responsible for themselves and are uncomfortable because of it.
The transition to adulthood was rough for me for several reasons, and looking back I think that was one of them - my parents always did things for me, but never expected me to do things on my own.
I almost certainly go overboard with this, but that's the nature of things.
No kids of my own, but my niece is 16. Wife and I took her to dinner when she was ~10, and afterward she said she wanted some ice cream. Sure. We drove to the grocery store on the way home (it's an older store, not huge) and handed her a $10 bill, told her to go get whatever flavor she wanted.
She freaked out. She'd been so terrified by a litany of "stranger danger" stories that the thought of just going into a store alone - a small store with one public entrance - was alien to her. We told her she could do it herself, or not have ice cream, because we weren't doing it for her. She went.
I'm glad to hear you're pushing your kids this way.
Since we're doing anecdata, I experience the exact opposite.
What's most crazy to me is how somehow almost all boomers are more addicted to smartphones than gen Z and Alpha. They'll have their grandkids over, and they'll be glued to their smartphone instead of interacting with those kids.
As a boomer, I'm sure it's because we didn't grow up with smart phones and therefore never learned good habits around them. Hell I was probably near 50 when I got my first one.
I think it's similar to kids who grow up with alcohol vs those who don't. The ones not exposed go off to college and go completely nuts.
Silent Americans are the most fucked up generation ever. They are the ones actually responsible for most of the bullshit that people attribute to Boomers.
Just wait til GenX is elderly.
I don't know if it's the parent that is neurotic so much as that it only takes 1 of 1000 assholes, who now have their little snitch device in their pocket 24/7, to call the child snatchers (CPS). And the child snatchers are legally barred from revealing who your accuser is, so the anonymous cowards can fuck up your life for weeks at no cost to themselves and with the utmost convenience. This effectively means every single person who views your child, now has veto powers on your parenting. The end result of that is people parent in the most paranoid, liability averting way possible.
When I was a kid the Karens against childhood autonomy existed but it actually cost them time and money to rat us out since they would have to drive home to a telephone, so long as we didn't play near houses. If an asshole raised hell we were gone by the time they could call the authorities.
The actual threat of CPS 8s grossly exagerrated here. And the fear is one of the symptoms.
Here's a few examples that's happened to me personally
(1) I didn't personally appear at bus stop, thinking my kid would be able to just walk the short distance from the stop to our house. Nope, school did not let kid off bus, given a timer to show up at the transportation office before child services will be called.
(2) Let my kid walk on our own property, someone drives up and starts interrogating them why they are "alone." Fortunately I was actually watching from further away and I managed to diffuse the situation before they alerted the authorities.
(3) Took my kid to the park so they could have a nice time outside in public. Whoops, looks like my child is a difference race than me. That means I am a kidnapper. Karen (from bodycam, a passing yuppie looking cyclist) calls police, who arrive and scare the shit out of me and my kid and detain us for about an hour. Not released until a woman's voice comes on the phone (they literally did not check, just any female voice) says the man can let his child play at the park. They also contacted child services of both the city of the park, and my hometown -- fortunately even though the city of the park looked like they were ready to fuck with me my hometown CPS did tell them to kick rocks and since I left town there was nothing further they could do.
Holy shit. I'm so sorry that this happened to you. That's not right.
I've had CPS call me up and question me about about play someone observed through a window.
It's a real thing.
I was in the process of creating a brochure about our family. It's be available at our front door, to help facilitate CPS agents on their visits. It'd have a map to the fridge and to the kids' bedrooms, the names of their schools and contact numbers for family.
All this due to a disgruntled neighbor who endlessly called cps (anonymously), with a variety of bizarre accusations. I suspect CPS got so sick of seeing us, they eventually ignored the calls.
37% of kids will be investigated by CPS at some point before age 18.
The things, grandparents are more neurotic. Just had less options.
Just a note for Dads doing more than their parents - it’s quality more than quantity. Be fully present with your kids more than trying to kill yourself fitting more hours in. That’s what matters.
Bad parenting tends to be more of the type that isn’t engaged. Kids don’t hate you for going to work. They are hurt if you come home and ignore them.
If you’re a dad and live in the same house as your kids the time comes naturally… men have been purposefully fleeing it throughout history.
So its not a matter of “killing yourself to get more time” … its a matter of not abandoning your kids and wife to make time for your hobbies or whatever
Yeah, what's the point in technically spending more time with kids if half of that time you stare at your mobile phone.
Ture, but also, know that sometimes that just happens - the kids want to be solo, not talk, etc. Easy to kill yourself thinking you need to be perfect.
Any paper or citations on this? I don't believe it.
Yeah, I'm a little skeptical as well. I remember dad being home, but not specifically focused on me. Sometimes seeing dad at home, doing his thing, was a great way of learning.
I think as kids we learned by example more than hands-on-taught.
You should definitely follow your instincts here, but wanting researchers to show you how to raise your kids is a fools errand IMO. Put those highly tuned parental instincts to use!
Isn’t this the exact sentiment used by those who oppose vaccinations?
different advice is appropriate in different situations, believe it or not
Believe it or not, that's a useless fact when there's no obvious specific difference between the situations to make it relevant.
If you don't see a clear difference between the hard sciences of biology/chemistry/medicine and the opinionated "science" of parenting (prescriptive, no less), then you should check your eyes.
I see your point about different qualities of science, but the wording of "highly tuned parental instincts" is still bad. The instincts are the same in both situations, and they're highly flawed. Science should override instincts in lots of situations.
And if you ask basically any kind of science "how do I best accomplish x?", that science will have a "presciptive" answer, so I don't see how parenting science is any more prescriptive then chemistry.
Dad and millennial here and this change has been very noticeable in my circle of friends including myself and I’m all for it. Men have been doing their share of housework too. But I will say, it’s not all dads but enough that I think this will have a positive effect on the next generation.
Im gay and because of that was disowned. My partner has a brother “K” and K has three children. Watching K show up in basic ways for his kids, like remembering what songs they like and teaching them sports is the fastest way to make me ugly cry.
Thanks to anyone reading this if you’re trying to be a good dad. You’re making the world a better place in ways you don’t even see
This is the rare time I wish HN had emoji reactions instead of just upvotes.
I can honestly say that I don't have any time for a dad who isn't all-in for their kids. I understand if the responsibilities aren't 50/50, but if you're making mom handle everything I think you're a loser.
All my millennial dad friends clean, change diapers, cook, whatever. And make no mistake all the moms are incredibly hard-working and involved with the kids.
If I happened to meet socially a dad who wasn't doing those things I would literally make fun of them. "You're a grown man who can't change a diaper or clean a bathroom?"
I’m with you mostly. Some different specifics but the point in mind is this: it’s a common thread of rapport and conversation. I sometimes feel like an alien on earth when I spend time with friends or other groups where there seems to be a atrong “ughh my family and home life” vibe.
I said hello to another dad at soccer for three-year-olds, and he responded with something like, "Ugh, I'd rather be ANYWHERE else".
It's 10am on a Saturday and you're running around playing games with your kid. I just stared at him and went on.
I was strongly encouraged by my own parents, particularly my dad, to play sports (baseball, a bit of basketball) as a kid; even though I wasn't very good at them and wasn't very interested in them (and got made fun of by other kids for this). At some point I realized that me playing sports was something my dad was more invested in than I was. When I was 11 or so, I finally decided that I had had enough, and quit the neighborhood little league baseball team I was on in the middle of the season; I suspect the team was happy to have me gone, and I was happy that trying to play baseball was no longer my problem. Suffice to say, I have no happy memories of playing catch with with my dad at any time in my life.
My younger siblings were a bit more intrinsically interested in sports than I was, and my parents shifted their attention to their sports extracurriculars. I actually don't really remember what they did sports-wise because I did not care at all; and although I was the older sibling I was not so much older that anyone thought it was important to encourage me to take a pseudo-parental or caretaker interest in what my younger siblings were doing. I would go to the baseball field where one brother played his games because my parents were going, and then amuse myself by playing alone in the dirt beyond the bleachers, because that was more fun than paying attention to the game. By the time I was old enough to, say, drive them places in lieu of our mom, they had gotten to the age where sports were meaningfully competitive and were not actually good enough to keep playing.
So not only do I find this dad's attitude extremely sympathetic, I think that I would've found it sympathetic even when I myself was a child. This makes me some kind of outlier, I'm sure. Anyway, 3 years is young enough that there's no actual soccer happening, just running around with a ball, any kid can enjoy that. It's quite possible that, depending on the interests and dispositions of his kid, that dad won't be compelled to be on a soccer field at 10am much further in the future.
Exactly.
My older daughter is on a competitive cheerleading team. Not something we (parents) suggested but instead she found through school friends. She loves it. Has boosted her confidence and athletic prowess.
There aren't many dads at the meets relative to moms. Not remotely surprising. I'm the first person to admit that I don't know how to do hair or make up.
I see quite a divergence among the men in commentary. Some are there and happy their kids are loving it - they're finding a way to make peace with the situation. Some are checked out, on phones, looking grumpy at best.
Some part of me gets it. Wild asymmetry in that sport. Performances are just a few minutes long, but there's a shit-ton of practice and weekend days/entire weekends dedicated to cheer.
It would be so so so easy to say "get me out of here" but I've found a way to enjoy and make peace and make a friend or two along the way.
Contrast with her other current sport: lacrosse. First season and it's kind of a shit-show. But I'm with her in the sun on a Friday night - and with the right weather - it is a great place to be. We (parents, dads, etc.) see our friends there too.
[dead]
Yup.
Woke up at 6am. Child 1 woke up at 7am. Dropped her off at daycare at 8am. All the other children were being dropped off by their dads, too. Full day of work ahead. Dinner at 6pm. Bath at 7pm. Bedtime and story at 8pm. Usually calls with Bangalore from 9pm to midnight but it's Labour Day over there. Sleep at midnight.
Rinse. Repeat.
My one concern with this is the risk of eventual burn out + mental health issues which will have its own impact on the children. Full time career + very present parent during the weekdays might just not be possible. WFH definitely helps make it significantly more possible though.
Also worth not forgetting that in most cases the fathers of millennials were a hell of a lot more present and emotionally available than their fathers etc. I'm sure we'll make plenty of our own mistakes that our children will try to avoid when their turn comes.
> Full time career + very present parent during the weekdays might just not be possible.
Guess why birth rates are crashing - and why they crash hardest in Asia, especially Japan.
And guess why trad household structures are (still) popular in some circles
Those household structures aren'tpopular, they're just common when women have no other options. I have nothing against those structures, they work great for some families. But the reality is that they often force the wife into becoming an unpaid caregiver for her in-laws (who constantly criticize how she runs the household).
I don't really understand this mindset that being at home and raising your kids is only something you do when forced to. For my family, if we had more options -- ie, more money -- then both of us would be stay-at-home parents. It's much more of a joy than going to work.
Your comment presupposes something different that nradov’s comment.
The aforementioned “trad households” do not have a financially independent wife, which is what nradov is referring to when they write
> force the wife into becoming an unpaid caregiver for her in-laws
Typically, the in laws or the husband would control the assets, and hence be able to exert more influence.
> For my family, if we had more options -- ie, more money -- then both of us would be stay-at-home parents.
In the absence of a trust fund, most women (and men) will choose to be able to fend for themselves.
Your comment's framing makes no sense to me. My wife pushed for me to go into engineering instead of academia so she could stay home and we could be comfortable. We're married. We have kids. The entire point is we're not independent. That's what married literally means. Unioned. Joined. There is no her and me. There is us.
Why would you need or even want to be independent? Why would you plan to form a family while keeping your options open/having one foot out the door?
> Why would you need or even want to be independent?
Because I would want my kids to be able to get out of an abusive partnership if they needed to. See the history of domestic abuse.
> Why would you plan to form a family while keeping your options open/having one foot out the door?
Everyone should have options open for basic sustenance. Death, abuse, job b loss, etc. As they say in engineering, two is one and one is none.
Plenty of women (and men) end up in relationships they hate, and if they have no independence they are pretty much fucked. They have no way to escape. Women having options makes a huge difference.
What you are describing is pretty much ideal for a lot of people, but it's not what everybody gets.
How does this happen though? It's not like you wake up one day, look around and see you've started life in the middle, you're married and have kids, and you hate your spouse. Did your spouse have a stroke and undergo some massive personality change or something?
Assuming you want a family, your very top priority when evaluating someone for dating from the very beginning should be whether that person would make a good spouse and help you to form that family. Otherwise what are you even doing? Someone who can't commit is its own red flag for that purpose. If you have kids, that's it. You're in it. You need to be committed.
And having a job doesn't mean you're independent of your spouse anyway. If one of us died or we split, it'd be absolutely devastating to our family regardless of the money (e.g. if life insurance/social security covered everything). I would be hugely screwed trying to raise the kids without her, job notwithstanding.
I think the simple fact of the matter is that most people have absolutely no clue what they’re doing when it comes to relationships, and think their social media hot takes are indicative of what they ought to want.
This is on top of societal pressures. In more liberal parts of the US (and the world) it's accepted that you will take your time finding a partner, or even stay single if you want. In more conservative societies the expectation that you will marry young and start popping out kids is intense.
I think it goes both ways. I moved from a liberal to a conservative area. Maybe there are people shaming those who don't pop out kids, but more so I I've noticed it's that they're not shamed if they want to just let loose to their instincts and get impregnated as an 18-year-old and yield to their natural desires and interests. In a liberal city a 18 year old popping out a kid and is often viewed as a pariah.
I mean people do not naturally grow up wanting to stare at a desk/PC all day deciding to become a scientist or a doctor and study a bunch of shit that his almost no relation to what humans were adapted for for millions of years. Our evolutionary programming was to bang, have kids, and roam the jungle and grab the resources and satisfy our short brutish lives.
Now the fact that something is evolutionarily natural or historically normal doesn't mean it is good or right. But just letting loose on that particular natural instinct tends to be more accepted in conservative societies while in the city or liberal areas teenage (past age of consent) pregnancy is seen maybe more of something they will shame you for. You're supposed to do a pretty unnatural thing of staring at books until you're 22 or 26 and then stare at a computer screen so you can get a good job to pay a gazillion dollars for childcare delivered by minimum wage workers. You're supposed to take your time and maybe about the time your biological clock has run out, you pay $20,000 for IVF and you do a speedrun.
So which is a greater imposition of societal pressure? I won't claim conservative societies don't exhibit more social pressure than liberal ones. But on this point, it's not clear to me the conservative one is doing the greater of the pressuring.
We don't have a trust fund, of course, which is why I'm working to earn an income.
My wife currently stays home with the kids, although that might change down the road. She doesn't have any trust fund or inheritance either, of course.
However, although I'm earning the money, it's 100% a shared resource. It goes into a shared account. I'm pretty sure that's a legal necessity since we're married, but it's how we'd choose to do it anyway. There's no division between my finances and hers.
We married each other to be a team together forever, but even if we separated, our finances would be divided in half between us. If we'd wanted to fend for ourselves, we wouldn't have gotten married, and certainly wouldn't have had kids.
She feels sorry for me having to go to work every day, but it's a logical division of labor because I have much higher earning prospects.
I say this because I want to understand your definition; are we a traditional household in your view?
>are we a traditional household in your view?
In the context of the original comment by pkaler, and subsequent replies from basswood, mschuster91, purplerabbit, and nradov, I understood "trad household structures" to be one where the man in a husband/wife relationship sells his labor to someone else and the woman does not.
So yes, but, I would note that there is probably a difference (for the purposes of this conversation) between the following:
A couple that earns median income per year and still chooses to have only one income earning spouse specifically so the other spouse can spend more time with the kids, whilst making significant sacrifices in other aspects of life such as school district, kids' activities, vacations, material goods, etc.
And a couple where one earns significantly above median income and can afford to have only one income earning spouse without making significant sacrifices.
In the context of the entire chain of comments, I would assume purplerabbit was referring to the first type of couple, who choose to forego many of life's luxuries in favor of child rearing, and that is the type of "household structure" that nradov was saying is not popular, except "when women have no other options" (i.e. women's rights allowing them to be financially independent).
>However, although I'm earning the money, it's 100% a shared resource. It goes into a shared account. I'm pretty sure that's a legal necessity since we're married, but it's how we'd choose to do it anyway. There's no division between my finances and hers.
There isn't in my marriage either, but I would still advise my wife to maintain her ability to earn income in case I were to go crazy, lose my job, or some other risk. And I would advise my daughter of the same.
For what it's worth, we're the first type, which is why my wife will probably join the workforce in a few years too, for want of money. But while the kids are young she thinks it's really important to stay home with them, even if it means living in a cramped basement for now.
But the point is, we both would prefer to be home with the children, and it's only for want of money that either (or both) of us would work. The privilege is being able to stay home; the sad reality is having to work at the office to earn a living.
It just strikes me (and her too) that the conversation around this issue is framed so backwards, as though everyone deeply wants to spend their waking days at an office desk / driving an Uber / etc, whereas spending time with your children is a miserable burden that people only do if forced it with no other options. I get that might be the case for some people, especially if they hate their family or have an abusive partner, but to me it's an alien mindset. Work is the abusive partner that we can't escape from, but tolerate for the kids.
>as though everyone deeply wants to spend their waking days at an office desk / driving an Uber / etc,
I don't think this is it, which is why I brought up a trust fund in one of my previous comments.
This comes down to personal risk tolerances, but it seems evident that many people feel that volatility in job markets and shrinking economic opportunities mean that there is a sufficient gain in security of housing/food/energy/healthcare/future economic opportunities such that it can be worth a sacrifice in spending time with children.
My parents moved to the US, along with their extended families from a developing country, and they almost all spent 24/7 working to develop businesses or whatever to ensure the kids had more opportunity than them. And they succeeded, most of my cousins do very well for themselves, and they can have a spouse that stays at home without decreasing their kids' future chances, but some don't (perhaps because their parents ended up in a stagnant metro rather than a growing one, that one factor is the single biggest difference in trajectories in my family).
It is easier than ever to be outcompeted by someone else around the world, so there is kind of an up or out situation for those that aim for maintaining a certain quality of life. It's also fine to opt out of that rat race, but from my perspective, the biggest cost is less access to healthcare.
I would note that the whole one spouse spending time with kids thing is probably a post world war 2 American/British phenomenon. Even in village life in developing countries, both the husband and wife are out working in factories or fields while grandparents who can't work anymore or older siblings and cousins are taking care of the kids. It's a grind for most people, most of the time.
Your framing makes perfect sense to me, and I agree with it. It comes down to economic forces requiring parents to sacrifice time at home with their children.
In this framing, being able to have a stay-at-home parent is a privilege to be treasured. Not everyone can manage it, which is a tragedy.
Of course, for those who don't want to be a parent and prefer their job, that's fine too. Some people, whether men or women, just yearn for the mines. I wouldn't say that any such people should be pressured to be a stay at home parent. Hopefully they can be happily childless, or else partner with someone who enjoys raising children, or else get support from grandparents or the community.
What I simply object to is a framing that views being a "traditional" stay at home parent as an intrinsically miserable or undesirable role, when it's what so many of us factory workers wish we could do ourselves but can't afford to. When a (loving, non-abusive) couple can afford to have one parent stay at home, my wife and I both view that stay-at-home parent as the lucky one.
So confidently stated! My wife had ludicrous options and chose it — what draws you to this conclusion?
Parent said often, not always. Counter examples is an anecdote.
I would like to see good statistics on this.
And your wife’s opinion on her choices.
I'd love to see statistics as well.
My wife self-reports as very happy and talks a lot about how proud she is of the decision. I'll acknowledge that we are privileged in terms of support -- 3 relative families within 30 minutes and most people in a 100 meter radius attend the same church. Even in our setup, however, we really wish we could swing a multi-generational setup and have grandparents around all the time.
Maybe the Amish are on to something!
The counter example my be anecdotal, but the original claim is also baseless. It's not anecdote vs data, it's anecdote vs nothing.
Agreed, when I asked for statistics I was addressing the parent comment, that might have been unclear.
Women are just as responsible for enforcing traditions as men are. You could just as easily argue that men are the ones with less choice; after all, it is much more socially acceptable for a woman to work than for a man to be a stay at home dad.
It's also false that a stay at home has essentially resigned themselves to ruin in the event of divorce/disagreement. Someone who has been a stay at home long enough to be unemployable, in the vast majority of states, will be rewarded with alimony and if applicable child support to the point they will easily be taking about 50% of the spouse's salary for long enough to retrain.
Of course the spouse has the risk the other ex-spouse will sabotage themselves and end their incomes to avoid paying the order, at which point they may be thrown into prison if they are found. But are they worse off than the employee who can be fired at a moment's notice and go broke by a boss who isn't sabotaging himself at all and bound by no such judicial order? Maybe so, but it's not by some gigantic long shot.
It's 2026. Barring severe manipulation/abuse, why would you choose to get married and have children if you're a woman who doesn't want to raise them?
Severely missing the point here. It’s about being criticised and not recognised while doing so. It’s about lack of choice – and no, when you’re 25, you don’t know what this does to you over time. And when you finally do, it’s too late, you’re not going to run away with your kids and no job.
My comment was a response to its parent, beginning:
> Those household structures aren't popular, they're just common when women have no other options.
I agree with what yours, and point out that it applies equally to men. I was 25 when we decided to have our first child and while I would make the same decision knowing what I know now, I didn't have anything near an accurate idea of what the impact would be on my life as a whole.
Basically, I wasn't taking exception to the idea of an irrevocable decision made with incomplete context; I was taking exception to the idea that it's somehow unique to women - because it's not.
Ok, sorry, I missed that.
I would add though that while making bad choices is not unique to women, when it comes to mariage, lots of society used to make it so much easier on men. Men could/can escape home in work, hobbies, etc with much less judgement than women. It’s gotten better in some parts of the world, definitely not all, and last years the trend is rather backward I feel.
Completely absurd, most good looking, well-educated Eastern European women with a plenty of options would disagree with you.
Your comment seems to imply that they’re stupid.
[dead]
Except "trad" households (full time SAHM in a nuclear home) are not traditional. Tradition is not something only the upper-middle class in a post-war boom attained for a short period of time.
Throughout human history, it was rare for only two people to raise a child, let alone one. Or for women to not bring money into the home.
Like many "trad" trends, it's based more on advertising and television than history.
At the very least, you need a whole society of aunts and uncles and grandparents and cousins, and deep friends to truly do any kind of traditional family structure in the traditional way. Otherwise it's just emulating an extremely narrow portion of the trad that didn't exactly exist in the first place.
> At the very least, you need a whole society of aunts and uncles and grandparents and cousins, and deep friends to truly do any kind of traditional family structure in the traditional way.
"It takes a village to raise a child" was meant literally. However, the glory of capitalism required people to move to where the jobs were, turning that millennia-old principle upside down ever since industrialization. And car culture was the ultimate fatal blow, when children can't even walk their own neighborhood any more.
I remember when Hillary Clinton said "it takes a village to raise a child" and she was mocked by conservatives and accused of undermining parental rights and wanting governments to control families.
And when BLM made it part of their charter to encourage community support for children beyond the typical nuclear unit they were accused of a radical Marxist agenda to "destroy families."
For some reason the very concept of extended families and community engenders deep anger and hostility from some Americans, and that's odd for a nation of immigrants considering how common the "whole society of aunts and uncles and grandparents and cousins" is in the rest of the world.
> For some reason the very concept of extended families and community engenders deep anger and hostility from some Americans
I think because excessive individualism plays into the hands of large companies. There is an individualist culture that has naturally grown over time in the US, but it has also been pushed by big corporations because if you can't depend on your neighbors and extended family, you need to spend money to fill the gaps.
But when leftists says things like community support, it doesn't bring up images of traditional villages and extended families. It brings up images of communists saying things like abolish the family. Naturally, due to their history.
It's not like leftists are known for their traditional family values now or then, so why should it be taken that way?
Yes, when you intentionally take what leftists say in bad faith and stereotype them negatively, then the bad faith interpretation and negative stereotypes make sense. But normal people don't hear "communism" when leftists say "community support."
Also given how many people espousing "traditional family values" among the right turn out to be abusers, pedophiles, rapists, deadbeats, etc, what you might consider "traditional" values don't actually mapped to the left-right political axis at all.
And I assume you didn't bother reading my comment or this thread very hard and just wanted to dunk on the left, but the American nuclear family isn't "traditional family values" to begin with.
[dead]
They are way more popular among men then women. The thing is, women were mostly living that ... it is new only for men
What do you mean?
Are the 9pm and later calls w/Bangalore an every day thing?
Here's my routine.
5am: wake up/coffee
5:30ish: gym
6:30ish: back, clean kitchen, take out trash, make lunch for 2 kids
7:30: nanny arrives, and I sit down at desk, and kids are now awake
8:30: walk older kid to school
9-5:30: work or whatever else. I run my own business so some days feel very busy, some the opposite. I just try to be intentional with my time.
5:30 p: start dinner
6:30 p: dinner (or earlier depending on demands)
7:30 p: kid bed time
8:15-8:30: done w/kids. time for a bit of TV or wind-down, catch up with my wife about her day for as long as I can manage to stay awake
9:30-10: bed time (ideal day)
I stopped working at night unless it is critical for a next-morning thing. That leaves me absent from some opportunities that I might otherwise get spending more time on work, but I also have more time to focus on me/marriage/non-work-life
My point in sharing is that I make space on purpose for me. Your schedule sounds (and I am presuming) like you don't have much time for you. Is that right?
I'm in awe of people who are able to wake up in the middle of the night voluntarily!
Don't take this as criticism, but I wonder if you could ask the Bangalore folks to get to their point faster and get some more sleep. Very important for health.
And it’s great.
[dead]
Not directly relevant to the article, but I'm curious if anyone else has connected the fact that fathers are spending more time being close with their children at the same time average global testosterone levels have dropped without a solid explanation?
To be clear, I'm not trying to point a causal arrow here, or even say it's good or bad. I read a study the other day that asserted that fathers who spent more time parenting have measurably lower testosterone levels, and that the delta correlates to the amount of time spent.
> testosterone levels have dropped without a solid explanation
There is a solid explanation.
First, before the adoption of mass spec, studies used a less accurate method of measuring testosterone that overstated testosterone levels.
Also, the studies showing the population level decline in testosterone generally controlled for obesity (which naturally lowers testosterone) using BMI. But BMI is a very crude measure.
When studies control with better methods like BMI + waist circumference, and only compare samples using the mass spec measurement method, the unexplained population level decline goes away. After fixing the measurement method, what remains of the decline can be explained by BMI + waist circumference. In other words, modern men are more prone to obesity and metabolic syndrome, which naturally reduces testosterone. Case closed.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22150314/
That study appears to be US only, while global studies have shown the effect.
For that matter, some _animal_ studies have shown declining testosterone as well. That doesn't seem to be well-studied, but if it holds up it would make me lean toward it being something environmental (e.g. microplastic pollution)
I linked that study because it is particularly interesting because they run the mass spec test on archived blood samples.
But there are other studies and meta analyses which cover other countries and come to the same conclusion.
I think many of the studies claiming to find significant population level decline are older and overstate the issue due to the methodological errors outlined in my previous post. If you are thinking of a particular one, please share a link.
I am not familiar with the research on testosterone levels in animals. In humans, while not conclusory, I do think the evidence suggests that increasing rates of obesity and metabolic syndrome are the proximate cause of testosterone decline.
I appreciate it, and will catch up on the current state. It’s been a couple of years since I looked into this.
Here is a short video explaining the situation: https://youtu.be/XT5TKf9Qfl4
If that's the case, that's not a bad thing. Maybe men who aren't properly bonded with their kids have higher than normal testosterone for some reason?
I think this only applies to certain segments of society. My child has type 1 so I'm active on Facebook groups for parents. The number of mums who say their partner is not involved really at all in their child's care is so sad. The child's own father can't supervise their child solo because they can't manage the care. And then the divorced parents. Oh boy...
"The number of mums who say their partner is not involved really at all in their child's care is so sad."
While that can be true, I wonder how much of it is true. It's pretty common in therapy to hear partners saying the other one doesn't contribute, but further investigation can often turn up observation biases.
Without proper statistics we can't know. But I do wonder why is it that if you spend any time on parenting websites you find lots of mothers complaining about deadbeat husbands, and so few fathers complaining about deadbeat wives. Purely anecdotal, but it is very lopsided, and it has made me wonder why is it.
I am a dad, FWIW.
I'm a dad, too. The lopsidedness could come from many places: mothers being drawn to parenting websites (marketing), women feeling more compelled to voice complaints online (if they are stay-at-home-moms, they don't have coworkers to chat with), women actually getting treated unfairly (very true... patriarchy), etc.
I've heard this from many moms, "My husband does so little in terms of housework, childcare, play and mental load, that it is actually easier when he is out of the house; when he is home, I essentially have to take care of an additional child." I even know some moms that organize playdates for their husband, as in ONLY the husbands, so that that the husbands are out of the house.
On the other hand, I know of two separate marriages that fell apart because the husband worked, did all the child care and housework, while the mom stayed home and doomscrolled. After a few years of no improvement, divorce. Of course many things could be at play here... screen addiction, post-partum depression, etc.
Raising kids is complex, time-consuming, hard, and amazing. It takes a lot of energy, people, and love. I always try to assume people are doing their best, though sometimes even that's tough.
You can see why men don't share often. The women get excuses (addiction, post partum, etc) and it's naturally assumed that men are dead beats. Probably not your intention but as one of those divorced dads I can tell you the bias is overwhelming.
It depends on the site but when I was a SAHD, I found many of those parenting sites were not welcoming to dads, even dads doing the exact same work as the moms. Moms there wanted a place to vent about their husbands and men who were pulling their fair share or were handling most of the parent duties simply weren't allowed.
This, it's well known that women want to vent and men want to fix the issue. This difference in communication and perspective has been supported in various research.
That is your bias talking.
The reseach says otherwise. https://couplestherapyinc.com/why-women-complain-and-why-men...
Research is of course useful but not even necessary here. This is common sense.
Yeah, seriously. Anyone with some experience in life understands that men and women are (on average) wired very differently, and this is one of the ways.
one of the better places I found found was Daddit on reddit, though I haven't been in a while.
I found that /r/daddit was full of pictures of dads with infants.
On the other hand, /r/parenting was full of moms desperate because their partners didn't to their part.
It really paints a picture, if you think about it.
It seems like a safe guess that very few of the moms complaining about their partners on r/parenting are also married to the dads who are posting on r/daddit.
It's like how /r/steak is just dudes posting steak pictures, and there is some new cooking sub where it's just women posting food pictures and complaining about their significant others. Women be complaining.
> there is some new cooking sub where it's just women posting food pictures and complaining about their significant others
If you are referring to /r/girldinnerdiaries, that is not a cooking sub, nor is it intended to be. The whole point is pairing a photo of dinner with the situation and mood of the photographer.
It's right there in the name: Girl Dinner Diaries.
I'm not sure how serious you are about the dismissive "women be complaining" comment. A big part of your perception may be that women have more to 'complain' about; society is measurably unfair for women. Another part could be that when women voice their struggles it is called "complaining," and when men voice their struggles they are "being serious." Also, men get shot down for showing vulnerability and seeking support, so their struggles are internal. And this isn't always good for mental health.
My comment was descriptive, not normative. I’m not ascribing moral valence to it, just stating what’s happening and speculating why. For example, men probably complain less because men get shot down for showing vulnerability in public settings like online forums. Women probably complain more in public because they get sympathy. Whether one is good, or one is more mentally healthy, I don’t think either is healthier or unhealthier, but I don’t particularly care.
Being a deadbeat is defined as not paying. It's not about caregiving. These roles may not be equally distributed by gender, but then why is there not as much complaining by men about women not being equal partners financially? It's has to do with bias.
You can also find that much of the research about household duties is biased against the type of work that men have traditionally done (eg excluding yard work, maintenance, etc).
> Being a deadbeat is defined as not paying. It's not about caregiving
Merriam-Webster disagrees [0][1][2].
[0] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deadbeat
[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/loafer
[2] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/idler
Re. your other points, I don't entirely disagree with them, but they are at best tangential to the article we are discussing.
> But I do wonder why is it that if you spend any time on parenting websites you find lots of mothers complaining about deadbeat husbands, and so few fathers complaining about deadbeat wives.
My ex wife does this. I take my issues with her to a therapist (instead of online forums). FWIW I have always been more present than her in our child’s life and certainly pay a lot more too. One data point, but it’s in the population you’re referring to.
Some people want sympathy at the expense of their partner’s reputation.
If someone is saying on Facebook it must be true.
That's the thing about trends in aggregate data. It tells very little about the details of any particular situation. There are almost certainly a wide variety of subgroups where this particular trend doesn't hold, and others where the changes are even more dramatic.
But the aggregate trend is quite clear.
Isn't the point that there is no way to get reliable data on this?
How would aggregation of unreliable data help?
The data is reasonably reliable, at least in the view of the team that published the paper, and those who reviewed it. No one claims it is perfect.
And the post that started this sub thread was about how their experience didn’t show the trend. But no one in the social sciences expects every sample to follow the trend. There will be numerous exceptions. Just like sometimes when one rolls a pair of dice one gets a twelve.
That twelve is an absolutely an accurate sample from the data but just because one sometimes gets an outlier it doesn’t mean that there is no central tendency.
As a GenX dad and now grandfather, I couldn't be happier to read this.
Every dad wants his sons to be a better father than he was. Glad to see it happening.
Nothing strengthens the knees like the weight of responsibility.
Yeah the weight of housing could be a little less though :)
or groceries. or gas. or goddamn pee-wee football team costs.
I was so happy last year to find a great daycare facility that only cost $1200/month for full time care :)
[flagged]
> EDIT: if you downvote this comment it means you don't think there are deadbeat dads out there.
No, it means that when your attempt to extend the metaphor failed. People who avoid strength exercises just don't get stronger knees. They don't "get stronger knees but by not doing weights".
I suppose. That said I didn't anticipate the negative response.
I have a fair amount of gallows humor around parents and father due to my own experiences in life, sometimes that dark humor doesn't translate well.
I feel there is a trend of not fully appreciating what fathers who spend less time with kids actually do. I think that's unfair, frankly. Many of them do things that contribute to the family in other ways.
What was my Dad busy doing? Focusing on his career in order to provide for his family. Doing hobbies that increased his skill set. Fixing the house to ensure we all had a nice safe place to live. Tending to the garden to keep the neighbours happy. Building ties with the community to increase our family's standing in the community and being able to call in favours in emergencies etc.
The 4 days off he had from his primary job, he worked multiple other jobs, creating multiple streams of family income.
It's so easy to view many of these things as him not tending to his family directly. That's incredibly short-sighted.
My mother appreciated very little of those things, and constantly nagged that he never did enough. She admitted many years later this was a big contributor to their divorce.
I think some modern opinions of parenting come from a very individualistic, transactional and reciprocal mindset. Eg "I spend 1 hour doing the dishes, you have to do something, today, and of equivalent value, to show you love us". What kind of foundation for a relationship is that? What happened to the power of a family?
I think you have a point: many men work hard to provide stability for their family, and are effectively sacrificing family time to provide that. This kind of hard work feels undervalued in modern parenting discourse, which seems to put most value on time directly spent with children or on direct day-to-day tasks (dishes, cooking, etc).
An example anecdote: my friend works construction. Lots of long hours of hard labor. His wife is unhappy because he doesn't do more childcare, but left unanswered is how he could do more. He can't work fewer hours or move to a new job without a giant income hit. His wife can't earn enough to offset daycare costs. They already live on a fairly thin budget. From the outside, I can see how he'd feel unappreciated.
That said though there are definitely also men who aren't doing childcare OR working hard, and they're happy to have their wife do everything.
Often there’s unsaid things that have “comparative” simple solutions - not working less but getting the wife a few hours a week “off duty” kind of things.
Strongly agree. I know so many men who are the sole provider for their families and their wives are unhappy about how things like childcare and household chores aren’t split more fairly, but they seem to have zero appreciation for the crushing burden of financially supporting a family for decades. It’s hard, stressful, and wears you down. Almost all of the stay at home moms I know get more sleep, more exercise, and more social time than their husbands do, once the kids are old enough for school.
I’ve also now watched many friends divorce, and I have to say, the wives who stayed at home seem to struggle a LOT more with the transition of now having to parent AND have a job, and the husbands mostly seem to be fine. And that’s despite them now paying a big chunk of their ex’s bills!
> but they seem to have zero appreciation for the crushing burden of financially supporting a family for decades. It’s hard, stressful, and wears you down.
Absolutely. They will though, when two parents working fully becomes a requirement instead of an option, as we are seeing in many HCOL areas. Or even, as many wish, to be the primary earner and the man stay at home.
In fact, the burden on the sole earner as you point out, is /increasing/ during this transition - costs are rising due to the expectation that two people will contribute financially to the mortgage and other expenses. Another issue that women don't tend to appreciate.
At that point, neither parent can catch a break, and the family and children suffer.
But this equality of opportunity is exactly what women fought extremely hard for. It's a shame that marriage and the kids are sometimes the victims of the side effects.
(I'm gay fwiw and not a misogynist. I do root for women's rights but not blindly. Demanding massive societal change comes with responsibilities)
>(I'm gay fwiw and not a misogynist.
Ok.
>I do root for women's rights but not blindly.
What? How does “I’m straight fwiw and not a homophobe. I do root for queer’s rights but not blindly” come across?
>Demanding massive societal change comes with responsibilities)
Who isn’t being responsible? Is it all girls outperforming boys in school?
Correct. As I've grown older as a man I've realized how much pressure dad was under and never said anything. Women have the space to complain about the responsibilities foisted on them. Men have never had that and still don't.
You can see this in how people respond to complaints of lazy spouses. If a woman complains, everyone is by default on her side. If a man complains, even if it's obviously true his wife is not doing enough, he is still the one blamed because maybe he wasn't nice to his wife or something.
I agree with all you said.
When I read from article:
> The fact that richer and better-educated parents are freely choosing to pour more of their valuable time into childcare makes raising children sound practically like a “luxury good,” akin to buying a Rolex watch or a fragile Fabergé egg.
It kind of reflected an unawareness to me. Unless one crosses the threshold of wealth where they can afford full-time 24/7 nanny, the richer parents spending more time in childcare seems obvious and non-counterintuitive. It is more likely jobs that pay well also provide flexible working hours and locations so these parents can really afford to spend more time in childcare. And this would much more prevalent category then families who could afford hired help for child care.
On the other hand poorer parent with much stringent job conditions would be mentally and physically exhausted to provide much childcare.
> I think some modern opinions of parenting come from a very individualistic, transactional and reciprocal mindset. ..
I think family unit like almost every other thing in modern economy has fallen victim to financialization of society.
I can't help but wonder about the relationship between fathers (and, in fact, all parents) spending more time with their children, and people choosing to have fewer children, and later.
I think it's unquestionably true that fathers spending more time with their children is, on the whole, much better for those children.
But it's also true that it's a huge problem for society that people are having fewer children. And I think you can make a reasonable argument that increasing expectations around the quality of parenting are party of that trend.
I think it is. It's discouraged and unspoken, but a lot of men don't like spending time with children. I mean for weeks or months, sure, but when you have a kid it drags on for years 24/7 and nothing but having your own child will really reveal to you how that turns out for you.
As it turns out, I don't enjoy extended time with children. My bad, but I power through it for the sake of the child. In older times that would be no problem, my wife would deal with that. Instead I stopped at 1 when I realized I am not the kind of person who enjoys being equally involved with children.
In the same way you power through taking care of your kids, not because you enjoy it but because you prioritize their well-being, how likely is it that moms are generally doing the same? It seems to me like men have been historically avoiding this child-rearing responsibility, moreso than women enjoying doing so.
I can tell you that my wife and I are both exhausted of taking care of them 24/7. It is not something we do for funsies.
I think it's natural that someone, whether you believe in biological differences or not, will relatively prefer child-rearing to some other tasks that the family needs to do. Modern society has brainwashed females in particular into believing that equal-childcare should be a thing and they're being robbed if one is "avoiding it" (even your rhetoric exhibits this brainwashing).
It doesn't have to be the wife per-se. When I was building our house, I did most of the carpentry. My wife hated it and did very little of that. My wife hates driving the tractor. My wife hates driving any vehicle. My wife hates doing the plumbing and electric. My wife hates taking care of the pets, so I take care of them. My wife doesn't like practicing self-defense and security for the house, and there are lots of dangerous animals and criminals here, so I handle that. I do not ask my wife to do any of those things except at worst a few small % of the time compared to when I do them. This does not bother me at all because different people prefer different things.
Modern society has brainwashed people to think they need to share child-care and ideally equally. I think this is highly misinformed utopian vision. Voluntary preference based division of labor is smart and helps us all enjoy our lives more. Very rarely do couples have absolute equal relative preference for all the tasks, even if they dislike all of the tasks.
It seems obvious that if you brainwash people to think labor sharing by exchanging tasks is "avoidance" that you increase the chance one of the two parties will just veto any additional children. But if you bring this up then it's straight to whataboutism but women also don't enjoy it which totally misses the mark about relative preference that results in imbalanced childcare, which can be evaluated even when both people dislike a task. Unless you totally reject sexual dimorphism, you should be at least open to the possibility as well that females on average might have higher relative preference for child-rearing than other things, as long as feminists aren't shaming them left and right with artificial impositions that somehow they're being robbed if a man is "avoiding" it by exchanging labor to do something else.
Treating childcare as a chore to be assigned to whichever parent dislikes it the least is not in the best interest of the children. They benefit from having two engaged parents.
It's truly glorious that what's in the "best interest of the children" is whatever matches the stranger outsider's philosophical goals. Of course who could argue with "engagement." That sounds great! The devil of that is in the details, and not necessarily mean anything approaching equal time spent child-rearing. "Interest of the children" spoken by some outsider to try and force others to act towards their philosophy, might be responsible for more atrocities and misdeeds than anything else in history.
Personally I don't take your omniscient approach. I believe the parents are nearly always better position to determine the interests of their children than some random dude on HN, than the outsider trying to impose their goal of their particular vision of "engagement."
I am merely explaining why I take care of my kids. Your reaction suggests that you feel attacked by that, when it is not my intention at all. Where do you think that reaction may be coming from?
You're not saying what your position clearly - instead you're "just asking questions", and it's rubbing some people up the wrong way (including me, sorry). It looks like you're not apologising for that because "it wasn't your intention".
If you're sincerely trying to engage in good faith, I feel you should be apologising for your role in sending it in the wrong direction unintentionally.
To be clear, I'm not taking a position in the debate here, just commenting that the way your engaging is legitimately a bit annoying if you're not aware. The other person getting really angry isn't the best look either, but I'm sure they already know that.
I see, this is all one big misunderstanding and you were only talking about taking care of your kids, not referring to how anyone else might take care of their children. And now I need personal introspection for my psychological weaknesses. You are fucking good at this. I might suggest a career in family therapy or family law, because although this gas lighting won't work on me, they use the same kind of duplicitous rhetoric and you'd fit right in and get it to work on plenty of people.
I think a lot of it is the type of things you do while spending time with kids.
I watch my friends raise young children, and to be blunt it largely looks miserable to me. You effectively are babysitting children activities 24x7. Basically running a tiny daycare.
The families and adults seem to simply exist as caretakers for their child's lives.
I ascribe to "the kid is just now part of your general life" for 90% of your adult activities. Could be working in the shop, outdoor chores, cleaning the house, fixing the car, shopping, whatever. The point is the kid primarily exists in your life and does whatever it is you are doing, not the other way around.
Yeah, some things are impossible to do with a kid of course. But not nearly as many as currently believed for most children. If properly socialized, kids can exist non-disruptively in plenty of situations. And the danger to them in a lot of spots is wildly exaggerated. I brought my 5 year old into warehouses and lumberyards with a bit of instruction and teaching them to pay attention. They pretty quickly adapt.
If I have another kid I'd plan on not modifying my life a whole lot. The kid will simply come with to most things and liberal use of babysitting and such will happen. I have friends who are terrified to even leave their toddlers with babysitters these days for a few hours - it's absurd.
Kids imo do best in a balanced life where the get to learn by watching and doing. Not catering to their every whim and desire and shielding them from every possible danger.
There are certainly some age ranges (infant through ~3 or 4 years old or so) that are much more difficult, but after that parents seem to prefer life on hard mode these days for some reason. Paranoia and peer pressure from my standpoint drives most of it.
My older (25 now!) son would have been a miserable experience for me if every single day was a "rainy weekend" style thing where we're stuck inside playing children's games and the like with near constant 24x7 attention and direct interaction at his level. I'd have gone insane. Having him "around" most of the time while I did things with an hour or two of direct "kid time" engagement was totally sustainable, and he seems to have gotten a lot of enrichment from most of it. Note that wasn't staring at screens though - it was physically and actively doing stuff. And part of learning as a parent and a child of a parent is the parent making mistakes. Shit happens, just correct for it moving forward. So long as no major injuries occur life moves on and typically everyone is better off for it.
I can tell you that as you have more children the time you can spend and need to spend drops - because there’s more of them, but they also play with each other.
Three are running around yelling and I can’t even join in, as they want me to be “the base” apparently.
I can't believe I'm asking this, because it isn't even something I would remotely consider (and it is too late anyway), but, is three actually easier than two children in some ways?
I have two children and I find parenting to be utterly draining. They are 4 and 6. They are *constantly* fighting. They play together a bit, but when they do, after 5-10 minutes it leads to real fight where we need to intervene. And they still demand an enormous amount of attention.
It turns out I am one of those fathers with a personality that doesn't deal well with constant sensory overload. I was medicated for ADHD myself as a child and one of my children is AuADHD. It isn't his fault and we're trying to find ways to help him (and everyone else), but his meltdowns make life so, so hard for the whole family. He wants to control and dominate every situation, whether it is his brother or his parents.
I was wondering if the dynamics of three would have made it easier because he couldn't dominate his brother so eaily, or if that would just mean he became the isolated child.
Yes... Father of four here. I can't imagine having one . It was way more work.
Taking my one kid to things was much harder because they'd have to be played with.
My four kids just play with each other. Yes I play with them too, but most of the time they run off on their own to play and want the adults to go away.
It's magical. Ironically I have more free time as a dad of four. Still the same number of diapers to change but the older ones do stuff themselves.
The biggest issue is logistics of getting four kids the various places they need to go.
Two of my three kids are always getting along! Actually the fighting among my two girls has fallen off pretty dramatically as they have both matured. They are 12 and 14 now. They have learned to compromise on activities instead of getting into fights over it. They still snipe at each other occasionally, but it seems to be taken more in stride than it used to.
It ... can? It really depends on the children, the dynamics, and other factors (so I'm not saying "have another kid and everything is fixed").
It does increase the network, so that if one kid doesn't want to play, the other might. Sometimes all the kids are playing together, sometimes one is off doing his own thing, sometimes there's still a meltdown.
Three might be the nadir as they outnumber you but each kid only has two other kids. But when older you likely can deal with one kid at a time and the other two play.
If it makes you feel better 4 to 6 is about the worst for "normal" kids, too, as they know that the outside world is something they have influence over but can't always control the way they want to.
the question is, where does that feeling come from? from your own time growing up, based on how your own father interacted with you? from your friends/peers? others?
i can relate. when my kids were young i didn't know what to do with them. but it's not that i didn't like spending time with them. before we had kids, working part-time so i could spend a lot of time at home was my dream. it was what i wanted. when the dream became real my inability to initiate play with the children was unexpected.
i figure it was because i had no rolemodels from my time growing up, no childhood experience that i could replicate because i grew up with a single dad who wasn't as close to me as i wanted to. every interaction was initiated by my children. it got easier as they got older because our interests became more compatible. (we could play games together that i also enjoyed, etc)
all the other stuff, taking care of them, feeding, putting them to sleep, etc. was easy because it's clear what needs to be done. and it wasn't/isn't exhausting either. i relish every interaction and moments of success where we achieve something together.
If your limit for being slightly out of your comfort zone is a year, why did you have a child? You don't have to be a parent to know that you are going to be challenged when a baby arrives.
If fathers spending more time with their children is better for the children but worse for ~~society~~the economy, is that really even a question worth considering?
Screw the economy, love your kid (or kids).
Well it is worth considering. Unless one think they and their children can just exist beyond space and time of where society, economy exist.
society and economy are shaped by the needs of the people in it.
they easiest because of our needs. we don't exist to meet its needs.
In the 1960s when single-parent households were a thing, it was not unusual for households to have little to no indoor plumbing or regular electricity.
Nowadays such a lifestyle will get social workers on your ass, unless you can get some Mennonite or Amish preacher or something to vouch for you. After a long enough period of failing to meet some arbitrary modern "quality of life" that can only be afforded by going along with the mainstreams economic system and expectations, the legal system will likely get involved in some capacity.
Economy is a bit of a one way valve. If you don't flow with it they'll rip away your children and then you'll be dumped to the curb along with the homeless or other inmates at the jail.
Ugh... In the 90s, people were screaming and panicking about the future of over-population. Dystopian scenes of dense and dirty tiny living-quarters stacked on top of each other.
Now everyone's screaming about a declining population.
We should embrace and prepare for degrowth for a better chance at a wonderful future, not shout at the sky hoping people will make more babies for the economy.
And guess what, if we prepare for degrowth, where a generation or two or three of the entire planet never goes hungry, never goes to war, and has the freedom of movement, creativity, innovation, interaction... Those people will want to have many many babies, and we can once again start worrying about overpopulation.
Those outcomes seem an extraordinarily optimistic take of what population decline would lead to. I don't think it'll be all doom either, but the world was not an ideal place when the population was previously billions fewer either.
Especially when pretty much all modern political and economic systems are fundamentally incompatible with population decline, and leadership fights changes tooth and nail.
> Now everyone's screaming about a declining population.
In general (don't know about the person you're responding to) the worry isn't so much that it's happening as it is the rate it's happening.
Makes me think of this clip from Bob Odenkirk: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/MNhpnEczGQA
Dad of 2 under 5: would be curious to know if there has been a change in the role of grandparents and especially how parents (particularly Mums’) desire to get along with grandparents (in-laws) and what role is that playing in the increase in the ‘mental load’ and the stressful part of Mums’ parenting.
Can a good part of the mental load be attributed to the need for the parents to ‘do it all’ themselves rather than share the load and responsibility with other loved ones and caregivers without the need to tightly control all aspects of parenting?
On a separate note - Insta is constantly feeding my wife with versions of parenting which is completely unattainable. That really is at the heart of the mental load we are experiencing in our situation of raising two under five. If only Insta was banned, life would have been far more better for parents.
Its kind of shocking after having an infant myself and hearing from his grandparents how little my wife and I's fathers did. One never changed a diaper and has never cooked dinner and the other looked like he had never held a baby in his life despite having 3 kids. I can't imagine not being incredibly hands on and involved.
There’s often been a “kids are mom’s until they’re dad’s” thing going on - dads do whatever with babies and younger children but the older children get heavily involved.
Of course, 50+ years ago diaper changing was often skilled labor (as was cooking) - it’s much easier to change a modern diaper and cook a modern ready-to-make meal.
It is just as easy to cook a meal from fresh ingredients. What exactly do you classify as "ready-to-make"?
I am incredibly allergic to the U.S.-American understanding of cooking as this unfathomably difficult task. No wonder there's an obesity crisis across the pond. The worst thing is, this unhealthy relationship to food seems to be exported all across the world these days.
We were latchkey kids. The key to the house door was tied around our neck using a shoelace. When the street lights came on, it meant going home. Both parents worked to afford the house and the kids' expenses.
It is also kind of forced. Modern industrial society wants to extract as much productivity out of workforce as possible. What that means is in 1965 one income was able to sustain a household but now we need two incomes. There is no dedicated support for kids now so fathers have to give up time and mothers have to exchange child-mother bonding time from kids to the company.
The real benefiter of this is the capitalist who can now have twice the workforce at the price of one.
How about we start paying market price to the parent who takes care of the kids irrespective of mothers or fathers ? Investing in next generation is way more important than making useless widgets faster.
My spouse and I are single-income and I still try. It's not about economic output, but rather there are things I want my son to know that I can only teach him by being present in his life.
> How about we start paying market price to the parent who takes care of the kids irrespective of mothers or fathers ? Investing in next generation is way more important than making useless widgets faster.
Considering that the current political majority in the US wants people to have more kids, this would be a really reasonable thing to do if they were serious about that.
The US already does heavily subsidize kids unless you make a brazillion dollars anyway.
Count the EITC and the child tax credit as “wife income” if you must. Also the increase in the standard deduction.
I help with my kid a lot, and I'm remote so I do it around the clock. I take contact naps, change every diaper, watch her for periods of time so my wife is free.
my wife doesn't work. and she didn't work before we had a baby. because one of our salaries was enough, so instead we work less. and again due to remote work, work has barely been top 5 in my life focus areas for the last decade.
You are by far the exception.
He might be the exception in your circles but there are many out there mimicking him, and it’s not only the Amish.
Out of close family and friends I only know of … three where they both work, and none have kids.
there's a lot of remote jobs out there
or were. tough out there rn.
> 1965
You may not like it, but women benefited a lot. And fought a lot to get those benefits.
Not just in terms of money. They are beaten less. When they are beaten or constantly insulted, they can leave and feed themselves.
The benefit comes from women being able to work, not from each household needing two incomes to raise kids. When a woman needs two incomes to raise her kids that means there is still a significant obstacle to leaving their partner.
Have to disagree as a father. The real benefit is the father and child who are now bonding. That doesn't mean the mother can't also bond, it just means it's not one sided.
I got to spend a bit more than 2 years doing math homework 1:1 with my youngest. Now, she's moving up to honors & gets 100% without any help. I miss all that time we got to hang out, do homework, watch videos of cats, etc.
The mother's are now working. So they're bonding less. I think that's what he means not that father's are taking away mother-child bonding time.
Except if anyone bothered to read the damn article you'd see that the research showed the highly educated were more likely to have involved fathers. Those are not going to be forced as the person seems to imply.
Kind of forced economically but also culturally.
In the 1950s, fathers worked and paid for everything. Mothers raised the kids. This was taught in schools, girls were steered into marriage, motherhood, and housekeeping and men into vocations or college.
Let's not pretend that many women didn't go to work so they could have more, and feel like they were a more complete person. Many people just don't want to be pigeonholed into roles defined by tradition, and the 1960s were a huge rebellion against this. This wasn't some grand capitalist scheme.
It's still possible to raise a family on one professional income, if you live like most people did in the 1960s. Can you do it on minimum wage? No, but you couldn't do it then either.
Don’t imagine that it wasn’t heavily promoted by industrialites after they saw that after ww2 they could increase the labor force by 30 percent without paying more than they were before.
Everything that starts out with a few well meaning people is, especially now, immediately turned into an astroturfing campaign to fuel some specific economic or political (is there really a difference?) end.
The FIRE movement is in direct opposition to this and should be encouraged for that alone - as it reduces the pool of workers.
Yes, and it also points people away from pathological overconsumption, which is arguably a very good idea on a number of axis. And also would shrink the economy significantly if it was widely adopted… which maybe hints at the inconvenient fact that an economy based on ever-expanding per-capita extraction is ultimately unsustainable.
Fundamentally, the economy is sustained by energy. In preindustrial society, that energy was provided by agriculture, which tends to be somewhat sustainable. Fossil fuels fuelled explosive expansion, leading to the paradigm that unlimited geometric expansion of the economy was desirable, which led to delusional theories that it was uncapped even in limited space.
Now the world is near its carrying capacity in several dimensions, and we are going to find the limits to our delusion. Automation may help us find the economic limits of this paradigm before we hit the physical wall, which might turn out to be a good thing or a bad thing.
At any create, I am convinced that the next century will be marked by systemic change that fundamentally reorganises global priorities and might best be described in terms of collapsing paradigms as economies move away from human labor, in the process changing focus from the accumulation of money, which is mostly useful for paying wages, to pure power and resource control.
> The real benefiter of this is the capitalist ...
Tired old socialist rhetoric.
The real benefiter of this is the state which can now have many times the tax base at the price of none. Where women used to take care of the children and do the housekeeping those tasks are now often done by paid day care, taxed by the state and paid help, again taxed by the state. From a single tax payer a family - father, mother, two children - now supplies two tax payers and several 'downstream' tax payers.
It's hilarious how the government used Rosy the Riveter to convince women that being liberated is slaving away building death machines for the state to literally blow up all our money, while sending your kids to people who don't give two fucks for them, all while moving all that domestic stuff to the GDP so they can tax the shit out of it.
That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. Yes, it’s not the capitalists making trillions from the free doubling of labor supply, it’s the politicians taking their 10%…
Guess who owns the politicians!
How can you be so ignorant.
They can be in collusion and/or one and the same.
And you don’t need snidely whiplash to create an evil master plan, it can just be how everything “naturally” works out.
My mom left the house as a kid. Dad worked and did it all during the week. Definitely felt like this was a rare thing growing up. I did spend time with my mom on the weekend though.
As a father I try and balance it out but I definitely don’t do as much as my dad did growing up.
It's a good article and, as a father, I experience and certify what it says. It presents the causes of the main observed fact (more time for kids) which happens anywhere in the Western world at least. But it can't go further and explain what general social changes cause all that. For me, in no order, they are:
Financial strains (family disposable income, high cost of living, wealth inequality)
Expand of electronic device use (from TVs to modern ones) and their apps
Convergence of gender roles, making males less masculine
General loss of classical values, promotion of easy life, short term goals and superficial qualities leading to misery and deactivation
Second sibling born - turns out I didn't get to be the parent, I get to look after the parents. I'm tired, exhausted, utterly miserable, barely scraping by. All those fancy ideals I thought old age provided for don't exist. Nursing homes? Hah, that's $340 a day up here in the middle of nowhere. I ain't making that a day. I get to do it myself.
I wonder what percentage of folks are now stuck in caretaking instead of raising their own families themselves. I basically predict my family line is extinct after my generation.
My well being is judged now by whether I took the time to watch a movie with my daughter, take my son out to fly a rc plane and so forth... so easy to dig into the daily grind ... not sure what life is about but I sure a shit know misery it born from abandoning your kids and the sickness that brings inside is insidious.
If I do nothing both will be in their rooms all day. Makes me sick.
This measures fatherhood in terms of time spent with children. I question whether that metric is of any value what so ever. Is a farmer a better farmer because he/she spends hours in the field? Or is the correct measure of a farmer the crops?
This article, and the place it has on Hackernews and the quality of "commments" raises serious questions for me about Hacker News as a whole, the moderation, the readers and mechanism.
My complaint is not that this kind of thing exists. My complaint is that something better does not.
> Is a farmer a better farmer because he/she spends hours in the field? Or is the correct measure of a farmer the crops?
At the risk is stating the obvious, crops do not have the ability to notice whether or not the farmer spends time with them. If you think that a child won't notice that one of their parents doesn't spend time with them and will be affected by it, I don't know what to tell you.
But do they notice the difference between 4 hours and 5 hours? Or are they noticing something else entirely?
To make the analogy proportional (according to the article), the difference would be something like "do they notice the difference between 1h 40m and 5 hours" (i.e. 3x more). My money would be on yes, they'd very much notice.
When it comes to kids, quantity has a quality all its own. Yes, there are better and worse ways to spend time with kids, but between engagement, enrichment, play, laundry, cooking, feeding, changing diapers, etc, there's just an immense amount of time to fill and work to do. By these metrics, doing the dishes probably isn't counted as "parenting", but since it lets your partner spend time with the kid, or rest and recuperate, it's a good proxy.
If you don't believe me, fold a load of laundry the next time you visit a friend with little kids. Or play with their kid for half an hour so the parent can let their guard down for a bit. It has an incredible impact.
Yes yes the goal of life is to flourish and this metric doesn't measure flourishing directly so what's the point? And indeed is the fact that we talk about observable metrics rather than whatever else I had in mind not an indictment of this forum, nay, society at large?
> I don’t know who told MacRumors what (and their sourcing is just “MacRumors has learned”), but I know for a fact that it is not true that the teams working on the Vision platform have “been redistributed to other teams within Apple.”
Good to know! I thought it was a bit weird for the team to have been disbanded so abruptly. Perhaps if this aspect of the story is not correct, other aspects will turn out to have been untrue as well.
"MacRumors has learned" means "our Bloomberg shill, Mark Guesser, has made another bad prediction", every time.
Given the memes I see about how GenX are perceived in US, it seems now they have gone too far into the other direction.
in some ways it was cool to grow up without too much supervision eh?
It isn’t said in this article, but as an elder millennial and a guy that’s talked about this exact thing with peers, it’s that we don’t want to repeat the mistakes of our parents. Boomers, the parents of millennials, are perhaps the worst generation to have ever existed and we carry a lot of baggage over it.
Haha, I was just talking to family about early dad-hood.
I mentioned that I really felt how a space marine feels some days: https://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Daily_rituals_of_a_Space_Ma...
Mostly in the short sleep period, but also in the 'free time' too. I tend to get about 30 minutes at the end of the day, after all have (finally) gone to sleep, but still.
And yet the narrative is men are worthless useless and the reason women don't want to have kids anymore. Maybe women are the problem?
[dead]