Hacker News Reader

> We now value professional careers above everything else. You can't have kids and be competitive anymore.

Do you have any evidence of that?

> Half of the people I know who have kids basically delegates everything to caretakers, they see them 30 min in the morning, and 30 min when they get back to work and kiss them goodnight.

And that’s fine. There is nothing special about biological parents being the ones to take care of kids. Daycare workers, grandparents, etc., love the kids too and are better equipped to keep them engaged.

Indeed, our parents and grandparents spent half as much time with their kids than we are spending today, and their kids (us) turned out fine: https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2017/11/27/parents-...

> One analysis of 11 rich countries estimates that the average mother spent 54 minutes a day caring for children in 1965 but 104 minutes in 2012. Men do less than women, but far more than men in the past: their child-caring time has jumped from 16 minutes a day to 59.

> And that’s fine. There is nothing special about biological parents being the ones to take care of kids.

There absolutely is an irreplaceable bond between natural parents and their children that can’t be replaced. If you spend time around a lot of kids it’s very easy to notice a happiness difference between those with a stay at home parent and those raised by paid professionals (who are usually taking care of many other children, unless you’re wealthy).

> Indeed, our parents and grandparents spent half as much time with their kids than we are spending today, and their kids (us) turned out fine

I mean, did we? The birth rate is dropping through the floor, marriage rates are down, and studies show women in particular are more unhappy than ever.

As my generation ages into their 40s I see a stark happiness divide between those that focused on their careers vs those that built families (strongly in favor of the latter).

According to NORC at U Chicago, general happiness for women leads that of men, and is within low single digits of its all-time peak.

http://www.norc.org/PDFs/GSS%20Reports/GSS_PsyWellBeing15_fi...

Most studies contradict these findings:

https://law.yale.edu/system/files/documents/pdf/Intellectual...

Isn't the paper you're citing based on the paper I cited? The General Social Survey is NORC.

How do you feel about adoptive parents?

I think adoption is great! I don’t think it’s as good as a natural parent child relationship but certainly better than day care.

I'm going to say that study has a serious smell.

I can't read any of the detail (no access), but look at the example graph for Danish mothers. It suggests that in 1965, the average time spent by a non-university-educated mother on childcare for an under 13 was less than 10 minutes. That's an extraordinary claim, and needs extraordinary evidence to back it up.

Instead of telling men to slow down and take care of their kids we tell women to forget about kids and follow men in their insane quest for professional conquests.

This is really true.

It was just assumed that the “right” goal for women was the same career focus as men have always had.

It won’t surprise me if that changes in the future once families realize the cost of it.

I think it will change in the future, not once families realize the cost, but because families that have already valued kids have kids while those that didn't realize the cost die out.

That doesn't mean the kids will necessarily adopt the values of their parents.

True, but typically they do.

That is because men were valued more. Women and female infested things were considered lesser. Being like a girl was insult, manning up was compliment.

Besides, it is not just about career and money. This forum is full of men who don't work solely for money. Who work for challenge, to feel like they can do something special, to compete, to be with collegues, because the job fits their personality well etc.

It depends. After all “women and children first” has been the historical norm. Men have been treated as disposable for the history of humanity. Men get drafted to fight wars, women don’t.

> This forum is full of men who don't work solely for money. Who work for challenge, to feel like they can do something special, to compete, to be with collegues, because the job fits their personality well etc.

I have a great job but definitely work for the money. I am after all enriching the founders, execs and investors. I don’t think it’s a great idea to glamorize working for someone else.

That was not historical norm really. It happened once on side of titanic partly and in most situations there was no ordering. Yes, men died in wars. Then you had areas with many women and less men. The men were the ones making decisions still, voting, owning property, having accounts and the ones who were supposed to be head of household and women the ones considered stupider and having less options.

Male physical power and inability to be pregnant had a lot to do with most of this. Obviously.

The end result was that telling men to be more like girls would amount to massive insult.

It is about work and profession being super glamorous. It is about aspects of it fullfiling human psychology in small and big things that you don't even realize until you looses it.

I replied in depth up thread but I don’t agree. You’re framing this in a very specific lens of a very narrow period of time and ignoring all of the negative stereotypes about men and positive stereotypes about women that existed at that time as well.

Mother's Day is the biggest day for retailers. I wouldn't say that things typical mothers of yesteryear did were lesser. Speaking as a 43 year our mothers were less in the public eye but they definitely in our hearts.

That is not enough for men to take "you should be more like women" as compliment or inspiring ambition back then.

Typical mother of yesteryear was soccer mom and it is used as insult to this day. Typical mother of yesteryear would call with friends a lot, because she spent most of time completely alone in house otherwise - and that was but of jokes often. She would make big deal over non-existent color shade differences (this might have to do with men being more likely to be colorblind). When she complained, one just knew she is oversensitive.

It does not really matter how they really were and that their husbands were alright respectful guys. What matters is that there was that collective stereotype that added up to "I dont want to be like that" for many people.

> Instead of telling men to slow down and take care of their kids we tell women to forget about kids and follow men in their insane quest for professional conquests.

It is not just abstract us telling men and women what they should focus on out of other context.

It is more that being more like women was not appealing enough proposition to average guy. That would be something emasculating, something other guys would mock. The cool guy considers feminine things stupid - regardless of whether the thing would be actually good for him.

The reverse works differently. Being more like what guys do was something inspiring for enough women. Not all, but enough. The cool girl is often the one that crosses gender boundary - even when it is not actually good for her.

You’re cherry picking various stereotypes from different time periods and not including the bad stereotypes men had in the 20th century as well: the oafish dad, the wannabe player, the nerd, dumb jock...

None of this says much about people’s place in the world, more that 20th century sitcoms went for easy laughs.

The reality is that being a mother has always been seen as a powerful important role (because it is). It wasn’t until the late 20th century that diminished often at the hands of feminists.

You seem focused on the idea that telling a man to be like a woman is an insult but for as long as I’ve been alive people have been telling men to get in touch with their sensitive side, do more duties around the house...

I don’t think you’re accurately describing the big picture, just one slice of one piece of mainstream, late 20th century culture.

The 20th century culture is what is relevant to changes by the end of 20th century. Thomas Aquinas opinions or Ancient Rome opinions are much less relevant to the outcome.

Are you saying that a men or boy would take "you are like a girl" as a compliment? Or that femininity was something men would inspire to? Because afaik, while the girl who "is like a boy" is breaking rules, the expression is less humiliating then other way round. A boy in pink is more mockable then girl in blue. This alone tilts a lot peoples decisions on what they want for themselves and which wishes they show in public.

Mothers were not powerful except limited power over children, not in the usual "can get her way effortlessly in important things" way. It was not matriarchy for long time. I am not saying they were slaves or something. There were places where female social status depended greatly on number of children. In that sense, being mother was advantageous. But calling it powerful position is a stretch.

But for that matter, it is not like fatherhood was some kind of super powerful position, through it added social status where family was valued too. Father had great power over children, but calling it powerful position is a stretch too.

Yes, there are changes and increasingly more toward pushing men more toward that household works and emotional contributions. That is framed more as duty and work. Less as something men organizations push for as thing-men-should-want. Men do play more with small children or wash dishes etc. But the mass interest for changes in the past was the other way round.

There is difference between "I want better career for me" and "you should wash dishes more often".

First of all I don’t think telling someone that they should be more like the opposite gender has ever been well received. I dispute your point that telling a woman to be more like a man is less of an insult than the opposite statement.

I also think you’re downplaying the importance of mothers not just in the family unit but in society as a whole. Mother’s Day has always been a bigger deal than Father’s Day. Aside from optics the personal influence that a mother has traditionally had over children of both genders is second to none. That’s very powerful. Having a career isn’t very powerful for most people. You have multiple layers of people above you (your “superiors”) that have a very large amount of control over your life in exchange for a potentially livable wage. You can be fired at any time, for almost any reason. I don’t think divorce happens as easily.

To add to sibling comment[0]. As I grow older I marvel at how the world behaves as if we are still in high school. Where I went to school there were definitely cool kids and most of us guys aspired to be in the football/rugby team. Our excuse back then was being teenagers. Now in hindsight, I realise there is no such thing as better. It is all relative. A man working a thankless corporate job for a lifetime only to be given a watch, to be managed by an MBA who knows nothing about the actual work isn't better than a woman who spends time raising her children. Man ends up with a watch and not so great relationship with his children and the woman ends up with deep love of her children. It is all relative. Some people love corporate life others find it suffocating. I wish people would stop saying something is better. By all means, doors should be opened for everyone so they have a chance to try it out. Maybe being a stay at home mom isn't for all women, that's fine too. We also need to grow a thick skin and learn to ignore people who make it seem like their chosen path is the right path. There is no such thing. Everything has pros and cons. There was great post on HN the other day, "What We Want Doesn’t Always Make Us Happy".

[0]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20113726 [1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20074303

We need to make it more common for people to have children first, then once the youngest is in school, only then, for the stay at home parent to get a part time job (or possibly study at university part time), and when the kids are in their teens switch to a full time career.

People are living longer, there's no reason you can't have a career second. But biology is such that kids need to be first.

And no, kids aren't as expensive as people think. If you wait till you have lots of money you'll never have the kids to spend the money on.