EDIT: Not a freak, don't care for the infant stage. Happy to dote when they start to turn into people.
> Not a freak, don't care for the infant stage. Happy to dote when they start to turn into people.
That is kind of a selfish attitude. The early stage is a lot of work, but why should you skip the work while your wife has to do it all?
I remember back in that time. I was quite happy to go back to work the first weeks, because I found it quite exhausting with the first child. Work was super relaxing in comparison.
I think it is only fair and square that one shares the load. I had my parental leave when my kids were 8 months or so. I actually forget exactly the time. But it was quit manageable by then and while a fair amount of work it was also a rewarding experience.
> Would someone like me be held back artificially to promote equality?
What about your wife's career. Isn't she held back if she had to spend all the time taking care of the kids? Why should she not be given similar opportunities as you?
I’ve had enough adversity for one lifetime, my soul is weary, and refuse to submit to any additional unnecessary suffering. Without knowing my life, you’re not qualified to comment on it. I’m simply sharing my perspective having had my own kids and paternity leave offered.
This doesn't jibe with my experience at all. My wife is quite enjoying being at home with the baby, and gets to spend as much time outdoors as she cares for, even in the harsh Canadian winter.
Sure there are some sleepless nights (for both of us), but I'm not sure where this idea comes from that caring for a baby is a 24/7 slog. Close friends of ours had 3 children in 4.5 years, and even they don't talk like it's utter drudgery. I guess YMMV.
But that isn't true for all mothers. If a mother needs to socialize with other adults, or wants to chill with a drink with her friends, or go to a book club, etc. having a child that she must be solely responsible for 24/7 can be extremely mentally unhealthy. Maybe try Mother of all Podcasts? It's about comedian mothers talking about motherhood and being a comedian.
It's of course your choice, but just saying that that choice could end up biting you or the kid in the end.
No it's not fun hanging around kids all the time, but it takes a lot of not fun moments to get to the good parts.
Of course everybody's situation is different. My wife is actually currently at home as well. But you cannot advocate a system that just works for you.
You got to have a system that benefits the population at large. Many women want a career and independence and many men would enjoy spending more time with their children.
They should be given a chance to do that.
You also have to consider that when a lot of people do like you guys, you keep promoting gender inequality. Men like you working long hours naturally get valued. Bosses come to expect men to be more dependable and flexible workers because they have no obligations at home.
Women in contrast hit a glass ceiling because a company will expect that she will not have the same flexibility as a man. Men will be prioritized in career advancements and get higher salaries.
Hence you get stuck in this gender pattern. Women end up staying home because they simply cannot compete salary-wise with men.
I am not blaming you. I am just pointing out that if too many people make the kind of choices you make, it really holds back women's advancement in the workplace.
> I use my resources to enable that, and make their life as easy as possible (hired help around the house, childcare, etc).
Sounds great, but keep in mind there is a downside to this. It promotes the view that every parent is available for long work hours, because "hey just pay some help." For people with less fancy jobs that is not a simple option. One has to think of what role models one are. I find it somewhat disturbing when these higher powered women brag about being back at work the day after birth. It signals to everyone further down the chain that they are lazy asses if they don't do the same. Reality is that these are women with large amounts of resources who can hire a lot of help and don't have physically demanding jobs.
I don't expect you to agree with me, because it is probably not in your culture to think like this. But at least in Scandinavia where both independence and solidarity are considered important values, we do think a lot about being good role models and showing solidarity with others.
E.g. in Norwegian neighborhoods of all income levels people participate in "dugnad" which is a communal work together thing. Everybody clean up and fix up their neighborhood. The rich could have hired people to do it. But it is considered an important value even among rich Norwegians to physically contribute like this and be like everybody else once in a while.
It affects the children you raise. I notice children from countries where rich people hire a lot of help are exceptionally spoiled.
Valuing those who value their career above all else isn't gender inequality; that's valuing a work ethic, not a specific gender (women also make the choice to prioritize a career above being a mother at all). You as an individual have a choice not to prioritize your work above all else, but you should not then be penalizing those with public policy who don't in the name of equality.
Equality of opportunity, not of outcome.
"Skip the work"? He literally said he's working..a job. Unfortunately, in the society we've built it is considered the most important work, since it pays the bills and enables the ability to start a family.
I agree it's important that both people share the burden of parenthood, but let's not swing it so far the other way that your sole source of income isn't considered "work".
The original commenter is insinuating that even with this facility he will prefer to go to his 'real work' esp when the kid is small and the child-rearing work is not satisfactory enough and that frankly is quite selfish.
> What about your wife's career. Isn't she held back if she had to spend all the time taking care of the kids? Why should she not be given similar opportunities as you?
He is working, and perhaps his wife prefers caring for their child to working a job. If it's working for them, why criticize? Why is it wrong for this couple to distribute the work in the way that optimizes for their happiness?
Nobody forces the moms either (though I do understand that dads don't breast-feed every 3 hours without sleep).
The point is that this means the "she will be off for X months" becomes less of a biological parts thing against women and more of a life-stage thing. Though the ageism might still strike here, as people plan to have kids later in their lives.
> Happy to dote when they start to turn into people.
Also specifically for the leave itself, a significant part of my paternity leave was just partner support by picking up everything else that was previously shared including shopping, cooking, laundry. Otherwise, it was just about generally being awake without worrying about the clock.
This all came to highlight when I went back to work after 3 months away, the transition to a 9-5 schedule was bad for everyone involved.
In some European countries women are not allowed to work in the following 6 or 8 weeks after giving birth (maybe even longer somewhere?).
said with love
It seems like you may not care, but that infant stage is the most critical for bonding and attachment. You're potentially sacrificing your ability to have a strong or deep relationship with your children in the long-term, regardless of how present you are later on. But as I said, perhaps you're making that tradeoff knowingly.
It's up to you of course, I'm just curious.
Have you never been involved in a long project that was initially unfruitful but ultimately rewarding when you stuck at it? It's not supposed to be enjoyable, you're nurturing your child to establish the foundation on which your life together is built and to help them prosper.
You're right, it's extremely mentally challenging in those first months before they start to communicate with you directly (as opposed to general communication of crying!). But it's part of the whole experience that bonds you together in a way I'd never have imagined was possible.
You know that first 3 years of our lives are most forming on our deeper personalities. How people are calm, energized, focused, or somehow broken... they have started developing personalities while still in the womb. That they have no verbal way to express themselves doesn't mean anything. They do appreciate every second with their parents. They are building the foundations of their personalities for the rest of their lives.
You being absent (and seemingly pretty cold/distant personality) doesn't work work well with your claimed intent for them to thrive. Unless you mean that they will be one of these uber-competitive, never-happy but probably wealthy types which are mostly just sad stories once you know them well. If that's the case, you are probably well on course, and unfortunately they are too...
Parenting is time when 'me' focus changes to 'it' focus, it being the kid. For me and my wife, the transition was automatic and smooth, nobody needn't to tell us anything. I've been given plenty as a child and now I am giving back to next generation. Without thinking about what will come for me or my wife.
Do you have any citations or source for that?
But there are tons of stories that babies neglected/suffering perform much worse for rest of their lives. Deep mental issues, lower IQ etc. Some proof might be stories I read from some specifically cruel communist Romania orphanage, where children were neglected, often caged or chained. Something like 90% of them struggled significantly in the society in their later lives.
It doesn't have to be interventional study.
> But there are tons of stories that babies neglected/suffering perform much worse for rest of their lives. Deep mental issues, lower IQ etc. Some proof might be stories I read from some specifically cruel communist Romania orphanage, where children were neglected, often caged or chained. Something like 90% of them struggled significantly in the society in their later lives.
Children being caged and chained having long lasting consequences is so far from from the original claim that first 3 years of our lives are most forming on our deeper personalities. It appears there is no reason to consider that claim true.
For example, having two kids, there is literally no amount of compensation or benefits you could provide as an employer or nation state to convince me to have more.
But to answer the question more literally I suspect there would be no penalty.
> they're not at an age yet where I can fully appreciate time with them.
Now that sounds closer to the truth. It's not about what's best for "them", it's about how you can _enjoy yourself_ more.
Why shouldn't their husbands stay at home?