Hacker News Reader

Comment by gist | Hacker News Reader

> And it's absolutely no surprise that an activist would push on Twitter; its CEO isn't even full-time.

For those to young enough to remember (you do) there are so many things that happen in this day and age in public companies that would never fly years ago. Part time CEO and for that matter Dorsey's planned move to Africa means he can't be fully focused on what is right for twitter. Which has been the case for some time.

I remember when Obama took office and in the first few weeks he found it necessary to go to a meeting at his kid's school. I can think of many ways political spin wise why he might have done that (people mumbled something about setting a good example for other fathers iirc) but honestly the angle seemed to be 'important that I know what is going on with my kids'. As if his wife Michelle wasn't good to drive that event. Or that somehow the kids of a President need to be hovered over at all lest at that age.

View on HN

I attend a lot of my kid's school events, and he's about the same age as Obama's were at that point. There's no "angle" why I do this, other than because I take pleasure in being there and want to be a good Dad.

Your comment is really disheartening for me, because it just seems so cynical.

Not sure I understand what Obama given his job as President and you have in common re: my comment.

If you can go to your kids school events and it doesn't impact your work (or happiness or makes you happy for that matter) in some way (and your ability to provide for your child's future (key point)) then that is your choice. But this idea (that goes around in today's popular culture) that it's vital in some way that both parents (man or woman) need and should be fully engaged in a child's school activities is simply not right both from my experience and observation over the years (with my own children (grown up, educated and well employed)) and history as well. It's a concept that is bandied about as being good not only w/o proof but absolute.

So my question for you is did you think about this and come to the conclusion that you should attend your kid's school events on your own or is it something you have read in many places and never questioned because 'it's what you do as a parent and it is important'.

Let's take it one step further. Men and women go off to war 'for their country'. They are not able to even be with their children (let alone attend events). It's service for your country that's what you sign up for. Do you think that the job of the President is less involved and important than a single soldier or more? Don't you think his thought process should be on the country and what's good for them and not his (for this particular case) his children?

One last thing. If Obama really cared about his kids he wouldn't have become President. There is nothing normal about being the child of a President. Given both his education and level of achievement and his wife's his children would have had a very nice life going forward w/o needing the drawbacks (both attention and security wise) of being the child of a President. (Not questioning the coolness or upside just saying there is plenty of risk and downside I mean talk about a not normal life even people you meet are most likely angling and want to be around you because of who your parents were and are).

Sounds like you don’t have kids.

> from my experience and observation over the years (with my own children (grown up, educated and well employed))

Come on, the excessive use of brackets doesn’t actually render what he said unreadable. He has more than one grown up child.

He had kids before he was president, you don’t think it was routine for him to go to his kids’ parent teacher conferences before being president? I think both of his kids were around late elementary or middle school age at the time of being president which is also an important developmental time for kids. Being a CEO or any job shouldn’t mean that it clones at the sacrifice of being a good parent. To me it sounds like it’s someone keeping up the routine they had before they got a new job. Being president is just another job, albeit far more high profile.

Development time? He is President. You make as if they are going to have some kind of normal life in any way shape or form.

> Being president is just another job, albeit far more high profile.

Just another job? More high profile? You are joking right?

Bill Gates drove his kids to school.

Clones = comes , autocorrect is not smart

I don’t think it makes sense to criticize Obama for going to one meeting at his kids’ school. Having an important job doesn’t mean you should spend 100% of your waking hours in that job. It’s good to sometimes do something else, to stay mentally fresh.

Also, as a CEO it’s useful to talk sometimes to a broad range of your customers. Doesn’t it make sense for a politician to talk to a broad range of his constituents?

If your philosophy is that people who care about their kids can’t be president, you will get a president who doesn’t care about kids.

Not having or wanting kids does not mean not caring about them. Few of my teachers in elementary school were childless, and still incredibly supportive and important figures in my life growing up. I actually find parents selfish. Putting their own kids 1st, being offensively over protective and unsupportive of other, sometimes more deserving kids, which are not their own, ie when it comes to opportunities and investment etc. I guess that’s natural, but it also means a childless person will find it easier to “love” other people’s children and care about issues other than the ones of interest to themselves first most.

> It’s good to sometimes do something else, to stay mentally fresh.

That's a judgement based on the idea that going to a kids meeting is a 'good' thing and nobody should question it.

Let's say Obama in his first few weeks decided to walk to a house on the street (with secret service) and do some gardening for someone (without any benefit otherwise as an isolated event) most would probably think that was not only a waste of time but that he had some ulterior motive for doing that. I mean Presidents are well known for blowing off steam by golfing but they aren't going to golf in the first week etc. Sends the wrong message.

Ditto if someone hired a CEO for the company and they spent time on some trivial relaxation time event (and the company was bleeding money) it would be seen as a bad use of time they should be focused.

Go further with this. A company has been hacked and 'all hands on deck'. But the key person well he's off at a school meeting which could either be postponed or perhaps the spouse could handle.

I don't even agree with the idea that they have an issue staying fresh mentally in the sense that that activity would even be the thing to do to do that. (Better to get more sleep and cut out needless meetings etc).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com