Study: Today’s dads are engaging more with their kids(news.byu.edu)
news.byu.edu
Study: Today’s dads are engaging more with their kids
https://news.byu.edu/news/study-today%E2%80%99s-dads-are-engaging-more-their-kids
141 comments
You were very lucky in more ways than the one. That's a great story, though. Those kinds of memories and meaning in your work are priceless.
My father was overworking most of the time due to his career as a pipefitter for Imperial Oil. He spent two terms unemployed— once when we moved to our small SW Ontario town (long story why), and another during an illness that lasted about a year. Because my mother had left her career in insurance to look after us, our college savings were depleted (the last thing they touched to make payments). I don't remember the times he was unemployed very much. Much of my family was ill at the same time he was and I spent a lot of time looking after them (with my thoroughly tough mother)— otherwise he was driving an 2-3 hours round-trip to the union hall every day to try and find contract work. So I didn't see much of the guy when I was young, and when I did he was exhausted and often cranky. There were some great moments in there, and he still taught me as much as he could while I was there, but I'm just remarking on the work and unemployment and family time thing.
Funnily, I got into programming because my mother had an [name I don't remember] 80286 from her work as an insurance analyst and I dug right into that machine. Then the internet finally came to town...
..
Really, thanks for sharing that.
My father was overworking most of the time due to his career as a pipefitter for Imperial Oil. He spent two terms unemployed— once when we moved to our small SW Ontario town (long story why), and another during an illness that lasted about a year. Because my mother had left her career in insurance to look after us, our college savings were depleted (the last thing they touched to make payments). I don't remember the times he was unemployed very much. Much of my family was ill at the same time he was and I spent a lot of time looking after them (with my thoroughly tough mother)— otherwise he was driving an 2-3 hours round-trip to the union hall every day to try and find contract work. So I didn't see much of the guy when I was young, and when I did he was exhausted and often cranky. There were some great moments in there, and he still taught me as much as he could while I was there, but I'm just remarking on the work and unemployment and family time thing.
Funnily, I got into programming because my mother had an [name I don't remember] 80286 from her work as an insurance analyst and I dug right into that machine. Then the internet finally came to town...
..
Really, thanks for sharing that.
You were very lucky in more ways than the one.
Most definitely. I get a bit of existential vertigo when I think about how much of my often-happy life has depended on luck. It intensifies when I consider how many of those lucky circumstances were determined before my birth.
Most definitely. I get a bit of existential vertigo when I think about how much of my often-happy life has depended on luck. It intensifies when I consider how many of those lucky circumstances were determined before my birth.
Existential vertigo— I’m going to have to remember that term
Same here - I've been trying unsuccessfully to put that feeling into words for 20 years!
> They learned just enough to load/run software and I learned to write my own.
I have a similar story, but more from necessity; for the first few months while our dad saved up money to buy a tape drive (something he didn't know was sort of necessary when he made the initial purchase), the machine just sat there at the interpreter prompt. Luckily the reference guide and various magazines of the time had examples we could type in. That became the routine - you want to play a game, first you have to type it up. In retrospect, it's actually quite amazing how good a teacher necessity can be.
I have a similar story, but more from necessity; for the first few months while our dad saved up money to buy a tape drive (something he didn't know was sort of necessary when he made the initial purchase), the machine just sat there at the interpreter prompt. Luckily the reference guide and various magazines of the time had examples we could type in. That became the routine - you want to play a game, first you have to type it up. In retrospect, it's actually quite amazing how good a teacher necessity can be.
That's a really lovely story, thanks for sharing it. Wish I could upvote twice :)
I left the bay area in 2013 when my third kid was born. I'm about 110 miles north now.
I expected that as I withdrew from long office hours, replacing it with remote work, my income stagnate (or go down). The opposite happened - my income has actually gone up steadily.
Towards the point of this topic - I have been able to spend a lot of time with my kids. We walk (or bike) to and from school, I coach sports, and I'm able to see all of the recitals, performances, and various events. My kids are age 12, 7, and 5 for those wondering.
I do work quite a bit, but the work is performed at odd hours, and not during prime family hours. It helps to find companies that is geared towards projects and your performance over the long or medium term, rather than people who want to see butts-in-chairs when they are at the office.
I encourage everyone to try to replace their commutes with more time with loved ones. Move your working hours around, if at all possible.
I expected that as I withdrew from long office hours, replacing it with remote work, my income stagnate (or go down). The opposite happened - my income has actually gone up steadily.
Towards the point of this topic - I have been able to spend a lot of time with my kids. We walk (or bike) to and from school, I coach sports, and I'm able to see all of the recitals, performances, and various events. My kids are age 12, 7, and 5 for those wondering.
I do work quite a bit, but the work is performed at odd hours, and not during prime family hours. It helps to find companies that is geared towards projects and your performance over the long or medium term, rather than people who want to see butts-in-chairs when they are at the office.
I encourage everyone to try to replace their commutes with more time with loved ones. Move your working hours around, if at all possible.
I can’t agree with this more, I’m so thankful that I get time with my wife and son at lunch daily. When he starts school in the fall I’ll have the ability to take him in and/or get him for a special treat for us both.
Without a flexible job where I can shift my hours this wouldn’t be as doable. As a consequence, if one views it that way, is I give up some evening time from mediocre TV to wrap up an hour or so of work - in order to not feel like I allocate time poorly from formal work (which I don’t).
My dad passed away when I was 5, and I have very few memories (sadly more negative ones than positive due to a battle with cancer). So for me the ability to do as much with my family as the work/life balance allows before the inevitable is highly valuable hoping to tip that scale in the positive direction for my family.
Without a flexible job where I can shift my hours this wouldn’t be as doable. As a consequence, if one views it that way, is I give up some evening time from mediocre TV to wrap up an hour or so of work - in order to not feel like I allocate time poorly from formal work (which I don’t).
My dad passed away when I was 5, and I have very few memories (sadly more negative ones than positive due to a battle with cancer). So for me the ability to do as much with my family as the work/life balance allows before the inevitable is highly valuable hoping to tip that scale in the positive direction for my family.
+1
My wife works 5am-1:30pm so I do the morning routine for our three kids (1, 7, & 9). I work 9am-4pm and am home by 5pm. It's family time -- dinner, sports practice, homework, chores, fun -- until the kids get to bed around 8pm. After that, I'll finish tidying up for the night, make lunches for the next day, and settle in for another 1-2hr of work a few nights/wk. This schedule affords us the ability to be with our children nearly the entire time they're not in school, and is definitely worth the tradeoffs we made to facilitate it, considering the obvious alternative would be for one of us to quit their job (which not only has an opportunity cost but would also likely reduce the time the other partner had with the kids).
My wife works 5am-1:30pm so I do the morning routine for our three kids (1, 7, & 9). I work 9am-4pm and am home by 5pm. It's family time -- dinner, sports practice, homework, chores, fun -- until the kids get to bed around 8pm. After that, I'll finish tidying up for the night, make lunches for the next day, and settle in for another 1-2hr of work a few nights/wk. This schedule affords us the ability to be with our children nearly the entire time they're not in school, and is definitely worth the tradeoffs we made to facilitate it, considering the obvious alternative would be for one of us to quit their job (which not only has an opportunity cost but would also likely reduce the time the other partner had with the kids).
I have a ten month old and start a new remote job next week (with a pay raise, which surprised me). I'm leaving a job I like, but which is stressful, for it. Thanks for sharing your story, it assuages my substantial nervousness about entering the unknown.
I’m a newly single parent, and I’ve been considering my options in regards to remote work. Are you employed full time by a single company or do you find freelance work? The challenge and time investment of finding new clients constantly has me leaning away from freelancing. I haven’t yet been able to find a full time position that’s flexible enough (results based) though.
I have a "regular" (9-5) remote job and a wife who works full time. Working from home has been very helpful for childcare activities.
I pick up my kids at 2-3 pm and then get a babysitter for the afternoons while I am still working until 5ish. This ends up being, basically, just a late lunch.
If things go south with my babysitter the kids can play or watch tv while I finish up the day and it's not a big deal to occasionally do.
I would try to get a stable/full-time job at a family friendly company, but that's just me all the time. Health care is expensive.
I pick up my kids at 2-3 pm and then get a babysitter for the afternoons while I am still working until 5ish. This ends up being, basically, just a late lunch.
If things go south with my babysitter the kids can play or watch tv while I finish up the day and it's not a big deal to occasionally do.
I would try to get a stable/full-time job at a family friendly company, but that's just me all the time. Health care is expensive.
A little of both. I do the minimum number of full time hours to get insurance benefits, and then I have a part time job at another tech company. Both of those things are very rare. It took me some time to work things out between the two entities.
I did have some time to work on pet projects and freelance-style (usually free) projects prior to the kids starting sports.
I did have some time to work on pet projects and freelance-style (usually free) projects prior to the kids starting sports.
My parents were both teachers, I got a lot of time with them as such.. However my dad was just never interested in really spending time with us, other than a good 5 minutes then he was bored and wanted to do his thing.
I spent A LOT of time with my mum, she taught me programming, and after a while I was teaching her newer stuff. My mum was the real MVP, my passion for everything comes from my mother.
My father however.. well he would talk about loving to play games like pacman and galaga as a kid, but wouldn't play games with me.. Later after smartphones and facebook, he now just disappears completely.
Now I'm a father, the difference is huge, I play with my daughter, I teach her stuff.. Recently I decided to build her first computer (shes 2, same age as I was when I first got to use a computer) .. so we together restored a Macintosh Classic, and upgraded it with modern components https://cherubini.casa/macintosh-classic-948301f14cbd
I spent A LOT of time with my mum, she taught me programming, and after a while I was teaching her newer stuff. My mum was the real MVP, my passion for everything comes from my mother.
My father however.. well he would talk about loving to play games like pacman and galaga as a kid, but wouldn't play games with me.. Later after smartphones and facebook, he now just disappears completely.
Now I'm a father, the difference is huge, I play with my daughter, I teach her stuff.. Recently I decided to build her first computer (shes 2, same age as I was when I first got to use a computer) .. so we together restored a Macintosh Classic, and upgraded it with modern components https://cherubini.casa/macintosh-classic-948301f14cbd
Love this project! My son is turning two in August, and he loves smashing the keyboard on my laptop. Having a dedicated PC for him would be fun. And he'd love to help build it, I'm sure.
I'm curious which activities she's found most interesting, and most able to do. My son will be 2 in a few months.
Although it's worrying if it's partly due to women being less involved with their children, on the face of it, I believe this is a good thing for both fathers and their children.
Largely, I think it's a sign of the times. My generation's fathers came from an era where "hard work" was still considered a necessity for happiness. My own father as well as most of those of people I know work and worked very hard. Technology, the economy, and society changed significantly from the time that our fathers grew up to when we grew up, and we sons saw our fathers work countless hours, leaving us to wonder how life is even worth living if it's made up of overtime hours and a series of useless meetings. Despite my father being the type to overachieve in the workplace, I would not wish that kind of lifestyle on him. I know a lot of men my age who saw their fathers work slavishly and realized that it's not worth it for them to spend their early life working to promote someone else's excessive success. I'm sure there are women out there who feel the same about their labor in contrast to that of their fathers, although women are also working more than ever(outside of the home) so it's not as much their issue as that of men and their rapidly changing role in society.
Largely, I think it's a sign of the times. My generation's fathers came from an era where "hard work" was still considered a necessity for happiness. My own father as well as most of those of people I know work and worked very hard. Technology, the economy, and society changed significantly from the time that our fathers grew up to when we grew up, and we sons saw our fathers work countless hours, leaving us to wonder how life is even worth living if it's made up of overtime hours and a series of useless meetings. Despite my father being the type to overachieve in the workplace, I would not wish that kind of lifestyle on him. I know a lot of men my age who saw their fathers work slavishly and realized that it's not worth it for them to spend their early life working to promote someone else's excessive success. I'm sure there are women out there who feel the same about their labor in contrast to that of their fathers, although women are also working more than ever(outside of the home) so it's not as much their issue as that of men and their rapidly changing role in society.
On average, child-care is so heavily tilted toward women that for many, doing a bit less would be good for their health. Also, it's not zero-sum -- parents can both be involved at the same time -- but I also enjoy the times when my wife is not around and my kids give me all the attention.
My employer just increased their family leave from 12 weeks to 20 weeks, which is a great perk. These days nobody seems to differentiate from maternity vs paternity leave, which is a great idea because, aside from the value it provides fathers, it also gets rid of the idea that the mother should get more time because mothers should be more involved. (alas, you can argue that it ignores the physical sacrifices the mother makes, but as long as there is parity by raising men's leave up rather than reducing a woman's leave, who can argue with it?)
I don't have kids but I've often thought if I could get 6-12 months off for having a kid it would change the equation from impossible burden to work around to actually a pleasurable experience to learn/grow/bond/etc.
I don't have kids but I've often thought if I could get 6-12 months off for having a kid it would change the equation from impossible burden to work around to actually a pleasurable experience to learn/grow/bond/etc.
Additionally, equal paternity leave is a great thing for women's rights too. When employers will see the same leave for their employees when they have a child regardless of gender, then there's less of a rational reason to discriminate against women in the hiring process.
This is very important. I once worked for the CEO of a startup who told me that he was hesitant to hire women because if they got pregnant “it’d totally screw us over”.
Like how you said you "once" worked for this CEO. Doesn't seem the kind of leader I'd want to work for either.
This CEO should suffer legal consequences.
No, we should change the law on maternity leave.
If a startup is running on tight runway then female staff getting pregnant could be massively detrimental.
In many civilized parts of the world, a female employee getting pregnant will mean disruption during the pregnancy to accommodate doctor's visits and health issues, and then months of paid leave PLUS having to pay to backfill their position with a temp, plus the costs of recruiting and ramping up said temp.
That's a huge hit for an early stage startup to take.
In many civilized parts of the world, a female employee getting pregnant will mean disruption during the pregnancy to accommodate doctor's visits and health issues, and then months of paid leave PLUS having to pay to backfill their position with a temp, plus the costs of recruiting and ramping up said temp.
That's a huge hit for an early stage startup to take.
Not sure I could disagree more with this. (Not to mention, this is exactly the kind of attitude that makes it hard for women to work in tech.)
There are regular doctor's visits during pregnancy, yes, but that's a few hours a month. Surely even the smallest startups can absorb that kind of "disruption".
And typically, since parents know well in advance when and how much leave they'll need to take, the team can plan around the leave and how to take over that work in someone's absence. In most cases, you'll have 5-6 months to prepare.
I work for a small startup - fewer than 20 employees - and two of our team members are married. They had a baby and were both out for month (the mom took more time after that), and everything continued to function just fine because we'd planned for it. And if we needed them, they were just an email or text away.
Finally, parents can be some of the most efficient workers on a team, and are great candidates for startups. They are experienced in time management and balancing multiple tasks and stakeholders.
There are regular doctor's visits during pregnancy, yes, but that's a few hours a month. Surely even the smallest startups can absorb that kind of "disruption".
And typically, since parents know well in advance when and how much leave they'll need to take, the team can plan around the leave and how to take over that work in someone's absence. In most cases, you'll have 5-6 months to prepare.
I work for a small startup - fewer than 20 employees - and two of our team members are married. They had a baby and were both out for month (the mom took more time after that), and everything continued to function just fine because we'd planned for it. And if we needed them, they were just an email or text away.
Finally, parents can be some of the most efficient workers on a team, and are great candidates for startups. They are experienced in time management and balancing multiple tasks and stakeholders.
I’d like you to try doing a mental exercise and see if you feel okay with what you’ve written here.
s/pregnant/cancer/ and then ask yourself if you would feel comfortable inquiring about medical history during the hiring process.
s/pregnant/cancer/ and then ask yourself if you would feel comfortable inquiring about medical history during the hiring process.
Honestly, this just fuels my dislike of startups. Startup culture is toxic by nature.
My advice is this: companies need to suck it up. We live in a society with rules and laws for a reason. If your business can't exist under those rules and laws, then it doesn't belong in society. Ventures that are detrimental to society simply shouldn't be allowed.
My advice is this: companies need to suck it up. We live in a society with rules and laws for a reason. If your business can't exist under those rules and laws, then it doesn't belong in society. Ventures that are detrimental to society simply shouldn't be allowed.
Please don't think OP's comment is representative of other startups. It isn't.
[deleted]
"many civilized parts of the world"
You should try visiting one of them.
You should try visiting one of them.
Strive to be better, Robert. This is Reddit-tier content and behaviour, maybe you would be more comfortable staying there?
If you look at my comment history I think I have a history of reasonably constructive additions to the community. I indulged in a bit of snark at what was, ultimately, a breathtakingly tone-deaf remark on your part. Speaking of, I might suggest laying off the MRA-ish diatribes.
That's all I have to say on this matter. I will not be posting further.
That's all I have to say on this matter. I will not be posting further.
Google has a cool system where everyone with a new child gets (very long and equal) parental leave. If you physically give birth, you get extra time for preparation and recovery (e.g. men and women adopting, etc. don’t get it). I think this is a good way to recognize the extra burden of parents who give birth while being fair on the parenting front.
The use of the word "equal" is reminiscent of the most famous of the seven commandments: "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others."
Seems weird to discriminate against adoptive parents... I understand the reasoning but seems weird. It would probably be better to have a medical policy applicable to everyone.
I think you are framing it incorrectly as discrimination.
If one stretches such an analogy, one could reason that paid sick leave is discriminating against healthy people. Not many people would agree with that one.
As you've stated, a sensible medical policy for everyone would be good. I would imagine that Google has a one.
If one stretches such an analogy, one could reason that paid sick leave is discriminating against healthy people. Not many people would agree with that one.
As you've stated, a sensible medical policy for everyone would be good. I would imagine that Google has a one.
Absolutely I agree that paid sick leave is discriminating against healthy people. If you're going to pay people to not work, everyone should be equally eligible.
Adoption isn't a debilitating medical condition so why would you get medical leave for it in addition to parental leave?
I think OP means that birth mothers get a little more time than fathers and adoptive parents. Having a baby is rough on the body, and there's a lot more to the physical recovery afterwards than most people realize. For example, if you have a c-section, it takes approximately 6 weeks to recover from that, and there are certain physical side effects that make it more difficult to work from an office until recovery is complete.
So that part is more like medical leave than parental leave (even though you're also parenting at the time).
So that part is more like medical leave than parental leave (even though you're also parenting at the time).
Adopted parents aren't excluded. You get the leave whether you are becoming a parent through adoption, surrogacy, child birth or fostering.
>everyone with a new child gets (very long and equal) parental leave.
Is offered or is forced to take?
Is offered or is forced to take?
That extra paternity leave can give the dad the opportunity to be around to assist the mom while she's recovering from the birth - which helps her too. (And recovering emotionally as well as physically - post-partum depression can be paralyzing.)
It's just too bad that there's no way to offer an equivalent benefit for women without partners to provide them the same sort of support.
It's just too bad that there's no way to offer an equivalent benefit for women without partners to provide them the same sort of support.
I don't follow what you're lamenting. That women without partners lack partners?
I guess I'm saying that the only women that paternity leave is unfair to in any way are those who lack partners.
Not that there's any simple solution to that. Maybe in a society that believed in social safety nets some sort of home aide could be available during the first few weeks.
Not that there's any simple solution to that. Maybe in a society that believed in social safety nets some sort of home aide could be available during the first few weeks.
> I guess I'm saying that the only women that paternity leave is unfair to in any way are those who lack partners.
It's not partner leave, it's paternity leave.
> some sort of home aide could be available during the first few weeks
Men don't take paternity leave solely to be 'home aide' - they're taking the time to bond with their new children.
It's not partner leave, it's paternity leave.
> some sort of home aide could be available during the first few weeks
Men don't take paternity leave solely to be 'home aide' - they're taking the time to bond with their new children.
No. For most women it's awesome that men get paternity leave.
@rconti suggested that equal paternity leave might be unfair because of the additional physical costs that women pay to give birth; I was disagreeing with that, saying that if anything paternity adds value for those women.
Paternity leave even adds value for women who will never have children, because it undercuts any argument that prefers hiring men over women because of parental leave.
The only women it doesn't add much value for are those without partners. "Unfair" is probably the wrong term. They're simply put at a disadvantage relative to other mothers as a result.
@rconti suggested that equal paternity leave might be unfair because of the additional physical costs that women pay to give birth; I was disagreeing with that, saying that if anything paternity adds value for those women.
Paternity leave even adds value for women who will never have children, because it undercuts any argument that prefers hiring men over women because of parental leave.
The only women it doesn't add much value for are those without partners. "Unfair" is probably the wrong term. They're simply put at a disadvantage relative to other mothers as a result.
> They're simply put at a disadvantage relative to other mothers as a result.
How on earth are they put at a disadvantage that someone who does not exist, and so does not need the benefit, does not get that benefit?
And more broadly is it nice to talk about someone else getting a benefit that they need as being putting people who do not get it at a 'disadvantage'?
Are you disadvantaged that people who can't walk get wheelchairs?
How on earth are they put at a disadvantage that someone who does not exist, and so does not need the benefit, does not get that benefit?
And more broadly is it nice to talk about someone else getting a benefit that they need as being putting people who do not get it at a 'disadvantage'?
Are you disadvantaged that people who can't walk get wheelchairs?
I'm saying that women who have partners who get paternity leave are able to get assistance and support in the weeks after giving birth when they're exhausted, healing, and in many cases fighting post-partum depression.
Women without partners or whose partners don't get leave have to face that time alone.
It's not a disadvantage in a competition. It's an additional obstacle to overcome that not everyone has to. I think it's a shame we can't give every mother the chance to have that physical assistance and moral support after giving birth.
(Of course, before we address that, maybe we should focus on making paid maternity leave universal. Imagine giving birth (pushing a watermelon out of your private parts or having it cut out of your abdomen) and then having to return to a physically demanding minimum wage job immediately after so you can still pay the rent and buy food? While being the sole caregiver for a baby who wakes you every 3 hours for feeding. I don't know how they do it. My friends who gave birth naturally were advised by their doctors not to even try to walk more than around the house for the first 6 weeks after, to allow for proper healing.)
Women without partners or whose partners don't get leave have to face that time alone.
It's not a disadvantage in a competition. It's an additional obstacle to overcome that not everyone has to. I think it's a shame we can't give every mother the chance to have that physical assistance and moral support after giving birth.
(Of course, before we address that, maybe we should focus on making paid maternity leave universal. Imagine giving birth (pushing a watermelon out of your private parts or having it cut out of your abdomen) and then having to return to a physically demanding minimum wage job immediately after so you can still pay the rent and buy food? While being the sole caregiver for a baby who wakes you every 3 hours for feeding. I don't know how they do it. My friends who gave birth naturally were advised by their doctors not to even try to walk more than around the house for the first 6 weeks after, to allow for proper healing.)
Having a partner when raising a child is an advantage over not having one. The advantage is not merely financial. That's all.
> alas, you can argue that it ignores the physical sacrifices the mother makes
Which is why California provides both equal paid bonding leave for parents (biological or adoptive) and paid pregnancy disability leave based on actual disability (with standard rules for uncomplicated cases) for those carrying a child.
Which is why California provides both equal paid bonding leave for parents (biological or adoptive) and paid pregnancy disability leave based on actual disability (with standard rules for uncomplicated cases) for those carrying a child.
One of my earlier memories is my dad going away to GW1. And when it wasn't war it was training or night flying or exchanges or just on standby while we were away. After my dad left the air force he worked in Saudi for 10 years or so, during which I spent much of my time in boarding schools.
Conversely I work from home and see my kids all the time, albeit they're still younger than my own memories. Only last week I had to two days work in London, about 3 hours commute each way, but I came home rather than stay in a hotel. It's rare we don't all sleep under the same roof.
I don't see my dad as having negative masculine attributes though, or myself as being any better. He was often used as a threat by my mother when we were misbehaving, but more often than not we were just pleased to see each other when he came home. I'm proud of him and the decisions he made, he did the best for his family often to his own detriment and the choices I was able to make just weren't available to him. At 6'5 there reverse is also true, or I'd have been doing all I could to follow the same path.
Conversely I work from home and see my kids all the time, albeit they're still younger than my own memories. Only last week I had to two days work in London, about 3 hours commute each way, but I came home rather than stay in a hotel. It's rare we don't all sleep under the same roof.
I don't see my dad as having negative masculine attributes though, or myself as being any better. He was often used as a threat by my mother when we were misbehaving, but more often than not we were just pleased to see each other when he came home. I'm proud of him and the decisions he made, he did the best for his family often to his own detriment and the choices I was able to make just weren't available to him. At 6'5 there reverse is also true, or I'd have been doing all I could to follow the same path.
Sorry if I'm obtuse but I guess it's because that's too tall for the air force?
Yeah.
At the time at least (this is also UK) you had to be under 6'1 for fast jets and although in theory you could be up to 6'4 for the big slow stuff or rotary wing initially they wouldn't know what aircraft type you'd be streamed for, so everyone had to be meet the lower height limit. I wasn't particularly interested in anything other than the fast jets either.
That said, I was also told the measurement that really mattered was the thigh length (jokes about losing kneecaps against the canopy if you ejected). So you could potentially still be accepted if you were a little over 6'1 but carried more of your height in your torso and a doctor measured your thigh length as being below a limit. I figured I was way over though and my legs don't look particularly short for my height.
At the time at least (this is also UK) you had to be under 6'1 for fast jets and although in theory you could be up to 6'4 for the big slow stuff or rotary wing initially they wouldn't know what aircraft type you'd be streamed for, so everyone had to be meet the lower height limit. I wasn't particularly interested in anything other than the fast jets either.
That said, I was also told the measurement that really mattered was the thigh length (jokes about losing kneecaps against the canopy if you ejected). So you could potentially still be accepted if you were a little over 6'1 but carried more of your height in your torso and a doctor measured your thigh length as being below a limit. I figured I was way over though and my legs don't look particularly short for my height.
[deleted]
Cockpits have maximum height limits. It varies by plane model.
Hypothesis: Today's dads behave more like kids, compared to previous generations.
I mean, 40 year olds dress like teenagers (sneakers, t-shirt, jeans, sometimes a cap), they often have the same hobbies as teenagers (e.g. video gaming), and responsibility is low because there is a high level of social security.
I mean, 40 year olds dress like teenagers (sneakers, t-shirt, jeans, sometimes a cap), they often have the same hobbies as teenagers (e.g. video gaming), and responsibility is low because there is a high level of social security.
> Hypothesis: Today's dads behave more like kids, compared to previous generations.
> I mean, 40 year olds dress like teenagers (sneakers, t-shirt, jeans, sometimes a cap), they often have the same hobbies as teenagers (e.g. video gaming)...
I'm with you to this point. The 'adult' father figures of the past - for example, as exaggerated in the character of George Banks from Mary Poppins - were much more austere and had higher societal requirements regarding acceptable activities and behaviors. If that means that they are involved in the lives of their children rather than simply trusting that the nanny has them scrubbed, tubbed, and adequately fed, so much the better!
As Mr. Banks lamented,
> and responsibility is low because there is a high level of social security.
Uh, I took a different track than you did. You seem to be of the opinion that fathers being more involved is due to the fact that they are kids. I believe that they choose instead to decline the negative aspects of traditional masculinity and, in so doing, are better than if they had maintained those aspects. This may mean that they wear comfortable clothes rather than suffering in a suit and tie, or that they are more active (their children may see their fathers doing undignified activities like running when they could be walking), or that they change their kids' diapers or feed them rather than leaving those tasks to the womenfolk. All positive changes, in my opinion!
People shouldn't need a fear of death by starvation to motivate them. If a removal of this fear allows them to be better people, that's a good thing. If some people abuse the safety net, things would not be better if it were absent and they simply crashed.
> I mean, 40 year olds dress like teenagers (sneakers, t-shirt, jeans, sometimes a cap), they often have the same hobbies as teenagers (e.g. video gaming)...
I'm with you to this point. The 'adult' father figures of the past - for example, as exaggerated in the character of George Banks from Mary Poppins - were much more austere and had higher societal requirements regarding acceptable activities and behaviors. If that means that they are involved in the lives of their children rather than simply trusting that the nanny has them scrubbed, tubbed, and adequately fed, so much the better!
As Mr. Banks lamented,
You've got to grind, grind, grind
At that grindstone
Though childhood slips like sand through a sieve
And all too soon they've up and grown
And then they've flown
And it's too late for you to give
Just that spoonful of sugar
To help the medicine go down
> and responsibility is low because there is a high level of social security.
Uh, I took a different track than you did. You seem to be of the opinion that fathers being more involved is due to the fact that they are kids. I believe that they choose instead to decline the negative aspects of traditional masculinity and, in so doing, are better than if they had maintained those aspects. This may mean that they wear comfortable clothes rather than suffering in a suit and tie, or that they are more active (their children may see their fathers doing undignified activities like running when they could be walking), or that they change their kids' diapers or feed them rather than leaving those tasks to the womenfolk. All positive changes, in my opinion!
People shouldn't need a fear of death by starvation to motivate them. If a removal of this fear allows them to be better people, that's a good thing. If some people abuse the safety net, things would not be better if it were absent and they simply crashed.
Interesting point.
I don't think behaving more like kids is something confined to dads, or even men as a whole either. It seems modern adults are maturing far more slowly or even showing some signs of regression now.
I don't have anything to compare it with, but grown men burning their evenings in front of a games console, playing games aimed at children, and grown women slathering pictures of themselves all over social media in an attempt to garner attention and social acceptance, with both groups seeming to want to be their kids' "buddies" more than ever, doesn't seem to be a positive direction for things to go in.
Who knows. I may be bah humbugging here. I'm young enough that I can't reasonably say "in my day adults were adults!", just that the direction things appear to be going in (socially, and as role models for children) does not appear to be promising.
I don't think behaving more like kids is something confined to dads, or even men as a whole either. It seems modern adults are maturing far more slowly or even showing some signs of regression now.
I don't have anything to compare it with, but grown men burning their evenings in front of a games console, playing games aimed at children, and grown women slathering pictures of themselves all over social media in an attempt to garner attention and social acceptance, with both groups seeming to want to be their kids' "buddies" more than ever, doesn't seem to be a positive direction for things to go in.
Who knows. I may be bah humbugging here. I'm young enough that I can't reasonably say "in my day adults were adults!", just that the direction things appear to be going in (socially, and as role models for children) does not appear to be promising.
> I may be bah humbugging here.
You are. Two things:
1. How is spending (not burning) an evening in front of the console any worse than spending it in front of the TV?
2. You're painting with a really, really broad brush there. Some grown men play a lot of video games, and some women post a lot on social media, but not all of them do, and in any case, I'm not entirely sure what the problem with socializing online is.
You are. Two things:
1. How is spending (not burning) an evening in front of the console any worse than spending it in front of the TV?
2. You're painting with a really, really broad brush there. Some grown men play a lot of video games, and some women post a lot on social media, but not all of them do, and in any case, I'm not entirely sure what the problem with socializing online is.
1: I'm not advocating in favour of spending it front of the TV. Both are a waste.
2: The damage being done by social media and the rise in narcissism, toward society at large, towards children and towards mental health, is pretty well documented at this point.
2: The damage being done by social media and the rise in narcissism, toward society at large, towards children and towards mental health, is pretty well documented at this point.
I very much agree. I've thought for some time now how I have much in more common with my 8 year old nephew (I'm 34) than with my own father. My father's interest include hunting, bows, knives, religion, war aritifacts and memorabilia, and other things which were common among men for a hundred years. Things rapidly changed in the information age, so I grew up with computers and video games in similar ways to kids today. Granted we didn't have the level of mobile technology, but I still had Gameboy. And many of the same franchises from the 80s/90s have persisted in popularity to today - Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Nintendo characters, Lego just to name a few. I've matured out of most kid things, but my point is that I can relate much more to my nephew over those things than my father could to me.
> because there is a high level of social security.
Not in America.
Not in America.
In a broader sense there is: if you lose your job, it's easy to find a new one.
Yeah, if you're a software developer with the right job skills who's personable enough to fit in with a team.
But tell that to the soon-to-be-homeless dev who posted this morning, tell that to people who aren't in our industry, tell it to minimum-wage earners, tell that to people in Bumbleshit, Nebraska.
But tell that to the soon-to-be-homeless dev who posted this morning, tell that to people who aren't in our industry, tell it to minimum-wage earners, tell that to people in Bumbleshit, Nebraska.
[deleted]
Um, no. Past generations didn't have sneakers, t-shirts, jeans, or video games, and social security is at an all-time low (at least in the US).
Dads in the past were remarkably shitty and it isn't really even clear why.
Dads in the past were remarkably shitty and it isn't really even clear why.
I feel like the article is pushing a false dichotomy between being a "tough guy" and caring for his children.
Why can't I be warm, understanding and available to my children and still be a "tough guy" (with "toxic masculinity") towards strangers, or colleagues, or my team mates in the soccer club?
After all, there is a very different level of trust within the family.
Why can't I be warm, understanding and available to my children and still be a "tough guy" (with "toxic masculinity") towards strangers, or colleagues, or my team mates in the soccer club?
After all, there is a very different level of trust within the family.
I’m a relatively new dad so maybe the novelty just hasn’t worn off but I can’t understand fathers who don’t interact with their kids. I do it as much as I can, it’s the best. Not always easy but always good.
I'm a new dad too, but my father is a 30-year veteran of fatherdom, with the benefit of some new experience as a grandfather thrown in. He and I recently had a heart-to-heart about this. He lamented that he didn't spend more time with me when I was an infant, a toddler, and a kid - he left that to my mother, due to a socially conditioned view of tasks like changing diapers as her responsibility.
He still has an instinct to ask my mother whenever my son needs something, and I remind him "No, Dad, I can cook/bandage/clean/change that. We don't need to ask Grandma to take care of it. Why don't you cook up a few of your famous hamburgers and I'll get the boy ready for dinner?" - and he's still a bit hesitant to watch his grandson when grandma's not home.
But through his hindsight, he agrees that (1) the novelty doesn't wear off, it changes way too fast, (2) do it as much as you can, because time is limited, and (3) it definitely is the best. Though you may get a reprise as a grandparent someday, which is possibly even better because you can send them home with new noisy toys after they've been spoiled and are on a sugar high.
He still has an instinct to ask my mother whenever my son needs something, and I remind him "No, Dad, I can cook/bandage/clean/change that. We don't need to ask Grandma to take care of it. Why don't you cook up a few of your famous hamburgers and I'll get the boy ready for dinner?" - and he's still a bit hesitant to watch his grandson when grandma's not home.
But through his hindsight, he agrees that (1) the novelty doesn't wear off, it changes way too fast, (2) do it as much as you can, because time is limited, and (3) it definitely is the best. Though you may get a reprise as a grandparent someday, which is possibly even better because you can send them home with new noisy toys after they've been spoiled and are on a sugar high.
Thanks for the input, I am very thankful we have less pressure in our culture to follow traditional father roles. Not that those fathers were uncaring but they were expected to be a bit more removed and constrained than we are today. One thing is for sure is that time definitely goes by twice as fast!
I run my own internet based business teaching full stack dev out of a bedroom converted to an office. My 2 daughters (5 & 8) are homeschooled.
It can be extremely challenging at times trying to work, but I am able to be in their life a lot more than your average dad.
I flew out to Cali to record a course last year and it was my first time away from my family for a few days. Before leaving, I thought it was going to be awesome to take a break from them. I realized just how damn attached I was to them during that time. I never experienced home sickness like that before. I was like a little baby.
It can be extremely challenging at times trying to work, but I am able to be in their life a lot more than your average dad.
I flew out to Cali to record a course last year and it was my first time away from my family for a few days. Before leaving, I thought it was going to be awesome to take a break from them. I realized just how damn attached I was to them during that time. I never experienced home sickness like that before. I was like a little baby.
Simple question: But is this a positive? For the dads? The moms? And most importantly, the kids?
More is more. More is not better.
More is more. More is not better.
I don't imagine these kids growing up saying "I wish my dad hadn't spent so much time with me." Maybe in the helicopter parent sense, but an increase in quality time with your dad doesn't necessarily mean a decrease in independent play, or child-led play. If it does, then I would likely be concerned as there is mounting evidence that decreasing independence is not good for kids.
Whether the kids would say that or not is (semi) irrelevant to my point.
You are a by-product of your parents. What you've learned from them - about life, as well as a model of parenting - often carries forward. The problem is this: you wanting to share what you've learned doesn't mean what you learned is worth sharing.
In short, for some percentage of these kids, this increase could be bad news.
The question is: How many? And in what way?
You are a by-product of your parents. What you've learned from them - about life, as well as a model of parenting - often carries forward. The problem is this: you wanting to share what you've learned doesn't mean what you learned is worth sharing.
In short, for some percentage of these kids, this increase could be bad news.
The question is: How many? And in what way?
I consider myself lucky that my dad had less conventional work hours. He would leave for work around 6:30 in the morning, and be home by 4. He was always able to help me with my homework, and do other activities.
Study: Today’s moms are engaging less with their kids
I believe that is a side effect of increased productivity and prosperity but is this study conditioned on the children having dads in first place? Because I believe single mother phenomenon is on a rapid rise in USA. What about children who dont know their dads ?
They were studying fathers, so their denominator was fathers, not children. There's plenty of research showing that fathers make a big difference in their children's lives and happiness. From what I can tell this study doesn't speak to that one way or the other.
My point has been that even though fathers are spending more time with children on an average all children are receiving lesser fatherly attention on an average. May be fathers who love children are staying in marriage thus giving a bias to the whole study.
> all children are receiving lesser fatherly attention on an average
Provide some facts to back up this claim.
> May be fathers who love children are staying in marriage
It sounds like you are saying that fathers that leave marriages don't love their children? Is that what you are saying?
Provide some facts to back up this claim.
> May be fathers who love children are staying in marriage
It sounds like you are saying that fathers that leave marriages don't love their children? Is that what you are saying?
> It sounds like you are saying that fathers that leave marriages don't love their children? Is that what you are saying?
There is this excellent tool called google that can help you get all the numbers. You should consider using it Sir.
Check this resource: http://www.fathers.com/statistics-and-research/the-extent-of...
Let us just consider African Americans. around 70% of Black children born last year did not have a father. Are you saying these people loved the children and yet for some unknown reason would not be present to take care of the child or provide child support ?
As of today 1 in 3 children in USA are growing up in a household without a father. Are these fathers spending time with their kids ? You tell me.
There is this excellent tool called google that can help you get all the numbers. You should consider using it Sir.
Check this resource: http://www.fathers.com/statistics-and-research/the-extent-of...
Let us just consider African Americans. around 70% of Black children born last year did not have a father. Are you saying these people loved the children and yet for some unknown reason would not be present to take care of the child or provide child support ?
As of today 1 in 3 children in USA are growing up in a household without a father. Are these fathers spending time with their kids ? You tell me.
Many of us fathers who spend a lot of time with our children are single.
> Because I believe single mother phenomenon is on a rapid rise in USA. What about children who dont know their dads ?
A single mother doesn't imply that the children don't know or spend time with their father.
Perhaps even children with single mothers see more of their fathers, because when they stay with their fathers they get more attention from him? I don't know, but I guess you don't really know either.
A single mother doesn't imply that the children don't know or spend time with their father.
Perhaps even children with single mothers see more of their fathers, because when they stay with their fathers they get more attention from him? I don't know, but I guess you don't really know either.
I don't want to take away from the results from the study. But it would be a great area to study the relationship between men and interaction with women, especially those displaying toxic femininity, in the context of fatherhood.
Don't know if anyone coined the term toxic femininity, but it should obviously be a field of study, just as toxic masculinity is.
Don't know if anyone coined the term toxic femininity, but it should obviously be a field of study, just as toxic masculinity is.
What would 'toxic femininity' look like?
If toxic masculinity is defined by exaggerated gender role behavior that is a negative for the individual and society, then toxic femininity should be defined in the exact same terms.
Female gender role is strongly associated with motherhood and personal appearance so toxic femininity could for example be exaggeration of those aspects. Two examples would be possessiveness of children and the abuse of plastic surgery.
The question is why people are using such gendered terms that so easily get perceived as derogatory if all we want is to a term to help discussions around exaggerated gender role behavior that causes negative effects. Personally I avoid using both and see those that do as pushing an agenda rather than addressing the core issue that we have gender roles and those have a negative impact on society.
Female gender role is strongly associated with motherhood and personal appearance so toxic femininity could for example be exaggeration of those aspects. Two examples would be possessiveness of children and the abuse of plastic surgery.
The question is why people are using such gendered terms that so easily get perceived as derogatory if all we want is to a term to help discussions around exaggerated gender role behavior that causes negative effects. Personally I avoid using both and see those that do as pushing an agenda rather than addressing the core issue that we have gender roles and those have a negative impact on society.
You've probably seen it, there are certainly examples. Emotional manipulation of the husband, emotional manipulation of the child about the husband.
I mean there are a lot of things someone displaying this type of behaviour, can do to hurt the relationship between the father and the child, even if she is the mother of the child.
I mean there are a lot of things someone displaying this type of behaviour, can do to hurt the relationship between the father and the child, even if she is the mother of the child.
Let's just not use either term.
to_bpr(1)
I am the 'good cop' here in da house :D
I was trying to understand andrewclunn now dead comment below. Basically he was saying there was no need for the author of the article (not the study) to write "toxic masculinity" narrative. When I clicked on the PDF, to scan for the word "toxic" I was unable to open the PDF. Did the author of the article Jon McBride artificially put this narrative spin on the study?
If so, I don't understand why somebody would do this. Studies like this bring us wonderful news, there is no need to add negative connotation. Sure the tone of andrewclunn comment is debatable, but given he is a father, I think he is entitled to be upset about this because I am also. What do you think HN.
If so, I don't understand why somebody would do this. Studies like this bring us wonderful news, there is no need to add negative connotation. Sure the tone of andrewclunn comment is debatable, but given he is a father, I think he is entitled to be upset about this because I am also. What do you think HN.
I don't see the comment you're referring to, but McBride was quoting one of the authors of the study. Technically this isn't "spin", Toxic Masculinity and Hegemonic Masculinity are both fields of study in psychology having to do with promotion of dominance and violence. I think both fields influenced this study. It looks like they developed a Parent-Child-Conflict scale that included spanking, hitting, or threatening physical harm to measure some of this, but the study is much more broader than just this.
> Toxic Masculinity and Hegemonic Masculinity are both fields of study in psychology
Can you cite that? If that's how today's psychology is defining things, then that's a sign that field is totally screwed.
Can you cite that? If that's how today's psychology is defining things, then that's a sign that field is totally screwed.
Spanking is considered to be a "toxic" display of masculinity these days?
It’s against the law in New Zealand for example.
You may restrain a child for their safety but the use of force for “parental correction” is treated as assault and can be prosecuted. The police are encouraged to apply discretion.
You may restrain a child for their safety but the use of force for “parental correction” is treated as assault and can be prosecuted. The police are encouraged to apply discretion.
That's pretty absurd. There's a huge difference between smacking a kid's backside as punishment and actually causing physical harm.
Furthermore, huge swaths of the population have grown up with the occasional spanking and somehow managed to avoid PTSD or other emotional/mental problems.
Labeling it a "toxic masculine" practice is idiocy.
Furthermore, huge swaths of the population have grown up with the occasional spanking and somehow managed to avoid PTSD or other emotional/mental problems.
Labeling it a "toxic masculine" practice is idiocy.
Generally speaking, It is not illegal in the US unless you leave visible marks (e.g. bruises). Even then, it would be reported but little action would be taken unless there are additional issues with the child’s safety.
It is still common in many places for a “whooping” to be used to keep kids in line.
It is still common in many places for a “whooping” to be used to keep kids in line.
I do not support criminal prosecution for parental spanking but I consider you've already failed as a parent if you need to "whoop" a child. In another world where child welfare services have a better reputation, I might even suggest that such parents should be forcefully relieved from parental duties.
I had to look up Hegemonic Masculinity, and I think I definitely know somebody with this trait (if it is valid) -- one of my employees. I hired him specifically to deal with problems with other employees as a manager. Part of his job he leaves early to coach soccer (which they are doing good, going to state). His children are great and he is completely engaged on a daily basis (they all live on a large farm, if that makes this different) so this is inconsistent with what I know. I wonder how they screened fathers and categorized them, I can't find the actual text of the study.
Huh? How is coaching soccer incompatible with spanking?
Probably something to do with this:
>The study also showed a correlation between fathers who exhibit negative aspects of traditional masculinity and fathers who are less involved with their children.
>“It’s important to understand what masculinity is and is not,” Shafer said. “In some circles, when people hear terms like hegemonic or toxic masculinity, they think those are attacking all men. Not so. There are some very beneficial aspects of masculinity — being goal-oriented or being loyal, for example. However, we are talking about more problematic aspects of masculinity — like aggression, detached relationships, not showing emotion and failing to ask for help. These are negative aspects of traditional masculinity, and our research suggests it hurts families.”
Some of that I take issue with as well. Being able to seriously turn down your emotions or at least not show them is a really useful skill in situations where emotions run high. I would certainly have no problem if my own children (regardless of gender) were less emotional, I think it's probably better than being the same distance from "average" in the other direction.
>The study also showed a correlation between fathers who exhibit negative aspects of traditional masculinity and fathers who are less involved with their children.
>“It’s important to understand what masculinity is and is not,” Shafer said. “In some circles, when people hear terms like hegemonic or toxic masculinity, they think those are attacking all men. Not so. There are some very beneficial aspects of masculinity — being goal-oriented or being loyal, for example. However, we are talking about more problematic aspects of masculinity — like aggression, detached relationships, not showing emotion and failing to ask for help. These are negative aspects of traditional masculinity, and our research suggests it hurts families.”
Some of that I take issue with as well. Being able to seriously turn down your emotions or at least not show them is a really useful skill in situations where emotions run high. I would certainly have no problem if my own children (regardless of gender) were less emotional, I think it's probably better than being the same distance from "average" in the other direction.
The frustrating thing for me is that hiding emotion, physical aggression, and detached relationships are associated with masculinity at all. For men who don't like those things it's basically saying they're not men.
I don't think authors mean that men need to be "emotional" all the time. They seem to be saying that being detached and hiding emotions prevents men from seeking help or forming stronger relationships.
This idea comes from a stereotypically female perspective. Men typically form stronger relationships with other men through shared struggles -- playing on a team together, going hunting, building something, etc. Working together and not complaining builds trust. To say that the female approach of long emotional talks and displays is objectively superior is not justified.
Ask one of your friends who works in a female dominated workplace what it's like. They might prefer a bit more stoicism, less emotional displays, and more working together without complaint.
Ask one of your friends who works in a female dominated workplace what it's like. They might prefer a bit more stoicism, less emotional displays, and more working together without complaint.
The practical issue is that men commit suicide more often and it seems like they suffer loneliness more often, especially at later age. The shared struggle only socialization does now work at all when you are sick or in bad situation. They also end up dependent on their wifes for keeping social network, which works until it does not. They also seem to vent their frustration in bigger angry blow ups which harms a.) themselves, b.) their families, c.) mostly other men who are most likely victims of their violence. "Not complaining" is literally about having taboo you cant talk about - it is not the same as being content. So, they lash out instead.
Men do have emotional displays, like constantly. If you work in tech, I doubt you never seen someone lash out over petty difference in coding style, change of requirements, completely loose it on analyst etc. "The lack of social skills" is often euphemism for "can keep control over negative emotions".
The other interesting issue I see is that women are according to stereotypes both a.) more cooperative and easier to work with and b.) horrible to work with - depending precisely on which variant makes women inferior in the context.
Men do have emotional displays, like constantly. If you work in tech, I doubt you never seen someone lash out over petty difference in coding style, change of requirements, completely loose it on analyst etc. "The lack of social skills" is often euphemism for "can keep control over negative emotions".
The other interesting issue I see is that women are according to stereotypes both a.) more cooperative and easier to work with and b.) horrible to work with - depending precisely on which variant makes women inferior in the context.
Is this the fault of men or a largely "feminized" modern environment? In other words, an environment where women are safer than ever(which I fully support) is incidentally one with very few ways for men to form social bonds with each other; there are very few ways for most men to face shared struggles, at least without being told that their arenas are "too aggressive" for women.
> The other interesting issue I see is that women are according to stereotypes both a.) more cooperative and easier to work with and b.) horrible to work with - depending precisely on which variant makes women inferior in the context.
I challenge the very concept that women are more cooperative; they simply cooperate differently from men. When men are overtly challenging one another, they are usually cooperating in the sense that they are playing by the same hierarchical rules. Women cooperate through covertly challenging each other while overtly playing by rules that limit the amount of displayed aggression and promote hospitable behavior. Both have their advantages and disadvantages, but the fact that men tend to be more aggressive to each other is not to say that they aren't very cooperative with one another; if that weren't the case, men on average would be far more underhanded and circumvent rules on a regular basis.
> The other interesting issue I see is that women are according to stereotypes both a.) more cooperative and easier to work with and b.) horrible to work with - depending precisely on which variant makes women inferior in the context.
I challenge the very concept that women are more cooperative; they simply cooperate differently from men. When men are overtly challenging one another, they are usually cooperating in the sense that they are playing by the same hierarchical rules. Women cooperate through covertly challenging each other while overtly playing by rules that limit the amount of displayed aggression and promote hospitable behavior. Both have their advantages and disadvantages, but the fact that men tend to be more aggressive to each other is not to say that they aren't very cooperative with one another; if that weren't the case, men on average would be far more underhanded and circumvent rules on a regular basis.
If that would be true, men in male dominated jobs and with male dominated hobbies would not had the above problems - but they do.
A lot of suicide is when men retire, get long term unemployed or divorces (divorces are harder on men statistically these days). In two of those you cease to have "shared struggle", but not because women presence caused it. More like, people you knew disappeared. You are not useful to them anymore.
Workers don't share struggle, because most work is about struggle against colllegues, competition and people change jobs often anyway. Combined with working more then 60 hours a week, female presence is hardly the primary reason for lack of long term friendship that sticks as you get unemployed or sick. (I don't think the job should supply socialization, but it does for people working a lot.)
And men like you just described openly challenge those under them in hierarchy, but rarely those higher then them. So, I have reservations about that openness you talk about. It is less about openness and more about never saying you disagree with higher ups in hierarchy and lashing out when perceived lowers disagree or criticize you - because that is interpreted as challenge.
A lot of suicide is when men retire, get long term unemployed or divorces (divorces are harder on men statistically these days). In two of those you cease to have "shared struggle", but not because women presence caused it. More like, people you knew disappeared. You are not useful to them anymore.
Workers don't share struggle, because most work is about struggle against colllegues, competition and people change jobs often anyway. Combined with working more then 60 hours a week, female presence is hardly the primary reason for lack of long term friendship that sticks as you get unemployed or sick. (I don't think the job should supply socialization, but it does for people working a lot.)
And men like you just described openly challenge those under them in hierarchy, but rarely those higher then them. So, I have reservations about that openness you talk about. It is less about openness and more about never saying you disagree with higher ups in hierarchy and lashing out when perceived lowers disagree or criticize you - because that is interpreted as challenge.
If you work in tech, you're not dealing with typical masculine behavior. Much of the anti-male sentiment in tech is from men (from the perspective of women) getting/internalizing the rewards of being successful without acting like a successful man.
Men normally are able to control their negative emotions, but you're right that women can be dichotomous, especially in tech. You can predict it if you know why and how they got into the industry.
Men normally are able to control their negative emotions, but you're right that women can be dichotomous, especially in tech. You can predict it if you know why and how they got into the industry.
There is no more manly profession then working in tech for collage educated people. People are literally choosing tech because, and I am quoting here, "it is good job for a boy". I mean, it is good job, but boys are not loosing masculinity by doing tech at all. Quite the opposite.
Men in tech are somewhat more introverted then the rest. They are not more emotional nor feminine then actors, writers, sales or literally any profession. Speaking of groups, the men with least in control are those who end up in jail and similar troubles.
Men in tech are somewhat more introverted then the rest. They are not more emotional nor feminine then actors, writers, sales or literally any profession. Speaking of groups, the men with least in control are those who end up in jail and similar troubles.
>There is no more manly profession then working in tech for collage educated people.
Please state the culture for context. This is absolutely not the case in the West.
Please state the culture for context. This is absolutely not the case in the West.
I'm assuming this is India you're talking about?
Being physically aggressive is not a more healthy way to handle emotions than acknowledging emotions exist.
The rest of your post is non sequitur. Improving the unhealthy parts of male life does not mean making everyone stereotypically female.
The rest of your post is non sequitur. Improving the unhealthy parts of male life does not mean making everyone stereotypically female.
> Being able to seriously turn down your emotions or at least not show them is a really useful skill in situations where emotions run high.
And that kind of behaviour is neither toxic, nor particularly masculine.
It's the inability to show emotions even when appropriate or helpful that is the toxic bit.
And that kind of behaviour is neither toxic, nor particularly masculine.
It's the inability to show emotions even when appropriate or helpful that is the toxic bit.
I don't follow you, the article author is quoting the study's co-author when toxic masculinity is brought up.
I think this field - sociology - and the humanities in general have become so much politicised that it is very hard to find articles on subjects like these which do not read like an action plan for some or other political group. While I could not get the article through Wiley I did find it on Sci-Hub:
http://sci-hub.tw/https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12476
And yes, with lines like "... Given that hegemonic masculinity persists as the dominant gender norm in the United States, the results from this study suggest that further increasing father involvement may require changing the current gendered structure of society ..." it could just as well have been a point of action for some feminist organisation as a research article. This in return will cause the article to be dismissed out of hand by those on 'the other side' - often describing themselves as being 'red-pilled' after Cassie Jaye's documentary 'The Red Pill' on the subject of modern feminism versus the men's rights movement [1].
In my own opinion this article does not pass the muster as it tries to fit the concept of fatherhood in an ideological framework which only fits those who are already on board. While the actual term 'toxic masculinity' is not used it is clear that the concept is seen as valid and as a driving factor behind the supposed failure to be 'good fathers'. In short, it tries to portray a causality between the acceptance of 'modern gender ideology' (in contrast to 'traditional gender ideology') and good fathering. This is a political standpoint, not a scientific conclusion and as such this article and the conclusions drawn in it lose their relevance.
[1] http://theredpillmovie.com/
http://sci-hub.tw/https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12476
And yes, with lines like "... Given that hegemonic masculinity persists as the dominant gender norm in the United States, the results from this study suggest that further increasing father involvement may require changing the current gendered structure of society ..." it could just as well have been a point of action for some feminist organisation as a research article. This in return will cause the article to be dismissed out of hand by those on 'the other side' - often describing themselves as being 'red-pilled' after Cassie Jaye's documentary 'The Red Pill' on the subject of modern feminism versus the men's rights movement [1].
In my own opinion this article does not pass the muster as it tries to fit the concept of fatherhood in an ideological framework which only fits those who are already on board. While the actual term 'toxic masculinity' is not used it is clear that the concept is seen as valid and as a driving factor behind the supposed failure to be 'good fathers'. In short, it tries to portray a causality between the acceptance of 'modern gender ideology' (in contrast to 'traditional gender ideology') and good fathering. This is a political standpoint, not a scientific conclusion and as such this article and the conclusions drawn in it lose their relevance.
[1] http://theredpillmovie.com/
> I think this field - sociology - and the humanities in general have become so much politicised ... it could just as well have been a point of action for some feminist organisation as a research article
You may be right on the whole, but this out of BYU—one of the most conservative and family-oriented universities in the US.
You may be right on the whole, but this out of BYU—one of the most conservative and family-oriented universities in the US.
I can't understand why your comment has been downvoted.
Discussions on the reasons for downvoting are frowned upon here so it is best not to discuss this 'out in the open'.
Unfortunately, HackerNews has had a significant influx of users over the last 18-24 months from other sites that shan't be named, and it has resulted in the same toxic behaviour/tribalism/feels-based-voting that exists on the site the same people discovered HN on.
I believe we're at the point where HN may need to reconsider the visibility of the voting system here, again unfortunately.
I believe we're at the point where HN may need to reconsider the visibility of the voting system here, again unfortunately.
Something I find bemusing are the never ending slew of studies that aim to evangelize 'new ideas' in parenting and child rearing contrasted against the negative changes in outcomes of children and young adults in the US today. Children and young adults in the US today are, compared to decades past, suffering sharp spikes in mental illness, obesity, as well as performing relatively worse academically and even exhibiting lower average IQ.
It seems that something we have done or changed has resulted in an incredibly negative change in developmental outcomes. Yet there simultaneously seems to be no little to no effort to see what we were doing so well before, or what we're doing so poorly now in. Instead studies such this one instead seek to constantly demonize past practice and evangelize for new change for reasons that seem to be almost exclusively driven by ideological bias.
Or shall we simply remain in denial?
It seems that something we have done or changed has resulted in an incredibly negative change in developmental outcomes. Yet there simultaneously seems to be no little to no effort to see what we were doing so well before, or what we're doing so poorly now in. Instead studies such this one instead seek to constantly demonize past practice and evangelize for new change for reasons that seem to be almost exclusively driven by ideological bias.
Or shall we simply remain in denial?
" suffering sharp spikes in mental illness, obesity, as well as performing relatively worse academically and even exhibiting lower average IQ"
There's been really quite a lot of research into these kinds of thing. There is no doubt that in many respects the environment that kids are being bought up in today is more stressful, distracting, uncertain, unstable etc.
I don't think you have to look at changes in parenting style to account or them.
There's been really quite a lot of research into these kinds of thing. There is no doubt that in many respects the environment that kids are being bought up in today is more stressful, distracting, uncertain, unstable etc.
I don't think you have to look at changes in parenting style to account or them.
What!? Kids in earlier times, even as recently as the 80s grew up in a time where they were constantly facing the very real threat of nuclear annihilation at moment's notice! With nuclear drills only being ended sometime in the 90s. In the 80s the we had a political era that included real assassination attempts on the president, the pope, and more, violent crime was at record highs, and more. Today is more "stressful, distracting, uncertain, unstable, etc" how exactly?
And you're again doing what I think is actually quite dangerous, yet also standard practice in the social sciences. While I think your presumption is wrong, you're assuming that not only is it true but if it were true than it would naturally have a causal explanation for another factor. Yet I think there is an extremely strong argument that your presumption would actually have a causal effect in the exact opposite method of which you imply.
Humanity excels when dealing with crisis. Nearly all of our evolutionary existence has been living in times of great adversity. I think the fact we live in such relative comfort and safety now a days is something may be interacting negatively with our evolutionary wiring (such a hypothesis would even explain things such as 'outrage culture' and internet activism - in lieu of problems, create them!) As I mentioned IQs are decreasing (and literally decreasing - not 'increasing more slowly' towards an asymptotic zero), but this is something that's only happening in the developed world. In the developing world, where lives are still much harder and threats more imminent - IQs continue to increase, academic performance is increasing, and so on. Vietnam for instance, today is ranked 8th in the world in science - as they teach with a per student budget a tiny fraction of ours, even parity adjusted. There are clearly many factors to progress that we seem to just have 0 interest in considering.
And you're again doing what I think is actually quite dangerous, yet also standard practice in the social sciences. While I think your presumption is wrong, you're assuming that not only is it true but if it were true than it would naturally have a causal explanation for another factor. Yet I think there is an extremely strong argument that your presumption would actually have a causal effect in the exact opposite method of which you imply.
Humanity excels when dealing with crisis. Nearly all of our evolutionary existence has been living in times of great adversity. I think the fact we live in such relative comfort and safety now a days is something may be interacting negatively with our evolutionary wiring (such a hypothesis would even explain things such as 'outrage culture' and internet activism - in lieu of problems, create them!) As I mentioned IQs are decreasing (and literally decreasing - not 'increasing more slowly' towards an asymptotic zero), but this is something that's only happening in the developed world. In the developing world, where lives are still much harder and threats more imminent - IQs continue to increase, academic performance is increasing, and so on. Vietnam for instance, today is ranked 8th in the world in science - as they teach with a per student budget a tiny fraction of ours, even parity adjusted. There are clearly many factors to progress that we seem to just have 0 interest in considering.
I grew up in the early 70s and while the threat of nuclear annihilation was ever present, it rarely impinged on every day life. Meanwhile we were playing in the streets after school and riding our bikes around during the school holidays from 10am until 5pm.
Bullying was restricted to the playground and the few kids that you kept away from. If you were lucky, your folks probably had a job that they would stay in until they retired, and there was far less homework and exam pressure than these days.
The fact is that no-one really understands why the Flynn effect is apparently reversing. It's likely that the extraordinary increases in from the 1948s until 2008 were prompted by improvements in nutrition, education... or possibly that people got better at the skills needed to do well in the test.
The hypothesis that improvements were down to hardship and adversity is certainly a novel one. Novel and speculative. Novel, speculative and unsupported. Still, if it makes you happy, make sure you scare your kids every night.
Bullying was restricted to the playground and the few kids that you kept away from. If you were lucky, your folks probably had a job that they would stay in until they retired, and there was far less homework and exam pressure than these days.
The fact is that no-one really understands why the Flynn effect is apparently reversing. It's likely that the extraordinary increases in from the 1948s until 2008 were prompted by improvements in nutrition, education... or possibly that people got better at the skills needed to do well in the test.
The hypothesis that improvements were down to hardship and adversity is certainly a novel one. Novel and speculative. Novel, speculative and unsupported. Still, if it makes you happy, make sure you scare your kids every night.
A couple of the things. The first is that if your explanation, which is the most convenient, to explain the Flynn effect was correct we'd expect to see a decline approaching some asymptotic zero as we experienced diminishing returns from things like nutrition and education. But this is not what's happening. IQs are getting literally lower (not growing more slowly), and substantially so. 84% of people fall within the first standard deviation, which in IQ is normalized to 15 points, and we're seeing declines of multiple points that don't seem to be stopping. That's really something that I think should be extremely concerning, but socially we seem to have a bit of head-in-the-sand defense mechanism in play.
On support. I'd say my hypothesis is just about as supported as the average view in social sciences. I could certainly formulate an experiment of passable merit to confirm my biases. Of course that by no means means the hypothesis is right, but rather that the notion of scientific support in social views is something I think we should take as a default to be practically meaningless. There are so many ways to quantify and qualify various aspects of society that near any hypothesis can be proven if you play with the data enough. This paper is evidence of such:
"To date, however, research on the relationship between adherence to masculine norms and fathering has yielded mixed results, which may be due in part to the fact that many studies use measures of masculinity that do not fully capture hegemonic masculine norms. ...we address this question and extend the literature in three key ways. First, we use a multidimensional and more comprehensive indicator of masculinity than used in prior studies... we consider whether masculine norm adherence influences fathering in different way...."
Or to put another way, 'previous research has not yielded the results we wanted to see, so we spun the data in a way such that we could get it.' It's really quite absurd.
On support. I'd say my hypothesis is just about as supported as the average view in social sciences. I could certainly formulate an experiment of passable merit to confirm my biases. Of course that by no means means the hypothesis is right, but rather that the notion of scientific support in social views is something I think we should take as a default to be practically meaningless. There are so many ways to quantify and qualify various aspects of society that near any hypothesis can be proven if you play with the data enough. This paper is evidence of such:
"To date, however, research on the relationship between adherence to masculine norms and fathering has yielded mixed results, which may be due in part to the fact that many studies use measures of masculinity that do not fully capture hegemonic masculine norms. ...we address this question and extend the literature in three key ways. First, we use a multidimensional and more comprehensive indicator of masculinity than used in prior studies... we consider whether masculine norm adherence influences fathering in different way...."
Or to put another way, 'previous research has not yielded the results we wanted to see, so we spun the data in a way such that we could get it.' It's really quite absurd.
And yet juvenile crime is not only at a 30-year low but keeps hitting new lows year after year after year. [0] [1] [2] [3]
[0] http://www.cjcj.org/uploads/cjcj/documents/CA_Youth_Crime_20...
[1] https://www.scpr.org/blogs/news/2012/10/31/10793/explaining-...
[2] https://johnjayrec.nyc/2013/10/03/databit201304/
[3] https://jjie.org/2015/02/26/ncjj-report-shows-juvenile-crime...
[0] http://www.cjcj.org/uploads/cjcj/documents/CA_Youth_Crime_20...
[1] https://www.scpr.org/blogs/news/2012/10/31/10793/explaining-...
[2] https://johnjayrec.nyc/2013/10/03/databit201304/
[3] https://jjie.org/2015/02/26/ncjj-report-shows-juvenile-crime...
Is a decrease in crime really a valid counterpoint to an increase in depressed, overweight, and suicidal kids? On one hand you have maybe time served in juvy with a chance to straighten out and learn life lessons, or possibly become a career criminal. On the other hand you have an obese recluse with a chance of suicide or long-term depression.
edit: To add to that, of course crime is down - kids are driving later, going out less, having less sex. There are less opportunities for crime, unless you count underage sexting. So if you view more time spent in front of a screen preferable to a decrease in misdemeanor loitering, you'd have a point.
edit: To add to that, of course crime is down - kids are driving later, going out less, having less sex. There are less opportunities for crime, unless you count underage sexting. So if you view more time spent in front of a screen preferable to a decrease in misdemeanor loitering, you'd have a point.
Maybe it's the rise of all these men who use weasel words rather then presenting their argument and responding to criticism?
This is perhaps the point. In science critiquing ideas is not what you do, at least beyond ensuring that they are logically consistent. Instead, you critique results. Relativity is something that, intuitively, sounds completely foolish and plainly absurd. Yet it is absolutely and completely correct, so far as we can currently determine. Or take penicillin - that treating infections with something that emerges as a byproduct of the blue green rot in decaying matter is a good idea is something that would run contrary to any person of any sensibility - and indeed, its utilization was actually neglected for many years after its discovery due to the presumption that such an illogical result simply could not be correct.
In the social sciences this point has been lost since the inability to perform meaningful tests means all we're left with are ideas. Yet we can see quantifiable changes in society in the longrun over time and many of the views evangelized within the paper have certainly become more common place - with the authors going so far as to label them "the new ideals". Yet the results we can measure have been absolutely atrocious. But there seems to be little to no interest in consider why this may be. Instead it's onward to ever more new ideas supported by little more than intuition and studies that increasingly often cannot even be replicated built upon other studies that can't be replicated. And even this study builds upon that house of cards stating that previous studies trying to link what they linked were unsuccessful, yet with their 'new and improved' method of qualifying masculinity, they were able to finally show a link.
In the social sciences this point has been lost since the inability to perform meaningful tests means all we're left with are ideas. Yet we can see quantifiable changes in society in the longrun over time and many of the views evangelized within the paper have certainly become more common place - with the authors going so far as to label them "the new ideals". Yet the results we can measure have been absolutely atrocious. But there seems to be little to no interest in consider why this may be. Instead it's onward to ever more new ideas supported by little more than intuition and studies that increasingly often cannot even be replicated built upon other studies that can't be replicated. And even this study builds upon that house of cards stating that previous studies trying to link what they linked were unsuccessful, yet with their 'new and improved' method of qualifying masculinity, they were able to finally show a link.
Whoosh!
I wouldn't wish involuntary unemployment on anyone. My family was lucky that my dad found steady salaried work again before the savings account was completely drained. The stress could have broken a weaker marriage. But I also got something from my dad's extra availability that I wouldn't even have known to miss until adulthood otherwise. Kids will remember and cherish extra engagement with them, whether the time you put in is planned or not.
[1] I partially credit my own career to his early help with programming. My friends growing up used 8 bit home computers too. But they didn't have dads working through the C64 Programmer's Reference Guide with them. They learned just enough to load/run software and I learned to write my own. I know that some kids can just pick up a teach-yourself book and learn simple programming on their own. 9-year-old me couldn't. I needed help from my dad. (Thanks, Dad. I miss you.)