Earlier quoted context omitted.
> because there is a high level of social security. Not in America.
In a broader sense there is: if you lose your job, it's easy to find a new one.
[deleted]
Study: Today’s dads are engaging more with their kids
131–140 of 142 posts
Re: Study: Today’s dads are engaging more with their kids
#132Simple question: But is this a positive? For the dads? The moms? And most importantly, the kids? 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?
Re: Study: Today’s dads are engaging more with their kids
#133One 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 ha…
Sorry if I'm obtuse but I guess it's because that's too tall for the air force?
Cockpits have maximum height limits. It varies by plane model.
Re: Study: Today’s dads are engaging more with their kids
#134Earlier quoted context omitted.
"many civilized parts of the world" 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.
Re: Study: Today’s dads are engaging more with their kids
#135Earlier quoted context omitted.
" 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…
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…
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.
Re: Study: Today’s dads are engaging more with their kids
#136I 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.
What would 'toxic femininity' look like?
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.
Re: Study: Today’s dads are engaging more with their kids
#137Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Don't know if anyone coined the term toxic femininity, but it should obviously be a field of study Current Western society has placed women so high up on a pedestal that publicly leveling criticism at the gender in any aspect is detrimental to one's career and social standing. You're being flagged and downvoted for merely suggesting that not everything about femininity is positive. Let that sink in.
No, he's been flagged for suggesting someone study the effects of a thing which he immediately admits he's just made up. It's not even "we should see if there's a counterpart to toxic masulinity", it's "I think there's toxic feminity, so we should study its effects!"
You mean the effects of the negative manifestation of certain behaviours. So you are saying that my logical leap, that because there is "toxic masculinity" ( which is a gross simplification obviously) that a counterpart to that in the feminine side, is something I just made up.
I usually make statements drawing from observed behaviour and interactions. And I can't deny that if we look on a spectrum of behaviour, and on one side we have masculinity on the other we have femininity. If we go all the way to the left to the masculine side, there are behaviours there that are what the media says "toxic". But if we go on the otherside of the spectrum, to the extreme, and say that yeah, things are just rosy on the other side, we are doing a great disservice to the truth.
Re: Study: Today’s dads are engaging more with their kids
#138Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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!
Re: Study: Today’s dads are engaging more with their kids
#139Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
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…
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.
Re: Study: Today’s dads are engaging more with their kids
#140I’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 insti…
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!