The biology of dads • Hacker News Board

Re: The biology of dads

#161

Post by dbrueck » Tue, Nov 17, 2020, 9:32 PM UTC

Mmrnmhrm wrote: post #67

softwaredoug wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this only gets worse when they get older. A dangerous thing that can happen is when you over-identify with your kids. Like being the overbearing sports-parent that pushes their kid to succeed because you see it as an extension of your success. I think every parent runs into this to some degree. I have to remind myself they are different people with their own wants, needs, values, and criteria for what "success" means…

If you have any resources on how to manage anxiety please bring them on. My old son has a mild development impairment, I am the sole bread earner, and we have no family support (we live abroad). Anxiety is crippling me to the point of rupture.

Hang in there! It's absolutely worth all the effort, and things will likely turn out far better than you may think.

I strongly encourage you to talk to a therapist or counselor of some sort - even after just a few chats they can arm you with some really great tools.

For managing the anxiety of life generally and parenting specifically, religion has been very helpful for me. If you're not into that, maybe find something that strengthens the big picture & long term view of things.

Re: The biology of dads

#162

Post by rayiner » Tue, Nov 17, 2020, 9:32 PM UTC

ksdale wrote: post #58

"They seemed like ideal infant-caregivers: calm, gentle, patient and sensitive. They didn’t seem like men you would go to battle with. In fact, they were the very antithesis of the warriors and athletes – think Maximus, Achilles or Michael Jordan – often associated with a masculine ideal." I became a father quite a bit before most of my friends, and so was the butt of some jokes about masculinity for the way I parent…

It’s kind of a weird ret-conning of “of the masculine ideal.” When NASA picked astronauts to be the public face of the technological race against communism, they picked men with families: https://nasa.fandom.com/wiki/Mercury_Seven

> From the 18, the first seven NASA astronauts were chosen,[8] each a "superb physical specimen" with an IQ above 130, and the ability to function well both as part of a team and solo.[6] Grissom, Cooper, and Slayton were Air Force pilots; Shepard, Carpenter, and Schirra were Navy pilots, and Glenn was a Marine Corps pilot.

> Because they wore civilian clothes, the audience did not see them as military test pilots but "mature, middle-class Americans, average in height and visage, family men all," ready for single combat versus worldwide Communism. To the astronauts' surprise, the reporters asked about their personal lives instead of war records or flight experience, or about the details of Mercury. After Glenn responded by speaking eloquently "on God, country, and family" the others followed his example, and the reporters "lustily applauded them."

Re: The biology of dads

#163

Post by kaitai » Tue, Nov 17, 2020, 9:34 PM UTC

yellowstuff wrote: post #63

bluedays wrote: post #20

>Paradoxically, we found that fathers who activate the anterior cingulate the most when listening to infant crying report the most negative emotional responses to those cries, in particular being more likely to label the cry as spoiled or manipulative. How can greater engagement of a brain region associated with empathy be linked with such negative subjective reactions to the cry? We suspect it relates to a phenomeno…

I don't see this as paradoxical. For babies past a couple months old a lot of cries are actually manipulative, and a more empathetic person can better distinguish them. I think my wife and I started sleeping training our son at around 12 weeks old, and quickly learned to tell the difference between a "complaining" cry that meant he was unhappy but he could probably soothe himself, and a "real" cry that meant he was r…

I really dislike projecting the adult trait of "manipulative" onto a baby. Adults manipulate by being underhanded when they have the option of being straightforward. The baby is being straightforward. What do you want the kid to do to communicate? "I am unhappy and while I could probably soothe myself I would like a parent's attention" -- hard to say all those words when you don't have language. What else can the kid do? Get a pet? drink whiskey? send you a text message? call a therapist?

Crying is a baby's only tool, and babies are certainly allowed to feel emotions like boredom, disgust, annoyance, cold, as well as physical pain. You're also allowed to ignore your bored or upset child. But don't call it manipulation when the kid is being absolutely aboveboard and straightforward. Viewing it as 'manipulation' actually increases the likelihood, in my view, that you'll raise a duplicitous child, because from babyhood on the kid'll be taught that saying directly what you want is frowned upon.

As for sleep training, mentioned by a sibling commenter, our reactions to a baby's cries are definitely directly related to kid's bedtime patterns, and I would advocate for a middle road: there's no need to be rigid about a philosophy. With our kid, we'd wait five minutes for crying to stop. Any kid and any adult can wait out five minutes when it's just bedtime, not a question of physical distress. If the kid was still crying after five minutes, check in; if the kid is asleep, win! The kid knows they're not being abandoned for all eternity; you know you don't have to listen to this (*& forever; and we were lucky that it never took us more than 15 minutes (two checkins) before kid fell asleep. Children are different; YMMV.

Re: The biology of dads

#164

Post by elteto » Tue, Nov 17, 2020, 9:34 PM UTC

lqet wrote: post #151

ksdale wrote: post #58

"They seemed like ideal infant-caregivers: calm, gentle, patient and sensitive. They didn’t seem like men you would go to battle with. In fact, they were the very antithesis of the warriors and athletes – think Maximus, Achilles or Michael Jordan – often associated with a masculine ideal." I became a father quite a bit before most of my friends, and so was the butt of some jokes about masculinity for the way I parent…

> "go to battle" I remember that in the first days after my kid was born, the thought that I would defend that child to the bitter end against any attacker suddenly seemed completely natural, even trivial. It was quite strange and included a sudden extreme awareness of (and aggressive feelings against) animals which came to close. This included dogs. The feelings were overwhelmingly archaic. I talked to my wife about…

One day it just hit me: "I could totally give my life for this child".

It came out of nowhere and it was a chilling and somewhat unnerving feeling. I never felt that for anyone. But the conviction is there, almost like a peaceful resignation: if there is no other solution and that is the only possible alternative then so be it.

Crazy.

Re: The biology of dads

#165

Post by kaitai » Tue, Nov 17, 2020, 9:40 PM UTC

smegcicle wrote: post #159

dang wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please don't attack other users (especially not over personally intimate topics like parenting), and please don't take HN threads into generic flamewar.

I suppose it could be read as an attack on the poster, but I meant it much more as an attack on the expectation of raising kids working out easily in that situation, as indicated in the latter sentence. Given the context of 'hating fatherhood', pointing that out seems relevant.

You're attacking women's right to enter the workforce, which does force a lot of your baggage on women. It's unwelcome.

Re: The biology of dads

#166

Post by g42gregory » Tue, Nov 17, 2020, 9:42 PM UTC

ksdale wrote: post #58

"They seemed like ideal infant-caregivers: calm, gentle, patient and sensitive. They didn’t seem like men you would go to battle with. In fact, they were the very antithesis of the warriors and athletes – think Maximus, Achilles or Michael Jordan – often associated with a masculine ideal." I became a father quite a bit before most of my friends, and so was the butt of some jokes about masculinity for the way I parent…

I echo the sentiment as well. I think these are precisely the men you would go to the battle with. The battle to defend the family and the Country. The men who know what they are fighting for.

Re: The biology of dads

#167

Post by zarkov99 » Tue, Nov 17, 2020, 9:43 PM UTC

antisthenes wrote: post #113

zarkov99 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? What is your culture's cultural ideal?

I think you might have missed the point of my post. It's laughable because it is so far from reality, not because the ideals are something to be laughed at.

I would argue that American males are closer to the warrior archetype than any other democracy. We certainly have fought more actual wars than any other advanced nation, we have the best combat athletes in the world, many of us hunt, shoot and practice warrior like skills. I am hard pressed to think of any other modern society that comes even close.

Re: The biology of dads

#168

Post by zarkov99 » Tue, Nov 17, 2020, 9:45 PM UTC

watwut wrote: post #102

zarkov99 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? What is your culture's cultural ideal?

For whatever is worth, I don't find warrior ideal either. I associate that with someone who is source of danger and threat. Warriors around means that you have to go home shortest route and watch whether the room is dangerous. Athletes have good bodies, but that is about it.

Sure, but morality aside there is something to be admired in people that do dangerous, frightnening and difficult things for a living.

Re: The biology of dads

#169

Post by pavel_lishin » Tue, Nov 17, 2020, 9:45 PM UTC

lambda_obrien wrote: post #129

I agree with most of the comments here as a semi-new father, so I won't rehash then, but I really wish more people could experience the emotions and struggles of parenthood sooner, I think it makes a person realize what's important in life and causes one to mature quickly. I think people would be nicer to one another if they could be a parent for a year, at least.

> I think people would be nicer to one another if they could be a parent for a year, at least.

Eh. I've seen other parents be just as shitty as anyone else. I don't think parenthood is an empathy-panacea.

Re: The biology of dads

#170

Post by ksdale » Tue, Nov 17, 2020, 9:48 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #162

ksdale wrote: post #58

"They seemed like ideal infant-caregivers: calm, gentle, patient and sensitive. They didn’t seem like men you would go to battle with. In fact, they were the very antithesis of the warriors and athletes – think Maximus, Achilles or Michael Jordan – often associated with a masculine ideal." I became a father quite a bit before most of my friends, and so was the butt of some jokes about masculinity for the way I parent…

It’s kind of a weird ret-conning of “of the masculine ideal.” When NASA picked astronauts to be the public face of the technological race against communism, they picked men with families: https://nasa.fandom.com/wiki/Mercury_Seven > From the 18, the first seven NASA astronauts were chosen,[8] each a "superb physical specimen" with an IQ above 130, and the ability to function well both as part of a team and solo.[6] G…

This is great. In my comment, I almost mentioned that because of how much earlier people historically had children (than most Americans and Europeans do now), most of the people we think of as "masculine ideals" throughout history would have been (were) fathers.

The number of times I read about a famous historical figure on Wikipedia, and they mention almost as an afterthought that they had 6 kids...

But I didn't want to go off on a big tangent about the "masculine ideal" although I agree completely that there is ret-conning and we could definitely use a rethink of how we expect men to act!