Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

‘I just assumed it would happen’: the unspoken grief of childless men

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 281 posts

Re: ‘I just assumed it would happen’: the unspoken grief of childless men

#241

Post by anon291 »

helij wrote: post #225
anon291 wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Up until very recently, there was very little knowledge that pregnancy lasted nine months... even among the 'learned'. Old pregnancy manuals talk about pregnancies taking anywhere from a few months to many many months. Without ultrasound and HcG tests, there is very little indication a woman is pregant until she starts showing or feeling the baby (and even then, a new mother may not even notice until she's showing an…

Quick comment about your first paragraph. There is a really strong signal that a woman is pregnant in absence of period.

If a woman's periods are regular and she experiences no bleeding in pregnancy. Many women's periods are not regularly, especially so if many woman are malnourished. Moreover, bleeding in pregnancy (esp early pregnancy) is fairly common. Thus, if you read older gynecological manuals, they clearly claim that pregnancy lasts some range of months. Most people realized that it was centered around 10 months, but there were many doctors claiming that the ranges were much higher than we'd accept today, because they had no reliable method to test for conception.

If you bleed like some women do during pregnancy, then you may have no indication you're pregnant until you obviously show. It's unlikely, but not impossible, and the doctors had no objective measure by which to say otherwise unless they could feel or hear the baby.

Re: ‘I just assumed it would happen’: the unspoken grief of childless men

#242

Post by Gigachad »

dghughes wrote: post #77

I'm in the same boat. Just a shy kid who never got over it. My grandfather died when I was three and I think it hit Dad hard. I was determined to find a woman and have children even if it meant doing so if not married. My Catholic parents were very against that it was unspoken but very obvious in their attitude. My Dad died a few years ago so my plan fell apart. Now Mom is old so she is not long for this world either…

Having kids is no guarantee of getting help when you are old. Quite a few people I know refuse to have any contact with their parents.

Re: ‘I just assumed it would happen’: the unspoken grief of childless men

#243

Post by sillyfluke »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #154
wkat4242 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah we're kinda over the traditional family thing here in Europe. I would bet two fathers taking their son to the playground would raise some eyebrows in the US too, depending on the area of course. Whereas here it wouldn't.

I think it depends on where you are in Europe. I had far more reaction doing childcare in Poland than I did in the US and Canada. Almost completely positive, though. "Your wife is so lucky, a Polish man would never change a diaper".

Did you ever feel people were moments away from calling security/police on you? Your last sentence doesn't give that feeling. If not, I'm not sure we're talking about comparable reactions.

Re: ‘I just assumed it would happen’: the unspoken grief of childless men

#244

Post by dralley »

anon291 wrote: post #240
jfax wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-pandemic-is...

There is nothing unprecedented about COVID. It is not the deadliest pandemic by any account. We simply had different attitudes toward civil liberties and the role of government in the past. The Spanish flu saw minimal national level policy and isolated (time and space) restrictions in particular places, along with sensible policies (like outdoor classrooms) meant to ameliorate the worst aspects. The sort of coercion…

"The United States lost 675,000 people to the Spanish flu in 1918-more casualties than World War I, World War II, the Korean War and the Vietnam War combined."

0.5% of the US population died due to the Spanish Flu.

Look, I understand where you're coming from, but I don't know that you would actually prefer 1918 policies if the same scenario were to be replayed in the present day.

Re: ‘I just assumed it would happen’: the unspoken grief of childless men

#245

Post by dralley »

barrysteve wrote: post #70

And all the warning they get is a random guardian article in the slew of media rain. This society is completely broken. My craving to return to the 1980s and 1990s is just getting worse and worse. We replaced so many functioning structures with an ocean of mirages. I legitmately have not seen an adult man who looks and acts like an authority figure should, in about fifteen years. I literally cannot take 90% of 'autho…

Look, I'm not here to tell you that nothing ever changes, but none of what you're complaining about is new. You talk about an ocean of mirages yet you're clearly looking through rose-colored glasses..

Politicians have always been self-serving liars, that was no different in the 1980s and 1990s. Instead ancient relics pushing "tech tyranny", there were ancient relics pushing state-sanctioned racism openly.

Titans of industry like Jack Welch were given vastly inflated and undue amounts of respect for financial engineering tricks and clever marketing. And half the upper management of any sizeable company was snorting cocaine.

Crime was several times worse than it is today. Yellow journalism has always been a thing albeit perhaps cyclical in prominence.

Re: ‘I just assumed it would happen’: the unspoken grief of childless men

#246

Post by em-bee »

mcphage wrote: post #228
em-bee wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that sounds like something from movies. was that really that widespread? screening is really a challenge. i mean the only thing you can really do is to analyze the motivation of why someone wants to adopt. but most people that you would not want to allow to adopt can go and have their own children anyways. when does preventing adoption turn into preventing to have children? or why should anyone who could have their o…

> why should anyone who could have their own children be prevented from adopting? I don't understand this at all. People with a history of abuse or neglect can have their own children—and often they do—but why on earth would you use that as an excuse to give them more children to abuse? Like, what is your thinking here?

that's not what i meant. if the abuse is so bad that their children will have to be taken away (even if only temporarily), then obviously if they have children again, and the abuse continues, those children will also be taken away. which means in practical terms, they can't really have children.

what i did mean was: if whatever failures these parents have is mild enough that they are allowed to keep their children, because noone is perfect and the children are never in any danger then why should they not be allowed to adopt as well?

in short, why should adoptive parents have to submit to higher standards?

but, as someone else stated, there are not enough children up for adoption in the US anyways, so that argument becomes moot, because obviously you'll pick the most suitable parents first.

and you do have a point. after rereading what i said: "most people that you would not want to allow to adopt can go and have their own children anyways", this is really a claim that needs further scrutiny. it was supposed to imply that the tests are to harsh, but that is based only on anecdotal evidence so i am not really prepared to defend it. in hindsight, your reading of it makes sense too, so you are right to question it. thank you.

Re: ‘I just assumed it would happen’: the unspoken grief of childless men

#247

Post by xyzelement »

antisthenes wrote: post #233
xyzelement wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

// Looks is paramount - I worked so hard to be financially stable and didn’t realize that it wasn’t my parents financial situation that had fucked me over so badly in life - it was their dogshit genetics that made me ugly. A guy with a job and a gym membership is more attractive than 90% of men by default. Do you really have a "looks problem" that wouldn't be resolved in 12 months by actively working out, eating well…

> Do you really have a "looks problem" that wouldn't be resolved in 12 months by actively working out, eating well, a good haircut and a great wardrobe? A gym only takes you so far. There are things out of one's control - height, hair pattern, face shape, etc. Although I do believe that you're right in the sense that not being overweight and having a stable job already places you in the top 10-15% of men. It's just t…

//It's just that sometimes it's not enough and looks are pretty important for women

An obvious counter-point to that are the millions of short/bald/ugly/whatever guys who are married and have kids.

FWIW, women are turned off by guys who are gross and don't take care of themselves. A guy who intentionally makes the best of what he's got is already ahead.

Re: ‘I just assumed it would happen’: the unspoken grief of childless men

#248

Post by ryanwaggoner »

xyzelement wrote: post #199
sershe wrote: post #196

One thing that definitely skews the reporting of this is that it's socially acceptable to admit you regret not having kids, but it's absolutely not socially acceptable to admit you regret having kids.

Do you expect that this skew would meaningfully alter the conclusion? That there are many men on their deathbed who wish they had more time for brunch in their life vs the hard work of parenting?

Do you think what people long for on their deathbed should dictate their life decisions, as opposed to how they felt and viewed their life for the thousands of days that came before?

Re: ‘I just assumed it would happen’: the unspoken grief of childless men

#249

Post by ryanwaggoner »

polski-g wrote: post #147
alphabettsy wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bad parenting or neglectful often produces bad outcomes does it not? This is unfortunate to read. Of course everything doesn’t need to be planned, but food and shelter are the bare minimum.

Not really. The most meaningful outcome for a child's life is the mate selection of the parents. Parenting generally has no effect; see the letter sent to Maher as a really good synopsis: https://jaymans.wordpress.com/2011/11/16/taming-the-tiger-mo...

Surely for such a counterintuitive idea, we can do better for evidence than a rambling blog post about a letter to a TV show host. The evidence for such a strong claim should be pretty strong, and given the state of the replication crisis in the relevant fields, linking to a bunch of studies doesn't mean much anymore.

Re: ‘I just assumed it would happen’: the unspoken grief of childless men

#250

Post by ryanwaggoner »

barrysteve wrote: post #98
alphabettsy wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Society used to be predictable and rational No. It really wasn’t. Read some history books. There was nothing uniquely great about the 80s-90s. Impending global lockdown? You might be well served from a lot less time online and more time with your fellow humans or nature.

Lol. I lived through the 80s and 90s. I don't need history books and I'm not going to correct you. It's a waste of 'breath' if your intial reaction is that . It is easy to doubt, doubt is cheap. When the time comes to say 'I told you so..' I won't want to and you won't want to remember. Tell me why deaths of despair have jumped up 100k. Then I'll accept your casual dismissiveness. Dismissiveness that is ripe 'online'…

Tell me why deaths of despair have jumped up 100k.

Answer: it's complicated.

https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/republicans/2019...

We could probably come up with a lot of things that have improved since the 80s and 90s too. That doesn't mean things are dramatically improving.

I hope you find some peace.

Post reply on HN