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

Stay-at-home dad

facebook.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 203 posts

Re: Stay-at-home dad

#51

Post by cristianpascu »

Dewie wrote: post #33
cristianpascu wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think there's clear definition of what "harm" means, and for sure studies themselves can are are and will be hotly debated.

You explicitly said that a father could not replace a mother for sure , and now you are simply saying that the whole subject is "hotly debated"? If a child is worse off without having a mother or a father and does not get one of them, then such a suboptimal childhood (by your words) is definitely harmful , without having to resort to exotic interpretations of the word "harm". You had no problem denouncing that this s…

For sure means I am certain. May I? Is there anything social that is not debated?

I just learned today about a gay couple that adopted a child and used him for child-porn and pedophile sex. Would I bring that up as an argument? No. Have I? No. It's not.

People DO have different views on what harming a child means. It's not a platitude at all.

Re: Stay-at-home dad

#52

Post by enraged_camel »

cristianpascu wrote: post #47
enraged_camel wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>In the past 10 years there were countless cases where my wife handled things entirely differently then myself. Specially the emotionally relevant things, which are extremely important at early stages of child development. This is more about your own inability to properly handle those situations requiring emotional involvement than a commentary on what fathers in general can or cannot provide. You are, after all, on…

Some opinions have fancy [numbers] after, other don't. They should be taken as such. Call me sexist if you will.

You said the following:

>>There is no gender equality when it comes to what a child needs. A child needs the smile of a mother as much as they need the smile of a father. And one can not replace the other.

This is stated as an absolute fact, not an opinion.

Re: Stay-at-home dad

#53

Post by cristianpascu »

k-mcgrady wrote: post #46
cristianpascu wrote: post #4

I remember when I was a very young dad, and 15 minutes with my very young son was torture. I see myself in much of what he tells. Much of it by imagining the now dad of a 10yo as a dad of 4 months old son. But there's one thing I can tell for sure. A father can not replace a mother. I wouldn't take offense if a woman asked me why isn't my wife taking care of the child. In the past 10 years there were countless cases…

>> "There is no gender equality when it comes to what a child needs. A child needs the smile of a mother as much as they need the smile of a father. And one can not replace the other." I kind of get what you mean but I don't think you've expressed it properly. I think the real important thing is that having multiple parental figures is a good thing. In some families the mother can provide better emotional support and…

I grew up with an absent father. I don't think a second mother would have replaced him. That's why I am skeptic about homosexual parents. At the price of my few karma points. :)

Re: Stay-at-home dad

#54

Post by joebeetee »

Whilst I appreciate the discussion points around gender/sexism, I personally have felt more discrimination from the kids / no kids situation, on more than one occasion.

I recently interviewed at a large company and did very well on all the questions, connected with the interviewers, had long chats with the recruiter, etc - but didn't get the job. I suspect one of the reasons I didn't get the job was the fact that I mentioned my wife/kid. The team that I interviewed for were all fairly young (so am I) but I think the kid thing could've thrown them off.

This may just be an issue at and job level that I am applying at and I'm very prepared for the fact that it may have been because I didn't do as well as I thought, but I have no idea what else it could've been. Would be great to know if anyone else has ever felt this.

Re: Stay-at-home dad

#55

Post by techboots »

marquis wrote: post #45
techboots wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fully agree, life & family is more important. I think if I really wanted to spend more time with my family, I'd just quit the job rather than trying to play the benefits system to get 4 months of paid leave. Families get in the way of work. It's just that simple. There's less time to pull all-nighters. Once a company starts encouraging "family people," it becomes a certain type of place. It's a type of place that doe…

>"Families get in the way of work. It's just that simple" I'm really sorry for your way of life, I really am. I mean that in the nicest possible way, that I hope you find that there is a beautiful, loving world outside the office, that informs your work and why you are working.

You might want to read my whole statement. I appreciate that there's a "beautiful, loving world outside the office."

It's precisely because of that that I wouldn't want to spend all of my time inside that office - I'd want to spend it with my family. And because of that, I wrote "families get in the way of work." It really is that simple. People with family have more beauty & love in their world, they realize what's important in life, and they spend less time in the office. And that's perfectly fine. But in such an environment, certain other types of people (bored single guys who really want to work long & hard) will not find themselves feeling entirely comfortable.

Companies tend to gravitate between the two ends... either super hard working, or laid-back family types. You can see that FB is drifing towards the latter. Which is perfectly fine.

Re: Stay-at-home dad

#56

Post by sneak »

cristianpascu wrote: post #22
Numberwang wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have a good list of what harm LGBT parents are causing children, preferably with references?

I don't think there's clear definition of what "harm" means, and for sure studies themselves can are are and will be hotly debated.

"No, I'm just talking out of my ass" would have been a sufficient answer, instead of your evasive wordplay.

Re: Stay-at-home dad

#57

Post by toyg »

enraged_camel wrote: post #50

The part about being viewed suspiciously at the playground was particularly awful. Why is it that we as a society are so fucking fearful? We have an irrational fear of communists, socialists, terrorists, serial killers, sex offenders, and of course, child molesters and abductors. Everyone thinks that there is someone out there who is out to hurt them and their family. Like, that is the default assumption , and people…

"News" media.

Re: Stay-at-home dad

#58

Post by sampo »

networked wrote: post #48

One thing we as a society owe to a stay-at-home dad is, out of all things, cyberpunk. William Gibson famously found his interest in science fiction renewed and began to write while staying at home with his first child.

Yeah, Wikipedia quotes:

''In 1977, facing first-time parenthood and an absolute lack of enthusiasm for anything like "career," I found myself dusting off my twelve-year-old's interest in science fiction.'' —William Gibson, "Since 1948"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Gibson

Re: Stay-at-home dad

#59

Post by cheald »

enraged_camel wrote: post #50

The part about being viewed suspiciously at the playground was particularly awful. Why is it that we as a society are so fucking fearful? We have an irrational fear of communists, socialists, terrorists, serial killers, sex offenders, and of course, child molesters and abductors. Everyone thinks that there is someone out there who is out to hurt them and their family. Like, that is the default assumption , and people…

Speaking as a dad, I hate taking my boys to the playground for the same reason. Moms see "man unaccompanied by woman, must be a predator" - I make a big show out of interacting with my boys and obviously being their father, but it's really grating that it's even necessary at all.

As to the culture of fear, I blame local news. It's wall-to-wall with alternating RAPISTS EVERYWHERE and LOOKIT THE CUTE PUPPIES, because those are the only stories that can compete with other news media. Telling people that they should be terrified (your neighbor is probably a child molester! Full story at 10!) is an extremely powerful tool, and people eat it up.

As a parent, I can understand those moms' reactions, even if I don't condone them. My kids are the most precious thing in the world to me, and I would rather err on the side of caution than ever let something truly traumatic happen to them. But, I think there's a line between being vigilant and being paralyzed in fear because someone with a penis is within 200 yards of your kid.

Re: Stay-at-home dad

#60

Post by rabidonrails »

Dewie wrote: post #3

> It also still gets under my skin when people call it "babysitting" or "daddy daycare." It seems like a lot of people feel that dads can only be second-rate caregivers compared to moms, as if they were to take care of a toddler it would only be as an assistant or subordinate to the mother.

my father always says "if they're your kids, it isn't babysitting"
Post reply on HN