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

61–70 of 203 posts

Re: Stay-at-home dad

#61

Post by cheald »

qznc wrote: post #30

Odd that stay-at-home women label themselves as "not working". I often try to convince my wife and others to proudly answer "mother" when asked for their work. It might not get payed, but it surely is a lot of work.

My wife struggles with feeling like she's "not working" because she's a homemaker. I point out that if she was working at a job outside of the home, we'd have to pay someone else to do what she does, and we'd pay awfully handsomely for it. That seems to help her put it in perspective.

Re: Stay-at-home dad

#62

Post by narwally »

3825 wrote: post #20
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. There is such a heavy statement that I cannot begin to explain how wrong it is. Are you saying that a single parent cannot raise a child on her (or his) own? In the absence of any scientific evidence in your support, I'd say you are absolu…

Here is my take on what he was saying. If a child has a mother and father(or mom&mom/dad&dad, there are always going to be things that one parent is better capable of handling than the other. I saw his view to align with the phrase "it take a village to raise a child", meaning that kids have many and varying needs that are best fulfilled by a group of people that love them.

I think it's certainty true that a single parent can raise a child just as well as a multi parent household, but that doesn't mean that a child doesn't also benefit from love and care from others. I think the point is that whoever are the important adults in a child's life, each of them provide benefits that others aren't as well suited for. A mom isn't a drop in replacement for a dad, a grandmother isn't a replacement for an aunt, and the next door neighbor that might as well be a child's second mom isn't a replacement for the child's biological mother.

I think the point was that gender equality isn't at all important to a child or it's needs, so we should quit making it one at all.

Re: Stay-at-home dad

#63

Post by adrianbye »

cheald wrote: post #59
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 t…

this doesn't happen in non feminist countries (ie usually 3rd world).

Re: Stay-at-home dad

#64

Post by onedev »

techboots wrote: post #49
dogonwheels wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'I get it'. No. You really don't.

Ok. Let's do this. Let's form a company. We're co-founders, okay? Now. I'm going to have a kid, take 4 months off, and leave work 5pm everyday. How do you feel?

During the early days of LinkedIn, when the company was only 10 or 20 people, people would leave work at 5pm. Start ups don't have to be this arbitrary 24/7 grind.

You know how LinkedIn worked in that manner? They focused on work COMPLETELY for those 8 hours and were able to get shit done.

I'm sure you'd agree that they've built a very successful company.

Re: Stay-at-home dad

#65

Post by techboots »

leothekim wrote: post #39
techboots wrote: post #21

Looks like FB jumped the shark if they're employing guys who leave for 4 months, or gals like Sheryl Sandberg who leaves work 5pm every day. I get it - yes, it's nice and wonderful. But... Frankly, I wouldn't want to work with coworkers like this. Entrepreneurs don't make silly justifications like this -- only employees play this political game. And quite frankly, I wouldn't put up with actions like this - I'd quit i…

You think your coworkers drag you down? You think you're punished for not having kids? You're comparing having children to entrepreneurship? If you really want to know what's wrong in the work place, you need to take a good long look in the mirror.

Yes. Coworkers definitely drag you down - especially those who game the benefits system or who play politics. If you don't see this, wake up and look around your cubicle.

And yes, if having a kid grants you 4 months of paid leave... it will definitely feel like punishment for the rest of the single guys stuck in the office. I have a dog and cat I need to take care of. If you get to leave to take care of your kid, I should get to leave to take care of my pets.

Re: Stay-at-home dad

#66

Post by WalterSear »

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…

This is so narrow minded, sexist and untrue, it burns.

Re: Stay-at-home dad

#67

Post by techboots »

onedev wrote: post #64
techboots wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok. Let's do this. Let's form a company. We're co-founders, okay? Now. I'm going to have a kid, take 4 months off, and leave work 5pm everyday. How do you feel?

During the early days of LinkedIn, when the company was only 10 or 20 people, people would leave work at 5pm. Start ups don't have to be this arbitrary 24/7 grind. You know how LinkedIn worked in that manner? They focused on work COMPLETELY for those 8 hours and were able to get shit done. I'm sure you'd agree that they've built a very successful company.

Agree.

If the guy did try to contribute to work during his paternity leave, I'd respect that. But he didn't. He just kicked back and read "Lean In" in his spare time. His coworkers probably didn't even have the luxury of having enough spare time to read that book.

Re: Stay-at-home dad

#68

Post by potater »

techboots wrote: post #49
dogonwheels wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'I get it'. No. You really don't.

Ok. Let's do this. Let's form a company. We're co-founders, okay? Now. I'm going to have a kid, take 4 months off, and leave work 5pm everyday. How do you feel?

I have two immediate thoughts. Forming a company and then taking time off of work to raise a child for 4 month is indicative of non-ideal planning, more than anything. That said, in this case the gentleman in question is an employee of an established company, not the cofounder to a startup.

Additionally, leaving work at 5pm every day sounds great and, I suspect, may actually result in a more productive work week with happier employees. All parties win in such instances.

Re: Stay-at-home dad

#69

Post by saraid216 »

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…

Our society is built to promote fear. We're heavily, heavily individualistic and isolationist. Our cultural prime directive is, "Never again!"

Re: Stay-at-home dad

#70

Post by Dewie »

cristianpascu wrote: post #51
Dewie wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> May I? Is there anything social that is not debated?

What does this even mean? Gender equality and LGBT rights are debated, you chose to comment on the former and not on the latter.

> 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.

And so what? You've shown yourself to be above using specific incidents to condemn a whole group of people? If you have information that pertains to the claim that a child needs both a mother and a father, you can use that even if it does not include homosexual parents, since you can extrapolate from that information. After all, you said yourself that "I am certain", so this rock-hard belief is most likely backed by something other than your own experiences.

And if you don't have anything to back it up, just say so instead of just saying that "they exist, and are kind of hotly debated". I mean, what kind of answer or insight is that? It's just a platitude.

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

Oh come on, having a substandard childhood is definitely harmful compared to having a normal one. There's no need to conjure up images of violence or something traumatic when it comes to the word "harm". You were simply dodging the question.

Post reply on HN