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

The biology of dads

aeon.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 285 posts

Re: The biology of dads

#131

Post by snazz »

6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: post #117
MaximumYComb wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Babies aren't meant to be fun. I became a single dad when I had a baby and a two year old. Honestly, I don't think most men are wired for doing this role. The 4-5 years that followed were very difficult for me mentally. I was socially isolated, had no support (all support structures were mother orientated) and I had two really little kids to care for. I'm not sure if I changed, or it's simply easier for me now they'r…

> Honestly, I don't think most men are wired for doing this role... I was socially isolated, had no support (all support structures were mother orientated) Maybe it's the social structures that aren't wired for men to do it, rather than the biological ones. What made you feel like the difference was biological rather than due to external society?

Biologically, I think that there are always going to be more single mothers than single fathers. Women can get pregnant without knowing who the father is. Although formula exists today, men could not feed young babies very well for most of history. These social structures are probably intended to serve a greater number of people, so they serve women better than men.

Re: The biology of dads

#132

Post by TooRightKite »

Kluny wrote: post #119
TooRightKite wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's nice, but why did your step daughter max the pride-meter instead of one of your own?

You're making a pretty big leap of assumption here. - he didn't say that he had biological kids - the step daughter is his own daughter, they aren't two different things - he didn't say that if he does have biological kids, that he didn't tear up at their graduation - he also didn't specify the ages of any of his kids, so there's no reason to assume that any others have graduated I'm curious as to where those assumpt…

True, on second reading he says "raising kids", not having them.

Re: The biology of dads

#133

Post by klmadfejno »

wsc981 wrote: post #56
mqrs wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am also not worried for things like covid and climate change Would you care to explain why?

> Would you care to explain why? I'm not sure if my explanation would be fruitful here. I realise most people on HackerNews likely disagree with me on these issues. I am not here to convince people of my views on these issues. I respect anyones opinions on these matters. But since you asked, in short: - I really don't believe COVID-19 is as dangerous as is projected in the media - I believe the human influence on cli…

> - I believe the human influence on climate change is much less than what most people tend to believe

I disagree with this with a resentment towards someone saying its a research based view. Putting that aside, however, why would believing climate change isn't human influenced would make things more palatable? In the vaguest sense, that sounds to me like it would be worse, because then we can't possibly do anything to halt it.

Re: The biology of dads

#134

Post by drewcon »

11thEarlOfMar wrote: post #108

One aspect of fatherhood that surprised me is what I call the 'rescue response'. I was not able to find any formal information about this behavior, but I have to think there is something out there. I have experienced this exactly twice in my life on separate occasions: My child entered a physically and immediately dangerous situation. As soon as I saw their peril, my mind went into a kind of flow state. I didn't take…

I have similar experiences whenever my kids have any kind of medium to high level accident (so to be clear not helicoptering every time they fall over). For whatever reason its like I go into immediate clinical triage mode.

My two year old son ended up breaking his leg stepping off a short stool a couple years ago. My wife thought nothing of his crying but after ten minutes or so she called me while I was upstairs working. I immediately came down and sensed unordinary danger, triaged his leg and concluded it was a broken bone in about 20 seconds, and was off to the ER a minute later (he's fine!). But there is something that just kicks in and says "SOLVE THIS NOW".

Re: The biology of dads

#135

Post by mebr »

I'm going to be a dad in 2 weeks. I already feel the changes mentioned in the articles, i.e. higher oxytocin and lower. testosterone.

Re: The biology of dads

#136

Post by [deleted] »

oblio wrote: post #115
endymi0n wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also really, really wasn't into babies before becoming a father, then when they were there, it was actually kinda okay — but now that they can talk, reason and you can mess with them, it's definitely _so_ much cooler. What's interesting though is that for me, having spent time with a baby seems to have changed some wirings retroactively. Just saw a toddler yesterday doing random things and having so much fun in the…

> There are only 52 weekends you will ever have with your three year old. I'm confused. Shouldn't it be 156?

[deleted]

Re: The biology of dads

#137

Post by oblio »

wsc981 wrote: post #56
mqrs wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am also not worried for things like covid and climate change Would you care to explain why?

> Would you care to explain why? I'm not sure if my explanation would be fruitful here. I realise most people on HackerNews likely disagree with me on these issues. I am not here to convince people of my views on these issues. I respect anyones opinions on these matters. But since you asked, in short: - I really don't believe COVID-19 is as dangerous as is projected in the media - I believe the human influence on cli…

> - I really don't believe COVID-19 is as dangerous as is projected in the media

Well, it's obviously not very dangerous, on a medium or long term. The Black Plague had a 40% mortality rate, SARS about 20%, etc. A virus with a 1-2% mortality rate won't bring society down, obviously.

The media machine needs nourishment and they tend to exaggerate things.

However Covid-19 is still a big deal. If it runs its course unchecked ~50-80 million of people could die. That's a lot of pain and suffering, the likes of which the world hasn't had in at least 60 years.

> - I believe the human influence on climate change is much less than what most people tend to believe

This, I don't think anyone can justify. Maybe the climate warming estimates are overblown, ok, but human influence is undeniable and worst of all, we have no control over it and little visibility. It's like physics and closed systems, humanity is an open system and we're leaking pollution everywhere. Any way you cut it, that can't be good or sustainable. And there are so many of us that we definitely have an impact on the world. For example the Great Pacific Garbage Patch (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_garbage_patch). And these things will only become worse as we will have 3x - 4x as many people living in industrialized countries (4 billion people or more).

Re: The biology of dads

#138

Post by oblio »

andi999 wrote: post #24
ncmncm wrote: post #10

Sleep deprivation has long been known to cause memory loss. My kids, in the early '00s, would only sleep in the daytime. I lost most of my '90s.

thankfully everybody lost most of the '90s

Half this site is probably Millenials, which are 90's kids :-)

Re: The biology of dads

#139

Post by ksdale »

frenchyatwork wrote: post #99
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…

> Also, somewhat ironic, but my willingness to "go to battle" for my family is far greater than my willingness to "go to battle" for anything before having a family I'd bet the "for my family" part is critical to this statement though, and in the modern "Western" world, at least, such circumstances are exceedingly rare. I'm less inclined to go mountaineering or ice climbing, to give a more realistic example, partly b…

It is, surprisingly, not as critical as I would have thought. There is something about being a dad that is sufficiently general, the idea that I'm responsible for another person's wellbeing entirely, that made me more confident that I could be trusted with greater responsibility.

And I use the phrase "go to battle" almost as metaphorically as possible, in the sense of my willingness to be in conflict with people over right and wrong, but I think that's a good point about physical safety and quality time.

Re: The biology of dads

#140

Post by ksdale »

tacheiordache wrote: post #76
ksdale wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your perspective indicates perhaps a bit of spoil... I think it's totally fine to not want children but thinking of them as spoiling anything by their existence feels to me as profoundly wrong as thinking of... well, a person as spoiling anything by their existence.

Perhaps he was referring to something more physical as in her body being unspoiled. But I totally agree with you, nobody forces people to have children and the ones who have them by accident and hate it afterwards is clear they have not reached a maturity level or preparedness for being a parent and there's nothing wrong with it at all, people have choices. But ones who consider children spoils or as curses or burden…

Thinking of your significant other's body being spoiled by childbearing is almost as bad as thinking of children's existence as spoiling things. Maybe worse.
Post reply on HN