141–150 of 232 posts
Just a note for Dads doing more than their parents - it’s quality more than quantity. Be fully present with your kids more than trying to kill yourself fitting more hours in. That’s what matters. Bad parenting tends to be more of the type that isn’t engaged. Kids don’t hate you for going to work. They are hurt if you come home and ignore them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't really understand this mindset that being at home and raising your kids is only something you do when forced to. For my family, if we had more options -- ie, more money -- then both of us would be stay-at-home parents. It's much more of a joy than going to work.
Your comment presupposes something different that nradov’s comment. The aforementioned “trad households” do not have a financially independent wife, which is what nradov is referring to when they write > force the wife into becoming an unpaid caregiver for her in-laws Typically, the in laws or the husband would control the assets, and hence be able to exert more influence. > For my family, if we had more options -- i…
Why would you need or even want to be independent? Why would you plan to form a family while keeping your options open/having one foot out the door?
I can't help but wonder about the relationship between fathers (and, in fact, all parents) spending more time with their children, and people choosing to have fewer children, and later. I think it's unquestionably true that fathers spending more time with their children is, on the whole, much better for those children. But it's also true that it's a huge problem for society that people are having fewer children. And…
I think it is. It's discouraged and unspoken, but a lot of men don't like spending time with children. I mean for weeks or months, sure, but when you have a kid it drags on for years 24/7 and nothing but having your own child will really reveal to you how that turns out for you. As it turns out, I don't enjoy extended time with children. My bad, but I power through it for the sake of the child. In older times that wo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can tell you that as you have more children the time you can spend and need to spend drops - because there’s more of them, but they also play with each other. Three are running around yelling and I can’t even join in, as they want me to be “the base” apparently.
I can't believe I'm asking this, because it isn't even something I would remotely consider (and it is too late anyway), but, is three actually easier than two children in some ways? I have two children and I find parenting to be utterly draining. They are 4 and 6. They are *constantly* fighting. They play together a bit, but when they do, after 5-10 minutes it leads to real fight where we need to intervene. And they…
Taking my one kid to things was much harder because they'd have to be played with.
My four kids just play with each other. Yes I play with them too, but most of the time they run off on their own to play and want the adults to go away.
It's magical. Ironically I have more free time as a dad of four. Still the same number of diapers to change but the older ones do stuff themselves.
The biggest issue is logistics of getting four kids the various places they need to go.
Just a note for Dads doing more than their parents - it’s quality more than quantity. Be fully present with your kids more than trying to kill yourself fitting more hours in. That’s what matters. Bad parenting tends to be more of the type that isn’t engaged. Kids don’t hate you for going to work. They are hurt if you come home and ignore them.
Yeah, what's the point in technically spending more time with kids if half of that time you stare at your mobile phone.
I feel there is a trend of not fully appreciating what fathers who spend less time with kids actually do. I think that's unfair, frankly. Many of them do things that contribute to the family in other ways. What was my Dad busy doing? Focusing on his career in order to provide for his family. Doing hobbies that increased his skill set. Fixing the house to ensure we all had a nice safe place to live. Tending to the gar…
You can see this in how people respond to complaints of lazy spouses. If a woman complains, everyone is by default on her side. If a man complains, even if it's obviously true his wife is not doing enough, he is still the one blamed because maybe he wasn't nice to his wife or something.
I can't help but wonder about the relationship between fathers (and, in fact, all parents) spending more time with their children, and people choosing to have fewer children, and later. I think it's unquestionably true that fathers spending more time with their children is, on the whole, much better for those children. But it's also true that it's a huge problem for society that people are having fewer children. And…
Ugh... In the 90s, people were screaming and panicking about the future of over-population. Dystopian scenes of dense and dirty tiny living-quarters stacked on top of each other. Now everyone's screaming about a declining population. We should embrace and prepare for degrowth for a better chance at a wonderful future, not shout at the sky hoping people will make more babies for the economy. And guess what, if we prep…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don’t imagine that it wasn’t heavily promoted by industrialites after they saw that after ww2 they could increase the labor force by 30 percent without paying more than they were before. Everything that starts out with a few well meaning people is, especially now, immediately turned into an astroturfing campaign to fuel some specific economic or political (is there really a difference?) end.
The FIRE movement is in direct opposition to this and should be encouraged for that alone - as it reduces the pool of workers.
Fundamentally, the economy is sustained by energy. In preindustrial society, that energy was provided by agriculture, which tends to be somewhat sustainable. Fossil fuels fuelled explosive expansion, leading to the paradigm that unlimited geometric expansion of the economy was desirable, which led to delusional theories that it was uncapped even in limited space.
Now the world is near its carrying capacity in several dimensions, and we are going to find the limits to our delusion. Automation may help us find the economic limits of this paradigm before we hit the physical wall, which might turn out to be a good thing or a bad thing.
At any create, I am convinced that the next century will be marked by systemic change that fundamentally reorganises global priorities and might best be described in terms of collapsing paradigms as economies move away from human labor, in the process changing focus from the accumulation of money, which is mostly useful for paying wages, to pure power and resource control.
This article, and the place it has on Hackernews and the quality of "commments" raises serious questions for me about Hacker News as a whole, the moderation, the readers and mechanism.
My complaint is not that this kind of thing exists. My complaint is that something better does not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Millennials seem to have their shit together more than any generation since the silent generation, at least in the UK.
I'm GenX, but had kids a little late, so most of my kid's friends either 1. have Millennial parents or 2. are raised by their Boomer grandparents (parents not much in the picture). The differences in how these two sets of caretakers behave is astounding. Take a typical visit from the friend to my house to play with my kid: The friends who are with their grandparents show up. Grandpa parks his car in my driveway, and…
What's most crazy to me is how somehow almost all boomers are more addicted to smartphones than gen Z and Alpha. They'll have their grandkids over, and they'll be glued to their smartphone instead of interacting with those kids.