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

The Surreal Magnificence of Fatherhood

shreyans.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 260 posts

Re: The Surreal Magnificence of Fatherhood

#181

Post by deanCommie »

crystal_revenge wrote: post #142
llm_nerd wrote: post #47

I have four children. I have never regretted it or wished for a different path. I know it isn't for everyone, but it absolutely was and is for me. At the same time I do think articles like this should be countered with the reality that many fathers aren't overwhelmed with waves of love or "surreal magnificence". With each of my children being born the primary emotions I could point to were dread and anxiety. The sudd…

As the father of a teenager, I would also add: take parenting "wisdom" from new parents with the same grain of salt you would career advice from someone who just landed their first job. I personally found the complexities of parenting and, even more importantly, family life , don't really start to emerge until after the first few years. Talk to divorced parents of older children about the "Surreal Magnificence" of pa…

To put a counter-point on your counter-point:

* Divorced parents aren't representative experiences for most parents. (The oft-used statistics that >50% of marriages end in divorce miss that those with one divorce often end up with N divorces. Aka most PEOPLE, and most COUPLES, do NOT end up divorced)

* The job of a parent is to raise an adult. There are certainly those that become enamored with the idea of parenting a baby/toddler/child and are unprepared for the complicated job ahead. But there are also those that seem to think their job ends as soon as the child is legally an adult. Or those that are all too happy to throw away their decade plus of investment because their teenager going through absolutely normal hormonal chaos are suddenly disrespectful to them.

* In essence, I'm trying to say that divorce parents of older children are just as much full of shit as the new parents in terms of giving someone advice.

Re: The Surreal Magnificence of Fatherhood

#182

Post by mistermann »

lwhalen wrote: post #176
mistermann wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You are backing into a very common fallacy, Pascal's Wager. Had I made an assertion (about the object level point of contention) or even offered relevant advice (I didn't), you would have a fine point. But I did not. You on the other hand, did make an assertion ( several , actually). Have you some more Normative Memetic Rhetoric (framed as Good Faith Critical Thinking) for me? And also: I did make an assertion, and…

You're parsing semantics rather than engaging with the core point. When I say something "can be dismissed," I mean that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The burden of proof lies with those making supernatural claims, not with those rejecting them. You seem to be suggesting there's some deep irony or inconsistency in my position, but pointing out logical flaws in religious reasoning isn't the same…

> You're parsing semantics rather than engaging with the core point.

a) You are engaging in rhetoric.

b) "parsing semantics" is not the win you think it is - we are in the age of AI, man. People now know what the term means.

> When I say something "can be dismissed," I mean that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

The question is: what is the epistemic status?

Are you afraid to admit it out loud, or does the question not even make sense?

> The burden of proof lies with those making supernatural claims, not with those rejecting them.

False.

"A" claim lies with anyone who makes an assertion of fact. That is you, and it is not me.

> You seem to be suggesting there's some deep irony or inconsistency in my position

There is, though I wouldn't call it "deep" (that's "you" engaging in rhetorical framing"). And I explicitly told you the problem: you are experiencing (psychologically) "Faith" (belief without adequate substantiating evidence).

Look, you're welcome to believe whatever you like, but please don't act as if you are working with some superior to others logic. You are using heuristics, and perhaps some "consensus" "reality".

> but pointing out logical flaws in religious reasoning isn't the same as making unsupported assertions about the supernatural.

I am pointing out the errors in yours. But if you are admitting the religious aspect to it, we've made some progress.

FWIW: in case you're wondering whether I think religious people are also silly in their reasoning: yes I do.

> And yes, I consciously chose to focus on the most relevant parts of your argument rather than chase every tangential point.

But then you would be treating the subjective realm as objective, which is kinda the same thing that I am originally complaining about.

I am genuinely curious: do you think I am dumb, or confused? "Pedantic" I can understand (thought that experience is also technically incorrect).

Re: The Surreal Magnificence of Fatherhood

#183

Post by The_Colonel »

dgfitz wrote: post #168
The_Colonel wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When are they bonding? All that time in between the breastfeeding? Somehow, this question does not compute for me (as a father of a breast-fed 8-month-old baby).

All that time, huh? First kid?

Yes, the baby is in fact not feeding most of the time. You can easily find several hours a day during which you can bond with the baby, I'm pretty sure your wife is going to be supportive in this effort.

(It's our second kid)

Re: The Surreal Magnificence of Fatherhood

#185

Post by vivi_ »

mistermann wrote: post #171
vivi_ wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are you doing this? Friendly reminder that this is HackerNews; nobody is here (nor cares) to read your incoherent, unwelcome religious preach nor to argue religion - at all. That is not the topic of the article, there is nothing to do with religion in the article yet you feel it is your duty to solicit your irrelevant and frankly offensive religious beliefs onto others. I don't spew atheist thought unto christian…

> Friendly reminder that this is HackerNews; nobody is here (nor cares) to read your incoherent, unwelcome religious preach nor to argue religion - at all. Be careful, Faith comes in many forms, and in many metaphysical frameworks (science, as one example).

Faith != religion

I have faith in the mathematical probability that you will reply - 66.6% Nobody told me to do that, but I have faith!

Do be careful, religion also divides countries, separates families and inherently promotes inequality by categorizing human beings into troughs to be tagged, labelled and consumed.

Re: The Surreal Magnificence of Fatherhood

#186

Post by rangestransform »

DAGdug wrote: post #175
rangestransform wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Immigrants, even better that their source country paid for their natal care and education rather than us

That’s fine, but if the immigrants move from the developing to the developed world, that incurs a massive increase in their carbon footprint.

it's better than paying for natal care and education for a local-born child who will still have a high carbon footprint, and might also not be as productive as the immigrant

Re: The Surreal Magnificence of Fatherhood

#187

Post by [deleted] »

llm_nerd wrote: post #156
llm_trw wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Do you think all of the latchkey lone children of the current generation are the most psychologically healthy individuals the world has seen? https://www.census.gov/newsroom/stories/siblings.html 80% of kids under 18 have siblings in the USA today. >The idea that 2 children splits the love is absolutely insane. It's also what's blindingly obvious when you spend more than 5 minutes in a playground with single kids an…

>80% of kids under 18 have siblings in the USA today. I wasn't claiming that all or most kids are single children. I was observing that by your philosophy those single children would somehow have the best outcomes (in a multivariate manner). I don't think that's the case. >It's also what's blindingly obvious Sure.

[deleted]

Re: The Surreal Magnificence of Fatherhood

#188

Post by BirdieNZ »

anon291 wrote: post #123
IgorPartola wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. The reason why is because we have opportunities to move up and down the social ladder. Basically it’s not really like the whole village raised your kid before, that’s more of a romanticized version. What happened was that your extended family helped because you lived with them for your entire life. So you have a kid, your sister in law watches them along with your mother while you work. Where do you work? Well th…

Simply not true. My grandparents moved from India to watch us. They didn't have to. They did live with us for a while but in my parents house In no way did we live with them. They lived with us. Ultimately this is cultural. JD Vance talks about this when it comes to his mother in law who did the same thing. Cultures that value kids will have more. My parents did the same for us

> Cultures that value kids will have more. My parents did the same for us

Last I checked, cultures that have access to contraception and female education have fewer kids, independent of religion or tradition or practice of valuing kids.

Indian culture is no exception; total fertility rate has declined in the last ~50 years from ~6 children per woman to ~2, and continues to decline.

Re: The Surreal Magnificence of Fatherhood

#189

Post by DAGdug »

rangestransform wrote: post #186
DAGdug wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s fine, but if the immigrants move from the developing to the developed world, that incurs a massive increase in their carbon footprint.

it's better than paying for natal care and education for a local-born child who will still have a high carbon footprint, and might also not be as productive as the immigrant

And one could argue that: 1. Immigrants typically have higher TFRs that within years wipes out the gains you allude to 2. Productivity depends on how skilled the immigrants are; much of Europe has a large chunk of immigrants with lower productivity than the native born. Anyway, this is a low signal discussion on both sides; this is my last comment on this matter

Re: The Surreal Magnificence of Fatherhood

#190

Post by msteffen »

orzig wrote: post #21
tafka wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. I for one am probably heading down the divorce path that the article speaks of (14mo child)

There are ways to throw money at the stress you are feeling, which will still be cheaper than divorce. Children can get much easier as they mature, which might give you space to work through your marriage even if it feels impossible now. I was deeply burned out at the 14 mark with my first child. I did lots of things since then and am much better even after more children.

Yes, I also found the first child much harder than the second, which I wasn’t expecting.

I’m one of those people who had a strong feeling of falling in love with my child right away, but even so the toil and sleep deprivation ground my sanity down to a low I never reached before or since.

I was really anxious about #2, but a) we spent some savings and hired much more help for the first year, and b) she just sleeps better than her older brother, which is luck. It’s been incomparably better.

To the parent poster, look into a mother’s helper, or even a cleaner who can come daily. We also had to switch to formula earlier than we planned (biology intervened), and that transition had to happen even earlier with #2, and frankly that helped too. I’ve become very pro-formula. Nursing is nice when it’s working, but if it’s not, it’s not worth making a tough year harder—formula has gotten quite good and lets you balance the load better. The breastmilk-IQ link everyone’s scared of isn’t borne out by sibling studies anyway.

Post reply on HN