Get the top HN stories in your inbox every day.
WarOnPrivacy
gyomu
We’ve also eradicated the unsupervised peer socialization that kids experienced with the free range. It’s common for a child these days to only ever be around other kids in very supervised environments with adults present (play dates, school, organized activities).
Spending long chunks of time with no adults, in a large mixed-age group, is a less and less common experience.
I spent some time in a remote fishing village in Madagascar and that was one of the things that surprised me the most - kids would spend all day together in an unsupervised mob roaming around the village, from the youngest ones who were just old enough to walk independently to age 8-10 or so (older than that and you had things to do).
I also enjoyed this essay on the topic: https://unpublishablepapers.substack.com/p/where-do-the-chil...
lazyasciiart
> nearly no one seems to have noticed it.
I'm very curious how much time you spend talking about parenting and consuming either social media or professional content about parenting, because those topics are so deeply embedded in parenting today that it's like saying "nobody seems to have noticed the internet".
eleventen
Indeed. _everyone_ has noticed it. Nobody really has any plan to fix it. IMO the urbanism movement comes closest to having some practical plans.
iamthemonster
Where I live in Western Australia, it is perfectly normal for 10-year-olds to be getting on their bikes and going round to their friends' houses after school.
The swing towards "Fuck Around And Find Out" parenting has been going for the last ten years here, and everybody gives you rapturous applause when you encourage kids to have their own independent playtime.
I have also never seen a man at a playground get dirty looks, in fact there are more men out with their kids than women on the weekends (fewer during weekdays).
WarOnPrivacy
> I'm very curious how much time you spend talking about parenting and consuming either social media or professional content about parenting,
I had minor children from the early 90s to the late 10s. Parenting discussions were pretty much an ongoing thing. When I contrasted my childhood with my kids', there would be a long pause while the other parents realize it didn't used to always be this way.
Perhaps in the last decade awareness has bloomed and for whatever reason, I'm not coming across it. I hope so. That would be great.
emptysongglass
I agree this is a terrible loss. On the other hand, new dads are actually learning how to feel their feelings, communicate those feelings in a healthy way, and tell their children they love them.
Millennial dads were (mostly) a distant mess who for whatever reason saw the expression of feelings as "weak".
emptysongglass
I just realized I completely missed the grammar on this one: I meant dads of millenials.
bombcar
I’ve noticed that people don’t notice when the kids are free range anymore, because they’re all connected to an international network and pinging their location every minute.
ai_terk_er_jerb
[dead]
nathanaldensr
Millennials on the whole are incredibly neurotic about all kinds of things. Why that is is a matter of debate.
WarOnPrivacy
> Millennials on the whole are incredibly neurotic about all kinds of things.
Truly, this hasn't been my experience. I'm GenX (edit: not GenZ), my parents were Silent Gen (WWII vets) and my kids are Millennials. My 25yo kids understand behavior and psychology better than my parents ever did.
The reason my kids grew up imprisoned is there was nowhere for them to go. The risk to their well-being was never from strangers but from cars and police.
opo
>...my parents were Silent Gen (WWII vets)
If your parents were WW II vets, wouldn't they be part of Greatest Generation (often considered to be those born 1901–1927)? Silent Generation are often considered to be those born 1928–1945. They weren't adults when WW II was fought.
jaredklewis
> I'm GenZ, my parents were Silent Gen (WWII vets) and my kids are Millennials.
My understanding is that Gen Z comes AFTER millennials, so if you are Z, your kids can't be millennials. Maybe you are Gen X? Also, if your kids are 25 now, then they would be gen z, not millennials.
P.S. Don't shoot the messenger, I didn't make up this dumb system or these dumb names ^_^
I agree with everything in your top level comment.
avadodin
25yo is solid GenZ
orthoxerox
You probably meant GenX.
rhubarbtree
Millennials seem to have their shit together more than any generation since the silent generation, at least in the UK.
ryandrake
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 walks the kid to my door. We greet, kid runs off to play, and we shoot the shit for a while, asking how things have been going, maybe Grandpa wants to check out the latest on my woodworking project, whatever. Then Grandpa says goodbye, I'll be back later, and heads out.
The friends who are with their Millennial parents show up. Dad parks his car waaaaay out by the curb, never even going on my property. Kid gets out of the car and walks himself to my door. Dad speeds away in his car, never even acknowledging us. Dad comes back to pick the kid up, same thing. Parks way far away, texts his kid, and the kid excuses himself and runs all the way out to the car. I don't even know the names of any of my kid's friends' Millennial parents!
This pattern repeats across N = about 6.
jeffbee
Silent Americans are the most fucked up generation ever. They are the ones actually responsible for most of the bullshit that people attribute to Boomers.
watwut
The things, grandparents are more neurotic. Just had less options.
mothballed
I don't know if it's the parent that is neurotic so much as that it only takes 1 of 1000 assholes, who now have their little snitch device in their pocket 24/7, to call the child snatchers (CPS). And the child snatchers are legally barred from revealing who your accuser is, so the anonymous cowards can fuck up your life for weeks at no cost to themselves and with the utmost convenience. This effectively means every single person who views your child, now has veto powers on your parenting. The end result of that is people parent in the most paranoid, liability averting way possible.
When I was a kid the Karens against childhood autonomy existed but it actually cost them time and money to rat us out since they would have to drive home to a telephone, so long as we didn't play near houses. If an asshole raised hell we were gone by the time they could call the authorities.
watwut
The actual threat of CPS 8s grossly exagerrated here. And the fear is one of the symptoms.
rhubarbtree
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.
awakeasleep
If you’re a dad and live in the same house as your kids the time comes naturally… men have been purposefully fleeing it throughout history.
So its not a matter of “killing yourself to get more time” … its a matter of not abandoning your kids and wife to make time for your hobbies or whatever
1970-01-01
Any paper or citations on this? I don't believe it.
pluralmonad
You should definitely follow your instincts here, but wanting researchers to show you how to raise your kids is a fools errand IMO. Put those highly tuned parental instincts to use!
dimes
Isn’t this the exact sentiment used by those who oppose vaccinations?
syntaxing
Dad and millennial here and this change has been very noticeable in my circle of friends including myself and I’m all for it. Men have been doing their share of housework too. But I will say, it’s not all dads but enough that I think this will have a positive effect on the next generation.
justonceokay
Im gay and because of that was disowned. My partner has a brother “K” and K has three children. Watching K show up in basic ways for his kids, like remembering what songs they like and teaching them sports is the fastest way to make me ugly cry.
Thanks to anyone reading this if you’re trying to be a good dad. You’re making the world a better place in ways you don’t even see
pchristensen
This is the rare time I wish HN had emoji reactions instead of just upvotes.
mekdoonggi
I can honestly say that I don't have any time for a dad who isn't all-in for their kids. I understand if the responsibilities aren't 50/50, but if you're making mom handle everything I think you're a loser.
All my millennial dad friends clean, change diapers, cook, whatever. And make no mistake all the moms are incredibly hard-working and involved with the kids.
If I happened to meet socially a dad who wasn't doing those things I would literally make fun of them. "You're a grown man who can't change a diaper or clean a bathroom?"
grvdrm
I’m with you mostly. Some different specifics but the point in mind is this: it’s a common thread of rapport and conversation. I sometimes feel like an alien on earth when I spend time with friends or other groups where there seems to be a atrong “ughh my family and home life” vibe.
mekdoonggi
I said hello to another dad at soccer for three-year-olds, and he responded with something like, "Ugh, I'd rather be ANYWHERE else".
It's 10am on a Saturday and you're running around playing games with your kid. I just stared at him and went on.
ai_terk_er_jerb
[dead]
pkaler
Yup.
Woke up at 6am. Child 1 woke up at 7am. Dropped her off at daycare at 8am. All the other children were being dropped off by their dads, too. Full day of work ahead. Dinner at 6pm. Bath at 7pm. Bedtime and story at 8pm. Usually calls with Bangalore from 9pm to midnight but it's Labour Day over there. Sleep at midnight.
Rinse. Repeat.
grvdrm
Are the 9pm and later calls w/Bangalore an every day thing?
Here's my routine.
5am: wake up/coffee
5:30ish: gym
6:30ish: back, clean kitchen, take out trash, make lunch for 2 kids
7:30: nanny arrives, and I sit down at desk, and kids are now awake
8:30: walk older kid to school
9-5:30: work or whatever else. I run my own business so some days feel very busy, some the opposite. I just try to be intentional with my time.
5:30 p: start dinner
6:30 p: dinner (or earlier depending on demands)
7:30 p: kid bed time
8:15-8:30: done w/kids. time for a bit of TV or wind-down, catch up with my wife about her day for as long as I can manage to stay awake
9:30-10: bed time (ideal day)
I stopped working at night unless it is critical for a next-morning thing. That leaves me absent from some opportunities that I might otherwise get spending more time on work, but I also have more time to focus on me/marriage/non-work-life
My point in sharing is that I make space on purpose for me. Your schedule sounds (and I am presuming) like you don't have much time for you. Is that right?
mekdoonggi
Don't take this as criticism, but I wonder if you could ask the Bangalore folks to get to their point faster and get some more sleep. Very important for health.
basisword
My one concern with this is the risk of eventual burn out + mental health issues which will have its own impact on the children. Full time career + very present parent during the weekdays might just not be possible. WFH definitely helps make it significantly more possible though.
Also worth not forgetting that in most cases the fathers of millennials were a hell of a lot more present and emotionally available than their fathers etc. I'm sure we'll make plenty of our own mistakes that our children will try to avoid when their turn comes.
mschuster91
> Full time career + very present parent during the weekdays might just not be possible.
Guess why birth rates are crashing - and why they crash hardest in Asia, especially Japan.
purplerabbit
And guess why trad household structures are (still) popular in some circles
veryfancy
And it’s great.
ai_terk_er_jerb
[dead]
sjhatfield
I think this only applies to certain segments of society. My child has type 1 so I'm active on Facebook groups for parents. The number of mums who say their partner is not involved really at all in their child's care is so sad. The child's own father can't supervise their child solo because they can't manage the care. And then the divorced parents. Oh boy...
giantg2
"The number of mums who say their partner is not involved really at all in their child's care is so sad."
While that can be true, I wonder how much of it is true. It's pretty common in therapy to hear partners saying the other one doesn't contribute, but further investigation can often turn up observation biases.
david-gpu
Without proper statistics we can't know. But I do wonder why is it that if you spend any time on parenting websites you find lots of mothers complaining about deadbeat husbands, and so few fathers complaining about deadbeat wives. Purely anecdotal, but it is very lopsided, and it has made me wonder why is it.
I am a dad, FWIW.
mapotofu
> But I do wonder why is it that if you spend any time on parenting websites you find lots of mothers complaining about deadbeat husbands, and so few fathers complaining about deadbeat wives.
My ex wife does this. I take my issues with her to a therapist (instead of online forums). FWIW I have always been more present than her in our child’s life and certainly pay a lot more too. One data point, but it’s in the population you’re referring to.
Some people want sympathy at the expense of their partner’s reputation.
mc3301
I'm a dad, too. The lopsidedness could come from many places: mothers being drawn to parenting websites (marketing), women feeling more compelled to voice complaints online (if they are stay-at-home-moms, they don't have coworkers to chat with), women actually getting treated unfairly (very true... patriarchy), etc.
I've heard this from many moms, "My husband does so little in terms of housework, childcare, play and mental load, that it is actually easier when he is out of the house; when he is home, I essentially have to take care of an additional child." I even know some moms that organize playdates for their husband, as in ONLY the husbands, so that that the husbands are out of the house.
On the other hand, I know of two separate marriages that fell apart because the husband worked, did all the child care and housework, while the mom stayed home and doomscrolled. After a few years of no improvement, divorce. Of course many things could be at play here... screen addiction, post-partum depression, etc.
Raising kids is complex, time-consuming, hard, and amazing. It takes a lot of energy, people, and love. I always try to assume people are doing their best, though sometimes even that's tough.
giantg2
Being a deadbeat is defined as not paying. It's not about caregiving. These roles may not be equally distributed by gender, but then why is there not as much complaining by men about women not being equal partners financially? It's has to do with bias.
You can also find that much of the research about household duties is biased against the type of work that men have traditionally done (eg excluding yard work, maintenance, etc).
brewdad
It depends on the site but when I was a SAHD, I found many of those parenting sites were not welcoming to dads, even dads doing the exact same work as the moms. Moms there wanted a place to vent about their husbands and men who were pulling their fair share or were handling most of the parent duties simply weren't allowed.
geodel
If someone is saying on Facebook it must be true.
compiler-guy
That's the thing about trends in aggregate data. It tells very little about the details of any particular situation. There are almost certainly a wide variety of subgroups where this particular trend doesn't hold, and others where the changes are even more dramatic.
But the aggregate trend is quite clear.
IcyWindows
Isn't the point that there is no way to get reliable data on this?
How would aggregation of unreliable data help?
compiler-guy
The data is reasonably reliable, at least in the view of the team that published the paper, and those who reviewed it. No one claims it is perfect.
And the post that started this sub thread was about how their experience didn’t show the trend. But no one in the social sciences expects every sample to follow the trend. There will be numerous exceptions. Just like sometimes when one rolls a pair of dice one gets a twelve.
That twelve is an absolutely an accurate sample from the data but just because one sometimes gets an outlier it doesn’t mean that there is no central tendency.
sparrish
As a GenX dad and now grandfather, I couldn't be happier to read this.
Every dad wants his sons to be a better father than he was. Glad to see it happening.
Nothing strengthens the knees like the weight of responsibility.
bix6
Yeah the weight of housing could be a little less though :)
red-iron-pine
or groceries. or gas. or goddamn pee-wee football team costs.
mekdoonggi
I was so happy last year to find a great daycare facility that only cost $1200/month for full time care :)
_doctor_love
[flagged]
lazyasciiart
> EDIT: if you downvote this comment it means you don't think there are deadbeat dads out there.
No, it means that when your attempt to extend the metaphor failed. People who avoid strength exercises just don't get stronger knees. They don't "get stronger knees but by not doing weights".
ortusdux
Makes me think of this clip from Bob Odenkirk: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/MNhpnEczGQA
Ancapistani
Not directly relevant to the article, but I'm curious if anyone else has connected the fact that fathers are spending more time being close with their children at the same time average global testosterone levels have dropped without a solid explanation?
To be clear, I'm not trying to point a causal arrow here, or even say it's good or bad. I read a study the other day that asserted that fathers who spent more time parenting have measurably lower testosterone levels, and that the delta correlates to the amount of time spent.
jaredklewis
> testosterone levels have dropped without a solid explanation
There is a solid explanation.
First, before the adoption of mass spec, studies used a less accurate method of measuring testosterone that overstated testosterone levels.
Also, the studies showing the population level decline in testosterone generally controlled for obesity (which naturally lowers testosterone) using BMI. But BMI is a very crude measure.
When studies control with better methods like BMI + waist circumference, and only compare samples using the mass spec measurement method, the unexplained population level decline goes away. After fixing the measurement method, what remains of the decline can be explained by BMI + waist circumference. In other words, modern men are more prone to obesity and metabolic syndrome, which naturally reduces testosterone. Case closed.
Ancapistani
That study appears to be US only, while global studies have shown the effect.
For that matter, some _animal_ studies have shown declining testosterone as well. That doesn't seem to be well-studied, but if it holds up it would make me lean toward it being something environmental (e.g. microplastic pollution)
jaredklewis
I linked that study because it is particularly interesting because they run the mass spec test on archived blood samples.
But there are other studies and meta analyses which cover other countries and come to the same conclusion.
I think many of the studies claiming to find significant population level decline are older and overstate the issue due to the methodological errors outlined in my previous post. If you are thinking of a particular one, please share a link.
I am not familiar with the research on testosterone levels in animals. In humans, while not conclusory, I do think the evidence suggests that increasing rates of obesity and metabolic syndrome are the proximate cause of testosterone decline.
gracefulliberty
If that's the case, that's not a bad thing. Maybe men who aren't properly bonded with their kids have higher than normal testosterone for some reason?
cable2600
We were latchkey kids. The key to the house door was tied around our neck using a shoelace. When the street lights came on, it meant going home. Both parents worked to afford the house and the kids' expenses.
ipsento606
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 you can make a reasonable argument that increasing expectations around the quality of parenting are party of that trend.
LeifCarrotson
If fathers spending more time with their children is better for the children but worse for ~~society~~the economy, is that really even a question worth considering?
Screw the economy, love your kid (or kids).
geodel
Well it is worth considering. Unless one think they and their children can just exist beyond space and time of where society, economy exist.
red-iron-pine
society and economy are shaped by the needs of the people in it.
they easiest because of our needs. we don't exist to meet its needs.
mc3301
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 prepare for degrowth, where a generation or two or three of the entire planet never goes hungry, never goes to war, and has the freedom of movement, creativity, innovation, interaction... Those people will want to have many many babies, and we can once again start worrying about overpopulation.
Izkata
> Now everyone's screaming about a declining population.
In general (don't know about the person you're responding to) the worry isn't so much that it's happening as it is the rate it's happening.
zamadatix
Those outcomes seem an extraordinarily optimistic take of what population decline would lead to. I don't think it'll be all doom either, but the world was not an ideal place when the population was previously billions fewer either.
mothballed
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 would be no problem, my wife would deal with that. Instead I stopped at 1 when I realized I am not the kind of person who enjoys being equally involved with children.
phil21
I think a lot of it is the type of things you do while spending time with kids.
I watch my friends raise young children, and to be blunt it largely looks miserable to me. You effectively are babysitting children activities 24x7. Basically running a tiny daycare.
The families and adults seem to simply exist as caretakers for their child's lives.
I ascribe to "the kid is just now part of your general life" for 90% of your adult activities. Could be working in the shop, outdoor chores, cleaning the house, fixing the car, shopping, whatever. The point is the kid primarily exists in your life and does whatever it is you are doing, not the other way around.
Yeah, some things are impossible to do with a kid of course. But not nearly as many as currently believed for most children. If properly socialized, kids can exist non-disruptively in plenty of situations. And the danger to them in a lot of spots is wildly exaggerated. I brought my 5 year old into warehouses and lumberyards with a bit of instruction and teaching them to pay attention. They pretty quickly adapt.
If I have another kid I'd plan on not modifying my life a whole lot. The kid will simply come with to most things and liberal use of babysitting and such will happen. I have friends who are terrified to even leave their toddlers with babysitters these days for a few hours - it's absurd.
Kids imo do best in a balanced life where the get to learn by watching and doing. Not catering to their every whim and desire and shielding them from every possible danger.
There are certainly some age ranges (infant through ~3 or 4 years old or so) that are much more difficult, but after that parents seem to prefer life on hard mode these days for some reason. Paranoia and peer pressure from my standpoint drives most of it.
My older (25 now!) son would have been a miserable experience for me if every single day was a "rainy weekend" style thing where we're stuck inside playing children's games and the like with near constant 24x7 attention and direct interaction at his level. I'd have gone insane. Having him "around" most of the time while I did things with an hour or two of direct "kid time" engagement was totally sustainable, and he seems to have gotten a lot of enrichment from most of it. Note that wasn't staring at screens though - it was physically and actively doing stuff. And part of learning as a parent and a child of a parent is the parent making mistakes. Shit happens, just correct for it moving forward. So long as no major injuries occur life moves on and typically everyone is better off for it.
david-gpu
In the same way you power through taking care of your kids, not because you enjoy it but because you prioritize their well-being, how likely is it that moms are generally doing the same? It seems to me like men have been historically avoiding this child-rearing responsibility, moreso than women enjoying doing so.
I can tell you that my wife and I are both exhausted of taking care of them 24/7. It is not something we do for funsies.
mothballed
I think it's natural that someone, whether you believe in biological differences or not, will relatively prefer child-rearing to some other tasks that the family needs to do. Modern society has brainwashed females in particular into believing that equal-childcare should be a thing and they're being robbed if one is "avoiding it" (even your rhetoric exhibits this brainwashing).
It doesn't have to be the wife per-se. When I was building our house, I did most of the carpentry. My wife hated it and did very little of that. My wife hates driving the tractor. My wife hates driving any vehicle. My wife hates doing the plumbing and electric. My wife hates taking care of the pets, so I take care of them. My wife doesn't like practicing self-defense and security for the house, and there are lots of dangerous animals and criminals here, so I handle that. I do not ask my wife to do any of those things except at worst a few small % of the time compared to when I do them. This does not bother me at all because different people prefer different things.
Modern society has brainwashed people to think they need to share child-care and ideally equally. I think this is highly misinformed utopian vision. Voluntary preference based division of labor is smart and helps us all enjoy our lives more. Very rarely do couples have absolute equal relative preference for all the tasks, even if they dislike all of the tasks.
It seems obvious that if you brainwash people to think labor sharing by exchanging tasks is "avoidance" that you increase the chance one of the two parties will just veto any additional children. But if you bring this up then it's straight to whataboutism but women also don't enjoy it which totally misses the mark about relative preference that results in imbalanced childcare, which can be evaluated even when both people dislike a task. Unless you totally reject sexual dimorphism, you should be at least open to the possibility as well that females on average might have higher relative preference for child-rearing than other things, as long as feminists aren't shaming them left and right with artificial impositions that somehow they're being robbed if a man is "avoiding" it by exchanging labor to do something else.
tweetle_beetle
If your limit for being slightly out of your comfort zone is a year, why did you have a child? You don't have to be a parent to know that you are going to be challenged when a baby arrives.
em-bee
the question is, where does that feeling come from? from your own time growing up, based on how your own father interacted with you? from your friends/peers? others?
i can relate. when my kids were young i didn't know what to do with them. but it's not that i didn't like spending time with them. before we had kids, working part-time so i could spend a lot of time at home was my dream. it was what i wanted. when the dream became real my inability to initiate play with the children was unexpected.
i figure it was because i had no rolemodels from my time growing up, no childhood experience that i could replicate because i grew up with a single dad who wasn't as close to me as i wanted to. every interaction was initiated by my children. it got easier as they got older because our interests became more compatible. (we could play games together that i also enjoyed, etc)
all the other stuff, taking care of them, feeding, putting them to sleep, etc. was easy because it's clear what needs to be done. and it wasn't/isn't exhausting either. i relish every interaction and moments of success where we achieve something together.
bombcar
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.
munksbeer
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 still demand an enormous amount of attention.
It turns out I am one of those fathers with a personality that doesn't deal well with constant sensory overload. I was medicated for ADHD myself as a child and one of my children is AuADHD. It isn't his fault and we're trying to find ways to help him (and everyone else), but his meltdowns make life so, so hard for the whole family. He wants to control and dominate every situation, whether it is his brother or his parents.
I was wondering if the dynamics of three would have made it easier because he couldn't dominate his brother so eaily, or if that would just mean he became the isolated child.
talkingtab
This measures fatherhood in terms of time spent with children. I question whether that metric is of any value what so ever. Is a farmer a better farmer because he/she spends hours in the field? Or is the correct measure of a farmer the crops?
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.
saghm
> Is a farmer a better farmer because he/she spends hours in the field? Or is the correct measure of a farmer the crops?
At the risk is stating the obvious, crops do not have the ability to notice whether or not the farmer spends time with them. If you think that a child won't notice that one of their parents doesn't spend time with them and will be affected by it, I don't know what to tell you.
adammarples
But do they notice the difference between 4 hours and 5 hours? Or are they noticing something else entirely?
pchristensen
When it comes to kids, quantity has a quality all its own. Yes, there are better and worse ways to spend time with kids, but between engagement, enrichment, play, laundry, cooking, feeding, changing diapers, etc, there's just an immense amount of time to fill and work to do. By these metrics, doing the dishes probably isn't counted as "parenting", but since it lets your partner spend time with the kid, or rest and recuperate, it's a good proxy.
If you don't believe me, fold a load of laundry the next time you visit a friend with little kids. Or play with their kid for half an hour so the parent can let their guard down for a bit. It has an incredible impact.
tmvphil
Yes yes the goal of life is to flourish and this metric doesn't measure flourishing directly so what's the point? And indeed is the fact that we talk about observable metrics rather than whatever else I had in mind not an indictment of this forum, nay, society at large?
tsoukase
It's a good article and, as a father, I experience and certify what it says. It presents the causes of the main observed fact (more time for kids) which happens anywhere in the Western world at least. But it can't go further and explain what general social changes cause all that. For me, in no order, they are:
Financial strains (family disposable income, high cost of living, wealth inequality)
Expand of electronic device use (from TVs to modern ones) and their apps
Convergence of gender roles, making males less masculine
General loss of classical values, promotion of easy life, short term goals and superficial qualities leading to misery and deactivation
Get the top HN stories in your inbox every day.
> Millennial fathers have roughly tripled the amount of time they spend with kids.
I think this really undersells it. My mom parented a few hours a week. My kids (like most) lived under ceaseless 24/7 adulting. The time I spent with my sons was more like a 20x increase over my parents' generation.
Past that, it seems like it's taking forever for anyone to notice the radical changes in modern parenting/childhood. Along with eliminating adult-free peer time, we've eradicated free range areas. My generation could roam (w/o adults) for miles in every direction; my kids (like most) could go from one edge of the yard to the other (credit: car culture, trespassing culture, false stranger-danger culture).
The surprising part (to me) isn't how thoroughly adults have sabotaged kids growth opportunities, it's that nearly no one seems to have noticed it.