7 ms·
One question - why was Kurnia the one who had to take Adam? Wouldn't it be a lot more sensible to leave him home with the dad?
by Kluny 11y ago
One question - why was Kurnia the one who had to take Adam? Wouldn't it be a lot more sensible to leave him home with the dad?
- dcole2929 11y agothat was literally my first thought.
- seiji 11y agoPerhaps it was a cleverly calculated marketing move? After all, https://twitter.com/Pinboard/status/632577089539997697 https://twitter.com/Pinboard/status/632577089539997697
- modfodder 11y agoSounds like it was very tight financially, it might have made more financial sense for her to integrate childcare into her daily life at YC than for him to pay for daycare/babysitting while he's at work. Seems it worked out fine for the most part, but it's also possible that if she had to do it over again, different choices would have been made.
- alistairSH 11y agoThat was my assumption.
- tomsaffell 11y agoI can't speak for anyone else's circumstances, but I can't imagine ever opting for my two year old son to be away from his mother for three months. Happy to elaborate, if people are interested.
- Kluny 11y agoPlease. I have no kids, hope to someday, but it seems to me that being separated from either parent for three months sucks equally for the parent, but the kid probably won't notice that much. It's not like he's breastfeeding or anything. I'm interested to learn how I might be wrong though. *Yo, I asked a legitimate polite question in the interest of learning more, stating my preexisting assumptions and inviting people to educate me. The parent comment gave a very nice and informative reply which was helpful to me and likely others. I don't think that rates downvotes.
- randlet 11y agoAt two years old most children will have a stronger bond with the mother than the father because generally the bulk of care, including breastfeeding, has been administered by the mother up until this point in their life. There are likely genetic/chemical/evolutionary forces at play here too. Even at three years old, my daughter would unquestionably choose to spend three months with my wife rather than me (I'm not hurt or offended by this!). edit: "but the kid probably won't notice that much" The kid will definitely notice :) Being separated from a kid for three months would also be much harder emotionally on my wife than it would for me.
- sarah2079 11y agoIn my experience this is not true when the father is also doing a lot of the care, so I am skeptical of the importance of "genetic/chemical/evolutionary forces."
- randlet 11y agoYes, that is somewhat speculative on my part although the "chemistry" part behind the bond created by breastfeeding is very well established.
- Kluny 11y agoI was thinking that since kids mostly don't remember anything from before age 2-3, it wouldn't matter. But then again, it probably would matter to the parents, who wouldn't want to distress their kid regardless of whether he remembers.
- randlet 11y agoIt probably doesn't matter too much in the long-term, but you can't use childhood amnesia to justify ignoring the way a toddler feels right now!
- tudorw 11y agoWill not remember is not the same as will not affect, core emotional and psychological growth happens prior to 3, just because a child has poor recall does not mean they are not the sum of their experiences up to that point in time.
- austenallred 11y agoI've only been a father for nine days (and only out of the hospital for two), but I absolutely feel the same way.
- mathattack 11y agoThe kids do much better when I'm the one on business trips than my wife. (I can manage, but they miss her more than they miss me.) Not sure how universal this is. I hear it changes when the kids get older. Also - the dad in the story is a martial arts instructor. Perhaps watching so much violence every day wouldn't be great for the kids. (And it's not a profession that pays very well, which may have precluded daycare)
- coralreef 11y agoI chuckled a bit at your violence comment. One, because violence is not the main purpose of martial arts. Two, because the father teaches it, little Adam will undoubtedly be learning how to fight and defend himself when he's big enough.
- evilduck 11y ago> One, because violence is not the main purpose of martial arts. You should probably try explaining that subtlety at least once to a kid under the age of 4 before you laugh at it. Most martial arts contain hitting and kicking components, or at least pretty physical throws and grapples. To a toddler, that's just fighting since it quacks like a duck. They're extremely literal at that age. Some toddlers might understand it, but I'd be cautious assuming all of them would grasp an abstract like that. Remember, this is the same age group that might think it's totally reasonable to use the family dog as a substitute for paper towels, or want to share their spaghetti-o's with the fish in the fish bowl. When he's big enough to understand and restrain his actions, more power to him and his family.
- coralreef 11y agoI suppose that's a fair enough assumption, in theory. However having been around gyms with toddlers/young children around, everything is mostly ignored while the kids use the ring ropes as a personal jungle gym. I don't know what they think or absorb from it, but I'm guessing they just see it as some sort of goofy adult playtime because they acclimate and grow bored of it quickly. You're also forgetting that they also see us laughing, sweating, doing pushups and situps, and shaking hands at the end while we thank each other.
- Mz 11y agoThe article indicates the father tried to make arrangements (presumably) to keep the child (edit: or perhaps accompany them) but was unable to do so successfully: Terra scrambled to find a substitute instructor at his martial-arts school, but came up short. All of which meant that if Kurnia was going to participate in YC, she’d have to separate Terra from his two-year-old son for three months—
- s73v3r 11y agoTo me, that sounds like he was trying to make arrangements to go with them. You don't need to have a substitute teacher to watch a child; there are daycare options, or he could bring the child to the school. Doesn't seem like a worse option than taking the child to live in a flophouse.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- tptacek 11y agoTo me, people's basic parenting decisions sound like something we shouldn't be trying to debate on a message board.
- s73v3r 11y agoIt was the entire point of the story. So it is something that is up for discussion. I see almost no reason why the child didn't stay with his dad during that time.
- brudgers 11y agoFor many families, that would be harder. For others, not. There's no right decision.
- goodcanadian 11y agoWhile breastfeeding, it is just about impossible for a child to be separated from Mommy. When no longer breastfeeding, I see no particular reason that the child could not go with Daddy just as easily as with Mommy. It depends on the family dynamics, I suppose. Many children are more closely bonded with their mothers, but that may be down to (out-dated, imho) cultural expectations that the mother be the primary caregiver. I have tried very hard to share the parenting equally with my wife, and my daughter seems to miss each of us equally when we are away. She has spent full days away from Mommy without trouble, but she has not yet done an overnight (breastfeeding). She has been without me for up to a week or so at a time though we usually Skype daily. I think, now, we would be willing to have my wife go away for a few days and have the daughter stay with me, but so far a situation requiring it hasn't come up. I travel more for work than my wife does.