3 ms·

I fail to see the value of this post. The story implies that the middle-class dads were lazy because they didn't bring their children to school before going to

I fail to see the value of this post. The story implies that the middle-class dads were lazy because they didn't bring their children to school before going to work. If, let's say, I'm the sole provider in a one-child household that doesn't seem fair at all. It's the right message, but the story is shallow and dismisses real issues faced by the average family.

markdog12 9y ago
I agree, I fail to see the value of this post. > It's the right message What's the right message here, exactly? Because I'm missing it.
imron 9y ago
> The story implies that the middle-class dads were lazy because they didn't bring their children to school I highly doubt it was middle-class dads.
- munchbunny 9y ago
  Knowing the private schools in the Seattle area, it was likely a mix of middle to upper class. I went to one of them, and maybe 1/3 was squarely middle class or lower.
cardiffspaceman 9y ago
The focus on the drive to school is too specific to be durable across time. My parents must have been fairly bad given they neither drove me to school nor provided a bus/taxi/limo/my own car. I walked to school from age 5 on (i.e. 1964 and later). Of course it would have been a hassle for one of them to drive me from the dorms to my classes, so we're cool on those last years when I was in college.
erikpukinskis 9y ago
> The story implies that the middle-class dads were lazy because they didn't bring their children to school before going to work. The story basically implies that the dads were acting as a cartel, probably subconsciously, where as long as all of them maintained that the burden of switching contexts from childcare concerns to work concerns was so huge that almost any amount of inconvenience for the wives was a smaller consideration. Gates inadvertently broke the cartel and showed that even for someone with long hours and a lot of responsibility, there were at least some situations where the burden on the husband driving 2 days a week was smaller than the burden on the wife having 0 days a week without the drive. It's possible that in fact the burden on even the busiest wife was smaller than the burden on her husband, that Bill and Melinda were a unique exception to this rule, and the wives only succeeded at gaining concessions because of a false analogy (if Gates can do it you can do it). I don't see why you would choose to believe that though. I the alternative—there were at least a couple wives who were doing more than their fair share, and husbands benefitting from cartel effects—much easier to accept.

markdog12 9y ago

I agree, I fail to see the value of this post. > It's the right message What's the right message here, exactly? Because I'm missing it.

imron 9y ago

> The story implies that the middle-class dads were lazy because they didn't bring their children to school I highly doubt it was middle-class dads.

munchbunny 9y ago
Knowing the private schools in the Seattle area, it was likely a mix of middle to upper class. I went to one of them, and maybe 1/3 was squarely middle class or lower.

cardiffspaceman 9y ago

The focus on the drive to school is too specific to be durable across time. My parents must have been fairly bad given they neither drove me to school nor provided a bus/taxi/limo/my own car. I walked to school from age 5 on (i.e. 1964 and later). Of course it would have been a hassle for one of them to drive me from the dorms to my classes, so we're cool on those last years when I was in college.

erikpukinskis 9y ago

> The story implies that the middle-class dads were lazy because they didn't bring their children to school before going to work. The story basically implies that the dads were acting as a cartel, probably subconsciously, where as long as all of them maintained that the burden of switching contexts from childcare concerns to work concerns was so huge that almost any amount of inconvenience for the wives was a smaller consideration. Gates inadvertently broke the cartel and showed that even for someone with long hours and a lot of responsibility, there were at least some situations where the burden on the husband driving 2 days a week was smaller than the burden on the wife having 0 days a week without the drive. It's possible that in fact the burden on even the busiest wife was smaller than the burden on her husband, that Bill and Melinda were a unique exception to this rule, and the wives only succeeded at gaining concessions because of a false analogy (if Gates can do it you can do it). I don't see why you would choose to believe that though. I the alternative—there were at least a couple wives who were doing more than their fair share, and husbands benefitting from cartel effects—much easier to accept.