> Having kids while prioritizing job over direct care and attention to them has been an accepted (and often expected) pattern for men for centuries. (And for mu

> Having kids while prioritizing job over direct care and attention to them has been an accepted (and often expected) pattern for men for centuries. (And for much of that time for upper and often middle class [0] women, too, though their primary vocations weren't “jobs” in the usual sense.) False. Most men throughout history had to work or their children would starve. Their requirement to work was forced legally by laws allowing wives to sue husbands that did not work and support their family. For most of history before the industrial revolution, the standard model would have been a farm, where both mom and dad worked, but worked at home. The ideal has always been for moms and dads to stay home, until relatively recently -- certainly not centuries. Lastly, if we even accept your claim to be true at all, it really would only be limited in scope to the very rich or at least the upper middle class, where men actually had careers 'worth' sacrificing for. Perhaps an attorney sees his work as meaningful and a source of advancement. I highly doubt a coal miner wanted to be in the mines longer because of career advancement. In fact, history is actually littered with the opposite -- working men demanding that they work less (see the labor movement).