6 ms·

> Raising children should be regarded as one of the most important things a woman can do because they’re the only ones that can do it. This seems pretty reduct

> Raising children should be regarded as one of the most important things a woman can do because they’re the only ones that can do it. This seems pretty reductionist to me. Men can absolutely raise children. Husbands in heterosexual couples should absolutely be raising their children and not leaving the entire task of raising them to their wives. Gay men can also raise children. I don't think you meant to be disrespectful, but when you essentialize like this you end up putting women in a box where their role in society is defined by their biology, and you put men in a box where they feel like they can't and shouldn't participate in certain kinds of labor, leading to women shouldering an unfair proportion. An anecdote that helped this hit home for me was a story this father told about a neighbor of his. He'd be running errands at the grocery store or whatever, with his kids in tow, and he'd run into his neighbor (also a father) who'd say something like, "Oh, you're stuck babysitting again?" And he didn't have the words to tell him, "I'm not babysitting, I'm raising my kids." The neighbor viewed it as his wife's responsibility to be looking after the kids, and if he was participating in this, it was some sort of exception; and furthermore, a chore. Personally, that's not the sort of father or husband I intend to be.

1123581321 4y ago
That last anecdote is a generational change, regardless, I think. I’m probably close to your age, have a family and a traditional income-producer/homemaker marriage, and I bristle at terms like “babysitting” and “watching the kids.” I’m their dad!
jimbokun 4y ago
Men can raise children, but cannot get pregnant or breast feed. Going through that cycle with potentially multiple children is a big time investment that cannot be delegated to men. Beyond that, yes, men are perfectly capable of performing child rearing tasks. Note, of course, this does not negate the argument against a two income family. Having a society where one income can support a family means fathers can devote themselves to raising their children, and so can mothers. Or alternate roles. Or one full time career and one part time career.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- Breza 4y ago
  Out of a 40-year career, how much time do you think a woman needs to physically be absent from her job due to pregnancy and breastfeeding?
dilap 4y ago
If you're breastfeeding, it's gotta be the woman. And ideally, you are breastfeeding. Beyond that, most women strongly want to be with their babies. There was a NYT article a few years back about the boom of internet baby monitors, and it was kind of heartbreaking -- a bunch of women sitting at their desks glued to their baby monitors wishing they could be with their babies. I think we've really fucked up as a society when "women can have kids and be with them" is considered strange or a luxury -- it should be the most natural thing in the world. No profit in it, though.
- xnyan 4y ago
  Pumping and storing breast milk is extremely common. You can absolutely give your child breast milk and work, and I know many professionals who do.
  - dilap 4y ago
    Pumping isn't a full replacement for breast-feeding, though -- there's bonding that takes place during breast-feeding, there's antibody and bacterial exchange, and the milk produced actually changes throughout the day. Of course none of this stuff is critical, but I think for most people, the ideal scenario really is breastfeeding, straight from the breast -- and it's a shame that's so hard for so many to do in our society.
  - fortylove 4y ago
    This is really overlooking the complications that MANY women have with pumping: supply drops, increased mastitis (the pumps are not nearly as effective as the real thing), and most of all, lack of real time response to the babies needs. Just handwaving "but pumps!" really undermines how much effort this takes for women.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
      This is an excellent point to bring up, and something that cannot (or rather, should not) be ignored. Still, the approach presumably should be more, not less, support for women who want (need?) to try this?
planetsprite 4y ago
People's role in society shouldn't be determined by their biology, but the manner in which their biology manifests in their life outcomes is determined by their biology.
- Supermancho 4y ago
  > People's role in society shouldn't be determined by their biology, Why not (even if only partially)? Biology at the individual level has physical consequences, which necessarily affects the available roles and roles chosen. It makes no sense to expect that this relationship is different in aggregate.
  - maxbond 4y ago
    Because your biology doesn't determine your destiny within society and the interests of liberty is not in tying you to it. For instance; a woman is entitled to choose not to have children, for any reason or for no reason at all. While it is a biological fact that only women can have children (or indeed can breastfeed), it does not follow, as a fact about how we conduct our society, that women are uniquely capable of raising children, or that it is their role within our society to birth & raise children. When we structure our society in an essentialising way, we create injustices for both men and women (to say nothing of trans and nonbinary people, who are erased by these essentialized framings, which for instance can lead to them being discriminated against in the adoption process), though women bare the vast majority of them.
  - MisterSandman 4y ago
    You're seriously saying that in a forum dedicated to software engineering and technology?
    - Supermancho 4y ago
      I'm not sure what you're implying or maybe what you are thinking I implied. Maybe you think I have veered off topic for the forum, despite the topical article under discussion?
csomar 4y ago
That doesn't change the parent poster stance. If men were to raise kids, this will come at a cost of their careers. Someone is going to suffer because of it (or both if they choose to handle the load equally).
busterarm 4y ago
Men can but society certainly does not respect them in that role. Just look at the amount of suspicion that men draw in elementary teaching roles. This may seem reasonable but it also often ends marriages, which is arguably a worse outcome for the child(ren).
Breza 4y ago
Thank you for this comment. I have a two year old daughter and a less demanding job than my wife. That might switch in the future. I love to be able to spend so much time with my little girl. The idea that my wife should somehow be doing more than me is insulting to us both.

1123581321 4y ago

That last anecdote is a generational change, regardless, I think. I’m probably close to your age, have a family and a traditional income-producer/homemaker marriage, and I bristle at terms like “babysitting” and “watching the kids.” I’m their dad!

jimbokun 4y ago

Men can raise children, but cannot get pregnant or breast feed. Going through that cycle with potentially multiple children is a big time investment that cannot be delegated to men. Beyond that, yes, men are perfectly capable of performing child rearing tasks. Note, of course, this does not negate the argument against a two income family. Having a society where one income can support a family means fathers can devote themselves to raising their children, and so can mothers. Or alternate roles. Or one full time career and one part time career.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Breza 4y ago
Out of a 40-year career, how much time do you think a woman needs to physically be absent from her job due to pregnancy and breastfeeding?

dilap 4y ago

If you're breastfeeding, it's gotta be the woman. And ideally, you are breastfeeding. Beyond that, most women strongly want to be with their babies. There was a NYT article a few years back about the boom of internet baby monitors, and it was kind of heartbreaking -- a bunch of women sitting at their desks glued to their baby monitors wishing they could be with their babies. I think we've really fucked up as a society when "women can have kids and be with them" is considered strange or a luxury -- it should be the most natural thing in the world. No profit in it, though.

xnyan 4y ago
Pumping and storing breast milk is extremely common. You can absolutely give your child breast milk and work, and I know many professionals who do.
- dilap 4y ago
  Pumping isn't a full replacement for breast-feeding, though -- there's bonding that takes place during breast-feeding, there's antibody and bacterial exchange, and the milk produced actually changes throughout the day. Of course none of this stuff is critical, but I think for most people, the ideal scenario really is breastfeeding, straight from the breast -- and it's a shame that's so hard for so many to do in our society.
- fortylove 4y ago
  This is really overlooking the complications that MANY women have with pumping: supply drops, increased mastitis (the pumps are not nearly as effective as the real thing), and most of all, lack of real time response to the babies needs. Just handwaving "but pumps!" really undermines how much effort this takes for women.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
    This is an excellent point to bring up, and something that cannot (or rather, should not) be ignored. Still, the approach presumably should be more, not less, support for women who want (need?) to try this?

planetsprite 4y ago

People's role in society shouldn't be determined by their biology, but the manner in which their biology manifests in their life outcomes is determined by their biology.

Supermancho 4y ago
> People's role in society shouldn't be determined by their biology, Why not (even if only partially)? Biology at the individual level has physical consequences, which necessarily affects the available roles and roles chosen. It makes no sense to expect that this relationship is different in aggregate.
- maxbond 4y ago
  Because your biology doesn't determine your destiny within society and the interests of liberty is not in tying you to it. For instance; a woman is entitled to choose not to have children, for any reason or for no reason at all. While it is a biological fact that only women can have children (or indeed can breastfeed), it does not follow, as a fact about how we conduct our society, that women are uniquely capable of raising children, or that it is their role within our society to birth & raise children. When we structure our society in an essentialising way, we create injustices for both men and women (to say nothing of trans and nonbinary people, who are erased by these essentialized framings, which for instance can lead to them being discriminated against in the adoption process), though women bare the vast majority of them.
- MisterSandman 4y ago
  You're seriously saying that in a forum dedicated to software engineering and technology?
  - Supermancho 4y ago
    I'm not sure what you're implying or maybe what you are thinking I implied. Maybe you think I have veered off topic for the forum, despite the topical article under discussion?

csomar 4y ago

That doesn't change the parent poster stance. If men were to raise kids, this will come at a cost of their careers. Someone is going to suffer because of it (or both if they choose to handle the load equally).

busterarm 4y ago

Men can but society certainly does not respect them in that role. Just look at the amount of suspicion that men draw in elementary teaching roles. This may seem reasonable but it also often ends marriages, which is arguably a worse outcome for the child(ren).

Breza 4y ago

Thank you for this comment. I have a two year old daughter and a less demanding job than my wife. That might switch in the future. I love to be able to spend so much time with my little girl. The idea that my wife should somehow be doing more than me is insulting to us both.