10 ms·

> If you're worth $300 million and you don't plan to take, say, a year or two off to play and connect with your soon-to-be-firstborn child? If she were male, w

by sown 14y ago

> If you're worth $300 million and you don't plan to take, say, a year or two off to play and connect with your soon-to-be-firstborn child? If she were male, would you say the same thing?

codex 14y ago
No, probably not. And the reason is simply that, as a gross generalization, women are more into parenting than men are, and infants need more motherly attention than fatherly attention initially. Men cannot physically have a child, nor can they breast feed a child directly, and they are not necessarily guaranteed to be the father of any child presented to them. So it's not a stretch to imagine that a male CEO would let the natural motherly bond take hold with their spouse in the first few months.
tptacek 14y ago
Of course not. Of course not.
- sown 14y ago
  Wow, I really made people mad.
andrewflnr 14y ago
Personally, yes. Raising children is one of the most important things we do on this planet.
parfe 14y ago
HN is the whitest malest forum I'm a member of. Spend 30 seconds in the thread discussing a charity encouraging black girls to program[1] and it's blatantly apparent. At least 4chan is self-aware regarding the sexism and racism. Reddit tries to brush it off as jokes or isolated incidents. HN on the other hand, a [male dominated] forum of established [white] professionals and aspiring professionals, exists in a bubble of absolute denial of these horrible attitudes. The top voted comment about a new CEO literally questions her fitness as a mother. I challenge anyone to find any posts questioning any other CEO's parenting choices. (Bonus points if top voted for on a story). That shitty attitude doesn't exist for Gates, Jobs, Page, Brin, or Ellison. But a woman steps up and suddenly HN cares about her child and votes up a comment questioning how her decision affects her child and second guessing her motherly quality. 1 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4261619 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4261619
- citricsquid 14y ago
  This has nothing to do with HN and everything to do with society.
  - ballooney 14y ago
    It probably is partially to do with HN, the kind of place that has a demographic further up the spectrum than a random sample of society, whose ability to reason sometimes suffers from a tendency towards talking and thinking in absolutes.
- ams6110 14y ago
  Because women are biologically, historically, and culturally the nurturers of infant children. You can pretend it's some other way, but that doesn't make it so.
  - asto 14y ago
    I'm laying this one on the babies. Mommy handles them, they're all happy. Daddy tries something, suddenly they aren't as happy. Asshole babies! </joke> If the parents are worth so much, in my opinion they could both take time out for the kid. Is there a reason why women should take care of newborns full time? Yes, that's what is natural (meaning occurs in nature). Is there any reason her husband shouldn't help her? I don't really see one.
    - irahul 14y ago
      > Is there a reason why women should take care of newborns full time? Yes, that's what is natural (meaning occurs in nature). A lot of things happen in nature. But is there a reason a women is required to raise an offspring? Apart from breast-milk, there isn't anything a man can't do. > Is there any reason her husband shouldn't help her? I don't really see one. No reason at all. I am more interested in parent's comment about woman required to take care of babies. Let alone helping, I don't see a reason why a man can't raise a baby all by himself.
batista 14y ago
Yes, why not? It's selfish, whoever does it. That said, the implication that a mother being close to a new born child is completely equal to a father being close to a new born child is PC ideology. We're not inter-changeable thinking machines. He have cultures and we have bodies. For example, distance from mother during early months has been shown to have negative effects on the child's development. The same for not breast-feeding. Distance from father, much less so. Hell, even negative feelings felt by the mother while the child is in the womb are shown to affect it. So, no, just because some people have wishful thinking dogmas that "we are exactly the same", "interchangeable" etc, it doesn't mean it's true.
- re_todd 14y ago
  You helped me realize one of the reasons I like HN: there is little fear of PC nazis here.
- irahul 14y ago
  > For example, distance from mother during early months has been shown to have negative effects on the child's development. Interesting. Citation please. > The same for not breast-feeding. I believe there are a certain percentage of women who either don't willingly breast-feed or are incapable. How does it affect their babies? Are their studies? > Hell, even negative feelings felt by the mother while the child is in the womb are shown to affect it. I am more interested in when the baby is out of the womb. > just because some people have wishful thinking dogmas that "we are exactly the same", "interchangeable" etc, it doesn't mean it's true. Call it wishful thinking, and it's not about "we are exactly the same or interchangeable". I am willing to be corrected, but I think a man by himself is capable of raising a child in a normal way(sans breast milk).
  - btilly 14y ago
    I believe there are a certain percentage of women who either don't willingly breast-feed or are incapable. How does it affect their babies? Are their studies? The babies have a statistically significant, but small, drop in IQ. See http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=surety-bond-breast-feeding http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=surety-bond... for verification and a theory about why.
grannyg00se 14y ago
I suppose it's more typical for females to be the child rearing parent but there are many households where this is reversed. I suspect the previous commenter is familiar with more traditional roles and is possibly very child oriented themselves. The fact is, many parents of either gender just aren't that interested in being heavily involved with child rearing. There's nothing wrong with that. Others are heavily involved and live their lives solely for their children. Good for them. Gender can be somewhat of an indicator of what type of person you are likely to be regarding children, but you can't expect someone to be a certain way just because of their gender.
- learc83 14y ago
  >The fact is, many parents of either gender just aren't that interested in being heavily involved with child rearing. There's nothing wrong with that. There is something incredibly wrong with that. Gender doesn't matter; if you decide you really aren't terribly interested in raising a child, you shouldn't have one.
  - grannyg00se 14y ago
    That's your opinion and I'm guessing it's based on cultural expectations, nothing more. Your culture is not everyone's culture. There are households where the nanny raises the children and parents see them perhaps less than one hour per day. Are you going to tell those parents that by your decree they should not have had the child? Are you going to approach these children and tell them that their lives are somehow miserable and less worthy because of their parental situation, even if the children seem completely content?
    - learc83 14y ago
      >There are households where the nanny raises the children and parents see them perhaps less than one hour per day. Are you going to tell those parents that by your decree they should not have had the child? I'm not going to say that they shouldn't have had the child because there is no point, they can't change the past. However, I would tell people who are planning to do this that they shouldn't have children. There are plenty of children who are raised in poor environments who go on to lead normal lives. There are some children who are raised in front of the television with almost no parental involvement who end up perfectly normal. Just because some children overcome a bad environment doesn't mean it should be socially acceptable to purposely introduce a child to a bad environment that you could have easily corrected. There is loads of evidence that failure to properly bond with a primary caregiver causes significant problems later in life. What is the likelihood that a paid servant will love, and develop a bond with your child. What is the likelihood you will be able to keep the same nanny long enough for her/him to bond with your child? Because if that doesn't happen, and you see your child less than 1 hour a day, you are demonstrably harming your child and the society that eventually has to deal with him or her. If you have no interest in raising and nurturing your child, the only possible reason for procreating is selfishness. Children aren't pets. >That's your opinion and I'm guessing it's based on cultural expectations, nothing more. Your culture is not everyone's culture. There have been cultures where throwing baby girls in garbage dumps was acceptable, is that an argument for the moral validity of infant exposure?
mhartl 14y ago
Babies need their mothers more than they need their fathers.
bad_user 14y ago
I would. I have a son and there's nothing in the world I wish more than to be a stay at home dad. Unfortunately I can't afford to do that. Missing the childhood of your baby is one of the greatest mistakes you can do in life. And I'm not advocating here for staying at home btw. But working more than 40 hours per week when you have a child waiting for you at home and with enough money in the bank to be worry-free for life - is simply unacceptable, regardless of gender.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

by sown 14y ago

> If you're worth $300 million and you don't plan to take, say, a year or two off to play and connect with your soon-to-be-firstborn child? If she were male, would you say the same thing?

codex 14y ago

No, probably not. And the reason is simply that, as a gross generalization, women are more into parenting than men are, and infants need more motherly attention than fatherly attention initially. Men cannot physically have a child, nor can they breast feed a child directly, and they are not necessarily guaranteed to be the father of any child presented to them. So it's not a stretch to imagine that a male CEO would let the natural motherly bond take hold with their spouse in the first few months.

tptacek 14y ago

Of course not. Of course not.

sown 14y ago
Wow, I really made people mad.

andrewflnr 14y ago

Personally, yes. Raising children is one of the most important things we do on this planet.

parfe 14y ago

HN is the whitest malest forum I'm a member of. Spend 30 seconds in the thread discussing a charity encouraging black girls to program[1] and it's blatantly apparent. At least 4chan is self-aware regarding the sexism and racism. Reddit tries to brush it off as jokes or isolated incidents. HN on the other hand, a [male dominated] forum of established [white] professionals and aspiring professionals, exists in a bubble of absolute denial of these horrible attitudes. The top voted comment about a new CEO literally questions her fitness as a mother. I challenge anyone to find any posts questioning any other CEO's parenting choices. (Bonus points if top voted for on a story). That shitty attitude doesn't exist for Gates, Jobs, Page, Brin, or Ellison. But a woman steps up and suddenly HN cares about her child and votes up a comment questioning how her decision affects her child and second guessing her motherly quality. 1 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4261619 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4261619

citricsquid 14y ago
This has nothing to do with HN and everything to do with society.
- ballooney 14y ago
  It probably is partially to do with HN, the kind of place that has a demographic further up the spectrum than a random sample of society, whose ability to reason sometimes suffers from a tendency towards talking and thinking in absolutes.
ams6110 14y ago
Because women are biologically, historically, and culturally the nurturers of infant children. You can pretend it's some other way, but that doesn't make it so.
- asto 14y ago
  I'm laying this one on the babies. Mommy handles them, they're all happy. Daddy tries something, suddenly they aren't as happy. Asshole babies! </joke> If the parents are worth so much, in my opinion they could both take time out for the kid. Is there a reason why women should take care of newborns full time? Yes, that's what is natural (meaning occurs in nature). Is there any reason her husband shouldn't help her? I don't really see one.
  - irahul 14y ago
    > Is there a reason why women should take care of newborns full time? Yes, that's what is natural (meaning occurs in nature). A lot of things happen in nature. But is there a reason a women is required to raise an offspring? Apart from breast-milk, there isn't anything a man can't do. > Is there any reason her husband shouldn't help her? I don't really see one. No reason at all. I am more interested in parent's comment about woman required to take care of babies. Let alone helping, I don't see a reason why a man can't raise a baby all by himself.

batista 14y ago

Yes, why not? It's selfish, whoever does it. That said, the implication that a mother being close to a new born child is completely equal to a father being close to a new born child is PC ideology. We're not inter-changeable thinking machines. He have cultures and we have bodies. For example, distance from mother during early months has been shown to have negative effects on the child's development. The same for not breast-feeding. Distance from father, much less so. Hell, even negative feelings felt by the mother while the child is in the womb are shown to affect it. So, no, just because some people have wishful thinking dogmas that "we are exactly the same", "interchangeable" etc, it doesn't mean it's true.

re_todd 14y ago
You helped me realize one of the reasons I like HN: there is little fear of PC nazis here.
irahul 14y ago
> For example, distance from mother during early months has been shown to have negative effects on the child's development. Interesting. Citation please. > The same for not breast-feeding. I believe there are a certain percentage of women who either don't willingly breast-feed or are incapable. How does it affect their babies? Are their studies? > Hell, even negative feelings felt by the mother while the child is in the womb are shown to affect it. I am more interested in when the baby is out of the womb. > just because some people have wishful thinking dogmas that "we are exactly the same", "interchangeable" etc, it doesn't mean it's true. Call it wishful thinking, and it's not about "we are exactly the same or interchangeable". I am willing to be corrected, but I think a man by himself is capable of raising a child in a normal way(sans breast milk).
- btilly 14y ago
  I believe there are a certain percentage of women who either don't willingly breast-feed or are incapable. How does it affect their babies? Are their studies? The babies have a statistically significant, but small, drop in IQ. See http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=surety-bond-breast-feeding http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=surety-bond... for verification and a theory about why.

grannyg00se 14y ago

I suppose it's more typical for females to be the child rearing parent but there are many households where this is reversed. I suspect the previous commenter is familiar with more traditional roles and is possibly very child oriented themselves. The fact is, many parents of either gender just aren't that interested in being heavily involved with child rearing. There's nothing wrong with that. Others are heavily involved and live their lives solely for their children. Good for them. Gender can be somewhat of an indicator of what type of person you are likely to be regarding children, but you can't expect someone to be a certain way just because of their gender.

learc83 14y ago
>The fact is, many parents of either gender just aren't that interested in being heavily involved with child rearing. There's nothing wrong with that. There is something incredibly wrong with that. Gender doesn't matter; if you decide you really aren't terribly interested in raising a child, you shouldn't have one.
- grannyg00se 14y ago
  That's your opinion and I'm guessing it's based on cultural expectations, nothing more. Your culture is not everyone's culture. There are households where the nanny raises the children and parents see them perhaps less than one hour per day. Are you going to tell those parents that by your decree they should not have had the child? Are you going to approach these children and tell them that their lives are somehow miserable and less worthy because of their parental situation, even if the children seem completely content?
  - learc83 14y ago
    >There are households where the nanny raises the children and parents see them perhaps less than one hour per day. Are you going to tell those parents that by your decree they should not have had the child? I'm not going to say that they shouldn't have had the child because there is no point, they can't change the past. However, I would tell people who are planning to do this that they shouldn't have children. There are plenty of children who are raised in poor environments who go on to lead normal lives. There are some children who are raised in front of the television with almost no parental involvement who end up perfectly normal. Just because some children overcome a bad environment doesn't mean it should be socially acceptable to purposely introduce a child to a bad environment that you could have easily corrected. There is loads of evidence that failure to properly bond with a primary caregiver causes significant problems later in life. What is the likelihood that a paid servant will love, and develop a bond with your child. What is the likelihood you will be able to keep the same nanny long enough for her/him to bond with your child? Because if that doesn't happen, and you see your child less than 1 hour a day, you are demonstrably harming your child and the society that eventually has to deal with him or her. If you have no interest in raising and nurturing your child, the only possible reason for procreating is selfishness. Children aren't pets. >That's your opinion and I'm guessing it's based on cultural expectations, nothing more. Your culture is not everyone's culture. There have been cultures where throwing baby girls in garbage dumps was acceptable, is that an argument for the moral validity of infant exposure?

mhartl 14y ago

Babies need their mothers more than they need their fathers.

bad_user 14y ago

I would. I have a son and there's nothing in the world I wish more than to be a stay at home dad. Unfortunately I can't afford to do that. Missing the childhood of your baby is one of the greatest mistakes you can do in life. And I'm not advocating here for staying at home btw. But working more than 40 hours per week when you have a child waiting for you at home and with enough money in the bank to be worry-free for life - is simply unacceptable, regardless of gender.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]