American Dads Became the Parents Their Fathers Never Were

oozozozd about 6 hours ago 10 commentsRead Article on derekthompson.org

FR version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion Sentiment

56% Positive

Analyzed from 662 words in the discussion.

Discussion (10 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews

syntaxing•about 2 hours ago

Dad and millennial here and this change has been very noticeable in my circle of friends including myself and I’m all for it. Men have been doing their share of housework too. But I will say, it’s not all dads but enough that I think this will have a positive effect on the next generation.

justonceokay•about 2 hours ago

Im gay and because of that was disowned. My partner has a brother “K” and K has three children. Watching K show up in basic ways for his kids, like remembering what songs they like and teaching them sports is the fastest way to make me ugly cry.

Thanks to anyone reading this if you’re trying to be a good dad. You’re making the world a better place in ways you don’t even see

ortusdux•about 2 hours ago

Makes me think of this clip from Bob Odenkirk: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/MNhpnEczGQA

sparrish•about 1 hour ago

As a GenX dad and now grandfather, I couldn't be happier to read this.

Every dad wants his sons to be a better father than he was. Glad to see it happening.

Nothing strengthens the knees like the weight of responsibility.

_doctor_love•about 1 hour ago

> Nothing strengthens the knees like the weight of responsibility.

True, though for a very sad percentage of fathers, the strength comes from running away.

mlboss•about 2 hours ago

It is also kind of forced. Modern industrial society wants to extract as much productivity out of workforce as possible. What that means is in 1965 one income was able to sustain a household but now we need two incomes. There is no dedicated support for kids now so fathers have to give up time and mothers have to exchange child-mother bonding time from kids to the company.

The real benefiter of this is the capitalist who can now have twice the workforce at the price of one.

How about we start paying market price to the parent who takes care of the kids irrespective of mothers or fathers ? Investing in next generation is way more important than making useless widgets faster.

throwway120385•about 1 hour ago

My spouse and I are single-income and I still try. It's not about economic output, but rather there are things I want my son to know that I can only teach him by being present in his life.

> How about we start paying market price to the parent who takes care of the kids irrespective of mothers or fathers ? Investing in next generation is way more important than making useless widgets faster.

Considering that the current political majority in the US wants people to have more kids, this would be a really reasonable thing to do if they were serious about that.

whateveracct•about 1 hour ago

I help with my kid a lot, and I'm remote so I do it around the clock. I take contact naps, change every diaper, watch her for periods of time so my wife is free.

my wife doesn't work. and she didn't work before we had a baby. because one of our salaries was enough, so instead we work less. and again due to remote work, work has barely been top 5 in my life focus areas for the last decade.

popalchemist•36 minutes ago

You are by far the exception.

whateveracct•28 minutes ago

there's a lot of remote jobs out there

or were. tough out there rn.

SoftTalker•about 1 hour ago

Kind of forced economically but also culturally.

In the 1950s, fathers worked and paid for everything. Mothers raised the kids. This was taught in schools, girls were steered into marriage, motherhood, and housekeeping and men into vocations or college.

Let's not pretend that many women didn't go to work so they could have more, and feel like they were a more complete person. Many people just don't want to be pigeonholed into roles defined by tradition, and the 1960s were a huge rebellion against this. This wasn't some grand capitalist scheme.

It's still possible to raise a family on one professional income, if you live like most people did in the 1960s. Can you do it on minimum wage? No, but you couldn't do it then either.

pertymcpert•about 2 hours ago

Have to disagree as a father. The real benefit is the father and child who are now bonding. That doesn't mean the mother can't also bond, it just means it's not one sided.

thechao•about 2 hours ago

I got to spend a bit more than 2 years doing math homework 1:1 with my youngest. Now, she's moving up to honors & gets 100% without any help. I miss all that time we got to hang out, do homework, watch videos of cats, etc.

tayo42•about 1 hour ago

The mother's are now working. So they're bonding less. I think that's what he means not that father's are taking away mother-child bonding time.

hagbard_c•36 minutes ago

> The real benefiter of this is the capitalist ...

Tired old socialist rhetoric.

The real benefiter of this is the state which can now have many times the tax base at the price of none. Where women used to take care of the children and do the housekeeping those tasks are now often done by paid day care, taxed by the state and paid help, again taxed by the state. From a single tax payer a family - father, mother, two children - now supplies two tax payers and several 'downstream' tax payers.