4 ms·
That’s hyperbole though isn’t it? Like no one is saying men should abandon their families, only that maybe they shouldn’t have to dedicate so much of their time
by thisarticle 4y ago
That’s hyperbole though isn’t it? Like no one is saying men should abandon their families, only that maybe they shouldn’t have to dedicate so much of their time to family to not be viewed as a deadbeat.
- em-bee 4y agoa deadbead dad doesn't even provide for the family. that's different. i mean this: https://www.tigerdroppings.com/rant/o-t-lounge/are-modern-fathers-spending-too-much-time-with-their-kids/88306612/ https://www.tigerdroppings.com/rant/o-t-lounge/are-modern-fa... the average mother spent 54 minutes a day caring for children in 1965 but 104 minutes in 2012. Men do less than women, but far more than men in the past: their child-caring time has jumped from 16 minutes a day to 59.
- throwaway0a5e 4y agoYou're just arguing over language to avoid addressing the question. Imagine he said "bad parent" instead of "deadbeat". Also, per the numbers time spent caring for children has tripled since the 60s and child rearing outcomes don't seem better at the same time as women have entered the workforce. Since society didn't also invent some magic stimulants that reduce sleep requirements in that time that's a bad deal no matter how you look at it. We're wasting more time to get the same amount done.
- em-bee 4y agohow do you make the connection that childrearing didn't get better since women entered the workforce? according to those statistics, women doubled the time they spend with kids. seems that working didn't make a difference. i don't know what that means though. either women were already working in the 60's or while they were at home they did many other things besides taking care of the children. (i suppose some housework got more efficient thanks to technical advances)