6 ms·

I can't help but wonder about the relationship between fathers (and, in fact, all parents) spending more time with their children, and people choosing to have f

I can't help but wonder about the relationship between fathers (and, in fact, all parents) spending more time with their children, and people choosing to have fewer children, and later. I think it's unquestionably true that fathers spending more time with their children is, on the whole, much better for those children. But it's also true that it's a huge problem for society that people are having fewer children. And I think you can make a reasonable argument that increasing expectations around the quality of parenting are party of that trend.

LeifCarrotson 5mo ago
If fathers spending more time with their children is better for the children but worse for ~~society~~the economy, is that really even a question worth considering? Screw the economy, love your kid (or kids).
- geodel 5mo ago
  Well it is worth considering. Unless one think they and their children can just exist beyond space and time of where society, economy exist.
  - red-iron-pine 5mo ago
    society and economy are shaped by the needs of the people in it. they easiest because of our needs. we don't exist to meet its needs.
    - mothballed 5mo ago
      In the 1960s when single-parent households were a thing, it was not unusual for households to have little to no indoor plumbing or regular electricity. Nowadays such a lifestyle will get social workers on your ass, unless you can get some Mennonite or Amish preacher or something to vouch for you. After a long enough period of failing to meet some arbitrary modern "quality of life" that can only be afforded by going along with the mainstreams economic system and expectations, the legal system will likely get involved in some capacity. Economy is a bit of a one way valve. If you don't flow with it they'll rip away your children and then you'll be dumped to the curb along with the homeless or other inmates at the jail.
mothballed 5mo ago
I think it is. It's discouraged and unspoken, but a lot of men don't like spending time with children. I mean for weeks or months, sure, but when you have a kid it drags on for years 24/7 and nothing but having your own child will really reveal to you how that turns out for you. As it turns out, I don't enjoy extended time with children. My bad, but I power through it for the sake of the child. In older times that would be no problem, my wife would deal with that. Instead I stopped at 1 when I realized I am not the kind of person who enjoys being equally involved with children.
- bombcar 5mo ago
  I can tell you that as you have more children the time you can spend and need to spend drops - because there’s more of them, but they also play with each other. Three are running around yelling and I can’t even join in, as they want me to be “the base” apparently.
  - munksbeer 5mo ago
    I can't believe I'm asking this, because it isn't even something I would remotely consider (and it is too late anyway), but, is three actually easier than two children in some ways? I have two children and I find parenting to be utterly draining. They are 4 and 6. They are *constantly* fighting. They play together a bit, but when they do, after 5-10 minutes it leads to real fight where we need to intervene. And they still demand an enormous amount of attention. It turns out I am one of those fathers with a personality that doesn't deal well with constant sensory overload. I was medicated for ADHD myself as a child and one of my children is AuADHD. It isn't his fault and we're trying to find ways to help him (and everyone else), but his meltdowns make life so, so hard for the whole family. He wants to control and dominate every situation, whether it is his brother or his parents. I was wondering if the dynamics of three would have made it easier because he couldn't dominate his brother so eaily, or if that would just mean he became the isolated child.
    - bombcar 5mo ago
      It ... can? It really depends on the children, the dynamics, and other factors (so I'm not saying "have another kid and everything is fixed"). It does increase the network, so that if one kid doesn't want to play, the other might. Sometimes all the kids are playing together, sometimes one is off doing his own thing, sometimes there's still a meltdown. Three might be the nadir as they outnumber you but each kid only has two other kids. But when older you likely can deal with one kid at a time and the other two play. If it makes you feel better 4 to 6 is about the worst for "normal" kids, too, as they know that the outside world is something they have influence over but can't always control the way they want to.
mc3301 5mo ago
Ugh... In the 90s, people were screaming and panicking about the future of over-population. Dystopian scenes of dense and dirty tiny living-quarters stacked on top of each other. Now everyone's screaming about a declining population. We should embrace and prepare for degrowth for a better chance at a wonderful future, not shout at the sky hoping people will make more babies for the economy. And guess what, if we prepare for degrowth, where a generation or two or three of the entire planet never goes hungry, never goes to war, and has the freedom of movement, creativity, innovation, interaction... Those people will want to have many many babies, and we can once again start worrying about overpopulation.
- zamadatix 5mo ago
  Those outcomes seem an extraordinarily optimistic take of what population decline would lead to. I don't think it'll be all doom either, but the world was not an ideal place when the population was previously billions fewer either.
  - bilegeek 5mo ago
    Especially when pretty much all modern political and economic systems are fundamentally incompatible with population decline, and leadership fights changes tooth and nail.
- Izkata 5mo ago
  > Now everyone's screaming about a declining population. In general (don't know about the person you're responding to) the worry isn't so much that it's happening as it is the rate it's happening.

LeifCarrotson 5mo ago

If fathers spending more time with their children is better for the children but worse for ~~society~~the economy, is that really even a question worth considering? Screw the economy, love your kid (or kids).

geodel 5mo ago
Well it is worth considering. Unless one think they and their children can just exist beyond space and time of where society, economy exist.
- red-iron-pine 5mo ago
  society and economy are shaped by the needs of the people in it. they easiest because of our needs. we don't exist to meet its needs.
  - mothballed 5mo ago
    In the 1960s when single-parent households were a thing, it was not unusual for households to have little to no indoor plumbing or regular electricity. Nowadays such a lifestyle will get social workers on your ass, unless you can get some Mennonite or Amish preacher or something to vouch for you. After a long enough period of failing to meet some arbitrary modern "quality of life" that can only be afforded by going along with the mainstreams economic system and expectations, the legal system will likely get involved in some capacity. Economy is a bit of a one way valve. If you don't flow with it they'll rip away your children and then you'll be dumped to the curb along with the homeless or other inmates at the jail.

mothballed 5mo ago

I think it is. It's discouraged and unspoken, but a lot of men don't like spending time with children. I mean for weeks or months, sure, but when you have a kid it drags on for years 24/7 and nothing but having your own child will really reveal to you how that turns out for you. As it turns out, I don't enjoy extended time with children. My bad, but I power through it for the sake of the child. In older times that would be no problem, my wife would deal with that. Instead I stopped at 1 when I realized I am not the kind of person who enjoys being equally involved with children.

bombcar 5mo ago
I can tell you that as you have more children the time you can spend and need to spend drops - because there’s more of them, but they also play with each other. Three are running around yelling and I can’t even join in, as they want me to be “the base” apparently.
- munksbeer 5mo ago
  I can't believe I'm asking this, because it isn't even something I would remotely consider (and it is too late anyway), but, is three actually easier than two children in some ways? I have two children and I find parenting to be utterly draining. They are 4 and 6. They are *constantly* fighting. They play together a bit, but when they do, after 5-10 minutes it leads to real fight where we need to intervene. And they still demand an enormous amount of attention. It turns out I am one of those fathers with a personality that doesn't deal well with constant sensory overload. I was medicated for ADHD myself as a child and one of my children is AuADHD. It isn't his fault and we're trying to find ways to help him (and everyone else), but his meltdowns make life so, so hard for the whole family. He wants to control and dominate every situation, whether it is his brother or his parents. I was wondering if the dynamics of three would have made it easier because he couldn't dominate his brother so eaily, or if that would just mean he became the isolated child.
  - bombcar 5mo ago
    It ... can? It really depends on the children, the dynamics, and other factors (so I'm not saying "have another kid and everything is fixed"). It does increase the network, so that if one kid doesn't want to play, the other might. Sometimes all the kids are playing together, sometimes one is off doing his own thing, sometimes there's still a meltdown. Three might be the nadir as they outnumber you but each kid only has two other kids. But when older you likely can deal with one kid at a time and the other two play. If it makes you feel better 4 to 6 is about the worst for "normal" kids, too, as they know that the outside world is something they have influence over but can't always control the way they want to.

mc3301 5mo ago

Ugh... In the 90s, people were screaming and panicking about the future of over-population. Dystopian scenes of dense and dirty tiny living-quarters stacked on top of each other. Now everyone's screaming about a declining population. We should embrace and prepare for degrowth for a better chance at a wonderful future, not shout at the sky hoping people will make more babies for the economy. And guess what, if we prepare for degrowth, where a generation or two or three of the entire planet never goes hungry, never goes to war, and has the freedom of movement, creativity, innovation, interaction... Those people will want to have many many babies, and we can once again start worrying about overpopulation.

zamadatix 5mo ago
Those outcomes seem an extraordinarily optimistic take of what population decline would lead to. I don't think it'll be all doom either, but the world was not an ideal place when the population was previously billions fewer either.
- bilegeek 5mo ago
  Especially when pretty much all modern political and economic systems are fundamentally incompatible with population decline, and leadership fights changes tooth and nail.
Izkata 5mo ago
> Now everyone's screaming about a declining population. In general (don't know about the person you're responding to) the worry isn't so much that it's happening as it is the rate it's happening.