
Study: Today’s dads are engaging more with their kids - kevindeasis
https://news.byu.edu/news/study-today%E2%80%99s-dads-are-engaging-more-their-kids
======
philipkglass
My dad lost his job when I was 7 years old and my sister was 5. He went
through 5 years of un- and under-employment. It was harrowing for him and my
mom. But he also said in his later years that he would not have been there to
see his kids growing up if he'd maintained the steady career progression that
he originally expected. I have many fond memories of doing things with my dad
during those years. He showed me how to start programming the family Commodore
64 [1]. We did experiments from books of science fair projects -- not for
science fairs, just to satisfy my curiosity. We went on camping and fishing
trips during summers and school vacations. When I visited friends' houses
their dads didn't show up until later in the evening. They were also usually
too tired from work to play or work on projects with us like my dad did when I
had friends over.

I wouldn't wish involuntary unemployment on anyone. My family was lucky that
my dad found steady salaried work again before the savings account was
completely drained. The stress could have broken a weaker marriage. But I also
got something from my dad's extra availability that I wouldn't even have known
to miss until adulthood otherwise. Kids will remember and cherish extra
engagement with them, whether the time you put in is planned or not.

[1] I partially credit my own career to his early help with programming. My
friends growing up used 8 bit home computers too. But they didn't have dads
working through the C64 Programmer's Reference Guide with them. They learned
just enough to load/run software and I learned to _write my own_. I know that
some kids can just pick up a teach-yourself book and learn simple programming
on their own. 9-year-old me couldn't. I needed help from my dad. (Thanks, Dad.
I miss you.)

~~~
52-6F-62
You were very lucky in more ways than the one. That's a great story, though.
Those kinds of memories and meaning in your work are priceless.

My father was overworking most of the time due to his career as a pipefitter
for Imperial Oil. He spent two terms unemployed— once when we moved to our
small SW Ontario town (long story _why_ ), and another during an illness that
lasted about a year. Because my mother had left her career in insurance to
look after us, our college savings were depleted (the last thing they touched
to make payments). I don't remember the times he was unemployed very much.
Much of my family was ill at the same time he was and I spent a lot of time
looking after them (with my thoroughly tough mother)— otherwise he was driving
an 2-3 hours round-trip to the union hall every day to try and find contract
work. So I didn't see much of the guy when I was young, and when I did he was
exhausted and often cranky. There were some great moments in there, and he
still taught me as much as he could while I was there, but I'm just remarking
on the work and unemployment and family time thing.

Funnily, I got into programming because my mother had an [name I don't
remember] 80286 from her work as an insurance analyst and I dug right into
that machine. Then the internet finally came to town...

..

Really, thanks for sharing that.

~~~
philipkglass
_You were very lucky in more ways than the one._

Most definitely. I get a bit of existential vertigo when I think about how
much of my often-happy life has depended on luck. It intensifies when I
consider how many of those lucky circumstances were determined before my
birth.

~~~
52-6F-62
Existential vertigo— I’m going to have to remember that term

~~~
iagreewithyou
Same here - I've been trying unsuccessfully to put that feeling into words for
20 years!

------
NDizzle
I left the bay area in 2013 when my third kid was born. I'm about 110 miles
north now.

I expected that as I withdrew from long office hours, replacing it with remote
work, my income stagnate (or go down). The opposite happened - my income has
actually gone up steadily.

Towards the point of this topic - I have been able to spend a lot of time with
my kids. We walk (or bike) to and from school, I coach sports, and I'm able to
see all of the recitals, performances, and various events. My kids are age 12,
7, and 5 for those wondering.

I do work quite a bit, but the work is performed at odd hours, and not during
prime family hours. It helps to find companies that is geared towards projects
and your performance over the long or medium term, rather than people who want
to see butts-in-chairs when they are at the office.

I encourage everyone to try to replace their commutes with more time with
loved ones. Move your working hours around, if at all possible.

~~~
ktross
I’m a newly single parent, and I’ve been considering my options in regards to
remote work. Are you employed full time by a single company or do you find
freelance work? The challenge and time investment of finding new clients
constantly has me leaning away from freelancing. I haven’t yet been able to
find a full time position that’s flexible enough (results based) though.

~~~
liveoneggs
I have a "regular" (9-5) remote job and a wife who works full time. Working
from home has been very helpful for childcare activities.

I pick up my kids at 2-3 pm and then get a babysitter for the afternoons while
I am still working until 5ish. This ends up being, basically, just a late
lunch.

If things go south with my babysitter the kids can play or watch tv while I
finish up the day and it's not a big deal to _occasionally_ do.

I would try to get a stable/full-time job at a family friendly company, but
that's just me all the time. Health care is expensive.

------
intothemild
My parents were both teachers, I got a lot of time with them as such.. However
my dad was just never interested in really spending time with us, other than a
good 5 minutes then he was bored and wanted to do his thing.

I spent A LOT of time with my mum, she taught me programming, and after a
while I was teaching her newer stuff. My mum was the real MVP, my passion for
everything comes from my mother.

My father however.. well he would talk about loving to play games like pacman
and galaga as a kid, but wouldn't play games with me.. Later after smartphones
and facebook, he now just disappears completely.

Now I'm a father, the difference is huge, I play with my daughter, I teach her
stuff.. Recently I decided to build her first computer (shes 2, same age as I
was when I first got to use a computer) .. so we together restored a Macintosh
Classic, and upgraded it with modern components
[https://cherubini.casa/macintosh-
classic-948301f14cbd](https://cherubini.casa/macintosh-classic-948301f14cbd)

~~~
jordanmoconnor
Love this project! My son is turning two in August, and he loves smashing the
keyboard on my laptop. Having a dedicated PC for him would be fun. And he'd
love to help build it, I'm sure.

------
ravenstine
Although it's worrying if it's partly due to women being less involved with
their children, on the face of it, I believe this is a good thing for both
fathers and their children.

Largely, I think it's a sign of the times. My generation's fathers came from
an era where "hard work" was still considered a necessity for happiness. My
own father as well as most of those of people I know work and worked very
hard. Technology, the economy, and society changed significantly from the time
that our fathers grew up to when we grew up, and we sons saw our fathers work
countless hours, leaving us to wonder how life is even worth living if it's
made up of overtime hours and a series of useless meetings. Despite my father
being the type to overachieve in the workplace, I would not wish that kind of
lifestyle on him. I know a lot of men my age who saw their fathers work
slavishly and realized that it's not worth it for them to spend their early
life working to promote someone else's excessive success. I'm sure there are
women out there who feel the same about their labor in contrast to that of
their fathers, although women are also working more than ever(outside of the
home) so it's not as much their issue as that of men and their rapidly
changing role in society.

~~~
waisbrot
On average, child-care is so heavily tilted toward women that for many, doing
a bit less would be good for their health. Also, it's not zero-sum -- parents
can both be involved at the same time -- but I also enjoy the times when my
wife is not around and my kids give me _all_ the attention.

------
rconti
My employer just increased their family leave from 12 weeks to 20 weeks, which
is a great perk. These days nobody seems to differentiate from maternity vs
paternity leave, which is a great idea because, aside from the value it
provides fathers, it also gets rid of the idea that the mother should get more
time because mothers should be more involved. (alas, you can argue that it
ignores the physical sacrifices the mother makes, but as long as there is
parity by raising men's leave up rather than reducing a woman's leave, who can
argue with it?)

I don't have kids but I've often thought if I could get 6-12 months off for
having a kid it would change the equation from impossible burden to work
around to actually a pleasurable experience to learn/grow/bond/etc.

~~~
aikinai
Google has a cool system where everyone with a new child gets (very long and
equal) parental leave. If you physically give birth, you get extra time for
preparation and recovery (e.g. men and women adopting, etc. don’t get it). I
think this is a good way to recognize the extra burden of parents who give
birth while being fair on the parenting front.

~~~
sjg007
Seems weird to discriminate against adoptive parents... I understand the
reasoning but seems weird. It would probably be better to have a medical
policy applicable to everyone.

~~~
koliber
I think you are framing it incorrectly as discrimination.

If one stretches such an analogy, one could reason that paid sick leave is
discriminating against healthy people. Not many people would agree with that
one.

As you've stated, a sensible medical policy for everyone would be good. I
would imagine that Google has a one.

~~~
workinthehead
Absolutely I agree that paid sick leave is discriminating against healthy
people. If you're going to pay people to not work, everyone should be equally
eligible.

------
cs02rm0
One of my earlier memories is my dad going away to GW1. And when it wasn't war
it was training or night flying or exchanges or just on standby while we were
away. After my dad left the air force he worked in Saudi for 10 years or so,
during which I spent much of my time in boarding schools.

Conversely I work from home and see my kids all the time, albeit they're still
younger than my own memories. Only last week I had to two days work in London,
about 3 hours commute each way, but I came home rather than stay in a hotel.
It's rare we don't all sleep under the same roof.

I don't see my dad as having negative masculine attributes though, or myself
as being any better. He was often used as a threat by my mother when we were
misbehaving, but more often than not we were just pleased to see each other
when he came home. I'm proud of him and the decisions he made, he did the best
for his family often to his own detriment and the choices I was able to make
just weren't available to him. At 6'5 there reverse is also true, or I'd have
been doing all I could to follow the same path.

~~~
CalRobert
Sorry if I'm obtuse but I guess it's because that's too tall for the air
force?

~~~
cs02rm0
Yeah.

At the time at least (this is also UK) you had to be under 6'1 for fast jets
and although in theory you could be up to 6'4 for the big slow stuff or rotary
wing initially they wouldn't know what aircraft type you'd be streamed for, so
everyone had to be meet the lower height limit. I wasn't particularly
interested in anything other than the fast jets either.

That said, I was also told the measurement that really mattered was the thigh
length (jokes about losing kneecaps against the canopy if you ejected). So you
could potentially still be accepted if you were a little over 6'1 but carried
more of your height in your torso and a doctor measured your thigh length as
being below a limit. I figured I was way over though and my legs don't look
particularly short for my height.

------
amelius
Hypothesis: Today's dads _behave_ more like kids, compared to previous
generations.

I mean, 40 year olds dress like teenagers (sneakers, t-shirt, jeans, sometimes
a cap), they often have the same hobbies as teenagers (e.g. video gaming), and
responsibility is low because there is a high level of social security.

~~~
to_bpr
Interesting point.

I don't think behaving more like kids is something confined to dads, or even
men as a whole either. It seems modern adults are maturing far more slowly or
even showing some signs of regression now.

I don't have anything to compare it with, but grown men burning their evenings
in front of a games console, playing games aimed at children, and grown women
slathering pictures of themselves all over social media in an attempt to
garner attention and social acceptance, with both groups seeming to want to be
their kids' "buddies" more than ever, doesn't seem to be a positive direction
for things to go in.

Who knows. I may be bah humbugging here. I'm young enough that I can't
reasonably say "in my day adults were adults!", just that the direction things
appear to be going in (socially, and as role models for children) does not
appear to be promising.

~~~
pavel_lishin
> _I may be bah humbugging here._

You are. Two things:

1\. How is spending (not burning) an evening in front of the console any worse
than spending it in front of the TV?

2\. You're painting with a really, really broad brush there. Some grown men
play a lot of video games, and some women post a lot on social media, but not
all of them do, and in any case, I'm not entirely sure what the problem with
socializing online is.

~~~
to_bpr
1: I'm not advocating in favour of spending it front of the TV. Both are a
waste.

2: The damage being done by social media and the rise in narcissism, toward
society at large, towards children and towards mental health, is pretty well
documented at this point.

------
leethargo
I feel like the article is pushing a false dichotomy between being a "tough
guy" and caring for his children.

Why can't I be warm, understanding and available to my children and still be a
"tough guy" (with "toxic masculinity") towards strangers, or colleagues, or my
team mates in the soccer club?

After all, there is a very different level of trust within the family.

------
pcmoney
I’m a relatively new dad so maybe the novelty just hasn’t worn off but I can’t
understand fathers who don’t interact with their kids. I do it as much as I
can, it’s the best. Not always easy but always good.

~~~
LeifCarrotson
I'm a new dad too, but my father is a 30-year veteran of fatherdom, with the
benefit of some new experience as a grandfather thrown in. He and I recently
had a heart-to-heart about this. He lamented that he didn't spend more time
with me when I was an infant, a toddler, and a kid - he left that to my
mother, due to a socially conditioned view of tasks like changing diapers as
her responsibility.

He still has an instinct to ask my mother whenever my son needs something, and
I remind him "No, Dad, I can cook/bandage/clean/change that. We don't need to
ask Grandma to take care of it. Why don't you cook up a few of your famous
hamburgers and I'll get the boy ready for dinner?" \- and he's still a bit
hesitant to watch his grandson when grandma's not home.

But through his hindsight, he agrees that (1) the novelty doesn't wear off, it
changes way too fast, (2) do it as much as you can, because time is limited,
and (3) it definitely is the best. Though you may get a reprise as a
grandparent someday, which is possibly even better because you can send them
home with new noisy toys after they've been spoiled and are on a sugar high.

~~~
pcmoney
Thanks for the input, I am very thankful we have less pressure in our culture
to follow traditional father roles. Not that those fathers were uncaring but
they were expected to be a bit more removed and constrained than we are today.
One thing is for sure is that time definitely goes by twice as fast!

------
dreamache
I run my own internet based business teaching full stack dev out of a bedroom
converted to an office. My 2 daughters (5 & 8) are homeschooled.

It can be extremely challenging at times trying to work, but I am able to be
in their life a lot more than your average dad.

I flew out to Cali to record a course last year and it was my first time away
from my family for a few days. Before leaving, I thought it was going to be
awesome to take a break from them. I realized just how damn attached I was to
them during that time. I never experienced home sickness like that before. I
was like a little baby.

------
chiefalchemist
Simple question: But is this a positive? For the dads? The moms? And most
importantly, the kids?

More is more. More is not better.

~~~
TheBeardKing
I don't imagine these kids growing up saying "I wish my dad hadn't spent so
much time with me." Maybe in the helicopter parent sense, but an increase in
quality time with your dad doesn't necessarily mean a decrease in independent
play, or child-led play. If it does, then I would likely be concerned as there
is mounting evidence that decreasing independence is not good for kids.

~~~
chiefalchemist
Whether the kids would say that or not is (semi) irrelevant to my point.

You are a by-product of your parents. What you've learned from them - about
life, as well as a model of parenting - often carries forward. The problem is
this: you wanting to share what you've learned doesn't mean what you learned
is worth sharing.

In short, for some percentage of these kids, this increase could be bad news.

The question is: How many? And in what way?

------
carc1n0gen
I consider myself lucky that my dad had less conventional work hours. He would
leave for work around 6:30 in the morning, and be home by 4. He was always
able to help me with my homework, and do other activities.

------
eiji
Study: Today’s moms are engaging less with their kids

------
Karishma1234
I believe that is a side effect of increased productivity and prosperity but
is this study conditioned on the children having dads in first place? Because
I believe single mother phenomenon is on a rapid rise in USA. What about
children who dont know their dads ?

~~~
ksenzee
They were studying fathers, so their denominator was fathers, not children.
There's plenty of research showing that fathers make a big difference in their
children's lives and happiness. From what I can tell this study doesn't speak
to that one way or the other.

~~~
Karishma1234
My point has been that even though fathers are spending more time with
children on an average all children are receiving lesser fatherly attention on
an average. May be fathers who love children are staying in marriage thus
giving a bias to the whole study.

~~~
dsnuh
> all children are receiving lesser fatherly attention on an average

Provide some facts to back up this claim.

> May be fathers who love children are staying in marriage

It sounds like you are saying that fathers that leave marriages don't love
their children? Is that what you are saying?

~~~
Karishma1234
> It sounds like you are saying that fathers that leave marriages don't love
> their children? Is that what you are saying?

There is this excellent tool called google that can help you get all the
numbers. You should consider using it Sir.

Check this resource: [http://www.fathers.com/statistics-and-research/the-
extent-of...](http://www.fathers.com/statistics-and-research/the-extent-of-
fatherlessness/)

Let us just consider African Americans. around 70% of Black children born last
year did not have a father. Are you saying these people loved the children and
yet for some unknown reason would not be present to take care of the child or
provide child support ?

As of today 1 in 3 children in USA are growing up in a household without a
father. Are these fathers spending time with their kids ? You tell me.

------
ponderatul
I don't want to take away from the results from the study. But it would be a
great area to study the relationship between men and interaction with women,
especially those displaying toxic femininity, in the context of fatherhood.

Don't know if anyone coined the term toxic femininity, but it should obviously
be a field of study, just as toxic masculinity is.

~~~
Angostura
What would 'toxic femininity' look like?

~~~
belorn
If toxic masculinity is defined by exaggerated gender role behavior that is a
negative for the individual and society, then toxic femininity should be
defined in the exact same terms.

Female gender role is strongly associated with motherhood and personal
appearance so toxic femininity could for example be exaggeration of those
aspects. Two examples would be possessiveness of children and the abuse of
plastic surgery.

The question is why people are using such gendered terms that so easily get
perceived as derogatory if all we want is to a term to help discussions around
exaggerated gender role behavior that causes negative effects. Personally I
avoid using both and see those that do as pushing an agenda rather than
addressing the core issue that we have gender roles and those have a negative
impact on society.

------
epx
I am the 'good cop' here in da house :D

------
delbel
I was trying to understand andrewclunn now dead comment below. Basically he
was saying there was no need for the author of the article (not the study) to
write "toxic masculinity" narrative. When I clicked on the PDF, to scan for
the word "toxic" I was unable to open the PDF. Did the author of the article
Jon McBride artificially put this narrative spin on the study?

If so, I don't understand why somebody would do this. Studies like this bring
us wonderful news, there is no need to add negative connotation. Sure the tone
of andrewclunn comment is debatable, but given he is a father, I think he is
entitled to be upset about this because I am also. What do you think HN.

~~~
evilantnie
I don't see the comment you're referring to, but McBride was quoting one of
the authors of the study. Technically this isn't "spin", Toxic Masculinity and
Hegemonic Masculinity are both fields of study in psychology having to do with
promotion of dominance and violence. I think both fields influenced this
study. It looks like they developed a Parent-Child-Conflict scale that
included spanking, hitting, or threatening physical harm to measure some of
this, but the study is much more broader than just this.

~~~
mi100hael
Spanking is considered to be a "toxic" display of masculinity these days?

~~~
zxcmx
It’s against the law in New Zealand for example.

You may restrain a child for their safety but the use of force for “parental
correction” is treated as assault and can be prosecuted. The police are
encouraged to apply discretion.

~~~
germinalphrase
Generally speaking, It is not illegal in the US unless you leave visible marks
(e.g. bruises). Even then, it would be reported but little action would be
taken unless there are additional issues with the child’s safety.

It is still common in many places for a “whooping” to be used to keep kids in
line.

~~~
mcny
I do not support criminal prosecution for parental spanking but I consider
you've already failed as a parent if you need to "whoop" a child. In another
world where child welfare services have a better reputation, I might even
suggest that such parents should be forcefully relieved from parental duties.

------
TangoTrotFox
Something I find bemusing are the never ending slew of studies that aim to
evangelize 'new ideas' in parenting and child rearing contrasted against the
negative changes in outcomes of children and young adults in the US today.
Children and young adults in the US today are, compared to decades past,
suffering sharp spikes in mental illness, obesity, as well as performing
relatively worse academically and even exhibiting lower average IQ.

It seems that something we have done or changed has resulted in an incredibly
negative change in developmental outcomes. Yet there simultaneously seems to
be no little to no effort to see what we were doing so well before, or what
we're doing so poorly now in. Instead studies such this one instead seek to
constantly demonize past practice and evangelize for new change for reasons
that seem to be almost exclusively driven by ideological bias.

Or shall we simply remain in denial?

~~~
Angostura
" suffering sharp spikes in mental illness, obesity, as well as performing
relatively worse academically and even exhibiting lower average IQ"

There's been really quite a _lot_ of research into these kinds of thing. There
is no doubt that in many respects the environment that kids are being bought
up in today is more stressful, distracting, uncertain, unstable etc.

I don't think you have to look at changes in parenting style to account or
them.

~~~
TangoTrotFox
What!? Kids in earlier times, even as recently as the 80s grew up in a time
where they were constantly facing the very real threat of nuclear annihilation
at moment's notice! With nuclear drills only being ended sometime in the 90s.
In the 80s the we had a political era that included real assassination
attempts on the president, the pope, and more, violent crime was at record
highs, and more. Today is more "stressful, distracting, uncertain, unstable,
etc" how exactly?

And you're again doing what I think is actually quite dangerous, yet also
standard practice in the social sciences. While I think your presumption is
wrong, you're assuming that not only is it true but if it were true than it
would naturally have a causal explanation for another factor. Yet I think
there is an extremely strong argument that your presumption would actually
have a causal effect in the exact opposite method of which you imply.

Humanity excels when dealing with crisis. Nearly all of our evolutionary
existence has been living in times of great adversity. I think the fact we
live in such relative comfort and safety now a days is something may be
interacting negatively with our evolutionary wiring (such a hypothesis would
even explain things such as 'outrage culture' and internet activism - in lieu
of problems, create them!) As I mentioned IQs are decreasing (and literally
_decreasing_ \- not 'increasing more slowly' towards an asymptotic zero), but
this is something that's only happening in the developed world. In the
developing world, where lives are still much harder and threats more imminent
- IQs continue to increase, academic performance is increasing, and so on.
Vietnam for instance, today is ranked 8th in the world in science - as they
teach with a per student budget a tiny fraction of ours, even parity adjusted.
There are clearly many factors to progress that we seem to just have 0
interest in considering.

~~~
Angostura
I grew up in the early 70s and while the threat of nuclear annihilation was
ever present, it rarely impinged on every day life. Meanwhile we were playing
in the streets after school and riding our bikes around during the school
holidays from 10am until 5pm.

Bullying was restricted to the playground and the few kids that you kept away
from. If you were lucky, your folks probably had a job that they would stay in
until they retired, and there was far less homework and exam pressure than
these days.

The fact is that no-one really understands why the Flynn effect is apparently
reversing. It's likely that the extraordinary increases in from the 1948s
until 2008 were prompted by improvements in nutrition, education... or
possibly that people got better at the skills needed to do well in the test.

The hypothesis that improvements were down to hardship and adversity is
certainly a novel one. Novel and speculative. Novel, speculative and
unsupported. Still, if it makes you happy, make sure you scare your kids every
night.

~~~
TangoTrotFox
A couple of the things. The first is that if your explanation, which is the
most convenient, to explain the Flynn effect was correct we'd expect to see a
decline approaching some asymptotic zero as we experienced diminishing returns
from things like nutrition and education. But this is not what's happening.
IQs are getting literally lower (not growing more slowly), and substantially
so. 84% of people fall within the first standard deviation, which in IQ is
normalized to 15 points, and we're seeing declines of multiple points that
don't seem to be stopping. That's really something that I think should be
extremely concerning, but socially we seem to have a bit of head-in-the-sand
defense mechanism in play.

On support. I'd say my hypothesis is just about as supported as the average
view in social sciences. I could certainly formulate an experiment of passable
merit to confirm my biases. Of course that by no means means the hypothesis is
right, but rather that the notion of scientific support in social views is
something I think we should take as a default to be practically meaningless.
There are so many ways to quantify and qualify various aspects of society that
near any hypothesis can be proven if you play with the data enough. This paper
is evidence of such:

 _" To date, however, research on the relationship between adherence to
masculine norms and fathering has yielded mixed results, which may be due in
part to the fact that many studies use measures of masculinity that do not
fully capture hegemonic masculine norms. ...we address this question and
extend the literature in three key ways. First, we use a multidimensional and
more comprehensive indicator of masculinity than used in prior studies... we
consider whether masculine norm adherence inﬂuences fathering in different
way...._"

Or to put another way, 'previous research has not yielded the results we
wanted to see, so we spun the data in a way such that we could get it.' It's
really quite absurd.

