
Why Men Can't Have It All - mtoddh
http://www.relevantmagazine.com/life/whole-life/why-men-cant-have-it-all
======
crazygringo
This is a really important thing to bring up.

There's so much focus on letting women have balance in their lives, but almost
never men.

Women complain that they can't keep up with men because they can't reconcile
80-hour workweeks with raising children.

The solution is not healthier, more balanced workweeks for women. The solution
is healther, more balanced workweeks for _everyone_.

The solution is creating a cultural expectation where CEO's work 50 hours a
week, not 90, regardless of gender or children.

After all, male CEO's would love this just as much as female CEO's with
children. But they can't ask for it, because it's seen as weak and
uncommitted, and another male CEO will take their place.

There's a truth behind the clichéed businessman dying in his bed, saying he
wishes he had spent less time working and more with his wife and children. But
as a society, we refuse to let our male CEO's work less. Why?

~~~
rmc
_But as a society, we refuse to let our male CEO's work less. Why?_

There are people fighting traditional gender roles. But then you get called a
feminazi by people who don't want change.

Come over to feminism. We're fighting for everyone to have the same
opertunities.

~~~
mtoddh
With feminists like Hanna Rosin writing articles like "The End of Men" [1],
perhaps men can be forgiven for a little skepticism as to whether the fight
"is for everyone."

[1] [http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-
end-...](http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-end-of-
men/8135/)

~~~
rmc
And you know that there are extremists everywhere in all groups?

Should we be wary of all christians because there's some who think all
religions that don't match there's should be banned? Should we be wary of all
muslims because some think it's OK to kill for their religion? Should we be
wary of all black people because some of them kill and are in gangs? Should we
be wary of all Americans because some of them own lots of guns? Should we be
wary of all police because some are corrupt? Should we be wary of all British
government activity because they might want to invade and colonise us? Should
we be wary of all germans because some are neo-nazis? Should we be wary of all
irish because some set off car bombs? etc. etc. etc.

Come on, aren't we past these gross stereotypes?

~~~
mtoddh
Thanks for taking the time to respond.

 _And you know that there are extremists everywhere in all groups?_

I'm glad you think she's an extremist. I think she's an extremist. I start to
wonder whether people on the whole share this view when people like Rosin get
to speak at TED conferences and are invited to present at think-tanks like the
New America Foundation. Is it just because these organizations are "open
minded?" Well, take Rosin's "The End of Men" article and try replacing "men"
with "black people" and "women" with "white people" throughout the article,
and speculate on whether The Atlantic would have published it:

 _"What if modern, postindustrial society is simply better suited to white
people?"_

 _"White people live longer than black people. They do better in this economy.
More of ’em graduate from college. They go into space and do everything black
people do, and sometimes they do it a whole lot better. I mean, hell, get out
of the way—these white people are going to leave us black people in the
dust."_

I'm guessing that the author of such a piece wouldn't find an audience at TED
(which bills itself as the curator of "ideas worth spreading"), or think-tanks
like the New America Foundation. But apparently enough people find Rosin's
ideas worth considering that she should get an audience at such venues.

 _Should we be wary of all christians because there's some who think all
religions that don't match there's should be banned? Should we be wary of all
muslims because some think it's OK to kill for their religion? ..._

These are all great questions. Here's another one: should women be wary when a
birth control hearing on Capitol Hill has a predominately male panel? I would
say yes.

------
dkhenry
The single best line from the article.

"""Men should not feel emancipated because everyone believes they are only
mildly competent as caregivers"""

I fully agree with this. I strive to do as much work in raising my one child
as my wife does. Recently my wife had to cover two saturday shifts giving me
two full days with my son ( breakfast to bedtime ). My wife approaced the days
like they would be some great hardship for me. I approached them as wonderfull
opertuinities to spend extra time with my two year old. Even though I try to
do just as much as she does in terms of feeding and changing and general
parenting, the fact that for most of the week I am only present for maybe an
hour a day gives her the impression that I am incapable of handling the full
load of responsability by myself. I see this as the issue. If men do have full
time jobs and their wifes are stay at home moms then there will allways be
this perception. People always assume that those who are _not_ doing what they
do _can't_ do what they do

~~~
TimGebhardt
I get the same thing too, but people seem hyper-scared for our family when I'm
at home with our twin 18m boys: "Well is your mom (kids' grandma) going to
help him? No!? I can't believe you'd leave him alone like that."

I'm about |---| this close to start responding with highly offensive responses
like "Well, I can't believe your husband trusts you with a credit card,
because women are bad at money and math". My wife gets just as offended as I
do when her friends say stuff like that to her.

Expecting some downvotes, but unless someone's said it to your face or your
wife's told you some of the things her friends say, you can't know how
infuriating it is when people don't think you're capable of taking care of
your own kids.

~~~
bmj
I agree with you, but why do people think this way? Because there are fathers
who absolutely cannot function as a caregiver to their own children. I have
friends who have trouble watching their kids for a few hours on a Saturday
afternoon while their wives do other things. So, the stereotype exists for a
reason--but I agree it is not pleasant to be judged by it.

Parenting isn't rocket science, but it's hard work that requires a bit of
introspection if you wish raise your kids well. It's a shame that folks have
kids but have no desire to shoulder the burden they've accepted.

~~~
TimGebhardt
And there are mothers who absolutely cannot function as a caregiver to their
own children.

I think the article is asking why mothers are assumed to be good parents and
everyone assumes fathers are lucky if they can get pants on their kids in the
morning.

~~~
colomon
To be fair, I am very involved raising my three-year-old, but I am lucky if I
can tell his pajamas from his proper clothes, and as often as not fail to
dress him in an outfit his mother aproves of. :)

~~~
btilly
Easy solution, get your son to choose his own clothing. Then you quickly go
from, "How could you have picked that for him?" to "How cute!"

Plus your son will probably enjoy having that piece of control.

------
RyanMcGreal
The site seems to be down right now. Here's the google cache:

[https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Ahttp...](https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.relevantmagazine.com%2Flife%2Fwhole-
life%2Fwhy-men-cant-have-it-all&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-
US:official&client=firefox-a)

\------

When my older child (now 17) was little, people who knew he was my son would
see us at the park and ask, "Oh, are you babysitting?"

I'd answer, "No, I'm parenting."

~~~
TimGebhardt
Oh man, please let me steal that response from you. That's fantastic.

~~~
RyanMcGreal
It's all yours!

------
sreyaNotfilc
I can't relate. Its not because I don't have children. I've basically had
children since I was 13. Well, they were my sister's kids, but I still took
care of them as they were my own (in a way).

I recently had to watch a few of my sister's kids while she was touring with
the Army. This was for a year, and the kids were pretty young (twins at one
years old and another 3 year old). They were a handful, but I was always up to
the task to take care of them. That involves, nurturing, feeding,
disciplining, educating, cleaning, playing and interacting. Its a lot of work,
but it can be done.

In away, I see them as my children, since I've been around they everyday for a
year.

Long story short, it wasn't because I was a girl that I successfully took care
of my nieces (for that short period of time). I'm a dude. I don't find it
strange either. Parenting really is just a task. How well you do correlates to
how much effort you put into it.

Its a lot of work to take care of kids as well as take care of yourself and
your occupation. Perhaps this is the reason why we have marriages. Having two
adults makes this task much easier. So lets go back to the subject on men
being great parents and a great employer/businessman. It can be done. We are
not aliens. We are no inept. We are human. We have as much of a chance to be
successful fathers than any women being successful mothers.

Its all about effort.

~~~
papsosouid
It seems weird that you start off with "I can't relate", and then your entire
post has very little to do with the article at all. Did you read it? He didn't
suggest men are incapable of being great parents, quite the opposite in fact.

~~~
sreyaNotfilc
I guess I should have been a bit more clear with my intro sentence.

"I can't relate" was more towards the title of the article (Why Men Can't Have
It All) than the actual content. I'm not sure what's up with the title
actually. The content is basically what "krktb" wrote as a reply. I'm not
debating that. I just merely linked my childcare experiences with the
article's examples while refuting its title.

I can't relate to the "social stigma" that men are looked to be inept when it
comes to child care. It doesn't make any sense why that would be. As I
explained, child care is basically a task. Almost any task can be performed by
either a male or a female. This includes taking care of a child. To do this
task well, all that matters is the effort you exert. I explained the rest in
my blab above, so I'm not going to revisit it.

I apologize if you didn't understand what I was getting at, papsosouid. I'll
make sure I'm more clear next time.

------
AznHisoka
I think taking care of kids is a fulltime job, and one parent should just stay
home until they're old enough. Many of you may dismiss this as old-fashioned,
and sexist, but it's very true. Don't forget that in the past, families lived
together. Grandmas, aunts, uncles, sisters, EVERYONE in 1 roof. Which meant
the mother had a ton of help. Today, we live in an entirely different society,
and mothers usually are alone in caregiving. I blame society for getting rid
of this family structure.

~~~
maratd
I just had a my first kid, she's 5 months old now.

On the weekends, we stay with my parents and they take care of the little one.
Tuesday and Thursday, I take care of her from 8 am (morning) until 1 am (next
day). I work on Saturday + Sunday to make up for those two days. My wife takes
care of the kid on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. She works the rest of the
days.

Yes, it would be nice to have her take care of the kid full-time. She wants
to. She had debt from law school and wants to pay that off first. Until she
makes that decision, everybody helps out.

There is a fundamental difference between want and can. Unfortunately, many of
the decisions we make _before_ we have children limit our options _after_ we
have them.

~~~
luser001
You guys should consider sending her to a _quality_ daycare. We've been
sending our son to one since he was 3 mo. old. He _loves_ it; _we_ love it. We
think that's the best thing we've done for him so far.

Socializing with other children is sooo important. He interacts with other
adults (daycare employees). He learns so many things (esp. wrt self-control,
autonomy etc) just by playing with his friends.

I personally think a daycare (many kids + several caregivers) is closer to the
environment that we evolved to grow in, rather than having no other kids +
couple of caregivers as would be the case with an at-home parent.

You should give some serious thought into finding a quality daycare. You're
highly likely to like it. Good luck!

~~~
maratd
> You guys should consider sending her to a quality daycare.

In my area, that's an extra 20-30K a year. I intend to have more children.
With 2+ kids, it becomes cheaper to hire a full-time nanny.

That might make sense if my wife manages to land a job that pays 50K+, but
that's not a certainty especially since I'm pretty sure she doesn't want to
... any job that pays in that range will mean long hours and very little time
for anything else.

And that's just the $$$ talking.

I would much rather my parents raise her. They're in that retirement age zone,
they want to, and frankly, since it's their grandchild, they would do a better
job than a stranger. That's how it's been done in my family for generations,
anyway. Parents go off and make the $$$, while grandparents take care of the
day to day.

~~~
luser001
If you've thought it through, great. Whatever works for you. Good luck. But I
just thought I'd address the subtext of your comment for the benefit of others
who might be reading this too.

> With 2+ kids, it becomes cheaper to hire a full-time nanny. ...
> [grandparents] would do a better job than a stranger. ... grandparents take
> care of the day to day.

In my experience, a _quality_ daycare person is _superior_ to all except the
best of the best nannies (I'm talking about those $80k/yr nannies NY Times
wrote about). I think of myself as getting access to an experienced child
development specialist, rather than as renting a warm body that just keeps my
child physically safe.

I'd go with a _quality_ (note emphasis) daycare over grandparents every single
time.

------
bobwaycott
Social-cultural notions and expectations are, at least in the U.S., bizarre
concerning males and parenting. Perhaps because there are so many who abrogate
involvement and parenting.

I can't tell you how many times (okay, I'm telling, so it's been a whole hell
of a lot), that I seem to get automatic plus points just for being a non-
abandoning father. I have two boys (one adopted, one natural), am divorced,
and have had custody of the boys since the divorce. People who find out about
my single-parenting situation seem to then react in a way that implies I ought
to be revered or something.

I simply don't understand this. It's as if _just because I am there_ I am
equated to "being a good father and, therefore, some kind of rare good man". I
mean, _I could be an absolute shit parent_ , and just trotting out the facts
creates this unwelcome (and unhealthy) mental bias. This has become quite the
issue whenever I meet otherwise interesting women, too (in the sense that
their reaction to my situation has overwhelmingly been one of summarily
attempting to "latch on")--so much so that I've developed a habit of
specifically not mentioning being a single father at all.

I've never felt like my kids get in the way of professional aspirations. But
perhaps that is because I've always tempered my professional aspirations in
such a way that they exist to support my sons and give them the best life I
possibly can while keeping my brain entertained with creating new things and
solving challenging problems (challenging problems of a different sort than
parenting). I don't pursue professional aspirations and then ask myself, "How
can I squeeze my kids into this?"

~~~
luser001
> I don't pursue professional aspirations and then ask myself, "How can I
> squeeze my kids into this?"

Brilliant nugget! Thanks.

------
Spooky23
You can have whatever you really set your mind to have. Male or female, when
your time comes, none of these debates matter, and you'll figure out what you
need to do.

When my son was born a few months ago, my wife felt a unexpectedly (even to
her) strong desire to be home with him as much as possible. She was able to
cut her schedule by about 60% -- if that wasn't possible, she would have quit.
Fortunately, we have the means to make that decision and not necessity.

Is that sexist? Outdated thinking? Dumb? I don't really care -- we did what
was right for us.

------
yaliceme
This is actually a big part of why I can't take any pleasure from the
"bumbling/incompetent husband" stereotype in commercials, sitcoms, etc. It's
supposed to pander to women, but it's actually insulting to _everyone_ \-
insulting to men by implying they are too dumb to handle basic self-care, and
insulting to women by implying that housework is their natural domain.

------
gyardley
Well, yes, but this situation is largely our own fault.

I know there are plenty of men who want to split domestic chores fifty-fifty
and take an equal role in childrearing, and I admire them. But there are
plenty more, including myself at times, who have been happy to let our spouses
shoulder more than their fair share of domestic work - not because we're
deliberately _trying_ to be troglodytes, but because a good portion of
domestic work is thankless and uninteresting. So we do things less often and
less well than our spouses, usually unconsciously, and eventually things
gravitate towards something like an eighty-twenty split. This gets us what we
want, but it also gives rise to the incompetent husband stereotype that's
bothering the author of this piece.

I've got no idea how to fix this soft bigotry of low expectations, if it can
be fixed at all - we obviously don't mind being made fun of for our
incompetence at things we don't want to do in the first place. Cultural
problems are always the hardest to solve.

~~~
HotKFreshSwag
One way to cure this symptom of patriarchy is to try to stop being a
'troglodyte' as you put it. What would a non-'troglodyte' do?

If you shrug, accept the status quo and say meh, it's a cultural problem
you're functionally no different than someone who is completely ignorant of
the issue.

~~~
gyardley
Well, yes - I stopped behaving this way a while ago. But I was referring to
the difficulty of changing the behavior of people who are _not_ me.

Changing yourself is easy; getting others to want to change themselves is not.

~~~
NotMyMorals
>Changing yourself is easy; getting others to want to change themselves is
not.

Yes, and why should we want to change to be like you?

------
Tichy
I really noticed that, and it annoys me. My son (20 months old) tends to wake
up around 7 or 8am and around 8 or 9pm it is bedtime. So if I were to take on
a "normal" job, I would not spend time with my kid at all, except for the
weekends (leave house 8am, work from 9 to 6, back home 7 at the earliest).
Society assumes that I am fine with that, but I am not.

Still, I'd like to add that at least in our case, in the first year the mother
was definitely more important because of the breastfeeding, which really
incited a strong bond. But of course not everybody does that.

------
d4nt
I think the level of expectation on fathers is still on an upward trend. But
getting to parity is probably related to the gender pay gap and whether that's
a problem that needs some kind of intervention. In my own family it made sense
for me to work full time while my wife took a career break to raise the kids,
because I could earn more. But my wife left education with way more
qualifications than me so, in theory, could have been earning more by the time
we had kids. If what held her back was in any way a cultural legacy that
values women less, then we've gone and reinforced it by taking the decision
that we did. So maybe there's a chicken and egg issue here.

------
jseims
I recently had an experience that dovetails with this article.

This summer, I moved my family over to London for two months. I intended to
work while there, but I was having RSI issues. So instead, I spent two months
full time with my kids, the oldest one being a girl of almost 4.

This transition from work to family time was _reluctant_ , but in retrospect
was the best thing that happened to me this year. My relationship with my
oldest daughter developed and deepened... we are now so much closer than
before, she's matured so much since I've been able to focus on her
development.

And I was never aware that this deeper relationship was a possibility, and
that I was neglecting it in favor of work.

------
rmc
This is a great article. This is what feminism is about. We should not hold
modern people to out dated, and wrong ideas of what people can and can't do
just because of their gender. Society has moved on a bit and we now no longer
have discussions about whether a woman can be a CEO, we're starting to move
towards this way with men & parenting.

If you're a man and you agree with this article, just watch for the next
person to complain about "feminists" or "feminazis" or "political correctness
gone mad". That person wants to keep you in a box and doesn't think you can be
a father.

~~~
s_baby
I agree with your sentiment about what feminism is at its best but you're
sugar coating the historical facts. 2nd wave feminism approaches gender roles
as a zero sum game. They systematically marginalize any perspective on males
that doesn't frame men as oppressors.

Yes, there are authentic strands of feminism and yes they can be inclusive of
the male perspective. But these strands also co-exist in the context of
hateful ideologies. Worse, good feminists form in-group social cohesion with
hateful zealots in the hope of "supporting their sisters". There's really no
room for men in such a hostile environment.

~~~
rmc
You sure about "2nd wave"? '2nd wave' feminism is usually for things like "It
should be illegal to pay men and women differently for the same work", etc.
Most of that battle has been won to most people. What's currently going on is
sometimes called "3rd wave feminism".

As for your theory that 'good feminists' stick with 'hateful zealots' in
solidatory, that's not borne out by evidence. There is loads of infighting
within all groups, including feminists. Some feminist groups are pro-
prostitution and pro-pornography, some think pornography and prostitution
should be banned. Some feminist groups welcome trans women, some ban them
(e.g. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Womyns_Music_Festival> ).

 _(This infighting isn't unique to feminism, it happens in lots of
communities. Just look at why we have both 'Open Source' and 'Free Software'
(i.e. a split))_

~~~
makomk
For the most part, even the feminist groups who welcome trans women are more
accepting of feminists who consider trans women to be subhuman than they are
of anyone who objects to those feminists. This is even true when, for example,
the feminists in question have managed to get the law amended specifically so
that the rape counselling services they run can turn away trans women who've
been raped.

The issues of prostitution and pornography are even more interesting - most of
the sex-positive feminists who fought against those being banned are still
involved in much the same kinds of sex-positive activism as they always were,
but they're not doing it from within the feminist movement for some reason,
whereas the feminists trying to get them banned are part of the feminist
mainstream.

~~~
rmc
_they're not doing it from within the feminist movement for some reason,
whereas the feminists trying to get them banned are part of the feminist
mainstream._

You claim that the sex-positive people who you agree with don't call
themselves feminists, but those that do things you don't like _are_ called
feminists, and hence it's OK to dislike all "feminists".

Except that's not true.

Example: "SlutWalks" ( <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SlutWalk> ) are protests
where people walk/march around in revelaing/slutty clothes to protest at
people who blame rape victims for getting raped based on they dress. It
started in Toronto. What do the organisers of this call themselves (
<http://www.slutwalktoronto.com/about/who> ): "Heather Jarvis is a queer
_feminist_ activist. … Laura McLean is a _feminist_ who … Erika is a sex-
positive _feminist_ who … ".

Sorry, but "feminism" can be pro-sex (or anti-sex or pro-porn or anti-porn,
it's like trying to argue if GPL is less free or less free than BSD licence).

------
VMG
So there is something like a implicit cultural hypothesis that women are
better at raising kids at an early age. Anecdotally, women seem to be
preferred in custody cases.

Is there any actual science supporting or refuting that?

~~~
parfe
> _Anecdotally, women seem to be preferred in custody cases._

"Fathers who actively seek custody obtain either primary or joint physical
custody over 70% of the time. Reports indicate, however, that in some cases
_perceptions of gender bias may discourage fathers from seeking custody_ and
stereotypes about fathers may sometimes affect case outcomes. In general, our
evidence suggests that the courts hold higher standards for mothers than
fathers in custody determinations."

[http://www.amptoons.com/blog/files/Massachusetts_Gender_Bias...](http://www.amptoons.com/blog/files/Massachusetts_Gender_Bias_Study.htm)

~~~
makomk
As I recall, fathers are discouraged from seeking primary custody without
strong justification (by the advice their divorce lawyers give them, by not
being able to afford a divorce lawyer at all, by the fear of losing all access
to their kids if they kick up a fuss...) so the cases where they do seek
custody are going to be biased towards ones where the mother's abusive or
otherwise unfit. The study doesn't seem to investigate whether this is the
case.

Also, I'd be interested to see actual methodological details. For instance, it
talks about women being unable to get adjustments in payments to which they're
entitled. Did they bother to investigate whether men have the same problem?
They don't mention it if they do, and anecdotally they do seem to have
difficulty getting their payments adjusted down if they lose their job and can
no longer afford to pay as much. To be honest, I reckon this study is kind of
biased in terms of _what questions it actually asks_.

------
hansbo
I don't know if it's based on culture or laws, but this article doesn't really
ring true to me as a Swede. My father, like many (probably not most though)
fathers I know, spent as much time home with the children as the mothers did.
As I intend to as well when the time comes. It is very possible for both
parents to keep up their professional careers if the burden is split between
them, I think.

~~~
makomk
From what I recall, Sweden has very different cultural and legal norms around
male parenting than the rest of the world - for instance, their paternity
leave laws are much more friendly to fathers who want to stay at home and look
after the baby so the mum can return to work than in most other countries.

------
JoeAltmaier
Its great to put such an emphasis on being there for your kid. But this is
definitely a 1st-world issue. The family has to have money to function; many
places the employed parent has to work diligently to accomplish this. Kind
thoughts about being there for the spelling bee or ball game are cute; but the
job has to come first or its all down the drain.

~~~
AkThhhpppt
The article is about caregiving fathers; what if the employed parent is the
mother, or the couple are gay and the child is adopted?

Why should the 'present' father get medals for doing things every mother is
expected to do?

------
geebee
I remember reading the original article and thinking that we're slowly moving
toward a situation where you could just replace "women" with "men". I've
scaled back on my career because I have two small children, and I can't leave
the house before 7:30 or get home much after 6pm if I want to stay involved to
the extent I choose to be as a father. I want to help them with homework,
music practice, sports, and just spend some time with them.

Now a lot of people may notice that I (very deliberately) used the word
_choose_. Not everyone will make this choice, and some people have a tougher
time with a choice than others. But as I remember from the Atlantic article,
the author did have a husband who was available and willing to provide a very
high level of domestic support. She wrote, with some hesitation, that she
things women _may_ be less inclined to spend time away from their families and
at the office even when they do have this level of support (she cited both
social conditioning as well as the possibility of basic biology as a factor in
this).

I don't know if I'm unusual. I actually argued about this with my wife, who
insists that I'm unusually at ease, as a male, with stepping back from my
career to do domestic things. Personally, I have trouble believing that I am
especially unusual, and I definitely know plenty of men who have made the same
choice I did. Yeah, I can't have it all. If I want to limit work to 8:30am to
5:30pm, and at times have to shorten even those hours, that will affect my
career. At times, I do look at other people's achievements with some envy, but
I'm clear that this was my choice. I can't have it all, of course I can't.
There are trade-offs in life.

There are of course still some big differences for women - I do think that
it's probably harder for a woman to find a male partner who will fill the
domestic gap than it is for a man to find a woman who will do this (though
even if they do, they'll still have to accept the "understudy" role as a
parent as they spend more time at the office than their husbands). If there
truly is a deeper, biological pull here for women _on average_ , then maybe we
should look into better "on ramps" for people in their 40s (the author said
she is frequently asked about this, and her honest answer is that there aren't
really any good on ramps for middle aged people, at least not in her field).

I still see differences between men and women around the question of whether
we can "have it all", but this does seem to be converging - and ultimately the
answer will be "no, you can't."

------
bhousel
Health, Family, Career - pick 2

This is a false trilemma for only a privileged few. If you have unusually
healthy genes, an unusually supportive family, or an unusually cushy job,
consider yourself lucky! Both men and women need to make the same tough
decisions to find balance in their life -- it's not a gender thing.

------
FeministHacker
"it’s patriarchy that says men are stupid and monolithic and unchanging and
incapable. It’s patriarchy that says men have animalistic instincts and just
can’t stop themselves from harassing and assaulting. It’s patriarchy that says
men can only be attracted by certain qualities, can only have particular kinds
of responses, can only experience the world in narrow ways. Feminism holds
that men are capable of more - are more than that. Feminism says that men are
better than that"

(The source, [http://zeroatthebone.wordpress.com/2011/11/22/on-claiming-
to...](http://zeroatthebone.wordpress.com/2011/11/22/on-claiming-to-be-a-
stupid-man-who-doesnt-know-anything/), isn't entirely relevent, although it's
conculsion is)

------
peterwwillis
I think I know why women assume men can't raise kids. As we all know, at some
point the biological alarm clock starts ringing in a majority of women's ears
and they want to be a mother. The urge is probably such that they see it as a
job that they want to do for themselves, and that a husband taking care of the
child is removing them from that which they want to do, similar to a temp
being hired to do part of your programming for you. I'm not speaking about all
women, of course, just the ones that make comments insinuating fathers are
incapable of being a primary caregiver.

~~~
corin_
_"As we all know, at some point the biological alarm clock starts ringing in a
majority of women's ears and they want to be a mother."_

I have no idea if this is common, or if I'm a rare exception, or perhaps if
it's linked with being gay, but I'm a guy who feels that.

Anyone else (male) here, or just me?

~~~
peterwwillis
Do you mean you just have a strong feeling like you want to have kids, or like
you want to fulfill the role of a mother? I know there's definitely guys who
at some point have a strong urge to have kids, but i'm not sure if it's the
same.

~~~
corin_
To have kids. By "fulfill the role of a mother" do you just mean "be the stay
at home parent"? If so, then I don't have a particular preference, I'd be
happy to but would be fine working as well.

I can't think of a single male friend (of ones I've talked about this sort of
thing with) who feels the same way, in terms of they'd hate to go through life
without having kids. Plenty who are happy to have kids, or would like to some
day, or whatever, but none in quite the same way.

------
king_jester
So the author of this post is offended that a man can get a cookie for just
being a father? That somehow getting extra attention for doing what many
mothers do daily is a wrong?

Men CAN have it all. There is nothing stopping a father from pursuing
parenthood full time. Fathers can ignore the negative stereotypes of men being
awful caregivers and may in fact be praised for being a parent at all. The
social expectation that men won't be involved in parenting is not a barrier to
parenting in many cases, as few people will question your agency as a father
if you choose to be more dedicated to your children.

Women have a much worse time dealing with social expectations and institutions
regarding parenting. It is not that society feels that women are superior
parents or are more capable of caring for children, but rather that a woman's
primary purpose is to execute this role. Unless you have tremendous resources,
your life's passion and having a family are mutually exclusive for many
mothers. Women are expected to take on domestic responsibility and work the
second shift at a much higher rate then men, so these issues affect them much
more than men.

Defeating gender stereotypes in regards to parenting will help both men and
women do as they please and raise their children as they wish, but let's not
kid and declare that there is a need to focus on men when women are the most
impacted in regards to this kind of sexism and are the least able to be free
from it.

~~~
slurgfest
I can see why someone would disagree with this but downvoting it seems
unreasonable - it's a fairly nuanced statement...

~~~
bryanlarsen
I think the downvotes were because Peter Chin never suggested that we should
focus on men to the exclusion of women, he's attacking a straw man.

~~~
king_jester
I feel that Mr. Chin's article does argue for a focus on men to the exclusion
of women. The premise is that men don't have full autonomy or freedom due to
the way society feels about men, parenting, and care giving. I very much
disagree with this sentiment, as men as a gender do not suffer negative
consequences as a parent despite being seen as less competent at being one.

The article implies a false equivalency between the harm done to men and women
in regards to gender roles and stereotypes over parenting when this is simply
not the case. I argue that this piece serves as a form of derailment that, in
response to a discussion focused on women, seeks to move the discussion away
from women and on to men. This kind of writing implicitly argues in favor of
male point of view to the exclusion of female point of view.

------
lifebeyondfife
If I recall correctly, wasn't the reason Jeff Atwood (codinghorror) stepped
down from active work on StackExchange owing to spending more time with his
children?

I'd be interested to know his view on this article.

Edit: Also, my PhD supervisor went part-time after he became a father. But
these are the only two examples I can think of of professional men making a
career sacrifice for spending more time as a parent.

------
jeremymims
Disclaimer: I'm not married and I don't have children.

Truly having it all (defined as having a stimulating and powerful career while
being fully present in your children's lives) is difficult for anyone: women
and men. There's only so much time in the day and if you want to have any type
of powerful career, that will usually mean some sort of irregular hours that
will mean missing important moments in a child's life. Likewise, prioritizing
childcare over a career will mean missing some important moments to build a
career. You couldn't go speak at that conference or stay late to build a
feature or invest the weekend to come up with the new killer product. Maybe
you had to miss important meetings because you had a sick child that needed to
go to the doctor or couldn't do the business trip to close a deal.

The people who seem to "have it all" are usually wealthy with a flexible job
(like famous actors). Their secret is they have a whole lot of help. We never
hear about Angelina Jolie's nannies, professional chefs, drivers, and cleaning
staff making it possible for her to "have it all". But she probably couldn't
otherwise, she'd have to choose.

I'll admit that there are likely some people who really do seem to "have it
all". But let's also admit that they're the anomalies. For most mere mortals,
there seems to be a balance requiring a choice. As a society, we'll move
towards equality when we can respect people for the choices they make instead
of trying to wedge them into the mold that we want and without judging them.

My mother was an Ivy educated professional who left the workforce to take care
of her children. It would be very sad if she were judged poorly for not
attempting to "have it all", because in truth it was a great gift to her
children. I've always respected her for her decision. Though there were times
when my father couldn't be present, he's always said that not being able to
spend time with his children when they were young was one of his big regrets.
His sacrifice to provide for my family even though he couldn't always be there
was a great gift too and deserves respect.

As employers, there are things we can do that can certainly make it easier for
people on our teams who choose to be more involved in their children's lives
(like daycare, good healthcare, flex time, days to work from home, etc.), but
very often startups forego these amenities to extend the runway.

It's still a relatively new idea in our civilization that men and women would
share equally in raising children. Equally new is the idea that we'd have two
middle class parents in the workforce attempting to have high powered careers.
I see progress all around us, moving more slowly than we'd hope, but generally
going in the right direction.

But I think that "having it all" as a standard may be hurtful to people who
can't. Everyone's circumstances are different and perhaps we should just
respect people for the choices they make and for doing the best they can.

------
danso
Here's a tangent from yesterday's HN frontpage article about fasting and
programming...I still don't think that the rigors of fatherhood, _on average_
, are as demanding as that of motherhood, for a very simple fact: women are
effectively supporting, through their lifeblood, another lifeform within them
for 7-9 months before they're thrust into parenthood. So in that sense, they
have a headstart in the race-to-give-it-up for the child.

(please emphasize the _on average_ part in the above statement...obviously,
fathers have the opportunity to more than make up for this once the child has
left the birth canal)

How many articles do we see on HN about how important it is to get regular
exercise, sleep, etc. in order to become the best hacker you can be? It's
tough to do that for even young men out of college...how much harder is it to
maintain that while pregnant?

------
AgathaTheWitch
I see a few flaws with the author's analysis:

The first is the premise that that which a father does for his family outside
of the home does not count toward "caregiving". Being successful in a career
puts a roof over a child's head, provides him with material comforts, creates
educational opportunities, and establishes a positive role-model. It may not
be a romantic sentiment, but I wouldn't exchange all that my father provided
for me growing up (nice home, good schools, help with tuition, good example of
professionalism, etc) for him changing my diapers or playing catch with me a
few more times than he did.

In many ways, a man does right by his family by focusing on his career. The
same can be true of a woman. Ultimately, there is a set of requirements for
raising a child - among these, physical proximity with a caregiver,
instruction, affection, socialization, and all of the material necessities,
such as housing, food, and health care. How parents divvy up the provisioning
of these things is up to each couple, however in my experience, a division of
labor (as opposed to doing everything 50-50) is often more practical.

This whole conversation is sort of silly since no gender and no individual can
ever "have it all". Life requires compromise - saying no to some things we
want in exchange for a higher value. No man or woman can put in 100 hours of
work as a CEO captain of industry, and simultaneously spend 8 hours a day
reading to their kids. Both spheres of life demand time, a finite resource,
and thus it is up to parents to strike a balance.

The other issue I have with the author's analysis is the "ought." The "ought"
is the idea that 50-50 (fathers and mothers having an equal focus on child-
rearing and career) is a thing to aspire to for our society. This relies on
the assumption that there is no meaningful difference between men and women
that should allow for this, or at least the assumption that if such a
difference exists, it ought to be resisted. I disagree. There are benefits to
many of our biologically and culturally based gender norms, and we should
embrace the productive ones that relate to child-rearing.

------
johngalt
Men have been making this trade-off for centuries. It's self evident to us
that the world works this way. That's why we don't write articles about it.
When reading similar articles from women lamenting this trade-off, the
response is a resounding "what did you expect?"

~~~
enraged_camel
Yes, it is self-evident to us men that the world works this way, because we as
men designed it that way. The vast majority of societies in human history have
been patriarchal, with men making the rules. These rules have, until recently,
included things like "women cannot work" and "women cannot vote." And because
this has been like this for a long time, we (men) have accepted it as normal
and don't see a need to write articles about it.

But times are changing. Gender equality has huge societal and economic
benefits, and is a goal worth striving for. To make progress in this arena, we
must challenge the status quo. Articles like this are a good way of raising
public awareness about the issues that come up.

------
perlgeek
Other countries are ahead of the USA in this matter. For example in Norway the
parents' money is reduced if the father refuses to stay at home for a certain
time.

That's quite an effective measure, people actually do expect both parents to
stay at home for a while.

------
moskie
The thing he doesn't seem to touch on is the fact that the barriers to being a
good parent and the barriers to being a successful professional are different,
and different per gender.

The only thing he claims is preventing men from being good parents are
societal expectations. Which I agree should be different. But, still, any man,
myself included, could decide to become a stay-at-home dad and successfully
raise children to the best of their abilities, and nothing could stop that.

And that's substantively different from what can prevent women from being
successful in the professional world. That success can be halted by tangible
external forces, like institutional sexism.

~~~
macey
agreed. very well written though, and to be honest, if we (as a society) right
some wrongs in the area of male family roles, some of this will balance out on
its own.

honestly i think that could be a really effective approach to battling
institutional sexism. i think entitlement and empowerment are very different,
and male entitlement is behind a lot of institutional sexism IMO. empowering
men is an important factor here. a man empowered to be a great, engaged,
responsible father will help to alleviate societal pressures on women--at
least it'll be a wonderful start. don't you think?

in any case, this article was definitely refreshing! cool point of view.

------
michelleclsun
Thanks Peter Chin for a thoughtful piece. I have come across so many friends
who grew up in a family where "my dad was never really there". Society seems
to put more pressure on males (and increasingly, females) to succeed (and make
more money for corporations) than to be good parents.

------
kungfooey
Did someone manage to grab the text from this article? I couldn't find a
cached version.

~~~
aaronharder
[http://www.relevantmagazine.com.nyud.net/life/whole-
life/why...](http://www.relevantmagazine.com.nyud.net/life/whole-life/why-men-
cant-have-it-all)

------
electronous
I don't understand the strong insistence on having children that so many
people have. Can anyone explain why this is such a big deal?

~~~
erichocean
Similarly, I don't understand the strong insistence on having sex that so many
people have. Can anyone explain why this is such a big deal?

/sarc

------
goggles99
Fighting against natures clear and obvious intent of gender roles will not
ever lead to a happier and more fulfilled life.

------
ten_fingers
I tried: My wife and I both got Ph.D. degrees intending to have two careers,
do well financially, and, with money in the bank, have a family.

In four words, it did not work.

A longer description is, eventually the evidence became overwhelming: Mother
Nature and Darwin were there long before we were and very much did not want us
doing that, and they were very strong minded about this: She struggled and
struggled; the struggles caused stress, eventually the stress caused
depression; the depression made the struggles and stress worse and caused
severe depression; and that was fatal. No joke. Her Ph.D. had been a big
investment that got 'written off'.

Or couples that could have done what we tried just were not among our
ancestors. All this is in spite of what is commonly said would, could, and
should be.

Thus, I suggest: In simple terms, Mother Nature and Darwin have arranged that
without certainty but with high probability in practice and significantly on
average a 'professional woman' is a weak, sick, or dead limb on the tree.
Sorry 'bout that. Wish I'd known that earlier.

How could this "weak, sick, dead" stuff be? Here's a guess: In our 'culture'
from the past few thousand or ten thousand years, women nearly never had
opportunities to pursue a 'profession' and became wives and mommies whether
they really, consciously or otherwise, wanted to or not. So, our 'nature',
'nurture'. 'social and psychological capital', and 'culture', or whatever,
from the past kept the tree growing while, still, a significant fraction of
the women didn't want to be just wives and mommies.

So, what's different now? Now the US society and economy have changed giving
many women an opportunity to pursue a career or profession, and, with
significantly high probability, these women are removing their genes from the
gene pool.

E.g., in Finland, women are encouraged to pursue careers, and on average the
number of children born to a woman in Finland is about 1.5. So, let's see: For
some simple arithmetic, with one generation of 25 years, after 150 years the
population will fall by

    
    
         100 * (1 - ( 1.5 / 2 ) ** 6 ) = 82.2%
    

So in the last 150 years or so Finland beat back the Swedes, Nazis, and
Soviets but in the next 150 years are on track to lose out to careers for
women!

This situation is common across Europe: The gene pool is being severely
pruned. In simple terms, Europe is rapidly going extinct.

My guess is that the European gene pool is now in the period of most rapid
change in at least the last 10,000 years.

Darwin stands to win this one: What will be left will be women who really,
REALLY want to be mommies in good families.

Darwin has more to say: The situation for men is not easy, either: For the
tree to do well, men have to be good providers, good enough that their wives
can concentrate on doing well in motherhood. Some men are successful, and some
are not -- Darwin again!

Without some big and chancy changes in work and families, thoughts about
would, could, and should be pale to insignificance as Darwin wins again.

Or, it's not nice to try to fool Mother Nature!

Maybe in Finland and most of Europe, by the time the population falls by, say,
75% from now the new gene pool, 'culture', etc. that emphasizes motherhood
along with the more favorable ratio of land to people will cause the
population to stabilize and, then, start to grow again. Maybe.

------
slurgfest
This is a Christian evangelical magazine. I find the trend of increasing
evangelism on HN to be mildly disturbing. Can we please refrain from using HN
for religious evangelism? This does not constitute a form of repression for
Christians, rather it preserves freedom for everyone who isn't Christian or
who is Christian but doesn't believe in evangelism through every channel
available.

~~~
mahyarm
That is an ad hominem attack. The article mentions nothing of religion, it
stands alone. How many articles that you read are written by the religious,
probably more than you realize.

~~~
slurgfest
No, I was talking about the publication. "Ad hominem" means "to the man." Your
implication that I am bigoted against religious people is an example of ad
hominem.

I am a religious person. That religion happens not to be Christianity.
Obviously, I have no problem with religious people and I have no problem with
reading things written by religious people.

I am asking for HN to not be used as a channel for evangelism. We don't see
Muslims posting da'wah here or Scientologists offering their pitches, so I
don't know why Christianity is the exception (except that it is the cultural
majority).

~~~
mahyarm
Replace 'man' with 'publication' and it still stands. Ad hominem in the
abstract is attacking the messenger/venue vs the message itself.

I'm not saying your bigoted, I'm saying your attacking this article because
you disagree about where it was voiced since you feel HN should be a religion
free zone.

This isn't a religious or evangelical message. It could of been written in a
secular feminist publication and it wouldn't be out of place. It could of been
an article on the blog of Imam Khomeni, where %90 of the posts are about the
supremacy of Islam, it wouldn't matter.

------
jacknews
I think it has something to do with tits?

------
arturadib
> _Now, tell me how that is any different or less insulting than telling a
> women the opposite: "Sure, you're a good mother, but you're not cut out to
> be a CEO."_

This is disingenuous. The answer is because modern men don't aspire to become
good parents nearly as much as modern women aspire to holding top-level
positions.

I do agree with the necessity to change the stereotype of the clumsy dad, but
to bring that to the same level as that of women fighting for equality in the
workplace is utterly unfair - it is by far a much Bigger Deal for modern
women.

PS: If you have never seen a competent woman having frequent nervous
breakdowns after putting in a disproportionate amount of work just to climb a
ladder that most average men do with ease, you probably won't understand the
difference.

