Speaking only for my personal situation, my partner is a stay at home parent. They have no career, do not want a career, and only want to be a full time parent (which I fully support). I use my resources to enable that, and make their life as easy as possible (hired help around the house, childcare, etc).
You can still enable them in ways that don't involve working at a formal job. Doing chores, dealing with household issues, that kind of thing. Having a kid generally means that there's a lot of stressful work to do around the house, and you would be in the right position to deal with that.
The kids build their connection to you in weird ways, smell, touch etc. Avoiding that 100% until they speak could have weird effects in their attachment (said without any actual proof).
It's of course your choice, but just saying that that choice could end up biting you or the kid in the end.
No it's not fun hanging around kids all the time, but it takes a lot of not fun moments to get to the good parts.
Being indoors all the time or having to care for a child 24/7 can be extremely isolating even in the best circumstances (where one isn't dealing with recovering from giving birth).
>Being indoors all the time or having to care for a child 24/7 can be extremely isolating
This doesn't jibe with my experience at all. My wife is quite enjoying being at home with the baby, and gets to spend as much time outdoors as she cares for, even in the harsh Canadian winter.
Sure there are some sleepless nights (for both of us), but I'm not sure where this idea comes from that caring for a baby is a 24/7 slog. Close friends of ours had 3 children in 4.5 years, and even they don't talk like it's utter drudgery. I guess YMMV.
"This doesn't jibe with my experience at all. My wife is quite enjoying being at home with the baby, and gets to spend as much time outdoors as she cares for, even in the harsh Canadian winter."
But that isn't true for all mothers. If a mother needs to socialize with other adults, or wants to chill with a drink with her friends, or go to a book club, etc. having a child that she must be solely responsible for 24/7 can be extremely mentally unhealthy. Maybe try Mother of all Podcasts? It's about comedian mothers talking about motherhood and being a comedian.
Yes, and I am indicating that, to the idea that 24/7 childcare indoors to be the optimal case for women as according to one's own lives, I am arguing that may not be the case due to social isolation.
I find it puzzling that someone would choose to embark on the paternity experience, but be very selective about what to experience. Life is not just what we like, and understanding that makes us more balanced individuals. One might think you're spoiled and incapable of dealing with adversity.
Life is what you make of it. You call it spoiled, I call it privilege constructed from skill, determination, and luck.
I’ve had enough adversity for one lifetime, my soul is weary, and refuse to submit to any additional unnecessary suffering. Without knowing my life, you’re not qualified to comment on it. I’m simply sharing my perspective having had my own kids and paternity leave offered.
But kids dont really require one parent for the rest of that parents' life? So they then resume a non-existing career, or do they just stay home when the kids are in school etc? Living in Sweden this has always seemed a bit weird to me, since "stay at home parent" basically doesnt exist here, unless you are (involuntarily) unemployed.
In my experience from spending several years in Japan where a lot of women opt out of continuing their career after getting married/having a child: a lot of time is spent socializing with other housewives. But the harsh economic realities mean that more and more women have to work to keep the household afloat, whether they want to or not.
> Speaking only for my personal situation, my partner is a stay at home parent.
Of course everybody's situation is different. My wife is actually currently at home as well. But you cannot advocate a system that just works for you.
You got to have a system that benefits the population at large. Many women want a career and independence and many men would enjoy spending more time with their children.
They should be given a chance to do that.
You also have to consider that when a lot of people do like you guys, you keep promoting gender inequality. Men like you working long hours naturally get valued. Bosses come to expect men to be more dependable and flexible workers because they have no obligations at home.
Women in contrast hit a glass ceiling because a company will expect that she will not have the same flexibility as a man. Men will be prioritized in career advancements and get higher salaries.
Hence you get stuck in this gender pattern. Women end up staying home because they simply cannot compete salary-wise with men.
I am not blaming you. I am just pointing out that if too many people make the kind of choices you make, it really holds back women's advancement in the workplace.
> I use my resources to enable that, and make their life as easy as possible (hired help around the house, childcare, etc).
Sounds great, but keep in mind there is a downside to this. It promotes the view that every parent is available for long work hours, because "hey just pay some help." For people with less fancy jobs that is not a simple option. One has to think of what role models one are. I find it somewhat disturbing when these higher powered women brag about being back at work the day after birth. It signals to everyone further down the chain that they are lazy asses if they don't do the same. Reality is that these are women with large amounts of resources who can hire a lot of help and don't have physically demanding jobs.
I don't expect you to agree with me, because it is probably not in your culture to think like this. But at least in Scandinavia where both independence and solidarity are considered important values, we do think a lot about being good role models and showing solidarity with others.
E.g. in Norwegian neighborhoods of all income levels people participate in "dugnad" which is a communal work together thing. Everybody clean up and fix up their neighborhood. The rich could have hired people to do it. But it is considered an important value even among rich Norwegians to physically contribute like this and be like everybody else once in a while.
It affects the children you raise. I notice children from countries where rich people hire a lot of help are exceptionally spoiled.
Do you think women will ever be able to compete on a level footing with men in the labor market/workplace if enough men prioritize status, wealth, and their career above being primarily a father? Honest question, not intended to be incendiary. You propose in this thread about culture changing, but what if it doesn't because of the drive for status? To seek status and wealth are core human values. You can’t squeeze the humanity out of people with policy.
Valuing those who value their career above all else isn't gender inequality; that's valuing a work ethic, not a specific gender (women also make the choice to prioritize a career above being a mother at all). You as an individual have a choice not to prioritize your work above all else, but you should not then be penalizing those with public policy who don't in the name of equality.
