Hacker News Reader

Comment by grahamburger | Hacker News Reader

You're right, of course. But there are biological reason why all else being equal, having mom stay home might work better than dad. (Breastfeeding, mainly)

Also as a dad I fully agree with your other point - I want to spend time with my kids as well, and I bristle at the suggestion that my kids are my wife's 'problem.' I love my kids, and if I had the means I would spend all of my time with them. But considering the reality that one of us has to work so we can eat, I've found that it's easier on me emotionally to spend time away from them than it is for her. Maybe that's not widely true, maybe it's nurture over nature, maybe it's something else entirely, but it's something that exists and maybe shouldn't be absent from these discussions.

View on HN

There are biological reasons favoring dad as well. As the father of a toddler, I count physical strength as a huge asset. Example use case is carrying my sleeping infant holding with a single arm while the other hand unlocks the door.

> Example use case is carrying my sleeping infant holding with a single arm while the other hand unlocks the door

I think you are underestimating the strength (as well as form) women are born with, specifically for this reason. Most women I've seen carrying children on their hips with one arm behind their backs look much more comfortable than when a man does the same thing.

Did you know that breastfeeding pumps and refrigeration had been invented and refined over the last century?

Yes, I did know that. I assume you don't have kids? Breastfeeding is extremely difficult and painful for most women, and pumping moreso. I can only watch my wife crying from the excruciating pain of having her breasts pumped by a cold machine several times a day so many times before I say 'you know what, let's not do that anymore.'

Just wanted to chime in here to agree with you. While some people don't mind pumping, there are benefits to both the mother and the child when breastfeeding directly. It does come down to choice about what you prioritize in life. Far be it from any of us to deride women who prioritize their family's income, but we can't simply hand wave by saying "we have pumps and refrigerators!"

I can't believe I'm about to talk about breast feeding on hacker news but here goes.

> there are benefits to both the mother and the child when breastfeeding directly

There is data that points this in both directions, and there isn't a lot of agreement in any of it. There is a push for "brest is best", and a LOT of that is based on W.H.O recommendations. These are a direct result of Nestle pushing formula in the third world, and the impact it had on infant mortality.

If you live in a place without clean water, then breast feeding is the way to go. This assumes you don't have any communicable diseases, AIDS being the biggest one, but it is a large list of infections that preclude you from breastfeeding.

If you live in a first world country, and have access to clean water, and the facility to clean and sterilize bottles, there isn't a BIG gain that is universally agreed on in the research available.

Also, we raised an entire generation of Americans on bottles (75% of children born in 1971 were never breastfed, even in the hospital) and everyone turned it fine.

"Turned out fine" is highly subjective. The peak violence rates in the US happened when that cohort was 22; right around the age at which people commit the most violent crimes. So at least on that one metric, that cohort was probably among the worst ever (I'm not claiming a relationship to breastfeeding, of course).

Breastfeeding declined dramatically from 1910 to 1945 (and stayed below 30% from 1945-1970s). While crime went up from 1965+, it also went steadily down from 1935-1960.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com