Hacker News Reader

Comment by RandomThoughts3 | Hacker News Reader

> This whole article is talking about absentee fathers, but every example is listing why the mother left or kicked out the father.

Because the article takes the very rational and supported by the article side that these mothers were actually founded in kicking them out.

> The article also simply takes for granted that it's a bad thing that these nuclear families do not stay together.

No, the article goes much further that that. It points out that upper-class and middle-class people like to pretend and promote that the nuclear family doesn't matter while themselves acting like it does.

The main thesis of the article is that modern culture is actually undermining the poor while being mostly posturing.

> You can't simply say that men aren't stepping up

It's a good thing that it's not what the article is saying then.

View on HN

> It points out that upper-class and middle-class people like to pretend and promote that the nuclear family doesn't matter while themselves acting like it does.

Rich people say you don't need a yacht. Yet, rich people buy yachts. Clearly yachts are very important for becoming and staying rich, and the wealthy are undermining the poor with their "yachts are a luxury" posturing.

It is to be expected that people encountering different circumstances would adopt different behaviors. That well-off people are more likely to live in a nuclear family does not mean living in a nuclear family is the reason they are well-off, nor does it mean that people in worse circumstances would be better off if they made the same choices.

This is not what the parent wrote.

Not having a yacht is not like “having a worse yacht by xyz criteria”, hence that comparison just does not work. There is always a family.

I personally agree with the parent here, it might be helpful to read the article again.

Okay fine.

Rich people say your car doesn't need to be a Lamborghini, a Toyota Corolla is fine. Yet, rich people buy Lamborghinis. A Toyota Corolla is a worse car by xyz criteria. Clearly having a better car is very important for becoming and staying rich, and the wealthy are undermining the poor with their "you don't need a sports car" posturing.

I think it would be helpful for you to reread the article, specifically:

> Norms were loosened around being an absentee father. So more men took the option.

> But nobody wants to admit it because it upsets people.

> Instead, we retreat to discussions of poverty and economics because talking about family and parenting makes people feel weird and judgmental.

> But young men will only do what’s expected of them.

> And a lot did use to be expected. There were social norms to work hard, provide, take care of loved ones, and so on.

> Today, these norms have largely dissolved.

> Young men have responded accordingly.

I think you misunderstood, or I’m a little male lost in what your point is: there is no causality between owning an expensive car and being rich. There is evidence pointing to otherwise for (whole) nuclear families and being rich(er).

Secondly, doing as is expected of them and “not stepping up” is not really the same thing, is it? Almost the opposite, actually, stepping up is doing what is expected of you, with some emphasis on this being hard.

> Yet, rich people buy Lamborghinis.

Do they really? Seems more like a case for wannabe rich people.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com