upvote
Assuming the income stays the same, I'd happily swap places. I suspect many people would.

There are 2 further points:

1. I'd say the ideal setting is for both parents to work and hire a sitter even though it might financially net the same (or affordably negative) as having one stay-at-home parent. Because a human needs community and diverse things to do, not just one thing over and over everyday for years. Both of the parents will be much happier.

2. When people say taking care of baby/toddler is difficult, it's almost always about not eating well and/or not sleep well. Eating would take an hour of spoon-feeding because the kid wouldn't eat by themselves. Kids wouldn't be able to sleep by themselves. You must focus on solving these 2 areas first. Once they are solved, it gets a lot easier to take care of a baby/toddler.

reply
While stay at home parenting isn't, and shouldn't have to be, for everyone, it also isn't somehow a downgrade from being in the working world. If anything is doing something 'over and over', it's trudging to some job to push papers/keyboard keys around for 8+ hours.
reply
Isn't it convenient that nature has already placed us in our respective roles and given us the necessary strengths to handle our different but equally important roles?

It's such a tragedy that one might feel compelled to weigh the burdens of motherhood vs fatherhood as if either side had a choice in the matter or as if there is some kind of competition to be won.

reply
The only roles that nature put you into are carrying the baby and giving birth (and possibly breastfeeding). Everything else can be done by both parents.

(I'm a dad, who does do half of everything with the kids. It is possible, it's just a lot of stuff to do.)

reply
I doubt OP would agree with your assessment nor your use of the word "only" but I appreciate you. ;)
reply
I don't mean to inject politics, but there's a huge mental burden on fathers with more conservative values that take their role seriously.

Unfortunately, there's no way to elaborate what I mean on HN or much of the web without stirring up a ton of pointless argument. People will just get defensive and refuse to consider perspectives they can't agree with.

reply
That huge mental burden is entirely self-inflicted, though. It's not a fair comparison to the physical burden that is unavoidable.

Growing up in a more conservative society, I've seen many people with that parenting style, who often pop a proverbial blood vessel trying to ensure that their children are more like army cadets that perfectly reflect their worldviews and don't take an unapproved step in any direction. Their rationalizations ranged from real safety concerns to arbitrary opinions like what religion is right (and exactly how someone needs to act at all times, with no limits on specificity or ridiculousness) or what large groups of people are evil (nationality, religion, identity - any group is fair game, just pick one and wall off your child from ever knowing about them). Regardless of motivation, ideology is a choice, and they could've relieved a whole lot of this burden on their own at any point.

reply
Yeah, I agree, if you’re talking about the role of the patriarch as a stoic provider who isn’t allowed to be a vulnerable man with his own emotional needs.

It has been encouraging to see how much more men now seem to desire being engaged and nurturing in their children’s lives (even among those who otherwise consider themselves conservative or traditionalist).

reply
Instead of the ceremonial complaint and preemptive whining, why don't you consider making the argument coherently and see how people respond?

Ironically, the pointless arguments you so despise (and refuse to invite) offer more than whatever utility this comment has.

reply