Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Stefano's avatar

While reading I was thinking of that old timeless adage: "Bitches be Trippin"

Suzy's avatar

Solid perspective, when it comes to elementary aged kids who are in school, or older kids who don't need as much hands-on attention. But the very tendency to rush through work to move onto relaxation time makes me skeptical that men are better suited to care for infants and small children at home.

This is the masculine perspective you describe, as I've seen it in action with small children:

- Showing an 18 month old how to put on his own clothes is tedious. Easier for me to just get him dressed; he'll learn when he's bigger.

- Allowing a 6 month old to start feeding herself creates huge messes. I'll just hold her hands down and put these solids straight into her mouth until her motor control improves.

- Potty training is horrible. I'll change his diapers until he's ready to use the toilet on his own.

- I already told my two year old that we'll go to the park after naptime. Why's he asking again? He will receive a verbal update when the status changes; I'm busy gaming.

Small kids require huge amounts of time investment, and you can't rush through some of these tasks without deleterious long-term consequences. Language development in particular seems to be excruciatingly painful to a man who dislikes constant interruptions and repetitions. If your toddler has extensive exposure to older, speaker humans, then it's not a huge deal. However, if the stay-at-home parent is the primary source of language development, then in this instance, women's neurotic tendencies (as you called them) are superior.

6 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?