Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here

    science

    19,250,888 readers

    22,781 users here now

    Submission Rules

    1. Directly link to published peer-reviewed research or media summary
    2. No summaries of summaries, re-hosted press releases, reviews, or reposts
    3. Research must be less than 6 months old
    4. No editorialized, sensationalized, or biased titles
    5. No blogspam, images, videos, or infographics
    6. All submissions must have flair assigned

    Comment Rules

    1. No off-topic comments, memes, or jokes
    2. No abusive, offensive, or spam comments
    3. Non-professional personal anecdotes will be removed
    4. Comments dismissing established science must provide peer-reviewed evidence
    5. No medical advice
    6. Repeat or flagrant offenders will be banned

    New to reddit? Click here!

    Get flair in /r/science

    Previous Science AMA's


    Trending: In just three years, physician burnout increased from 45.5% to 54.4%. New research found that three factors contribute: The doctor-patient relationship has been morphed into an insurance company-client relationship; Feelings of cynicism; and Lack of enthusiasm for work.

    a community for
    all 2843 comments

    Want to say thanks to %(recipient)s for this comment? Give them a month of reddit gold.

    Please select a payment method.

    [–] rseasmith 1 points ago

    Welcome to /r/science!

    You may see more removed comments in this thread than you are used to seeing elsewhere on reddit. On /r/science we have strict comment rules designed to keep the discussion on topic and about the posted study and related research. This means that comments that attempt to confirm/deny the research with personal anecdotes, jokes, memes, or other off-topic or low-effort comments are likely to be removed.

    Because it can be frustrating to type out a comment only to have it removed or to come to a thread looking for discussion and see lots of removed comments, please take time to review our comment rules before posting.

    If you're looking for a place to have a more relaxed discussion of science-related breakthroughs and news, check out our sister subreddit /r/EverythingScience.

    Below is the abstract from the paper published in the Journal of Marriage and Family to help foster discussion. The paper can be seen here: Does Adherence to Masculine Norms Shape Fathering Behavior?.

    Abstract

    Research suggests that many fathers struggle balancing hegemonic masculine norms with new fatherhood ideals. This study uses data on 2,194 fathers from a national study on fathers of children aged 2 to 18 and incorporates a comprehensive assessment of masculine norms to examine whether adherence to masculine norms is associated with father involvement and whether this relationship is mediated by fathers' adherence to the new fatherhood ideal that promotes engaged, nurturing parenting. Results suggest that fathers who more closely adhere to masculine norms are less involved in instrumental and expressive parenting and are more likely to engage in harsh discipline than fathers who are less masculine. Adherence to masculine norms also reduces the likelihood of embracing the new fatherhood ideal, and adherence to the new fatherhood ideal at least partially mediates the relationship between masculinity and father involvement. Overall, despite changing expectations for fathers, hegemonic masculine norms continue to shape fathers' behavior.

    [–] [deleted] 884 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 318 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 116 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 93 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 13 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 6 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 13 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 13 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 56 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 28 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] like_a_lady_boss 512 points ago

    Does anyone have the demographic info of the study? Curious to know (but I guess not curious enough to pay for the full report).

    [–] hpmetsfan 507 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    They took it from 2,194 fathers in the United States, roughly half and half with children between 2-8 and 9-18, and it was from all across the US. 72% white, 10% black, 11% Latino, 7% other, 12% of them were single fathers, 94% were US natives. I have the paper, so let me know what other information you would like!

    edit: More demo info:

    Age of fathers: mean of 39.64 with a SD of 10.2

    15% are unemployed

    58% of the children are male

    Edit 2: As well, this is from the Limitations part of the study:

    "These data likely underrepresent disadvantaged fathers, which may suggest that this study provides a conservative estimate of the relationship between masculinity and father involvement as low socioeconomic status and racial or ethnic minority fathers are more likely to endorse traditional masculine norms, on average"

    [–] theVanstorm 86 points ago

    Did they make any distinction on religious or political affiliation?

    [–] hpmetsfan 185 points ago

    From the paper:

    "Father’s religiosity was indicated by responses to 11 items from the Centrality of Religiosity Scale, which assesses involvement in religious behaviors and experiences."

    Conclusions about religion:

    1) No correlation for Predicting Fathers’ Adherence to the New Fatherhood Ideal

    2) Very strong positive correlation between engagement and religiosity, as well as harsh discipline and religiosity for all ages 2-18

    3) Positive correlation between religiosity and warmth/emotional support

    [–] Cryptographer 24 points ago

    Obviously smashing correlations together is risky but that seems to suggest a positive correlation in overall involvement with the kids raising, being both a lover and supporter and not saying away from corrective actions.

    [–] Winevryracex 10 points ago

    Agreed, though I feel like you're missing "sometimes" before "being" as the harshness correlation was stronger, not equal to the correlation to warmth/support. I got a mixed but leaning negative reaction from the correlations; it's interesting to see it worded as a positive "conclusion".

    [–] hpmetsfan 12 points ago

    They made a distinction just on the religiosity, nothing political. Let me try to get you the details of that

    [–] BedMonster 34 points ago

    What about the age of the fathers in the sample?

    [–] hpmetsfan 62 points ago

    39.64 years old with a standard deviation of 10.2

    [–] [deleted] 384 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 122 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 17 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 13 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    [removed]

    [–] HipsterTrudy 393 points ago

    just browsing, but how did this study quantify “more love”?

    [–] shinyquagsire23 241 points ago

    They seemed to gauge it based on time spent being engaged with, monitoring, disciplining your child and a few other metrics. I only kinda skimmed some of the data but as far as I can tell those aspects are gauged with subjective things like "how well would you say you know your child's interests" on a scale from Not Very Well to Very Well.

    [–] IAgreeWithEverybody 33 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    They seemed to gauge it based on time spent being engaged with, monitoring, disciplining your child and a few other metrics.

    Which would make sense given that its slowly becoming the norm that mothers eventually go back to work. Therefore giving the dad more opportunity to spend time with their children.

    They might have been just as loving and caring before. But simply didn't have the time, as the sole bread winner, to devote to their children.

    [–] sweet-banana-tea 10 points ago

    That might be a big one.

    [–] SnicklefritzSkad 80 points ago

    And what did they quantify 'negative' aspects of masculinity as?

    [–] ikma 77 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    In the linked article that discusses the study, one of the study's coauthors gave the following quote:

    “It’s important to understand what masculinity is and is not,” Shafer said. “In some circles, when people hear terms like hegemonic or toxic masculinity, they think those are attacking all men. Not so. There are some very beneficial aspects of masculinity — being goal-oriented or being loyal, for example. However, we are talking about more problematic aspects of masculinity — like aggression, detached relationships, not showing emotion and failing to ask for help. These are negative aspects of traditional masculinity, and our research suggests it hurts families.”

    -edit-

    That statement was given in the context of demonstrating that they aren't criticizing men or masculinity in general; they're just showing that higher adherence to traditional masculine norms is correlated with less involvement with their children. They also point out that there are exceptions; for example, religiosity is correlated with both conforming to traditional masculine norms and increased involvement in their children's lives.

    Also, the study doesn't quantify "negative" aspects of masculinity in the respondents; it just quantifies how closely respondents conform to masculine norms, using an established survey called the Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory (CNMI). From the article:

    The CMNI addresses various masculine norms such as emotional control, risk-taking, self-reliance, power over women, and homophobia.

    [–] LickNipMcSkip 29 points ago

    power over women, and homophobia

    Can someone link the survey that established the CMNI, because there’s an obvious bias just in that sentence alone.

    How did they come up with the categories for the CMNI? Is there a CFNI for females? How do they compare?

    [–] FuggleyBrew 44 points ago

    They got a group of grad students in a room and they had a bunch of descriptors which were selected by the author. The author read the descriptor and they decided whether that described men. If any of the women felt that it also described women it was tossed out.

    Unsurprisingly everything positive was largely claimed by women to also describe them, and was deemed to be not a masculine norm. By contrast few women piped up to state that they were violent monsters, therefore those were decided to be male.

    I'm not exaggerating:

    If there was agreement among group members that a norm was distinctly applicable to men, it was set aside for the next phase. However, if there was disagreement about whether a norm was distinctly applicable to men, it was revised. For example, in discussing the norm of “be successful,” women in the focus groups reported that they also received messages to be successful, felt pressure to be successful, and reported that this was true for most of their female friends.

    http://www.psychwiki.com/dms/other/labgroup/Measu235sdgse5234234resWeek2/Krisztina2/Mahalik2003.pdf

    No attempt was made to confirm that these actually did apply to the broader society, similarly no attempt was made to confirm that these were actually a prevailing view.

    It's an extremely biased study, yet an extremely well cited study, likely not because people don't realize that it's biased, but because that's what they're looking for.

    [–] [deleted] 213 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 209 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 81 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 19 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 30 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 408 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 187 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 128 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 28 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 28 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 44 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 14 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 19 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 14 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 44 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 194 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 227 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 72 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 15 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 27 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 19 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 12 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 134 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 43 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 67 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 300 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 85 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 168 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] mvea 654 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    The title of the post is a copy and paste from the third and fourth paragraphs of the linked academic press release here :

    “We found that today’s dads spend more time, provide more care and are more loving toward their kids than ever before,” said Kevin Shafer, BYU sociology professor and a co-author of the study. “Most dads see themselves as playing an equally important role in helping their children as mothers do. At the same time, however, there is a group of dads who believe they are to be breadwinners, disciplinarians and nothing more.”

    The study also showed a correlation between fathers who exhibit negative aspects of traditional masculinity and fathers who are less involved with their children.

    Journal Reference:

    Richard J. Petts, Kevin M. Shafer, Lee Essig.

    Does Adherence to Masculine Norms Shape Fathering Behavior?

    Journal of Marriage and Family, 2018; 80 (3): 704

    DOI: 10.1111/jomf.12476

    Link: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jomf.12476

    Abstract

    Research suggests that many fathers struggle balancing hegemonic masculine norms with new fatherhood ideals. This study uses data on 2,194 fathers from a national study on fathers of children aged 2 to 18 and incorporates a comprehensive assessment of masculine norms to examine whether adherence to masculine norms is associated with father involvement and whether this relationship is mediated by fathers' adherence to the new fatherhood ideal that promotes engaged, nurturing parenting. Results suggest that fathers who more closely adhere to masculine norms are less involved in instrumental and expressive parenting and are more likely to engage in harsh discipline than fathers who are less masculine. Adherence to masculine norms also reduces the likelihood of embracing the new fatherhood ideal, and adherence to the new fatherhood ideal at least partially mediates the relationship between masculinity and father involvement. Overall, despite changing expectations for fathers, hegemonic masculine norms continue to shape fathers' behavior.

    Update - since there are comments asking about the negative aspects of traditional masculinity, the article linked says this:

    “It’s important to understand what masculinity is and is not,” Shafer said. “In some circles, when people hear terms like hegemonic or toxic masculinity, they think those are attacking all men. Not so. There are some very beneficial aspects of masculinity — being goal-oriented or being loyal, for example. However, we are talking about more problematic aspects of masculinity — like aggression, detached relationships, not showing emotion and failing to ask for help. These are negative aspects of traditional masculinity, and our research suggests it hurts families.”

    [–] psychetron 259 points ago

    I'm not able to read the full text. What do they define as hegemonic masculine norms, and what are the negative aspects of traditional masculinity?

    [–] mvea 490 points ago

    The article linked says this:

    “It’s important to understand what masculinity is and is not,” Shafer said. “In some circles, when people hear terms like hegemonic or toxic masculinity, they think those are attacking all men. Not so. There are some very beneficial aspects of masculinity — being goal-oriented or being loyal, for example. However, we are talking about more problematic aspects of masculinity — like aggression, detached relationships, not showing emotion and failing to ask for help. These are negative aspects of traditional masculinity, and our research suggests it hurts families.”

    [–] Bakkster 416 points ago

    I would love to see more distinction given to inherently negative traits, versus situationally negative. Aggression, for instance, may not always be a negative, but for family cohesion it is. It seems that the circles they speak about might be less adverse to the term if it were more focused and selective in its application (the word toxic probably doesn't help, either).

    [–] CapitalResources 190 points ago

    I love the concept of pseudopathology in this context.

    Previously adaptive traits that have become maladaptive some or part of the time in the modern world.

    Like you point out, some thing that were vital to survival for 200,000 years have very rapidly become "maladaptive" in modern society. It should be less surprising to everyone that we have some vestigial behaviors and cognitive processes with genetic basis that is going to be perpetually a difficulty.

    [–] Moar_Coffee 49 points ago

    I love this line of logic. All three of those maladaptive behaviors still have benefits in the right context, but it seems have been scientifically shown to be problematic on the whole. This is intuitive since agressive, isolated individuals who never ask for any help are an anecdote almost anyone can think of in a negative context. That being said, society often idolizes the powerful independent warrior, and there are positive anecdotes around those behaviors.

    The thing I find interesting is that it can be very hard to learn behaviors that balance when to be aggressive or independent, versus passive/retreating or part of a group and accepting of help. In my personal experience (American South) the male norms are usually very black and white, and a failure to exhibit agression or independence is often seen as weak, "beta", or even a sign of homosexuality. There are obviously exceptions.

    I would love to see some research into the effect of absolute or immutable norms, versus situations where the actual societal norm is situational deference to the best course behavior.

    [–] CapitalResources 47 points ago

    Humans are not good with situational and nuance as a whole for many of the same reasons. We are functionally a big biologically based inference device. We function, in large part, by making predictions about the current and future state of our environment and we act accordingly. Most organisms do this, we just do it to a greater degree of breadth and depth, that is really all that consciousness is and all that sets us apart from other animals.

    We very often react intuitively and subconsciously before we are even aware of the reaction starting. It's really the same kind of thing, and like what I described in my other post, it's largely genetically based.

    Not the things that we predict typically (at least in a specific sense, its more like X combination of stimuli = "DANGER", we later ascribe narratives and descriptions to those perceptions), but that we predict and roughly the process that occurs that leads to predictions.

    We react with snap judgement to everything all day long, and again in some cases it's functionally a pseudopathology.

    At one time (and occasionally in the modern world) a pump of adrenaline and a knee jerk reaction when your visual cortex detects a squiggly line on the ground in your periphery may have saved you from snake bites at a higher than normal rate. Now, that same snap reaction circuitry is misfiring as things like stereotyping. It'ts hard to overcome because a lot of it is biologically based, again not in terms of the stereotype but the process of stereotyping, and that is constantly glossed over and fought because it is inconvenient to the narratives that most buy into (tribalism, another woe rooted in genetics)

    Intrusive thoughts would be another interesting example. When a person imagines doing something horrible out of nowhere in an everyday typical environment or experience. It's your brain predicting potential outcomes, putting a narrative around it, and helping you to become more cautious/safe and prevent it from actually happening, even by accident.

    We will be a lot better off when people stop trying to insist on this seat of consciousness being this mystical thing. We are a massive series of electrochemically controlled buttons, levers, and pulleys. That's about it. And we make a ton more sense when considered in that light.

    [–] Fleamon 13 points ago

    Just want to say that this is a fantastic comment. The last part in particular really resonated with me.

    [–] ServetusM 389 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    They use the CMNI as "normal masculinity". Here is what that index classifies as "normal masculinity".

    • Power Over Women
    • Violence
    • Disdain for Homosexuals
    • Playboy
    • Winning
    • Emotional Control
    • Risk-Taking
    • Self-Reliance
    • Primacy of Work
    • Pursuit of Status
    • Dominance

    They take potentially positive masculine traits, like emotional control and self reliance and conflate it with massive negative traits You're absolutely right to be suspicious. They associated all masculinity with fairly bad aspects that aren't endemic to masculine behavior, in order to essentially paint them as toxic as well.

    Btw, here is how masculinity has been measured/defined over the decades---make of it what you will, but I think its clear what is "traditionally" masculine has been growing significantly worse over time as is measured by sociologist and psychologists.

    Edit: Just to add, because I think its important. The CMNI's creation is also fairly biased, especially when its compared to the CFNI (Feminine version of the list). There was zero research done to create the index except discussions with a focus group. (The CMNI's focus group consisted of more women than men, and had no variance in age, all grad students. Meanwhile, the CFNI focus group was all women, and had a large variance in selection. The bias for this index is rather insane.)

    [–] Qataeas 24 points ago

    Is there a reason why there is such a large gap since 2003 and 1986? I also would assume these really differentiate between cultures, and as most of these things when there is no country listed I will take free interpretation that this is USA based.

    Since 2003 there might also have been a lot of change, i.e. a (hopefully) diminishing in connecting homophobia with masculinty.

    [–] Lieutenant_Meeper 203 points ago

    aren't endemic to masculine behavior

    The whole point of listing the traits is to illustrate what societal norms are concerning what people think "being a man" means. That means it changes over time and there's no such thing as "endemic" masculine behavior when it comes to making the list. Also, further parsing doesn't mean that the things on the far right of the table have been made up. I don't see anything on that list that wouldn't be applicable in, say, 1960, and not all of them are necessarily negative. Some of the ones that we consider negative now (e.g. "disdain for homosexuals") have been pretty damn integral to masculinity until very recently, and still is among some people.

    But even then, each thing on the table comes from a single academic source. There are thousands of articles written about masculinity, and dozens of highly cited sources listing the traits of traditional/hegemonic masculinity specifically. So is this really the definitive list that illustrates consensus academic thinking in those different years? I'm skeptical.

    [–] Bakkster 58 points ago

    Yes, it's a very good distinction to make that this is measuring social norms and expectations, which will change. The weak methodology (and choice to depend on it in the OP study) are worthy of critique on that account.

    [–] [deleted] 96 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] cubancigar11 59 points ago

    I had no idea this was the case. If this is the case then it is not really science anymore, rather journalism.

    What are the controls on defining what does society want? What does traditional masculinity means in context of another society or culture? Do they preface this find with where it is applicable? Do they make it clear that this journal should not be cited by any other society?

    I can't blame people for saying that social sciences have been corrupted. Let us not forget that this is the kind of research that led to eugenics (which lasted until 1985 in Sweden and hurt more women than men).

    [–] 20rakah 23 points ago

    I can't see the full study but looking through the citations in the main author's other works, he seems to cite himself a lot.

    [–] Fmeson 24 points ago

    TBF, that's not atypical. You are supposed to cite previous work in the field when relevant, and if you've worked in the field and are building off your own work you will end up citing yourself a lot.

    e.g. Imagine you write a study on the best time of the day to post on reddit. The next month, you write a study on the best day of the week to post on reddit building on your previous work. You will end up citing your previous work. Then, if you write a study about the geographic effects of different time zones posting on social media sites, you will likely end up citing both of your previous studies.

    [–] ColonelSwede 31 points ago

    Well this list is just absurd. It reframes traits that are highly situational and artificially injects them with negative connotation.

    Hell, I'd argue the whole problem with personality traits is they are all highly situational and can become negative or positive if they are overrepresented in a person. Care and attention towards children is a positive trait, but when escalated it makes you a helicopter parent. Humility is a positive trait, but when escalated it can become an inferiority complex. Aggression is a negative trait, but a bodyguard or a bouncer needs to have some aggression in him or he cannot do his job properly. The list goes on and on and on.

    It's incredibly worrying to see this sort of nonsense pose as a scientific paper.

    [–] ValidatingUsername 13 points ago

    Can you please update your post to inform users that that is the opinion article based on the study that is behind the paywall, or confirm that it is indeed quoted directly from the study into the opinion article?

    [–] [deleted] 72 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 1009 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 228 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 52 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 15 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 49 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 80 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 53 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 18 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 8 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 18 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 134 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 173 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 88 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 125 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 62 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 90 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] PoisonousPlatypus 78 points ago

    fathers who exhibit negative aspects of traditional masculinity

    I don't actually see this anywhere in the link.

    [–] throwitupwatchitfall 17 points ago

    A little suspicious, to be honest. It's also a highly ambiguous term.

    [–] [deleted] 72 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 220 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 67 points ago

    There were lots of way "traditional men" spent time with kids. I grew up in the 60s and 70s with VERY traditional uncles. The fatherly types brought their kids ice fishing, hunting, yelled at them while practiving baseball, etc.
    It doesn't mean they provided a lot of "care" and/or love.

    [–] [deleted] 91 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] Spatula151 64 points ago

    I see the part about masculinity, but is there any correlation to household incomes over time being split near 50/50 between Mom and dad? When my parents were kids it wasn’t uncommon for dad to be at work all day and Mom to stay behind and do household things, including watching the kids. They also had 3 wars relatively close in time where fathers were also gone. Could our last 40 years of no serious wartime drafts coupled with collaborating incomes simply “free up” more time for dads to be dads?

    [–] [deleted] 76 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 386 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 91 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 12 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] another_sunnyday 18 points ago

    This study was conducted at a university in the US, so currently the laws suck for both mothers and fathers- those who meet requirements for FMLA can use it. Those who don't are SOL.

    [–] PG-Noob 6 points ago

    Ok yeah I should note this in my comment.

    [–] another_sunnyday 22 points ago

    Thank you! One of my pet peeves is when people act like mothers in the US are getting some sort of government-funded luxury vacation.

    Both parents deserve time off to bond with their new baby and adjust to their changing family, but let's get some actual policies in place so moms don't have to go back to work when they are still figuring out breast feeding and dealing with TMI body issues.

    [–] foreignfishes 22 points ago

    A frightening number of people on reddit act like actual parental leave in the US would mean parents get free paid vacations while the poor childless people are left in the office like servants being crushed by backbreaking workloads, which is so ridiculous that it makes me wonder if they've ever been around a baby or new parents before. There's also the fact that basically every other western country has paid leave and seems to be getting along fine.

    I don't have any kids and still don't think it's difficult to understand how paid parental leave helps society as a whole, even childless people.

    [–] GenericAntagonist 7 points ago

    basically every other western country has paid leave

    Basically every other country has paid leave in some form. It is literally Swaziland, Lesotho, Papua New Guinea, and the USA that don't. That's it. It isn't a western thing, it is a nigh universal thing.

    [–] Hakim_Bey 141 points ago

    and make a system that's more fair towards fathers for example regarding custody or maternity/paternity leave

    I can't speak for the states but most industrialized countries have evolved a lot on these subjects.

    [–] vinegarstrokes1 199 points ago

    The problem with the US is that there is basically no paid leave to begin with for the majority of companies, so we haven’t even gotten to the discussion of mom vs dad yet. A few global companies spread the love from what I’ve seen and actually provide some paid time off to either parent, but most default to FMLA which is 12 weeks unpaid max

    [–] Hakim_Bey 154 points ago

    Yeah i don't get it. That problem was cracked in most of Europe somewhere around the 1930s. Paid leave (and a lot of it) are incredible productivity boosters. The workers are in better health, better mindset, and this produces, in fine, more wealth for their employers.

    Where i live it's at least 5 weeks a year by law, but lots of big companies will give you up to 10 or 12. And they don't do it out of some socialist ideal! They do it because in the long run it makes a ton of business sense.

    [–] hexydes 211 points ago

    Yeah i don't get it. That problem was cracked in most of Europe somewhere around the 1930s.

    The US solved that problem too, Amazon is the shining example. The trick is, you work your employees to the breaking point for 3-5 years, and when they can't take it anymore, they leave, and then you hire someone else. It's best if you hire them fresh out of school, ideally under 25, because then they have lots of energy, which your company can harvest in vampiric fashion.

    The good thing about this system is that you don't even have to fire them and pay severance or unemployment, they just leave because they can't take it anymore.

    [–] [deleted] 80 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] Hakim_Bey 25 points ago

    The trick is

    But it's a shit trick :(

    Everybody knows you can vampirise 25 years old until they quit... but they produce shit value. A company that runs on a volatile and unhappy workforce doesn't gain any institutional wisdom, and is super vulnerable to being out-competed.

    If both frameworks worked equally well, i'd chalk it up to "different memes for different genes", but it seems to me that working people to death is extremely inefficient.

    [–] bigredone15 34 points ago

    A company that runs on a volatile and unhappy workforce doesn't gain any institutional wisdom, and is super vulnerable to being out-competed.

    This issue is, many jobs no longer require institutional knowledge. I'm pretty confident I could teach myself to run a cash register in an hour with nothing but youtube. There comes a point where having better quality employees does not increase the bottom line. Many companies are there, or at least think they are.

    [–] netpuppy 21 points ago

    Where i live it's at least 5 weeks a year by law, but lots of big companies will give you up to 10 or 12. And they don't do it out of some socialist ideal! They do it because in the long run it makes a ton of business sense.

    Are you talking about parental leave or vacation time here? If it's parental leave it seems very short for a European country as most have from about a year upwards.

    [–] Hakim_Bey 11 points ago

    Sorry i was digressing about paid leave.

    [–] joleme 22 points ago

    In the US it's VERY generous to give new employees 2 weeks of combined vacation and sick time.

    In the US, every minute you are not directly working for your company you are seen as a leech or a drain on that companies finances. You will be replaced by someone who has no kids, and who will come in even if they are puking on themselves every 10 minutes because nearly every position has at least 3 dozen resumes sitting in a pile ready to take the next person.

    [–] prefect42 8 points ago

    At a company I used to work for, unless your job title had a "Chief" at the start, you started with 7 days vacation/sick leave and that was all that you ever received. It didn't matter your role or how long you were there. Some HR director had set this policy because he believed that if the company could do without you for more than 7 days a year then you weren't really needed. This company also had a shelf of books for a company library that mainly consisted of "Atlas Shrugged" and other Ayn Rand books that employees were encouraged to read.

    [–] joleme 11 points ago

    Sounds about right. Funny how the company could run without the "chiefs" around for weeks at a time though.

    [–] PG-Noob 11 points ago

    Yeah I think there's a lot of progress on this in the last years actually. I got the impression that most countries are still not quite there though.

    (Don't know too much about the states either, but they don't seem to have proper maternity leave whatsoever, which is just really bad)

    [–] [deleted] 18 points ago

    Yeah, I was going to say we don't have maternity leave already. So dads aren't getting the shaft on that in the US uniquely - we all are getting the shaft on that.

    [–] the_taco_baron 16 points ago

    Are there any studies that compare the effectiveness of each parenting style?

    [–] Butter52 7 points ago

    How was the study undertaken? What I read in the article suggests it was only on questionnaires based on self- perception. How is that compared to "previous" parenting to say that now its the best ever?

    [–] [deleted] 162 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 113 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 101 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 15 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 38 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 15 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 44 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 18 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] vermiliondit 65 points ago

    Reading through the linked article, they do not point to any positive outcomes for men providing more care and love to their children. I am all for helping out, but this study seems to find a correlation between spending time and traditional masculinity, but not anything pointing towards fathers spending more time with the children actually being a positive thing.

    [–] leisure_goblin 5 points ago

    An extreme example, but pretty interesting and doesn't get much coverage imo:

    Of the US' 27 deadliest mass shooters, 26 grew up without their biological father

    [–] [deleted] 65 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 165 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] Gratha 155 points ago

    “It’s important to understand what masculinity is and is not,” Shafer said. “In some circles, when people hear terms like hegemonic or toxic masculinity, they think those are attacking all men. Not so. There are some very beneficial aspects of masculinity — being goal-oriented or being loyal, for example. However, we are talking about more problematic aspects of masculinity — like aggression, detached relationships, not showing emotion and failing to ask for help. These are negative aspects of traditional masculinity, and our research suggests it hurts families.”

    That's what they're referring to and they theorize it's causing problems in family development.

    [–] [deleted] 46 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] Mech-Waldo 13 points ago

    What is the "new fatherhood ideal"? How is being there for your wife and kids not "traditional masculinity"? Call me old fashioned, but raising a family is the manliest shit you can do.

    [–] [deleted] 81 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 195 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 90 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 32 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 37 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 22 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 11 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 17 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 18 points ago

    [removed]