Why do people think women care about money or your job? They couldn't care less
Is it just clueless Americans or something? It's simply not the case in Europe
Why do people think women care about money or your job? They couldn't care less
Is it just clueless Americans or something? It's simply not the case in Europe
Other urls found in this thread:
Lies, they care about money not so much job unless they also care about your social status. Some women are impressed by a man's social status, heck I'd say just about most would be.
Jobs have very little to do with social status
Years of societal values ingrained upon gender roles. Males as provider and women have security as carers of the children and household
>They couldn't care less
European here. You are wrong, stupid kid.
As in centuries or thousands of years.
>They couldn't care less
You can find women who don't care but on average they care about the material status of men a lot more than the reverse.
I've lived in both the USA and Europe.
I'm right and you are wrong
europe is not one country dumb american
I have lived in both USA and Europe. But I am also not 16 years old, unlike you.
The women that care about your job and money are hoes
European woman, living in the States, married to an American guy.
We care. Not as much as American women, maybe, but even in Europe women tend to want a guy who makes roughly as much or more than them.
Things tend to be a little more equal in Europe so you don't feel it as much, in my opinion.
Why did you make such a stupid thread? Everyone rightfully tells you that you are very dumb.
To expand on this a bit.
The very vast majority of people earns roughly the same in Europe. My friend, who is a doctor, doesn't even make twice as much as my dad, who is a train driver. So it doesn't make sense to be super picky about the job your SO has, because no matter who you date, it won't affect your standard of living dramatically unless you're one of the few who makes a LOT of money (and then, why would you even care).
Right now I make 70k$ after taxes, and I wouldn't date someone who works minimum wage because it would impact my standard of living dramatically, especially because in the states I don't have public healthcare, maternity leave, good public education, etc. If I dated someone who made minimum wage, I'd be ruining my kids chances at life, I wouldn't be able to look after them when they're little, I wouldn't have any level of flexibility with my schedule, etc.
My husband makes a lot more than me, and I'd lie if I said it's not one of the reasons why I'm married to him and not to a burger flipper.
stop fucking larping on 4channel you shameless faggot
>Why do people think women care about money or your job?
because it's true.
It's not the ONLY thing they care, but one of them, and not even at the bottom of the list
I'm sorry? Kek.
I've been ghosted a lot when people find out about my job. Maybe women just care in the USA. I should move to Europe.
What's your job?
I want to rise my kids and not some nanny, I will have to be a stay at home mom, for that I need man that cares wants and can support family enough so we can give everything best to our children.
why can't he want to raise his children too?
Do you have qualities that make you a desirable housewife?
Can he breastfeed an infant?
with formula, yes.
and aside from breast milk, what can't he do that a woman can?
Which qualities are desirable for housewife?
Curves and big tits for one
Actually give birth to the baby, which requires time to rest during the pregnancy and to recover afterwards.
Also breastfeeding tends to be better for the kid immune system.
Women evolved over 250k years to care about your ability to gather resources. It's nearly universally unattractive to them to be a man that cant attain resources, or only very little. It's their animal brain telling them you couldn't provide for their children.
It's like how we as men evolved to find certain hip to waist proportions attractive. Its our animal brain telling us they would bear children easily.
takes only a few years, then they go to kindergarden and school and so on
you just want to spend someone elses money, whore
>Also breastfeeding tends to be better for the kid immune system.
you can bottle the milk and store it for later use
> requires time to rest during the pregnancy
source from medical journals?
>to recover afterwards.
how long, forever?
> give birth to the baby
we are talking about raising the child, so the point is not significant.
Also, how long does it take to give birth, 6 months?
too bad thats not the case and if that was true then humans would never populate the earth
le provide for the family is an american meme from the 50s, fucking retarded blobs
If you have 2-3 kids, it's at least 6-7 years off work in total where just one of you provides.
And even afterwards, you shouldn't have two parents who work 50 hours a week because the kids don't stay in school 9 to 7, and the house needs to be taken care of, and there needs to be dinner on the table.
Either you pay a babysitter to look after them, or one of you works part time.
Formula is just a substitute, any pediatrist will tell you that breastfeeding is necessary for child prepare development.
>what can't he do that a woman can?
I'm not talking about world order, I'm answering op with my personal view on why financial stability is important for me. If woman works it's better if dad takes care of kids instead of some random person, I feel terrified when I see this hidden camera-videos of how nannies are abusing infants
or you can be not an american and raise children like anyone else in the world, whore
>get the scientifically factual reason that women care about your job
>"if that was true then humans would never populate the earth"
>"le provide for the family is an american meme from the 50s"
>I see this hidden camera-videos of how nannies are abusing infants
yeah, that's why we have granparents, from an historical and evolutionary perspective, but the fracturing of the multigenerational unit family created issues
wow you are actually retarded
>you can bottle the milk and store it for later use
Or you can just breastfeed the kid, you know.
>source from medical journals?
I'm not able to look up now, but pregnant women can't do any physical job/lifting weights, can't really sit up for many hours and there are plenty of complications that put them into bed, that are very prevalent especially when the mother is a little older (30+).
>how long, forever?
It makes more sense for women to be at home since they can breastfeed, they carry the baby, they deliver it and need rest time afterwards.
It is physically possible to be a stay at home dad, it just doesn't really make sense and being a stay at home mom is more practical.
So with grandparents raising the kid for you?
What's so wrong with actually wanting to raise your kids?
>that's why we have granparents
>Living with your parents so they will rise your kids
Why are you arguing with me? I'm not marring you, you will find a perfect girl for you that will work full time and support you, while your parents rise your children in the house you share with them.
I'm not even American...
What country are you from?
look, the issue is a double standard.
I'm not arguing that pregnacy doesn't have an effect on female bodies, only that it's not a valid excuse to avoid going back to the workforce, since women have demanded equal access, now they have to share equal responsabilities, willingly or not.
Equal doesn't mean being the same.
Men and women aren't the same biologically. Being given the same opportunities to be in the workforce and the same rights doesn't mean that there aren't factual, biological differences between us that should be taken into account.
It makes no sense to ask men and women to do exactly the same things because we're not the same.
I'm not arguing at all with you and I share the concern about 3rd party abuse of minors, I was just pointing out the fact that it's safer to leave the children with their grannies while both the father and the mother are at work and that the issue of moving around to chase jobs and the myth of having to live far away from each others had unintended consequences
Call yourself a Sanitation Quality-Assurance officer.
Equal rights call for equal responsabilities.
There's maternity leave, there should be an equally respected and long paternity leave.
The father's involvment in the child life should be regarded as important as the mothers.
I agree paternity leave is important, most western countries have it.
If both the husband and the wife are on unpaid paternity leave which is the standard in the states, who supports the family? So you have to choose.If you have to choose between either you or your wife being at home right after the baby is born, it makes more sense for the mom to stay at home.
There is a paternity leave, at last in my country
>who supports the family?
the logical answer is both.
if there's need for money, both have to work to maximize the income of the household.
I know about paternity leave, there's one in my country too, but in the majority of countries is shorter than the maternity leave, often not considered as important and often the employers give negative consideration to a man taking paternity leave.
>the logical answer is both.
And who looks after the child when both parents work?
You can't leave him alone at home and tell him to figure stuff out.
This makes sense. Say whatever you want but a woman is biologically better adapted to taking care of an infant than a man. Of course, it would be nice if both could look after the child, but if one must go to work to bring home the paycheck, I would choose for the woman to stay home.
>And who looks after the child when both parents work?
you are talking pre-school kids?
there's school, post school activities, nannies, granparents.
about preschool, there's nannies, granparents, preschool kid clubs (at least in my country)
>biologically better adapted to taking care of an infant than a man
under 6 months, that is correct.
after, it is simply not true.
1. Most of those things cost money. If you have 2 children, basically all your income is going towards people taking care of them when you're at work until he's in school.
2. It makes no sense to make a kid and never see it, or let your parents raise it.
1) and why did you have a child if you have no money to spare?
2) I am talking about working hours, not giving it into adoption.
If both parents work they probably won't have to work extremely long hours and both will be able to see their child.
>why did you have a child if you have no money to spare?
I'm just saying that if you have to spend 2000$ on a nursery, you can just as well stay at home and take care of the kid yourself unless you make a lot more than average.
Children sleep around 12 hours a day at that age.
If you work 8 to 10 hours days (so 40 to 50 hours weeks), you're not seeing him much: 1 in the morning, 1-2 before bed.
Which is why the woman should work part-time while the man works full time. Only faggot-ass basedmen would consider taking a stroller through the park a job worthy of their time. Men have much more physical and mental capability, so it is logical for them to secure the fiances and leave the delicate task of tending to a toddler's needs to the woman.
>Men have much more physical and mental capability
you know that's a false statement, right?
>Which is why the woman should work part-time while the man works full time
for 6 months, max.
and even that is debatable, since the father interaction with the infants has been proven to be as important as the mothers
>and even that is debatable, since the father interaction with the infants has been proven to be as important as the mothers
I'm a dude and I've known enough dudes who're thick enough that they would raise a child with negligence if it were left up to them. Special circumstances excluded, I'm not going to entrust a man with solely taking care of a child's upbringing. The dad can interact with the kid all he wants, but the primary care should be performed by the mother.
Because when you're an incel you feel entitled to attention from women so they say the only reason cant women is
I feel like you have never even been near to a family with children and never worked a day in your life.
Let me guess, you're single or you've never had a child and neither did your friends.
It has been proven that the father's organism undergoes massive hormonal changes during the mother's pregnacy period and those changes all appear to facilitate the rearing of the child.
I've never talked about "let's make men the sole caregiver", I've only argued in favour of a more shared job of raising the kids, sharing the responsabilities and the burdens in a more equal manner.
nope, wrong assumption, but I can see you could see it like that.
Let me put it more simply so that you can grasp what I'm saying. My contention is that a woman can do a better job at rearing a child than a man. In fact, I believe the ratios of their abilities in these sectors is such that a woman working part-time and a man working full-time is an optimal solution. Increasing the man's role here necessitates decreasing the woman's role in the house to keep household income at the same level, and the woman's time decrease in the house is usually more than the time increase by the father since women get paid a little less than men and so have to work a little longer to achieve the same income given equal qualifications (for gender-neutral jobs, which includes the vast majority out there). So the overall time parents spend with the child decreases in both time and quality (since my contention is that a man provides less rearing quality per unit time than a woman).
You're going to have to furnish evidence if you're claiming a man is just as biologically qualified as a woman, if not more, in rearing a child. Something tells me you're going to have a hard time.
>claiming a man is just as biologically qualified as a woman, if not more, in rearing a child
never claimed "more" but still here's an introduction
and more importantly
I see where you are coming from and I understand it.
The dominating idea has been, for a long time, that women were the best at raising children (why) and that men were the best providers (again why) and so fathers have been relegated at being providers.
> women get paid a little less than men and so have to work a little longer to achieve the same income given equal qualifications
that is a blatant lie.
Not this spamming incel again...
None of those says that fathers are the same as mothers, just that fathers are important for child development and they go through hormonal changes.
>that is a blatant lie.
It's not, especially women who have children get paid less than men who have children.
>None of those says that fathers are the same as mothers
That's because I've never said "same", just "equally important for child development".
The point about the biological changes was to show that men are also biologically hardwired to care for their children.
>It's not, especially women who have children get paid less than men who have children.
because they choose to work part time, most of the time.
if you correct for choosing part time jobs, accepting flexibility for less pay and refusing mobility, there is no inherent wage potentiality differential between men and women.
>just "equally important for child development".
That's not proven by your links.
They're important, not equally as important, or equally as qualified to take care of children on a daily basis.
> there is no inherent wage potentiality differential between men and women.
I mean, there is a slight difference between earning potential for women and men, however minimal, around 2-3%.
Women also tend to go for less well paying jobs in general, so your average woman will make 20% less than your average man.
>Women also tend to go for less well paying jobs in general, so your average woman will make 20% less than your average man.
that's their choice, also their consequences.
> there is a slight difference between earning potential for women and men, however minimal, around 2-3%.
>That's not proven by your links.
because you cannot quantify a complex and multifaceted issue with a single number, also because fathers have been largely discredited in modern times and have been mainly considered only as an income provider.
So, you will never have an exact number, and even if you had and it wasn't 50% but 45% as effective, would you consider that a sufficient number to justify all of the things we've been talking about?
And what if mothers and fathers are more effectve depending on the age and the developmental stage of the child?
What if they train different but both necessary skills?
>that's their choice, also their consequences.
In the context of a couple it makes more sense if the one who earn most is the one who works more, so he has to work less hours.
>In fact, when men and women with the same employment characteristics do similar jobs, women earn $0.98 for every dollar earned by an equivalent man. In other words, a woman who is doing the same job as a man, with the exact same qualifications as a man is still paid two percent less.
Both mother and father should be involved in child rearing, but if there has to be a choice it makes more sense that, at a young age, the mother takes care of them: both because she has to stop working anyway before and right after childbirth, because she factually feeds the child with her own body, and because the child needs the mother more at that stage.
Fathers need to be involved, but their role is not as predominant at early stages.
No one is arguing for fathers to not be involved.
>Why do people think women care about money or your job?
Because they do. Alimony and child support payments don't just happen. Maybe they're less important in socialized Europe.
Women care about what they are told to care about. On dating sites, you list your height, age and job so this is what they judge you on. You post pictures of yourself so this is what they judge you on.
Obviously when you talk to someone on person, things change and new things matter.
I totally agree. When I read here about how men think they are open wallets for women I just can't understand it. Where I live, only models or celebrities do that. They earn money out of the gossiping shows or just take the money from their husbands. But normal women? We don't give a damn as long as you are not a lazy ass who doesn't wanna move a finger to find a job. I've been with someone who made more money than I did and with an unemployed guy for a long time and that didn't change a thing, I still loved them both.
>In the context of a couple it makes more sense if the one who earn most is the one who works more, so he has to work less hours.
I'm sorry, I didn't get your point
a 2% difference in measurement is akin to random error, I'd consider the incomes equal after accounting for the imprecisions of such data acquisition.
For the issue of involvment, I've previously said that a 6 months maternity leave is totally reasonable, but no more than that.
So no part time forever or quitting the workforce altogether, also because doing so would prevent equal involvment in the childrearing effort, since that would push the father to work more to pull the whole family structure ahead.
>I'm sorry, I didn't get your point
We're married. I make 30k$, you make 40k$, both working 40 hours weeks (total = 80 h). We have a baby. We need 60k$ to support us and our baby, but also more time to spend at home to take care of him.
Would it make more sense that I work 50 hours and you work 20 (total = 70 h), or that you work 40 and I work 20 (total = 60 h) for roughly the same amount of money?
It would make more sense if you kept working full time and I went part time, so at the end we'd have more time to spend with the baby.
It's just math.
>For the issue of involvment, I've previously said that a 6 months maternity leave is totally reasonable, but no more than that.
Then what? Who takes care of the kids?
A baby sitter will cost the entirety of my wage. A nursery, that doesn't even cover the hours of a whole work day normally, will cost roughly 1000$ per child.
>It's just math.
if you need 60k with the 60 hours configuration you'd be short of 5k dollars, which is not a trivial amount, the minimum would be one works for 40 and the other for 35 hours.
also you're not monetizing how much is worth for each parent to spend time with the child in terms of future life success, psychological issues etc.
what if every hour more spent with the child will save you 30k in future psychological issues impacting the child performance?
or every 10 hours spent with the child you lower the chance of committing crimes by the 0,01%
Would you monetize that as a parent?
>Then what? Who takes care of the kids?
their granparents, your aunt, an old lady the next door you know and trust.
your financial restraints and your life choices shouldn't be an hallmark for what to do in the majority of cases.
In both configuration you don't make 60k$: in one you make 57.5k, in the other 55k.
I was just exemplifying that it makes more sense if the one who earns more per hour works more hours, so in the end you have more time to spend with the baby.
Since men typically earn more, it makes sense if they're the ones working full time.
>also you're not monetizing how much is worth for each parent to spend time with the child in terms of future life success, psychological issues etc.
Both parents get to spend time with the kid, in my example.
>their granparents, your aunt, an old lady the next door you know and trust.
Assuming grandparents don't work and live nearby, and don't have shit to do. And that you can just ask random people to take care of your kids for free.
Not everyone has those privileges.
>your financial restraints and your life choices shouldn't be an hallmark for what to do in the majority of cases.
But they are.
>Since men typically earn more, it makes sense if they're the ones working full time.
but they work full time because women choose less high pay jobs to have more time with their children, sounds like a catch 22
>Both parents get to spend time with the kid, in my example.
not the same amount, which is my whole issue with the matter
>Not everyone has those privileges.
eh, we all make choices and pay the price for them, I'd not call it a privilege
>But they are.
only if you are representing the average situation of the average family in the average situation, assuming that such a configuration is doable, existing and has any predicting value for any model.
You're turning this into some societal argument about gender and feminism, I'm talking in pragmatic terms.
In a couple, normally, the man makes more per hour. It makes sense that he's the one who works more hours, so the couple has more money.
Most couples aren't in a situation when they can let other people take care of their children for free, and need to pay for someone to do it. If the cost of the people taking care of their children ends up being higher than the wage of the one who earns less, it's better if that person stays at home and takes care of the kids. Since that's normally the mother, it makes sense that she stays at home. They are also more suited to take care of the children especially in the early phases because
1. they have to stay at home anyway when they pop a kid
2. they literally feed the kids with their bodies
3. they tend to be better at it, overall
Children don't need to spend the exact same time with both parents. They need to spend time with both, not the same time to the minute.
Fathers offer different things to kids, and it's important they spend time with the kids too.
What world are you living on?
If you truly believe money isnt the glue that hold relationship/marriage youre a fuckin retard.
Believing just platonic love matters kek.
The sign of your wallet runs dry in your marriage youll know the hard truth.
I don't really care about gender and feminism, to be honest.
>In a couple, normally, the man makes more per hour.
I wonder why is that
> It makes sense that he's the one who works more hours, so the couple has more money.
it falls back into the provider sterotype, which is not an issue per se if he can interact with the child for the same time as the mother can.
If he wants to is another issue, but he must be given the possibility to choose freely.
1. they have to stay at home anyway when they pop a kid
yes, of course
>2. they literally feed the kids with their bodies
without a shred of doubt
>3. they tend to be better at it, overall
and who said that?
>Children don't need to spend the exact same time with both parents.
I swear to god that I'm not being a dick, just pointing out some issues which have been accepted as true and haven't warranted scrutiny
>I wonder why is that
As I said - it doesn't matter why it is the case, it's the factual reality of things.
> if he can interact with the child for the same time as the mother can.
It can't happen - if you work 50 hours a week and your wife is a stay at home mom, she'll be around more. If you work 40 hours a week and your wife works 20, she'll be around more.
And it's fine, because at least the kid has one of the parents to be with. Most people can't support a family on two part time jobs or without either of them working, so one has to take the main parental role.
Unless you want someone who isn't a parent to take care of your kids, but it seems bullshit to make sure the child doesn't have either so he doesn't spend more time with the mom.
>and who said that?
Thousands of years of evolution. Women evolved to wake up when children cry, to understand what children want just looking at their face. Men didn't.
There's no reason to assume they do.
>As I said - it doesn't matter why it is the case, it's the factual reality of things.
well, if the "why" doesn't matter then we have an issue with all the process of arguing, discussing and research.
>It can't happen
it can if both parents decide to maximize shared parental investment and decide which job to pursue to do it, it's not that women are forced to earn less or men more.
>Thousands of years of evolution. Women evolved to wake up when children cry, to understand what children want just looking at their face
that's why I was pointing at the 6 months issue, that's when child can start to comunicate in a semi verbal way and interact more, that's when men are able to interact fully with them.
>There's no reason to assume they do.
the same goes for the reverse, so we've reached an impasse
>if the "why" doesn't matter then we have an issue with all the process of arguing
>it's not that women are forced to earn less or men more.
You're making it about gender, I'm not interested in discussing about that and it was never the point of this discussion for me.
I'm arguing about what is the reality of things for most people, you're arguing about abstract concepts.
>that's when child can start to comunicate in a semi verbal way and interact more
Lol. No. At 6 months children can't communicate, verbally or not: they cry and laugh, and do babbling (absolutely meaningless sounds, just training their mouth and throat to produce sounds).
At 10 months they learn to indicate things. After they're 1 year old they begin to communicate verbally, in a very primitive manner (mom/dad kind of stuff), around 18 months they ask you for food if they're hungry, at around 24 months they start expressing themselves with sentences of 2 words.
>the same goes for the reverse, so we've reached an impasse
It's hard to prove a negative, you should prove the positive.
>You're making it about gender,
I was making a case about equal parental involvment in child rearing, this makes it about males and females since we have mothers and fathers, but if you want to skip this part I understand.
> At 6 months children can't communicate, verbally or not
not at all.
they can and do express preference and acquire a significant degree of motor skills, starting to crawl around, this enables the beginning of physical play with the parents and that's why I was pointing at this period of time for critical father's involvement, since it begins the time for rough and tumble play which is an hallmark of child education and development.
>It's hard to prove a negative, you should prove the positive.
actually not, if you prove a certain statement and you assume that statement A is true for all cases you need only 1 case in which statement A is false to deny the "for all" clause.
your original point was
>Children don't need to spend the exact same time with both parents.
which might probably true, but you stated that there's no reason to suppose this wasn't true, I could state one and the likelihood that there's at least one field into which parity is required is nonzero, so your argument about non necessity of parity is non tenable.
>I was making a case about equal parental involvment in child rearing
It would be nice in theory but it's mostly inapplicable because most people can't afford raising children without working, don't have hours so flexible that they can have completely complementary schedules, don't have people who take care of their kids for free (and even then, you just have children who see their parents less, even if equally), etc.
>not at all.
Yes. Children learn how to crawl around at around 8 months, not 6. At 6 they learn how to sit without back support and grab things. And you absolutely don't rough and tumble play with a 6 months old who just fucking learnt how to hold is head while sitting, and not even with a 8 months old. They're frail.
They are absolutely incapable of verbal communication.
I said that there isn't any substantial proof that spending equal amounts of time with both parents equally is necessary for children. You haven't provided any.
>You haven't provided any
because there haven't been any studies specifically aimed at that, also because nobody ever asked the question about father involvment then followed up with properly conducted research, we have always followed the rule of "mother knows best" and we have discovered that removing fathers has had a negative outcome on child development.
at 6 months you can pick a child and put him high with your hands, that is the beginning of body play, I was not referring as rough and tumble as "wrestle with your 6 months old infant, it's ok", jesus no.
I never argued that we should remove fathers, just that there's no need for them to be involved equally. Not absent is not the same as "as present as the mom".
>at 6 months you can pick a child and put him high with your hands
Moms have arms too.
>Moms have arms too.
mothers don't do rough and tumble as a primary interaction with the child, is one of the main differences in parent child interaction
Because mothers are normally more involved in their children's life at the early stages, so they need other ways of communication. You can't throw your 6 months old up in the air 10 hours a day, you mostly do other stuff. You probably shouldn't at all, maybe you can do it when they're around 1 year old.
Playing with the child physically is important, and fathers are good at that, but there are plenty of things that are important for the child.
>so they need other ways of communication.
yes, absolutely, mothers child interaction are radically different from fathers child interaction and that's what I've been arguing about, they are both important.
neither parent spends 10 hours playing with their child, if you remove sleeptime, personal time, there aren't 10 hours of play per day.
basic mundane things can be done by both parents, so there's no reason to differentiate nor prefer one over the other (giving baths, personal hygiene, feeding aside from breastfeeding, putting children to bed)
not that it matters, but are you a woman, perhaps?
They're radically different because dads are less involved and can spend most of their time with the child playing, since moms normally take care of everything else. The type of interaction women have is mostly talking because that's what you do while you do other stuff, if you're a good parent: look your kid into his eyes while you play together, talk to your kid while you change him or wash him, sing to him while you feed him, read to him stories when you put him to bed, rock him in your arms when he cries. Dads normally don't take care of this, so they can afford to play around more.
If dads spent 10 hours a day with their kid on a daily basis, they would act like moms do. And I'm not sure they're as good at it, since men tend to be less verbal than women, and can't feed their children like moms do.
Plus when children are unable to comunicate verbally what they want, (so till the 18th month) women tend to be better at guessing what kids need from the way they cry.
Yes, I'm a woman.
>Dads normally don't take care of this, so they can afford to play around more.
that is not true, mothers are more careful with the interaction with their children and are less inclined to do physical play and take less "risks", at least as they see them.
they also prefer more verbal and indirect activities while fathers prefer more hands on play and more boundary testing and negotiating activities.
>If dads spent 10 hours a day with their kid on a daily basis, they would act like moms do.
actually no, from the reports deriving from the observations of single fathers taking care of their children there have been measurable and consistent differences in child rearing styles, since they reflect biological differences.
you say, and rightfully so:
dads don't normally care of things, but you also say that they are less involved because they have less time available since they work more hours so I see an inner problem about the issue.
Do we actually want fathers to be more involved with the children or not?
You can't throw your child around while you bathe him, feed him or change his diapers. You need to talk to him, sing to him, cuddle him and shit like that. If dads had to do this, they would have to talk to their kids much like mothers do, and that would become their main interaction. On the other hand, they probably wouldn't be as good as it because they simply aren't as talkative and affectionate on average.
Playing styles are different, but as you said playing time is not most time you spend around children if you actually have to take care of them.
>Do we actually want fathers to be more involved with the children or not?
Yes, as much as possible. No one is questioning if fathers should be involved or not.
I'm just being pragmatic and talking about the reality of things for most families, while you imagine an utopistic world where both parents take 6 months off after the child is born and then work 30 hours weeks on flexible schedules and earn enough to send their kids to Ivy League colleges. Which would be really cool but isn't the reality of facts.
People have to make choices about who is the main provider and who is the main caregiver, and for many reasons it's more convenient that the woman is the main caregiver and the man is the main provider. We should work to make sure that fathers can spend quality time with their kids, but that's what we can do if we want to try and be realistic.
That only work if you count different contributions as different involvement.
When me and my sister was a baby, my mother stayed at home while my father worked. When he wasn't away for work, he often spent time doing other shit to make sure we could survive. We had a tiny piece of land, so he built a farm and we had some animals he took care of, as we got older he built us swingsets, playgrounds and stuff. I wouldn't say he was less involved. As we grew up they teaching us different things and we learned how it is different shopping with dad and shopping with mom and how every activity or thing we did was different. My father was just as important to me growing up as my mother. My father taught me to survive and my mother taught me to live. You can't just skip one of those.