[em-bee]

on the contrary, it makes less sense if you want women to get equal chance of a career at work. the likelihood of women staying at home reduces their chances at being promoted, causes them to get paid less, etc. the pay gap, which is supposed to disappear comes from this difference.

if you want to equalize this then you effectively need to force dads to stay at home for the same amount of time as moms, so that their careers are affected in the same way.[1]

of course this won't work without a massive change in culture. men have no interest in spending time with children because that's what they learned from their own parents.

i wanted to stay with my children, but when i did i hated it because i had no role model to draw on. i didn't know what to do with them.

my wife also wasn't very helpful with guidance.

interestingly this is worse in europe than it is in china. i see more men taking care of children in china. of course most of those are grandparents but at least they provide the needed role models. this correlates with more equality of women in the work place. (although it is still far from ideal)

[1]that then leaves the issue of childless people having a career advantage. if you want people to keep having children that advantage must be eliminated, hence making the case for child support for everyone. germany pays almost 300$ per child per month regardedless of income. and even that is not enough. stay at home parents should have their time count as worked for their pension, or they may need a full salary for example. i don't know what would really work here.

[apparent]

> men have no interest in spending time with children because that's what they learned from their own parents.

It sounds like this was the case for you, but it doesn't mean it is the case for other men. It isn't the case for the dads I know who didn't have an in being around their babies/toddlers. They simply did not have an interest.

> if you want to equalize this then you effectively need to force dads to stay at home for the same amount of time as moms, so that their careers are affected in the same way.

This is not possible in a country that values liberty. Even if you could somehow require parity between one parent and another (mom only gets as many weeks of leave as dad takes), you can't effect parity between one family and another. More families have SAHMs than SAHDs, which would disrupt any attempt at parity at a societal level.

Bottom line though, is that moms simply are more maternal than dads. We literally have a word for it, and it's related to being a mother. There is a reason, and it's not all/mostly cultural. It is one of the most genetically-imbued aspects of our beings as humans. Mothers are the predominant nurturers in humans, as in nearly all mammal/animal species.

You can fight against it, but biological reality will not easily be defeated.

[em-bee]

It sounds like this was the case for you, but it doesn't mean it is the case for other men. It isn't the case for the dads I know who didn't have an in being around their babies/toddlers. They simply did not have an interest.

i don't understand how you see a contradiction here. you are observing that men have no interest in childcare, and i am explaining why.

it's a lack of role models.

unless your friends did have fathers who had in interest in child care but your friends had no interest despite that.

the problem with nurture vs nature is that it is difficult to prove one way or the other. beyond pregnancy and breastfeeding everything else can be learned. and it's difficult to prove that it isn't

[apparent]

According to your line of thinking, anything that results from nature can be attributed to nurture because "we can't prove 100% that it isn't nurture". This is a terrific example of an unfalsifiable hypothesis.

Secondly, even your description of your own experience undermines your theory. You say you didn't know what to do with your kids, so you didn't want to spend as much time with them. That is different from what I said my dad-friends have expressed, which is lack of interest that is not related to not knowing what to do with them. They just don't have an interest in being with a baby/toddler. Their experience is not yours, but you try to twist it to fit your narrative.

In general, it makes sense to be open-minded about how others' internal states, perceptions, etc. When someone says they don't have the same reason for doing something that you do, maybe don't tell them that yes they do. This is good general practice, but it's especially important for personal and perceptual matters, where outsiders literally have no idea why someone is doing something.

[em-bee]

According to your line of thinking, anything that results from nature can be attributed to nurture because "we can't prove 100% that it isn't nurture". This is a terrific example of an unfalsifiable hypothesis.

all correct. but the reverse is true too. you can't prove that any of it is nature.

both are beliefs. the reason why i side for nurture is because nature is used as an excuse to defend bad behavior or to discriminate. i have written about this before.

"men should not be teachers because they can not be trusted with our children" or "men should not be single parents because they don't have the capacity to care for children" or "he could not help raping her. her clothing provoked him, and he could not control himself"

the teacher comment was shared by someone in new zealand, the single parent one is common in germany and i believe in the US and many other place too. the last one has been used as a defense before. discrimination and excuses. fortunately much of that is no longer accepted. but only because we accept that nurture matters more than nature.

[apparent]

Look at the animal kingdom, my friend. There is very clear evidence that for nearly all species, mothers are more nurturing.

[em-bee]

but we aren't animals. as humans we are not bound to our instinct. we have the capacity to overcome our nature. of course not everything is learned. breathing for example, but heck even properly latching on to a breast is learned, whereas for many mammals it is instinct. so using animals here as example is not evidence.

the point is that nurture is stronger than nature and every human behavior can be learned and override any instinct. what i am trying to say is that while by nature mothers may be more nurturing, males can learn to be just as nurturing and therefore the advantage women may have in nurturing is small enough as to be insignificant.

the only natural advantage is that the mother by default has more contact with the mother though pregnancy and breastfeeding. but take an adopted baby by a childless couple, and even that advantage disappears.

what remains is the raw difference between man and woman, most of which is governed by learned behavior, and not by nature. whether that can be proven or not is another question that we already addressed.