My answer: You've got. To leave. Them alone together.
If you know me IRL, you know that my (male) partner is our household's primary cook and launderer. We share parenting more equally, but we have each been the primary parent at various times. I have a few thoughts about this.
My answer: You've got. To leave. Them alone together.
We had the same barriers to this as every family. I was the breastfeeding parent, and I was home more in the first couple years.
This was good for all three of us!
Leave the house anyway. Go for walk or a run. Take the car and go park it somewhere beautiful and read your book. Bring a snack.
Time for yourself + time for them alone = win win
And it can be hard to give those scraps of power up. But if you really want to share the work equally, you also have to share the power.
Example: When the baby was sick, I wanted to be In Charge. We'd get into fights bec I would try to overrule him.
So I'd be like: Baby is sick!
And he'd be like: Maybe. We'll see.
a.) my kid is very close to their dad
b.) I can travel, go out with friends, work or be sick and the household ticks along smoothly
That's MISERABLE.
So "packing the diaper bag" became our shorthand for this kind of interaction.
I'm much more networky and social, but M couldn't stand the idea of my keeping the family social calendar. So we tussled about that.
Example: Our relationship with the kid's friends' parents and with their schools.
You gotta go to events at the school, get to know the teachers, get to know the other parents so when shit gets hard for your kid at school you have relationships to call on to help you.
So if you're an opposite sex couple & the man is older--it's easy for power dynamics to get fucked up.
And I think that's prolly a factor with the NYT couple.
More from For later read
There is some valuable analysis in this report, but on the defense front this report is deeply flawed. There are other sections of value in report but, candidly, I don't think it helps us think through critical question of Taiwan defense issues in clear & well-grounded way. 1/
Normally as it might seem churlish to be so critical, but @cfr is so high-profile & the co-authors so distinguished I think it’s key to be clear. If not, people - including in Beijing - could get the wrong idea & this report could do real harm if influential on defense issues. 2/
BLUF: The defense discussion in this report does not engage at the depth needed to add to this critical debate. Accordingly conclusions in report are ill-founded - & in key parts harmful/misleading, esp that US shldnt be prepared defend Taiwan directly (alongside own efforts). 3/
The root of the problem is that report doesn't engage w the real debate on TWN defense issues or, frankly, the facts as knowable in public. Perhaps the most direct proof of this: The citations. There is nothing in the citations to @DeptofDefense China Military Power Report...4/
Nor to vast majority of leading informed sources on this like Ochmanek, the @RANDCorporation Scorecard, @CNAS, etc. This is esp salient b/c co-authors by their own admission have v little insight into contemporary military issues. & both last served in govt in Bush 43. 5/
This is an excellent report, and I'm glad to have joined the study group. The central focus on avoiding war is understandable--a US-China war would be catastrophic and should be avoided. But protecting Taiwan's security and prosperity requires doing more. 1/x https://t.co/P0Sg4LJcpV
— Bonnie Glaser / \u845b\u4f86\u5100 (@BonnieGlaser) February 12, 2021
Normally as it might seem churlish to be so critical, but @cfr is so high-profile & the co-authors so distinguished I think it’s key to be clear. If not, people - including in Beijing - could get the wrong idea & this report could do real harm if influential on defense issues. 2/
BLUF: The defense discussion in this report does not engage at the depth needed to add to this critical debate. Accordingly conclusions in report are ill-founded - & in key parts harmful/misleading, esp that US shldnt be prepared defend Taiwan directly (alongside own efforts). 3/
The root of the problem is that report doesn't engage w the real debate on TWN defense issues or, frankly, the facts as knowable in public. Perhaps the most direct proof of this: The citations. There is nothing in the citations to @DeptofDefense China Military Power Report...4/
Nor to vast majority of leading informed sources on this like Ochmanek, the @RANDCorporation Scorecard, @CNAS, etc. This is esp salient b/c co-authors by their own admission have v little insight into contemporary military issues. & both last served in govt in Bush 43. 5/