Millennial dads have pathetic DIY skills compared to baby boomers

[PursuePeace]

I've never understood the big deal about Rand's hair.
Looks fine to me.

 

[Swordsmyth]

To each his own is my opinion about specialization/generalization, it takes all kinds to make the world go round.

But I do think society is best off with a balance between the two, if people are too generalized the society will be poorer than optimal and if they are too specialized it will be too fragile and controllable.

 

[phill4paul]

To each their own. But, I think it's fathers place to teach his children, both girls and boys, basic handyman tenants. And if a father doesn't have these skills how then can he teach? My father made reasonably good money as an air-traffic-controller. We lived in homestead Florida and had a pool growing up. He certainly could have hired people to do the tasks around the house, but he did it himself and imparted his wisdom along the way. He'd take care of the pool maintenance himself, the yard maintenance, vehicle maintenance, home repairs and additions. All with me in tow.
I don't really consider a "chore" to be a chore. It is merely something that needs to be done, most often with a frosty adult beverage within reach and some good jams on the speakers. Most everything I set myself to I accomplish and I do it better than most I could have paid. It's more of an attitude than a necessity. I also like the value it brings. There is no end to the DIY projects friends call me to give advise or help. And they in turn come over and help me when I need an extra pair of hands. There is good company that comes from these activities and I enjoy that.

 

[phill4paul]

To each his own is my opinion about specialization/generalization, it takes all kinds to make the world go round.

But I do think society is best off with a balance between the two, if people are too generalized the society will be poorer than optimal and if they are too specialized it will be too fragile and controllable.

There is no reason an individual cannot be specialized in one area and keep a general working knowledge of many things.

 

[Swordsmyth]

There is no reason an individual cannot be specialized in one area and keep a general working knowledge of many things.

Absolutely but for a given level of intelligence a person can only learn so much in their life and distributing it to different subjects is a zero-sum question, I favor a somewhat balanced approach.

 

[Anti Federalist]

None of that is correct (for me at least). It just doesn't interest me. I value my time as well as getting the job done well and quickly over the cost.

If someone wants to work on cars then boats then great. I would consider that a huge waste of money and rather save and invest it.

The underlying assumption you and AF make is physical work is somehow necessary and superior to mental work. I would rather smoke a cigar or play with my labrador retriever than change my own oil. Not everyone has to have the same interests.

I don't grow and or shoot all of my own food? Assuming you don't, why are you such a snob? Why use fancy grocery stores when you could just forage for berries for a couple of hours. A lot of this talk about how prior generations could do certain things was out necessity not out of some masculine instinct. When America was a third world country and people lived on less than a dollar a day they could butcher a hog, build shelter, plow a field, or knit a sock. They also lived on a dollar a day and died at 30. Not for me.

Not at all.

Look at Heinlein's quote again...many of those tasks he mentioned were intellectual or creative in nature and had nothing to do with sodding about in grease and dirt.

And there is a difference between being able to do a project and whether you want to or not.

Bottom line is this however:

Every time you defer a critical task to somebody else, without even trying to learn about or do it yourself, you put yourself at the mercy of someone else.

You are no longer free and independent, but dependent on somebody else.

 

[phill4paul]

Absolutely but for a given level of intelligence a person can only learn so much in their life and distributing it to different subjects is a zero-sum question, I favor a somewhat balanced approach.

I find this depends on the individual, also. I know and have known many that specialize in more than one area. Masters at what they ever taken on. Exceptional individuals that have more drive or brain capacity than I. I don't really have the answer for that. I find that these kinds of individuals seem to have less a need for sleep than I. They seem to function on 4-6 hrs. of sleep at night and an afternoon nap. Without ever needing a "crash" day. And they never seem to be able to turn the switch off and just relax. And none ever waste time on social media such as RPF or FB.

 

[Anti Federalist]

None of that is correct (for me at least). It just doesn't interest me. I value my time as well as getting the job done well and quickly over the cost.

If someone wants to work on cars then boats then great. I would consider that a huge waste of money and rather save and invest it.

The underlying assumption you and AF make is physical work is somehow necessary and superior to mental work. I would rather smoke a cigar or play with my labrador retriever than change my own oil. Not everyone has to have the same interests.

I don't grow and or shoot all of my own food? Assuming you don't, why are you such a snob? Why use fancy grocery stores when you could just forage for berries for a couple of hours. A lot of this talk about how prior generations could do certain things was out necessity not out of some masculine instinct. When America was a third world country and people lived on less than a dollar a day they could butcher a hog, build shelter, plow a field, or knit a sock. They also lived on a dollar a day and died at 30. Not for me.

And are we less free or more free?

 

[Danke]

A sign over my shop:

"Loose women tightened here"

 

[Anti Federalist]

So you're against increases in wealth in society, got it.

That's exactly what attacking specialization leads to--by focusing on a singular thing that you're best at, you maximize the value that you can bring to the world.

If everyone was a generalist, then we'd all be completely self sufficient......and horrifyingly poor.

Specialization is what brought about some of the greatest increase in wealth in the 19th, 20th, and 21st century. It allowed us to produce more food on less ground, and has allowed us to stamp out extreme poverty around the globe.

To demonize specialization is demonize economic progress; without we'd all end up being pathetically weak jacks of all trades who could do everything half bad, but nothing particularly good.

And if every one is a specialist the world becomes a pedantic, safety oriented, nightmare of technocracy, dependency and rule by elite technicians.

To demonize general knowledge is to demonize freedom itself, to value wealth and ease more than liberty.

Specialization is what brought about some of the greatest increase in wealth in the 19th, 20th, and 21st century.

Almost every single industrial revolution advancement in technology that has made all those gains possible, were made almost exclusively by men who were well rounded in many fields: Watt, Stephenson, Roebling, Edison, Firestone, Fulton, Sperry, Hammond, Hughes...my god, the list is just about endless.

 

[oyarde]

I am certainly more free than nearly all other domesticated males and I still hunt my food and forage for berries some too even while being an expert in more than one thing . It is good to be on top.

 

[euphemia]

You are no longer free and independent, but dependent on somebody else.

Not to argue, but I would like to make the point that someone else might make a living doing things I either can’t or don’t want to do. Knowing the body fails at some point (rehabbing after knee replacement right now), I would rather have a good relationship with someone who can be trusted to do things well. When I am no longer able to do some things, I will have someone I trust and who will be loyal to me.

My dad didn’t live long enough to show me a lot of basic DIY skills, as it happens, but I am much better at many things than he was.

 

[oyarde]

A sign over my shop:

"Loose women tightened here"

I have one from the new orleans police dept warning of pickpockets and loose women .

 

[phill4paul]

Not at all.

Look at Heinlein's quote again...many of those tasks he mentioned were intellectual or creative in nature and had nothing to do with sodding about in grease and dirt.

And there is a difference between being able to do a project and whether you want to or not.

Bottom line is this however:

Every time you defer a critical task to somebody else, without even trying to learn about or do it yourself, you put yourself at the mercy of someone else.

You are no longer free and independent, but dependent on somebody else.

If you've never changed your child's shitty diaper then how the hell can you create guilt by haranguing them in later years over the fact? What are you gonna say? "Do you know how many nanny's I had to fire before I found the right one?"
One of the proudest moments in my life was when I was able to return that specific kindness. A few years ago my dad contracted the flu and my mom didn't call me for three days. By that time he was severely dehydrated weak as an infant. I immediately took him to E.R. Of course the first thing they did was pump liquids. And as a natural course, once re-hydration started, he shat himself in the bed. Well, I had the nurses leave and cleaned him up myself. He expressed his embarrassment and told me "Thank you." I told him I probably owed him a couple more since he changed my diapers. He said, "Well, hell, you're gonna be busy then. Because there were hundreds!" We had a good laugh. Lol.

 

[tfurrh]

They also lived on a dollar a day and died at 30. Not for me.

People saying our ancestors were old at 30 or 40 is a misunderstanding of what average life expectancy is. It's the median. It's saying a lot more infants and children died in the population, but it's not saying that you just kicked it when you turned 35.

 

[phill4paul]

People saying our ancestors were old at 30 or 40 is a misunderstanding of what average life expectancy is. It's the median. It's saying a lot more infants and children died in the population, but it's not saying that you just kicked it when you turned 35.

Yep. American Revolution soldiers....

102 Years Old. Born in Newburyport, Massachusetts in November, 1764. Died February 19, 1867. Enlisted in July of 1780 in Hailstown, New Hampshire. Served in the Battle of Saratoga in which British General Burgoyne was defeated.

101 Years Old. Born in Windham, Connecticut on September 10, 1762. Died July 30, 1864. Drafted into the Continental Army in 1778. Taken prisoner by the Tories a year later in Horseneck, Connecticut.

105 Years Old. Oldest Survivor of the Revolutionary War. Born in Northbury, Connecticut on September 10, 1761. Died on May 20, 1866. Served in the Battle of Brandywine and later Yorktown when British General Cornwallis surrendered to the Continental Army, ending the War.

Many more.....https://www.varsitytutors.com/earlyamerica/rare-images/last-men-revolution

 

[tod evans]

^^^^^^^^^^^And I'll bet every one of 'em tended his own shit......^^^^^^^^^^

 

[Swordsmyth]

Yep. American Revolution soldiers....

102 Years Old. Born in Newburyport, Massachusetts in November, 1764. Died February 19, 1867. Enlisted in July of 1780 in Hailstown, New Hampshire. Served in the Battle of Saratoga in which British General Burgoyne was defeated.

101 Years Old. Born in Windham, Connecticut on September 10, 1762. Died July 30, 1864. Drafted into the Continental Army in 1778. Taken prisoner by the Tories a year later in Horseneck, Connecticut.

105 Years Old. Oldest Survivor of the Revolutionary War. Born in Northbury, Connecticut on September 10, 1761. Died on May 20, 1866. Served in the Battle of Brandywine and later Yorktown when British General Cornwallis surrendered to the Continental Army, ending the War.

Many more.....https://www.varsitytutors.com/earlyamerica/rare-images/last-men-revolution

They helped found the nation and lived long enough to see Lincoln destroy it.

 

[phill4paul]

^^^^^^^^^^^And I'll bet every one of 'em tended his own shit......^^^^^^^^^^

Adam Link 104 Years Old. Born near Hagerstown, Maryland on November 14, 1760. Died on August 15, 1864. Served in the Militia of Pennsylvania on three separate tours of duty.

At the end of the War Link married a distant relative of his. “After this event, being fond of change, he roamed about from place to place, living but a short time in each; and so spent the earlier part of his life. At the age of sixty, he walked from his home in Pennsylvania to Ohio, a distance of one hundred and forty-one miles, accomplishing it in three days, an average of forty-seven miles a day. When seventy years of age, he set about clearing a farm and remained for some time on it. Perpetuating the habits of his army frontier service, he paid no attention to his manner of eating, either in quantity, quality or time; and he was addicted to strong drink. He labored severely and constantly. Notwithstanding all, his health was good till near the very close of his life.”

 

[phill4paul]

They helped found the nation and lived long enough to see Lincoln destroy it.

Yes. I noticed this too.