Not potty-trained at 3...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
The other thing I would mention is that we are constantly hearing about how poor American kids perform academically compared to other countries. Perhaps we should start looking at where American parenting differs from other cultures. and potty training is a very good example. Most other places in the world, people do not wait until a kid is 3 or older to start training. And most other places also do not take the "wait until the kid expresses interest" approach.

I understand correlation does not equal causation. But it is interesting that about the same time the potty training model changed in this country (i.e. people starting waiting later and/or waiting until the kid showed interest), our children gradually started to perform at lower levels compared to the rest of the world.

Please provide sources for your claims that academic performance began to suffer when potty training model changed. Or continue to be ridiculed.

It is also interesting how these potty-training Asian prodigies continue to swarm American universities, these festering seats of dismal academic performance. Perhaps they feel the need to be surrounded by low-performing, late potty-trainers to feel superior.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The other thing I would mention is that we are constantly hearing about how poor American kids perform academically compared to other countries. Perhaps we should start looking at where American parenting differs from other cultures. and potty training is a very good example. Most other places in the world, people do not wait until a kid is 3 or older to start training. And most other places also do not take the "wait until the kid expresses interest" approach.

I understand correlation does not equal causation. But it is interesting that about the same time the potty training model changed in this country (i.e. people starting waiting later and/or waiting until the kid showed interest), our children gradually started to perform at lower levels compared to the rest of the world.

Please provide sources for your claims that academic performance began to suffer when potty training model changed. Or continue to be ridiculed.

It is also interesting how these potty-training Asian prodigies continue to swarm American universities, these festering seats of dismal academic performance. Perhaps they feel the need to be surrounded by low-performing, late potty-trainers to feel superior.

There is very little argument that we rank very low in school performance (I'm not talking about universities, but it could be argued that they come here because universities here have more resources). But it actually proves my point that our top universities are filled with foreign students -- they don't have any trouble getting into our colleges.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The other thing I would mention is that we are constantly hearing about how poor American kids perform academically compared to other countries. Perhaps we should start looking at where American parenting differs from other cultures. and potty training is a very good example. Most other places in the world, people do not wait until a kid is 3 or older to start training. And most other places also do not take the "wait until the kid expresses interest" approach.

I understand correlation does not equal causation. But it is interesting that about the same time the potty training model changed in this country (i.e. people starting waiting later and/or waiting until the kid showed interest), our children gradually started to perform at lower levels compared to the rest of the world.

Please provide sources for your claims that academic performance began to suffer when potty training model changed. Or continue to be ridiculed.

It is also interesting how these potty-training Asian prodigies continue to swarm American universities, these festering seats of dismal academic performance. Perhaps they feel the need to be surrounded by low-performing, late potty-trainers to feel superior.

There is very little argument that we rank very low in school performance (I'm not talking about universities, but it could be argued that they come here because universities here have more resources). But it actually proves my point that our top universities are filled with foreign students -- they don't have any trouble getting into our colleges.

It doesn't prove your point because it doesn't explain why high academic performers gravitate toward universities in a country with low academic performance. Something else must be luring them here besides the weather.

And it proves nothing about the relationship between toilet training and academic performance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MYOB. Our pediatrician told me I could start potty training at 2 and be done at 3 years and 3 months or I could start at 3 and be done at 3 years and 3 months. So, if you knew us, you too would be judging us based on our decision about when to potty train our child. Ours isn't suffering any ill effects and potty training was a breeze.

.

Total agree. You can try to force potty training as much as you want, but it won't happen til the kid is ready. And, not a minute before. DC also became ready at 3 years and 3 mo.

So why until the 1960s were 90% of kids trained before they turned two? In some parts of the world the kids are still trained before two?

What do you think explains this?

Lazy parenting and a ridiculous fear of hurting self-esteem. Unless your child has special needs, there is absolutely no excuse for an untrained three year old. Our preschool wouldn't even let you enroll. Children had to be fully potty trained to attend the three year old program.

All five of mine were completely potty trained - very rare accidents and dry all night, able to go potty with very little assistance - well before three. My sister had all three of her boys completely trained by 20 months.

Nothing at all special or advanced about my kids. And it didn't take months to get them trained. Maybe a month of consistent training.

Actually, your kids are unique here. Try to tell yourself they're not special, but most kids-- even those of us who were not in diapers at night-- cannot stay consistently dry through the night so young! I'd love tips, but I'm from an "elimination communication" culture (that of course doesn't use those words for it!) and all the elders remember their kids having nighttime accidents well into elementary school, especially the boys, so I feel like nighttime and daytime training are two totally different things, physiologically.

That said, I totally don't understand three year olds still POOPING in diapers. We've all been able to tell when your kid was pooping since she was, like, eight months old. You don't have to put her on a potty then, but I am skeptical that any well three year old, without special needs or gastro issues, cannot pull down her pants and sit on the potty to POOP. I don't care when other people potty train, but this is something I just don't understand any more than saying "my child only drinks chocolate milk." (Sorry, chocolate milk mom-- but how does one even get to this point?)

So, my q for OP-- do your relatives even have a little potty or potty seat/step stool? If you've already potty trained your kids, I don't think it would be out of line to ask if they need any of this kind of stuff...at this age, I bet she could start doing it herself in a day with some super-fun stickers to decorate her potty and a fun aunt by her side, barring developmental issues you aren't aware of.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MYOB. Our pediatrician told me I could start potty training at 2 and be done at 3 years and 3 months or I could start at 3 and be done at 3 years and 3 months. So, if you knew us, you too would be judging us based on our decision about when to potty train our child. Ours isn't suffering any ill effects and potty training was a breeze.

.

Total agree. You can try to force potty training as much as you want, but it won't happen til the kid is ready. And, not a minute before. DC also became ready at 3 years and 3 mo.

So why until the 1960s were 90% of kids trained before they turned two? In some parts of the world the kids are still trained before two?

What do you think explains this?

I would say a good 70% are now (maybe 80%). And I would say a good 70-80% were then. The difference was how much the 20-30% were shamed for it by their parents in the 60s because it was seen as abnormal. Let's not return to those days. It IS developmentally normal to train in your threes though most are done before.

There is no way 70-80% of kids here are trained by the time they turn two. Not a chance.

oops sorry I meant beforeage 3. Kids in the 60s and 70s weren't trained before 2 either. I have pictures of me and my mom's friends kids in 1972 in diapers, all between age 2 and 3.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The other thing I would mention is that we are constantly hearing about how poor American kids perform academically compared to other countries. Perhaps we should start looking at where American parenting differs from other cultures. and potty training is a very good example. Most other places in the world, people do not wait until a kid is 3 or older to start training. And most other places also do not take the "wait until the kid expresses interest" approach.

I understand correlation does not equal causation. But it is interesting that about the same time the potty training model changed in this country (i.e. people starting waiting later and/or waiting until the kid showed interest), our children gradually started to perform at lower levels compared to the rest of the world.

Please provide sources for your claims that academic performance began to suffer when potty training model changed. Or continue to be ridiculed.

It is also interesting how these potty-training Asian prodigies continue to swarm American universities, these festering seats of dismal academic performance. Perhaps they feel the need to be surrounded by low-performing, late potty-trainers to feel superior.

There is very little argument that we rank very low in school performance (I'm not talking about universities, but it could be argued that they come here because universities here have more resources). But it actually proves my point that our top universities are filled with foreign students -- they don't have any trouble getting into our colleges.

Kids from high SES families in the U.S.DO NOT rank low. The US in general ranks low because of our unequal education system that means those not in high SES brackets do fall behind. Take a sample of NO VA and Bethesda kids who potty trained late and their academic performance will be on par with any elimination communication kid from Asia or any early trainer from Europe. The US's low scores are because of our inquality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MYOB. Our pediatrician told me I could start potty training at 2 and be done at 3 years and 3 months or I could start at 3 and be done at 3 years and 3 months. So, if you knew us, you too would be judging us based on our decision about when to potty train our child. Ours isn't suffering any ill effects and potty training was a breeze.

.

Total agree. You can try to force potty training as much as you want, but it won't happen til the kid is ready. And, not a minute before. DC also became ready at 3 years and 3 mo.

So why until the 1960s were 90% of kids trained before they turned two? In some parts of the world the kids are still trained before two?

What do you think explains this?

Lazy parenting and a ridiculous fear of hurting self-esteem. Unless your child has special needs, there is absolutely no excuse for an untrained three year old. Our preschool wouldn't even let you enroll. Children had to be fully potty trained to attend the three year old program.

All five of mine were completely potty trained - very rare accidents and dry all night, able to go potty with very little assistance - well before three. My sister had all three of her boys completely trained by 20 months.

Nothing at all special or advanced about my kids. And it didn't take months to get them trained. Maybe a month of consistent training.

Actually, your kids are unique here. Try to tell yourself they're not special, but most kids-- even those of us who were not in diapers at night-- cannot stay consistently dry through the night so young! I'd love tips, but I'm from an "elimination communication" culture (that of course doesn't use those words for it!) and all the elders remember their kids having nighttime accidents well into elementary school, especially the boys, so I feel like nighttime and daytime training are two totally different things, physiologically.

That said, I totally don't understand three year olds still POOPING in diapers. We've all been able to tell when your kid was pooping since she was, like, eight months old. You don't have to put her on a potty then, but I am skeptical that any well three year old, without special needs or gastro issues, cannot pull down her pants and sit on the potty to POOP. I don't care when other people potty train, but this is something I just don't understand any more than saying "my child only drinks chocolate milk." (Sorry, chocolate milk mom-- but how does one even get to this point?)

So, my q for OP-- do your relatives even have a little potty or potty seat/step stool? If you've already potty trained your kids, I don't think it would be out of line to ask if they need any of this kind of stuff...at this age, I bet she could start doing it herself in a day with some super-fun stickers to decorate her potty and a fun aunt by her side, barring developmental issues you aren't aware of.

Exactly. If your kid is talking about pooping on him/herself and doing it, you really should be able to get him/her to a toilet first. The fact that people think it is actually good for their kids to have them poop on themselves when they are speaking in sentences/paragraphs is just beyond bizarre.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
All I am saying is that parents should take responsibility. My child used a sippy cup at home until age 4, which I think is way too long. I fully acknowledge that it was because I allowed it, and not because she was not "showing signs of readiness" to give it up. She probably would have drunk from that thing on the couch happily until 4th grade. It was my job as her mother to throw it away. So, I take full responsibility. If someone else had been in charge, maybe she would have given it up at age 2. JUST LIKE IF I WERE IN CHARGE, YOUR KID WOULD BE POTTY TRAINED WELL BEFORE THREE. I am saying your kid is fine and was ready at 2. IT'S YOU, and YOUR DECISION to wait. If you feel ok about that, great. But STOP BLAMING IT ON YOUR KID.

Well if I WERE IN CHARGE (is that enough caps?) of you growing up, you wouldn't be starting stupid threads now. I want your parents to take full responsibility for it. They should stop blaming your stupidity and judgmental nature on you.

Probably. At least you can see that there is a relationship between parenting and behavior now. Your child learns to use the toilet when you teach him. Your child, with a different mother, would not take so long to learn this simple skill. There are probably other things he will learn earlier than others because he has you as a mother. If you teach him to read at 3, should we just say he miraculously figured it out, or would you like the credit? See what I'm getting at??

[Anonymous]

Ok, I posted here earlier questioning late potty training and want to apologize. We were at the park today and saw at 3+ year old kid in diapers. My son's friend said something about it, and my son said, "don't be mean, maybe his tummy doesn't work right." It made me realize that I was being a bitch and I honestly am sorry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
All I am saying is that parents should take responsibility. My child used a sippy cup at home until age 4, which I think is way too long. I fully acknowledge that it was because I allowed it, and not because she was not "showing signs of readiness" to give it up. She probably would have drunk from that thing on the couch happily until 4th grade. It was my job as her mother to throw it away. So, I take full responsibility. If someone else had been in charge, maybe she would have given it up at age 2. JUST LIKE IF I WERE IN CHARGE, YOUR KID WOULD BE POTTY TRAINED WELL BEFORE THREE. I am saying your kid is fine and was ready at 2. IT'S YOU, and YOUR DECISION to wait. If you feel ok about that, great. But STOP BLAMING IT ON YOUR KID.

Well if I WERE IN CHARGE (is that enough caps?) of you growing up, you wouldn't be starting stupid threads now. I want your parents to take full responsibility for it. They should stop blaming your stupidity and judgmental nature on you.

Probably. At least you can see that there is a relationship between parenting and behavior now. Your child learns to use the toilet when you teach him. Your child, with a different mother, would not take so long to learn this simple skill. There are probably other things he will learn earlier than others because he has you as a mother. If you teach him to read at 3, should we just say he miraculously figured it out, or would you like the credit? See what I'm getting at??

If I teach my child to read at 3, I wouldn't say "my child learns to read when I teach him," since that could mean that he could have read at eight months old, and that's obviously bullshit.

You could have picked a better example since even in this universe of highly educated parents some kids read at 3, and some at 6, with no difference in degree of parental involvement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Probably. At least you can see that there is a relationship between parenting and behavior now. Your child learns to use the toilet when you teach him. Your child, with a different mother, would not take so long to learn this simple skill. There are probably other things he will learn earlier than others because he has you as a mother. If you teach him to read at 3, should we just say he miraculously figured it out, or would you like the credit? See what I'm getting at??

One of my kids learned to read at 3, and my parenting had only a minimal influence on it, if any.

And to the PP with the oozing poop pants - know you are not alone. While my child did finally potty train (yeah for peep pressure!) for the longest time wet/poopy underwear simply did not bother her in the slightest. It was maddening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Probably. At least you can see that there is a relationship between parenting and behavior now. Your child learns to use the toilet when you teach him. Your child, with a different mother, would not take so long to learn this simple skill. There are probably other things he will learn earlier than others because he has you as a mother. If you teach him to read at 3, should we just say he miraculously figured it out, or would you like the credit? See what I'm getting at??

One of my kids learned to read at 3, and my parenting had only a minimal influence on it, if any.

And to the PP with the oozing poop pants - know you are not alone. While my child did finally potty train (yeah for peep pressure!) for the longest time wet/poopy underwear simply did not bother her in the slightest. It was maddening.

I am the poster above AND the oozing poop pants house. Thanks!!

[Anonymous]

Well, we did the best we could. One boy, who has always been late at milestones, wasn't fully trained until 3.75 or so. The other boy, just a little after 3. At our preschool this was completely normal and acceptable, and while we were a bit later with the first boy than most of our friends, it was only by a matter of months. More importantly, several years have passed since then and they are terrific, responsible, confident boys. Fortunately you can't tell by looking now that they trained at those ages, or else they would raise the "red flag" that someone on here mentioned seeing. But I have to say that I often see a red flag of another kind: authoritarian, often lower class parents who judge parenting skill by the timing of toilet training.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
All I am saying is that parents should take responsibility. My child used a sippy cup at home until age 4, which I think is way too long. I fully acknowledge that it was because I allowed it, and not because she was not "showing signs of readiness" to give it up. She probably would have drunk from that thing on the couch happily until 4th grade. It was my job as her mother to throw it away. So, I take full responsibility. If someone else had been in charge, maybe she would have given it up at age 2. JUST LIKE IF I WERE IN CHARGE, YOUR KID WOULD BE POTTY TRAINED WELL BEFORE THREE. I am saying your kid is fine and was ready at 2. IT'S YOU, and YOUR DECISION to wait. If you feel ok about that, great. But STOP BLAMING IT ON YOUR KID.

Well if I WERE IN CHARGE (is that enough caps?) of you growing up, you wouldn't be starting stupid threads now. I want your parents to take full responsibility for it. They should stop blaming your stupidity and judgmental nature on you.

Probably. At least you can see that there is a relationship between parenting and behavior now. Your child learns to use the toilet when you teach him. Your child, with a different mother, would not take so long to learn this simple skill. There are probably other things he will learn earlier than others because he has you as a mother. If you teach him to read at 3, should we just say he miraculously figured it out, or would you like the credit? See what I'm getting at??

If I teach my child to read at 3, I wouldn't say "my child learns to read when I teach him," since that could mean that he could have read at eight months old, and that's obviously bullshit.

You could have picked a better example since even in this universe of highly educated parents some kids read at 3, and some at 6, with no difference in degree of parental involvement.

Typically at 3, an adult has to be involved in the learning to read process. It is not that usual for the child to just pick up reading without a lot of exposure to it, letters, etc, either by a parent or by another childcare provider. Obviously with a six year old, there is more exposure over time and more neurological development, such that the child learns more quickly with less direction if you wait to start until 6 with the reading. Saying a child can be potty trained at 8 months is a straw man. I am talking about a 2 year old. You have to actually teach them to use the bathroom in the toilet. Of course, if you wait until 3.5 or 4, just like if you wait to teach a child to read until much later, say even 7, it is a different process, and the child has already "learned" most of it from being exposed to other children doing it, talking about it, etc. I do not think it is necessarily a good thing to teach a 3 year old to read for reasons not relevant to this thread. I am just explaining that for most younger children, there is a teaching element (if your child is Albert Einstein and miraculously started reading without your even teaching him the alphabet, great!) to reading, and there is a teaching element to potty training. Just because the child does not readily poop in the toilet in the first 15 minutes, or first day of teaching, it does not mean he is not ready to learn to do it. Just as, when you teach a child his ABCs, you do not expect him to read a full sentence that week. If you want to wait until the child just does things on his own, I suppose that would mean delaying a whole lot of things that you might otherwise teach him how to do. It's not like crawling/walking, they don't just wake up one day and do it, unless of course they are 4 and finally decide they are too embarrassed to poop in their diaper anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
All I am saying is that parents should take responsibility. My child used a sippy cup at home until age 4, which I think is way too long. I fully acknowledge that it was because I allowed it, and not because she was not "showing signs of readiness" to give it up. She probably would have drunk from that thing on the couch happily until 4th grade. It was my job as her mother to throw it away. So, I take full responsibility. If someone else had been in charge, maybe she would have given it up at age 2. JUST LIKE IF I WERE IN CHARGE, YOUR KID WOULD BE POTTY TRAINED WELL BEFORE THREE. I am saying your kid is fine and was ready at 2. IT'S YOU, and YOUR DECISION to wait. If you feel ok about that, great. But STOP BLAMING IT ON YOUR KID.

Well if I WERE IN CHARGE (is that enough caps?) of you growing up, you wouldn't be starting stupid threads now. I want your parents to take full responsibility for it. They should stop blaming your stupidity and judgmental nature on you.

Probably. At least you can see that there is a relationship between parenting and behavior now. Your child learns to use the toilet when you teach him. Your child, with a different mother, would not take so long to learn this simple skill. There are probably other things he will learn earlier than others because he has you as a mother. If you teach him to read at 3, should we just say he miraculously figured it out, or would you like the credit? See what I'm getting at??

If I teach my child to read at 3, I wouldn't say "my child learns to read when I teach him," since that could mean that he could have read at eight months old, and that's obviously bullshit.

You could have picked a better example since even in this universe of highly educated parents some kids read at 3, and some at 6, with no difference in degree of parental involvement.

Typically at 3, an adult has to be involved in the learning to read process. It is not that usual for the child to just pick up reading without a lot of exposure to it, letters, etc, either by a parent or by another childcare provider. Obviously with a six year old, there is more exposure over time and more neurological development, such that the child learns more quickly with less direction if you wait to start until 6 with the reading. Saying a child can be potty trained at 8 months is a straw man. I am talking about a 2 year old. You have to actually teach them to use the bathroom in the toilet. Of course, if you wait until 3.5 or 4, just like if you wait to teach a child to read until much later, say even 7, it is a different process, and the child has already "learned" most of it from being exposed to other children doing it, talking about it, etc. I do not think it is necessarily a good thing to teach a 3 year old to read for reasons not relevant to this thread. I am just explaining that for most younger children, there is a teaching element (if your child is Albert Einstein and miraculously started reading without your even teaching him the alphabet, great!) to reading, and there is a teaching element to potty training. Just because the child does not readily poop in the toilet in the first 15 minutes, or first day of teaching, it does not mean he is not ready to learn to do it. Just as, when you teach a child his ABCs, you do not expect him to read a full sentence that week. If you want to wait until the child just does things on his own, I suppose that would mean delaying a whole lot of things that you might otherwise teach him how to do. It's not like crawling/walking, they don't just wake up one day and do it, unless of course they are 4 and finally decide they are too embarrassed to poop in their diaper anymore.

You still haven't explained why it is better to force-train the child to read/use the potty vis-a-vis waiting until they are ready to learn it quickly. When you compare two proficient 10-year old readers, can you tell which one of them started to read at 3 and which one at 6?

When you see two 10-year old boys, can you tell which one of them pooped in the potty at 2 vs. 3 years of age? If yes, how? If not, why do you care?

The reading example, as I mentioned already, does not work. You will meet multiple parents of two children who put the same amount of effort into both, yet they started to read at different ages, simply due to individual differences.

Again, you could have picked a better example. Benefits of reading don't ever stop growing as there isn't such a thing as a total mastery of reading - one can always read more books. But with potty training, there actually is an upper limit of mastery of skill, unless you want to argue that being able to wipe with 2 wipes vs. 4 is better. So why make a huge fuss over something everyone learns to do eventually? I get that you want to feel good about yourself, we all do. But using your kids's bums to do it? Really?