Tell an opinion you have that is in the strong minority

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

people who don't plan to have one parent home as the primary caregiver until their child/ren are at least school age should not be parents, this includes single by choice parents.

Agree with this 100%. I loved my job before I had my first child but knew having a baby meant leaving the workforce for many years. My kids are grown now (high school and beyond) and I am loving being back in the workforce. We didn't even consider children until we were as sure as we could be that one of us could be at home at least until they started school.

I think a lot of the problems we are seeing with kids and young adults today are directly related to 10+ hours in daycare away from their parent during those critical early years.

Honest question. Do you you truly think there are more problems now with kids and young adults than there were (say) 30 years ago or 60 years ago?

In some ways my view is that if that's going to be our criteria, we'd be better of sending every single kid to daycare because the kids of the 1950s stay-at-home moms sure didn't seem to turn out well as a group compared to the more recent generation that spent more time in daycare on average. As a group I think millenials are a kinder, more compassionate, less violent group than their predecessors. I am not a millenial but I am around a lot of them and I think they're a lot less self-centered than the Baby Boomers (who statistically had a lot more SAHMs). I think this shows up in crime and violence statistics as well.

I Disagree. With the millennial generation there is a large resistance to "growing up". Even twenty years ago you wouldn't have animated movies and tv shows aimed at people in their twenties or thirty year olds playing video games.

There has been a rapid increase in narcissim as well as the millennials age (it was in the Atlantic) and I see this narcissism in generation x as well (see the mommy wars thread)

The baby boomers were far more violent at the same age. I'll take a little video game obsession over violence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:junk foods and processed foods should be taxed heavily

and people who rely on cheap, processed foods because they can't afford to buy healthier foods, should be given incentives (assistance) to buy healthier foods

A healthy life is the only incentive you need

A lot of people think like you. That is why I posted this in this thread. I don't agree that 'a healthy life is the only incentive you need.' That just doesn't work for a lot of people who don't pick healthier foods for the following reasons: they cannot afford healthier foods, they do not live anywhere near a store that sells healthier foods, they didn't grow up eating healthier foods, they may not even be aware of how unhealthy the foods they are eating are because that's all they've ever had, they don't know about their health problems because they don't go to the Dr., they don't know how to prepare healthy foods because they've never had access to them in the first place, they don't have time to prepare healthy foods because they work too much/are too busy w/ kids, etc. I know you could explain away any of those scenarios and I'm sure you'd say if any of those things describe someone then that person is just lazy/dumb, etc. but no matter the reason, the fact is that there are lot of unhealthy people in this country who basically survive on processed foods and do not eat fresh, healthy foods. This is a healthcare crisis. To some extent, it doesn't even matter how we got there so much as that we need to get out of it. And I think giving incentives and assistance to people to encourage them to choose healthier foods would be a good (baby) step in the right direction.

[Anonymous]

Kids shouldn't start 'real school' until they are 7 (not 4-6 as is currently the case) since it has been proven in many studies that children do better in school over all when they delay starting a very structured/long school day until age 7 and right now kindergarten is like what 1st grade used to be and is very intense for a lot of kids when they start it at 4-5, many kids are just not quite ready for 'real school' at those ages. Kindergarten and preschool should be primarily for play-based learning.

Going along with this, parents (mothers and fathers) should be given generous parental leave that can be used throughout the first 4 years of their child's life so that they are able to take time plenty of time off of work when the children are very young to provide a nurturing environment for the kids at home (they would not be getting 4 years off, but would have a very flexible/generous schedule with work so that they could work flex schedules during these years and the kids would never have to spend 10-12 hours a day in daycare.) And once the kids do start preschool (around age 4) their preschool/daycare should be subsidized by the state.

[Anonymous]

It's a great idea to stay together for the kids if you can keep it civil. Kids don't give a crap about your marriage. They want a harmonious home and as long as you can keep it civil -- even after leaving -- they will be fine. From a resource standpoint, if you can pull this off and choose to leave you are choosing to take resources from your children from your own happiness, which is selfish.

I also think romantic marriage is such a odd concept. Marriage is about as romantic as life. Sure, some times it's like Paris in the Spring. But others, you are in Moscow in January.

[Anonymous]

it's hard for me to feel badly for people who have lung cancer if they were smokers.

[Anonymous]

I think reading to young kids/babies is ridiculous. They have no idea what's going on as they're chewing and drooling on the book, yet the parents seem to congratulate themselves on how advanced their kid will turn out due to this nightly activity. Equally ridiculous is when baby gift questions come up and people suggest books; I'd like to give a gift that's useable before age 5 -- I'm not sure an infant who sleeps 20 hrs a day is the right audience for Goodnight Moon. I come from one of the higher academic performance cultures (ppl talk about it on here all the time) where reading to a kid is not even a consideration -- the past generations wouldn't even have thought to do it though my peers who were born and raised in the US are into it bc they hear it's SO important from their "American" friends.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think reading to young kids/babies is ridiculous. They have no idea what's going on as they're chewing and drooling on the book, yet the parents seem to congratulate themselves on how advanced their kid will turn out due to this nightly activity. Equally ridiculous is when baby gift questions come up and people suggest books; I'd like to give a gift that's useable before age 5 -- I'm not sure an infant who sleeps 20 hrs a day is the right audience for Goodnight Moon. I come from one of the higher academic performance cultures (ppl talk about it on here all the time) where reading to a kid is not even a consideration -- the past generations wouldn't even have thought to do it though my peers who were born and raised in the US are into it bc they hear it's SO important from their "American" friends.

Thanks for chiming in, Tiger Mom. Yes, please don't read to your kids before age 5.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's a great idea to stay together for the kids if you can keep it civil. Kids don't give a crap about your marriage. They want a harmonious home and as long as you can keep it civil -- even after leaving -- they will be fine. From a resource standpoint, if you can pull this off and choose to leave you are choosing to take resources from your children from your own happiness, which is selfish.

I also think romantic marriage is such a odd concept. Marriage is about as romantic as life. Sure, some times it's like Paris in the Spring. But others, you are in Moscow in January.

I am inclined to agree. Of course you should marry someone you could imagine spending the rest of your life with, ideally that's someone you love. But I think people who expect romantic love, passion, etc. ALL THE TIME after years of marriage are the ones who end up divorced. Their expectations are just out of line with reality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think reading to young kids/babies is ridiculous. They have no idea what's going on as they're chewing and drooling on the book, yet the parents seem to congratulate themselves on how advanced their kid will turn out due to this nightly activity. Equally ridiculous is when baby gift questions come up and people suggest books; I'd like to give a gift that's useable before age 5 -- I'm not sure an infant who sleeps 20 hrs a day is the right audience for Goodnight Moon. I come from one of the higher academic performance cultures (ppl talk about it on here all the time) where reading to a kid is not even a consideration -- the past generations wouldn't even have thought to do it though my peers who were born and raised in the US are into it bc they hear it's SO important from their "American" friends.

Thanks for chiming in, Tiger Mom. Yes, please don't read to your kids before age 5.

I'm a mother and an experienced nanny. Many babies and children respond in amazing, positive ways to the pictures in books and the cadence of reading. My current nanny child istwo and carries books around all day. We read to her as a baby bbecause she adored it and would sleep more easily. She will be reading by 4, but there's no congratulations involved- it's just who she is. Some children don't respond to books at a young age. The idea is to be in tune with the child and follow their lead on these things.

My own daughter was also into books very early, read at 4, and is a bookworm at age 17. I'm glad I didn't withhold books from her, thinking it was silly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

people who don't plan to have one parent home as the primary caregiver until their child/ren are at least school age should not be parents, this includes single by choice parents.

Agree with this 100%. I loved my job before I had my first child but knew having a baby meant leaving the workforce for many years. My kids are grown now (high school and beyond) and I am loving being back in the workforce. We didn't even consider children until we were as sure as we could be that one of us could be at home at least until they started school.

I think a lot of the problems we are seeing with kids and young adults today are directly related to 10+ hours in daycare away from their parent during those critical early years.

Honest question. Do you you truly think there are more problems now with kids and young adults than there were (say) 30 years ago or 60 years ago?

In some ways my view is that if that's going to be our criteria, we'd be better of sending every single kid to daycare because the kids of the 1950s stay-at-home moms sure didn't seem to turn out well as a group compared to the more recent generation that spent more time in daycare on average. As a group I think millenials are a kinder, more compassionate, less violent group than their predecessors. I am not a millenial but I am around a lot of them and I think they're a lot less self-centered than the Baby Boomers (who statistically had a lot more SAHMs). I think this shows up in crime and violence statistics as well.

I Disagree. With the millennial generation there is a large resistance to "growing up". Even twenty years ago you wouldn't have animated movies and tv shows aimed at people in their twenties or thirty year olds playing video games.

There has been a rapid increase in narcissim as well as the millennials age (it was in the Atlantic) and I see this narcissism in generation x as well (see the mommy wars thread)

The baby boomers were far more violent at the same age. I'll take a little video game obsession over violence.

The point has gone completely over your head.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think reading to young kids/babies is ridiculous. They have no idea what's going on as they're chewing and drooling on the book, yet the parents seem to congratulate themselves on how advanced their kid will turn out due to this nightly activity. Equally ridiculous is when baby gift questions come up and people suggest books; I'd like to give a gift that's useable before age 5 -- I'm not sure an infant who sleeps 20 hrs a day is the right audience for Goodnight Moon. I come from one of the higher academic performance cultures (ppl talk about it on here all the time) where reading to a kid is not even a consideration -- the past generations wouldn't even have thought to do it though my peers who were born and raised in the US are into it bc they hear it's SO important from their "American" friends.

Thanks for chiming in, Tiger Mom. Yes, please don't read to your kids before age 5.

I'm a mother and an experienced nanny. Many babies and children respond in amazing, positive ways to the pictures in books and the cadence of reading. My current nanny child istwo and carries books around all day. We read to her as a baby bbecause she adored it and would sleep more easily. She will be reading by 4, but there's no congratulations involved- it's just who she is. Some children don't respond to books at a young age. The idea is to be in tune with the child and follow their lead on these things.

My own daughter was also into books very early, read at 4, and is a bookworm at age 17. I'm glad I didn't withhold books from her, thinking it was silly.

That's great for your nannying child and your own child. I personally don't see the value in it. They don't end up any further ahead than anyone else just bc they were read to; or conversely they don't end up behind due to lack of reading from infancy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

people who don't plan to have one parent home as the primary caregiver until their child/ren are at least school age should not be parents, this includes single by choice parents.

Agree with this 100%. I loved my job before I had my first child but knew having a baby meant leaving the workforce for many years. My kids are grown now (high school and beyond) and I am loving being back in the workforce. We didn't even consider children until we were as sure as we could be that one of us could be at home at least until they started school.

I think a lot of the problems we are seeing with kids and young adults today are directly related to 10+ hours in daycare away from their parent during those critical early years.

Honest question. Do you you truly think there are more problems now with kids and young adults than there were (say) 30 years ago or 60 years ago?

In some ways my view is that if that's going to be our criteria, we'd be better of sending every single kid to daycare because the kids of the 1950s stay-at-home moms sure didn't seem to turn out well as a group compared to the more recent generation that spent more time in daycare on average. As a group I think millenials are a kinder, more compassionate, less violent group than their predecessors. I am not a millenial but I am around a lot of them and I think they're a lot less self-centered than the Baby Boomers (who statistically had a lot more SAHMs). I think this shows up in crime and violence statistics as well.

I Disagree. With the millennial generation there is a large resistance to "growing up". Even twenty years ago you wouldn't have animated movies and tv shows aimed at people in their twenties or thirty year olds playing video games.

There has been a rapid increase in narcissim as well as the millennials age (it was in the Atlantic) and I see this narcissism in generation x as well (see the mommy wars thread)

The baby boomers were far more violent at the same age. I'll take a little video game obsession over violence.

The point has gone completely over your head.

No, you're just uncomfortable because I'm right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think reading to young kids/babies is ridiculous. They have no idea what's going on as they're chewing and drooling on the book, yet the parents seem to congratulate themselves on how advanced their kid will turn out due to this nightly activity. Equally ridiculous is when baby gift questions come up and people suggest books; I'd like to give a gift that's useable before age 5 -- I'm not sure an infant who sleeps 20 hrs a day is the right audience for Goodnight Moon. I come from one of the higher academic performance cultures (ppl talk about it on here all the time) where reading to a kid is not even a consideration -- the past generations wouldn't even have thought to do it though my peers who were born and raised in the US are into it bc they hear it's SO important from their "American" friends.

Thanks for chiming in, Tiger Mom. Yes, please don't read to your kids before age 5.

I'm a mother and an experienced nanny. Many babies and children respond in amazing, positive ways to the pictures in books and the cadence of reading. My current nanny child istwo and carries books around all day. We read to her as a baby bbecause she adored it and would sleep more easily. She will be reading by 4, but there's no congratulations involved- it's just who she is. Some children don't respond to books at a young age. The idea is to be in tune with the child and follow their lead on these things.

My own daughter was also into books very early, read at 4, and is a bookworm at age 17. I'm glad I didn't withhold books from her, thinking it was silly.

That's great for your nannying child and your own child. I personally don't see the value in it. They don't end up any further ahead than anyone else just bc they were read to; or conversely they don't end up behind due to lack of reading from infancy.

Can'g you just do things with/for your child becuase of pure and simple enjoyment, anymore???!!!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think reading to young kids/babies is ridiculous. They have no idea what's going on as they're chewing and drooling on the book, yet the parents seem to congratulate themselves on how advanced their kid will turn out due to this nightly activity. Equally ridiculous is when baby gift questions come up and people suggest books; I'd like to give a gift that's useable before age 5 -- I'm not sure an infant who sleeps 20 hrs a day is the right audience for Goodnight Moon. I come from one of the higher academic performance cultures (ppl talk about it on here all the time) where reading to a kid is not even a consideration -- the past generations wouldn't even have thought to do it though my peers who were born and raised in the US are into it bc they hear it's SO important from their "American" friends.

Thanks for chiming in, Tiger Mom. Yes, please don't read to your kids before age 5.

I'm a mother and an experienced nanny. Many babies and children respond in amazing, positive ways to the pictures in books and the cadence of reading. My current nanny child istwo and carries books around all day. We read to her as a baby bbecause she adored it and would sleep more easily. She will be reading by 4, but there's no congratulations involved- it's just who she is. Some children don't respond to books at a young age. The idea is to be in tune with the child and follow their lead on these things.

My own daughter was also into books very early, read at 4, and is a bookworm at age 17. I'm glad I didn't withhold books from her, thinking it was silly.

That's great for your nannying child and your own child. I personally don't see the value in it. They don't end up any further ahead than anyone else just bc they were read to; or conversely they don't end up behind due to lack of reading from infancy.

Can'g you just do things with/for your child becuase of pure and simple enjoyment, anymore???!!!!!

Well I don't enjoy reading to a squirming toddler or a sleepy infant, so I wouldn't do it for enjoyment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think reading to young kids/babies is ridiculous. They have no idea what's going on as they're chewing and drooling on the book, yet the parents seem to congratulate themselves on how advanced their kid will turn out due to this nightly activity. Equally ridiculous is when baby gift questions come up and people suggest books; I'd like to give a gift that's useable before age 5 -- I'm not sure an infant who sleeps 20 hrs a day is the right audience for Goodnight Moon. I come from one of the higher academic performance cultures (ppl talk about it on here all the time) where reading to a kid is not even a consideration -- the past generations wouldn't even have thought to do it though my peers who were born and raised in the US are into it bc they hear it's SO important from their "American" friends.

Thanks for chiming in, Tiger Mom. Yes, please don't read to your kids before age 5.

I'm a mother and an experienced nanny. Many babies and children respond in amazing, positive ways to the pictures in books and the cadence of reading. My current nanny child istwo and carries books around all day. We read to her as a baby bbecause she adored it and would sleep more easily. She will be reading by 4, but there's no congratulations involved- it's just who she is. Some children don't respond to books at a young age. The idea is to be in tune with the child and follow their lead on these things.

My own daughter was also into books very early, read at 4, and is a bookworm at age 17. I'm glad I didn't withhold books from her, thinking it was silly.

That's great for your nannying child and your own child. I personally don't see the value in it. They don't end up any further ahead than anyone else just bc they were read to; or conversely they don't end up behind due to lack of reading from infancy.

Can'g you just do things with/for your child becuase of pure and simple enjoyment, anymore???!!!!!

The value is teaching a love of books, art, and reading early in life. Does one wait to introduce vegetables into a toddler's diet, because they might not eat it first thing? Do we wait to play games that challenge them, because they won't understand at first? Should I wait to introduce complex music that might foster a lifetime love of music, or just give them katy Perry ?
Your perspective is flawed, and it's not just Americans that read to young children. My bosses are Indian and believe firmly in books for small ones. It's about child developmen t and teaching value in the arts early.