NYT The Daily: The Parents Aren't All Right

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This article is such BS, it’s not about intensive parenting. It’s about having two working parents required to just get by, and then really expensive housing which makes everything else harder to manage and afford. There was a lot easier lifestyle where without intensive parenting, when you had a parent, who was home to take care of everything related to the kids as well as clean and cook.

But what parent really wants to give up everything to stay home cooking and cleaning? I know some people are happy to do it, but it shouldn’t be an expectation for good parenting.

Why are you devaluing SAH parents?

Because everything a SAH parent has all day to do still needs to be done by working parents, just without a lot less tome to actually do it

You have more money to pay to outsource so no I don’t think your comparison works.

No, all the “extra money” goes to paying for housing and education. The only people paying for outsourced home labor would be breadwinner families with loads of money, which can also usually afford a SAHM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, parents are expected to be so perfect now. Growing up in the 70s and 80s, if I screwed up, I got yelled at and told I was being an idiot. If I was really really bad, I would get spanked. I’m not saying that I support that approach, but now we tell parents you can’t spank your kids, you shouldn’t yell at them, you shouldn’t tell them that they are idiots, etc.—you just need to establish conditions under which they can thrive and engage in a reasonable discourse with tjhem about how they can meet those expectations, enforcing fair and consistent consequences for undesired behavior. That is waaaay harder than the old “Just wait until your father gets home!” Model of parenting. Of course it’s stressful — it’s a lot of work to parent that way!

Do you also complain bc you’re not allowed to pack Spam and Jello for lunch anymore, you actually have to give fruits and vegetables?

But we swung really far in the opposite direction. We have friends at a public charter who got lectured by the school because of "added sugars" in their kids' lunches. Things like jelly on a sandwich or a small cookie included for dessert. A public school! That's an insane amount if micromanaging of how parents are feeding their kids.

I'm glad parenting norms have changed for the better in a lot of ways but it's worth acknowledging that we've set the bar insanely high and given parents very little leeway for making mistakes or being human.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Listen to yesterday's episode on NAFTA. I don't think it's a coincidence that after NAFTA is when parenting expectations began skyrocketing.

There aren't enough good jobs for everyone. That's what it's all really about.

I predict the US is headed in the same direction as South Korea.

I totally agree with this. Ross Perot and "giant sucking sound of jobs being pulled out of this country" lives rent free in my head.

I will avoid posting my credentials but trust when I say I know a lot about the economics of international trade and job growth. I generally like the Daily but that episode was over general to the point of being inaccurate. And it rested on flawed assumptions it did not even discuss, much less prove.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Listen to yesterday's episode on NAFTA. I don't think it's a coincidence that after NAFTA is when parenting expectations began skyrocketing.

There aren't enough good jobs for everyone. That's what it's all really about.

I predict the US is headed in the same direction as South Korea.

I totally agree with this. Ross Perot and "giant sucking sound of jobs being pulled out of this country" lives rent free in my head.

I will avoid posting my credentials but trust when I say I know a lot about the economics of international trade and job growth. I generally like the Daily but that episode was over general to the point of being inaccurate. And it rested on flawed assumptions it did not even discuss, much less prove.

Can you be more specific?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Listen to yesterday's episode on NAFTA. I don't think it's a coincidence that after NAFTA is when parenting expectations began skyrocketing.

There aren't enough good jobs for everyone. That's what it's all really about.

I predict the US is headed in the same direction as South Korea.

Amazing episode and the perfect response to “How could anyone vote for Trump!”

[Anonymous]

I think another reason for the rise in “intensive parenting” is that people have so few kids these days. If you only have a couple of kids (like I do, as do most families I know), 1) you have more time to invest/micromanage their lives, and 2) the stakes may feel even higher re: how they turn out. Each kid can feel like a “project” to be managed, vs when people routinely had 4-5+ kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree it’s the stress about there not being enough good jobs for everyone and the labor market changing so quickly you can keep up (major in CS! No, don’t—all the CA jobs are being done by robots! Data science! No wait, robots are doing that now too! Wait we don’t even call it robots anymore—it’s AI!”)

My brothers grew up in the 50s and 60s, HS in the 70s. They got bad grades and smoked pot and got into actual fist fights. They got yelled ant by my dad annd grounded obviously but it was all basically fine. They have successful careers now. Nowadays if your son got into a fist fight, omg, you would be a social pariah and he’d probably be suspended. Get a couple of Cs and you’ll be lucky to get into any college. It’s a lot of effort to raise kids who don’t make mistakes! I’m a pretty low key parent that doesn’t care what other people think of me, but it’s still pretty stressful.

The demographics are strongly against the bolded being true. "Any" college might mean any T50, but for example my very average alma mater is easier to get into now than it was when I went there. And any kid with a couple of Cs can easily go to NOVA, pull themselves together, and transfer to a Virginia state school after 2 years and graduate with the same W&M, UVA, or VT degree as someone who did much better in high school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Listen to yesterday's episode on NAFTA. I don't think it's a coincidence that after NAFTA is when parenting expectations began skyrocketing.

There aren't enough good jobs for everyone. That's what it's all really about.

I predict the US is headed in the same direction as South Korea.

I totally agree with this. Ross Perot and "giant sucking sound of jobs being pulled out of this country" lives rent free in my head.

I will avoid posting my credentials but trust when I say I know a lot about the economics of international trade and job growth. I generally like the Daily but that episode was over general to the point of being inaccurate. And it rested on flawed assumptions it did not even discuss, much less prove.

Yeah, I would really like to hear what you think even if you can't provide your credentials.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think another reason for the rise in “intensive parenting” is that people have so few kids these days. If you only have a couple of kids (like I do, as do most families I know), 1) you have more time to invest/micromanage their lives, and 2) the stakes may feel even higher re: how they turn out. Each kid can feel like a “project” to be managed, vs when people routinely had 4-5+ kids.

Hmm, I see this differently.

When I was 1 of 4 my parents couldn't meet our needs (and their own) at the same time no matter how hard they tried. My brother had an undiagnosed special needs for years. I have an overbite that was never treated and have had tons of dental work as an adult to address it. Another brother developed addiction issues. My house was chaotic and stressful growing up and no one really felt good.

Now I have a small family and it's so much easier. Yes I feel the stress and pressure other people are talking about regarding judgment of my parenting or the costs of childcare and housing and college. But in terms of actual parenting it's so calm and easy with fewer needs. I work out regularly and have a hobby. Our house is often quiet. Everyone sleeps. There's very little conflict. There are way fewer financial issues.

I really do not think having fewer kids is a source of added stress. For me it's been the biggest reduction in stress compared to my own childhood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This article is such BS, it’s not about intensive parenting. It’s about having two working parents required to just get by, and then really expensive housing which makes everything else harder to manage and afford. There was a lot easier lifestyle where without intensive parenting, when you had a parent, who was home to take care of everything related to the kids as well as clean and cook.

But what parent really wants to give up everything to stay home cooking and cleaning? I know some people are happy to do it, but it shouldn’t be an expectation for good parenting.

Completely agree. Let's not romanticize the 1950s when the moms were unhappy and drinking, and the dads were completely checked out.

But today's reality isn't great either - notably the fact that mothers are still routinely the dominant parent in the home (with all the accompanying homemaker responsibilities). Even as moms have gotten more equality as wage-earners outside the homes, and dads have become more present, we are still so far from equity inside the home.

I personally am the one with the bigger career, but still find myself running the household. My husband definitely picks up the kid-related stuff: school pickups, sports coaching, etc - but never does laundry, cooking, etc. I'm exhausted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think another reason for the rise in “intensive parenting” is that people have so few kids these days. If you only have a couple of kids (like I do, as do most families I know), 1) you have more time to invest/micromanage their lives, and 2) the stakes may feel even higher re: how they turn out. Each kid can feel like a “project” to be managed, vs when people routinely had 4-5+ kids.

Hmm, I see this differently.

When I was 1 of 4 my parents couldn't meet our needs (and their own) at the same time no matter how hard they tried. My brother had an undiagnosed special needs for years. I have an overbite that was never treated and have had tons of dental work as an adult to address it. Another brother developed addiction issues. My house was chaotic and stressful growing up and no one really felt good.

Now I have a small family and it's so much easier. Yes I feel the stress and pressure other people are talking about regarding judgment of my parenting or the costs of childcare and housing and college. But in terms of actual parenting it's so calm and easy with fewer needs. I work out regularly and have a hobby. Our house is often quiet. Everyone sleeps. There's very little conflict. There are way fewer financial issues.

I really do not think having fewer kids is a source of added stress. For me it's been the biggest reduction in stress compared to my own childhood.

I wasn’t really trying to say that fewer kids = more stress, just that having fewer is part of what even allows parents to have enough time to be so intensely involved. But obviously this varies by family. I am the middle kid of 5 (with a SAHM), and I never felt neglected, ignored, etc. We all got the medical care & education we needed. Our house was often chaotic, but not in a bad way. But we did spend a lot of time together as siblings, but away from adults.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree it’s the stress about there not being enough good jobs for everyone and the labor market changing so quickly you can keep up (major in CS! No, don’t—all the CA jobs are being done by robots! Data science! No wait, robots are doing that now too! Wait we don’t even call it robots anymore—it’s AI!”)

My brothers grew up in the 50s and 60s, HS in the 70s. They got bad grades and smoked pot and got into actual fist fights. They got yelled ant by my dad annd grounded obviously but it was all basically fine. They have successful careers now. Nowadays if your son got into a fist fight, omg, you would be a social pariah and he’d probably be suspended. Get a couple of Cs and you’ll be lucky to get into any college. It’s a lot of effort to raise kids who don’t make mistakes! I’m a pretty low key parent that doesn’t care what other people think of me, but it’s still pretty stressful.

The demographics are strongly against the bolded being true. "Any" college might mean any T50, but for example my very average alma mater is easier to get into now than it was when I went there. And any kid with a couple of Cs can easily go to NOVA, pull themselves together, and transfer to a Virginia state school after 2 years and graduate with the same W&M, UVA, or VT degree as someone who did much better in high school.

Please tell me your alma later that my kid can get into with multiple Cs! We are not in Virginia so unfortunately the nova community college trick doesn’t work for us. It’s getting much harder to get into state universities and a lot of the lower tier private are going out of business.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, parents are expected to be so perfect now. Growing up in the 70s and 80s, if I screwed up, I got yelled at and told I was being an idiot. If I was really really bad, I would get spanked. I’m not saying that I support that approach, but now we tell parents you can’t spank your kids, you shouldn’t yell at them, you shouldn’t tell them that they are idiots, etc.—you just need to establish conditions under which they can thrive and engage in a reasonable discourse with tjhem about how they can meet those expectations, enforcing fair and consistent consequences for undesired behavior. That is waaaay harder than the old “Just wait until your father gets home!” Model of parenting. Of course it’s stressful — it’s a lot of work to parent that way!

Do you also complain bc you’re not allowed to pack Spam and Jello for lunch anymore, you actually have to give fruits and vegetables?

I’m not complaining. I am pointing out that it is a lot more work to educate yourself on positive parenting techniques and implement them successfully, just like it’s a lot more work to buy and prep fresh food.

My mom was a 1960s housewife who gave up a stem degree to raise lots of kids. She wasn’t depressed but she has a lot of anxiety over housework and cleanliness — basically all that extra mental energy that should have gone into running a lab was misdirected at her job as a housewife. It’s one reason why I always wanted a career outside the home — so I had someplace to put my mental energy other than hospital corners on the bed, etc. (I never make the bed.). But it’s definitely hard to find a balance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, parents are expected to be so perfect now. Growing up in the 70s and 80s, if I screwed up, I got yelled at and told I was being an idiot. If I was really really bad, I would get spanked. I’m not saying that I support that approach, but now we tell parents you can’t spank your kids, you shouldn’t yell at them, you shouldn’t tell them that they are idiots, etc.—you just need to establish conditions under which they can thrive and engage in a reasonable discourse with tjhem about how they can meet those expectations, enforcing fair and consistent consequences for undesired behavior. That is waaaay harder than the old “Just wait until your father gets home!” Model of parenting. Of course it’s stressful — it’s a lot of work to parent that way!

Do you also complain bc you’re not allowed to pack Spam and Jello for lunch anymore, you actually have to give fruits and vegetables?

I’m not complaining. I am pointing out that it is a lot more work to educate yourself on positive parenting techniques and implement them successfully, just like it’s a lot more work to buy and prep fresh food.

My mom was a 1960s housewife who gave up a stem degree to raise lots of kids. She wasn’t depressed but she has a lot of anxiety over housework and cleanliness — basically all that extra mental energy that should have gone into running a lab was misdirected at her job as a housewife. It’s one reason why I always wanted a career outside the home — so I had someplace to put my mental energy other than hospital corners on the bed, etc. (I never make the bed.). But it’s definitely hard to find a balance.

I once read a book on the history of home economics majors in the US, a topic which randomly fascinated me. One thing I realized is that so much of the detail that used to go into these classes was women simply pouring attention that might have gone into a chemistry lab into the chemistry of laundry, and so on and so on.

I'm a terrible housekeeper and could probably use more of the attention to detail these women had, but I think it could absolutely get crazy and excessive in the early and mid 20th century.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree it’s the stress about there not being enough good jobs for everyone and the labor market changing so quickly you can keep up (major in CS! No, don’t—all the CA jobs are being done by robots! Data science! No wait, robots are doing that now too! Wait we don’t even call it robots anymore—it’s AI!”)

My brothers grew up in the 50s and 60s, HS in the 70s. They got bad grades and smoked pot and got into actual fist fights. They got yelled ant by my dad annd grounded obviously but it was all basically fine. They have successful careers now. Nowadays if your son got into a fist fight, omg, you would be a social pariah and he’d probably be suspended. Get a couple of Cs and you’ll be lucky to get into any college. It’s a lot of effort to raise kids who don’t make mistakes! I’m a pretty low key parent that doesn’t care what other people think of me, but it’s still pretty stressful.

The demographics are strongly against the bolded being true. "Any" college might mean any T50, but for example my very average alma mater is easier to get into now than it was when I went there. And any kid with a couple of Cs can easily go to NOVA, pull themselves together, and transfer to a Virginia state school after 2 years and graduate with the same W&M, UVA, or VT degree as someone who did much better in high school.

Please tell me your alma later that my kid can get into with multiple Cs! We are not in Virginia so unfortunately the nova community college trick doesn’t work for us. It’s getting much harder to get into state universities and a lot of the lower tier private are going out of business.

Unfortunately I only know Virginia, but is there no equivalent to Radford where you live? Enrollment there and at Mary Washington is already going off a cliff and only going to get worse: https://cardinalnews.org/2024/10/09/state-report-says-seven-small-universities-should-be-monitored-as-enrollment-cliff-approaches/

Some of these small schools will find ways to survive, and part of that will be cheerfully accepting kids who aren't strivers.

I happen to know because I reviewed scholarship applications for a non-profit I was part of that kids with things like a 2.7 GPA are easily getting into places like Christopher Newport.

If you define "state schools" as UMD or UVA/VT/W&M then sure, it's hard.