Since this is anonymous, why did you REALLY redshirt your kid?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My thinking is, if it's possible to give them an edge (socially, academically, physically) why wouldn't you??

I do everything I can to give my kids a leg up on the competition.

I want my kids to learn they need to work harder sometimes. They aren’t always going to have an unfair advantage. Plus they are UMC white boys. They already were born more than halfway up the ladder. If they can’t figure things out and be successful adults, shame on me as a parent.

I can't decide whether this is satire or not. The idea that your coddled white UMC boys are going to learn to handle adversity by being the youngest in your wealthy school district is ... something.

You want to teach them real adversity? Move, and for God's sake do not ever talk like this in public again. It's painfully embarrassing.

Move? Why do they can be at the top of a less competitive district because they are UMC kids with more advantages? People do that strategically too, to get into competitive state schools that accept x percent of kids at the top of their school ranking.

No. So they can see what real adversity is rather than pretend adversity. They sure aren't learning any insights from you, that much is obvious.

Our kids have been volunteering with at-risk + disadvantaged people since they were 2 and a half. And not a one time gig, a weekly thing. I also work in that sector, give substantial $ and volunteer hundreds of hours a year. You’re ignorant if you think moving in the best option for everyone. And you’re ignorant if you don’t think UMC kids have a huge advantage anywhere they go. It’s really not teaching then adversity when it isn’t their personal struggle. I just said they would have to “work harder” than if I helped them back which is true. It’s still should not be a hardship for them by any means to go on time.

[Anonymous]

Typing in my phone without an app! sorry for typos

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My thinking is, if it's possible to give them an edge (socially, academically, physically) why wouldn't you??

I do everything I can to give my kids a leg up on the competition.

I want my kids to learn they need to work harder sometimes. They aren’t always going to have an unfair advantage. Plus they are UMC white boys. They already were born more than halfway up the ladder. If they can’t figure things out and be successful adults, shame on me as a parent.

I can't decide whether this is satire or not. The idea that your coddled white UMC boys are going to learn to handle adversity by being the youngest in your wealthy school district is ... something.

You want to teach them real adversity? Move, and for God's sake do not ever talk like this in public again. It's painfully embarrassing.

Move? Why do they can be at the top of a less competitive district because they are UMC kids with more advantages? People do that strategically too, to get into competitive state schools that accept x percent of kids at the top of their school ranking.

It’s not really adversity if they aren’t personally struggling. You realize that right?

No. So they can see what real adversity is rather than pretend adversity. They sure aren't learning any insights from you, that much is obvious.

Pretty sure your delicate spoiled flowers wouldn't last a day in my local middle school, but you keep on believing that they are learning "adversity" by being the youngest in your wealthy school district.

I do love the redshirting debates, though, because it yields clueless entertainment like this poster. Such adversity! Much struggle!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My thinking is, if it's possible to give them an edge (socially, academically, physically) why wouldn't you??

I do everything I can to give my kids a leg up on the competition.

I want my kids to learn they need to work harder sometimes. They aren’t always going to have an unfair advantage. Plus they are UMC white boys. They already were born more than halfway up the ladder. If they can’t figure things out and be successful adults, shame on me as a parent.

I can't decide whether this is satire or not. The idea that your coddled white UMC boys are going to learn to handle adversity by being the youngest in your wealthy school district is ... something.

You want to teach them real adversity? Move, and for God's sake do not ever talk like this in public again. It's painfully embarrassing.

Move? Why do they can be at the top of a less competitive district because they are UMC kids with more advantages? People do that strategically too, to get into competitive state schools that accept x percent of kids at the top of their school ranking.

It’s not really adversity if they aren’t personally struggling. You realize that right?

No. So they can see what real adversity is rather than pretend adversity. They sure aren't learning any insights from you, that much is obvious.

Pretty sure your delicate spoiled flowers wouldn't last a day in my local middle school, but you keep on believing that they are learning "adversity" by being the youngest in your wealthy school district.

I do love the redshirting debates, though, because it yields clueless entertainment like this poster. Such adversity! Much struggle!

Sorry you live in such a hellhole. Maybe you should move?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My thinking is, if it's possible to give them an edge (socially, academically, physically) why wouldn't you??

I do everything I can to give my kids a leg up on the competition.

I want my kids to learn they need to work harder sometimes. They aren’t always going to have an unfair advantage. Plus they are UMC white boys. They already were born more than halfway up the ladder. If they can’t figure things out and be successful adults, shame on me as a parent.

I can't decide whether this is satire or not. The idea that your coddled white UMC boys are going to learn to handle adversity by being the youngest in your wealthy school district is ... something.

You want to teach them real adversity? Move, and for God's sake do not ever talk like this in public again. It's painfully embarrassing.

Move? Why do they can be at the top of a less competitive district because they are UMC kids with more advantages? People do that strategically too, to get into competitive state schools that accept x percent of kids at the top of their school ranking.

It’s not really adversity if they aren’t personally struggling. You realize that right?

No. So they can see what real adversity is rather than pretend adversity. They sure aren't learning any insights from you, that much is obvious.

Pretty sure your delicate spoiled flowers wouldn't last a day in my local middle school, but you keep on believing that they are learning "adversity" by being the youngest in your wealthy school district.

I do love the redshirting debates, though, because it yields clueless entertainment like this poster. Such adversity! Much struggle!

And why is that? What about your local middle school would be an issue for them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My thinking is, if it's possible to give them an edge (socially, academically, physically) why wouldn't you??

I do everything I can to give my kids a leg up on the competition.

I want my kids to learn they need to work harder sometimes. They aren’t always going to have an unfair advantage. Plus they are UMC white boys. They already were born more than halfway up the ladder. If they can’t figure things out and be successful adults, shame on me as a parent.

I can't decide whether this is satire or not. The idea that your coddled white UMC boys are going to learn to handle adversity by being the youngest in your wealthy school district is ... something.

You want to teach them real adversity? Move, and for God's sake do not ever talk like this in public again. It's painfully embarrassing.

Move? Why do they can be at the top of a less competitive district because they are UMC kids with more advantages? People do that strategically too, to get into competitive state schools that accept x percent of kids at the top of their school ranking.

It’s not really adversity if they aren’t personally struggling. You realize that right?

No. So they can see what real adversity is rather than pretend adversity. They sure aren't learning any insights from you, that much is obvious.

Pretty sure your delicate spoiled flowers wouldn't last a day in my local middle school, but you keep on believing that they are learning "adversity" by being the youngest in your wealthy school district.

I do love the redshirting debates, though, because it yields clueless entertainment like this poster. Such adversity! Much struggle!

Your local middle school? Do you actually have children of your own that attend it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My thinking is, if it's possible to give them an edge (socially, academically, physically) why wouldn't you??

I do everything I can to give my kids a leg up on the competition.

I want my kids to learn they need to work harder sometimes. They aren’t always going to have an unfair advantage. Plus they are UMC white boys. They already were born more than halfway up the ladder. If they can’t figure things out and be successful adults, shame on me as a parent.

I can't decide whether this is satire or not. The idea that your coddled white UMC boys are going to learn to handle adversity by being the youngest in your wealthy school district is ... something.

You want to teach them real adversity? Move, and for God's sake do not ever talk like this in public again. It's painfully embarrassing.

Move? Why do they can be at the top of a less competitive district because they are UMC kids with more advantages? People do that strategically too, to get into competitive state schools that accept x percent of kids at the top of their school ranking.

No. So they can see what real adversity is rather than pretend adversity. They sure aren't learning any insights from you, that much is obvious.

Our kids have been volunteering with at-risk + disadvantaged people since they were 2 and a half. And not a one time gig, a weekly thing. I also work in that sector, give substantial $ and volunteer hundreds of hours a year. You’re ignorant if you think moving in the best option for everyone. And you’re ignorant if you don’t think UMC kids have a huge advantage anywhere they go. It’s really not teaching then adversity when it isn’t their personal struggle. I just said they would have to “work harder” than if I helped them back which is true. It’s still should not be a hardship for them by any means to go on time.

You'd better hope your kids learn their social skills elsewhere. Pro tip: disadvantaged people aren't zoo animals you take toddlers to watch. Jesus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My thinking is, if it's possible to give them an edge (socially, academically, physically) why wouldn't you??

I do everything I can to give my kids a leg up on the competition.

I want my kids to learn they need to work harder sometimes. They aren’t always going to have an unfair advantage. Plus they are UMC white boys. They already were born more than halfway up the ladder. If they can’t figure things out and be successful adults, shame on me as a parent.

I can't decide whether this is satire or not. The idea that your coddled white UMC boys are going to learn to handle adversity by being the youngest in your wealthy school district is ... something.

You want to teach them real adversity? Move, and for God's sake do not ever talk like this in public again. It's painfully embarrassing.

Move? Why do they can be at the top of a less competitive district because they are UMC kids with more advantages? People do that strategically too, to get into competitive state schools that accept x percent of kids at the top of their school ranking.

It’s not really adversity if they aren’t personally struggling. You realize that right?

No. So they can see what real adversity is rather than pretend adversity. They sure aren't learning any insights from you, that much is obvious.

Pretty sure your delicate spoiled flowers wouldn't last a day in my local middle school, but you keep on believing that they are learning "adversity" by being the youngest in your wealthy school district.

I do love the redshirting debates, though, because it yields clueless entertainment like this poster. Such adversity! Much struggle!

Your local middle school? Do you actually have children of your own that attend it?

Yes. My kid attended. Which is how I know that PPs spoiled kids, who have been taught that disadvantaged kids are like zoo animals who need their charity, would never manage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My thinking is, if it's possible to give them an edge (socially, academically, physically) why wouldn't you??

I do everything I can to give my kids a leg up on the competition.

I want my kids to learn they need to work harder sometimes. They aren’t always going to have an unfair advantage. Plus they are UMC white boys. They already were born more than halfway up the ladder. If they can’t figure things out and be successful adults, shame on me as a parent.

I can't decide whether this is satire or not. The idea that your coddled white UMC boys are going to learn to handle adversity by being the youngest in your wealthy school district is ... something.

You want to teach them real adversity? Move, and for God's sake do not ever talk like this in public again. It's painfully embarrassing.

Move? Why do they can be at the top of a less competitive district because they are UMC kids with more advantages? People do that strategically too, to get into competitive state schools that accept x percent of kids at the top of their school ranking.

It’s not really adversity if they aren’t personally struggling. You realize that right?

No. So they can see what real adversity is rather than pretend adversity. They sure aren't learning any insights from you, that much is obvious.

Pretty sure your delicate spoiled flowers wouldn't last a day in my local middle school, but you keep on believing that they are learning "adversity" by being the youngest in your wealthy school district.

I do love the redshirting debates, though, because it yields clueless entertainment like this poster. Such adversity! Much struggle!

The "grit" that people usually discuss in redshirting debates and the adversity you are talking about are different. People seem to be conflating it here, but minorities from lower income homes (like I was) can end up not developing "grit" when it comes to schoolwork too.

Overcoming "adversity" and being "gritty" in school aren't the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My thinking is, if it's possible to give them an edge (socially, academically, physically) why wouldn't you??

I do everything I can to give my kids a leg up on the competition.

I want my kids to learn they need to work harder sometimes. They aren’t always going to have an unfair advantage. Plus they are UMC white boys. They already were born more than halfway up the ladder. If they can’t figure things out and be successful adults, shame on me as a parent.

I can't decide whether this is satire or not. The idea that your coddled white UMC boys are going to learn to handle adversity by being the youngest in your wealthy school district is ... something.

You want to teach them real adversity? Move, and for God's sake do not ever talk like this in public again. It's painfully embarrassing.

Move? Why do they can be at the top of a less competitive district because they are UMC kids with more advantages? People do that strategically too, to get into competitive state schools that accept x percent of kids at the top of their school ranking.

No. So they can see what real adversity is rather than pretend adversity. They sure aren't learning any insights from you, that much is obvious.

Our kids have been volunteering with at-risk + disadvantaged people since they were 2 and a half. And not a one time gig, a weekly thing. I also work in that sector, give substantial $ and volunteer hundreds of hours a year. You’re ignorant if you think moving in the best option for everyone. And you’re ignorant if you don’t think UMC kids have a huge advantage anywhere they go. It’s really not teaching then adversity when it isn’t their personal struggle. I just said they would have to “work harder” than if I helped them back which is true. It’s still should not be a hardship for them by any means to go on time.

You'd better hope your kids learn their social skills elsewhere. Pro tip: disadvantaged people aren't zoo animals you take toddlers to watch. Jesus.

You’re clueless and talking in circles. You also have major reading comprehension fail. I never said my kids would be facing any adversity, at all. I said my kids would face adversity. I said they had it easy because they were born UMC, male and white, and if they couldn’t figure out how to be successful without me giving them even further advantages like holding them back, shame on me.

[Anonymous]

I said my kids would *not* face adversity. -typo

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Socially immature girl, smart but late reader

How did you know she was going to be a late reader when she was 4?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My thinking is, if it's possible to give them an edge (socially, academically, physically) why wouldn't you??

I do everything I can to give my kids a leg up on the competition.

I want my kids to learn they need to work harder sometimes. They aren’t always going to have an unfair advantage. Plus they are UMC white boys. They already were born more than halfway up the ladder. If they can’t figure things out and be successful adults, shame on me as a parent.

I can't decide whether this is satire or not. The idea that your coddled white UMC boys are going to learn to handle adversity by being the youngest in your wealthy school district is ... something.

You want to teach them real adversity? Move, and for God's sake do not ever talk like this in public again. It's painfully embarrassing.

Move? Why do they can be at the top of a less competitive district because they are UMC kids with more advantages? People do that strategically too, to get into competitive state schools that accept x percent of kids at the top of their school ranking.

It’s not really adversity if they aren’t personally struggling. You realize that right?

No. So they can see what real adversity is rather than pretend adversity. They sure aren't learning any insights from you, that much is obvious.

Pretty sure your delicate spoiled flowers wouldn't last a day in my local middle school, but you keep on believing that they are learning "adversity" by being the youngest in your wealthy school district.

I do love the redshirting debates, though, because it yields clueless entertainment like this poster. Such adversity! Much struggle!

Your local middle school? Do you actually have children of your own that attend it?

Yes. My kid attended. Which is how I know that PPs spoiled kids, who have been taught that disadvantaged kids are like zoo animals who need their charity, would never manage.

Your kids attended and have an enormous advantage due to being UMC or UC and additional support and resources. I’m sure their class rank was very high and they did very well. It’s not exactly a fair playing field is it? Just because your children succeeded in that environment, it doesn’t mean their peers facing real adversity did! But please elaborate, what did your privileged children have to overcome at this school?

[Anonymous]

Our kids have been volunteering with at-risk + disadvantaged people since they were 2 and a half. And not a one time gig, a weekly thing. I also work in that sector, give substantial $ and volunteer hundreds of hours a year. You’re ignorant if you think moving in the best option for everyone. And you’re ignorant if you don’t think UMC kids have a huge advantage anywhere they go. It’s really not teaching then adversity when it isn’t their personal struggle. I just said they would have to “work harder” than if I helped them back which is true. It’s still should not be a hardship for them by any means to go on time.

JHC! You are the ignorant one, so, so much! You had your 2 year olds volunteer with poor people since 2?!! The real lesson was that they are better than these "losers," as the other pp said, in the Zoo. There has to stop this habit to treating people like objects. I am absolutely appalled, just disgusted by what you wrote and did. Nothing above pp wrote comes close to the insane and detached behavior you did and how you treated poor people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My thinking is, if it's possible to give them an edge (socially, academically, physically) why wouldn't you??

I do everything I can to give my kids a leg up on the competition.

I want my kids to learn they need to work harder sometimes. They aren’t always going to have an unfair advantage. Plus they are UMC white boys. They already were born more than halfway up the ladder. If they can’t figure things out and be successful adults, shame on me as a parent.

I can't decide whether this is satire or not. The idea that your coddled white UMC boys are going to learn to handle adversity by being the youngest in your wealthy school district is ... something.

You want to teach them real adversity? Move, and for God's sake do not ever talk like this in public again. It's painfully embarrassing.

Move? Why do they can be at the top of a less competitive district because they are UMC kids with more advantages? People do that strategically too, to get into competitive state schools that accept x percent of kids at the top of their school ranking.

No. So they can see what real adversity is rather than pretend adversity. They sure aren't learning any insights from you, that much is obvious.

Our kids have been volunteering with at-risk + disadvantaged people since they were 2 and a half. And not a one time gig, a weekly thing. I also work in that sector, give substantial $ and volunteer hundreds of hours a year. You’re ignorant if you think moving in the best option for everyone. And you’re ignorant if you don’t think UMC kids have a huge advantage anywhere they go. It’s really not teaching then adversity when it isn’t their personal struggle. I just said they would have to “work harder” than if I helped them back which is true. It’s still should not be a hardship for them by any means to go on time.

You'd better hope your kids learn their social skills elsewhere. Pro tip: disadvantaged people aren't zoo animals you take toddlers to watch. Jesus.

You’re clueless and talking in circles. You also have major reading comprehension fail. I never said my kids would be facing any adversity, at all. I said my kids would face adversity. I said they had it easy because they were born UMC, male and white, and if they couldn’t figure out how to be successful without me giving them even further advantages like holding them back, shame on me.

What kind of a parent talks about their own children this way? Most of the people that I know who red shirted their kids weren't doing so to get some sort of unfair advantage for their kid, they did it for maturity reasons. Maybe their kid was slow to potty train, or shy or small for their age and they thought another year to mature before starting K would be helpful.