Most annoying modern parenting lingo

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:re: daycare is not school, and if Bright Horizons calls itself a school for 9 mo old babies by golly so should -you- ...

if your office started announcing that it was to be called "a party" from now on, would that actually make it a party? As in, I'm so tired from my party today? If your Methodist church started calling itself a sports bar, does that actually make it a sports bar?

Infants that shit themselves, have 4 teeth and can't say more than 2 words do not attend school. It's really simple.

The 2.5 yo situation is different, possibly.

Thank you for the voice of reason.

[Anonymous]

Are preschoolers allowed to say "school?" I'd hate for them to offend. Now, my 2yo goes to daycare, but starting at 3 or 4 they move to a more formal curriculum - can he say he's in school then? But his little sister, just down in the hall, has to be in "daycare," right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Positive discipline. IMO discipline isn't supposed to be a positive experience.

Positive discipline is teaching children to do the right thing. Negative discipline is punishment.

Right! Children who are misbehaving sometimes need to be punished. The result of misbehavior should not be something positive.

Is there a phrase for this new approach to parenting -- the one that has to put a positive spin on most everything? Whatever that term is would be on my list of most annoying.

Positive discipline doesn't mean the child thrown a tantrum and you hand him a lollipop. Natural consequences are often considered "positive discipline." The term may be new (and not one I'd choose to use), but the approach isn't.

"Natural consequences" sounds like we are willing to let circumstances handle the situation but we are unwilling to establish those consequences ourselves. If my child is bad to other kids, the natural consequence is that he ends up friendless. I think it's better that he face my consequences before that happens. Of course I am going to teach him the right thing, but I am going to punish him if he hurts other children.

This is a strawman. No one advocates for allowing a child to hurt other children. But if my child wants to run around at supper time, I won't ignore it but neither will I turn it into a battle of wills. I could punish him, try to force him to eat, or let him suffer the "natural consequence" of skipping supper - he's hungry at bedtime.

But why does it have to be "natural consequences" versus "a battle of wills"? I think there is a middle ground. Oftentimes there is not a suitable natural consequence -- for example, a child doesn't want to change out of his superman costume into his regular clothes for preschool; a natural consequence would be to take the child to school in his costume (which he would love to do) or not go to school (which he would equally love). Parents work, so child has to go to school no matter what. Teachers would not permit child to attend in his costume because superheroes are banned, but they would not discipline the child, rather they would call the parents in to have the child change clothes. So what is the natural consequence? For my family, taking away something (a lovey, or turning off the TV or something) works in the short-term, and then we focus on how to prevent the incident in the long-term (such as ensuring that child gets dressed in school clothes as soon as he wakes up).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Positive discipline. IMO discipline isn't supposed to be a positive experience.

Positive discipline is teaching children to do the right thing. Negative discipline is punishment.

Right! Children who are misbehaving sometimes need to be punished. The result of misbehavior should not be something positive.

Is there a phrase for this new approach to parenting -- the one that has to put a positive spin on most everything? Whatever that term is would be on my list of most annoying.

Positive discipline doesn't mean the child thrown a tantrum and you hand him a lollipop. Natural consequences are often considered "positive discipline." The term may be new (and not one I'd choose to use), but the approach isn't.

"Natural consequences" sounds like we are willing to let circumstances handle the situation but we are unwilling to establish those consequences ourselves. If my child is bad to other kids, the natural consequence is that he ends up friendless. I think it's better that he face my consequences before that happens. Of course I am going to teach him the right thing, but I am going to punish him if he hurts other children.

This is a strawman. No one advocates for allowing a child to hurt other children. But if my child wants to run around at supper time, I won't ignore it but neither will I turn it into a battle of wills. I could punish him, try to force him to eat, or let him suffer the "natural consequence" of skipping supper - he's hungry at bedtime.

But why does it have to be "natural consequences" versus "a battle of wills"? I think there is a middle ground. Oftentimes there is not a suitable natural consequence -- for example, a child doesn't want to change out of his superman costume into his regular clothes for preschool; a natural consequence would be to take the child to school in his costume (which he would love to do) or not go to school (which he would equally love). Parents work, so child has to go to school no matter what. Teachers would not permit child to attend in his costume because superheroes are banned, but they would not discipline the child, rather they would call the parents in to have the child change clothes. So what is the natural consequence? For my family, taking away something (a lovey, or turning off the TV or something) works in the short-term, and then we focus on how to prevent the incident in the long-term (such as ensuring that child gets dressed in school clothes as soon as he wakes up).

It is possible that one wouldn't use the same discipline technique in all situations and that using natural consequences at dinner doesn't bar you from using other techniques. I wouldn't let my child fall off the tall slide to teach him not to climb it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:re: daycare is not school, and if Bright Horizons calls itself a school for 9 mo old babies by golly so should -you- ...

if your office started announcing that it was to be called "a party" from now on, would that actually make it a party? As in, I'm so tired from my party today? If your Methodist church started calling itself a sports bar, does that actually make it a sports bar?

Infants that shit themselves, have 4 teeth and can't say more than 2 words do not attend school. It's really simple.

The 2.5 yo situation is different, possibly.

I think the reason many of us call it "school" is that we have multiple children who attend a center -- baby in the infant room and 4 year old in Pre-K (which has certified teachers with Master's Degrees, BTW) -- and think it's silly to say, "C'mon, we need to go to school and daycare!" when we're going to the same building. If they attended a in-home daycare with no formal curriculum, I would probably call it "daycare." But besides that, what's wrong with calling it "school" in the first place? The kids are in a structured setting, doing teacher-instructed tasks -- much like the school environment they will enter into in Kindergarten. Why not instill the concept of "going to school" early? I don't see what the big deal is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:re: daycare is not school, and if Bright Horizons calls itself a school for 9 mo old babies by golly so should -you- ...

if your office started announcing that it was to be called "a party" from now on, would that actually make it a party? As in, I'm so tired from my party today? If your Methodist church started calling itself a sports bar, does that actually make it a sports bar?

Infants that shit themselves, have 4 teeth and can't say more than 2 words do not attend school. It's really simple.

The 2.5 yo situation is different, possibly.

I think the reason many of us call it "school" is that we have multiple children who attend a center -- baby in the infant room and 4 year old in Pre-K (which has certified teachers with Master's Degrees, BTW) -- and think it's silly to say, "C'mon, we need to go to school and daycare!" when we're going to the same building. If they attended a in-home daycare with no formal curriculum, I would probably call it "daycare." But besides that, what's wrong with calling it "school" in the first place? The kids are in a structured setting, doing teacher-instructed tasks -- much like the school environment they will enter into in Kindergarten. Why not instill the concept of "going to school" early? I don't see what the big deal is.

I agree. I'm happy my child is excited to go to school and plan to ride that train as long as possible.

[Anonymous]

redshirting. Your kid is 4 (or 5 or whatever) you are holding him back a year from school not maintaining his college athletic eligibility while he recovers from acl surgery.

[Anonymous]

Why not instill the concept of "going to school" early? I don't see what the big deal is.

It's not a big deal, and really none of the peeves cited in this thread are big deals (hence the thread title, "annoying.")

Calling schedule-driven babysitting "school" (9 a.m. - 10 a.m.: outdoor time; 10 a.m. - 10:30 a.m.: snack; 10:30 - 11 a.m.: play with big toys in center of the carpeted room) is a way to make working parents feel better. That's why they do it. It's not a crime, it's just transparent and annoying.

[Anonymous]

"the gift of a year"


[why are only boys ever given this "gift"?]

[Anonymous]

I'll admit the school for daycare/infants is ridiculous, but we do it anyway - partly because it is just funny. My 17 month old has her lunch box and everything, and the other day my husband had her all dressed in her adorable jeans and sneakers and had her lunch box and presented her to me and said, "all ready for school!" and we just cracked up.

As long as you don't take it too seriously and are scheming to get your kid into Harvard starting with the curriculum at 6 months it is harmless.

Also agree with PP above, might as well get them into school mode when they are geniunely excited to go to daycare - maybe it will stick!

I think the root of the problem of annoying modern parenting lingo is that it is ALL ABOUT the child now and it wasn't when we were growing up. I think there are pros and cons to that. Don't me wrong, I had wonderful parents and there lives were dedicated to raising us - from every decision they made. But it was just less kid-centric. My mom didn't have "play dates." She got together with her mom friends because they were all at home and they did a project together and the kids came along. Yes, we had fun and played with each other but the point of the outing was for the moms, not the kids.

Now the focus is completely shifted even though the act is essentially the same thing.

Definitely not knocking the play date itself, I just hate the term!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Why not instill the concept of "going to school" early? I don't see what the big deal is.

It's not a big deal, and really none of the peeves cited in this thread are big deals (hence the thread title, "annoying.")

Calling schedule-driven babysitting "school" (9 a.m. - 10 a.m.: outdoor time; 10 a.m. - 10:30 a.m.: snack; 10:30 - 11 a.m.: play with big toys in center of the carpeted room) is a way to make working parents feel better. That's why they do it. It's not a crime, it's just transparent and annoying.

No, that this not why "we" do it. Maybe that's why YOU do it, or maybe you SAH and have no idea. Your concept of what children do in these centers is a little off -- my daughter has a formal curriculum they follow and they complete a large workbook throughout the year. My daughter has learned her numbers in 3 languages, she can write her alphabet (upper and lower cases) and name, and she knows how to read short words. She's 4. I don't feel guilty of taking her to a daycare center in the least -- in fact, she probably learns more there than she would at home. But again, it's the idea of instilling the concept of the learning environment in children that I think is important.

[Anonymous]

Natural Childbirth. My childbirth educator at Sibley said "all childbirth is natural." So, you either had a vaginal birth or a c-section.

[Anonymous]

I think its pretty clear that the people that have a problem calling it "school" are the people that think fulltime working moms that send their children to fulltime care at a centers are bad. I have a 2 yo and a 3.5 yo at fulltime care in a center that has structed learning and college educated caretakers. We think this arrangement is preferrable to our kids rather then a babysitter/nanny. They have structured classes grouping the kids by age and development. They have a regular schedule that includes independent play, circle time, story time, meal and nap time, lessons related to letters and numbers, playground time, foreign language direction, music, arts and crafts etc. That is exactly what they have in other sorts of preschools - just more hours. We call it school, we call the caretakers "teachers." Those are perfectly appropriate designations. Some of you can be bothered by it if you like, but the term is not innaccurrate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"Put down." And I say this all the time "Did you put DS down?" "I just put him down." etc. They are not wounded cattle. I don't where I picked this up but I just cannot shake it (and I'm trying).....my Mom pointed this one out, and she's right (damnit, I hate that.....)

OMG, ME TOO!!! "The baby went down" or "what times does the baby go down?" or "put them down". Are they being euthanized???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous[b wrote:]"calm your body"[/b]
"listen to my words"

gross.

Oh my, I have never heard that! Like goodness, don't tell a kid to sit still it might offend his delicate psyche and send him to therapy. This is probably the same kid who didn't lose the game, he was the "second winner."