what is it about having children that causes women to become inconsiderate monsters?

[Rilchiam]

@Ellen Cherry

holmes has pointed this out: it’s age-related. I have older, school age kids and a young one under two. Of course the 8-year-old doesn’t come into the bathroom; he can occupy himself while I’m showering. The 18-month-old can sometimes play quietly on the floor while I bathe. Sometimes. I think I was remembering whoever posted the “from day one” stuff. I’m very aware that it’s my responsibility to train my children to wait when they’re of an age to wait, and be considerate of others at all times.

I’m addressing this to all parents in the thread, not just you: It’s up to you, in this discussion, to specify the ages and stages of development of your kids before you refute childless posters who say “You could do this; you could do that.” If you can’t do what they’re suggesting, you gotta tell us why.

And I was under the impression that when nyctea said “from day one”, she meant "from the time you’re able to communicate with the child, not “from the womb”.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Rilchiam

And I was under the impression that when nyctea said “from day one”, she meant "from the time you’re able to communicate with the child, not “from the womb”.

I think nyctea meant literally from day 1: that is, once the earth was rotating in such a manner to produce cycles of light and darkness, you should have been introducing your children to discipline. I really like reading things literally, without regard to what reading actually makes sense and doesn’t turn other posters into heartless autocrats.

Daniel

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

I think you’re going all-or-nothing here. It’s one thing to turn off a child’s show to watch your own; it’s another thing to allow the child to do the same thing to you. It’s one thing to stay in the bathroom for a long time primping, with a locked door, while a child cries; it’s another thing to actually go to the bathroom (i.e., defecate/urinate) with a locked door.

If someone refuses to let anyone in the household turn off someone else’s preferred television program, that’s neither autocratic nor heartless: that’s setting up healthy boundaries that are going to keep the kid from being ostracized, shunned, and attacked when he goes to preschool. (If a kid is raised thinking he’s got control over the household entertainment, what’s he going to do when he’s at school? Are the other kids going to be willing to cede control to him?) Same thing with the bathroom: we’ve got a culture that demands privacy for certain bodily functions, and a kid is ill-prepared for society if she doesn’t learn that lesson before she goes to school.

Everything to this point is great, in the sense that I agree, so it must be correct.

Then this:

Now, very young children shouldn’t be watching television anyway: chances are too great that it’s going to malform their developing brains.

What? Nonsense. What do you have in support of that assertion.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Hentor the Barbarian

Then this:What? Nonsense. What do you have in support of that assertion.

This is a start:

In a logistic regression model, hours of television viewed per day at both ages 1 and 3 was associated with attentional problems at age 7

Now, others question their methods, but I’m not making this stuff up; it’s certainly an area of current research.

Daniel

[Frank]

@catsix

I apologize for being snippy with you, just thought I was getting some unnecessary official warning.

No, it did not go on your Permanent Record; it was simply a request. It is important that quotes be properly attributed, but it is not important enough to warn someone over unless they are doing it for malicious reasons, which, as you quite rightly point out, you were not.

Now I’ll back slowly away from the syntax of that last sentence.

[Cartooniverse]

@Ellen Cherry

Daniel, I would feel as though I was being heartless and autocratic if I snapped off the Spongebob to watch Friends, or let my little one wail while I primped.

She said "All I know is that no child of mine is going to dictate what I watch on TV, or prevent me from taking a shower daily, " and “no, you can’t be in the bathroom with mommy while she is going to the bathroom,”

When there’s a little one crying at the bathroom door just because he wants to be with you and you determine that your private time is more important than comforting the child, that seems heartless to me. I’m willing to give up privacy; it’s one of the sacrifices I willingly make to be a mother.

Similarly, there’s no television program important enough to me that I have to watch it. Of course, no kid has to watch television either. But there are times when a child will fuss through Friends, despite your efforts to redirect him! So, let’s watch the Spongebob. Maybe I’ll tape Friends and watch it after he’s in bed.

Maybe it’s just me, though. I’ve been told a lot lately that many people do not share my views in this regard.

On preview, I see Hama is making the point better.

I agree with every single thing you have posted in here. Yeah, I was capable of going to the bathroom. I also would leave the door open ! And, if a child had a major-league crisis, I’d trot out in a towel. Jeez, they’re little kids. They haven’t learned the fine points of time-management. They have a very short list. Love me. Look at me. Feed me. Rest me. Play with me. Rinse, and repeat.

I tried to shower when they napped, but since they were 16 months apart, that didn’t always work. Besides, let’s be really honest here. Changing between 6 and 12 diapers a day doesn’t exactly make one smell like a rose in any case. :eek:

It’s about the absolute willingness, nay, desire to surrender self to child. That’s what it is about. Screw t.v. I would rather lay on the floor and let the kids crawl all over me.

Cartooniverse

[catsix]

[quote]
Ponder Stibbons said:
If Frank had written this regarded something I had said, I would have replied with something like “Oops! Right you are, Frank, that was Malthus. My bad.”[/quiote]

I just don’t think a minor slip with two usernames that start out pretty similarly, posted close together, and both were conversing with me is a lack of ‘care’.

Human mistake. Not about to say that I need to ‘be more careful’, as I don’t think I was doing otherwise. Humans make mistakes from time to time.

What you see as a normal reply to that, I see as being unnecessarily apologetic to an unrelated party over a mistake that caused no actual harm to anyone. If it’s so important that quotes be properly attributed, then perhaps he can change it to Malthus instead of Maureen in the post? I can’t go back and do that, or I would’ve.

‘Please be more careful in the future’ is one of those statements that I absolutely bristle at no matter who it comes from, but especially from those who need to point out their authority. It’s actually a pretty useless statement, since even if you’re always careful, a mistake can still happen. And it can be corrected pretty easily. Which I’d have done had I the ability.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@catsix

‘Please be more careful in the future’ is one of those statements that I absolutely bristle at no matter who it comes from, but especially from those who need to point out their authority. It’s actually a pretty useless statement, since even if you’re always careful, a mistake can still happen. And it can be corrected pretty easily. Which I’d have done had I the ability.

…and yet it’s the parents, and your unwillingness to kiss their asses, that holds you back from promotions. :dubious:

Daniel

[Green_Cymbeline]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

Now, very young children shouldn’t be watching television anyway: chances are too great that it’s going to malform their developing brains.

@Hentor the Barbarian

What? Nonsense. What do you have in support of that assertion.

Just saw this article the other day:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/20/AR2006032001801.html

Some excerpts:

How young is too young to park a baby in front of the TV set? The American Academy of Pediatrics’s rule has been steadfast: No television under age 2.

“Essentially it is a betrayal of babies and families,” says Harvard Medical School psychologist Susan Linn, founder of the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood. “There is no evidence that media is beneficial for babies, and they are starting to find evidence that it may be harmful. Until we know for sure, we shouldn’t risk putting them in front of the television.”

But perhaps even more stinging is the rebuke by T. Berry Brazelton, the famous baby doctor who helped found Zero to Three nearly 30 years ago. “I absolutely support the American Academy of Pediatrics’ recommendation that children under two be kept away from screen media. It’s too expensive for them physically as well as psychologically,” he wrote late last week.

“Kids that age are only awake 12 hours a day, so we have a generation of children who are watching television 10-20 percent of their waking lives – and that’s a dramatic increase,” says pediatrician Dimitri Christakis, director of the Child Health Institute at the University of Washington in Seattle, whose research has found that early exposure to television could prove detrimental to attention span and cognitive development.

Other research suggests that television viewing by babies could harm language development and sleep patterns. And there’s the “instead-of” caveat – babies and toddlers glued to the tube aren’t doing other healthy activities such as creative play and interacting with parents.

[Guinastasia]

@catsix

‘Please be more careful in the future’ is one of those statements that I absolutely bristle at no matter who it comes from, but especially from those who need to point out their authority.

What don’t you bristle at, catsix? Jesus, on the defensive much? Holy shit, do you ever just, you know, relax?

[Hamadryad]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

…and yet it’s the parents, and your unwillingness to kiss their asses, that holds you back from promotions. :dubious:

And only a few people out of over 50, at that.

[Gala_Matrix_Fire]

When I was young we had this really simple thing called a playpen. You could put a small child in it for a short period of time while you went off to answer the door or urinate by yourself, and because of the extremely high technology of the playpen, the child would not wander into the fire raging in the fireplace or toddle into the piranha tank.

Apparently they still sell these things. Here’s one.

[Binarydrone]

bluethree, You should know that at very least, the playpen is not an enrichment activity and that many studies conducted by nattering parents contain real anecdotal evidence that they also negatively impact baby’s self actualizing process. You must remember that it is vitally important that baby learn that he is the center of the universe. Otherwise we will have a shortage of tailgaters, people that cut in line and boring Goth bloggers down the road.

[fessie]

“No TV” is a great concept if it works in your life.

But “Some TV that’s designed for kids and not terribly annoying while Mommy takes a break…” is also OK, particularly when it’s “…after coming back from the Children’s Museum where we played together all morning, because now Mommy’s tired but the kids aren’t napping and if she doesn’t get a break she’s gonna go Postal.”

It’s all about managing your resources.

Brain, Child had a good piece on television a while back, but I doubt it’s archived online.
Oh, and playpens are great until the kid can climb out. Which is surprisingly soon in many cases (they learn to stack their toys as an aid).

[Green_Cymbeline]

@fessie

Oh, and playpens are great until the kid can climb out. Which is surprisingly soon in many cases (they learn to stack their toys as an aid).

If they’re old enough/smart enough to devise a system to escape from their playpen, then I am sure they are old enough/smart enough to be taught proper behavior and the consequences for not behaving.

It seems to me that if dogs can be taught to sit and stay, so can a 2-year-old human being!

[D_Odds]

@bluethree

When I was young we had this really simple thing called a playpen. You could put a small child in it for a short period of time while you went off to answer the door or urinate by yourself, and because of the extremely high technology of the playpen, the child would not wander into the fire raging in the fireplace or toddle into the piranha tank.

You would jail your baby?!!!?!!1! :eek:

Yes, I’ve heard that remark concerning playpens. My answer was, “In a heartbeat.” Now that my babies are teenagers, my answer is still, “In a heartbeat.” I just can find a way to make them stay in there.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@nyctea scandiaca

It seems to me that if dogs can be taught to sit and stay, so can a 2-year-old human being!

You’re being facetious now, right?

Daniel

[Green_Cymbeline]

@bluethree

When I was young we had this really simple thing called a playpen. You could put a small child in it for a short period of time while you went off to answer the door or urinate by yourself, and because of the extremely high technology of the playpen, the child would not wander into the fire raging in the fireplace or toddle into the piranha tank.

Apparently they still sell these things. Here’s one.

Yeah I seem to remember those contraptions from when I was growing up too.

Although today’s over-indulgent parents probably think they are cruel and unusual. :rolleyes:

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@fessie

“No TV” is a great concept if it works in your life.

But “Some TV that’s designed for kids and not terribly annoying while Mommy takes a break…” is also OK, particularly when it’s “…after coming back from the Children’s Museum where we played together all morning, because now Mommy’s tired but the kids aren’t napping and if she doesn’t get a break she’s gonna go Postal.”

Sure. I’m not saying that a little bit of television is going to turn the child into a serial killer, any more than a little brandy on the gums of a teething child is going to send them to Skid Row. However, given the pliable nature of a child’s brain, I’d be worried about exposing them to television on a daily basis.

Daniel

[holmes]

@bluethree

When I was young we had this really simple thing called a playpen. You could put a small child in it for a short period of time while you went off to answer the door or urinate by yourself, and because of the extremely high technology of the playpen, the child would not wander into the fire raging in the fireplace or toddle into the piranha tank.

Apparently they still sell these things. Here’s one.

Sometimes it was easier for me to grab her, toss her on my hip and run to the can, as opposed to pulling out the playpen, or the bouncy chair.

I don’t get why something that may be a matter ofparental convenience, needs to be disassembled in so many ways.