Jump to content

Tag, you're it


archenemy

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 70
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I think there's already some research coming out showing that micro-managing kids lives down to the minute and engineering every ounce of physical out of their lives is hardly a foolproof method for producing a happy and productive adult.

 

Seems like a significant amount of the changes in parenting over the past 50 years have been driven by the psychological needs of parents rather than any objective consideration of what's actually good for the children.

 

When they canceled track and field day in favor of a bunch of gay-ass sharing games, and make us wear badges that said "I am lovable and capable" I new that things were going seriously awry, even as an eleven year old.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Seems like a significant amount of the changes in parenting over the past 50 years have been driven by the psychological needs of parents rather than any objective consideration of what's actually good for the children.

 

IMO: it seems to be a selfish psychological drive to have kids in the first place. But hey, that's just me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Seems like a significant amount of the changes in parenting over the past 50 years have been driven by the psychological needs of parents rather than any objective consideration of what's actually good for the children.

 

IMO: it seems to be a selfish psychological drive to have kids in the first place. But hey, that's just me.

 

You're saying that reproduction of the species is a selfish psychological drive? I would've thought it's more of an inherent evolutionary drive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Seems like a significant amount of the changes in parenting over the past 50 years have been driven by the psychological needs of parents rather than any objective consideration of what's actually good for the children.

 

IMO: it seems to be a selfish psychological drive to have kids in the first place. But hey, that's just me.

 

You're saying that reproduction of the species is a selfish psychological drive? I would've thought it's more of an inherent evolutionary drive.

 

I was gonna say hormonal, but maybe you pegged it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Seems like a significant amount of the changes in parenting over the past 50 years have been driven by the psychological needs of parents rather than any objective consideration of what's actually good for the children.

 

IMO: it seems to be a selfish psychological drive to have kids in the first place. But hey, that's just me.

 

i'm a new uncle in the past few years. watching my sisters take care of the little ones has really opened my eyes ...i've come to notice that it is the least selfish thing there is

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Seems like a significant amount of the changes in parenting over the past 50 years have been driven by the psychological needs of parents rather than any objective consideration of what's actually good for the children.

 

IMO: it seems to be a selfish psychological drive to have kids in the first place. But hey, that's just me.

 

You're saying that reproduction of the species is a selfish psychological drive? I would've thought it's more of an inherent evolutionary drive.

 

I was gonna say hormonal, but maybe you pegged it.

Without fail, once a society accepts birth control and becomes financially sound and fairly secure; people have fewer children--to the point where often there aren't enough kids being produced to replace the existing population.

 

So I would think the "hormonal" drive seems to have a little merit, but not a whole hell of a lot. People often get control over their "hormones" when not having a litter of six is a viable option.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Seems like a significant amount of the changes in parenting over the past 50 years have been driven by the psychological needs of parents rather than any objective consideration of what's actually good for the children.

 

IMO: it seems to be a selfish psychological drive to have kids in the first place. But hey, that's just me.

 

You're saying that reproduction of the species is a selfish psychological drive? I would've thought it's more of an inherent evolutionary drive.

 

I was gonna say hormonal, but maybe you pegged it.

Without fail, once a society accepts birth control and becomes financially sound and fairly secure; people have fewer children--to the point where often there aren't enough kids being produced to replace the existing population.

 

So I would think the "hormonal" drive seems to have a little merit, but not a whole hell of a lot. People often get control over their "hormones" when not having a litter of six is a viable option.

 

 

Interestingly - the fertility rate for first and second generation Americans with Mexican ancestry is substantially higher than that of Mexicans. I think that the same is true for several North African populations living in Euroland, but I'd have to check to make sure.

 

I suppose it comes down to how one defines "selfishness," but I don't know how, under any definition of the word, refusing to have children because it will interfere with your career goals, make it tougher to afford the dream-home, make travel and socializing more complicated, etc - could be construed as *less* selfish than having children.

 

I also think that - imagine this coming from me - there are economic factors that heavily influence reproduction choices on a country-by-country level. One obviously selfish motive for having children is so that you'll have someone to look after you when you can no longer care for or provide for yourself. When the state assumes a legal obligation to provide for the elderly, the odds are good that this motive is no longer as forceful, and this factors into people's decisions about the way they'll live their lives. Ditto for the societies in which children add to, rather than ameliorate, the financial burdens on the parents. I'd also venture that the extent to which young people are taxed to support the elderly has an effect on their reproductive choices, whether consciously or not, as responsible people who are in households where both parties have to work full time to earn enough after-tax money to get by aren't as likely to have children, IMO.

 

Complicated issue, to be sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there's already some research coming out showing that micro-managing kids lives down to the minute and engineering every ounce of physical out of their lives is hardly a foolproof method for producing a happy and productive adult.

 

Seems like a significant amount of the changes in parenting over the past 50 years have been driven by the psychological needs of parents rather than any objective consideration of what's actually good for the children.

 

When they canceled track and field day in favor of a bunch of gay-ass sharing games, and make us wear badges that said "I am lovable and capable" I new that things were going seriously awry, even as an eleven year old.

 

I share your disdain for the politically correct hyper-protective and overbearing yet spoiling parenting styles and educational methods we have come to accept as standard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there's already some research coming out showing that micro-managing kids lives down to the minute and engineering every ounce of physical out of their lives is hardly a foolproof method for producing a happy and productive adult.

 

Seems like a significant amount of the changes in parenting over the past 50 years have been driven by the psychological needs of parents rather than any objective consideration of what's actually good for the children.

 

When they canceled track and field day in favor of a bunch of gay-ass sharing games, and make us wear badges that said "I am lovable and capable" I new that things were going seriously awry, even as an eleven year old.

 

I share your disdain for the politically correct hyper-protective and overbearing yet spoiling parenting styles and educational methods we have come to accept as standard.

 

hell just froze over

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ban at this school may be due to laziness. Repeatedly correcting hyper-active kids and mollifying uptight parents requires a lot more time and energy than simply banning games.

 

Hyper-active kids……dude…..most children are “hyper-active”. Why you got to put the label on?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ban at this school may be due to laziness. Repeatedly correcting hyper-active kids and mollifying uptight parents requires a lot more time and energy than simply banning games.

 

Hyper-active kids……dude…..most children are “hyper-active”. Why you got to put the label on?

 

"hyper-active" = $$$

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...