...a pattern I keep seeing in women now and feminism now is this notion, "Shit, we've got all this equality, and...helllp!

I'm seeing that too. It's paraphrasing for the unsayable "Why don't I have a man?"

What I'm rarely seeing is much honest assessment by these women of how they arrived at that state. To explore that in any meaningful way, they would need to stop blaming men and consider the consequences of their own attitudes and choices. Few are willing to do this -- often for practical reasons. For those in academe or the media, for example, the destruction of their careers and social networks would be immediate and absolute. As members of the sisterhood, they know exactly how people who get out of line are thrown into the woodchipper.

You know, I'm an expat, and we have an expat facebook page. Last week, someone posted--she was new in town, didn't speak German, and both she and her husband had horrible stomach flu, and they had two little kids and she was desperate. Wanted to hire someone to help out.

You know what happened? A zillion people jumped in with ideas and I said I'd bring dinner over for her kids. When I was there, bringing a total stranger dinner, another woman was showing up to bring food for the next day.

People will help when it's an emergency, and being married didn't help this woman or her husband when both were down at the same time.

Did she manage to complain about men, including the one she went to for help?

"But we have not done enough to replace the security and safety of the family with a social equivalent."

What? Who the hell is "we"?
Let me guess: someone else will pay for this, even though you have no clue what that "social equivalent" might be.

Aren't you clamoring for "Big Brother"?

Oldthinkers unbellyfeel Ingsoc!

I LOVE that Suzanne. It's absolutely true.

I've always thought single men lived as pretty disposable, invisible beings. How many single, fresh off the plane guys could call up a random woman or man from a party for help in Germany?

I think something that is harrowing for middle class women, especially as they age and loose their sex appeal is how awful people are at giving a shit about you. But hey that's life. I think poor women learn that shit real quick.

Oh my god. They truly do want a big daddy government. Next thing you know, people like her will insist the government provide them lovers to attend their sexual/breeding needs when needed, because meeting a man is just so scary and difficult and dangerous. Who the hell raises these people? And why did she need a friend to pick her up-we've sent plenty of people home from the hospital in cabs.

Maybe her first experience with "life"?

Up until the mid-20's many young adults are always around BFFs. Then people marry off, move away, move on, and so forth.

Then it's just you, your car, and your cat/dog and you need some help for the first time in your life.

This seems to upset women more (at least I've never heard a guy complain about it). When I was exploring different areas of the State on my Harley I was always aware of being alone and what that brings (new friends, Easy Rider experiences, ...).

Well cupcake, it gets worse as you age and you need help more often.

Go to church, a social dance club, help charities, and whatever you can do to show others you are there for them and they will be there for you.

There is a huge refusal to accept the consequences of decisions in the feminist movement. For another example look at all the feminists complaining about how women have to bear the burden of raising children. I get that and all, except this is exactly what they've demanded. They absolutely refuse to let men have custody and then complain that women have custody.

You can't have it both ways. Fricken pick one and stop whining.

Great point, momof4, about the cabs.

Perhaps the issue was financial -- as in, not wanting to pick up that cost.

I read an article a while back on working mothers and stay-at-home fathers. The women in the article admitted to feeling stressed out at being the sole provider and even to resenting their husbands who got to spend the day with the children and did not have to deal with office politics or stress out about layoffs.

Welcome to the man's world, ladies. That's the price of admission.

Yep, this is what your fathers went through. This is why they mixed a martini when they got home from work and didn't play dollies with you. This is why they had their first heart attack at 50. This is why they seemed emotionally distant and closed off.

To Conan:

Interestingly, psychologist John Rosemond has some agreements and disagreements on those old ways. That is, of course he's not in favor of men having to die young, but he also says that wanting to spend time with one's spouse after work rather play games on the floor with one's children is NOT being "emotionally distant." (That applies to mothers as well, including housewives.)

From 2004:

http://thesouthern.com/news/opinion/editorial/rosemond/john-rosemond-marriage-not-children-is-a-family-s-center/article_21fdb3ac-6eda-5dbe-a517-7480c8668b4b.html

Excerpts (btw, Rosemond was born in 1947):

...I am a member of the last generation of American children to grow up in families where the marriage, irrespective of its imperfections, occupied center-stage. Your mother was a housewife, not a stay-at-home mom who was in perpetual orbit around her kids. Even if she worked outside the home, as mine did, the '50s mother did not arrive home from work bearing a load of guilt, which she attempted to discharge by dancing as fast as she could in her children's lives until they finally consented to go to bed.

Likewise your father, when he came home from work, had no intention of romping with his children all evening, "re-bonding" with them. He came home looking forward to spending a quiet evening with his wife, his intended partner for life.

After dinner, Mom and Dad retired to coffee and conversation in the living room, and the kids, well, they found things of their own to do (including their homework, which they did on their own as well). They did not slink off into the Land of Unwanted Children.

There were exceptions to this general rule, of course, but there are two living generations (mine and my parents') who remember that once upon a time in America, the husband-wife relationship was stronger than the parent-child relationship, as it should be.

"Come on now John," someone is saying. "You don't actually mean stronger."

No, I most definitely mean stronger. Unlike today's mom, the mom of the 1950s and before was not married to her child; she was married to her husband...

(snip)

...Sometimes, our own children tell Willie and me how "lucky" they are that we are still together and to know that we always will be. It's actually a slip of the tongue, because they both know that luck has nothing to do with it. It was, and is, a matter of keeping the natural order of things in their natural order.

(end)

And, from 1996:

https://books.google.com/books?id=RUiKotalU7YC&pg=PA271&lpg=PA271&dq=%22john+rosemond%22+%22convinced+that+the+typical+father%22&source=bl&ots=kBIfTLDsF8&sig=rbl_11ktBoDJTjDjtPrNTLd_ncY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi5osWH18DMAhWE8z4KHVvIAbUQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=%22john%20rosemond%22%20%22convinced%20that%20the%20typical%20father%22&f=false

In this piece, a young father comes to the conclusion that it didn't really bother him to have a "remote" father when he was a child. You'll see why.

Eh, my relationship with my spouse is very important, and we do date nights etc. But, I'd die for my kids. I'd probably kill for them (certainly if someone hurt them). I would not die for my husband, much as I love him. I would not kill for him. So, apparently my kids come first. As they should, since I made them, they didn't ask to be made.

Being single doesn't necessarily mean being alone- many people still have a circle of friends and family and a community (like a church) that can help out in a time of need. Most people who are truly alone are alone by choice or by bad decisions/personality issues.
This is an example of feminist insistence that the government should replace the family. "But we have not done enough to replace the security and safety of the family with a social equivalent." Um, so?

Momof4,

I'm on the other side. I would kill and die for both my wife and my kids. When I promised till death do we part I meant it. I made no such promise to my kids. The objective is for them to mature and leave.

"This is an example of feminist insistence that the government should replace the family." ~Ahw

Talk about a truly distant father. Which bureaucrat do I go to when my feelings are hurt or I've skinned my knee?

Rosemond is correct about many things, and a vacuum-of-space cold, fossilized prick. I pity any children he may have had.

I'm also in the I-don't-want-to-hear-you-whine-camp, but some of you BTLers are draconian hardasses - may I never need anything from you.

I don't like Rosemond, either, DaveG- and I've read a couple of his books. This is a guy who advocates "potty training" by having your toddler run around without pants for a week, having accidents all over the house. Then, you know, just have everything steam cleaned. Because that's totally going to get the stains out of your $3000 couch and the carpet upstairs. He's that miserable asshole uncle who loves to let you know what you're doing wrong.

No, Rosemond is for people who don't have kids, and don't like kids, and feel self-righteous about it. He affirms what authoritarian parents think anyway- just like attachment-parenting advocates can find authors who affirm that "child centered" parenting methods are the best choice.

lenona: What is your ACTUAL EXPERIENCE using ANY of Rosemond's parenting methods? Because you sure love to quote him.

"But we have not done enough to replace the security and safety of the family with a social equivalent."

That's because there IS NO social equivalent, sushi-for-brains.

For well or ill, family is a chit you can call in...
But for many people, friends are also that, just not bound in blood or raising.

I'm a pretty singular guy, so I don't have a boatload of friends... but every single one of them would help if I had need of it. The other side of the compact is that I wouldn't call in such a favor unless it was a very big deal. And visa-verse.

But many people around, depending on where you live, would help a stranger in peril, if they asked. Some more than others. I plan on always being in that first group if I can.

The reason missy is so conflicted about this, is that she believes force is needed, to get that need fulfilled. That's what Govt. is... it's force, so you can't say no.

Is that because she is the kind of person that will only help with a govt command? Dunno. I see people all the time like that: "Why should I help?"
Well, what kind of person ARE you? A person who helps, because that's who they are, or a person who can be forced to help... because that's who they are?

The idea that govt. should be more than tangentially involved with this in any way, is the ™ of someone who doesn't realize that giving that responsibility away, means giving the govt. more power over you.

It's almost as if she has a psychological need for someone else to take control. It's not a really good look.

I actually potty trained using the Rosemond method (we had hardwoods, so accidents were easy.) Two days, start to finish, including night training. Worked for me!

The first time my kid sh*t on the white carpet, we went back to traditional training pants with plastic covers.

Now these women have the same "privilage" as men. But they only want the good parts, not all that icky stuff like responsibility and self reliance.

To DaveG: Rosemond has two kids (both over 43) and at least five grandkids. (The oldest was born circa 1995.) To my knowledge, his kids have never criticized his methods or diverged greatly from them in their own roles as parents.

And regarding the adjectives "cold" and "fossilized," while it's true he tends to use a pretty different writing style than Miss Manners did in her childrearing book, it can be pretty hard to say where they differ on any subject. (I trust you wouldn't refer to MM with those terms.)

I even got to meet him in March and asked him about MM - and HE couldn't think of anything they might disagree on.

In fact, offhand, I can now only think of two distinct subjects; Rosemond has complained in the last few years that schools are becoming WAY unfair (surprise!) when it comes to the disciplining of boys - something that Miss Manners isn't likely to touch on, and MM might disagree with Rosemond's belief that "the only punishment that fits the crime is the one that stops the crime from recurring." (In other words, don't worry about being a little too strict if it works - and you don't even have to spank.)

Finally, it's worth mentioning that in the last few years, he's taken foolishly strict parents to task and told them to lighten up - in the last few weeks, he did that twice, once with parents who were dead set against all slumber parties for unspoken reasons, and this week, he told a parent that no, you can't threaten to make a 16-year-old homeless over marijuana use - and, he added, pot is a lot less bad than alcohol anyway!
__________________________________

This is a guy who advocates "potty training" by having your toddler run around without pants for a week, having accidents all over the house.
____________________________________

Er, I seem to remember he said the toddler should be confined to one room. The term was "Naked and $75" - for cleaning the one carpet. But I admit he's out of touch with those who can't even afford disposable diapers, let alone ANY big amount of money for a professional cleaning. He's also out of touch with those who aren't rich enough to own their homes; more than once, he's recommended turning a toddler's bedroom door into a Dutch door, which you clearly can't do without a landlord's permission!
____________________________________

No, Rosemond is for people who don't have kids, and don't like kids, and feel self-righteous about it.
___________________________________

Then how does that explain all the parents who come to him regularly for help? Or the fact that he's syndicated? If parents really hated him, they'd manage to put him out of business. One could argue that MM is too strict as well - but hardly anyone does.
______________________________________

He affirms what authoritarian parents think anyway-
_____________________________________

You mean "authoritative." There's an important difference. Authoritarian parents, as I already hinted, don't like him that much because he isn't strict enough for them.
_______________________________________

lenona: What is your ACTUAL EXPERIENCE using ANY of Rosemond's parenting methods? Because you sure love to quote him.

ahw at May 4, 2016 10:04 AM
______________________________________

I was a nanny for my best friend for two weeks and she said afterward "what would I do without you?" The kid was 3 at the time - I've described that experience several times here. Had I not read Rosemond's books, I could easily have been brainwashed by the current belief that says that you should never say "no" to kids, especially if it might make them cry. (This is why I recommend giving out his books because even when a parent reads one and thinks "well, duh, this is all just common sense - why do I need it" the answer is "because chances are you're going to be surrounded by parents who DON'T have common sense, so you'll need reminders so as
not to become brainwashed.")

And two years later, my friend paid me to go to Tuscany, Italy so I could go with her kid again and keep him in line.

To clarify: I had NO travel or food expenses. We got to visit Florence, Pisa, etc.

"You mean "authoritative." There's an important difference. Authoritarian parents, as I already hinted, don't like him that much because he isn't strict enough for them."
No. I mean authoritarian, and I do know the difference. You're not the only one who can read and comprehend parenting books.

Wow! Lenona, you spent a whole TWO weeks of babysitting a kid that is not your own and whose overall lifelong well being you weren't responsible for, that must make you an expert! Actually, I think it is funny that ahw has you pegged as child hater with no actual experience raising children. For someone who thinks children are a virus who will ultimately destroy the world you sure do spend a lot of time at parenting sites. It is weird obsession on your part that I have noticed for years. Until today I thought I was the only one who did. Too funny.

It is always the ones without kids who think they know the most. An no, my child is not a tiny terror. She is a lovely 16 year old girl who is in the top 3% of her high school class. She is also the source of great humility on my part bc for those of us who are ACTUAL parents (not just weird childless obsessives on the Internet), we learn pretty quickly that you should NEVER be arrogant about your parenting skills. Pride goeth before the fall and all that jazz. Of course, if you are not a parent, you will never have to worry about being wrong.

Interestingly, psychologist John Rosemond has some agreements and disagreements on those old ways. That is, of course he's not in favor of men having to die young, but he also says that wanting to spend time with one's spouse after work rather play games on the floor with one's children is NOT being "emotionally distant."

Lenona,

I think you missed my point. The article was talking about the women who became sole breadwinners and found themselves stressed out, missing their old roles, and resenting their husbands who assumed the homemaker roles. Turns out that greener grass over the fence was a matter of perspective.

My follow-up paragraph about breadwinners and martinis was sarcasm directed toward those feminist authors who think men cannot nurture because their own fathers were "emotionally distant." Or those who complained their husbands were too worn out from work to spend time with the children (iow, take the children off of Mom's hands since she spent all day with them and is tired of them).

You know, the ones who try to make men feel guilty because Mom "does all" the childcare and housework chores while Dad goes to the office and socializes. No consideration is given to the stress the sole breadwinner feels to keep a job; avoid layoffs; and fight off younger, less expensive rivals for the job.

"It is always the ones without kids who think they know the most."

Those with no kids also lack the rose-colored glasses and the list of excuses that allows any parent to excuse abominable behavior of their sad little bullet stop. "Oh, he's just going through a phase"... etc.

Guess what? You don't have to be a jockey to figure out which horse is going to finish dead last.

No. I mean authoritarian, and I do know the difference.
ahw at May 4, 2016 1:12 PM
______________________________________

So, again, what makes you think authoritarian parents like Rosemond?

Other things he refuses to support parents on, after all, are making kids follow gender roles regarding chores, making 13-year-olds work for money outside the home (as opposed to doing unpaid housework) when they don't want to, micromanaging teenagers, making kids apply to college when they don't want to go, or demanding grandchildren when their adult offspring may not WANT to have children. It's kind of hard to imagine authoritarian parents being OK with him on any of those.

Not to mention that he has nothing whatsoever that I know of against those who want to eliminate spanking from society - provided that those people are truly prepared to find and use punishments that actually stop the bad behaviors from recurring. (He's given plenty of examples.) Whereas MANY fundamentalist types push parents to hit their kids - including the use of, say, leather belts - again and again. I doubt those preachers and parents like him much either.

that must make you an expert!
_______________________________________

So you think it's nothing that my using Rosemond's methods actually made my friend's kid dramatically obedient to the point where she was willing to be that generous when she wanted more help, two years later?

One thing I had to spell out for her was that you don't waste time explaining to a 3-year-old why you and he need to go out - you just get him dressed and drag him out, if necessary. As in, put the kid through the motions first; the right attitude will come later. She had never really tried that - and despite her good education, she also didn't quite grasp that non-stop DVDs are no better for a kid than non-stop candy; it had gotten to the point where the kid kicked and screamed over a ten-minute walk to get to the playground because he hated physical activity of any kind.
_____________________________________
you sure do spend a lot of time at parenting sites.
________________________________________

Rosemond only, thank you. Also, Bratfree is not a parenting site. I am simply an anti-sentimentalist (for the most part) who does not want to be surrounded by 10-year-old hoodlums when I'm 80. (I've already had at least one nasty close call like that, years ago, late one night at work when everyone had left the workplace - luckily the glass door was locked. At least they didn't try to smash it in.)
_______________________________________

And no, my child is not a tiny terror. She is a lovely 16 year old girl who is in the top 3% of her high school class.
__________________________________________

I agree that it's possible that Rosemond is dealing only with the problems of a minority of liberal parents; most liberal parents probably manage pretty well without his help. But the ones who do need help can be stunningly clueless, which is why he stays in business.
__________________________________________

we learn pretty quickly that you should NEVER be arrogant about your parenting skills. Pride goeth before the fall and all that jazz.

Sheep Mom at May 4, 2016 2:00 PM
________________________________________

Rosemond has said that many times. I.e., kids have free will and if they grow up to be bums or worse, many times that has nothing to do with bad - or liberal - parenting, so parents need to accept that AND stop assuming that other parents of problem kids must be bad parents either. One example of that might be Henry Hill of "Goodfellas." I suspect he would have turned out a criminal no matter WHAT neighborhood he grew up in.

(Which is not to say, of course, that kids with mental problems can be allowed to damage the neighbors' property or terrorize the neighbors' kids just because it's a terrible burden to find a babysitter every day. Even a non-parent knows that's not acceptable.)

And thanks, Radwaste.

One doesn't have to be a parent to remember what one's OWN parents (or the child neighbor's parents) would have done in situation X,Y, or Z - and why it worked. Or what common sense would suggest doing.

BTW, when I saw Rosemond in March, his appearance was sponsored by...the local Montessori school!

So even though it was in a church (Unitarian), it's probably safe to say that the crowd of 100 or so was mostly composed of Montessori parents.

One thing he mentioned that I'd never heard before was: The reason that Dr. Spock's book talks very little about disciplinary issues was that it was written in the 1940s, when parents actually AGREED on how to discipline! Which was also why it used to be common for teachers to teach 50 or even 70 first-graders at once; they didn't have many problems teaching, because the kids' parents had already taught them to RESPECT adults - especially their own mothers. The same is true today for teachers in many African countries; one teacher told Rosemond of teaching 125 small children at once.

Other things he said:

"My parents didn't care about grades; they just expected me to do my very best, even if that meant Cs." (But it definitely included quiet, proper behavior in class.)

"Mothers used to have permission to say 'get away from me!' " (And to tell kids "you're old enough to do that by yourself, so do it.")

"You can't have a sense of humor if you think one wrong move will destroy your kids."

I asked him afterward if he was familiar with Warren Farrell (author of "Father and Child Reunion") or other fathers' activists. He wasn't; he wrote down Farrell's name.

I can think of one more thing he's not quite up-to-date on, though - the likelihood that nowadays (people have been saying this since the late 1970s), young men are more likely to WANT to marry a non-virgin rather than a virgin, if only because women just don't get married before their mid-20s these days, and most men don't want to risk marrying an asexual woman. (What else could a 25-year-old virgin be?) Anything but that! Rosemond also probably doesn't realize that there ARE compelling reasons to dissuade women from marrying before age 24 or so.

BTW, it occurred to me that Miss Manners would probably have as many enemies as Rosemond if she made her writing style as accessible as his. (For those who don't know, anyone who's too lazy to read above the 8th-grade level is likely to lose patience with her longer pieces, which are very sophisticated; even her short Q & As can be tricky to follow at times.) The fact that so many people "can't" read her books stops them from making dumb arguments against her ideas.

500 plus words and Internet citations! However, still not an actual parent. So sad and so much arrogance on display by someone with no actual skin in the game. What is it you do for living? Please tell me so I can tell you how you can do it better. You will love it! I promise!

Oh, and this is good:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekoDt_uxb_E

"Heckler doesn't stand a chance"

By comedian Steve Hofstetter.

Not wanting to be treated badly by strangers (a common complaint at Bratfree) is the same as having "no skin in the game"?

Also, see the video I just posted.

BTW, it isn't just non-parents who complain about strangers' bad behavior. Ask any couple with kids who paid for a babysitter so as to go a nice, expensive restaurant that's supposed to be QUIET...only to have their evening ruined by someone who didn't want to pay for a sitter.

My oldest younger brother bit people.

His mother called it a phase.

It was a phase that lasted almost a year, he got kicked out of preschool, they were threatening to dis-invite him from CHURCH

But it was just a phase.

Then he bit me. I wasnt a parent, still not, never will be as I had to spend my life from 10 to 18 picking up the slack for parents.

I bit him back. Surprise, Surprise, mother fucking SURPRISE, the instant he was the one being dealt some pain the phase was over.

Fuck you Sheep Mom, and fuck parents

"500 plus words and Internet citations! However, still not an actual parent. So sad and so much arrogance on display by someone with no actual skin in the game. What is it you do for living? Please tell me so I can tell you how you can do it better. You will love it! I promise!"

Not to step on your status as a parent or anything, but you just took a dump on everyone who ever learned from another person's mistake.

It might not be all about you, however personally you're taking this.

By the way - I inspect highly radioactive equipment nowadays. You know what we do when someone suggests a better way to do things? We listen to them and then do it that way if it works.
Sometimes we even thank them for the idea! Amazing, I know, right?

Growing up I had experienced many forms of parenting. I thought my parents were too strict...so I was going to spoil my children. Then I saw how that didn't turn out so well if you start out like that.

Then as an older teenager I was given complete freedom. This was because I already demonstrated I was responsible.

I had a unique perspective having experiences these styles.

When I got involved with a man with 4 kids. I made certain parenting recommendations.

He thanks me for many of them that it helped him become a better parent.

You don't suddenly learn how to parent when you give birth.

Having had 4 kids already when we finally had our daughter he had very strong opinions about some things. In those cases, as long as I didn't have a strong opinion, I deferred to him and vice versa.

If we both had strong opinions; we would work it out. Currently we are having that discussion regarding pre-K. I'm for it, he thinks she's too young and not ready (neither he nor his older kids went to pre-K, I did).

When our daughter wasn't talking and gaining words quickly enough. I insisted we get her evaluated. Everyone else, husband, family, and otherwise all kept saying she would be fine. I felt strongly and pushed for it. She is catching up and will likely be caught up by kindergarten.

When our daughter wasn't talking and gaining words quickly enough. I insisted we get her evaluated. Everyone else, husband, family, and otherwise all kept saying she would be fine. I felt strongly and pushed for it. She is catching up and will likely be caught up by kindergarten.

Katrina at May 5, 2016 9:06 AM

Let me tell you something about learning things.

Everyone proceeds at their own age appropriate pace.
Forcing stuff seldom yields improvements. It's like forcing a child to eat broccoli.

My mother was a gifted music teacher. With a masters degree in childhood development and tests and measurements.

She taught a number of kids piano. She said time and time again she watched people start their kids in piano lessons when they were 6, while others waited until ten or even 11.

When the kids were 12, they all played at roughly the same level of ability.
In short the early start meant nothing, the advantage never lasts.

Your husband and family were correct.

"Your husband and family were correct."

No, they were not.

She regressed from saying 6 - 8 words to only saying 2 words (at almost 2) and not mimicking anything we said.

I rarely know that I have made the right decision as a parent. This time I do.

I don't care if she knows her letters, numbers, or anything academic. I care that she can communicate her wants and needs.

I have no intention of pushing her into any organized activities for years. I only want her to go to preschool to be exposed to other children with some regularity and have different toys to play with.

"Your husband and family were correct."

No, they were not."

Early childhood education is like homeopathic medicine. You take it, things get better, and you think it works. Because you don't have identical twins to run an experiment on, you don't know if you daughter would have developed more verbal,skills without it.

I personally know a girl who didn't speak at all til she was four. Only one in her family to graduate from law school.

Verbal ability at an early age has only a loose association, if any at all, with educational achievement and intelligence.

Now if you want to send your kid to preschool for social reasons, go right ahead, but don't think that your virtue signaling about *what a great parent you are* for intervening in a non problem is going to impress anyone here who knows better.

"Early childhood education is like homeopathic medicine. You take it, things get better, and you think it works. Because you don't have identical twins to run an experiment on, you don't know if you daughter would have developed more verbal,skills without it."

I have no doubt she would have developed more verbal skills without it. I suspect it would have taken a lot longer. There is no mechanism that homeopathic medicine is even plausible; it is at least plausible that speech therapy does help.

"I personally know a girl who didn't speak at all til she was four. Only one in her family to graduate from law school."

And that puts your opinion on the same level as lenona's. I've heard a lot of other such anecdotes.

"Verbal ability at an early age has only a loose association, if any at all, with educational achievement and intelligence."

My concern was not educational achievement and intelligence. It was communication.

Regressing is also associated with autistic children. If she did turn out to be autistic I would prefer to know that sooner rather than later. As I am not a professional, I couldn't determine that without an evaluation.

"Now if you want to send your kid to preschool for social reasons, go right ahead, but don't think that your virtue signaling about *what a great parent you are* for intervening in a non problem is going to impress anyone here who knows better."

Yes, clearly we disagree on whether it is an actual problem. If anything, I thought it made me a bad parent for not having noticed the regression sooner, for not reading to her enough, for letting her watch too much TV, for any number of other reasons. Yes, I know that is overly dramatic but that is what went through my head.

Sure, maybe I am wrong but many of those telling me she will be fine were people who would refuse to acknowledge there could possibly be anything wrong with their perfect special snowflake children. It was like they took it personally if there was anything less than perfect with her (or their children).

Maybe all this was a waste of time and resources just to make me feel better.

I can't be sure but you can't be certain that she didn't make faster progress as a result.

Katrina, my now-kindergartner's vocabulary increased dramatically when she started preschool around 18 months. We didn't enroll her because there were any issues- we did it because I was going back to work. I think part of it was that she was with me all day, and I don't really talk that much. Our neighbors had the same experience with their kids- Mom's quiet, kid didn't talk much, then they started preschool and started communicating well.

I will say that my issue with some preschools is that the kids can learn some pretty bad behaviors from each other. I guess that's inevitable, though. I'll still put my toddler in at least a part-time program when she's 3 or 4. Kids in good school districts show up to kindergarten either reading or ready to read. While it might all even out eventually, the last thing I want is for my kid to be the one who ends up on the remedial track because she doesn't know what sounds letters make.

"I will say that my issue with some preschools is that the kids can learn some pretty bad behaviors from each other. I guess that's inevitable, though. I'll still put my toddler in at least a part-time program when she's 3 or 4. Kids in good school districts show up to kindergarten either reading or ready to read. While it might all even out eventually, the last thing I want is for my kid to be the one who ends up on the remedial track because she doesn't know what sounds letters make."

ahw at May 5, 2016 2:47 PM

You can do that at home you know. Read to your kids. It works.

I went to first grade knowing how to read. That was in 1961. Kindergarten was mostly private back then, and focused on social skills like following instructions, taking turns, and standing in line.

It was the first grade teachers job to teach kids their letters, and how to read.

gee, I wonder why that changed.? Just another failure of public education, and the advent of head start to try and fix what can't be fixed.

I find it telling that what you are afraid of is your daughter being stigmatized by being put in remedial classes rather than the more genuine concern of the public or private schools not teaching her how to read, and do basic math,

If you have concerns about their physical or emotional maturity, keep them home an extra year.

If I had it to do over I would have done that with both my kids.

Step 1: destroy the family.
Step 2: wonder why no one is there when you are sick.
heh

ahw,

Yeah, I figured she would improve being around other kids. All her siblings are adults, and she is taken care of by family. As adults we can probably anticipate her needs better than other kids.

She was pretty good at pointing and pulling us to show what she wants but so many times we can't figure it out and everyone gets frustrated.

It has been only recently that she started interacting with other kids at the playground or bookstore. Before she would go a do her own thing.

"While it might all even out eventually, the last thing I want is for my kid to be the one who ends up on the remedial track because she doesn't know what sounds letters make."

I want her to start kindergarten prepared enough. As I understand, it is easier to catch up at a younger age.

One of my husband's concern about her attending preschool is because she cannot communicate her wants and needs that it will be a very frustrating experience for her. Which I agree is a legitimate concern.

Isab
"I went to first grade knowing how to read. That was in 1961. Kindergarten was mostly private back then, and focused on social skills like following instructions, taking turns, and standing in line."

I think I learned to read during kindergarten. I know I knew how to read in first grade. I only went to public schools and I started kindergarten in late 70s.

"If I had it to do over I would have done that with both my kids."

This is something we have and will consider.

"...rather than the more genuine concern of the public or private schools not teaching her how to read, and do basic math,"

I do have these concerns and depending where we live when she does go to school homeschool or other alternative will be a consideration.

SheepMom said: Actually, I think it is funny that ahw has you pegged as child hater
_______________________________________

I find it funny too - as in weird.

By the same token, you could argue that Amy hates women because she's always picking on women who behave badly and who try to justify that bad behavior.

It's safe to say that pretty much ALL adults despise PARENTS who are too lazy or cowardly to stop their toddlers from being a threat to others' lives and limbs - and property. (Or those who fail to keep 10-year-olds who are borderline criminals closely supervised.) That is hardly the same thing as hating kids. Of course, some people - including some parents - do hate kids. It's just that the people who have good reason to be mad at the lack of parental discipline are being more loud about it than in the past - likely because too many parents have different ideas about responsible parenting nowadays, as indicated by that Spock anecdote. Also, as I hinted, parents as well as non-parents are starting to support the idea of childfree restaurants and childfree airlines. Whether they ever come to pass is another matter; maybe, instead, we could go back to teaching kids that they can't go to restaurants until they learn not to scream, throw things, or run around when eating supper at HOME.

KidlessKim (from Bratfree) has this signature:

"If YOU are the 'exception' to what I am saying, then why does my commentary bother you so much?
I don't hate your kids, I HATE YOU!"

In 2012, she came out with a book - the Kindle edition has that last sentence as its title.

BTW, since I can't remember, offhand, anything by Miss Manners about "liking" or "not liking" kids, here's another JR piece, from 2005:

http://journaltimes.com/lifestyles/john-rosemond-some-children-are-wonderful-others-are-not/article_c90f60da-f9f4-5934-bc8a-2abbf40ebf3d.html

"Most Ridiculous Item of the Week: Someone recently asked me if I like children. I didn't say so, but the question is as ridiculous as 'Do you like adults?' The fact is, I like children who are well behaved and mind their manners.

"I like children who do not attract a lot of attention to themselves. I like children who do not interrupt conversations, do what they are told the first time they are told, entertain themselves, share freely, can take 'No' for an answer, go to bed readily and stay there, eat what is put in front of them, are kind and patient with younger children and pets, understand that a rule on Monday is a rule on Tuesday as well, have a good sense of humor, shake hands with adults (as opposed to 'high-fiving'), address adults formally (as opposed to using first names), don't ask for much, are curious and inquisitive, and don't give up if at first they don't succeed.

"In other words, I like some children. Mind you, I don't necessarily dislike the rest; I just don't want to be around them for very long, especially if they're with their parents."

(end)

Finally, I'll say that I can think of at least one thing that Miss Manners was a bit too old-fashioned about, to the point where her readers probably complained about that and she softened. Namely, she very seldom talks about how kids can stand up to rude adults (maybe because she thinks modern parents give kids too much ammunition anyway) - but in 1994, she gave them a tiny bit of permission.

"...The problem Miss Manners finds most heartbreaking comes from people who believe that they are being regarded as criminals not because of anything they do, but because of race, gender or age.

"A seventh-grader complains that the candy stop on the way home from school has become unpleasant because he is obviously under suspicion. 'I can understand how the store might be concerned about teenagers stealing candy,' he concedes, 'but I have no intention of doing so. What would be a polite way to get the message across that I'm not going to grab some Snickers and run? I don't want to say something like "Get off my back!" or get upset, nor do I want to growl at them under my breath.'...

"...Miss Manners doesn't need to tell these generous-minded people that fear, not meanness, prompts these unpleasant encounters, and ask them to refrain from being rude back. She can only hope that they will derive some satisfaction from politely addressing the concerns so crudely shown - the teenager by saying pointedly but pleasantly, 'Hello, I'm one of your regular customers'..."

"I think I learned to read during kindergarten. I know I knew how to read in first grade. I only went to public schools and I started kindergarten in late 70s."

The problem with almost all public schools is if you get there knowing how to read, you will find yourself pretty bored with Dick and Jane.

This can hurt your motivation all the way through school. I learned how to daydream to fill the time. It was a hard habit to break, that I believe would have been largely corrected by giving me work, and reading more appropriate to my skill level.

My daughter went to Catholic school in the first grade with one of the greatest teachers in the whole state.

We moved, and she started second grade in public school The teacher was not demanding and it was a complete waste of time. She was academically ahead of the other kids when the year started, but got very lazy as the year progressed, and she wasn't challenged.

"The problem with almost all public schools is if you get there knowing how to read, you will find yourself pretty bored with Dick and Jane."

I can't be certain but I thought all the kids knew how to read in first grade.

My first grade teacher technically promoted me to third grade, my parents did not want me to skip a grade. So I was a second-grader in the third grade class. For third grade I stayed in that class (I think I had a pretty good teacher and I liked her).

When I was in third grade, teacher gave me the next higher math book that I would work on my own. I was sent to the fourth grade class to do my reading. I would ask for homework and they would give me it.

In fourth grade I moved to a gifted and talented program which I hated initially because it wasn't so easy any more.

In high school I was in honors and AP courses. I went to college having about 12 credits.

I think the public schools did alright by me.

And looking back I am glad my parents didn't have me skip a grade (I was probably mad at them at the time, as I was when they put me in the G&T program). I don't think I would have ready to go away to college a year earlier than I did.

I can't be certain but I thought all the kids knew how to read in first grade.
______________________________________

That may be true now, but it's not necessarily a good thing. For starters, in the mid-1960s, schools didn't expect kids to know how to read before they started first grade, and the kids turned out fine anyway. (I can think of one semi-famous personality who wasn't pushed to learn to read before that age - and once she started school, she turned out to have an IQ of 129; she read Kurt Vonnegut, Carlos Castaneda and Sylvia Plath at age ten.)

Here's another recent example of JR's telling a parent to lighten up, whether the parent is drilling the four-year-old in academics for "modern" and/or for authoritarian reasons:

http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20160502/LIVING/160509989

"...Studies have shown that by the third grade, children who learned academics before coming to grade one are indistinguishable from peers of equal ability who did not. Further, he is coming to associate academics with a highly negative experience. This goes a long way toward explaining the finding that the earlier a child learns to read, the less likely it is that he will enjoy reading at age 16.

"Studies have also strongly suggested that the average child’s brain — no matter how 'smart' the child may be — is not fully ready for symbol-based learning (i.e., letters and numbers) until age six. That is undoubtedly not the only factor, but it is interesting in that regard to note that when the typical American child was not exposed to academics until first grade, our literacy rate was much higher...

"He’s frustrated because you’re expecting him to do something he’s not developmentally ready to do. Stop teaching academics. Love him and discipline him equally well. Let him enjoy being a 4-year-old."

(Note: From what I could infer, he wasn't talking about kids who CHOOSE to learn to read before age six, with no pressure from the parent. Obviously, there's no reason to believe that THOSE kids will develop a dislike for reading later on.)

BTW, are kids whose birthdays are in November still pushed by schools to wait until the next year to start school? I wonder.

"BTW, are kids whose birthdays are in November still pushed by schools to wait until the next year to start school? I wonder."

Many places, yes.

I can't be certain but I thought all the kids knew how to read in first grade.
______________________________________

That may be true now, but it's not necessarily a good thing. For starters, in the mid-1960s, schools didn't expect kids to know how to read before they started first grade, and the kids turned out fine anyway. (I can think of one semi-famous personality who wasn't pushed to learn to read before that age - and once she started school, she turned out to have an IQ of 129; she read Kurt Vonnegut, Carlos Castaneda and Sylvia Plath at age ten.)

I was referring to when I went to first grade in the late 70s. Though I think it also was the case for our big kids in the 90s. A big difference though our big kids had homework in 1st - 3rd grades. Any homework I got before 4th grade, I requested.

I've had family tell me that I learned to read before kindergarten but I don't remember it that way. If I did, it was probably because I wanted to.

My dad read a few Robin Cook books and I read Coma and Fever in 5th grade (not quite as high brow as Vonnegut but I wanted to be a doctor at that time). I still have a higher than normal fear of general anesthetic.

My mom read mostly romance novels. We had books every where in the house and I had a set of encyclopedias in my room.

I remember liking our set better than the World Book which was the most common one in use at school.

"BTW, are kids whose birthdays are in November still pushed by schools to wait until the next year to start school? I wonder."

Many places, yes.

I'm pretty sure when/where I went to school the cut-off was 12/1 and the same with our big kids (which is also a different where).

I've known kids with birthdays in December who probably would have done better if they waited another year.

I've know another who lost a year because of multiple changing schools and it ultimately work out better. The were more mature for high school.

Thank you Lenona for saying what I was trying to tell these people, so much better than I did.

To reiterate:
Pre school doesn't mean jack shit as far as any advantage in long term development.

The early gains disappear within a few years.

You say that, and you threaten a lot of rice bowls.

Every study in the world has found no advantage to either programs like head start or pre school once kids get to be nine of ten.

Universal Preschool is driven by three things. Parental virtue signaling, government money, and the education industry, which wants you to pay them to do what will happen naturally at home if you just give it some time and attention.

Did she mean the government? I may have read it wrong but I thought she meant groups of friends or other alternative social structures. You know, like those people who have Friendsgiving and stuff.