Is childcare "work"?

If it doesn't fit anywhere else, it fits here
Remember_Me
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1218
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 12:07 pm
Location: About town.
Contact:

Re: Is childcare "work"?

Postby Remember_Me » Tue Apr 17, 2012 11:59 pm

gargantua wrote:
Remember_Me wrote:Is working on your car or boat really work?

Just like owning a car or boat, kids are a choice.

If you choose to have them, then don't gripe about how much work it is to maintain them.


While true, somewhat mystified as to how this observation relates to the topic of the thread.


Apparently you haven't seen the fallout of people exclaiming how much work kids are... "the hardest job in the world!" :roll:

It's sorta akin to me working on my boat or car and claiming it should count for something.

Of course I work... why, I just had to change an outboard last night! You have no idea how hard it was! Woah is me!

At least kids are able to contribute to home labor and potentially provide care later in life.

We used to spawn in multiples because it provided more farmhands who produced more than they consumed. Now I can't imagine why people have multiple offspring other than carelessness, racism, or religion spreading.

I'd attribute at least 2 of those to the Romney's.

kurt_w
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 6014
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 3:11 pm
Contact:

Re: Is childcare "work"?

Postby kurt_w » Wed Apr 18, 2012 6:22 am

There are two problems with your boat analogy:

(1) Boats aren't people.
(2) Society doesn't have an economic interest in ensuring that your boat is well cared for.

In the United States, we provide some support for poor and working-class families raising children (WIC, SCHIP, etc.) This is not done as a reward for the parents, to subsidize their hobby of parenting. It's done because we believe that, first, children who cannot fend for themselves have a right to the basic necessities of life, and second, the country as a whole has an economic interest in ensuring that future citizens develop healthy minds and bodies.

Neither of those applies to your boat.

I'm not going to waste time arguing the moral point, that children inherently deserve to be cared for. But consider the economic incentives for society to support prenatal and infant/early-childhood care:

* What happens in the first three years of life has a profound influence on a person's entire life. Nearly all of the performance variation on achievement tests for 18-year-olds is locked in before age 3:

Image

If you want to grow old in a community, state, or nation that has a robust economy supported by high-achieving, productive taxpayers, it's in your interest to have high-quality prenatal and early childhood care for all children.

The flip side of that is what happens to children who are neglected during the first couple of years, when nurture and bonding are vitally important. Look at certain orphanages in Eastern Europe during the 1990s, for example. You have children who will be dealing with mental and physical consequences of that neglect all their lives. In the context of the US, that means huge costs to the child's local community for special education and other services up to age 18, then an elevated risk of antisocial behavior, welfare dependency, alcohol and drug addiction, incarceration, and other expensive and undesirable effects for the rest of their lives.

I realize that there's a certain subset of the population here (mostly but not exclusively young, single, and male) that dislikes kids, dislikes parents, and resents anything that feels like a "reward" for parenting. People have a right to their opinions, and I'm not going to try to change those. But try not to let your prejudices lead you into making foolish statements (like analogizing the needs of children to the needs of boats) or of being deliberately offensive ("spawn", "poor kids pumping out more kids"). Nobody asked to be brought into this world.

kurt_w
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 6014
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 3:11 pm
Contact:

Re: Is childcare "work"?

Postby kurt_w » Wed Apr 18, 2012 6:42 am

Remember_Me wrote:I can't imagine why people have multiple offspring other than carelessness, racism, or religion spreading.

And yet, some people do have multiple children, and not for any of the reasons you list. Perhaps your imagination isn't a particularly good guide on this subject?

Furthermore, this thread isn't about childbirth, it's about child care. Withholding social support for child care is a fairly crude way of punishing people for having children. Lots of people are raising adoptive or foster children that they didn't give birth to, while others give birth but don't raise their children.

Remember_Me
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1218
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 12:07 pm
Location: About town.
Contact:

Re: Is childcare "work"?

Postby Remember_Me » Wed Apr 18, 2012 4:13 pm

kurt_w wrote:There are two problems with your boat analogy:

(1) Boats aren't people.


So what? That's not my point. The point is having kids and the resulting workload and financial impact is a CHOICE. Just like owning a boat and all that it entails is a CHOICE. So this resulting outrage about how parenting is the hardest job in the world and that it should count for something is absurd.

You had an orgasm and nine months later a baby came out, congratulations, you've done what 99% of the human population is capable of doing. Whatta ya want, a cookie?

But don't go on telling me that the resulting workload should count for something or makes you special somehow.

Not that it doesn't count for something of course. You know, mass poverty, resource ravishing, global warming, dreadful air flight, and so on...

kurt_w wrote:(2) Society doesn't have an economic interest in ensuring that your boat is well cared for.


That's ridiculous. Of course society has an economic interest in boats and boat ownership and all it encompasses. Do you have any idea how much money is put into the economy from the manufacturing, purchasing, maintenance, docking, harbor, lake fees, permits, fuel, etc, etc, etc? Not to mention the other activities boating drives... diving, fishing, sight-seeing, cruises, sport, so on and so forth.

I'd feel safe saying that spawning unnecessary offspring drains the economy while boating and all that it entails helps to drive it.

kurt_w wrote:In the United States, we provide some support for poor and working-class families raising children (WIC, SCHIP, etc.) This is not done as a reward for the parents, to subsidize their hobby of parenting....

Ssssnip...


I'm not going to address all that and what I snipped. It's a whole other topic and doesn't have anything to do with the point I've made. Most all of what you've written could be a moot issue were we to institute some kind of reproduction education other than dispensing free birth control that obviously enough people don't or won't use.

Breeding should require a license. You say it's not fair and it's people's right to reproduce? Well, tell that to their fucked up kids. Where's their right to not be the 12th child born into illegitimacy and poverty?

kurt_w wrote:I realize that there's a certain subset of the population here (mostly but not exclusively young, single, and male) that dislikes kids, dislikes parents, and resents anything that feels like a "reward" for parenting. People have a right to their opinions, and I'm not going to try to change those. But try not to let your prejudices lead you into making foolish statements (like analogizing the needs of children to the needs of boats) or of being deliberately offensive ("spawn", "poor kids pumping out more kids"). Nobody asked to be brought into this world.


Not sure why you're quoting or attributing the "poor kids pumping out more kids" to me. Spawn, yes. And for the people who are mass reproducing, the word is perfectly acceptable. Why is that offensive to you?

My beef ain't with the kids. It's their jerkoff parents.

I love kids.

Image

Remember_Me
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1218
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 12:07 pm
Location: About town.
Contact:

Re: Is childcare "work"?

Postby Remember_Me » Wed Apr 18, 2012 4:29 pm

kurt_w wrote:And yet, some people do have multiple children, and not for any of the reasons you list.


Ok, so then why? Why do most people who have multiple children do it? What's the benefit of having 6 kids over 1 or 2? And do the Romneys or Duggars apply to your answer? I'll say that there's people who are dead set on having a specific sex and just keep churning 'em out til they get it... or go bankrupt. But really, tell me why most people spawn other than the 3 reasons I originally listed.

kurt_w wrote:Furthermore, this thread isn't about childbirth, it's about child care. Withholding social support for child care is a fairly crude way of punishing people for having children. Lots of people are raising adoptive or foster children that they didn't give birth to, while others give birth but don't raise their children.


Well, you can't have childcare without first having childbirth. So the two seem to be pretty intertwined. Especially considering the best way to ensure proper childcare is by addressing all the childbirths. Better address the childbirth problem and most of the childcare problem will sort itself out.

snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 12639
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: Is childcare "work"?

Postby snoqueen » Wed Apr 18, 2012 10:42 pm

Let's try and get this off the unmanageable question of whether people should give birth or not, and onto something more relevant: low wages.

We need to look at both sides of the work-family equation. There are... many families in which “women are working because they want to.” ....

But there are many others where the woman “is a single parent, or her husband is unemployed, or her husband isn’t seeing the kind of wage growth that his father did and can’t afford to support the family on his own.”

This points to a contradiction that few conservatives want to confront. When trying to win votes from religious and social traditionalists, conservatives speak as if they want to restore what they see as the glory days of the 1950s family. But they are reluctant to acknowledge that it was the high wages of (often unionized) workers that underwrote these arrangements.


The rest of the piece is here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... ml?hpid=z3

Remember_Me
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1218
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 12:07 pm
Location: About town.
Contact:

Re: Is childcare "work"?

Postby Remember_Me » Wed Apr 18, 2012 11:27 pm

snoqueen wrote:Let's try and get this off the unmanageable question of whether people should give birth or not, and onto something more relevant: low wages.


Sure, why not? And while we're at it, let's not talk about religion, god, or atheism because they're also unmanageable. Or politics. Or any of the myriad other things that are "unmanageable" in this world. That'll fix things... not talking about it.

Also, you don't think the issue of overpopulation is that relevant?

Overpopulation seems more relevant to me than "low wages". I think birthing education should be one of our country's top priorities. The cycle of poverty can be helped by people not capable or ready for children not having children. They can spend the savings on an education or job skills to earn a better wage for themselves.

Just like childcare above, it would seem as if low wages would be helped most by addressing birth issues.

Do you disagree with that?

kurt_w
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 6014
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 3:11 pm
Contact:

Re: Is childcare "work"?

Postby kurt_w » Thu Apr 19, 2012 9:47 am

Remember_Me wrote:
kurt_w wrote:There are two problems with your boat analogy:

(1) Boats aren't people.


So what? That's not my point.

Your point, basically, is that you loathe parents and children, and enjoy being deliberately offensive. I have no problem with your feeling that way. But the intensity of your visceral reaction to the topic is seriously hindering your reading comprehension. You're not understanding what anyone else is talking about, and your responses don't really relate to the discussion at hand.

The point is having kids and the resulting workload and financial impact is a CHOICE.

Nobody chooses to be born. Nobody asked to be brought into this world.

I understand that you have this grudge against parents. It's not unique on the Forum; you may imagine that you're being all edgy and provocative and insightful, but it's more or less the same thing that we heard from bdog a few months ago, and from other forons in years past.

Try to put that aside for a bit, because it's difficult to have a rational discussion when you're blinded by your resentments -- regardless of whether they're justified.

This thread is not about whether parents should be rewarded or punished. It's about the best way to provide care for actual, already-born children who have an absolute need to be cared for by adults.

If you want to start a thread where you can moan about how awful parents and children are, go back to the main page and click that "New Topic" button.

So this resulting outrage about how parenting is the hardest job in the world and that it should count for something is absurd.

No posts in this thread have said that parenting is the hardest job in the world. You are inventing imaginary outrages to give yourself something to whine about.

You had an orgasm and nine months later a baby came out, congratulations, you've done what 99% of the human population is capable of doing. Whatta ya want, a cookie?

This is a nice example of what will be one of the themes of your comments in this thread: confusing the act of reproduction with the act of raising a child. If you don't understand that distinction, it's going to be very difficult for you to contribute anything useful.

kurt_w wrote:(2) Society doesn't have an economic interest in ensuring that your boat is well cared for.

That's ridiculous. Of course society has an economic interest in boats and boat ownership and all it encompasses. Do you have any idea how much money is put into the economy from the manufacturing, purchasing, maintenance, docking, harbor, lake fees, permits, fuel, etc, etc, etc? Not to mention the other activities boating drives... diving, fishing, sight-seeing, cruises, sport, so on and so forth.

Unless you're operating a commercial fishing vessel, or cargo shipping, then your boat's role in the economy is purely consumption. It's true that in an economy like the present one, where growth is being held back by a shortage of demand, there's some value in promoting consumption.

In the long term, however, it's more useful to allocate resources towards investment rather than consumption. Investments in early childhood interventions typically yield conservatively calculated savings of anywhere from 180% to 1700% of the program costs.

kurt_w wrote:In the United States, we provide some support for poor and working-class families raising children (WIC, SCHIP, etc.) This is not done as a reward for the parents, to subsidize their hobby of parenting....
Ssssnip...

I'm not going to address all that and what I snipped. It's a whole other topic and doesn't have anything to do with the point I've made.

What you snipped is, basically, the point of this thread.

You're essentially in the position of a guy who inserts himself into a discussion about the Packers' strategy in last week's game and loudly declares that he hates football and that all this "coaching strategy" stuff isn't the point.

Breeding should require a license.

That would be an interesting topic for a different thread. Why don't you start it? Of course, if your goal is to get actual discussion going, rather than people just standing around insulting each other, it would probably be more productive to avoid deliberately offensive language like "breeding".

You say it's not fair and it's people's right to reproduce? Well, tell that to their fucked up kids. Where's their right to not be the 12th child born into illegitimacy and poverty?

Still inventing your own grievances. Nobody in this thread has said anything about a "right to reproduce". Do you always have this much trouble with reading comprehension?

kurt_w wrote:I realize that there's a certain subset of the population here (mostly but not exclusively young, single, and male) that dislikes kids, dislikes parents, and resents anything that feels like a "reward" for parenting. People have a right to their opinions, and I'm not going to try to change those. But try not to let your prejudices lead you into making foolish statements (like analogizing the needs of children to the needs of boats) or of being deliberately offensive ("spawn", "poor kids pumping out more kids"). Nobody asked to be brought into this world.

Not sure why you're quoting or attributing the "poor kids pumping out more kids" to me.

I didn't attribute it to you. You're not the first foron to use offensive language when discussing this topic.

Spawn, yes. And for the people who are mass reproducing, the word is perfectly acceptable.

Actually it's quite rude, as you are aware -- why else would you have used it? But if you enjoy being offensive, go right ahead. One of the nice things about parenthood is that it tends to promote a certain degree of patience with other people who are behaving childishly.

snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 12639
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: Is childcare "work"?

Postby snoqueen » Thu Apr 19, 2012 10:53 am

Overpopulation seems more relevant to me than "low wages". I think birthing education should be one of our country's top priorities. The cycle of poverty can be helped by people not capable or ready for children not having children....

Just like childcare above, it would seem as if low wages would be helped most by addressing birth issues.


This thread is not about whether parents should be rewarded or punished. It's about the best way to provide care for actual, already-born children who have an absolute need to be cared for by adults.


I removed the contributors' names from those quotes so we can focus on their content.

Actually, I can concur with the idea overpopulation is one thing (among others) at the root of a number of major global problems, including
the out-of-balance carbon/carbon dioxide cycle, shortages of drinking water, depletion of mineral resources (which can include groundwater), some food shortages, some social inequities, and more.

These are mega-level imbalances, if I can make up a hierarchy of imbalance categories for the purpose of discussion. They'll need to be dealt with on a global scale, though any smaller efforts probably won't hurt.

The original question (second quote above) is about national social policy which is a step or two down from global policies and problems though not irrelevant to them.

The graph Kurt posted showed children of mothers with more education start out with and maintain an advantage. So possibly one part of our social policy could be better education for more young woman, so more kids get that advantage.

(I also believe higher education for women has been found to correlate with a lower birth rate, internationally. So population control might be one consequence of female education.)

In reference to national policy, before that education kicks in (and you can assume this is a generation-long intervention, or longer) we need ways to help kids being born right now make the most of their lives and not become a weight on the healthcare or criminal justice system. Doing this efficiently is to everybody's benefit, because why should we spend many thousands incarcerating somebody when we could spend just a little giving them an enriched childhood with good nutrition, early education, protection from abuse, and other simple assistance?

To do that, we need to know what assistance gives the best results ten or twenty years down the line. Does it really help to have all children stay home with their mothers the first four years of life, or do some (or all) children benefit from more varied and wider socialization from the beginning? Or what?

These are questions with discoverable answers and if we're missing some of those answers, we need to search them out while at the same time using what we've already got.

So part of my response to the original question turns out to be like this: let's put an emphasis on education, particularly but not exclusively for young women.

Another part is: let's provide early childhood support in line with established research so kids can attain their best potential.

How does this relate to the question of whether child care is work or not? If a mother can stay home with her kids while someone else provides for them, and she sincerely wants to do this, whether we name her activity "work" or not makes no difference on a policy level. (My own mother hated staying home with us while we were little and voluntarily went back into the paid workforce as soon as she could, which was to everyone's benefit because she was happier and we kids were fine. So I refuse to assume everyone comes up with the same preferred result here and I object to the idea there's only one right way.)

However, the true social issue is about society's response to the mothers and kids in the EJ Dionne op-ed piece I linked yesterday: What about mothers who have various good reasons for needing child care, and can't afford to pay for it out of their own resource stream?

My thought here is for society to pay for the CARE, not pay the women in some specific, targeted way. If we know what types of care give kids the best start, we have a shared interest in helping to provide it.

Care includes healthcare, nutrition, safe and well-managed daycare while the woman is doing other paid work, preventing homelessness among women with children, and meeting other obvious needs.

Of course, the same support should be available to men raising children, and that's one more reason we need to focus on the care.

Does this address the original question, or am I missing part of it?

kurt_w
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 6014
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 3:11 pm
Contact:

Re: Is childcare "work"?

Postby kurt_w » Thu Apr 19, 2012 11:23 am

snoqueen wrote:Does this address the original question, or am I missing part of it?

Sure, the original post was basically musings about several interrelated issues, so there are any number of directions one could go. I'm only trying to steer the conversation away from "I HATE PARENTS".

And this I agree with completely:

snoqueen wrote:In reference to national policy, before that education kicks in (and you can assume this is a generation-long intervention, or longer) we need ways to help kids being born right now make the most of their lives and not become a weight on the healthcare or criminal justice system. Doing this efficiently is to everybody's benefit, because why should we spend many thousands incarcerating somebody when we could spend just a little giving them an enriched childhood with good nutrition, early education, protection from abuse, and other simple assistance?

To do that, we need to know what assistance gives the best results ten or twenty years down the line.

I linked above to this summary of a larger RAND report titled Proven Benefits of Early Childhood Interventions. Since most forons probably won't click through, here are two of the key findings:

RAND wrote:* Early childhood intervention programs have been shown to yield benefits in academic achievement, behavior, educational progression and attainment, delinquency and crime, and labor market success, among other domains.

* Well-designed early childhood interventions have been found to generate a return to society ranging from $1.80 to $17.07 for each dollar spent on the program.

This also suggests that the cost savings from these kinds of programs mostly are a function of how well targeted they are: interventions applied to low-risk kids don't save the country much if any money, but interventions targeted at high-risk kids can save 200% or more of the program cost. However, while all the costs are known, only a (small?) fraction of the benefits can be measured. So these findings of cost-effectiveness are very conservative.

There is a reason why the US has such abysmal statistics on infant mortality, teenage pregnancy, incarceration rates, etc. when compared to other Western countries.

Marvell
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 7013
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 11:28 pm
Location: At one with time and space

Re: Is childcare "work"?

Postby Marvell » Thu Apr 19, 2012 12:18 pm

Remember_Me wrote:
You had an orgasm and nine months later a baby came out, congratulations, you've done what 99% of the human population is capable of doing. Whatta ya want, a cookie?


A cookie would be nice, yes.

I don't have any kids. But who doesn't want a cookie?

I mean, besides Hitler - that cookie hating bastard.

Marvell
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 7013
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 11:28 pm
Location: At one with time and space

Re: Is childcare "work"?

Postby Marvell » Thu Apr 19, 2012 12:21 pm

kurt_w wrote:So these findings of cost-effectiveness are very conservative.


In our contemporary political context, probably not the word you want.

Remember_Me
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1218
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 12:07 pm
Location: About town.
Contact:

Re: Is childcare "work"?

Postby Remember_Me » Thu Apr 19, 2012 3:31 pm

Marvell wrote:
I don't have any kids. But who doesn't want a cookie?


I know right? And you know what's even better than a cookie?

A cookie after an orgasm!


(I'll get to Kurt and Sno's comments in a bit....)

Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 21197
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all
Contact:

Re: Is childcare "work"?

Postby Henry Vilas » Thu Apr 19, 2012 3:49 pm

Did Ann Romney raise her kids herself or did she have nannies?

Just wonderin'.

Remember_Me
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1218
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 12:07 pm
Location: About town.
Contact:

Re: Is childcare "work"?

Postby Remember_Me » Thu Apr 19, 2012 6:10 pm

kurt_w wrote:Your point, basically, is that you loathe parents and children, and enjoy being deliberately offensive.


Speaking of boats, it would appear as if you're completely missing the boat here. As I stated, I love kids, my beef ain't with them and I certainly don't begrudge them for simply being born. I also don't begrudge parents. Without reproducing, we cease to exist. I'm more concerned with the spawners and those reproducing who shouldn't be. People who are ready and capable to be parents, have at it, in moderation.

Yes, of course there is the immediate matter of children who are already born and the issue of caring for them. I get it. But I also like to get to the root of things if I can too.

For several years as a teenager I volunteered at an animal shelter. To see the realities of overpopulation up close and personal, go work at a shelter. We had to deal with the immediate issue of animals being brought in, you know, animal care, but we also knew to help fix the issue we were currently dealing with we needed to spay or neuter the animal as well. We stressed the importance of spaying or neutering pets to the adopters and throughout the community.

In a daily 5-second sentence, Bob Barker did more for the animal overpopulation issue in this country than just about anyone. Where is this education for humans? It's trampled and torn apart by conservatives for the most part, particularly the uber-religious. So we ignore it. Let's not get the Jesus freaks whipped into a frenzy!

Funny how we have the insight to deal with overpopulation in other mammals/animals, but don't take a look at ourselves. We have no issue sending people with guns and bows up north to thin herds of deer every year, but god forbid we take a look in the mirror.

To talk about childcare while not addressing the root issue is just dumb. Imagine if we simply cared for shelter animals and did nothing else. We'd be overrun and at some point no longer able to care for the animals either.

Well guess where we're headed?

kurt_w wrote:I have no problem with your feeling that way.


Obviously you do. Be genuine. I'll respect you more for it.

kurt_w wrote:But the intensity of your visceral reaction to the topic is seriously hindering your reading comprehension. You're not understanding what anyone else is talking about, and your responses don't really relate to the discussion at hand.


I read everything and understood it perfectly. I think you're just getting bristled by my take on it all. A lot of people do regarding subjects like this. Which is why I find the repeated attempts to navigate away from my comments so interesting. It does pertain to the discussion, just not in a way you'd like.

just curious, are you a parent?

kurt_w wrote:Nobody chooses to be born. Nobody asked to be brought into this world.


I agree. What's your point? My point was that having kids is a choice. And it is. What part of that don't you get?

kurt_w wrote:I understand that you have this grudge against parents.


Nope. See above.

(you're not projecting are you?)

kurt_w wrote:It's not unique on the Forum; you may imagine that you're being all edgy and provocative and insightful, but it's more or less the same thing that we heard from bdog a few months ago, and from other forons in years past.


I don't care if it's "unique" or not. Or if I'm being "provocative" or "edgy". I'd like to think I'm being insightful, but I'm humble enough to know that's not always the case. I'm trying to establish a dialogue on the big picture here. If you're offended by that, well, suck it up. We're all grownups here.

My point isn't to offend, but rather engage. If you don't like the things I'm contributing that's fine, you don't have to address them. You won't hurt my feelings one bit by not doing so. I welcome your input.

kurt_w wrote:Try to put that aside for a bit, because it's difficult to have a rational discussion when you're blinded by your resentments -- regardless of whether they're justified.


What resentments? That I think kids, kids who don't have a choice who they're born to, should have the best chances and opportunities possible to them? Yeah, maybe you're right, I do resent that not happening. If they had been born to loving parents who were ready for them, maybe things like this wouldn't make Yahoo's homepage today.

Sorry if my resentment over that is being felt here.

Like I said, I love kids.

kurt_w wrote:This thread is not about whether parents should be rewarded or punished.


I didn't say it was. And curious, what do you mean by rewarded or punished parents? You seem to be really, really, misconstruing the things I'm saying.

kurt_w wrote:It's about the best way to provide care for actual, already-born children who have an absolute need to be cared for by adults.


Well, now you're simply stressing the "already-born" part in an effort to get me off my contentions. But I've already addressed this above. While involuntarily "fixing" humans isn't the answer, birthing education is. Unlike pets, we're able to train humans about this. And we don't. So the cycle continues.

Fix the cause, not the problem. I love how people fixate on the problem while not the cause and then get ruffled when people want to address the cause as well. And then proceed to stymie the conversation if it veers that way.


kurt_w wrote:If you want to start a thread where you can moan about how awful parents and children are, go back to the main page and click that "New Topic" button.


Not what I'm doing. Why are you so reticent to my incorporating the cause here? Baffles me.

kurt_w wrote:No posts in this thread have said that parenting is the hardest job in the world. You are inventing imaginary outrages to give yourself something to whine about.


Wow. You didn't just start some organic thread here about a topic that was swimming around in your brain for a while. You plucked a national headline and then started a thread about it. That national headline has went on to encompass all sorts of things.

Apparently we get our news from entirely different sources. One of the resulting fallouts I've been seeing all over is the "parenting is the hardest job in the world" bit (well, mothering actually).

Am I imagining this?

Or this?

Or the tons of pundits on the various news channels droning on and on about it?

No. It's real. Not some outrage I created.

And I'm mentioning it because it pertains to the national story you started this thread about. So what if no one else brought it up before me? I've now brought it up.

Deal with it or don't.

kurt_w wrote:This is a nice example of what will be one of the themes of your comments in this thread: confusing the act of reproduction with the act of raising a child. If you don't understand that distinction, it's going to be very difficult for you to contribute anything useful.


I understand that distinction just fine. Thanks.

kurt_w wrote:Unless you're operating a commercial fishing vessel, or cargo shipping, then your boat's role in the economy is purely consumption.


Who cares if I'm the supply or demand side? They're supplying it, I'm consuming it. Without my consumption there is no commercial fishing or cargo shipping. We both drive the economy. You said boats aren't an economic interest to society. I simply corrected you.

kurt_w wrote:Investments in early childhood interventions typically yield conservatively calculated savings of anywhere from 180% to 1700% of the program costs.


Great. I never said investing in early childhood interventions wasn't a good thing. I think investing in birthing education would be an even better thing.

kurt_w wrote:What you snipped is, basically, the point of this thread.


Maybe to you and some others. Basically.

kurt_w wrote:You're essentially in the position of a guy who inserts himself into a discussion about the Packers' strategy in last week's game and loudly declares that he hates football and that all this "coaching strategy" stuff isn't the point.


Not worth responding to other than this sentence.

kurt_w wrote:That would be an interesting topic for a different thread. Why don't you start it?


Because it pertains to this one. Again, if you think I'm not contributing or don't like what I have to say, you need not address it if you like.

kurt_w wrote:Of course, if your goal is to get actual discussion going, rather than people just standing around insulting each other, it would probably be more productive to avoid deliberately offensive language like "breeding".


Good grief. Get thicker skin.

Is there a better term for people who mass produce you'd prefer me to use? You don't like breeding or spawning.

SPAWN as defined by Merriam-Webster: verb, to produce young especially in large numbers.

BREED: verb, to produce (offspring) by hatching or gestation.

Provide me with a word that makes you feel more warm and fuzzy about spawning or breeding and I'll use it from now on.

kurt_w wrote:Still inventing your own grievances. Nobody in this thread has said anything about a "right to reproduce". Do you always have this much trouble with reading comprehension?


Well that's usually the response when someone starts talking about population control. Has nothing to do with reading comprehension and more to do with preemptively answering a typical response.

I try to think ahead.

kurt_w wrote:I didn't attribute it to you. You're not the first foron to use offensive language when discussing this topic.


Well, when you quote my post, then quote an actual word I DID use, then go on to quote another passage right after, one would think you were attributing it to them. Which I think is what you meant to do. You just confused mine and bdog's words is all. I could be wrong... but that's what it appears.

Not exactly a big deal, it happens. But when it does, it should be clarified on who said what.

Also, you seem really worked up about all the "offensive" language here. You may want to take a Kit-Kat break and get some fresh air. I really don't think things are all as bad as you're getting worked up about.

But again, I'll tone it down if you give me a more appropriate word to use. You just let me know all the bad words you don't like and I'll try to find suitable replacements.

kurt_w wrote:Actually it's quite rude, as you are aware -- why else would you have used it? But if you enjoy being offensive, go right ahead.


Oh cool. I didn't see this part yet. So I need not use other words if I enjoy being offensive?

Well, the reality is, sometimes I do enjoy being offensive. However, now isn't really one of them. So again, since I obviously rubbed you the wrong way, I'll try to refrain from those particular words again.

I'd still like your safe substitute words though.

kurt_w wrote:One of the nice things about parenthood is that it tends to promote a certain degree of patience with other people who are behaving childishly.


Aaahahh! This answers my question from earlier.

You are a parent.

Well then, now it's all apparent.


Return to “Catch All”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest