As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

Kids/Parenting: It’s fine, everything is fine.

1838486888991

Posts

  • dennisdennis aka bingley Registered User regular
    CroakerBC wrote: »
    dennis wrote: »
    kime wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    There is a pertussis vaccine. The commercials about it have a baby making a noise that triggers my parental "CHILD EMERGENCY, SICK CHILD REALLY BAD DANGER DANGER GET UP DO SOMETHING" alarm like fucking whoa.

    Deffo look into that if you have tiny ones. It's no bueno to get them through some of the things that fall into "croup" as a casual term.

    The pertussis vaccine is pretty standard now for kids.

    Often given as a combined DPT ("dip-tet") vaccine - diphtheria/pertussis/tetanus.

    It still throws me off that the chicken pox vaccine didn't come out until I was 20.

    Edit: Correction. I forgot they do DTaP or Tdap now, which are the same thing as DPT, but different.

    I genuinely had no idea there even was a chickenpox vaccine now until we took the boy in and they put it in his hip. Science is neat!

    It's a requirement for going to school (starting with Kindergarten) here in Minnesota. Which makes it all the more frustrating that I recently got a notice that someone in the elementary school my kids go to had a case. I'm guessing "religious" exemption.

    ShadowfireElvenshaeAbsoluteZero
  • ShadowfireShadowfire Vermont, in the middle of nowhereRegistered User regular
    Could also be a breakthrough case, or someone the vaccine didn't work on!

    But... yours is pretty likely too.

    WiiU: Windrunner ; Guild Wars 2: Shadowfire.3940 ; PSN: Bradcopter
    CarpydennisElvenshaeAbsoluteZero
  • lonelyahavalonelyahava Call me Ahava ~~She/Her~~ Move to New ZealandRegistered User regular
    Chicken pox vaccine only recently became funded down here. Previously it was about $100 to get.

  • dennisdennis aka bingley Registered User regular
    People really downplay chicken pox, but it used to kill about 100 people a year. Now it's more like 20 (and that's with a greater population). And some say "well, that's if you don't get it when you're a kid and get it as an adult, so that's why we should let kids get it instead of vaccinating them" are also way off:

    4muzdlfkkhrx.png
    It was almost entirely kids dying.

    spool32kimeAbsoluteZero
  • CroakerBCCroakerBC TorontoRegistered User regular
    dennis wrote: »
    People really downplay chicken pox, but it used to kill about 100 people a year. Now it's more like 20 (and that's with a greater population). And some say "well, that's if you don't get it when you're a kid and get it as an adult, so that's why we should let kids get it instead of vaccinating them" are also way off:

    4muzdlfkkhrx.png
    It was almost entirely kids dying.

    Interestingly it seems they don’t provide it in the UK, apparently because getting chickenpox mitigates adult shingles. One of the benefits
    of moving countries, I guess.

  • shadowaneshadowane Registered User regular
    CroakerBC wrote: »
    dennis wrote: »
    kime wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    There is a pertussis vaccine. The commercials about it have a baby making a noise that triggers my parental "CHILD EMERGENCY, SICK CHILD REALLY BAD DANGER DANGER GET UP DO SOMETHING" alarm like fucking whoa.

    Deffo look into that if you have tiny ones. It's no bueno to get them through some of the things that fall into "croup" as a casual term.

    The pertussis vaccine is pretty standard now for kids.

    Often given as a combined DPT ("dip-tet") vaccine - diphtheria/pertussis/tetanus.

    It still throws me off that the chicken pox vaccine didn't come out until I was 20.

    Edit: Correction. I forgot they do DTaP or Tdap now, which are the same thing as DPT, but different.

    I genuinely had no idea there even was a chickenpox vaccine now until we took the boy in and they put it in his hip. Science is neat!

    This is funny because I got it myself like 24 years ago since I never got chicken pox as a kid. I was probably one of the first groups to really get it given that.

  • ElvenshaeElvenshae Registered User regular
    edited September 22
    Responding to Croaker:

    … huh? Getting chickenpox is how you get adult shingles, because shingles is the re-emergence of the dormant varicella virii that have been hanging out in your body for years.

    Unless I’m completely out to lunch.

    Elvenshae on
    m!ttensdenniskimeKayne Red Robematt has a problemDisruptedCapitalistCauldShadowfireBanzai5150electricitylikesmeJebusUDAbsoluteZeroadejaanRanlin
  • dennisdennis aka bingley Registered User regular
    edited September 22
    Elvenshae wrote: »
    Responding to Croaker:

    … huh? Getting chickenpox is how you get adult shingles, because shingles is the re-emergence of the dormant varicella virii that have been hanging out in your body for years.

    Unless I’m completely out to lunch.

    You are entirely correct:
    Shingles is caused by the varicella-zoster virus — the same virus that causes chickenpox. After you've had chickenpox, the virus stays in your body for the rest of your life. Years later, the virus may reactivate as shingles.
    https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/shingles/symptoms-causes/syc-20353054

    dennis on
  • MulysaSemproniusMulysaSempronius but also susie nyRegistered User regular
    Yes, shingles comes from chickenpox. Because the virus never really fully leaves your body, and gets reactivated.
    But "adults would no longer have their immunity boosted by exposure to their chickenpox-suffering children and grandchildren and would be more likely to get shingles" if kids don't put themselves at risk by getting chicken-pox https://www.ox.ac.uk/research/everything-you-need-know-about-chickenpox-and-why-more-countries-don’t-use-vaccine

    So, you know, sacrifice the kids, and put them at future risk for shingles so that adults who had chicken pox are less likely to get shingles.

    If that's all there is my friends, then let's keep dancing
  • CroakerBCCroakerBC TorontoRegistered User regular
    Yes, shingles comes from chickenpox. Because the virus never really fully leaves your body, and gets reactivated.
    But "adults would no longer have their immunity boosted by exposure to their chickenpox-suffering children and grandchildren and would be more likely to get shingles" if kids don't put themselves at risk by getting chicken-pox https://www.ox.ac.uk/research/everything-you-need-know-about-chickenpox-and-why-more-countries-don’t-use-vaccine

    So, you know, sacrifice the kids, and put them at future risk for shingles so that adults who had chicken pox are less likely to get shingles.

    Amusingly of course, there is a vaccine for shingles.

    denniskimeKayne Red RobeAbsoluteZero
  • AiouaAioua Ora Occidens Ora OptimaRegistered User regular
    CroakerBC wrote: »
    Yes, shingles comes from chickenpox. Because the virus never really fully leaves your body, and gets reactivated.
    But "adults would no longer have their immunity boosted by exposure to their chickenpox-suffering children and grandchildren and would be more likely to get shingles" if kids don't put themselves at risk by getting chicken-pox https://www.ox.ac.uk/research/everything-you-need-know-about-chickenpox-and-why-more-countries-don’t-use-vaccine

    So, you know, sacrifice the kids, and put them at future risk for shingles so that adults who had chicken pox are less likely to get shingles.

    Amusingly of course, there is a vaccine for shingles.

    But you're not allowed to get it until you're 50 for some asinine reason.

    life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
    fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
    that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
    bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
    MulysaSemproniuskimeElvenshaeShadowfirelonelyahavaAbsoluteZero
  • dennisdennis aka bingley Registered User regular
    edited September 22
    Aioua wrote: »
    CroakerBC wrote: »
    Yes, shingles comes from chickenpox. Because the virus never really fully leaves your body, and gets reactivated.
    But "adults would no longer have their immunity boosted by exposure to their chickenpox-suffering children and grandchildren and would be more likely to get shingles" if kids don't put themselves at risk by getting chicken-pox https://www.ox.ac.uk/research/everything-you-need-know-about-chickenpox-and-why-more-countries-don’t-use-vaccine

    So, you know, sacrifice the kids, and put them at future risk for shingles so that adults who had chicken pox are less likely to get shingles.

    Amusingly of course, there is a vaccine for shingles.

    But you're not allowed to get it until you're 50 for some asinine reason.

    It seems like the shingles vaccine just knocks the already-existing varicella infection back down. It doesn't prevent you from "catching" shingles, because you already have it. They say that shingles don't really start getting troublesome until around 55, so it makes some sense to wait until 50 to give people the vaccine. It only lasts 5 years, so it's also something you'd need to keep getting. But a lot of people forget that and think "I've already been vaccinated for that." Would suck to get the vaccine when you're 47 and then forget and start having pain in your 50s.

    CDC says, "Protection from this shingles vaccine lasts about 5 years, so adults vaccinated before they are 60 years old might not be protected later in life when the risk for shingles and its complications are greatest." So I guess they're just mainly trying to keep the vaccination to the period where it does the most good. I guess also you have to consider the risks when you get any kind of vaccine (small as they are) and weigh it against the benefit.

    NHS also adds, "Very occasionally, a person has developed chickenpox following shingles vaccination (fewer than 1 in 10,000 individuals)." :open_mouth:

    dennis on
  • kimekime Queen of Blades Registered User regular
    dennis wrote: »
    Aioua wrote: »
    CroakerBC wrote: »
    Yes, shingles comes from chickenpox. Because the virus never really fully leaves your body, and gets reactivated.
    But "adults would no longer have their immunity boosted by exposure to their chickenpox-suffering children and grandchildren and would be more likely to get shingles" if kids don't put themselves at risk by getting chicken-pox https://www.ox.ac.uk/research/everything-you-need-know-about-chickenpox-and-why-more-countries-don’t-use-vaccine

    So, you know, sacrifice the kids, and put them at future risk for shingles so that adults who had chicken pox are less likely to get shingles.

    Amusingly of course, there is a vaccine for shingles.

    But you're not allowed to get it until you're 50 for some asinine reason.

    It seems like the shingles vaccine just knocks the already-existing varicella infection back down. It doesn't prevent you from "catching" shingles, because you already have it. They say that shingles don't really start getting troublesome until around 55, so it makes some sense to wait until 50 to give people the vaccine. It only lasts 5 years, so it's also something you'd need to keep getting. But a lot of people forget that and think "I've already been vaccinated for that." Would suck to get the vaccine when you're 47 and then forget and start having pain in your 50s.

    CDC says, "Protection from this shingles vaccine lasts about 5 years, so adults vaccinated before they are 60 years old might not be protected later in life when the risk for shingles and its complications are greatest." So I guess they're just mainly trying to keep the vaccination to the period where it does the most good. I guess also you have to consider the risks when you get any kind of vaccine (small as they are) and weigh it against the benefit.

    NHS also adds, "Very occasionally, a person has developed chickenpox following shingles vaccination (fewer than 1 in 10,000 individuals)." :open_mouth:

    I'll be honest, I didn't know the shingles vaccine was a 5-year thing, which makes the age restriction make slightly more sense, I suppose.

    Battle.net ID: kime#1822
    3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
    Steam profile
    ElvenshaeCarpy
  • Red RaevynRed Raevyn because I only take Bubble Baths Registered User regular
    I just finished a horrifying chapter about a previously healthy young adult with chickenpox in this fascinating book by an infectious disease doctor, "The Woman with a Worm in Her Head." It involved pre-edit: a buncha gross scary stuff I'll spare you from, and was fatal. It was in '94 though, before the vaccine.

  • CroakerBCCroakerBC TorontoRegistered User regular
    It’s our boy’s birthday tomorrow. He is two! How?! So we’ve got the block party room booked and 20 pizzas and ten kids coming over, and one of our family from the US is up for it, which is lovely.

    So of course he came home from daycare today and popped a moderate fever.

    I could cry.

    dennisCarpySoggybiscuitlonelyahavaElvenshaeMechMantisurahonkyMNC DoverShadowfireAntinumericMichaelLCAbsoluteZeroRed RaevynFeloniousmozDisruptedCapitalist
  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    CroakerBC wrote: »
    It’s our boy’s birthday tomorrow. He is two! How?! So we’ve got the block party room booked and 20 pizzas and ten kids coming over, and one of our family from the US is up for it, which is lovely.

    So of course he came home from daycare today and popped a moderate fever.

    I could cry.

    Hopefully it was one of the fake fevers kids sometes get and he was fine today :( my older son was always sick for like 3 days when he got a fever, conversely, my youngest would be fine in 6 hours sometimes, sick for 7 days the other times.

    Unpredictable!

    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
  • AbsoluteZeroAbsoluteZero The new film by Quentin Koopantino Registered User regular
    Tastyfish wrote: »
    Our nursery has teched up and is part of an app where we can see photos of her doing new things and chart new behaviours! Also lets us chart changes in development and tastes by letting us know how long she sleeps and when and what foods she ate whilst at Nursery. Sounds great.

    Currently mostly poop notifications.

    Also terrifyingly, Google photos can identify her at two years old and two days old, amongst other babies of similar ages and from a half profile angle.

    Our daycare has something like this too. I actually like the poop notifications, because he's not ever been a consistent pooper. Also the pics of him they send brighten my day. Like for real, therapeutic in the middle of a stressful ass day to get a picture of his smiling little mug.

    cs6f034fsffl.jpg
    Shadowfire
  • honoverehonovere Registered User regular
    Ha, our daycare currently doesn't even manage to stay open consistently because they're so understaffed. It's a bit of a nightmare

  • CroakerBCCroakerBC TorontoRegistered User regular
    tbloxham wrote: »
    CroakerBC wrote: »
    It’s our boy’s birthday tomorrow. He is two! How?! So we’ve got the block party room booked and 20 pizzas and ten kids coming over, and one of our family from the US is up for it, which is lovely.

    So of course he came home from daycare today and popped a moderate fever.

    I could cry.

    Hopefully it was one of the fake fevers kids sometes get and he was fine today :( my older son was always sick for like 3 days when he got a fever, conversely, my youngest would be fine in 6 hours sometimes, sick for 7 days the other times.

    Unpredictable!

    He was a bit better in the morning, spent it watching Disney films and was good enough to do an hour’s party by lunchtime - yay. That said we’ve been trying to figure out if he has pinkeye or a cold or what, today. Children!

    @AbsoluteZero we actually voted against cameras at our daycare, so the kids and staff would have the privacy to just do their stuff. They do send us pictures every week though and that’s always lovely!

    Antinumeric
  • urahonkyurahonky Registered User regular
    honovere wrote: »
    Ha, our daycare currently doesn't even manage to stay open consistently because they're so understaffed. It's a bit of a nightmare

    Daycare teachers do not make nearly enough money. We pay 290 a week for my kid. My daughter's room has 20 kids. And yet the teacher in the class makes 14 an hour or some bullshit.

    CelestialBadgerdennisShadowfirelonelyahavaCalicaDisruptedCapitalist
  • dennisdennis aka bingley Registered User regular
    urahonky wrote: »
    honovere wrote: »
    Ha, our daycare currently doesn't even manage to stay open consistently because they're so understaffed. It's a bit of a nightmare

    Daycare teachers do not make nearly enough money. We pay 290 a week for my kid. My daughter's room has 20 kids. And yet the teacher in the class makes 14 an hour or some bullshit.

    Yeah, it's shockingly low.
    Prior to the Covid-19 pandemic, the average early childhood worker earned just $11.65 an hour
    Tuesday’s report finds that child-care workers earn enough to cover their basic needs in only 10 states
    source

    It's an expensive business that pays both workers and owners very little. This tweet illustrates the problem:


    Staffing ratios are just an inescapable part of this. As you get younger kids, you need staff members who spend their time on fewer kids. Government regulations require differ ratios from state to state and city to city, and you can debate on who is right, but any of us here can tell infants and toddlers require a lot of care!

    Then the pandemic came along and shut down a lot of places for months and months, meaning a lot of owners and workers had to find another line of work. And the pandemic also shifted the job market, where a lot of the day care workers managed to find better paying jobs elsewhere. But this couldn't force daycares to pay more because their math didn't really change. Any rate increases they do understandably start to cause their clients to have to do math on whether they can afford daycare anymore, thus reducing enrollment.

    We really need to fund daycares like we do schools (which isn't even enough, either).

    SoggybiscuiturahonkyMulysaSemproniusShadowfireMNC DoverRed RaevynCalicaElvenshaeCelestialBadger
  • AbsoluteZeroAbsoluteZero The new film by Quentin Koopantino Registered User regular
    urahonky wrote: »
    honovere wrote: »
    Ha, our daycare currently doesn't even manage to stay open consistently because they're so understaffed. It's a bit of a nightmare

    Daycare teachers do not make nearly enough money. We pay 290 a week for my kid. My daughter's room has 20 kids. And yet the teacher in the class makes 14 an hour or some bullshit.

    $400 a week here for 1 kid.

    cs6f034fsffl.jpg
  • wobblyheadedbobwobblyheadedbob Registered User regular
    urahonky wrote: »
    honovere wrote: »
    Ha, our daycare currently doesn't even manage to stay open consistently because they're so understaffed. It's a bit of a nightmare

    Daycare teachers do not make nearly enough money. We pay 290 a week for my kid. My daughter's room has 20 kids. And yet the teacher in the class makes 14 an hour or some bullshit.

    $400 a week here for 1 kid.

    Full time, our daycare charges $2400 a month. Insanity.

    AbsoluteZeroCarpySoggybiscuitMNC DoverShadowfireCroakerBCDisruptedCapitalist
  • CalicaCalica Registered User regular
    urahonky wrote: »
    honovere wrote: »
    Ha, our daycare currently doesn't even manage to stay open consistently because they're so understaffed. It's a bit of a nightmare

    Daycare teachers do not make nearly enough money. We pay 290 a week for my kid. My daughter's room has 20 kids. And yet the teacher in the class makes 14 an hour or some bullshit.

    $400 a week here for 1 kid.

    Full time, our daycare charges $2400 a month. Insanity.

    Same basic problem as elder care, social work, etc.: the people who need it can't afford to pay what it costs. Which is why these things need to be paid for with taxes.

    ShadowfiredennisSoggybiscuitCelestialBadgerRanlinAbsoluteZero
  • dennisdennis aka bingley Registered User regular
    Calica wrote: »
    urahonky wrote: »
    honovere wrote: »
    Ha, our daycare currently doesn't even manage to stay open consistently because they're so understaffed. It's a bit of a nightmare

    Daycare teachers do not make nearly enough money. We pay 290 a week for my kid. My daughter's room has 20 kids. And yet the teacher in the class makes 14 an hour or some bullshit.

    $400 a week here for 1 kid.

    Full time, our daycare charges $2400 a month. Insanity.

    Same basic problem as elder care, social work, etc.: the people who need it can't afford to pay what it costs. Which is why these things need to be paid for with taxes.

    Plus, with childcare (and elder care, if it's the elder's child that's having to provide care) there would be the result of empowering workers, resulting in a better quality of life. Many times, people want to work, but literally can't afford to stop providing childcare and pay someone else. Things like this and health insurance are chains that bind us to our employers, many of whom like it that way.

    ElvenshaekimeSoggybiscuitRanlinCalicaShadowfire
  • CelestialBadgerCelestialBadger Registered User regular
    For young babies it makes more economic sense to pay a parent to take a year off work than pay a daycare. Better for child development too.

    spool32Kayne Red Robe
  • dennisdennis aka bingley Registered User regular
    For young babies it makes more economic sense to pay a parent to take a year off work than pay a daycare. Better for child development too.

    Depends on the parent. For some parents, being solely dedicated to an infant for an entire year is a form of torture, and the quality of care could suffer.

    kimelonelyahavaschussDisruptedCapitalistShadowfireCauldAbsoluteZeroMulysaSempronius
  • Ninja Snarl PNinja Snarl P My helmet is my burden. Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered User regular
    edited September 26
    dennis wrote: »
    For young babies it makes more economic sense to pay a parent to take a year off work than pay a daycare. Better for child development too.

    Depends on the parent. For some parents, being solely dedicated to an infant for an entire year is a form of torture, and the quality of care could suffer.

    Then that sounds an awful lot to me like somebody who shouldn't have kids? I mean, the notion isn't that 100% of every second of your day is devoted to fawning over the kid, but you're still taking taking the time to put all needs of the kid first and anything else second. It's entirely expected to be able to take breaks from the kid and stuff.

    Ninja Snarl P on
  • CarpyCarpy Registered User regular
    edited September 26
    Wrong thread

    Carpy on
  • lonelyahavalonelyahava Call me Ahava ~~She/Her~~ Move to New ZealandRegistered User regular
    I took the first year of Ellie's life as Maternity leave.
    Ecco was working from home for the first 8 months of her life.
    My mom was here for the first 3 months.

    If I hadn't had that support, I would not have made it for that first year. I am a better parent with having help and relief.

    It's socially acceptable/expected down here (especially in this area) that you stay home with the kid(s) until they at minimum start Kindy at 4.

    I could. not. do that. I am not a Stay at Home Parent. I need the break. I need the time to be myself. If I didn't have that, there is no way that I would have survived my first year.

    There is absolutely no shame in needing daycare for your child, infant on up.

    Of course, it should be fully funded.

    denniskimeCarpySharpyVIICalicaShadowfireCelestialBadgerSatanic JesusCauldAbsoluteZeroMulysaSemproniusKayne Red Robe
  • dennisdennis aka bingley Registered User regular
    dennis wrote: »
    For young babies it makes more economic sense to pay a parent to take a year off work than pay a daycare. Better for child development too.

    Depends on the parent. For some parents, being solely dedicated to an infant for an entire year is a form of torture, and the quality of care could suffer.

    Then that sounds an awful lot to me like somebody who shouldn't have kids?

    I suggest you stop there and just consider that not all parenting looks the same, and that it is incredibly hard on some people and saying "well, you shouldn't have had kids" is a bit of a goose thing to say.

    kimeSharpyVIINobodyHappylilElflonelyahavaschussShadowfireCauldAbsoluteZeroMulysaSemproniusKayne Red RobeBanzai5150wobblyheadedbob
  • Ninja Snarl PNinja Snarl P My helmet is my burden. Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered User regular
    dennis wrote: »
    dennis wrote: »
    For young babies it makes more economic sense to pay a parent to take a year off work than pay a daycare. Better for child development too.

    Depends on the parent. For some parents, being solely dedicated to an infant for an entire year is a form of torture, and the quality of care could suffer.

    Then that sounds an awful lot to me like somebody who shouldn't have kids?

    I suggest you stop there and just consider that not all parenting looks the same, and that it is incredibly hard on some people and saying "well, you shouldn't have had kids" is a bit of a goose thing to say.

    Then to try and rephrase excessive bluntness better because I'm not trying to be adversarial or critical, I don't see how it's at all an extreme notion that an infant requires an enormous amount of attention especially in that first year and that parents should be free of work to provide that attention. Neither do I consider it extreme that if parents are unwilling to devote that sort of attention to the kid because it's unpleasant then they should very very closely reexamine having a kid because they don't stop being a huge demand on your time for the next couple decades, minimum. Being unable to easily devote that time to the kid is obviously another matter and a painfully common one, particularly in the likes of the US where parental leave is, insanely, not federally mandated.

    And as I said, I wouldn't expect any parent to be glued to the kid 24/7/365. I wouldn't expect a parent to even spend an entire 24 hours caring for a kid unsupported or without relief. Even "just" 12 hours can be lot, and people have very real physical and mental limits regardless of their best intentions. I agree it's not healthy for the parent and would impact the care of the child, and a parent needs to able to do other stuff with their lives; I don't at all agree with the idea that having a kid means the kid is your entire life now and everything else comes to a dead stop, only that the kid(s) take top priority. It's clearly not some sort of iron-clad system of care which tolerates no deviation, there are different ways to handle the responsibility and stress for different kids and parents.

    I just found the phrase "a form of torture" associated with child-rearing to be very concerning and I don't see any reason why anyone should force that situation since there's a straightforward way to avoid it.

    electricitylikesme
  • HappylilElfHappylilElf Registered User regular
    dennis wrote: »
    dennis wrote: »
    For young babies it makes more economic sense to pay a parent to take a year off work than pay a daycare. Better for child development too.

    Depends on the parent. For some parents, being solely dedicated to an infant for an entire year is a form of torture, and the quality of care could suffer.

    Then that sounds an awful lot to me like somebody who shouldn't have kids?

    I suggest you stop there and just consider that not all parenting looks the same, and that it is incredibly hard on some people and saying "well, you shouldn't have had kids" is a bit of a goose thing to say.

    Then to try and rephrase excessive bluntness better because I'm not trying to be adversarial or critical, I don't see how it's at all an extreme notion that an infant requires an enormous amount of attention especially in that first year and that parents should be free of work to provide that attention. Neither do I consider it extreme that if parents are unwilling to devote that sort of attention to the kid because it's unpleasant then they should very very closely reexamine having a kid because they don't stop being a huge demand on your time for the next couple decades, minimum. Being unable to easily devote that time to the kid is obviously another matter and a painfully common one, particularly in the likes of the US where parental leave is, insanely, not federally mandated.

    And as I said, I wouldn't expect any parent to be glued to the kid 24/7/365. I wouldn't expect a parent to even spend an entire 24 hours caring for a kid unsupported or without relief. Even "just" 12 hours can be lot, and people have very real physical and mental limits regardless of their best intentions. I agree it's not healthy for the parent and would impact the care of the child, and a parent needs to able to do other stuff with their lives; I don't at all agree with the idea that having a kid means the kid is your entire life now and everything else comes to a dead stop, only that the kid(s) take top priority. It's clearly not some sort of iron-clad system of care which tolerates no deviation, there are different ways to handle the responsibility and stress for different kids and parents.

    I just found the phrase "a form of torture" associated with child-rearing to be very concerning and I don't see any reason why anyone should force that situation since there's a straightforward way to avoid it.

    Yup that's all cool and whatnot, and thank you for clarifying.

    However what you said was still incredibly shitty.

    Please do that less.

    dennisNobodyBanzai5150wobblyheadedbob
  • CalicaCalica Registered User regular
    dennis wrote: »
    dennis wrote: »
    For young babies it makes more economic sense to pay a parent to take a year off work than pay a daycare. Better for child development too.

    Depends on the parent. For some parents, being solely dedicated to an infant for an entire year is a form of torture, and the quality of care could suffer.

    Then that sounds an awful lot to me like somebody who shouldn't have kids?

    I suggest you stop there and just consider that not all parenting looks the same, and that it is incredibly hard on some people and saying "well, you shouldn't have had kids" is a bit of a goose thing to say.

    Then to try and rephrase excessive bluntness better because I'm not trying to be adversarial or critical, I don't see how it's at all an extreme notion that an infant requires an enormous amount of attention especially in that first year and that parents should be free of work to provide that attention. Neither do I consider it extreme that if parents are unwilling to devote that sort of attention to the kid because it's unpleasant then they should very very closely reexamine having a kid because they don't stop being a huge demand on your time for the next couple decades, minimum. Being unable to easily devote that time to the kid is obviously another matter and a painfully common one, particularly in the likes of the US where parental leave is, insanely, not federally mandated.

    And as I said, I wouldn't expect any parent to be glued to the kid 24/7/365. I wouldn't expect a parent to even spend an entire 24 hours caring for a kid unsupported or without relief. Even "just" 12 hours can be lot, and people have very real physical and mental limits regardless of their best intentions. I agree it's not healthy for the parent and would impact the care of the child, and a parent needs to able to do other stuff with their lives; I don't at all agree with the idea that having a kid means the kid is your entire life now and everything else comes to a dead stop, only that the kid(s) take top priority. It's clearly not some sort of iron-clad system of care which tolerates no deviation, there are different ways to handle the responsibility and stress for different kids and parents.

    I just found the phrase "a form of torture" associated with child-rearing to be very concerning and I don't see any reason why anyone should force that situation since there's a straightforward way to avoid it.

    Plenty of people think they'll enjoy parenting until they actually try it.

    discriderlonelyahavaschussShadowfiredennisCauldkimeAbsoluteZeroSummaryJudgmentNobodyMNC DoverBanzai5150wobblyheadedbob
  • dennisdennis aka bingley Registered User regular
    edited September 26
    Calica wrote: »
    dennis wrote: »
    dennis wrote: »
    For young babies it makes more economic sense to pay a parent to take a year off work than pay a daycare. Better for child development too.

    Depends on the parent. For some parents, being solely dedicated to an infant for an entire year is a form of torture, and the quality of care could suffer.

    Then that sounds an awful lot to me like somebody who shouldn't have kids?

    I suggest you stop there and just consider that not all parenting looks the same, and that it is incredibly hard on some people and saying "well, you shouldn't have had kids" is a bit of a goose thing to say.

    Then to try and rephrase excessive bluntness better because I'm not trying to be adversarial or critical, I don't see how it's at all an extreme notion that an infant requires an enormous amount of attention especially in that first year and that parents should be free of work to provide that attention. Neither do I consider it extreme that if parents are unwilling to devote that sort of attention to the kid because it's unpleasant then they should very very closely reexamine having a kid because they don't stop being a huge demand on your time for the next couple decades, minimum. Being unable to easily devote that time to the kid is obviously another matter and a painfully common one, particularly in the likes of the US where parental leave is, insanely, not federally mandated.

    And as I said, I wouldn't expect any parent to be glued to the kid 24/7/365. I wouldn't expect a parent to even spend an entire 24 hours caring for a kid unsupported or without relief. Even "just" 12 hours can be lot, and people have very real physical and mental limits regardless of their best intentions. I agree it's not healthy for the parent and would impact the care of the child, and a parent needs to able to do other stuff with their lives; I don't at all agree with the idea that having a kid means the kid is your entire life now and everything else comes to a dead stop, only that the kid(s) take top priority. It's clearly not some sort of iron-clad system of care which tolerates no deviation, there are different ways to handle the responsibility and stress for different kids and parents.

    I just found the phrase "a form of torture" associated with child-rearing to be very concerning and I don't see any reason why anyone should force that situation since there's a straightforward way to avoid it.

    Plenty of people think they'll enjoy parenting until they actually try it.

    This.

    Some people look forward to being a parent. Then once they've had the kid, they find that they've cycled into a deep depression, only partially caused by the lack of sleep. Mothers are especially prone to this, due to the intense biological changes and demands that come about growing a child, delivering it and breastfeeding. Some kids are much needier than other kids (e.g. colic). Plus since they are the only one who can produce breast milk - which for a whole host of reasons is considered by society (both for good reasons and a bit too much) as what you'd do for your child if you are a Good Mother - and thus typically bear more of the brunt of what kind be an incredibly taxing first year.

    And we haven't even touched on unintended pregnancies, pregnancies where one partner has a much greater desire for a child and the other partner feels threatened, relationships where the other partner is abusive, a child conceived where the other partner has left before the birth, etc.

    Saying "you should reexamine having a kid" after someone has had a damn kid - because people on the whole aren't going into it knowing these things - is as helpful and infuriating as the judgy advice from Dr. Phil.

    dennis on
    CauldCalicakimeAbsoluteZeroNobodyShadowfireMNC DoverKetarlonelyahavaBanzai5150wobblyheadedbob
  • AbsoluteZeroAbsoluteZero The new film by Quentin Koopantino Registered User regular
    Seriously. I thought I had an idea what I was getting into when I had this kid, but the reality is staggering.

    cs6f034fsffl.jpg
    dennisSoggybiscuitlonelyahavaschuss
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    edited September 26
    We should not form public policy based on what happens to some people. It's pretty clear that the optimal childrearing configuration includes a dedicated caregiver who lives in the home all the time, and who attends to the child as their primary set of tasks throughout the day, along with one or more secondary caregivers who also live in the home and assist with childrearing in addition to other tasks both in and outside the home, for at least the first year of life and possibly as long as the first five.

    Paying parents to raise children in their home might or might not be the most economical way to deliver the most benefit to society (it certainly tightens the labor market, both a blessing and a curse), but we sure as shit ought to offer at the absolute minimum the same benefits to parents who stay home to raise their kids as we do to working parents. That includes Social Security, tax credits and deferments, and cash money. In the USA we strongly incentivize not making childrearing the primary thing you do, both socially and economically - we incentivize paying others to do it for most of the day and working a job instead. Lots of reasons both good and bad for this, but it's how we do.

    Not every parent can actually successfully raise a child as their primary focus. Parenthood is a singularity moment, beyond which non-parents cannot see or predict. Regardless of belief or preparation, no matter what they imagine or plan or prepare to do, no one can know with any shred of certainty what kind of a parent they will be until they're doing it. No one should be ashamed for wanting, or needing, to put a child in daycare for whatever reason they decide to do it.

    Parenting is so frequently a game of picking the set of moderately good to OK options that, together, balance out what you believe is the Best Available Thing that it's pointless to grab one piece of the puzzle and focus down on it to the exclusion of everything else. The optimal childrearing setup in general might not be optimal, or even possible, for individual families. We should recognize both sides of this question, and not level social condemnation on parents who are making their best effort to do what they believe is right for their families, regardless of how they set it up.

    My hackles go up like whoa when people start throwing side eyes at stay-home parents, Working parents seem to feel the same way about [edit for clarity] people questioning their choice too. We all need to recognize that people are doing their best and not tear down one choice to make ourselves feel better about the other.

    spool32 on
    kimeElvenshaelonelyahavaCalicaschussMechMantis
  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular

    dennis wrote: »
    Calica wrote: »
    dennis wrote: »
    dennis wrote: »
    For young babies it makes more economic sense to pay a parent to take a year off work than pay a daycare. Better for child development too.

    Depends on the parent. For some parents, being solely dedicated to an infant for an entire year is a form of torture, and the quality of care could suffer.

    Then that sounds an awful lot to me like somebody who shouldn't have kids?

    I suggest you stop there and just consider that not all parenting looks the same, and that it is incredibly hard on some people and saying "well, you shouldn't have had kids" is a bit of a goose thing to say.

    Then to try and rephrase excessive bluntness better because I'm not trying to be adversarial or critical, I don't see how it's at all an extreme notion that an infant requires an enormous amount of attention especially in that first year and that parents should be free of work to provide that attention. Neither do I consider it extreme that if parents are unwilling to devote that sort of attention to the kid because it's unpleasant then they should very very closely reexamine having a kid because they don't stop being a huge demand on your time for the next couple decades, minimum. Being unable to easily devote that time to the kid is obviously another matter and a painfully common one, particularly in the likes of the US where parental leave is, insanely, not federally mandated.

    And as I said, I wouldn't expect any parent to be glued to the kid 24/7/365. I wouldn't expect a parent to even spend an entire 24 hours caring for a kid unsupported or without relief. Even "just" 12 hours can be lot, and people have very real physical and mental limits regardless of their best intentions. I agree it's not healthy for the parent and would impact the care of the child, and a parent needs to able to do other stuff with their lives; I don't at all agree with the idea that having a kid means the kid is your entire life now and everything else comes to a dead stop, only that the kid(s) take top priority. It's clearly not some sort of iron-clad system of care which tolerates no deviation, there are different ways to handle the responsibility and stress for different kids and parents.

    I just found the phrase "a form of torture" associated with child-rearing to be very concerning and I don't see any reason why anyone should force that situation since there's a straightforward way to avoid it.

    Plenty of people think they'll enjoy parenting until they actually try it.

    This.

    Some people look forward to being a parent. Then once they've had the kid, they find that they've cycled into a deep depression, only partially caused by the lack of sleep. Mothers are especially prone to this, due to the intense biological changes and demands that come about growing a child, delivering it and breastfeeding. Some kids are much needier than other kids (e.g. colic). Plus since they are the only one who can produce breast milk - which for a whole host of reasons is considered by society (both for good reasons and a bit too much) as what you'd do for your child if you are a Good Mother - and thus typically bear more of the brunt of what kind be an incredibly taxing first year.

    And we haven't even touched on unintended pregnancies, pregnancies where one partner has a much greater desire for a child and the other partner feels threatened, relationships where the other partner is abusive, a child conceived where the other partner has left before the birth, etc.

    Saying "you should reexamine having a kid" after someone has had a damn kid - because people on the whole aren't going into it knowing these things - is as helpful and infuriating as the judgy advice from Dr. Phil.

    Also, the idea that in the past children were raised alone by perfect mothers singing gleefully in the kitchen is a ridiculous myth. Raising your own kids alone is a construct of American suburb formation in the 50s. Prior to that, most kids would be raised by a combination of their parents, older siblings, grandparents, local friends and relatives etc. This could be either formal, as in, many villages ran communal childcare for the kids where a few older girls or spry grandparents would keep an eye on them in groups during harvest time, or informal. Rich families would pay poor women to handle breast feeding, and all nighttime activities, or even ALL activities until the child was old enough for the parent to take a formal interest.

    Raising a human infant is a VERY difficult activity, the work of which is intended by biological design to be shared. For example, adult humans of reproductive age, and babies do not have the same sleep patterns. Not even close. If you try to sleep like a baby, you will eventually go mad. Conversely OLD people, over the age of like 65 have very similar sleep patterns to babies. With many sleeping lightly for a few hours, before waking up, and then returning to sleep after urinating or moving to a new sleep position.

    Anyone who says that there is anything, natural, genuine, or correct about a parent assuming all childcare responsibilities is just plain wrong. Some parents do it, and gain great joy from it, but most don't and there's nothing WRONG with that. Its those who CAN do it with a smileon their face who are the outliers.

    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
    kimedennisRed RaevynCalicaschussMichaelLCwobblyheadedbobDisruptedCapitalist
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    Seriously. I thought I had an idea what I was getting into when I had this kid, but the reality is staggering.

    I absolutely believe it's a true Singularity. You cannot see what's on the other side. Some of the things you believed before, about yourself, your partner, your parenting style, your opinions and behaviors toward a million things, might turn out to be true! There is literally no way to know. New shit about yourself appears that you never expected, ideas you firmly believed get brushed aside as unrealistic, casual opinions you never thought much about assume grave importance, things you would never do become commonplace, things you did every day become impossible.

    You just can't know until you cross the threshold yourself.

    AbsoluteZerodennisElvenshaelonelyahavaschuss
  • SummaryJudgmentSummaryJudgment Grab the hottest iron you can find, stride in the Tower’s front door Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    Seriously. I thought I had an idea what I was getting into when I had this kid, but the reality is staggering.

    I absolutely believe it's a true Singularity. You cannot see what's on the other side. Some of the things you believed before, about yourself, your partner, your parenting style, your opinions and behaviors toward a million things, might turn out to be true! There is literally no way to know. New shit about yourself appears that you never expected, ideas you firmly believed get brushed aside as unrealistic, casual opinions you never thought much about assume grave importance, things you would never do become commonplace, things you did every day become impossible.

    You just can't know until you cross the threshold yourself.

    Considering all the brain chemical changes, and the sleep schedule that would embarass a Guantanamo interrogator, I'm not sure that I'm even the same person

    I mean, he's got my face, and my social security number :neutral:

    Some days Blue wonders why anyone ever bothered making numbers so small; other days she supposes even infinity needs to start somewhere.
    spool32dennis
Sign In or Register to comment.