This isn't as much about place as it is about time and could have easily been entitled, "Why 1950s Parents Are Superior."
We were raised in the U.S. in the 50s and 60s much like the French children in the article. We weren't treated like children, but like small adults. There were no children's menus in restaurants. If we wanted to go to out to eat, we dressed and acted properly and ate real food with our parents. If we wanted to go to little league, piano lessons, or anywhere else, we got off our butts and found a way to get there while Dad was at work and Mom was watching younger siblings. We walked to school from age 5. If we were late for dinner, we didn't eat. If we were late getting home at night, we didn't get to go out again. If we wanted money we got a job, not an allowance. If we misbehaved...I don't know what would happen. We didn't misbehave; we just knew better.
Most of our cousins and friends were the same, with a few exceptions. That was just the way it was.
Then somebody somewhere fucked it all up and now schools are surrounded by parents in minivans picking up special people who never really grow up. No wonder.
The French aren't different, just late. Just give them a few more years and they'll fuck it all up, too.
This somebody was the Baby Boomers, which sounds like your generation. Not only will BBs be one of the very few generations to leave this place worse off than they found it, but BBs have also screwed up parenting to the point where we now have to have a "radical" parenting movement ("Free Range Kids") that desperately tries to restore some some sanity.
I grew up in Eastern Europe during communist times, which was very old-school and worlds apart from today's parenting, but still managed to provide me with a great childhood. If I want to bring up my kids in the same way (lots of independent, unsupervised play from very early on, real responsibilities), then I'd be viewed as some kind of pariah and my neighbours will probably call child services.
Not only will BBs be one of the very few generations to leave this place worse off than they found it...
For some strange reason, people have an overly romantic view of the past.
A friend of mine, after watching mad men, was waxing nostalgic about how nice things seemed back then. Life was simpler, world is now so screwed up, etc. I just pointed out to him: "You realize that in 1950, you and your girlfriend wouldn't be allowed to live in the same neighborhood, right?"
(The girlfriend was Turkish, and dark brown. Not a chance of her passing.)
The 50's might have been better in some ways, but the boomers also got a few things right.
"A friend of mine, after watching mad men, was waxing nostalgic about how nice things seemed back then."
Wow. The main failure of that show is that there's people who think this after watching it. I mean, things in the show are enormously screwed up, the only thing that is nice is the scenery, which to me only makes the contrast more obvious, but apparently for many people that pulls attention away from the main subject of the show.
Also, yeah, long ago parents had their children walk to school alone even when said children where 9. And did other silly stuff. Silly stuff makes for good stories, though, and you can get to use the "what doesn't kill me" line as if it was science.
Also, yeah, long ago parents had their children walk to school alone even when said children where 9.
Which seems perfectly normal. And nothing happened to them. The perversion is to think that 9 year old children are not capable to walk to school alone. Or to have built a society where people will harm them if they do so. (Actually, in most European cities you'd still be considered paranoid to think 9yo children cannot walk to school).
Michael Ventura, an Austin Chronicle columnist and writer, puts it very nice in this column of his:
My birthday is late in October, so I was still 7 in 1953 when I saw my first film without "parental guidance" -- or parental presence. Frankly, it kind of shocks me to write that, for I can't imagine the parents of 7-year-olds today allowing their children to go to the movies alone. In fact, I doubt a lone 7-year-old would be sold a ticket now anywhere in this country. But once upon a time, it was no big deal. (All of which makes urban parents of 50 years ago sound permissive. They weren't. We would never have dreamed of speaking to our parents, or to any adult, as I now hear so many minutely supervised kids speak to theirs. Disrespect was not tolerated. Neither was whining. I know that sounds like an exaggeration. It's not.)
Actually the whole article is interesting, and it's about movie going in the fifties and children:
And? So? Ages ago, 9-year olds went to school and nothing happened to them, except when it did, but then they wouldn't write about their own romanticized experiences in a newspaper, so nobody cares about them.
Also, "Disrespect was not tolerated. Neither was whining." is begging for "unless the one disrespectful/whining was the parent, then it was okay".
Finding yet another guy whining about the fact that he has to pay more attention to his kids than his father did doesn't really change anything about the previous dude who did that.
And? So? Ages ago, 9-year olds went to school and nothing happened to them, except when it did, but then they wouldn't write about their own romanticized experiences in a newspaper, so nobody cares about them.
You have some mental model where 9-yo going to school were ...commonly harmed and we only get to learn about the few that both survived and romanticized their experiences?!! Nothing of the sort happened --it's just the modern safety paranoia speaking.
First, yes, a FEW kids got harmed, just as a FEW kids get harmed today too. Even adults get harmed. Shit happens. That doesn't mean that harm was something more widespread or it was more prevalent that it is today. Are you that crazy to suggest that parents of the fifties let their kids walk to school (and all around) DESPITE KNOWING that they will get frequently harmed? It is precisely because nothing of the sort happened 99.9999999% of the time that they did so. And this is exactly why Europeans in most EU countries, Africans, Asians and Latin Americans, still allow their kids to do exactly the same.
No, despite CSI, FOX News, etc, the world is not hostile, every black/latino/asian person is not a murderer, every guy in the park is not a pedophile with a van, and serial killers are not a dime a dozen. (Actually, the reports say they are like tops 30-50 active in the US at a time, so more like 1 in 10,000,000).
And it's not like this is something that happened in ancient history. Fifties is not exactly ages ago, not to mention that this happened way up until the seventies / early eighties. It's just that most post 70's american parents just don't know when to stop with their spoiled and overly protected brats --which is what TFA is all about.
Also, "Disrespect was not tolerated. Neither was whining." is begging for "unless the one disrespectful/whining was the parent, then it was okay".
Even if we fathom your idea of the "disrespectful/whining" parent, that is not an excuse for tolerating the case of disrespectful/whining kids. That would be a sure-fire to produce EVEN MORE disrespectful/whining adults when those kids grow up. People you wouldn't look forward to having social/professional interactions with...
Besides being able to be sexist, you were also allowed to treat women as women, something you have to bypass a certain byzantine PC-code to be able to do today.
Besides being able to be sexist, you were also allowed to treat women as women, something you have to bypass a certain byzantine PC-code to be able to do today.
Ah yes, the curse of the modern straight male. It's like a child who had all the toys and now is told they have to share. Men's Rights groups tend to think that things are crazy now, you can't treat a woman like a woman! You have to treat them as an equal! Madness!
Yeah, as if to "treat a woman like a woman" must imply treating her like an inferior creature. Whatever.
FWIW, it just means to not treat here like some sexless thing that you have to approach with the utmost caution because the PC police might find anything and everything offensive.
(I understand that some people automatically even the second version to: "so you want to treat women like a sexist pig, slapping their asses and making vulgar comments").
It's getting all the more difficult to discuss this kind of things with americans.
As for the alcohol, true, I don't mind. However, I don't really miss it either - it wouldn't be sufficient to make me want to live in a Mad Men world. And there does not seem to be happening much else besides drinking and philandering.
Among other things, the recognition that there exist two (or more) different sexes that occasionally want to flirt with each other, and that, horror of horrors, this also happens with co-workers.
But we live in a age where they expel a 6-year old boy for kissing with a same-age girl in kindergarten.
Well, he couldn't (easily) have a Turkish girlfriend in the 50's. On the other hand, for perspective, he would be welcomed, as an American, in most (if not all) of the islamic countries. You know, like all those expats living in Tangier.
Also: segregating not by race but by income, trailer folks and poor blacks are still effectively not allowed to live in the same neighborhoods as rich white folks. And not only because they can't afford it.
Ours must be the only generation ever willing to blame the previous one for just about everything. Also, by what measure is the world a worse place today?
That's what I meant, the previous poster claimed that BBs screwed stuff up as opposed to previous generations - but previous generations did stuff like fight world wars and drop atomic bombs around.
What exactly did the BBs screw up. Do you want the good old values of early 20th century back? Women belong into the kitchen? No sex before marriage? And what not...
I was specifically referring to the massive economic fuckover they've been responsible for over the last 30 years. Not to mention the coming 20 years of kids having to support unsustainable retirement lifestyles with huge debt burdens.
Well now we have the "Great Recession" (according to Wikipedia, though technically apparently it ended in 2009), before WW2 there was the "Great Depression". Since the baby boomers are born shortly after WW2, I suppose the Great Depression was brought about by their parents or grandparents. I think people were far worse off back then.
Also, will the kids support the unsustainable retirement lifestyles if they can't afford them? It seems unlikely.
And we still don't know how things will play out. Maybe it was a genius move to take up all that credit.
The boomers do have the advantage of being a large political force, and have all their life, so have had the possibility to shape the political landscape around them as they have passed through the various phases of life. This assumption is of course based on them being a fairly homogeneous group of people, which may or may not be true.
To be fair, the previous generations (of Americans) did not start those wars, but actually fought to prevent murderous dictators from taking over the world.
I just think you should differentiate between 'fighting' in a war and 'starting one'.
Germany didn't start WWII without reason. We didn't try to take over the world, but we did give cause for others to want to take over the world (e.g. overly harsh response to WWI). Can't exonerate blame based on one event and not the timeline.
Well, one county's previous generations started those wars, the rest of the planet had no choice but to respond. However, these more recent wars, are wars of choice. So, that's several screw ups to start with.
As for the atomic bombs, yes it was terrible, but some one was going to. And for once, "we" saw and learned that particular lesson. (I pick that out because I think not dropping a nuke since is actually one of humanity's greatest achievements)
Good old values of ..... OK. If I shoot it back in your direction, I could accuse you of wanting SOPA and Islamic terror. That's the other extreme, and I assume you would deny both.
Of course some things we have today are way better. But you have to admit, that if we cant get our kids right, if we cant have proper freedom in the West, if we cant have the free flow of uncensored information, if people in general dont care about each other much and only see life form their own position, can I really not say that the previous generations got it wrong? I mean, these are fundamental things, and what we get in return for their loss is iPads.....
IMHO, we now live in a "I see pretty, must have pretty" society. Dunno if you noticed, but it just went bust. And it went bust because "we" borrowed to get "pretty". First ever recession that was caused by pure greed. And no one is about to change that. Its all about how we get back to it, so we can have our pretty stuff again. And this was created by the baby boomer lot. And they wont let go.
I dunno. To me all sense of balance has gone, and people are generally just selfish and horribly judgemental. We live in an extreme. And I don't like it that much.
I'm not historian enough to argue about WW2, but I think there was some context to those wars, even if technically one country can be blamed. It didn't come out of nowhere.
In any case I seriously doubt there was more free speech in earlier times than now (off the top of my head, what about those commie hunting days?). SOPA has not yet been passed, either.
People don't care for each other yadda yadda yadda. Sorry, that is just ideological bullshit. I don't think people are less emotional today than they used to be. And people will never change, complaining about that is just a waste of time.
As for the economic problems, wake me when Apple (a company that has 60% markup on their products) is no longer the most valuable company in the world. Poor people don't buy iPhones.
What would it mean if the most successful corporation made a product poor people used? How is that relevant? (Let's ignore Google, creator of perhaps the most valuable product ever created, which they charge absolutely nothing for.) It would be something like real estate, slum lording, which is a quite profitable industry (but no one consolidated company), that isn't helping anyone.
In any case I seriously doubt there was more free speech in earlier times than now (off the top of my head, what about those commie hunting days?)
Oh, but there was. For one, to have commie hunting days, you had to have commies. Which you did. And you also had a mighty, not communistic, labor union movement.
Nowadays, not many are sticking up their necks that much, if anyone.
What about the OccupyWhatever movement? I don't miss commies, but I don't think in the commie hunting days everybody who was hunted actually was a commie.
What would you stick up your neck for? I mean what things would get you into trouble? Wikileaks is the only example that comes to mind (and pretending to be a terrorist, obviously).
What would you stick up your neck for? I mean what things would get you into trouble? Wikileaks is the only example that comes to mind
Things worth to stick up your neck for and/or that will get you in trouble if you do? Lots of things. From ACTA/SOPA/PIPA, to labour laws, to the bailout, to the mass (statistically imbalanced) imprisonment of blacks, to the profitable prison work-for-rent industry, to the death penalty, to mass surveillance, to foreign policy, the patriot act, to bio-ethics, to Monsanto, to the sorry state of news reporting, to the race for the bottom for jobs (moving to cheap foreign labour), to corporates getting their way, the list goes on and on. Seriously challenging any of those will get you in trouble.
For the most part, this didn't really start to shift until the late 80's I think.
I remember coming home from school to no parents till 7:30 or 8:00, running around as I wished (within some very loose limits several miles across), playing with friends etc.
"Be home by dark" and "let us know where you'll be" were pretty much the only rules.
When I was in middle school my parents moved from the apartment complex I grew up in to a house in the country...sometime in the late 80s, but my school was back in a local small city. The first day at school, I left school to walk to the local mall where my parents would pick me up after work and the principal nearly had a heart attack. "But he has to cross 4 or 5 intersections!" "What if something happened?!" My parents were non-plussed, but unfortunately relented, and for the rest of the year I paid $5 for a taxi to drive me 4 blocks to the mall. It felt ridiculous.
None of the other parents thought it was unusual.
Today? There's two bus stops on my street. One for the middle school that's less than a quarter mile away and one street crossing over, and for the high school that's less than a half mile away and one street crossing over -- both have clear pedestrian walks and lights.
They stand there, 20 or 30 minutes waiting for the noisy bus to pick them up, then make 3 or 4 more stops, then drive the quarter of half mile to their schools where they're dumped off.
I don't even know what to say when I leave for work and see the lot of them huddled there waiting to be shuttled the minimal distance that they all run and walk and play after school anyways.
" They stand there, 20 or 30 minutes waiting for the noisy bus to pick them up, then make 3 or 4 more stops, then drive the quarter of half mile to their schools where they're dumped off."
Do you mean you believe that what you describe for 50s/60s matches what is happening currently in France? If so that's far from it, at least from the people I know here (and I know a couple :-).
Children here aren't considered small adults, and there's no way (for most at least) they walk to school when aged 5 etc.
I don't think (honestly) that Europe or France is just applying the same recipes years after the US; things are really different for some parts, not happening later IMO.
Wow, I thought the illusion that other cultures are simply behind the US instead of genuinely different had all but disappeared. (With the exception of Micheal Arrington of course.)
Some things are physically impossible. There is no parking space in front of my kids' school (I have 3: 6/3/2), and so it's not possible for everyone to drive their kids to school in SUVs at the same time. Most people walk their kids to school, and most kids at age 7 go to school by themselves.
I also can't imagine not having three meals a day and letting my kids just take things out of the refrigerator at any time (there is almost nothing in the refrigerator that can be eaten as is, anyway; if you can't cook you can't eat).
It's true we're a little more lax than our parents, but not that much, I think. We'll see.
France is exactly like parenting in the 50's and 60's, and in some ways that's better but in the vast majority of the ways, that's much worse. We've made huge progress in our understanding of parenting and France throws it out to do it the way their grandparents did it, to their general disservice.
I'm an American living in France, raising my child here. The two big things the French get wrong (that the 50's got wrong) that outweigh everything else they get right are:
1. Corporal Punishment. The French beat their children. Innumerable studies have been done and the results are remarkable consistent: Don't do it. Don't spank. Don't hit. In the 50's it was acceptable to hit your wife and kids. Let's not turn the clock back on that. Please.
2. Children should be seen, not heard. Like in the 50's, the French don't interact much with their kids. This is a terrible mistake. Yes, kids need some alone time -- that's a cop out. They'll make it clear when they do. The big mistake was that we started thinking that good parenting was karate classes and doing puppet shows, but this is like baking cookies: fine occasionally, but don't over do it. Take time with your child, let them direct their play, mainly watch. This is huge for them and one of the best things you can do as a parent. See your child. Understand your child. Be there for your child.
This Wikipedia article is interesting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_abuse#Prevalence.
USA and UK ranked lowest among industrial nations with respect to the wellbeing of children. Comments are all a matter of personal experience.
Thanks for that, but "well being" also includes child neglect and other forms of abuse other than punishment, so it's not really what I'm talking about here.
The French, as a culture, condone slapping and hitting their children much more than most other cultures. If we want to talk about one culture versus another, that should be included and sadly, that alone outweighs any of the other positive aspect of French parenting.
Or maybe to have well behaved kids you just have to give them a good beating now and then?
Just saying - I don't mean to advise beating kids (I would never do it, and it is also illegal where I live), but to point out that below the surface, not everything is necessarily what it seems to be. These articles advising strictness towards kids pop up with steady frequency... They might benefit the parents more than the kids.
Funny how it is portrait as being advantageous for the kid to leave them crying in the night, so "they can learn to fall asleep again". Or maybe they just got some emotional scars, but hey, they can sleep.
I took the opposite approach with my kid (16 months) - we always rushed to his bed side when he was crying. He did not sleep through the night from day one, but in general, he is very pleasant company. We wanted to give him confidence and I think so far it has worked. He doesn't need to terrorize us because he knows in general we treat him fairly.
Kids must experience all kinds of feelings to learn to cope with them. If you always run whenever your kid cries, it will never learn to deal with things alone and it will cry far more often.
Also, I believe that your approach is the more convenient to the parent, because you don't have to deal with guilt about possibly leaving emotional scars to their kid. But in fact you're just spoiling it and do bad for its health. Sleeping the whole night, at least for 6 continues hours, is very important for kids from half to 2 yo for their proper/healthy development.
The night cry mentioned in the article is just a specific example, it doesn't make much sense to come to a conclusion based only on how you delt with this particular case.
It worked for us because he doesn't cry a lot, counter to your theory. Also, can you back up your claims?
Of course I am aware that he will eventually have to deal with tough things alone. However, it is not obvious that he should have to do so as a helpless baby.
Honestly, I am a bit shocked that you can be so convinced of a potentially evil theory. I would be very interested in your sources.
The theory to "experience a lot of tough things to become tougher" also sounds rather backwards to me. How far should we go? Should we give him a short lived pet so that he can learn to deal with death? Should we beat him, so that he is prepared for school yard bullies?
Suppose you try climbing a tree for the first time. Is it really easier if daddy is not standing there prepared to catch you if you fall? Would it make you more inclined to try climbing the tree if daddy wasn't there?
My kid is in the autism spectrum and we have seen 3 doctors, 2 psychiatrists, 3 ergo-therapists and 2 logo-therapists. They all seem to agree that when a kid cries with no reason (you learn how to distinct that by experience) you just ignore him until he learns that this is not the way to get attention. It's not that we never give him attention, we just don't overdo it so he won't become manipulative.
They've also advised us that night sleep must be complete, as I mentioned in my previous post. That we should not encourage him to wake up by letting him getting up or giving him food, and it worked. When he has 6 months old, we switched the night milk with water or tee and after a few nights he stopped waking up in the middle of the night. Since then, me and my wife can get some sleep at nights and some rest instead of being wrecked every day.
As far as where is the limit, how far to go? You don't have to go anywhere, you just have to use some common sense, if it has a real problem rush to help it, when it doesn't have a real problem don't encourage it. Yes, be there the first time it will try to climb the tree, but not every time it gets into its mind that it wants to climb a tree. Of course you don't have to start beating it. Duh! I'm a little shocked myself that you find it normal to wake up every night for 16 months.
How else do I know that I'm right? I see other people's kids. When parents rush to serve every vice their kids have just to avoid the crying, the end is that their kids cry all the time and they are never satisfied with anything. Parents that set limits and don't continuously run behind their children, not only have some time left to enjoy their life, but their kids are more polite, they are easier satisfied and happy, and they also make friends easier, since they are not obnoxious.
You say your kid is fine anyway, don't know you-can't confirm it, maybe it's an exception to the general rule, which is if you let crying to be a bargaining card, the kid will cry all the time. Maybe in your country there is no sane parent left for you to see the difference, maybe you should plan some vacation time in France.
I think it really depends on the kid. We don't have the feeling that crying is a bargaining card or that he cries with no reason. If it were, perhaps we would react differently. We never had to try hard to stop the crying, as other parents tell. So we were probably lucky.
Recently of course sometimes he protests when he doesn't like something. I don't want to suppress that completely, though - I think it is good that he protests and fights for what he wants. If it is a good reason he can not get it, he won't get it, at other times, why deny it just for the sake of denying it (he doesn't get sweets, it is more about playing with certain things).
What do you mean here? Your kid is not a neighbor you would have to treat fairly our not, he or she is your own blood, you love your kid, you don't treat them. That's a part of American education problem, kids are like clients, with rights and all.
That love manifests in your treatment. Having moved to the west at a young age from Eastern Europe, the contrast in attitudes has often struck me.
Over there you appreciate the level of sacrifice your parents made to make your existence possible, everything they give you is a gift. Over here it almost seems like the child automatically deserves the world from their parents for the great injustice of having been born.
Now I'm not saying parents west and east are different in wanting to give their child the very best they can. It's the attitude of entitlement towards what is given that differs and I still struggle to grasp the western perspective.
Apologies up front since I don't think I was able to capture my thoughts on this topic with a great deal of eloquence here.
Imagine I had a girlfriend from Moldavia totally dependent on me for money and her visa so I could do almost anything to her short of harming her physically just like with a baby. Because she didnt grow up with our material culture she has problems with shopping too much. I want to teach her to better restrain herself so I lock her upin the apartment when I go to work. Of course she screams when I leave but soon she learns how to comfort herself and when I get home she is normal again. Next time she goes out she has learned her lessen, I mustbe a great boyfriend.
I dont understand why positions of power are seen so different just because the weaker party is ones offspring.
I am not American. Also not a native speaker, didn't know how to describe it better. What I mean is we take good care of him, so he doesn't need to protest all the time. Why should he wake up screaming in the night if there is no issue? So either there is an issue, in which case he screams, we appear and try to fix it. Or there is no issue, in which case he also doesn't scream. It is no fight or power game, as with the "let them scream" school of parenting.
Of course he is only 16 months now, so I can not really make that many claims about the effectiveness of our parenting... Also kids just may be different, but I didn't see the french woman take that many samples, either (did she check the French suburbs, I hear there is a lot of troubled youth around).
Well I think you are wrong in thinking babies don't cry without a reason. Crying is a normal activity for kids. If the belly is full, the diaper clean and there no sign of other discomfort, then I think letting cry is an option. Happy parents is the best gift you can give to you kids, and stress, sleep deprivation, guilt, etc, are not the way to be happy.
It's true what you say about the happy parents, and probably you can't generalize to all kids. They are all different.
However, I also had a feeling that since the baby is totally dependent on me (he could not even turn on his belly in the first weeks), it was asked too much for him to entertain himself. Why do I get to decide what is enough for him (well fed and diapers cleaned has to be sufficient)? He could not even change his view without my help. This is just a very personal thing, though, everybody will feel different.
On a related note, I just read a book about sleep research and one experiment they did was exposing people to extreme boredom. That is they were made to lie in a bed for days and not even allowed to read or anything - so their situation is quite similar to those helpless babies. Turns out they would settle into a 4h sleep pattern, similar to babies.
I wouldn't say it is about boredom and entertainment, your kid is in the survival stage, fill basic needs, stay close to caregivers, etc. So, in fact, the crying had a function when we were apes in the Savannah, it was to call the mother in case she lost you. Now this need is deprecated, and the babie will have to be separated someday from parents, so letting cry for 5, then 10, then 20 minutes is a good compromise, imo better than teaching early your kid that whatever they want is easily obtained through loug crying.
Babies need more than just food and warm clothes. And they are dependent on you for a long time. I don't see the point in weaning them off things when they are still too young to provide them for themselves. For example, they can't just log on to Hacker News when they feel bored. Crying might be the equivalent to typing "news.ycombinator.com" into your URL bar. Is it really so bad to take care of your babies' needs?
I don't like idealizing 50s and 60s parenting, and I firmly believe most things have gotten better (as described by other commenters), but the article was a good read.
A single family cannot change everything though.
Traffic has increased so much around schools (with parents in a hurry to work) that even parents that would normally let their kids walk often drive their kids. This was not the case just a decade ago.
Another thing is non-supervised play. Kids used to play and do sports in their neighborhood, now there's no one available for your kid to play football, because everyone else is at organized football practice.
The kids who grew up in the 50/60's and thought "this sucks" are the ones who "fucked it up." Apparently they were the super majority, having grown up in 80/90s I'm fairly glad they did too.
Reading the description, i agree this seemed to kind of suck. But I'm French and also wanted to say; it wasn't like that when I grow up in the 80/90s, and it also not at all like that now. Children are treated like children not miniature adults, but adults are simply not there to unconditionally serve caprices of their children and give them 100% attention all the time they are around, and be stupidly paranoid about what could go wrong if they aren't protected by a bodyguard 24/7 (I'm exaggerating, but you see the idea...)
Of course if you always spoil kids and never gives them limits and make them believe the world is 100% safe when somebody is watching over them and so unsafe otherwise that they have formal interdiction to explore on their own, they will get agitated and misbehave and drive you crazy. Not really news to most French people I think...
They are various other factors also, depending on the precise context. For example, in Paris and Petite Couronne most people lives in tiny flats (by American standard and even by French standard in other regions) and you can't afford to let your child make a mess for too long in the living room (or even in their own room) because that would occupy the whole area. So making them tidy up more often mechanically increase discipline. I think that that kind of thing can become cultural and applied even by people who have more space. The way an important proportion of people live in a country impact the way the whole typically behave (and even more true because there is less multiculturalism isolated from each other than in the USA)
-- "Just give them a few more years and they'll fuck it all up, too"
I feel you've profoundly missed the point and failed to provide reasons beyond "that way just the way it was".
No they don't. Only because a person has more disposible income does not mean they /have/ to consume more. The poster has actually a point. In a "consumerist" culture however, "instant satisfaction" is much more important and constantly promoted as important.
Since mom didn't work, she had time to stay home and cook
Mothers working? Why that would be child abuse. A mother should stay in the home and look after her children. Also, we can't have them taking jobs away from men!
Not from a "keeping up with the Joneses" basis. Or from a "you spent less because you had to spend less" basis.
The first assumes that a large amount of spending is done in order to signal or gain social advantage. Signaling would be ostentatious consumption to express a higher social status. Gaining would be, say, buying a house in a good school district in order to gain social advantage for your children. A perverse logic of a constrained-resource economy may be that such socially-driven spending may increase, not decrease.
The second assumes that one didn't need to go out to eat, because one spousal partner (OK, the wife) stayed home and incorporated the roles of cooking, cleaning, childcare, etc., which are now frequently treated as external expenses. Likewise shorter commutes with cheaper gasoline.
On a "keeping up with the joneses" basis, we are exactly as rich now as we always were. In 1950, 1960, and today, there were 50% of people above the median. If your dad had more "keeping up with the joneses" buying power, it's only because someone else's dad had less.
Incidentally, when you compare people to their parents, you find that income went up vastly more than you think. It's only when you compare people today (Americans and immigrants) to the parents of Americans that incomes appear to have stagnated.
If we're talking aspirational spending, no, we're not.
It's not the median, but the marginal cost to advance to the next level.
In 1947, to go from the top of the first quintile by income to bottom of the top 5%, required increasing your income 501%. In 2001, the differential was 685%. Wealth disparities tend to exceed income (your marginal savings and/or investment growth increases with marginal income).
Another relationship is to consider ranking determined by mean (not median) income. If half the wealth and spending power is in the top 5% rather than top 20% of households, then the relative wealth of the lower 95% has decreased -- they're not keeping up with the Jonses.
It's not the median, but the marginal cost to advance to the next level.
Again, the marginal cost to advance to the "next level" can only increase if more people are able to achieve it. "Keeping up with the joneses" is a zero sum game.
Also, if we are talking about "keeping up with the joneses", then it's irrelevant to focus on income or wealth. We should focus on consumption - interestingly, consumption inequalities are lower than both income and wealth inequalities.
(I'm a first-generation Russian immigrant, raised by Russian parents predominantly in the US.)
There is no question, in my experience, that the number one problem in American parenting psychology is the idea that you need to always respond to the kids' immediate needs and to give them attention. It prevents them from learning how to intellectually stimulate themselves, or be alone for any meaningful period of time, both of which are absolutely indispensable survival adaptations for childhood and adult life. The best parenting for the average American parent I've run into is less parenting.
I also have the sneaking suspicion that people delay or refrain from having kids here more due to the implied premise that having them is a life-consuming ordeal that totally, completely dominates adult consciousness. It shouldn't do that.
Yes, having kids changes your life, but you're still you. You do not live at the pleasure of your child. When hanging out with adult friends with kids, it absolutely astounds me that they end up repeating the same sentence ten times because their kid keeps interrupting them, in a tireless quest for attention. If I did that, my parents would've belted me silly. I guess that's "child abuse" here. Either way, aside from a good spanking, the best thing my parents ever did for me was ignore me a lot. I probably would have turned out to be diagnosed with "ADD" or some other claptrap if they hadn't.
Just so you know, I appreciated your comment (since that expression can be taken either way). Maybe someone didn't like the fact that it was in Russian.
I was what people today might call a "free range" child in the 80s. I interacted with my family mostly at meals and was left to my own devices from a very young age. I was not placated when I threw a tantrum or cried. I was responsible to get to school and back from the time I was 6 (nothing serious: a mile and a half). I made and packed my own school lunches from age 8 on.
The line between my world and the adult's world was very clearly defined and it was clear that I had to make my own fun, but the parameters around what I was allowed to do were well defined as well. While I got into some mischief here and there, it had been drilled into me at a young age how a good person behaved and I emulated it.
When I tell parents of how I grew up, the reaction almost without exception is complete horror. I have had several women try to console me. One woman told me that my emotional scars must run deep and gave me the number for a psychologist! Needless to say, I don't talk about it much these days.
Now I don't know if how I grew up would be traumatic to other children. I do think that parents act like their children's entertainers/servants and try hard to ensure they like them or they're cool or, and this I'll never understand, try to be friends with them.
I will say that it worked for me and I don't hate my family for doing it. Quite the opposite in fact.
This is what we are trying to do with our kids (boys aged 8 and 6). They make their own lunches, generally entertain themselves, though we still have "family time," and do their share of chores aroubd the house. I think there is a tendency, however, among some parents to have their kids do everything for them, too. I've seen parents yell at their kids to come inside and a get snack for them. I think kids should be taught to contribute to the home economy, but treating them like little indentured servants is perhaps going a bit far.
As far aa being "friends" with your kids, I think there's a narrow line to walk. I want my kids to trust me (and therefore talk to me), and I want to enjoy their company, too. There does need to be some sort of boundry there, though, lest you lose your authority.
This is very similar to the way we're raising our daughter (9). She gets herself up and dressed in the morning and off to the buss top (too far to walk to school). We do things together, but it's not our job to entertain her. She finds her own entertainment, and often that means playing with other kids in the neighborhood - fine, so long as she's home by dinner. She knows if she's late she misses dinner and if that she misbehaves at someone's house, then that privileged of being able to come and go with the other kids in the neighborhood is gone.
She has daily and weekly chores that she's expected to do. She doesn't get an allowance for that - it's just a normal part of contributing to the family duties, and if she wants something, she does extra chores to earn the money.
She's a great kid, never have had a behavior problem out of her. I think part of the reason for that is in addition to just giving her a whole bunch of love, we also respect her and hold her to a standard that we know she's capable of.
That's very much how I was raised, and I have a great relationship with my dad and a lot of respect for him. I hope this leads to a similar relationship with her, and so far it seems to be.
It's working out. She does stupid kid things from time to time, like all kids do, but she's learning to think for herself and make good decisions, too.
Proud of my kid.
Last summer, though, I got a call from a neighbor down the street telling me that my daughter wasn't allowed to come down there and play with her kid anymore, unless I walked her down there, because it was too dangerous for my then 8 year old child to be walking down there by herself... Mind you, you can see their house from our front yard. I feel really badly for the little girl who lives in that house. She's 8 now, not allowed out of the yard, and has no other friends in the neighborhood.
That sounds pretty identical to my upbringing, and I feel I'm the better and more level-headed for it. However, I've never met anyone who thought it must have been emotionally scarring - I can't comprehend people who would think that teaching kids to be self-reliant and responsible would be scarring. Sadly, those seem to be the scarred people.
Well I have some stories of things that happened to me that I think freak people out a little bit.
For instance, when I was 8 and cooking for myself in a small house where I lived alone (the main house was all of 150 ft away), I sliced my hand up pretty badly and stitched it back up without telling anyone. Well stitched isn't quite the right word. Held together is more accurate.
I was probably a bit more accident prone as a child than others and I think it confirms many people's worst fears. Personally, I think a few scars here and there add character and I'll still stitch myself up when I get hurt.
At the age of 8 you lived alone in a separate house? All you described before seemed healthy, but now I understand why you get a reaction of horror when you describe your childhood because that is very odd
Something similar happened to me too. It was a self confidence boost and learned how to be more careful and how to deal with problems without panic. Accidents will happen anyway sooner or later, it's better to have small accidents early and learn from them than make big irreversible mistakes later.
Why would you hate your family? It sounds like they treated you as a responsible person. Clearly your parents didn't let you go naked or unfed, they just made sure you were responsible for your fun and well-being to the point you could be, which is what people do.
I think the dichotomy between perceived empowerment and actual empowerment is interesting. Children who are allowed to do "whatever they want" seem empowered, but in actuality, they are disempowered by being deprived of necessary practice in learning important disciplines (patience, long-term planning, etc.)
Actually empowering children involves giving them choices, yes, but within a framework that constrains them. "You have a choice to eat the candy now, but at a cost later" teaches a child to make long(er)-term decisions than "do whatever you want". This mirrors the actual experiences they will have later in life, where they will have freedom, but still be required to operate with the bounds of lawful society. (I can buy myself X now, but I will have to save later in order to pay my mortgage, etc.)
By refusing to limit children by modeling the realities they will face later in life, adults teach children that consequences are fantasy, often to disastrous results when they grow up.
Emotional manipulation works quite well. This is how I was raised. I had such a strong love for my mom that I didn't want to do anything to hurt or upset her, so when she asked for something kindly I always listened and just did it.
My father on the other hand. Typical manipulative, dominating, threatening, intimidating, masculine, control freak. I love him but I'm still recovering from his "parenting style". My relationship with him is permanently damaged. Even now that he's older and his testosterone levels have gone down I still avoid him. A decade of being yelled and screamed at and threatened doesn't just go away. It's always there.
I've told him I love him lots of times, I just wish I could tell him how much of an Asshole he was.
This mirrors what's happened with me over the last few years, I'm having some trouble with both parents. I'm 24, moving out soon, but stuck in the house for a few months before I can live with some friends.
My mom I have an extremely strong love for so I never want to do anything to hurt or upset her, but she has no tolerance, so it's very hard for me because I feel like I have to be the perfect child for her. She even has me fetching the paper or a laundry basket for her, it's not like it's a chore that was given to me, but instead I'll be walking by and she says, "Hey I need you to go get the paper for me" and there's nothing I can do. Some of my friends tell me, just tell her no, and I'm like, you don't get it, I'm not really allowed to tell her no, because it would upset her so much. She even frowns on me leaving the house for things except when she knows exactly where I'm going and why, and will pressure me into just staying put, so these days I hardly even leave the house because of her. I do really care about her, and that's why I put up with things about her that drive me crazy.
On the other hand, my dad's so much of a control freak I've had to cut ties with him. Three years ago he did horrible things, my mom divorced him, and I ended up not speaking to him, but he tries to force his way back into my life. He sometimes says, "Well I'm your father so I have a right to... use your car whenever I want to, visit you whenever I want to, tell you to do something whenever I want to." My relationship with him isn't just damaged, but is gone after the way he's treated me. Just the last few months, first he came to my graduation after I specifically told him not to, then he pressured my mom into giving information about me, by refusing to tell her necessary financial information unless she told him some things about me first.
Honestly, this ain't love what you have with your mom, not even close. If she'd love you, she'd want you to be happy. Instead, she drives you crazy with her obsessions.
Your father not handling the situations properly is irrelevant to what the article debates. The key detail here is that French parents aren't actually trying to discipline their kids, they're trying to educate them. They're teaching them to be polite and respect the people around them, they educate them how to behave and interact with other people and this is high priority principle for them. Although it isn't possible to have all the parents of a nation to always be right and always handle things correctly, having the above principle, it does make an overall better adaption of kids to society.
I think the story at the end about speaking to your child with conviction and the right tone is spot on.
I have a 20 month old daughter. I constantly struggle with this because I want to be nice even when saying 'no', but it doesn't take long to realize that being stern without being scary is the best balance. I realized that my 'no' when she opens the pantry door is totally without conviction and she doesn't respond at all. But my 'no' when she strays off the sidewalk and near the street is obviously much more stern and she knows I'm serious. The most difficult thing is saying 'no' with conviction when you just don't really care that much (like the pantry door).
I think you are doing it right, with different levels of conviction. If you give a really stern "no" just for something harmless like opening the pantry door, she might not react when you really mean it. In fact it might even be better just to let her in the pantry, and save the "no"s for when you really mean it.
French here. Indeed the view of the articles seems idealistic, but it rings true in lots of aspects.
If you are interested in learning more about the cultural differences especially around children education, there is a great book written by a French psychoanalyst, now living in the US called l'Autre rive. You can download it for free in French or English on his website http://www.pbaudry.com/
I read it a few years ago before moving to New York, and from my experience, most of it is true. I found it interesting to put words on things we don't necessary noticed and try to find the reasons behind them.
"After about 10 minutes, Leo stopped trying to leave altogether."
I think there is another possible explanation: by stopping to chase Leo, it stopped being a game for him. It might not have been her sterner "no" at all.
Also I'd like to point out that the French are famous for putting their kids into kindergarden from the age of 3 months. From my perspective (dad of a 16 months old who is still at home) that seems rather cruel.
I was also wondering why the kindergarten aspect was completely missing in the article, as if it did not happen.
It could well be that French children do not see their parents so often and are ready to do whatever is needed to have a comfortable atmosphere during the few hours they see them, in particular if their parents don't play those games.
The cynical might suspect that the idea of providing state-subsidized kindergarten to the very young, in order to promote happier children and less-stressed parents, might be something that wouldn't make it into the WSJ.
To focus on restaurant behavior, I'd be curious to know how much time the average French person spends at the table in a day, compared with the average American. I'm sure it varies a lot from family to family, but it seems like Americans (and I'm no exception) rush through their meals, while the French linger and socialize while eating. Maybe that has something to do with French kids being more well behaved in restaurants.
We do stay for a long time at the table. At lunch it's usually 1 hour (even at work) and it can be much longer in the evening, 2 or more hours maybe if we're at a restaurant.
When I'm at my parent's house, it's never less than an hour. French people tend to talk a lot when at a table!
I don't have clear numbers, but I can tell that for us family meals are a moment to talk together; we usually don't hurry (father + mother both working at home here + 1 kid).
Ugh. So many parents in the US believe to the core of their selves that their children are child-emperors, too rare and delicate to suffer the torture of being denied a single whim.
Not to get too "get off my lawn", but when I was a kid, kids didn't rule public spaces the way they do today. Many parents not only won't tell their kids "no" under any circumstances, they freak out if anybody else asks their precious spawn to stop kicking them on airplanes, running into their legs with shopping carts, or shooting BB guns at their home's windows.
French parents learned to ignore, say no to their kids from their parents who learned from their parents and so on. In other words - it might be in their culture. I grew up in India and do find a lot of similarities in my upbringing - our egos were not always served, maybe 30% of times. We had family in US and I noticed - kid's egos in their families were served 90% of the times. As mentioned in the article, kids were ruling their life...whereas in my family it was the other way around. Did it make any difference in the lives of those kids or mine - that's a different topic. My point here is maybe American parents were told to over parent. By whom - not sure, but could be babies r us, or mattelle sponsored studies, or ads on TV to promote products, etc.
I think that saying no to kids is one of the most important things you can do to help them. Too many of the kids my kids grew up with never heard the word no during their childhood because their parents wanted to give them everything they did have while growing up. They ended up being spoiled brats and got even worse once the school system in the USA got a hold of them and told them what unique individuals they were. Disappointment is a part of life and how to handle it is something that should be learned early in life.
It's definitely true that the author is painting an idealistic picture here, and that French kids do throw tantrums, etc.
However, having lived in the US and France extensively (I'm French and have been raised by French parents), I find that the author has the good points about general attitude.
"We're not at your service" is something that my parents would often say to me and my brothers as kids, and there was always a distinction between "grownups" and "kids" - when my parents had their friends over for dinner, we knew that they were not to be interrupted and just played with their friends' kids (and everyone was happy that way, actually- grownups got their time to enjoy, and since they were busy we were free to do things between kids that we wouldn't have tried to do had they been watching).
Parents tend give more independence to their kids as well- for example having no problems sending them off to summer camps for a few weeks so that they can have some vacation of their own.
However, I have also worked extensively with kids in France over the past 5+ yers, and find that parents are slowly adopting the "anglo-saxon" way- there are much more "helicopter" parents now than there used to be.
Manule, When Americans go to Lyon, they go to France, when they go to France they go to Europe.
You don't need to go to France to find well-behaved children, but this is what appeals to Americans the most: "Beautiful redhead child", France is great, etc. And these reaffirming notions are great in appeasing your audience and selling books.
Interesting article b/c Gary Marx, Professor Emeritus in Sociology at MIT, wrote (in 1961) :
Be warned, you may be slightly offended.
A synopsis. On the cusps of the "revolution" in 1961 America, Marx states American mothers were increasingly trying to be "hip". Now, there is actually a magazine called "Hip Mama" sold at Whole Foods ( http://hipmama.com/ )
He mentions a story about a hippie, who were then called "beats", firing a caretaker because the caretaker's thoughts on raising children was too rigid, traditional and overbearing. I think this is where the temper-tantrum nation , me-first phenomenon began.
I have friends like the author of this article who want to empower their children, not tell them "no", etc. For them, it comes from an almost religious belief in freedom. Meaning , whenever making a decision focus on what is most free as opposed to what works.
I remember watching a segment about a high school science class in Oregon who threw imported crayfish into a local stream because they didn't believe in killing, and wanted the crayfish to be free. Well, the non-local crayfish started killing off the local crayfish.
> As has often been noted, the black bourgeoisie take a very positive stand toward middle-class values and are very critical of average Negroes. Frazier has written, "they have accepted unconditionally the values of the white bourgeois world: its morals and its canons of respectability, its standards of beauty and consumption. In fact, they have tended to overemphasize their conformity to white ideals." 2 They have strongly internalized middle-class values emphasizing self-control, deferred gratification, achievement, extreme cleanliness and rigid moral standards.
Never thought that an Eddie Murphy sketch would be close to on-topic on HN, but here it is anyway (I think his story refers to the late '60s-early '70s): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gsbk_lwioxY
Yeah, that's also the impression I got (the "no throwing food or temper tantrums" for instance, or "sleep full nights from 2-3 months", some of my friends would like to live in that fantasy).
Other assertions do hold, at least in my experience, though:
> When French friends visited, by contrast, the grownups had coffee and the children played happily by themselves.
but I'd really find anything else weird.
> And there were no fixed mealtimes; the American kids just went to the refrigerator and took food whenever they wanted. To the French couple, it seemed like the American kids were in charge.
When I went to the US, I did notice this difference (no fixed mealtimes, at least during the day, and regular raiding of the fridge whenever) but I don't see how that makes it "seem like the American kids were in charge", it's just that there's no fixed mid-day meal time.
Well, go to Eurodisney and compare kids that speak different languages. French kids are generally well behaved, with other southerneuropeans being the noisiest.
My boys grew up this way, in Iowa, in the 90's and 00's. Maybe it has more to do with population density, having a parent at home and a community with shared values.
Anyway we ended up with 3 Eagle Scouts, one now a veteran, one a CS graduate from CMU and one a 3-time all-stater in cello. Just regular Iowa country kids. You could trust them with anything - your car, your life savings, your girlfriend.
They learned to work hard at a young age (6-8) at home, at church and on their Uncle's farm; to get themselves organized for school from the start; to clean a bathroom and do dishes. We never talked down to them.
Their friends work hard with a smile, want nothing more than to be treated as an adult. Its easier I guess when their friends share the same goals, the lessons seem natural and normal.
We did this consciously, left the big city when they were old enough to feel limited by sidewalks and malls, and bought land in Iowa where I grew up. I don't think that's all necessary or possible for everyone. But it sure helped!
Very interesting essay. I'm not sure if this is a "French get parenting right" as much as it is "American parenting is screwed up". I'm from Brazil myself, and it's worrying to see that, together with the latest economic changes (higher income), parenting is getting more distant to what she describes to happen in France, and is starting to shaping up the same problems seen in USA. I from a 80's generation and had an education close to what she describes, but nowadays parents work overhours to try to afford an expensive lifestyle, kids are raised by nannies and they basically play videogame the whole day. I'm sure this lifestyle doesn't allow kids to educate themselves with so many distractions and instant gratification around, and in an atmosphere that demands so much from parents (working overhours instead of enjoying the family, having time free for friends, dinners, etc.).
The problem is that well-behaved doesn't equate to better children.
To quote the YC application form "Please tell us about the time you most successfully hacked some (non-computer) system to your advantage."
Creativity, rule-bending and being outspoken are often hallmarks of innovators and entrepreneurs. But obviously patience and obedience are virtues as well. Culturally we have to make trade-offs deciding which of these we want to encourage in kids and which we don't.
It's silly to pretend there's just one way that's better across the board. TMTOWTDI.
I agree with the sentiment (TMTOWTDI), but I also think that it’s hard to stifle an interested mind. My parents let me alone to do what I pleased when I was little (play with LEGO, mostly) and that self-sufficiency carried on.
Later, I wanted to program computers, so they let me. I talked on shady IRC channels learning about network security and operating systems, and that was fine. The important thing is that there were boundaries—no giving away personal information, for example—and the ever-present ability to ask for help if I really needed it. Perhaps it’s not about refraining entirely from breaking the rules, but rather about learning which rules are okay to break.
You are borderline to the false dichotomy. Of course "well-behaved doesn't equate to better", (except if all other things are being equal), but having well-behaved children don't preclude them from being creative and so over. Agitated is not the synonymous of entrepreneurial!
I've been reading up recently on dog training since I'm watching my parents' unruly dog for a few weeks and it's remarkable how similar the keys to training a well-behaved dog are to how the french treat their kids... I'm not entirely sure how to feel about that, hah.
I would be curious if one could quantify this by perhaps traveling on several domestic flights in the US and in France of similar lengths and record how often a child cries to see if there is a statistically significant difference between the two countries.
french superiority? this article is based on the anecdotes of an out-of-touch expat, who has spent too much time in the company of privileged Parisians.
last time i was in France the general atmosphere was similar to this music video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FU7bFpPJiww, teenagers
burning down their own city etc. heh.
yeah exactly! its because you see they're french so they do it right!
no one else tell their kids to say "thanks, please", and no one else dares to say no to whatever stupid things kids might want!
Exactly. Only the French educate their children.
Guess what. Half the people don't educate the children, half of them do. Or maybe it's 2/3. Who cares. The point is it has strictly nothing to do with being French.
For the (American) readers of the article, France can be an imaginary place where the parents use special techniques (described fully in the author's book, conveniently on sale right over here), and everything is happy and wonderful.
The part I liked about the sales job is the idea of supporting the child's autonomy ("Cadre means that kids have very firm limits about certain things -- that's the frame -- and that the parents strictly enforce these. But inside the cadre, French parents entrust their kids with quite a lot of freedom and autonomy.")
France is that magical place where the boundary line between kids' autonomy and parental authority gets drawn in the perfect mutually satisfying place.
I've found this true in most places in (continental) Europe. I spent 4 years living in Vienna, Austria and was initially shocked & then spoiled by how well-behaved the kids there are. It'd become simply the normal background for me, but I was reminded of it again when a friend visited between Christmas and New Year's and we went to a v. large thermal spa outside of Vienna and were surrounded by children at the indoor pool.
She said, "Funny that there aren't any kids here." I said, "There are tons of them! Just look!"
Not only were there at least 30 teenagers of various ages, there were more than 10 young children under 5, including one infant in arms. All were so calm and quiet that she didn't even know they were there. Not that the occasional toddler didn't try to run away from her parents -- I saw it happening -- but everything was chill. No screeching. No tantrums. No "COME BACK HERE!".
It didn't stand out to me cuz I got used to it, but my friend was flabbergasted.
Austrians love their kids and treat them kindly and with respect, but never do the kids get the idea that they are the entirety of the adults' world. (Which sounds harsh at first, but that kind of relationship is truly codependent and bad for everyone.)
A previous article about how chinese mothers are better created quite a stir. Is there some sort of parenting crisis in the US that leads to this kind of soul-searching? (I m not in the US, so i'm curious to know)
There is always a "parenting crisis" in the US. I remember hearing this sort of stuff when I was a kid, 40 years ago, and have seen books on "parenting" from as far back as the 1920s with the same sorts of stuff.
What to Submit
On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.
That's fine I guess. I'm sure there's a good hacker out there that is interested in the different parenting styles of French and American mothers. Though I'm not sure about the plural of hackers. That might be a stretch.
There are also hackers out there that are interested in politics, salad recipes, what Bill Murray is doing, and lolcats. I just feel like I'm on Reddit is all.
technology is here to help us live better, so maybe there is an app for this in future? someone works diligently to study child habits from different countries - developed or not and categorizes parenting styles. As a user one can ask the app - which parenting style the action you just took for your child's demand/question fall under, which can help you determine future implications, whether you should have done something else (the app doesnt tell you....but knowledge and data can guide you). I would read these and feed my brain.
This place is turning into Digg little by little. I remember the first page of Digg over half a decade ago. Tech news, phones, and then it went to politics, funny stories, world news. And then it just descended from there.
No, it is not. This article is perfectly on topic. On the other hand: "Please don't submit comments complaining that a submission is inappropriate for the site."
That's what Digg and Reddit said. I'll mark my calendar for 5 years from now, we'll come back and have this conversation again. I'm probably wrong, but I might be right. If anything I'm a hypocrite for contributing to this story in the comments above.
Not that my sample size is that huge, but to counter this article, my girlfriend is an elementary school teacher, in the US, but in a VERY multicultural school. Apparently the one French kid in class is the biggest little snotty shit, and his parents are mad uptight.
Imagine being taken from a society where the rules are constant and fair, which rewards patience and where fellow children are well disciplined and patient.
Now drop into an American classroom.
.svg){kind=link}
We were raised in the U.S. in the 50s and 60s much like the French children in the article. We weren't treated like children, but like small adults. There were no children's menus in restaurants. If we wanted to go to out to eat, we dressed and acted properly and ate real food with our parents. If we wanted to go to little league, piano lessons, or anywhere else, we got off our butts and found a way to get there while Dad was at work and Mom was watching younger siblings. We walked to school from age 5. If we were late for dinner, we didn't eat. If we were late getting home at night, we didn't get to go out again. If we wanted money we got a job, not an allowance. If we misbehaved...I don't know what would happen. We didn't misbehave; we just knew better.
Most of our cousins and friends were the same, with a few exceptions. That was just the way it was.
Then somebody somewhere fucked it all up and now schools are surrounded by parents in minivans picking up special people who never really grow up. No wonder.
The French aren't different, just late. Just give them a few more years and they'll fuck it all up, too.