i don’t deny that kids are a lot of work. i don’t deny that parenting can be very tiring/frustrating/interminable.
i actually have no particular criticism or judgment of the op: they are doing their best to raise a family. they are taking the actions which, by their measure, will result in the best outcomes for them and their kids. i believe this is what they should (continue to) do!
however, i guess i don’t understand the point of op’s essay, if not to elicit this sort of feedback.
How specificly? Well a few different factors, your original comment contained none of the softning context you have now added. Another of your comments “skill issue” set a rather hostile tone, flavoring this other comment of yours.
On a personal note, I also feel that although your point is true insofar as to “children can be fun at times”, following your advice as stated will lead to great pain for all involved. Children are fundamentally not your peers (yet), and so cannot be treated as friends. There are indeed many aspects of raising an adult that require problem solving. So, your “advice” is highly reductive.
So, bad advice in a hostile tone framed in a way that implys your superiority in this field of study. That’s toxic. Or possibly trolling.
Its good advice for a hike. A hike is a much simpler proposition; the problems have been solved and will remain solved. In this case reductive advice can cut to the heart of things and provide value without losing much from neglecting the nuance.
The problem in applying it to children is that they are very complex to start with and are anti inductive (and only get more so as they grow older). losing the nuance bites.
If you’re going to give advice and want it to be helpful, it has be lower level. For example,
“Water sterile enough to mix up into baby formula can be made by boiling a jug and letting it cool. The water will be good for a few hours, but once mixed with formula, use within about half an hour or discard.”
Or a lens / mental model / way of looking at things
“Tantrum: kid using bad behaviour to get what they want. Hold the line.
Meltdown: kid overwhelmed (tired, hungry, sick, overstimulated). Reduce the load.
Hard to tell apart in the moment, tantrums can transition to meltdowns but not the other way. Try the gentle response first, if they escalate or you can see them working you, switch to holding the line.”
Honestly taken as a lens your advice is fine, “Enjoy your children, they can be fun” is all g. Its just problematic when you try to enthrone it as your main guiding principle or give it as a glib response to genuine issues.
Three kids 5 and under are a bunch of work. Your comment here is toxic.
sorry, how?
i don’t deny that kids are a lot of work. i don’t deny that parenting can be very tiring/frustrating/interminable.
i actually have no particular criticism or judgment of the op: they are doing their best to raise a family. they are taking the actions which, by their measure, will result in the best outcomes for them and their kids. i believe this is what they should (continue to) do!
however, i guess i don’t understand the point of op’s essay, if not to elicit this sort of feedback.
How specificly? Well a few different factors, your original comment contained none of the softning context you have now added. Another of your comments “skill issue” set a rather hostile tone, flavoring this other comment of yours.
On a personal note, I also feel that although your point is true insofar as to “children can be fun at times”, following your advice as stated will lead to great pain for all involved. Children are fundamentally not your peers (yet), and so cannot be treated as friends. There are indeed many aspects of raising an adult that require problem solving. So, your “advice” is highly reductive.
So, bad advice in a hostile tone framed in a way that implys your superiority in this field of study. That’s toxic. Or possibly trolling.
the advice is the same i would give a friend who didn’t like hiking, but was, say, courting a partner who did.
“to my read, [your complaints about hiking] seem downstream of this: the hike is a problem to be solved, not a journey to enjoy.”
Its good advice for a hike. A hike is a much simpler proposition; the problems have been solved and will remain solved. In this case reductive advice can cut to the heart of things and provide value without losing much from neglecting the nuance.
The problem in applying it to children is that they are very complex to start with and are anti inductive (and only get more so as they grow older). losing the nuance bites.
If you’re going to give advice and want it to be helpful, it has be lower level. For example,
“Water sterile enough to mix up into baby formula can be made by boiling a jug and letting it cool. The water will be good for a few hours, but once mixed with formula, use within about half an hour or discard.”
Or a lens / mental model / way of looking at things
“Tantrum: kid using bad behaviour to get what they want. Hold the line.
Meltdown: kid overwhelmed (tired, hungry, sick, overstimulated). Reduce the load.
Hard to tell apart in the moment, tantrums can transition to meltdowns but not the other way. Try the gentle response first, if they escalate or you can see them working you, switch to holding the line.”
Honestly taken as a lens your advice is fine, “Enjoy your children, they can be fun” is all g. Its just problematic when you try to enthrone it as your main guiding principle or give it as a glib response to genuine issues.