4 ms·

> Being at school tends to be mind numbing, not mind enhancing. > wouldn't it be cheaper to just get decent game consoles for the kids? Is this satire? If it

by gizmo 17y ago

> Being at school tends to be mind numbing, not mind enhancing. > wouldn't it be cheaper to just get decent game consoles for the kids? Is this satire? If it isn't, this is what the article is about: 1. mothers want to work because it gives them meaning/satisfaction. 2. this is not possible if the kids get out of school at noon. Hence the necessity to lock the kids up for a few more hours. 3. this contradicts the German maxim of Kids/Cooking/Church, so a cultural shift is needed. This has absolutely nothing to do with the expenses of having two cars. Whether day care is a good thing for kids is debatable, but it sure beats the cheaper game console "solution".

Tichy 17y ago
The article tried to make it about lifestyle choices, but it also mentioned the economic necessities. What I said is that I think the economic necessity is the bigger factor by far here. It is almost zynic to turn it into "women's liberation" when what it really shows is that people are struggling much harder economically than they used to. Liberation would be to give people a choice. In fact, if the women's jobs were so great, they would probably be able to afford a nanny? Certainly the "academic women" should be able to afford it (the ones who are most likely to want to work according to the article)? If it wasn't about money, perhaps the women could volunteer in a part time job while kids are at school to get their fulfilment? Honestly, I think that is a bit of bullshit - how many people really want to work, in non-creative professions? I don't know how much a nanny costs, but as long as the women's job pays more than a nanny earns, they should be OK? Certainly the academic ones should earn more than an nanny. Also, nannys can be pooled (they can take care of several kids at the same time) - granted, might as well send the kids to school, but why should the tax payer have to pay? I have grown up in Germany and still live here. Maybe I come from an atypical family, but so far I have not had the impression that "Kids/Cooking/Church" is what determines our lives. That is just sensationalist writing for the newspaper. As for the game console, it seems to me that from a certain age, kids can entertain themselves. Why should they have to stick around at school all day passively digesting input? Probably kids have even more ideas on how to spend their time than adults. Obviously I would consider the game console to only be a last resort - probably still better for the kid's imagination than school, though. But as you said, if it is all just about "locking up the kids", why shouldn't the game console be adequate? As it happens, I went to the public library a lot as a kid, as I also grew up without parents permanently being available. Just saying. I found my way to the library and back all by myself, too.

by gizmo 17y ago

Tichy 17y ago

The article tried to make it about lifestyle choices, but it also mentioned the economic necessities. What I said is that I think the economic necessity is the bigger factor by far here. It is almost zynic to turn it into "women's liberation" when what it really shows is that people are struggling much harder economically than they used to. Liberation would be to give people a choice. In fact, if the women's jobs were so great, they would probably be able to afford a nanny? Certainly the "academic women" should be able to afford it (the ones who are most likely to want to work according to the article)? If it wasn't about money, perhaps the women could volunteer in a part time job while kids are at school to get their fulfilment? Honestly, I think that is a bit of bullshit - how many people really want to work, in non-creative professions? I don't know how much a nanny costs, but as long as the women's job pays more than a nanny earns, they should be OK? Certainly the academic ones should earn more than an nanny. Also, nannys can be pooled (they can take care of several kids at the same time) - granted, might as well send the kids to school, but why should the tax payer have to pay? I have grown up in Germany and still live here. Maybe I come from an atypical family, but so far I have not had the impression that "Kids/Cooking/Church" is what determines our lives. That is just sensationalist writing for the newspaper. As for the game console, it seems to me that from a certain age, kids can entertain themselves. Why should they have to stick around at school all day passively digesting input? Probably kids have even more ideas on how to spend their time than adults. Obviously I would consider the game console to only be a last resort - probably still better for the kid's imagination than school, though. But as you said, if it is all just about "locking up the kids", why shouldn't the game console be adequate? As it happens, I went to the public library a lot as a kid, as I also grew up without parents permanently being available. Just saying. I found my way to the library and back all by myself, too.