5 ms·

“Anti” coddling to me is rejecting the notion of participation trophies, emphasizing in a healthy way losing and winning. Pushing through discomfort and, god f

“Anti” coddling to me is rejecting the notion of participation trophies, emphasizing in a healthy way losing and winning. Pushing through discomfort and, god forbid, seeking out discomfort. Being OK and perhaps wanting discomfort. Knowing that discomfort is 9/10 a healthy stress that builds you. Not playing the victim. Taking responsibility for your circumstances, no matter how shit of a hand you were dealt. Yeah it sucks XYZ happened. The answer is to work through it and build from it, not give XYZ power to hold you back. Sometimes things suck, and sometimes things are sad, and that’s okay. Common notion in many cultures is you can’t know happiness without sadness, light without darkness, etc. Many of these things are better handled in a good upbringing. A stable household which has a motherly figure there to provide you warmth, protection, and love. A fatherly figure that provides structure, pushes you when you have room to do better, and sees potential in you and sets you up for success. Sometimes people don’t have this structure, refer to the above point. It’s odd to me some of these things seem outside mainstream rhetoric, but that’s the Overton window at work.

frostburg 3y ago
Your model of a nuclear "stable household" is very recent, very untested compared to standard practice during most of human history and societes. Putting is on a pedestal without any quantitative evidence isn't wise.
- cmilton 3y ago
  What do you think it is?
  - frostburg 3y ago
    I'm not sure about what you're asking, but taking a guess: I think that it's safer to have children raised by a larger amount of figures (primarily the parents, but also grandparents in a multi-generational household, other relatives if they exist, family friends - this would have been other people in the tribe or village traditionally - etc.). Having all the responsibility fall on two mostly unsupervised, inexperienced people is fragile and "traditional" gender roles do not alleviate this.
    - cmilton 3y ago
      I think most would agree that more is better than fewer caretakers. This works well when families are located close geographically, but not so much when spread out. I would also argue, why does the community automatically bear the responsibility for a decision made by two?
      - frostburg 3y ago
        They also pay taxes for schools etc. - we're talking about society-wide outcomes. Personally I have no intention of reproducing and even think that a managed but very significant reduction in population would alleviate a lot of issues, but this doesn't mean that I want existing children to be mistreated.
        spacephysics 3y ago
        My view of life and society drastically changed for me once kids were in the picture. With all due respect, Given that you’re on the path to population control and all that’s implied with that, I find it difficult in myself to take what you say seriously.
    - A4ET8a8uTh0 3y ago
      The issue with humans is that when everyone has the responsibility, no one has the responsibility. The moment those kids are 'raised by a village' or however many participants of the family, it automatically becomes a lot harder unless, somehow, the tribe is much more cohesive and can reinforce effectively the same rules consistently. << "traditional" gender roles do not alleviate this. I would personally argue that the "traditional roles" seem to help the offspring on several levels, but I didn't see many studies ( as opposed to non-traditional that is ) to that effect.
- mensetmanusman 3y ago
  Assuming you mean nuclear family as having two married parents, and not also that these parents are geographically isolated: Lots of quantitative evidence that having two committed parents means healthier kids (IQ, emotionally, physically, etc.)
  - frostburg 3y ago
    I've answered this in another reply to the same post, please refer to that; that wasn't my point.
watwut 3y ago
> Not playing the victim. Taking responsibility for your circumstances, no matter how shit of a hand you were dealt. Basically, gaslight yourself into believing that other peoples actions are your fault? Sometimes you are in fact a victim of something, no matter how uncomfortable that thought makes Haidt feel. > Sometimes things suck, and sometimes things are sad, and that’s okay. Common notion in many cultures is you can’t know happiness without sadness, light without darkness, etc. Effectively, be passive. Do not try to improve things. > A stable household which has a motherly figure there to provide you warmth, protection, and love. A fatherly figure that provides structure, pushes you when you have room to do better, and sees potential in you and sets you up for success. And we are back to gender essentialism, where moms are not empowered to provide structure making them dependent on father in work for it. And dad has a role of threat that comes home after being absent whole day just to punish you for mistakes during the day.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 3y ago
  << Effectively, be passive. Do not try to improve things. This is a very uncharitable interpretation. If anything, parent is saying that staying engaged and not giving up just because an issue came up, is a positive, valuable and, most importantly, not passive at all. In other words, if you can't even deal with the problem you received, how are you even begin to 'improve things' overall? You can't even handle your own circumstance to a reasonable degree. It is easy to generalize ( see? ) and be cynical. << And we are back to gender essentialism, where moms are not empowered to provide structure making them dependent on father in work for it. And dad has a role of threat that comes home after being absent whole day just to punish you for mistakes during the day. Is it maybe because it seems to have better outcomes? Is having a dad and a mom so bad that you cannot accept those positive outcomes ( and I can easily grant there are bad ones as well )?
  - watwut 3y ago
    > This is a very uncharitable interpretation. If anything, parent is saying that staying engaged and not giving up just because an issue came up, is a positive, valuable and, most importantly, not passive at all. In other words, if you can't even deal with the problem you received, how are you even begin to 'improve things' overall? It is not uncharitable interpretation. It is exactly what it means. What the cultures that internalized "can’t know happiness without sadness, light without darkness" have in common is that they are not trying to improve those things. Often for good reasons - the political system or powers to be prevents improvement. But, what cultures that improve things have in common is that they are not happy about stuff they want to improve. > Is it maybe because it seems to have better outcomes? They did not. Societies with "father is the disciplinarian mother is not" thing had larger social issues then us - juvenile criminality, alcoholism, smoking, you name it. Fun fact: it was prevalent in Weimar Republic and they were as disordered as it gets. > Is having a dad and a mom so bad that you cannot accept those positive outcomes ( and I can easily grant there are bad ones as well )? This is beyond uncharitable interpretation and in the realm of "completely twisting what I said". Having both parents does not imply what you wrote at all.

frostburg 3y ago

Your model of a nuclear "stable household" is very recent, very untested compared to standard practice during most of human history and societes. Putting is on a pedestal without any quantitative evidence isn't wise.

cmilton 3y ago
What do you think it is?
- frostburg 3y ago
  I'm not sure about what you're asking, but taking a guess: I think that it's safer to have children raised by a larger amount of figures (primarily the parents, but also grandparents in a multi-generational household, other relatives if they exist, family friends - this would have been other people in the tribe or village traditionally - etc.). Having all the responsibility fall on two mostly unsupervised, inexperienced people is fragile and "traditional" gender roles do not alleviate this.
  - cmilton 3y ago
    I think most would agree that more is better than fewer caretakers. This works well when families are located close geographically, but not so much when spread out. I would also argue, why does the community automatically bear the responsibility for a decision made by two?
    - frostburg 3y ago
      They also pay taxes for schools etc. - we're talking about society-wide outcomes. Personally I have no intention of reproducing and even think that a managed but very significant reduction in population would alleviate a lot of issues, but this doesn't mean that I want existing children to be mistreated.
      - spacephysics 3y ago
        My view of life and society drastically changed for me once kids were in the picture. With all due respect, Given that you’re on the path to population control and all that’s implied with that, I find it difficult in myself to take what you say seriously.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 3y ago
    The issue with humans is that when everyone has the responsibility, no one has the responsibility. The moment those kids are 'raised by a village' or however many participants of the family, it automatically becomes a lot harder unless, somehow, the tribe is much more cohesive and can reinforce effectively the same rules consistently. << "traditional" gender roles do not alleviate this. I would personally argue that the "traditional roles" seem to help the offspring on several levels, but I didn't see many studies ( as opposed to non-traditional that is ) to that effect.
mensetmanusman 3y ago
Assuming you mean nuclear family as having two married parents, and not also that these parents are geographically isolated: Lots of quantitative evidence that having two committed parents means healthier kids (IQ, emotionally, physically, etc.)
- frostburg 3y ago
  I've answered this in another reply to the same post, please refer to that; that wasn't my point.

watwut 3y ago

> Not playing the victim. Taking responsibility for your circumstances, no matter how shit of a hand you were dealt. Basically, gaslight yourself into believing that other peoples actions are your fault? Sometimes you are in fact a victim of something, no matter how uncomfortable that thought makes Haidt feel. > Sometimes things suck, and sometimes things are sad, and that’s okay. Common notion in many cultures is you can’t know happiness without sadness, light without darkness, etc. Effectively, be passive. Do not try to improve things. > A stable household which has a motherly figure there to provide you warmth, protection, and love. A fatherly figure that provides structure, pushes you when you have room to do better, and sees potential in you and sets you up for success. And we are back to gender essentialism, where moms are not empowered to provide structure making them dependent on father in work for it. And dad has a role of threat that comes home after being absent whole day just to punish you for mistakes during the day.

A4ET8a8uTh0 3y ago
<< Effectively, be passive. Do not try to improve things. This is a very uncharitable interpretation. If anything, parent is saying that staying engaged and not giving up just because an issue came up, is a positive, valuable and, most importantly, not passive at all. In other words, if you can't even deal with the problem you received, how are you even begin to 'improve things' overall? You can't even handle your own circumstance to a reasonable degree. It is easy to generalize ( see? ) and be cynical. << And we are back to gender essentialism, where moms are not empowered to provide structure making them dependent on father in work for it. And dad has a role of threat that comes home after being absent whole day just to punish you for mistakes during the day. Is it maybe because it seems to have better outcomes? Is having a dad and a mom so bad that you cannot accept those positive outcomes ( and I can easily grant there are bad ones as well )?
- watwut 3y ago
  > This is a very uncharitable interpretation. If anything, parent is saying that staying engaged and not giving up just because an issue came up, is a positive, valuable and, most importantly, not passive at all. In other words, if you can't even deal with the problem you received, how are you even begin to 'improve things' overall? It is not uncharitable interpretation. It is exactly what it means. What the cultures that internalized "can’t know happiness without sadness, light without darkness" have in common is that they are not trying to improve those things. Often for good reasons - the political system or powers to be prevents improvement. But, what cultures that improve things have in common is that they are not happy about stuff they want to improve. > Is it maybe because it seems to have better outcomes? They did not. Societies with "father is the disciplinarian mother is not" thing had larger social issues then us - juvenile criminality, alcoholism, smoking, you name it. Fun fact: it was prevalent in Weimar Republic and they were as disordered as it gets. > Is having a dad and a mom so bad that you cannot accept those positive outcomes ( and I can easily grant there are bad ones as well )? This is beyond uncharitable interpretation and in the realm of "completely twisting what I said". Having both parents does not imply what you wrote at all.