4 ms·

While there's obvious classism (and very-slightly-more-veiled racism) in the assumptions that "poor kids" will be more disruptive in class, there is, to my unde

While there's obvious classism (and very-slightly-more-veiled racism) in the assumptions that "poor kids" will be more disruptive in class, there is, to my understanding, substantial data backing up the perception, with causal mechanisms that have nothing to do with race or "poor breeding", and everything to do with how grindingly awful it is to be poor in America.

droopyEyelids 3y ago
Agreed, and to the parent comment's point, I believe the studies that prove this have already been done, it's just that they study the material effects of poverty in america, so they're more specific than 'poverty' Kids have more behavior problems and remember things poorly when they're hungry. Kids that don't have a stable housing situation struggle to focus in school. Kids with untreated medical problems struggle to focus in school. Kids with absent parents (like a parent that tries to work multiple jobs) struggle in school Kids with parents in unstable relationships (poverty screws up relationships and forces people into suboptimal relationships to combine resources) do poorly in school and are more susceptible to abuse Kids that are the victim of abuse struggle to focus in school.
- kneebonian 3y ago
  Seems that the biggest problem all relates to an unstable family life. Hey you guys remember when in the 80s we convinced all the women that it would be empowering and freeing to start slaving away as a corporate drone and that would be the best life for them, that kids didn't need 2 parents at home? Isn't it great how that panned out. EDIT To be clear I'm not saying women shouldn't be in the workforce, but the fact of the matter is that at some point they convinced us all we had to have 2 parents working and that's when things went to hell. It was great for a little bit while everyone was making a bit of extra cash, but basically what happened was the supply of labor doubled, and when supply goes up...
  - jacknews 3y ago
    sure everything would be rosy if women just spent their time breastfeeding somewhere near the sink or cooker.
  - EatingWithForks 3y ago
    I don't think you understand: poor women have never been able to afford to be a stay at home mother. Stay at home motherhood has always been a middle class and above lifestyle. Wealthier women employ the nannies and maids that are obviously overwhelmingly women who aren't at home. I wouldn't attribute a lack of home stability to women empowerment. A lack of home stability is often caused by poverty. A poor mother cannot afford not to work, cannot afford suitable environments to raise her children while she works, and must make difficult decisions regarding proper nourishment/safe place to sleep/access to utilities/physical presence.
    - sarchertech 3y ago
      Historically poor, married women did tend to stay at home, but frequently worked from the home sewing, washing, small scale manufacturing etc… The Industrial Revolution reduced the value of that kind of work though. Until near the middle of the century running a household of as too time intensive for most women to go off to work. Nannies and maids were generally unmarried, childless women. I’m the early 20th century only 5% of married women worked outside the home in the US https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-history-of-womens-work-and-wages-and-how-it-has-created-success-for-us-all/ https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-history-of-womens-wor... Also only about 7% of children lived with single mothers in 1900.
    - keenboy 3y ago
      You're not looking back far enough historically.
  - keenboy 3y ago
    We've fallen prey to the philosophy that being at home with kids isn't adding value to society. You should be out making some big corporation wealthy!
  - 3y ago
jacknews 3y ago
Sure, and in fact it's not only about poverty, I think there are some relatively wealthy (maybe white) kids who struggle because their families are dysfunctional, it's all about their close environment.
elektrontamer 3y ago
> While there's obvious classism (and very-slightly-more-veiled racism) I don't get the mind reading. Why? It's like we read completely different posts.
- danaris 3y ago
  I'm not claiming to read anyone's mind; I wasn't commenting on the opinions of the GP or GGP, but rather on that assumption as it exists within our culture.
- TimedToasts 3y ago
  It's just a bad-faith take, ascribing intentions as a smear on the OP.

droopyEyelids 3y ago

Agreed, and to the parent comment's point, I believe the studies that prove this have already been done, it's just that they study the material effects of poverty in america, so they're more specific than 'poverty' Kids have more behavior problems and remember things poorly when they're hungry. Kids that don't have a stable housing situation struggle to focus in school. Kids with untreated medical problems struggle to focus in school. Kids with absent parents (like a parent that tries to work multiple jobs) struggle in school Kids with parents in unstable relationships (poverty screws up relationships and forces people into suboptimal relationships to combine resources) do poorly in school and are more susceptible to abuse Kids that are the victim of abuse struggle to focus in school.

kneebonian 3y ago
Seems that the biggest problem all relates to an unstable family life. Hey you guys remember when in the 80s we convinced all the women that it would be empowering and freeing to start slaving away as a corporate drone and that would be the best life for them, that kids didn't need 2 parents at home? Isn't it great how that panned out. EDIT To be clear I'm not saying women shouldn't be in the workforce, but the fact of the matter is that at some point they convinced us all we had to have 2 parents working and that's when things went to hell. It was great for a little bit while everyone was making a bit of extra cash, but basically what happened was the supply of labor doubled, and when supply goes up...
- jacknews 3y ago
  sure everything would be rosy if women just spent their time breastfeeding somewhere near the sink or cooker.
- EatingWithForks 3y ago
  I don't think you understand: poor women have never been able to afford to be a stay at home mother. Stay at home motherhood has always been a middle class and above lifestyle. Wealthier women employ the nannies and maids that are obviously overwhelmingly women who aren't at home. I wouldn't attribute a lack of home stability to women empowerment. A lack of home stability is often caused by poverty. A poor mother cannot afford not to work, cannot afford suitable environments to raise her children while she works, and must make difficult decisions regarding proper nourishment/safe place to sleep/access to utilities/physical presence.
  - sarchertech 3y ago
    Historically poor, married women did tend to stay at home, but frequently worked from the home sewing, washing, small scale manufacturing etc… The Industrial Revolution reduced the value of that kind of work though. Until near the middle of the century running a household of as too time intensive for most women to go off to work. Nannies and maids were generally unmarried, childless women. I’m the early 20th century only 5% of married women worked outside the home in the US https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-history-of-womens-work-and-wages-and-how-it-has-created-success-for-us-all/ https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-history-of-womens-wor... Also only about 7% of children lived with single mothers in 1900.
  - keenboy 3y ago
    You're not looking back far enough historically.
- keenboy 3y ago
  We've fallen prey to the philosophy that being at home with kids isn't adding value to society. You should be out making some big corporation wealthy!
- 3y ago

jacknews 3y ago

Sure, and in fact it's not only about poverty, I think there are some relatively wealthy (maybe white) kids who struggle because their families are dysfunctional, it's all about their close environment.

elektrontamer 3y ago

> While there's obvious classism (and very-slightly-more-veiled racism) I don't get the mind reading. Why? It's like we read completely different posts.

danaris 3y ago
I'm not claiming to read anyone's mind; I wasn't commenting on the opinions of the GP or GGP, but rather on that assumption as it exists within our culture.
TimedToasts 3y ago
It's just a bad-faith take, ascribing intentions as a smear on the OP.