Do you want to learn all of those because you have a genuine interest in doing so, or do you want to learn all of those things because you feel you "should"?
I browse HN and read comments and articles I do not even begin to understand, and it's hard not to feel rapidly inferior. But you don't have to be a genius to make a difference, and you don't have to be a genius to be happy.
I make my living off the back of PHP. Sure it's got a bad rep, but it's hard to knock something that keeps a roof over my kid's heads and their bellies full.
If you want to learn because of genuine interest - do one thing at a time. Let your curiosity guide you. And good luck!
This is just a thin site containing lists of affiliate links. It'd be much more useful if you had actually compared the tools you're linking to and/or ranked or rated them on the functionality they offer.
Not sure that necessitates you being less playful - just back your wife up so that you come across as a team, rather than two individuals who can be played off as each other?
It's not a bad thing that your child has found a friend in you.
> It's not a bad thing that your child has found a friend in you.
I don't think children need us as their friends - they have plenty of these all over the place. Plus, friendship and authority don't mix. The way I see that kids need us to be their guides and that's quite a bit different.
I think this aspect comes down to parental discretion. In my own experience, my father had a lot more influence over my actions once we interacted as equals, whereas when he tried to exert his authority as a parent, I tended to pull strongly in the opposite direction.
Anecdotally, if I'd thought of my parents as friends, I perhaps would have been more inclined to tell them that I was being abused as a child.
I (personally) would rather blur the lines between friendship and authority and have my children trust me completely, than risk alienating them when they need me the most.
On the flip-side you might've said "My parents just wanted to be my friend, so I didn't tell them about my abuse. After all, they'd never shown a backbone. Why would I think they could solve my problem?"
From what I see in raising my children (poorly, as we all must), the balance you want is "authority without oppression". e.g. "I'm the leader on this road trip of life, and I'm actively training you to take over every responsibility you're capable of" as opposed to, say, "I'm the leader so SIT DOWN."
Being a "buddy" (Tiger Mom / Kitten Dad) gives your children no one to rely on when the life hits the fan.
Do your friends lack a backbone? I'm not sure why one has to equal the other.
Obviously I can't say for sure that had my parents done X, I would have done Y, but their lack of any attempt to connect with my siblings and I on any meaningful level has had a massive impact. I don't hold a grudge against either of them but there are certainly things I know now should have raised major red flags and they completely missed them. Still, that goes deeper than whether or not I could consider them a "friend"!
"Friend" is a really ambiguous word in English. In this context I meant that as a "buddy" which implies an equal, peer relationship. Buddies don't set rules for one another in a way that there is one who always sets the rules and another one who is expected to obey me. Unless you have your child setting the rules which is way outside of my weltanschauung.
I don't really think that's what my child needs from me. We can be buddies _at times_ but overall he looks up to me for help, advice and guidance on a very different level than his BFF. Both types of relationship are crucial but I don't think it my role to meet every bonding need of my child - some things just don't mix well.
A child, especially one in the teen/pre-teen range, will be far more open with a friend than an authority figure. Even if you want the parents to clearly be the authority figure, there needs to be a mature adult friend figure to be there to be told the things that the parents should be but would otherwise not be told about (after which the friend can either tell the parents or push the child to tell the parents).
Childhood development is one long transition of the child from dependence to independence and one long transition of the parent from authority to peer (and then to dependence in old age). Friendship exists in various ways along that spectrum.
"I don't think children need us as their friends - they have plenty of these all over the place."
It's not a binary choice: friend or parent. Parenting is situational. Sometimes kids need you to empathize as a friend would. Sometimes they need you to "lay down the law". For example, kids often have a hard time recognizing when they're over-tired. In that situation, you need to just put them to bed with no drawn out reasoning. The next morning they feel better and don't begrudge that you took away their choice.
"friendship and authority don't mix"
In a mature relationship, they certainly can. I'm in that situation with both my boss and my martial arts instructor. I'm friends with both. But, inside the office and studio respectively, I respect that they have responsibilities beyond just me. So, I don't let a disagreement get to the point in which they need to remind me of their authority. If I ever let it get to that point, I'm not being a particularly good friend.
"The way I see that kids need us to be their guides and that's quite a bit different."
Being a guide is certainly part of parenting. Parenting is probably the most multi-faceted relationship you'll ever have.
Being a really good parent (in my view) is all about mixing authority and friendship/trust/empathy.
Kids have a lot of interesting ideas that (for various reasons) they can't act out, and sometimes you're the one preventing them. If it sucks (e.g., my daughter wants to pick every flower she sees... I have to stop her, because these are flowers other people bought & tend, to make their homes look nice), then I show her sympathy rather than anger. I still have to stop her from picking them -- it's part of my job as a parent, to keep my child's behavior from harming others -- but I tell her that in so many words. "I'm your dad, so this is part of my job, to stop you from doing things that will make other people really sad... but I'm sorry, it would be cool to bring all these flowers home!". And (because I'm sympathizing) I can think to go looking for wildflowers, or pick our own flowers. We're in the same boat -- there are also lots of things I want that I can't do, and I point them out when I can.
I don't ever say "because I said so" -- that's something I don't want to teach them. I have to have a reason, and if I can't come up with one, then I re-think what I'm asking them to do (or not do). Okay, so we're running around out in a field, and it seems kinda wrong to me for you to take off all your clothes; but honestly we'd see anyone coming a mile away, so if you can get dressed again lightning-fast if someone comes... then go for it. And remember if the lightning-fast thing doesn't work, then next time I'm going to say it's a bad idea.
There really seem to be a lot of parents who think they need to "discipline" their children, need to keep punishing them (often more & more severely) until the child learns to stop fighting back, stop challenging their authority, and will do what they're told. This is a painfully short-sighted view of parenting.
Think about it -- if my daughter doesn't pick flowers, ever, because she just knows I'll get mad, what has she learned? Nothing, just "here's another thing that makes Daddy mad" -- and optionally "if I keep picking flowers, Daddy keeps getting angrier until he stops taking me on walks, or he slaps my hand", or however else I escalated my reaction until it finally "worked". I might be more or less smart about how I enforce my authority over her, but all I'm thinking about in that case is "how can I force this child to do X" -- empathy is nowhere in sight, and it's just a struggle between us... which is going to carry over into our other interactions as well.
If I'm empathizing with her (and cheering her up, since neither of us can pick these flowers), the short-term end result is identical (flowers are not picked), but long-term is much better. She learns a bit more about the restrictions of living in a world with lots of other people in it (and can learn to apply the reasons for not picking other people's flowers to other situations), she's a bit closer to me (esp. if I managed to cheer her up successfully), and she's a bit further on her way to being a responsible, thoughtful adult.
There are a lot of ways in which being a good parent is like being a really good tour guide, much more than being a policeman/judge.
[note: this is a long rant answering a little comment! sorry about that... this is a topic I feel strongly about.]
My parents used to have the same view when I was a single child. Then my brother was born.
There are only so many times you can empathize with someone who keeps trying to do the same thing, despite knowing why he can't.
They still believe that explaining why something is forbidden is the best course, but they stopped assuming the person on the street slapping his/her kid's bottom is just ignorant of the advantages of compassionate parenting.
I'm not at all saying that the same tactics work for all kids. But there are tons of ways to influence kids' behavior that don't involve corporal punishment, and I've never had to go too far down the list, when I sit down and brainstorm ideas.
It's also essential to think longer-term. I don't know what your brother was doing, or what your parents tried. But part of raising kids is being aware that a child's behavior is going to keep changing, week to week, almost regardless of what you do. So if they're doing something you don't like (but that isn't risky), it's sometimes the best course to just endure it for a bit.
Personally, I'm pretty open about these things, so I remind my kids that yes, they have the power to make me miserable, any time they want. Sometimes they do. But they're clearly not enjoying those times either, so we work together to try to figure out what's going on, and how we can optimize for more fun.
The "guide" thing is a metaphor, which only goes so far. :)
It falls apart in that a guide is in a business relationship, and that adds a distance that isn't there for parenting -- in that sense a parent can be more of a friend.
But one way parents are not like friends is that friends choose each other, and can drift apart. Parents have a much stronger motivation to keep a close relationship with their kids even as interests diverge, personalities may not mesh terribly well, etc..
The important aspect I wanted to touch on, though, was more about "authority" vs. "friend", and in that balance I think a parent should fall much more on the friend side.
My wife thinks this is what we should do (I'm not the OP). But it doesn't make sense to me. It would imply that whoever says something first is right.
Why can't parents disagree sometimes? Might be a valuable lesson for kids, too. And perhaps less scary, too. Maybe it's nice to have somebody to turn to, and not just one parent unit?
> It would imply that whoever says something first is right.
On the other hand, it's wrong for the child to play her parents of each other. If mom says 'no', it's not OK to go ask dad.
If Mom gave a different answer than Dad would have, Dad should discuss it with Mom if it's important, perhaps in private. But it's also OK for kids see parents disagree and work things out in a healthy way. Then Mom can change her own 'no' to a 'yes' later and retain her authority (and get to be reasonable and nice).
But, yes, first-to-answer is a silly way to make decisions.
When I was reading books before my daughter was born, I came across an idea that really stuck with me. I don't remember source book unfortunately, possibly Brain Rules for Baby, http://www.brainrules.net/brain-rules-for-baby.
It was addressing this topic of parents arguing – an extreme form of disagreeing – in front of the children. Studies have shown that parents arguing can be traumatic for children. It makes them feel unsafe and emotionally threatened, and it results in increased depression, anxiety, aggression, etc.
However, what most of the studies failed to include in their analysis is what happens after the argument. Children who see their parents constructively resolve their argument, e.g., through negotiation and compromise, actually show decreased mental health and behavioral problems when compared to children who never saw their parents argue.
Children learn compassion and how to use love and kindness to solve disagreements. They also learn that disagreeing with somebody you love is okay. It doesn't mean they'll stop loving you.
Not exactly the same as showing a united front or whatever but relevant in my opinion.
The last thing I'll add is that it's also pretty well established that children respond best to clear boundaries. They need to clearly understand what behavior is acceptable and unacceptable, i.e., what is safe and unsafe. If dad gets angry about something and mom doesn't care, it's confusing for them and leads, again, to emotional instability.
So yeah, it's complicated. It can be good to disagree and model healthy resolution behavior, but at the end of the day, both (all) authority figures do need to set similar boundaries.
I've set the expectation for my kids that my answer will be "no" if they've already asked Mom (this also helps out an end to the "go ask your father" redirect. If they ask me after Mom had already said "no", but hide the fact theyasked her already, then even if I say "yes" but later find out they played us, the answer becomes an absolute "no" also carries an additional "no" that would have otherwise been "yes" for future questions.
IMO it's not about avoiding disagreement - I think that modelling appropriate 'conflict' resolution is important for kids - but rather making sure that kids DON'T learn that the easy way to get a 'yes' is to ask the other parent.
Actually if you are in for the money, feeding your family and if your life depended on it you will more likely succeed at doing it. Because the sheer focus, seriousness and commitment you will throw towards it will make it happen.
If you in for tinkering, you will move on to something else once the clots of curiosity are gone.
Would you be homeless or just living in a less ideal home?
I am lucky to live in a country where my choice really is just a trade in the level of material comfort, but I understand this is not the same for everyone.
I would be homeless, first and foremost, because I wouldn't be able to pay my mortgage and the bank would seize my assets.
Eventually I would be eligible for state benefits and placed on a waiting list for a council owned property, but waiting lists are long. I might be able to get shelter in a women's refuge in the mean time, but I'm not sure that's an ideal place to raise my children just so that I can claim the moral high ground on childcare use.
If you could not pay your mortgage could you not sell and rent privately?
Please don't take this as a critism of your decision - I made mine and I am happy with my choice, but I don't expect that what is best for me is best for everyone.
Private renting in my area (as with a lot of places in the UK) would be more costly than my current mortgage.
I didn't think you were criticising parents who use childcare, least of all me, but I do feel it's necessary for people to understand that the "I'm too good for daycare" argument comes from a position of massive privilege.
Sounds like a crazy situation if a mortgage and all the associated costs is less than renting - here in Australia it is considerably cheaper to rent.
I don't think the choice of not using daycare is one that can only be made from a position of massive privilege, but it does involve material sacrifices if you are middle class.
My mortgage is £477 p/m on a small 2 bedroom semi-detached house. To rent I'd be looking at ~£600p/m for a small 2 bedroom flat (apartment). I'd still have to pay the same utilities etc so wouldn't be better off by any stretch of the imagination.
Wow your mortgage is low - mine is more than 10 times the size and I live in a flat! Australian housing is expensive especially where I live.
When I owned a house the maintenance cost was quite considerable. You can put it off for a while, but eventually it comes due. My guess is that it was around $750 a month plus I had council rates to pay on top of this which were another $250 a month.
Are there any studies on working father's impact on children? (A quick google returns a few studies on father's impact but not working ones specifically.)
Damned if you do, damned if you don't. If you work, you're a neglectful parent. If you don't, you're sucking off the state. (UK stereotypes)
I have done the 3 main variants of parent-work balance (staying at home, working at home, working out of the home) with my 2 children and I'm not convinced that any one is better than the other, personally. But what does one little anecdote mean in the grand scheme of things...
Hard to say. As a stay at home mum I felt unfulfilled and lonely. In the early years of returning to work full time I felt guilty for leaving my child in daycare. Working at home (with a mix of juggling kids and some daycare) I felt isolated and over-worked.
I'm actually in the process of working my notice at my current job so that I can return to working from home, but as it stands I have no intention of reducing my son's hours in childcare.
I'd like to think that I can find a balance between working (for mental satisfaction as well as financial reasons) and time with my youngest outside of childcare, but this depends on my success in the coming months. If nothing else my son starts school in September 2016 so at least I won't have a ~£645 childcare bill each month :)
I too can read anyone like a book, and I'd never really thought about why before but my mum also had a temper and I grew up with 2 separate abusers and left home to a 3rd. I've never considered it a skill before, or indeed realised that it wasn't that common.
I actually find it debilitating at times, because it can come out in weird ways. I will sometimes fixate on situations or even individuals and feel vast amounts of pain for them, even carrying massive guilt for things I cannot fix. (I am seeing a counsellor.)
This reminds me of when I go out running at night. I avoid running near men (particularly groups of men) because of a fear that I'll come to harm: specifically rape. It's irrational, and unreasonable, but it's the reaction I have nonetheless. (This is common, FYI, many women feel like this.)
I don't expect other people to cater towards my fear, but acknowledging that it's real and that it happens is important. Ridiculing it won't make it go away.
> I avoid running near men (particularly groups of men) because of a fear that I'll come to harm
It's not irrational. I'm a man and I avoid groups of people at night, too. It's an absolutely reasonable precaution. I avoid other men because I don't want to put my life in danger unnecessarily, and I avoid women mostly because I don't want them to be alarmed by my presence.
These are what I would call rational fears, because they're about minimizing risk. It's also very clear that, say, if I required sudden medical assistance, I would probably trust any stranger I come across in the city at night to do the right thing 99.9% of the time. These are the mechanics of false negatives vs. false positives.
> I don't expect other people to cater towards my fear
Exactly. This is an important point because being afraid of something another person might do doesn't necessarily mean it's an accurate reflection of that person's intent.
And this is the fundamental breaking point where I think reasonable people start to feel a disconnect in the flow of the dongle story, because Richards is asserting both now and then that her life was in danger, and while it's easy to at least consider this feeling was real, the main question becomes did those guys do anything to cause that fear?
Because if they did not, it's unreasonable to blame them for causing this fear. I don't think a lot of people would say this fear itself is unjustified, but using it to attack someone who apparently did nothing to cause it is, and this whole disaster is a missed opportunity to talk about the factors that cause it.
This is not to detract from the stupidity of genital jokes in general, which amazingly both parties appear to be fond of.
As a white nerdy male, there is an analog that I feel similar to your running scenario. I grew up in the suburbs, more of a sheltered upbringing due to the makeup of the neighborhood. For many years, when I'd be walking downtown, if I saw a group of people that looked like they were from a typical rap video (not specifically any race, but more the group's clothing and body language, although race does play a part of it), I'd turn down another corner. This is mostly due to what got fed to me by TV and other sources, and the knowledge that a nerdy white guy is probably the most hated vulnerable person in that area at that time. Now I know that this is totally irrational, and it wasn't until I forced myself to not turn a different corner each time, that I started to get over it.
Now on another level, I'm a very bashful person, so I have a hard time looking at people in the eyes when I talk to them. Therefore my eyes are pointed at a 30 - 60 degree angle downward towards the floor. And guess what is in that line of site if I happen to be talking to a woman at work? So I learned to just stare straight ahead, or start messing with my phone, whenever a female coworker passes me in the hall. Just to avoid giving the impression that I'm looking her up and down, due to my natural instinct to avoid eye contact by shifting my gaze downward towards the floor after seeing someone make eye contact with me (which, as mentioned, can be taken the wrong way, and land me in HR).
Certainly not. It's a very complicated issue that starts with the common popular stereotype that all men are sexual predators. We live in one of the safest times in human history, yet the news has us all believing we are in constant, imminent danger.
But you are in fact thousands of times more likely to be hit by a car while jogging than raped. Yet almost nobody feels immense fear when a car drives by them.
I have OCD, so I deal with irrational thoughts all the time. I can truly empathize with how difficult they are to dismiss, even when you understand just how irrational they are.
The ridicule here is because Adria acted on her irrationalities and ended up costing a guy his job over them.
But do you have that fear running around in a public area with 800+ random people?
The fear itself is reasonable, perhaps not fair, but reasonable. But if the fear is so strong for you that you can't even feel safe in the above description it's an issue with you and not them.
Sure, but intimidated isn't fearful of one's life. We all get intimidated in social situations regardless of gender. I'm sure it's worse at dev conferences for women with respect to intimidation, but I don't think it's outside the norm for it to happen to people.
Here's a true story for your consideration, a little while ago, walking home through the park which is unlit, after working late, I came across a female jogger lying unconscious on the ground. I did some basic first aid, called an ambulance, and waited with her until help arrived.
If she'd seen me in the distance and veered off the track because MEN she would have collapsed in the bushes and died of hypothermia probably that night. Have faith in people and they will be there for you when you need them.
I browse HN and read comments and articles I do not even begin to understand, and it's hard not to feel rapidly inferior. But you don't have to be a genius to make a difference, and you don't have to be a genius to be happy.
I make my living off the back of PHP. Sure it's got a bad rep, but it's hard to knock something that keeps a roof over my kid's heads and their bellies full.
If you want to learn because of genuine interest - do one thing at a time. Let your curiosity guide you. And good luck!