TENNIS PLAYERS (Off-Court Shenanigans)

[Deuce]

We have extremely high standards for parenting now (too high?). Two or three generations ago it wasn't like that.

I completely disagree.
And if you worked with troubled youth - the number of which are continually on the increase - you'd likely disagree, as well.

Fifty years ago, it would have been thought a crime to give one's children over to a daycare - essentially an assembly line - for the huge majority of their incredibly important formative years. Today, young children spend more time during their formative years in daycare than they spend with their parents. So who is raising the children?
Daycare may have its place - but it is being abused today as a convenient way for parents to try to have their cake and eat it, too. Then once the child reaches his/her teenage years, the parents complain that there's no emotional attachment between them and their children, sigh...

These days, parents are too busy updating their facebook status to properly care for their children. And 'caring for their children' means far more than merely ensuring that they have enough to eat, and have a TV in their bedroom and the latest, 'coolest' pair of shoes. Parents are far less mature today than in the past. Today, people want to have kids, but refuse to make the necessary sacrifices to their own life to spend the time nurturing and raising the kids. They want to maintain their 'social lives' while having children. The predictable result is more reports of parental abuse, neglect, and more children running away and/or being put into foster care.
Far too many parents today know exactly who their favourite TV star or musician is dating, but have no idea who their own child is dating.

Not to mention that children spend far more time first with TV, now with computers and cell phones (including the ubiquitous internet, of course), than they do with their parents. So who is truly raising the children today -parents... or daycares, computers, and the internet?
Higher standards for parenting today? No way. Children have never spent less time with their parents than they do today.

[Suliso]

Sorry, but I strongly disagree with most of the above. Daycare is necessary so that women can keep their careers not because parents need to be on Facebook or other such nonsense. Fifty years ago in Germany a woman's role in life was best described as KKK - kinder, küche, kirche (children, kitchen and church). Fortunately we have moved on...

[Deuce]

Sorry, but I strongly disagree with most of the above. Daycare is necessary so that women can keep their careers not because parents need to be on Facebook or other such nonsense. Fifty years ago in Germany a woman's role in life was best described as KKK - kinder, küche, kirche (children, kitchen and church). Fortunately we have moved on...

Yes, we have 'moved on' ... at the expense of the children.

What you describe addresses the role of women in society - it does not address the role of parenting, or, specifically, your claim that the standards of parenting are higher today.
If parenting standards are higher, why are we seeing more troubled children today (per capita) than ever before? More reports of parental abuse and neglect; more children put into foster care; more children running away; more children involved in prostitution; more children involved in gangs... etc.?

[ti-amie]

Shonda Rhimes is doing a great job highlighting the role of women in her soap "Bridgerton". At first I thought it was a joke that the young women had no idea where babies came from but it seems that mothers only told their daughters the "facts of life" when their wedding dates got close. It was funny when, after one young woman was totally perplexed about it a male character asks her "haven't you ever been on a farm?" Of course she hadn't.

There's another good example of what a "woman's role" was in "WandaVision" and the role US soap sitcoms played in perpetuating that role but that is another conversation

It's very rare to see families of more than two children these days because it is very expensive to provide food, clothes and shelter to more than two. It's not even about women wanting to work women NEED to work to support the modern lifestyle.

Andy and Kim are wealthy and can afford help with housework and child care, help that many can't afford. And I'd be willing to bet the older kids have been in some form of "daycare", educational or otherwise, from about three or four years of age. The same with the Federer children. I doubt Mirka, at the end of the day, is flopping down in a chair, hair and clothes a mess, her nerves shattered.

If a woman is able to stay home and the family live a modern life style without financial stress she is pretty well off and can spend some of her time on social media.

[Suliso]

I don't personally know anyone with 4+ kids... Maybe half a dozen families with three including one of my cousins. Indeed it's mostly about cost, but also people start the process up to 10 years later than they used to. Hardly time left for more than two.

[Deuce]

Maybe the standards for living a 'comfortable life' are too high today.
The 'need' for comfort and convenience is much more prevalent today than it was a few decades ago. It's all about 'keeping up with the Joneses' today: if your neighbours have 2 cars and 3 TVs, you must have the same, or suffer in 'social status'.

I think it's painfully obvious that people's material wants today are much, much greater than they were a few decades ago. Back then, the average family considered itself fortunate to have one basic colour TV and one car. Today, the average family feels embarrassed if they don't have at least 2 HD TVs, a cable TV subscription, high speed internet, and 2 cars that are less than 5 years old each.

And so, as material wants and the need for a certain level of 'social status' have increased, both parents have to work to afford that lifestyle.
But the reality is that today's average lifestyle would have been considered 'luxurious' a few decades ago. And when I see that the main consequence to today's lifestyle is that children are being more neglected, and are having more problems, I say that today's lifestyle is not worth that cost.

[ti-amie]

Parenting involves setting boundaries and I think that is what Deuce is talking about. Your little bundle of joy is just that, YOURS. Once he/she steps outside of your home no one gives a damn about his/her feelings, wants or desires. Kids have to be made to understand that.

The other thing is peer pressure. If Hailey has the latest sneakers and your daughter doesn't she faces bullying because her family must be "poor". There was a lament by a wealthy woman that she was working hard so that her children wouldn't be the "poorest of the rich" kids at their school in the NYTimes.

Societal pressures have changed and parents have to fight to stay on top of them within bounds of reason and that is what makes parenting so difficult today. So many people on night Twitter are people who have put the kids to bed (hopefully their kids aren't like those twins in the video clip) and taking a bit of "me" time.

[Suliso]

You can freely decide to live 60-ties lifestyle as long as you can find a partner who agrees.

[ti-amie]

You can freely decide to live 60-ties lifestyle as long as you can find a partner who agrees.

And can afford to provide it for you.

[Suliso]

Of course, and this is not just for people with kids, material desires can be endless and short of being the top 0.1% you'll never have it all. Tempering this "keeping up with neighbors" urge is something we all need to master. Having said that in my environment (no kids) I find absolutely zero pressure or expectation to keep up with anyone.

[ti-amie]

[Deuce]

You can freely decide to live 60-ties lifestyle as long as you can find a partner who agrees.

Sure... but the problem is that, as materialism has increased, personal insecurity has also increased - and so people are not strong enough to resist this increased materialism.
And, as I've said, it is not without consequence - the children ultimately pay the price for their parents 'needing' to follow the crowd. And that's neither fair nor healthy.

As for the example of the child being bullied in school because he/she doesn't have the latest 'cool' shoes... That may well be true. But to me, the best parents will not buy the child the 'cool' shoes. The best parents will teach the child that materialism is superficial and is simply a grand illusion, and that allowing other people to decide what you wear - among other things - is not healthy. The weaker parents will give in and do what is most convenient and requires the least amount of effort - which is to buy the kid the 'cool' shoes. But what does this teach the child?

We have more of those weaker types of parents today than we had in the past - partially because parents are 'too busy' to teach their children to be strong and emotionally healthy and to not follow the crowd, and partially because parents are more immature and insecure today than in the past, and so want to 'show off' vicariously by buying their kids the things that 'social status' demands.
There is no question in my mind that parenting has gone backwards in the past 50 years or so. And proof of that can be seen in the pretty much annual increase in insecure, materialistic, and troubled kids.

[JazzNU]

Andy finally equaled Roger in something.

Murray ties Federer

Didn't know we were onto baby #4. That's the real news for me. I didn't know what he could've caught up to Roger on and when it was kids, I thought, oh twins? I don't at all recall when baby #3 came.

[Suliso]

If you hear about an ankle injury soon at least you'll know why

[JazzNU]

I had missed that Niko Basilashvili was accused of domestic abuse by his ex-wife...