As proof of your main argument, you glide from evaluation of parenting practices to infant mortality rates, and apparently hope that no one will notice. Infant mortality is a medical problem, and has to do primarily with hygiene and vaccination against childhood diseases, not parenting styles. I suppose one could reach and point to parents who withhold vaccinations from their children, but that's quite a stretch. Either write about parenting styles *or* innovations in medicine, but don't confuse the two when dubiously asserting the superiority of modern life and practices.
As for the assertions about people's idealizing the past, that is a ridiculous straw man. Almost no one fits that caricature, and it is in no way an idealization to claim, correctly, that in making "progress" we have gained certain things, and lost others.
Sounds like we may agree more than you think. "In making 'progress' we have gained certain things, and lost others" is roughly what I would say, too. I certainly am not arguing for the superiority of modern practices. In fact I'm arguing that framing things in terms of a binary opposition is wrongheaded. My goal was precisely that: to push back on the tendency to assume that "traditional" or "historical" childrearing practices were a single, coherent thing as opposed to an astounding diversity.
As for parenting and infant mortality, I think there's considerable overlap if you approach the topic historically rather than from a present-day perspective. It helps here to imagine what it would be like to be a parent in a world with 50% infant mortality - speaking for myself, I cannot imagine a scenario where that fact doesn't overwhelmingly impact how I would think about parenting and childhood. An example: J.S. Bach had 20 children, of whom only 10 survived to adulthood. The point isn't that Bach's parenting style impacted that survival rate. It's simply that the experience of being a child and parent would be utterly different, in many cases quite a bit darker.
" It helps here to imagine what it would be like to be a parent in a world with 50% infant mortality - speaking for myself, I cannot imagine a scenario where that fact doesn't overwhelmingly impact how I would think about parenting and childhood. An example: J.S. Bach had 20 children, of whom only 10 survived to adulthood. The point isn't that Bach's parenting style impacted that survival rate. It's simply that the experience of being a child and parent would be utterly different, in many cases quite a bit darker."
This has been my thought for a while, that parents' attitude toward their children must be so different if they expect a significant fraction of them to die before adulthood.
I also found it interesting when I thought about this that I had not detected this difference in attitude in any fiction from past centuries, but I wasn't aware of just how dramatic the change in child mortality rate was, and I wasn't a parent when I read most of the books. I'll have to revisit.
I certainly went a bit crazy trying to research “old ways” once my daughter was born. Actually https://evolutionaryparenting.com had some good articles with historical info if I remember correctly.
Everyone was telling me to sleep train our daughter (I refused) or not to contact nap because she won’t fall asleep on her own (not true, at least for her), etc. Drove me a bit crazy. I think at least what I’ve learned so far, the most important thing, listen to your “gut”. If your brain and body is telling you to keep your baby close, then do so. The internet makes babies sound like robots with suggested sleep schedules, etc. Just cause you’re young doesn’t make you more “trainable” or less complex.
I’d also recommend reading “Remembering the Pheasants” by Patrick Joyce.
And 100% about the footnote letting kids be bored. We all grew up without phones/tablets etc. we survived!
Fighting crime on the mean streets of Alexandria... Surely they could snip about 2% of of the budget of a Marvel movie and spend the money on this instead!
As proof of your main argument, you glide from evaluation of parenting practices to infant mortality rates, and apparently hope that no one will notice. Infant mortality is a medical problem, and has to do primarily with hygiene and vaccination against childhood diseases, not parenting styles. I suppose one could reach and point to parents who withhold vaccinations from their children, but that's quite a stretch. Either write about parenting styles *or* innovations in medicine, but don't confuse the two when dubiously asserting the superiority of modern life and practices.
As for the assertions about people's idealizing the past, that is a ridiculous straw man. Almost no one fits that caricature, and it is in no way an idealization to claim, correctly, that in making "progress" we have gained certain things, and lost others.
Sounds like we may agree more than you think. "In making 'progress' we have gained certain things, and lost others" is roughly what I would say, too. I certainly am not arguing for the superiority of modern practices. In fact I'm arguing that framing things in terms of a binary opposition is wrongheaded. My goal was precisely that: to push back on the tendency to assume that "traditional" or "historical" childrearing practices were a single, coherent thing as opposed to an astounding diversity.
As for parenting and infant mortality, I think there's considerable overlap if you approach the topic historically rather than from a present-day perspective. It helps here to imagine what it would be like to be a parent in a world with 50% infant mortality - speaking for myself, I cannot imagine a scenario where that fact doesn't overwhelmingly impact how I would think about parenting and childhood. An example: J.S. Bach had 20 children, of whom only 10 survived to adulthood. The point isn't that Bach's parenting style impacted that survival rate. It's simply that the experience of being a child and parent would be utterly different, in many cases quite a bit darker.
" It helps here to imagine what it would be like to be a parent in a world with 50% infant mortality - speaking for myself, I cannot imagine a scenario where that fact doesn't overwhelmingly impact how I would think about parenting and childhood. An example: J.S. Bach had 20 children, of whom only 10 survived to adulthood. The point isn't that Bach's parenting style impacted that survival rate. It's simply that the experience of being a child and parent would be utterly different, in many cases quite a bit darker."
This has been my thought for a while, that parents' attitude toward their children must be so different if they expect a significant fraction of them to die before adulthood.
I also found it interesting when I thought about this that I had not detected this difference in attitude in any fiction from past centuries, but I wasn't aware of just how dramatic the change in child mortality rate was, and I wasn't a parent when I read most of the books. I'll have to revisit.
Love “Babies” !
I certainly went a bit crazy trying to research “old ways” once my daughter was born. Actually https://evolutionaryparenting.com had some good articles with historical info if I remember correctly.
Everyone was telling me to sleep train our daughter (I refused) or not to contact nap because she won’t fall asleep on her own (not true, at least for her), etc. Drove me a bit crazy. I think at least what I’ve learned so far, the most important thing, listen to your “gut”. If your brain and body is telling you to keep your baby close, then do so. The internet makes babies sound like robots with suggested sleep schedules, etc. Just cause you’re young doesn’t make you more “trainable” or less complex.
I’d also recommend reading “Remembering the Pheasants” by Patrick Joyce.
And 100% about the footnote letting kids be bored. We all grew up without phones/tablets etc. we survived!
Fighting crime on the mean streets of Alexandria... Surely they could snip about 2% of of the budget of a Marvel movie and spend the money on this instead!