Holiday without the kids?
Discussion
DoubleSix said:
I've never been called hippy before! I quite like it, as normally I'm called an evil Tory capitalist b(w)anker!
Anyway, never stated you shouldn't post only that you should expect comment IF you do and you might not like all of it. You seem a little confused as to how a public forum differs to a private conversation on a train in that regard.
Now, as you've (quite ironically) played your offended parent card whilst calling me a simpering lefty I'll do the decent thing and say no more about the 'easier' stuff.
WinstonWolf said:
I wouldn't worry, from what I've read D6 knows f
k all about parenting
Interesting.k all about parenting In actual fact this is a subject I have had a good deal of academic exposure to over my life as well as being a parent of course. You see my own mother has PHD in Early Child Development, my sister in law is a children's nurse and my OH a palliative nurse caring for young children near the end of a short life of illness. And I studied psychology to degree level.
As such, barely a day goes by that I'm not in earshot of discussions about young children, the practicalities and the academic theory that surrounds them. So, if you can put your emotions and desire to be right on the internet aside for a second and consider the huge body of research around this subject, spearheaded by Bowlby, then you'll appreciate that whilst leaving a child under 2 for a week might not seem a great wrench for many parents it can have a destablising effect on the child as they are unable to understand where "mummy has gone". In the absence of well formed language physical proximity is very important. Not wet just true.
As kids get beyond 3 or so their cognition has moved on substantially and motives for brief periods of seperation can begin to be explained. Many parents instinctively appreciate this - like most robust psychological theories it is rooted common sense after all.
Nobody is saying kids can't be left for a week with the grandparents but we are talking about very young under two's in this thread.
http://www.simplypsychology.org/attachment.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC311561...
Edited by DoubleSix on Monday 26th January 19:46
DoubleSix said:
WinstonWolf said:
I wouldn't worry, from what I've read D6 knows fk all about parenting
Interesting.k all about parenting In actual fact this is a subject I have had a good deal of academic exposure to over my life as well as being a parent of course. You see my own mother has PHD in Early Child Development, my sister in law is a children's nurse and my OH a palliative nurse caring for young children near the end of a short life of illness. And I studied psychology to degree level.
As such, barely a day goes by that I'm not in earshot of discussions about young children, the practicalities and the academic theory that surrounds them. So, if you can put your emotions and desire to be right on the internet aside for a second and consider the huge body of research around this subject, spearheaded by Bowlby, then you'll appreciate that whilst leaving a child under 2 for a week might not seem a great wrench for many parents it can have a destablising effect on the child as they are unable to understand where "mummy has gone". In the absence of well formed language physical proximity is very important. Not wet just true.
As kids get beyond 3 or so their cognition has moved on substantially and motives for brief periods of seperation can begin to be explained. Many parents instinctively appreciate this - like most robust psychological theories it is rooted common sense after all.
Nobody is saying kids can't be left for a week with the grandparents but we are talking about very young under two's in this thread.
http://www.simplypsychology.org/attachment.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC311561...
Grumfutock said:
Those that can do, those that cant teach springs to mind! Your can not learn parenting at Uni or from a book. I am utterly speechless at the fact you think PHD's and degree's make a parent! Every child is different! No idiots guide, no rule book, no technical manual!
Errr that's not what I said though is it. DoubleSix said:
Interesting.
In actual fact this is a subject I have had a good deal of academic exposure to over my life as well as being a parent of course. You see my own mother has PHD in Early Child Development, my sister in law is a children's nurse and my OH a palliative nurse caring for young children near the end of a short life of illness. And I studied psychology to degree level.
As such, barely a day goes by that I'm not in earshot of discussions about young children, the practicalities and the academic theory that surrounds them. So, if you can put your emotions and desire to be right on the internet aside for a second and consider the huge body of research around this subject, spearheaded by Bowlby, then you'll appreciate that whilst leaving a child under 2 for a week might not seem a great wrench for many parents it can have a destablising effect on the child as they are unable to understand where "mummy has gone". In the absence of well formed language physical proximity is very important. Not wet just true.
As kids get beyond 3 or so their cognition has moved on substantially and motives for brief periods of seperation can begin to be explained. Many parents instinctively appreciate this - like most robust psychological theories it is rooted common sense after all.
Nobody is saying kids can't be left for a week with the grandparents but we are talking about very young under two's in this thread.
http://www.simplypsychology.org/attachment.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC311561...
None of which explains why the evacuees seemed to do just fine...In actual fact this is a subject I have had a good deal of academic exposure to over my life as well as being a parent of course. You see my own mother has PHD in Early Child Development, my sister in law is a children's nurse and my OH a palliative nurse caring for young children near the end of a short life of illness. And I studied psychology to degree level.
As such, barely a day goes by that I'm not in earshot of discussions about young children, the practicalities and the academic theory that surrounds them. So, if you can put your emotions and desire to be right on the internet aside for a second and consider the huge body of research around this subject, spearheaded by Bowlby, then you'll appreciate that whilst leaving a child under 2 for a week might not seem a great wrench for many parents it can have a destablising effect on the child as they are unable to understand where "mummy has gone". In the absence of well formed language physical proximity is very important. Not wet just true.
As kids get beyond 3 or so their cognition has moved on substantially and motives for brief periods of seperation can begin to be explained. Many parents instinctively appreciate this - like most robust psychological theories it is rooted common sense after all.
Nobody is saying kids can't be left for a week with the grandparents but we are talking about very young under two's in this thread.
http://www.simplypsychology.org/attachment.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC311561...
Edited by DoubleSix on Monday 26th January 19:46
WinstonWolf said:
None of which explains why the evacuees seemed to do just fine...
I can only imagine you are on some sort of personal crusade to reveal just how deeply ignorant and intellectually challenged you are.You are aware that under 5's in war time were evacuated WITH their parents for the reasons already discussed! And that for the others it wasn't exactly a laugh a minute.
DoubleSix said:
I can only imagine you are on some sort of personal crusade to reveal just how deeply ignorant and intellectually challenged you are.
You are aware that under 5's in war time were evacuated WITH their parents for the reasons already discussed! And that for the others it wasn't exactly a laugh a minute.
You really have a winning personality...You are aware that under 5's in war time were evacuated WITH their parents for the reasons already discussed! And that for the others it wasn't exactly a laugh a minute.
DoubleSix said:
I can only imagine you are on some sort of personal crusade to reveal just how deeply ignorant and intellectually challenged you are.
You are aware that under 5's in war time were evacuated WITH their parents for the reasons already discussed! And that for the others it wasn't exactly a laugh a minute.
Actually only their mothers were evacuated with children under 5 rather than 'parents'. No doubt there is a book somewhere that states raising a child with only one parent present is a bad thing. You are aware that under 5's in war time were evacuated WITH their parents for the reasons already discussed! And that for the others it wasn't exactly a laugh a minute.
Grumfutock said:
DoubleSix said:
I can only imagine you are on some sort of personal crusade to reveal just how deeply ignorant and intellectually challenged you are.
You are aware that under 5's in war time were evacuated WITH their parents for the reasons already discussed! And that for the others it wasn't exactly a laugh a minute.
Actually only their mothers were evacuated with children under 5 rather than 'parents'. No doubt there is a book somewhere that states raising a child with only one parent present is a bad thing. You are aware that under 5's in war time were evacuated WITH their parents for the reasons already discussed! And that for the others it wasn't exactly a laugh a minute.
Do you think D6 has got through the teenage years yet? I'm not convinced...
Gassing Station | Holidays & Travel | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff