[flagged]
I appreciate that child-rearing is an intensely emotional topic and that standards differ between countries, but that doesn't make it ok to pour dozens of flamewar comments into a thread about it. Please see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34194158 also.
I took a quick look at your recent comment history and fortunately didn't see other cases of this, so it should be easy to avoid in the future. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
As I said, I dont see anything 'nationalistic' about criticism of US-endemic policies and trends. With that logic, we would need to flag anyone who critices the US imperialism of the last 40 years and its overseas wars since it would also evaluate to being nationalistic with the same logic.
Additionally, I didnt name any specific nation to elevate it over the US. I specifically criticized the US, and said that this kind of mainstreamed anti-humane behavior is not present in any other country on the planet. If that makes the rest of the planet a 'nation', Im fine with that.
I have no problem with your views about babies. But there was a huge problem with the aggressive comments you posted. That is a direct contribution to destroying this place, and we can't allow that.
Moreover, it wasn't in your interest to argue this way. I understand how emotional the topic is—and rightly so—but attacking and putting other people down is not only not going to persuade them, it's going to harden them in their wrong (or what you consider to be wrong) position. By doing this you provided lots of fresh justification to dismiss your point of view—after all, look at how the people defending it behave! Assuming your position is true, then what you achieve by doing this is to discredit the truth (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...). Not only is that not in your interest, it hurts everybody.
I know that other people also behaved badly in this thread and I scolded some of them, but I'm sad to say that your posts were the worst by a significant margin. Since you don't have a history of conducting yourself this way on HN (at least not from the old comments I skimmed through), I'm sure you can avoid this in the future. If you'd please do that, and also make sure you're up on the site guidelines at https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html, we'd appreciate it.
I think a narrow space exists in which one can raise one's voice but do it in a way that connects with the people one is talking to, rather than alienating them. It's not easy to find that narrow space, but that's what HN is trying to be about.
I thought it comes from high modernism of early XX century.
Hopping here around the comments, I see some mention that mothers start working again when the child is 3 m.o. This is very very much similar to what the USSR wanted from factory worker families -- to have the worker woman go back to the factory machine ASAP and work, work, work.
The similarity is shocking to me.
The study was made on ~40 children. That is not a good group for anything. And there are absolutely no long-term studies on this. There are a lot of other comments that discuss that angle in this thread.
https://acamh.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jcpp....
> In their recent paper published in JCPP, Bilgin and Wolke (2020a) argue that leaving an infant to ‘cry it out’, rather than responding to the child’s cries, had no adverse effects on mother–infant attachment at 18 months. This finding opposes evidence across a wide range of scientific fields. Here, we outline several concerns with the article and argue against some of the authors’ strong claims, which have already gained media attention, including a report on the NHS website. We suggest that the authors’ conclusions should be considered one piece of a larger scientific whole, where ‘cry it out’ seems, overall, to be of detriment to both attachment and development. Crucially, we are concerned that this study has issues regarding power and other analytical decisions. More generally, we fear that the authors have overstated their findings and we hope that members of the public do not alter their parenting behaviours in line with such claims without further research into this controversial topic.