Mandatory School Uniforms

The school I work at brings up Mandatory school uniforms at every administrator's meeting. They say that it would dissolve all cliques in schools and would eliminate a lot of problems. Girls would not dress too slutty, and guys would not wear phallic imagery shirts.

Girls would wear a matching skirt of at least knee length and a white blouse.
Boys would wear black pants, black dress shoes and a white long-sleeve shirt.

I know what I think, but I am waiting til someone else says something.

Do you think that schools should implement a mandatory school uniform policy?

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

I wish my school didn't have mandatory uniforms, although I voted to have them because I'd hate to think how much money I'd spend on clothes if we didn't have mandatory uniforms.

If we didn't have mandatory uniforms I'd dress like an insane hoboe like I usually do when going out with a raggedy old Jim Beam shirt and hoboe-esque jacket and jeans.

---

Reckless disregard for childrens well being, women and nothing but utter contempt for other cultures.

I tihnk that school uniforms in public schools should be absolutely outlawed! They say that it will put the poor and rich kids on even ground, but it won't. The not-popular kids don't have freinds because so many of them don't wash and are social retards anyway. They wear dirty clothes, they smell or they are bodily or facially ugly. Putting them in a school uniform wil not make them hang out with Cliff Vanderbilt III, the quarterback.

Thier clothes will still be dirty, they will still stink, and they will still be ugly or nerdy or WHATEVER under the sun it was that made them unpopular in the first place. They STILL won't play sports and if they do they will probably not be any good at it.

Unfortunately, this is what young ppl look at when they determine who will be popular. they don't look at what is on the inside, they look at who is pretty or who can play sports the best or who drinks the most after school. The adults in our school districts think that all young people look at is clothes, but it goes much further than that.

Plus I hate the orwellian "big brother" thing going on with the school uniforms and everyone looking the same... c'mon, that's horrible some people need to express themselves!!!

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

It depends on where the school is.

Something cloths usually implore is: first impressions. On the one hand, no one would make a bad first impression, since everyone's wearing the same thing. But then again, you may not become friends with the same people, since, honestly, when you meet people, you get a certain opinion of them just by seeing their taste in clothes.

Also, in the argument of "slutty" girl outfits ... make cheerleader skirts different, which are mandatory if you're one of them, before you start talking about the rest of the population. Not to mention, some people just hate those kinds of clothes. Many girls despise skirts. And, that kind of re-inforces a segregation of sorts.

So, there are good points and bad ones. But, uniforms will not fix problems like they're talking about. It'd be a better idea to just have "dress codes", which most all schools have anyway. I remember some were like, no mid-drifts or something for women ... men didn't do it anyway. Skirts cannot be too short. Little things like that, and if you disobeyed the dress code stuff, you got suspended. Or better yet, detention.

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

YEah, it just seemed to me that the popular people when iwas in HS were always the rich ones anyway: the ones who washed thier clothes properly and who would look the most presentable anyway, thus ruining the first impression tihng. Plus the non-popular kids, even if they DID take good care of thier uniforms, they would still nto take care of thier bodies, and have stick-up hair or whatever it is that ppl made fun of them for.

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

Do you really have a problem with guys wearing "phallic imagery shirts"?

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Cash Car Star</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>Do you really have a problem with guys wearing "phallic imagery shirts"?</DIV></DIV>

Yeah that's pretty gay.

Anyway I don't wear our uniform more than once a week cause all you get if you don't wear it is a "uniform slip". A peice of paper. No other consequences.

---

Reckless disregard for childrens well being, women and nothing but utter contempt for other cultures.

I was in a school that enforced uniforms. We had to wear the same
Navy-Blue/White outfit every single day (except saturdays, when it was
all white). I can tell you, from experience, that uniforms do not solve
anything. Students from more affluent backgrounds who want to show off
will still find ways to do so.

The problem, IMO, is that people want to segregate. Uniformity
does not come naturally. In any group people will try and be different
from each other. In large groups cliques will always be formed, on one
basis or another. Sometimes, the groups are just like-minded people.
Sometimes, it's still the money. Like the Cool Dudes With Esprit
Watches Gang, or somesuch.

One good thing about uniforms: you can never match the sight of a whole
bunch of school students, all dressed alike, marching together for a
school parade. The only thing to beat that sight is to be part of it.

I voted No.

i voted no, but i'd still agree with some sort of dress code.

---

i eat paint

I voted No.

I went to a school where during the weekdays the guys couldn't wear
blue jeans and had to wear a collared shirt of some kind. Girls
couldn't wear skirts shorter than their fingertips when standing up
with their hands by their sides, and they couldn't wear tank tops but
other than that it was harder to enforce the girls dress code.

Personally, it felt nice to get up in the morning and put on a nice
button down shirt and go to class. And the weekends let me dress
however I wanted (it was a boarding school so everyone was hanging out
on weekends). I thought it was a really good system. My
school was thinking about bringing about a dress code like you
suggested except the guys would have to wear jackets and ties all the
time. I think that's going a little overboard. While the
school certainly looks nicer from an exterior perspective I just think
it would attract a different sort of person, and I'm not one to choose
a school with a strict mandatory dress code over one with a more
relaxed dress code.

Social segregation will never go away, it will just take kids a little
longer to figure out who they want to hang out with. Although --
clothes never really dictated who I hung out with anyway.

Cash Car Star said:
Do you really have a problem with guys wearing "phallic imagery shirts"?

Seeing guys with shirts that say "hank's Weiner stand - 'Straight up!'" and "Steel Erection Company - 'whatever it is, we'll get it up!'" that stuff is old now, and teachers and other faculty here don't like it. I don't really care one way or another except that it's passe now.

This is not a private school either. It's the ONLY school within it's district and its a PUBLIC school. But, yeah, if kids want to segregate they will always find SOMETHING to do to show off. like Doc marten's shoes instead of Wal-Mart brand or something. It's just a dummo idea IMO.

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

I voted yes.

When I was in school ("school" here in the UK being up to 16 years old) we had to wear black uniforms while another local school had to wear blue. At least with uniforms we could see who is on whos side in mass brawls between our rival schools. :biggrin:

Hehe :biggrin:

My school didn't have a strict uniform, but we did have a dress code.
Years 1-5 would wear red or white polo shirts or white shirts, with
black trousers or skirts. Ties were optional, and if you wore one it was a red
and black diagonally striped one. Once you are in 6th year you have the
option of becoming a prefect, but it was pretty much standard to do so.
If you did then you had to wear a white shirt, black trousers or skirt, and a
red tie with the school logo. I'm quite glad we had the dress code - it
did make things a bit easier in the mornings and it does make you feel
more like you are there to work, not just socialise.

---

[img]http://card.mygamercard.net/sig/Default/reno84.png[/img]
Designer @ Haiku Interactive | ReNo-vation.net

I voted yes. My reasons are my own. I am considered somewhat old fashioned when it comes to children so you really do not want to hear my reasons I am sure. Imagine all the old concepts about children's rights and you probably have my viewpoint. Seen and not heard is definitely among them.

---

There is no history until something happens, then there is.

you're right, children sohuld be seen , not heard and NOT spoiled or raised by the TV. Here's what I say: seen and not heard, but still nurtured."

the whole thing comes from women having too much choice in things, if they hadn't been all "liberated" and going out for full-time jobs, they would still be at home where they belong, doing women's work and raising children. That's what it supposed to happen.

I'm serious.

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

Mandatory school uniforms? Maybe I don't feel like having someone's personal tastes imposed on myself. Nazis.

A stricter dress code would be much better.

And I think kids are such spoiled brats because parents are afraid to
beat the crap out of them when they step out of line. Kids nowadays
think they can get away with anything and will probably end-up being
horse-thieves.

And Attention Deficit Disorder is bulls**t; just a fancy term to hide the fact that your kid is a lazy spoiled douche.

I voted no. And Andrei, it really isn't. I have Attention
Deficit Hyperactive Disorder, I've been tested and s**t like that, and
my teachers don't like it :sad:

Anyhoo, I vote no, my school has a dress code, but all it says is no gang shirts, be completely covered etc.

I usually just wear what is comfortable. That involves 1. jeans 2. a shirt

I can't imagine having to wear some constricting uniform that cuts circulation.

I don't believe in no uniforms so that I can "make a statement with my
clothes" like some winy emo kid, but I want to be comfortable.

ADHD is real. The problem lies in its diagnosis. Most are inaccurate to say the least.

I am not privy to the numbers, but I am betting that 90% of the kids currently diagnosed with this are just hyperactive, or spoiled. I believe this based on my own observations of current parenting skills. If I err, then blame it on my observational habits of noticing bad parenting.

---

There is no history until something happens, then there is.

Andrei said:
Mandatory school uniforms? Maybe I don't feel like having someone's personal tastes imposed on myself. Nazis.
A stricter dress code would be much better.

And I think kids are such spoiled brats because parents are afraid to beat the crap out of them when they step out of line. Kids nowadays think they can get away with anything and will probably end-up being horse-thieves.

And Attention Deficit Disorder is bulls**t; just a fancy term to hide the fact that your kid is a lazy spoiled douche.

HEAR HEAR!!!

The bible says: Proverbs 13:24 He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes.

Now, sinc parents are only 16 years old, they remember not liking being swatted, so they don't do it to thier kids. Plus Dr. Spock says not to spank kids cause it'll warp thier personalities.

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

Andrei said:
Mandatory school uniforms? Maybe I don't feel like having someone's personal tastes imposed on myself. Nazis.
A stricter dress code would be much better.

What exactly is the difference between a uniform dress, and a stricter dress code? Both are imposing a certain viewpoint on an otherwise unwilling subject. If someone can so candidly throw around the word "Nazi" Perhaps they could define the two in such a way to make it understandable for those of us whom do not like the term used at all.

and,

don get me started on Doc Spock.

---

There is no history until something happens, then there is.

<div class="quote"><div class="quotetitle">? quoting Underdog:</div><div class="quotetext"><div class="quote">

<div class="quotetext"></div></div>
What exactly is the difference between a uniform dress, and a
stricter dress code? Both are imposing a certain viewpoint on an
otherwise unwilling subject.

</div></div>

Yes and no.

The difference is that, with a dress code, you can still dress however
you like as long as you don't cross a certain line. Now how liberal the
dress code is can vary from school to school or even from country to
country. True, if the dress code is very strict then there's not a big
difference between it and mandatory uniforms. On the other hand, if you
make uniforms compulsory, you ALL wear the same
uniform and that's it. There's no way around it, no way the rules can
be dodged...unlike with a dress code (which can be interpreted
differently).

As for nazi, it's a generic term I use for someone who imposes
something (like a rule) on the masses without consulting them. I guess
the term is out of place but i'm edgy today so please forgive me if
you're offended or anything.

My school tried out non-uniform for lessons after sports, and all that
happened was people felt so relaxed they didn't work as hard as they
did when they wore uniform, so the idea was scrapped. To be honest, I'm
not fussed if the uniform isn't too wacky.

---

My site

I think schoolgirl outfits are hot, but I'm not sure it'd be worth it if I had to wear some ridiculous getup every day... strict dress code's fine, mandatory uniforms are stupid.

---

One day you'll know what you're talking about, I can hardly imagine

Maps! - Audio blog!

I think they should have a certain dress code. Like no belly buttons!
Granted they are nice to look at, but for the hormone surging teens
that are around them, it will be extremely distracting.

---

Posting And You

YEah, belly buttons are BAD. I live in america, and we've already established that there ar LOTS of fatties over here... /me shudders...

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

you're right, children sohuld be seen , not heard and NOT
spoiled or raised by the TV. Here's what I say: seen and not heard, but
still nurtured."
the whole thing comes from women having too much choice in things,
if they hadn't been all "liberated" and going out for full-time jobs,
they would still be at home where they belong, doing
women's work and raising children. That's what it supposed to happen.

I'm serious.

omg

i agree that children should not be spoiled, but moms that stay at home can just as much spoil their children.

---

These words are my diaries screaming out loud

My school is wierd. We have mandatory uniforms, but they can suspend you for wearing them outside of school (although it's never actually happened, for obvious reasons).

---

Better to be in denial than to be human.

Bill Gates understands binary: his company is number one, and his customers are all zeros.

That's cool, your school has the same dress code as Hooters. :biggrin:

---

One day you'll know what you're talking about, I can hardly imagine

Maps! - Audio blog!

omg

i agree that children should not be spoiled, but moms that stay at home can just as much spoil their children.

The thing is, if the mom is home with the kids, making them do chores or something, the kids will stay out of a lot of trouble that they would normally get into.
If a kid's helping mom do the dishes and is busy being seen and not heard, he's not getting in trouble. Also, if mom's at home, she can watch the kid at play with his freinds. she can be sitting on the porch mending my work-shirts while kiddo and his pals are playing around in the yard.
you're probably thinking, "why does mom have to hover over the kids all the time, they can never have any fun!!" But then you have to think, where are kids getting thier Idea of what's fun? And if they had been raised better, they would know that you can have just as much fun playing hide-and-seek with your freinds as you can when you're trying to replicate "Jackass" stunts and hurting people (or yourself).

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

There are totally different levels of uniforms. I went to this private school and you had to wear EVERYTHING in the uniform list (well except underwear) which sucked. At the public school I go to now it's just the one shirt you have to wear, and there are 4 to choose from, 2 designed by students.

---

Reckless disregard for childrens well being, women and nothing but utter contempt for other cultures.

I went to a high school with a dress code. Many people there did some bitching about the code, but really the only problem I had with it was that "official dress code clothes" could only be purchased from one local business. Considering the dress code was pretty much navy/gray pants, white oxford shirt, tie, navy/gray jacket for guys, it seemed a little ridiculous to have the market monopolized. And they were produced so cheaply too. Nearly every guy had a jacket rip on him at school sometime.

Boo exclusive contracts, yay free market.

I voted no.. I mean I understand why, and if they are going to have them, then the school system needs to pay for them. This is public School, and it is free to go there, requiruing students to wear uniforms should not cost the parents anything... now if I was sending my kids to a private school then I would understand paying for a school uniform. But at a free public school, no they should not have them unless the school system pays for them.

Well, the bottom line is that most have voted against mandatory uniforms. The people have spoken. :smile:

you're probably thinking, "why does mom have to hover over the kids all the time, they can never have any fun!!"

no i'm not. and you're not giving an answer.

i just don't understand how one can defend Freedom with capital F, yet
deny freedom for 50% of the population, saying they belong at
home, saying they shouldn't be able to choose how to live their life.
Such opinions are considered extremely right-wing here.

---

These words are my diaries screaming out loud

I'm extremely right-wing... here.

but in all seriousness, ONE parent needs to stay home of thier own volition if there's kids. they can't be taught by the TV, because TV is a sex/violence/cussword box. And no kid wants to watch Barney when he can figure out dad's passcode and watch "debbie does dallas."

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

I'm so glad I don't know you in real life. I'd probably shout at you a lot. Your brief post is filled with so many over-simplifications, unsupported assumptions and generlizations that someone could write a thesis discussing them.

Well, I'm going to really stick my neck out here and support
Nickelplate. In my phenomenally limited experience, over here in the UK
the concept of uniform tends to be associated with some level of
order/control over the school pupils by the school, which is generally
considered to be a good thing. Generally speaking (very
generally), the public tend to feel more intimidated by a bunch of
youths in casuals (complete with baseball caps) than those in school
uniform. The uniform associates that person with a school, which makes
them easy to identify and gives a sense of the school having some
control. It's only really necessary due to the "yob culture" that seems
to be cropping up everywhere in the UK now.

As for Nickel's view about parents, I'm not sure I'd go quite as far,
but again with the yob culture it seems that those who don't have a
parent staying at home (not necessarily their mother - could be their
father) tend to be associated with being sat in front of the television
with a diet of fish and chips every evening, and very few whole-family
meals. This is often considered to be a bad upbringing which results in
all sorts of things.

So I agree with Nickel - perhaps to not quite such an extent and for
different reasons. Bear in mind I'm talking about the UK here, rather
than the US.

---

My site

what is the point? you cant wear a school uniform outside school, or you would just look pretty gay, and that means you have spend money on school clothes and other clothes.
of course, one of the troubles of childhood, i am forced to at least wear the colour code. but i just rebel and wear a black smirnoff shirt and black jeans. so far i havent had any of the threatened 'detentions' the school promised.
as well. all popular kids either follow my route of outfit or just wear what they want. you can instantly recognized a nerd or a first year by their uniform. so it infact enforced social segregation in my school.

---

Bullet Control: $5000 for a bullet.
"I would blow your f**king head off! ...if I could afford it. I'm gonna get another job, start saving some money... then you a dead man!"

you cant wear a school uniform outside school, or you would just
look
pretty gay, and that means you have spend money on school clothes and
other clothes.

Hmmm... not sure I agree on that point entirely. The principle of school uniform isn't based on money. In terms of
looking "pretty gay", if you have enough people wearing uniform,
suddenly it becomes the norm. Over here wearing uniform outside school
isn't forbidden, and people often are walking quite a distance to/from
school. The whole point of having a load of youths who are looking
"pretty gay" is that it stops them from doing anything stupid - like
throwing bricks at trains. It gives them and identity as part of a
school, effectively branding them in big red letters "I am from school
X - if I've done anything idiotic you will be able to trace me". The
other thing is, not all uniform does look "pretty gay". My school
uniform for example, is any shirt, blazer, tie, and grey trousers. It's
actually quite smart, and whilst it identifies you as part of the
school, it doesn't make you look "gay".

all popular kids either follow my route of outfit or just wear
what
they want. you can instantly recognized a nerd or a first year by their
uniform

This is nothing personal, but often particularly "popular kids" are also trouble makers in the UK's new "yob-culture".
Subsequently, forcing them to become one of the crowd and not
desperately seek attention through wearing whatever clothing is very
much a good thing.

Finally, in terms of social segregation, here it would be very unusual
to have third formers mixing with sixth formers for example. There is a
natural social hierachy anyway, so it's not actually a problem in the
slightest. Everybody has to wear the same thing anyway, one of the
bonuses of having uniform rather than a dress code.

Anyway, that's just my take on it. :smile:

---

My site

Yea, although much of Texas schools don't have a uniforms (excludeing
private of coarse), many schools are implementing stricter dress codes
and dress code violations.

I mean like some Dallas schools, for instance, have implemented
stricter dress codes that are too strict. They suspend people
with very little reason. I saw on the news how one school
suspended people because there shirts accedentally came untucked.
The students were in the middle of fixing them, and bam,
suspension. That's just not fair.

I don't know if it's still inforced t that matter, but I do know that a
while back hundreds of parents were protesting the schools policies on
the dress code.

(out of context)Boy, I sure am glad that I am out of school now, before that policy hit Prosper, Texas.

---

You know, I've actually got nothing to say

Heh , i enjoyed having mandatory uniforms and it actually solved a lot of problems.. I find myself still wearing shirts similar to the uniform even though i go to a public school now.

<div class="abouttext">Message submitted 12 minutes after original post:</b></div>
I'm extremely right-wing... here.

but in all seriousness, ONE parent needs to stay home of thier own volition if there's kids. they can't be taught by the TV, because TV is a sex/violence/cussword box. And no kid wants to watch Barney when he can figure out dad's passcode and watch "debbie does dallas."

^--- from nickels *quoting system isnt working >_<

I completly agree with this , the tv not only has gotten more and more graphic also parents have stopped caring what their kids watch . SOMEBODY needs to stay at home , be it the father or the mother , otherwise the kid wont be raised propperly.

It prevents the kid from having problems at school from lack of attention from parents seen this a LOT now days but it also gives the kid a sense of moral ground , and whats right and wrong. Morals are partially there to make life easier , make you happier and prevent a lot of s**t from happening :wink: .

I've had fun watching kids , AND definently more fun than stacking papers. you dont have to work any certain hours or anything , they've got it made to a degree and have really taken advantage of it. if i was a girl i'd never wanna work at a job , i'd rather clean the house and just screw around. lol.

nuff said bring out the uniforms =p .. as long as it isnt some monopoly thing going on

---

.else /me ~kill you
www.arclan.net

Some interresting answers thus far. You can curb a kids dress with out resorting to a uniform. Some of the schools here do that, they have rules that certian items can not be worn to the school, like raiders hats or head wraps, or sport team jerseys.. and that seems to allow the kids to still dress in their own clothes with out resorting to a uniform.

I still think that if your going to a public school and they have a uniform policy the shool should shell out the bucks for the damn thing.

As for the parent at home thing.. In the UK I dont know how you all live, but in the USA, a lot of families have a parent or a guardian at home, its the law up until the age of 13 that your kids can not be home alone. Well at least in Texas, and New Mexico.

Andrei said:
Yes and no.

The difference is that, with a dress code, you can still dress however you like as long as you don't cross a certain line. Now how liberal the dress code is can vary from school to school or even from country to country. True, if the dress code is very strict then there's not a big difference between it and mandatory uniforms.

Herein lies the dilemma. To many people have their own notions of "to strict" I am sorry to say this but most people simply have to have others thinking for them because of their own belief system. Face it, people simply believe they have to god given right to do almost anything they please. When it reaches this point, things like mandatory dress codes are a must. Its that simple.If you like, we can have a thread that deals with peoples perceived rights vs. their true rights. I would so LOVE to have a thread like that. I am betting that there are many more liberals here than not. Liberals tend to think the world is theirs to play with.

Cash Car Star said:
I'm so glad I don't know you in real life.

I am betting that you and I would get along smashingly well. You give off an aura I like. Course you may not see it in a similar fashion but liking someone never had to be a two way endeavor. THAT was not intended as it read either it was intended exactly how I wrote it.

---

There is no history until something happens, then there is.

Cash Car Star said:
I'm so glad I don't know you in real life. I'd probably shout at you a lot. Your brief post is filled with so many over-simplifications, unsupported assumptions and generlizations that someone could write a thesis discussing them.

Start writing, man. If you think that kids should be raised by the TV, tell me why. Why shouldn't a parent stay at home?

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

One good reason is that they probably can't afford to stay at home. Both parents need to work. I know my parents couldn't afford much of anything with only one person working, I wasn't "raised by TV" though. When I was younger I was in daycare or something that was at my school, and when my parents were done with work, they'd come get me.

However, I think, for the first 5 years or so of the child's life, someone should be at home, simply because, the child has nothing to do during the day (school) ... and those are pretty impressionable years. Other then that ... you have to make compromises.

Although, Nickel, I think you may be assuming the parents are completely responsible about the timing. If not ... I don't understand how they could even sustain themselves and their child if they're home all day. (Past government aid)

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

If the parents are so poor that they both have to work, then how are they affording daycare?

SOMEBODY has to watch the kids during the day. If they're left alone, they don't LEARN anything that they are supposed to be learning, and they end up selfish, rude, little animals who get diagnosed with ADHD when thier parents can't control them because they never established an order of authority because they were never there.

There are always after-school programs that kids can be a part of after they start kindergarten, but yeah, until age 5 give the kids a fighting chance!

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

Day care is very cheap, man. We're talking maybe $13 a week (especially if it's one ran out of a public school. They KNOW the parents can't afford more). Compared to the 1,500 or so that specific parent would clear a month ... you can see how it balances out, right?

I had my mom home most of the time before I started school, but honestly, around age 4 if you need money, you need money. Before that you'd either live in a less than nice place, or none of this is a problem.

I think the people you're really thinking of are people who have the money to take care of their children, and they just don't spend time with them or something as such.

And, I never said they wouldn't be watched during the day, did I?

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

So, who's watching them during the day?

and even if they're watched at a daycare, what are they learning, my brother was always in a daycare: and he STILL ended up as a selfish bastard. and guess what... he's "got ADHD."

seriously, he came home and told mom that they just sleep or eat cheerios all day at these places. they're not getting books read to them and doing stimulation activities like they would if thier mom or dad was home caring for them. Plenty of people get by with just one income, and they have for years.

This same brother I am talking about is going to be the same way. He wants to live the good life but he's getting his girlfreind knocked up and so he KNOWS he's going to have a kid and that births are expensive, yet he STILL goes and buys a 42" TV for his house. So it's not like ALL parents are managing thier funds properly like yours might have.

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

They're in school ... how many time do I need to say that?

Day care, in conjunction with school, only lasts a couple hours. Who said mine were managing their funds properly? Like I said, both of my parents needed to work ... but that's besides the point.

What you're saying is an incredible generalization and over simplification of the situation. If you want to go on a rant on how children don't learn during daycare, then you should whine more about the lack of learning in schools ... since chances are they're not learning much there either.

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

maybe you should say it a few more times. How old are these kids we're talking about, because if they are under the age of five, they're not in public school...

If they're over 5 they're at least in kindergarten and can stay after school in Latchkey, or sports if thier parents can't pick them up til later.

And just because someone is voicing a complaint and you don't know why, doesnt mean that they are whining.

I think we got our wires crossed somewhere along the line and are not talking about the same thing, so WHAT are you talking about?

[edit] And it's not that i'm ranting about how they dont learn during daycare, its that they aren't learning ANYTHINg when they're home along watching TV with no parents there.

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com