Відео

Yes that's so true! I think as society has degraded as a whole this point becomes more and more valid. I do think people are capable of repentance and not repeating the same issues but it is very prevalent. Unfortunately more and more kids from functional families are not necessarily choosing young marriage and kids and that also contributes in a way to extended childhood.

@@ellianna.keller thanks to understand my point! I agree completely people coming from happy marriages sometimes may choose to not get married due to social brainwash. That is sad because it wont bring true satisfaction I also believe people can move on from family issues and hopefuly brake the cycle, I believe in repetance too, but I think it simply usually takes a bit of time. I was fully single till I was 27, as I was terrified of romantic relationships because I had some childhood issues and abuse I witnessed. So I lived in a religious comunity I though about being a nun. I could heal and thank God i met my husband who had a looot of patience with me and my fears, but if I would have been younger I would literally not have been able to even talk to him due to some issues I carried. But God has the power to renew you and heal you for sure. It may happen at a different moment for everyone. It did not happen to my brother yet, and I see he is not in the position to start a family as he is still so hurt inside Thanks for your channel its very interesting I loved your video about daycare

Yesss thats definitely a great way to make money and will give you a higher margin as well!!

I never said to go towards the red pill or that there weren't beneficial aspects of feminism. HOWEVER, to say women didn't have jobs before feminism is false and that's what I was addressing in this video

@@ellianna.keller Women allways worked, but that NOT feminism that lied. That concervatism and "tradition". Feminism started in a period where women was excluded of work and right, so it was true that they didn't work back them in this time, at least far less. But it was concervatism and the idea of traditional gender role that lied because it was just a new model of life for hight class population. And you just need to look, who will talk the most about the gender role ? Not feminism actually. Feminism criticize the fact that women was prived of their right wich is true. But that the others that lied about women conditions in the whole history for justifying their exclusion by saying they never worked and that why workplace became so bad blablabla (when in fact again, they allways worked).

I cant tell if you're being ironic. But I'll bite. "Sure, women had jobs, but not necessarily the jobs they desire" you think men throughout history have just been able to choose whatever career struck their fancy? No. Socio economic factors determined your lifes trajectory and to a lesser degree still do today. A man born into a working class family has through the majority of history had little to no say in what jobs are available to him. Menial labour was his lot in life. Just going to point out that your take is milk toast and your brand of feminism died with the tumblr green hairs.

@@RedObed01 Oh, please, men were still able to open bank accounts, own property, and have their own businesses. So their menial labor still benefited them. What is the point of women's menial labor if they weren't able to own property and open bank accounts?

@RocKnight11 Your Anita Sarkeesian videos aren't historically accurate. Not far from me is a memorial dedicated to men who were shot dead by the army, whilst protesting the right to vote. Up until then, only landed gentry could vote, or women who had inherited land from family/deceased spouse. But always of the upper classes. The beauty of it is they got people like you fooled even hundreds of years later. Several wealthy men retained/retain all the wealth and power, and your solution to blame society and the people who are not responsible. I wonder why incredibly wealthy men help fund these cultural think tanks that endorse feminism? 🤔

Yes I unfortunately there's some people who aren't socialized when homeschooled, luckily the overwhelming majority are nowadays 😊

​@@ellianna.keller You'd think that, but you don't see them.

​@@ellianna.keller No one ever seen them.

​@@ellianna.keller There are no statistics on this. They're unknown people with no contact. When you find them that abnormal.

​@@ellianna.keller Their influence is 100% tv; sitcoms. Some don't know response.

At least 30 minutes to get to the next class. 45 minutes. Tracking missed classes.

She somersaults the whole way.

Only walks to change directions. Turns and then rolls. That weird.

And takes naps by the classroom door.

I wonder truly what that does all day.

Well thanks 😊

Absolutely! It's really hard for some because they've built a life based on two incomes and it can be so difficult to pare down which may require moving or a drastic step, but at the end of the day most people find it worth it to live in that Design.

That's sooo awesome and such a help for sure!

I actually worked at a very good daycare. But many of the kids just don't have that one on one experience of teaching how to socialize in a daycare setting. Part of learning how to properly socialize is having someone guide your conversation (please thank you, mutual respect, etc.) I would also say the chores around the house that need done are important in helping children learn how to contribute to society and should be allocated out to children to benefit the whole family

@@ellianna.keller Actually children pick up a lot of what they learn through just living around other people and by observation REGARDLESS of who they are with or where they are. In fact, other kids are great teachers and incentivizes to their peers. There is no need for momma to be the sole focus for all their learning, emotional security, and problem solving. Without being around me all day, my daughter was much easier to train at home because she saw other kids putting their things away in certain places, doing certain activities at certain times and places, sharing skills in organizing, learning about the need to cooperate, share, negotiate, sacrifice, etc. She learned that she was not the center of the universe. She learned to learn independently. She became calmer about me leaving the house because she now understood that people leaving the house didn't mean she was being deserted, because she now had a lived point of reference for what going to work or going to school, or shopping meant. She knew that "out" had a finite, definitive, tangible existence. It was no longer a mysterious void. We need to end the moral flagellation of telling moms that their children will perish without being with mom 25/8. A little stress from time to time helps grow new neurons in the brain. All this is to say, children can be strong, healthy, well balanced and productive humans without being limited to a single source of input. There needs to be some balance in telling (actually guilt-tripping) mothers that their children are being short-changed because they are not there for them 25/8. The kid will be OK.

Because they do pick up on a lot of things that's actually why daycare children in general struggle more. NOT ALWAYS, but in most cases children who are primarily taught or picking up behaviors from other children are not going to be as well set up for successful behavior. I'm not saying there aren't situations for daycare being needed but that it isn't an ideal *socialization* habitat. Young children need to learn proper socialization from people who know how to kindly socialize and interact with others. That's not to say kids have to be around mom all the time but that's why (if you have a good one) extended family can be so beneficial to little ones. Mom doesn't have to be the sole focus but family should be the primary focus for learning skills. I totally agree kids should not be the center of the universe, which is why bringing kids into various environments is helpful. But having mom or another family member around to help guide those social encounters (for very young children) is so beneficial! Also there's this thought that very young babies need socialization, Erica Komisar speaks to this a bit, but babies aren't at that stage where they need other babies to socialize with. They do need a primary and consistent caregiver though as much as possible. Obviously if this isn't possible that's a whole other conversation, but I'm speaking in the ideals. I'll try to find some of those articles I've learned from that speak to this as well.

ifstudies.org/blog/measuring-the-long-term-effects-of-early-extensive-day-care

Note: I'm not speaking to people who choose to send their kids to daycare because they have a job or career. I'm specifically talking to people who send their kids to daycare solely for the purpose of socialization. I'm not saying kids aren't resilient and can't still thrive socially even with daycare rather I'm giving a case for the ideal situation.

I mean yes true but in the grand scheme of things four years is nothing. I would consider anyone within five to seven years of me my age. Im talking about being socialized with people of different generations than yourself. In ancestral times whole communities would be socializing. Older people teaching the younger and so on. Most people I know who've had a broader spectrum of people to socialize with of all different ages tend to mature faster and start contributing to society earlier. It's definitely something that should be further studied

​@ellianna.keller Okay, you mentioned how you wouldn't have interacted with your now-husband because he's 3 years older than you and you kept using the phrase "exactly the same age", so it really sounded like you were talking about socialization outside of your birth year. That's why I clarified - you and your husband could have interacted a lot if you were interested in the same clubs or played on the same sports team. But re: other generations, who do you think is coaching the kids ar sports, or facilitating student council, or running clubs? I had to coordinate schedules, plan events, and otherwise communicate effectively with adults who were 15-45 years older than I was all the time.

I'm not saying it's impossible. I personally know people who did interact with people of all different ages but I think as a general rule it's not as common as it should be. If we had gone to the same elementary school we wouldn't have interacted (likely the same tho less so with middle school). In high school there maybe a broader sense of socializing with various ages like you said, however even then you're in a club for a hour a day or so and maybe on weekends? That's not necessarily the majority of your social experience. (Maybe they are more often idk). I think from your perspective you perhaps were set up better for success interacting with various ages (not everyone that goes to school has that same experience as you). My guess would be that a lot of the immaturity of teens would be avoided (though not completely) if from a very young age children were around people of all ages and their primary social experience was with a variety of people.

As far as my husband and I (even if we were in the same clubs or same sports teams) I think very rarely is a ninth grader and a twelfth grader becoming super close friends. I mean I knew of people who would run track and did have friends who were seniors, but that wasn't necessarily their closest friends or the circles that they would run in most often. That's not to say people of those ages can't interact it's just not as likely

True about other people's experiences. I also agree that daycare ar a really young age isn't ideal, although I'm a big fan of public/private schooling. I'm curious about what kind of socialization you get through homeschooling. I am biased because I knew a few young adults who were homeschooled K-12 and the majority of their socialization was with family and a few close family friends, which left them really ill-equipped to handle communicating with other people, and they struggled massively in early adulthood. What was your experience? How do you get a diverse social circle if you're learning at home. (Genuinely curious, not trying to be rude ❤)

Interesting, I have not heard of them. I'm not necessarily saying that people must have children like these people or that we should create living embryos and then select. If people do have to go through IVF there's ways I think to make only a few embryos so that none are destroyed.

Unfortunately if they paid worthy salaries, daycare would be so expensive that it wouldn't be worthwhile for a woman to work

I'm not saying that living at home is to avoid responsibility. I'm saying getting married and having children is a responsibility and people are pushing that responsibility off later and later. And yes the age people choose to get married is older and older and the percentage of people cohabitating is larger than ever. Almost any stat you see would tell you that.

@@ellianna.keller 5:30 you talk about "extended childhood", "not contributing to society in meaningful ways", and "putting off the responsibility of adulthood JUST BECAUSE they don't want that responsibility". Yes, people are objectively getting married older, but you were attributing a reason for it that I don't think is backed up by any real data. To other points in the video - I totally agree that when people are ready for marriage varies a lot from person to person, and people often say "oh, they're too young to get married" about a 24 year old or "why aren't they married, what's wrong with them" about a 34 year old. If you're in a stable, relationship where you're aligned on values and life goals and in a place financially to support yourselves, I think it's a little silly to wait until you're x years old just because you feel some sort of external pressure to not get married "too young".

Nope I didn't

@@ellianna.keller do you know why? I’ve only lived in the US for 2 yrs so far. In Norway it was normal to see both, have any take on why?

Aw thanks! I must've accidentally did that lol

It's definitely so sad 😭

Did I ever say all? I said that CF should be the exception not the majority. Also if you had all the people in the earth and each person was given 500 sq feet of space the whole earth would fill up the state of Montana. (Note I heard that on a podcast have not done the math personally but even if that's not the case I'd bet that people still would not be taking up that much space.) To your child you are irreplaceable as a parent. However I do agree that some people are not mature when they become parents and so they are actually not beneficial to their children. My point is that everyone should have the maturity to be able to have kids and if one of the reasons I stated poses a problem for them, then there's ways to find resolutions

​@@ellianna.keller I don't know exactly how much is 500sq since I'm European. However, just the space to stand and have a house is not all people need. We also spend space on the fields growing food, fields growing food to our livestock (the majority of firlds are for this purpose actually), for the infrastructure, factories, to manufacture the raw material to products, to offer different services so on and so on... We're totally reaching the limit if we're talking about living, breathing, eating, waste-producing humans there's no way to deny that. No you're not. Orphans exist, children living among the host families or relatives exist. It's a sad reality for some children, but they can live without their parents, they're not irreplaceable in that sense like you make it sound to be. Even the children living with their biological parents have (should have) other supporting adults around them moreover the parents. A child only having their two parents around is in a vulnerable position. My point was, some people may have the maturity needed to have children, but they still may not want them, for a myriad of valid personal reasons. Sure if one _does_ want to have children but is just insecure about how it will all work out, we should support them to achieve that dream (in my country we actually do that, by the tax-funded birth, daycare, education, health care, social security services). But you were especially talking about CF people, those are not that target audience.

​@@ellianna.keller Being childfree is an INDIVIDUAL & PERSONAL choice. If we decide to remain childfree for the rest our lives, then it's none of your business. It's our bodies and our choice.

Did I ever say it wasn't??

Honey the state of Montana is small relative to the ENTIRE WORLD. My point is if the entire current population could fit in that space (it's enough for a small house) then we can certainly still fit in the entire world. I never said orphans don't exist or that people could survive without parents. However in order for humans to thrive they need a mom and a dad there's so much evidence to support that. I also never said that they don't have a benefit of other adults. Family and grandparents are so beneficial. But in order for humans to live a thriving life they do need their parents. Orphans can still eventually have a thriving life and other people who don't have a stable family culture but it will be much harder and there'll be a lot of undoing they'll have to go through emotionally. In order to raise healthy humans they do need their parents. I never said let's force people to have kids. I do think people need to actually start evaluating their motives though

Aw thanks! So I actually just use capcut for editing and that's it nothing else

Good to know. Thank you for your time.

True and that's each person's choice to make. Definitely a different reason than the ones I was talking about thi

Never said anybody needed a reason. I was just addressing some of the reasons that I've heard people give before

And yes having children is the norm throughout history or none of us would be here right now lol

​@@ellianna.kellerpoverty was also the norm throughout history

Very true and?

Yes it is an opinion you can disagree if you choose.

Ive said all of this long before I ever had a baby 😌

If that were the primary reasoning I would say that definitely can be a sign of maturity. For the majority that I've seen and the culture at large choosing not to commit to marriage or commit to raising children generally comes from a perspective of not wanting to make the sacrifices necessary. What children need is loving parents who will work their butts off to make sure they are taken care of and fed and have a roof over their head. Many in our culture don't want to have kids because they can't afford the same house that their parents had or a daily Starbucks run for all the kids. Or a new trampoline. Even off of pretty low incomes you can still provide all the necessities for children that they need and generally some extra. I think most people just don't want to have to live in a place that's not as expensive or bougy. I'm not saying this is all people, I'm sure there are exceptions. But I do think that this is a good number of people and the culture at large

Perhaps in some of my other videos I express a bit more clearly. This one for sure has been the quickest I've tried to get one out (I have a baby I've gotta raise so I'm not as focused on scripting and presenting and editing as much)

@@ellianna.keller I understand that taking care of another human being takes a lot of patience and time but if we want to make a point and discuss a topic i think it would be good not to rush it.

Yea not from a Ramsey book, there's lots of statistical evidence that shows that children who grow up with both parents married have better rates of success. That's not to say there's not exceptions and I think there's many single parents who can do a great job but from a statistical perspective on a large scale the best situation for kids is a married mom and dad

I see how that would be a good reason not to have kids...my question is Why are people putting off maturity or choosing to never be mature enough to handle that responsibility? I think the broader issue is the fact that people want to delay maturity and responsibility and live in a child like state for lots longer than most generations before us have

@@ellianna.keller I don't think that it is possible to choose when to mature. Maturity comes with personal experience and sometimes people can even stay lifelong children. And we don't know for how many people from the previous generations it was really conscious decision to give birth in the young age and how many did it by accident or succumbing to societal expectations. Maybe, Gen Z is just more aware how to avoid unplanned pregnancy and cares less about the society.

I think k part of maturing is specifically putting yourself in situations that will force you to grow. I should clarify that people are putting off responsibility which makes them mature slower. And this is society at large. Other generations in society are encouraging immature people by not giving responsibility to younger generations as well. I would say in general while some people may have still been perpetual children in past times, there was a lot more responsibility at a younger age so it was likely a lot less common than in current times

@@ellianna.keller I agree in general about maturing but to do it by giving birth seems too risky for me. People can mature from difficult situations but they can also have mental breakdown and it will be the child who will suffer the most. I can't imagine situation worser than when parents constantly remind the child how much of their dreams they sacrificed for him, so I think that for people it's better to wait with childbirth specifically till they are mature enough to take the responsibility for another life.

Oh I'm not saying use child birth as a way to mature. I'm saying that you should already be mature enough in general by the time you have a child. Not all ofc there'll be people who need to wait till their thirties. But I think we should see a majority of people ready to have children by their mid twenties ( and responsible and mature enough to do so)