Is it just us or is the Times using their "trend" coverage as a way to try to drive more and more young mothers crazy? First they tell them that if they were smarter they would just stay in the kitchen and now they tell them that they've been toilet training all wrong.

You see, "about 2,000 people across the country have joined Internet groups and e-mail lists to learn more about the techniques of encouraging a baby - too young to walk or talk - to go in a toilet, a sink or a pot." And therefore, the Times seems to imply, you should to. At least the Times does note that this "trend" is not yet a large one in the States (we can just see the woman at Toys 'R Us whose response to the idea was "Have you read Freud?")

It's not that there isn't a legitimate argument for trying to toilet train early (if you and your kid can do it, more power to you, and hey, its not like it doesn't have historical precedence) our problem is more with the manner in which the Times likes to present these trend pieces. Pointing out that some are starting to train early is nice, but what about the other side of the coin? Our own anecdotal evidence shows us that thanks to increasingly disposable and pant like diapers (pull-ups anyone?) most kids are toilet-training later, not earlier. But that's just what we've seen. What's your take on toilet training, early and late?

Previously, Gothamist on Split Pants Society.
Photograph of split pants from 2020 Studios.