Why Are American Kids So Spoiled?(newyorker.com)
newyorker.com
Why Are American Kids So Spoiled?
http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2012/07/02/120702crbo_books_kolbert?currentPage=all
122 comments
As a parent, I look at the samples provided and think, "WTF?" At 13, your kid "might finally be able to accept the responsibility of taking the trash out"?
I love my kids, but I know a critical part of raising them is pissing them off on a fairly regular basis (also known as saying "No" :). My 13 year old daughter really likes that.
More importantly, it is better to raise them to understand their real place in the world (which is not "everybody gets a medal for participating"; I really want to punch whoever decided that was a good idea). Life is hard, people will piss on you. If you've been coddled your whole life, that is going to be a painful experience when it happens.
On the other hand, if your parents have 1) given you a strong foundation of love and self-respect and 2) positioned you to know you have to work your way up, you'll usually do OK.
(Note: I'm not saying I'm perfect. There are things I'd do differently and my fourth is getting a different parenting experience than my first, but, overall, with various crap they've all had to deal with, they are continuing to do well. So far, it's success.)
I love my kids, but I know a critical part of raising them is pissing them off on a fairly regular basis (also known as saying "No" :). My 13 year old daughter really likes that.
More importantly, it is better to raise them to understand their real place in the world (which is not "everybody gets a medal for participating"; I really want to punch whoever decided that was a good idea). Life is hard, people will piss on you. If you've been coddled your whole life, that is going to be a painful experience when it happens.
On the other hand, if your parents have 1) given you a strong foundation of love and self-respect and 2) positioned you to know you have to work your way up, you'll usually do OK.
(Note: I'm not saying I'm perfect. There are things I'd do differently and my fourth is getting a different parenting experience than my first, but, overall, with various crap they've all had to deal with, they are continuing to do well. So far, it's success.)
I'd love to hear some anecdotes from non-Americans currently raising kids, especially if they've also got some hands-on experience with American culture. Are American kids truly spoiled, or is the issue universal? If American kids are spoiled, what are you doing differently?
I'm a first generation American (parents immigrated) and my wife and I are currently raising our daughter in the US, and so I think I have both an American and non-American perspective to some extent. (warning: this is based on a data point of 1)
First, I do think American kids are spoiled (and I prob am spoiling my daughter no matter my desire not to). I don't think this is an American thing necessarily and prob more of a wealth/prosperity/Maslow's hierarchy thing.
My parents were the typical immigrant story. They came here with nothing, knew nobody and so they worked to make it. There wasn't time to "find oneself" or just do what makes you happy or to read about how to parent in some magazine. And so the ethos in our house was you work hard and you get what you deserve as a result. There was no tolerance for whining, entitlement and tantrums and there was an appreciation for what we had that was instilled in us. For example, I was told to only take as much as food I could eat at dinner and that I could not get up until I finished every bit of food I chose to take. I would fall asleep at the table some times eating cold food 3 hours afterwards. Not fun at the time, but there was to be an appreciation for how fortunate we are. Some might view this as draconian but it's now somewhat oddly a fond memory of mine from childhood.
But I think scarcity of resources (translation: not being wealthy/materially prosperous) doesn't allow one to be spoiled and gives one perspective which is often what seems to be lost.
Now I fast forward to today, and I see tons of parenting advice which almost tries to make parenting a paint by numbers effort, a kids culture of "everybody is a winner" and conspicuous consumption (bigger bday parties, expensive strollers, etc) that suggest to folks that good parenting is possible out of a book of academic studies, is driven by always being encouraging and giving your kid material crap. And its this cocktail of things that seems to lead to spoiled kids.
This is a stream-of-consciousness rant so apologies for that.
First, I do think American kids are spoiled (and I prob am spoiling my daughter no matter my desire not to). I don't think this is an American thing necessarily and prob more of a wealth/prosperity/Maslow's hierarchy thing.
My parents were the typical immigrant story. They came here with nothing, knew nobody and so they worked to make it. There wasn't time to "find oneself" or just do what makes you happy or to read about how to parent in some magazine. And so the ethos in our house was you work hard and you get what you deserve as a result. There was no tolerance for whining, entitlement and tantrums and there was an appreciation for what we had that was instilled in us. For example, I was told to only take as much as food I could eat at dinner and that I could not get up until I finished every bit of food I chose to take. I would fall asleep at the table some times eating cold food 3 hours afterwards. Not fun at the time, but there was to be an appreciation for how fortunate we are. Some might view this as draconian but it's now somewhat oddly a fond memory of mine from childhood.
But I think scarcity of resources (translation: not being wealthy/materially prosperous) doesn't allow one to be spoiled and gives one perspective which is often what seems to be lost.
Now I fast forward to today, and I see tons of parenting advice which almost tries to make parenting a paint by numbers effort, a kids culture of "everybody is a winner" and conspicuous consumption (bigger bday parties, expensive strollers, etc) that suggest to folks that good parenting is possible out of a book of academic studies, is driven by always being encouraging and giving your kid material crap. And its this cocktail of things that seems to lead to spoiled kids.
This is a stream-of-consciousness rant so apologies for that.
I'm Russian, and I brought my 9 (now 11) year old daughter to the US. This process was (and somewhat still is) pretty painful for everybody, especially my wife. Russian women are often called 'sitting hens' back home because of their extreme hyper/over/megacare about all things, especially children. And the whole system is built around this - teachers don't talk to kids, they talk to parents (usually mothers), kids opinions are quickly dismissed just because they're kids "I don't care what you think, tell me what your mother says". Kids adopt to this (they're kids) and sit idle waiting for next command from the upper management. But at the end it turned out to be much easier for the daughter than to my wife. She felt like she suddenly lost control of her child - "what if she gets under the bus?!?!11 what if the will fall from the tree?!! what if she will drawn in the pool?!11", etc. My daughter adopted quickly (again, she's the kid) but in a funny fashion - she's very independent in the school and in the company of her classmates, but still very dependent at home (because it's much easier to manipulate your mother to iron your shirt than to do it yourself, you know).
I can't say that American kids are specifically spoiled. There's fierce competition, who's cool and who's not. In their school it is cool to be cool AND also get into the advanced math class. Pretty tough objective, I'd say :-) Back home (we went to a very good school too) the relations between kids were much more relaxed, but there was much more physical abuse. All cultures have their benefits and drawbacks, but overall I like it here better. In particular because it's cool to be in the advanced math class :-) And because she was very disappointed to learn that there would be no advanced computer class in 6th grade. And because she wants to go to the summer camp in Stanford to learn special effects in video, etc.
But I live in a pretty upscale neighbourhood, one of the best school districts in California, blah-blah. That's definitely offsets perspective.
Let me give you a South Asian one then. I was a pampered little brat who was waited on hand and foot. The only requirement be that I maintain good grades. This of course came to bite me hard when I had to live alone at the age of 16 in a totally different country and go to school. So I don't think other cultures have some magical secret sauce that turn out well behaved polite little children.
In fact, the only thing to infer from that silly article whose statistical methodology I would be extremely suspicious about, is that some individuals know how to raise their kids properly and some don't. After all, it doesn't take much to produce a child (just a few minutes of whoopee). :-)
In fact, the only thing to infer from that silly article whose statistical methodology I would be extremely suspicious about, is that some individuals know how to raise their kids properly and some don't. After all, it doesn't take much to produce a child (just a few minutes of whoopee). :-)
"I was a pampered little brat who was waited on hand and foot."
Are you a male? Were your sisters/cousins/etc. treated similarly? Just confirming my (presuming) Indian stereotypes :)
Are you a male? Were your sisters/cousins/etc. treated similarly? Just confirming my (presuming) Indian stereotypes :)
I am male. No siblings. So your Indian stereotypes are both correct and incorrect. Depending on what part of the nation you are from, there are places where boys are preferred to girls. I came from a middle class expat family with a rather "liberal" bent. At least among the small sample of folks that I grew up with, most people had fewer kids and pampered the hell out of them focusing on ensuring that this went hand in hand with getting good grades. I believe the same is happening in China with the one child effect. I didn't see any sort of discrimination against women among this demographic. Obviously, India is the kind of place where you can cherry pick and find anecdotal evidence to pretty much support any hypothesis you want.
> Depending on what part of the nation you are from, there are places where boys are preferred to girls.
Preferred to the extent that female babies are often aborted. Female foeticide has been described by Manmohan Singh as a "national shame" (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13264301)
Preferred to the extent that female babies are often aborted. Female foeticide has been described by Manmohan Singh as a "national shame" (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13264301)
>>Just confirming my (presuming) Indian stereotypes :)
Indian here,
Not sure, what let you to believe this. There are many kids in India, who still struggle with child labor etc.
Getting pampered isn't a luxury many kids can afford here.
Indian here,
Not sure, what let you to believe this. There are many kids in India, who still struggle with child labor etc.
Getting pampered isn't a luxury many kids can afford here.
No -- my stereotype is that sons often are treated with more reverence than daughters. This is in opposition to Western stereotypes of "Daddy's little princess" and other celebrations of daughters.
I am Indian too and have lived in India for most of my life in a small town. I have never seen this. Have you seen this quite often ?
I'm an American, with no international kid raising experience. But I'd say that declaring that "All Americans are raised spoiled" is an overly broad/general. America is an ENORMOUS country. These studies seem to focus on the Urban/large metropolitan suburban families. I'd wager that the rate of spoiledness varies vastly when geographic or economic conditions are examined. Whitey McMoney from the Upper East Side is going to be raised quite a bit different from the poor black kids in Queens. Both will be way way off the mark from where a midwestern farm kid will be.
Overall, what I'm trying to say is, I think the research behind this article has too small of a sample size.
Overall, what I'm trying to say is, I think the research behind this article has too small of a sample size.
I encounter this attitude a lot with the local moms, including my wife.
My anecdote... our baby was a year old or so and waking up once or twice a night crying. Wet? no, hungry? We fed her a lot before going to bed, so unlikely. I recommended a few times that we let her cry herself back to sleep, and get some rest ourselves.
Barring an emergency, my philosophy is that a child will be better served in the long run by happy, well-slept parents for 16 hours a day than harried, miserable ones 24 hours a day. Pretty simple really. The wife disagreed. It wasn't until another month or two later when our old-school pediatrician recommend the same thing in different wording--"you're part of her routine," that she agreed to try.
By the second (maybe third) night the night-time crying had stopped /permanently/ and we went on to live happily ever after. Later, another mom we know was having the same problem, and my wife gave her the advice. "I don't believe he (the pediatrician) said that!" she replied incredulously...
Do you know she laid down with her son every night for an hour until he went to bed, and then got up twice a night for the last two years? (And we're the crazy ones).
There's a good bit by George Carlin called, "Child worship" that is good commentary on this mindset. The sooner it goes out of fashion, the better.
My anecdote... our baby was a year old or so and waking up once or twice a night crying. Wet? no, hungry? We fed her a lot before going to bed, so unlikely. I recommended a few times that we let her cry herself back to sleep, and get some rest ourselves.
Barring an emergency, my philosophy is that a child will be better served in the long run by happy, well-slept parents for 16 hours a day than harried, miserable ones 24 hours a day. Pretty simple really. The wife disagreed. It wasn't until another month or two later when our old-school pediatrician recommend the same thing in different wording--"you're part of her routine," that she agreed to try.
By the second (maybe third) night the night-time crying had stopped /permanently/ and we went on to live happily ever after. Later, another mom we know was having the same problem, and my wife gave her the advice. "I don't believe he (the pediatrician) said that!" she replied incredulously...
Do you know she laid down with her son every night for an hour until he went to bed, and then got up twice a night for the last two years? (And we're the crazy ones).
There's a good bit by George Carlin called, "Child worship" that is good commentary on this mindset. The sooner it goes out of fashion, the better.
Just try showing your child some discipline in public and somebody will drop a dime on you and you get a visit from child protective services in the next few days...
I think you're conflating discipline with violence.
Sadly, that seems to be common. Is amazing how many people still believe that a kid who isn't spanked is undisciplined.
Spanking a kid has never killed anyone, as far as I know. I was spanked as a kid and when I was, I did deserve it and it was a good way to show that there are limits not to cross. I don't really understand the popular mindset now that education should be done entirely without touching your kid. There's a clear line between spanking and domestic violence. Let's not call a squirrel a rat.
> Spanking a kid has never killed anyone
Yea, that make it right, it doesn't kill them.
> I don't really understand the popular mindset now that education should be done entirely without touching your kid.
And I don't understand the old mindset that think teaching a lesson requires physical violence. Discipline doesn't require physical assault, it really doesn't. The question isn't why not spank; the question is why spank when it's entirely unnecessary. Why do you want to hit children? Why do you think you need to? Is it fun to bully and intimidate a child into doing what you want? Do you need that?
Yea, that make it right, it doesn't kill them.
> I don't really understand the popular mindset now that education should be done entirely without touching your kid.
And I don't understand the old mindset that think teaching a lesson requires physical violence. Discipline doesn't require physical assault, it really doesn't. The question isn't why not spank; the question is why spank when it's entirely unnecessary. Why do you want to hit children? Why do you think you need to? Is it fun to bully and intimidate a child into doing what you want? Do you need that?
I was spanked (lightly) as a kid, but I don't remember what I did to deserve it, although I'm pretty sure I did...
As someone else here said, you need to watch some super nanny, violence is not the most effective way to discipline children. You can do better without hitting them. Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.
"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent."
Spanking is not "violence". Spanking has been done since the beginning of time. I fail to see how you can support your argument by the way by quoting Super Nanny (which I have watched many times and find entertaining..) Super Nanny is a TV with cherry picked families that are pre-screened to insure they are on the dart board (and parents are off the dart board) with respect to the techniques she uses. There is definitely a place in some families for what Super Nanny does. But that is not to say that there isn't a place for spanking of children.
Spanking is not "violence". Spanking has been done since the beginning of time. I fail to see how you can support your argument by the way by quoting Super Nanny (which I have watched many times and find entertaining..) Super Nanny is a TV with cherry picked families that are pre-screened to insure they are on the dart board (and parents are off the dart board) with respect to the techniques she uses. There is definitely a place in some families for what Super Nanny does. But that is not to say that there isn't a place for spanking of children.
My mom is a professor of early childhood education with decades of experience and I have discussed the show with her. While Super Nanny has all the obviously silly trappings of a reality TV show, the essentials of her disciplinary techniques are accurate to the modern understanding of how children develop and how they should be disciplined.
The fundamental misunderstanding in many homes is that discipline involves punishment. Discipline is in reality the process of teaching children how to manage themselves within society's rules. It is inherent in all aspects of child rearing. The most important aspect of discipline is to create and maintain a supportive, structured, healthy environment--and this is usually where Super Nanny starts: healthy meals at regular times, a set schedule every day, and clear rules that are enforced consistently.
So how to enforce the rules? Two recent developments in the understanding of childhood development pertain. First, the most important thing to a child is the attention and support of their parents. Therefore supportive attention is the greatest coin in enforcing discipline. This is why "time out" works so well.
Second, children--especially young children--learn far more from observation than they do from interaction. (Observation and recording is basically how the brain "boot-straps" the human mind in the first few years of life.) So parents should always model appropriate behaviors. This is why Super Nanny exhorts parents to always remain calm but firm. Parents who freak out teach kids that it's ok to freak out.
So consider spanking: it delivers a mixed message. The interaction is a negative reinforcement, but a) the parent is paying a lot of attention to the kid, and b) the parent is modeling that striking another person is sometimes an ok thing to do.
The fundamental misunderstanding in many homes is that discipline involves punishment. Discipline is in reality the process of teaching children how to manage themselves within society's rules. It is inherent in all aspects of child rearing. The most important aspect of discipline is to create and maintain a supportive, structured, healthy environment--and this is usually where Super Nanny starts: healthy meals at regular times, a set schedule every day, and clear rules that are enforced consistently.
So how to enforce the rules? Two recent developments in the understanding of childhood development pertain. First, the most important thing to a child is the attention and support of their parents. Therefore supportive attention is the greatest coin in enforcing discipline. This is why "time out" works so well.
Second, children--especially young children--learn far more from observation than they do from interaction. (Observation and recording is basically how the brain "boot-straps" the human mind in the first few years of life.) So parents should always model appropriate behaviors. This is why Super Nanny exhorts parents to always remain calm but firm. Parents who freak out teach kids that it's ok to freak out.
So consider spanking: it delivers a mixed message. The interaction is a negative reinforcement, but a) the parent is paying a lot of attention to the kid, and b) the parent is modeling that striking another person is sometimes an ok thing to do.
> Spanking is not "violence".
Yes it is.
> Spanking has been done since the beginning of time.
Irrelevant. Slavery has existed since the beginning of time, that doesn't justify it. Racism has existed since the beginning of time, that doesn't justify it. Appeals to tradition are not a sound argument.
Yes it is.
> Spanking has been done since the beginning of time.
Irrelevant. Slavery has existed since the beginning of time, that doesn't justify it. Racism has existed since the beginning of time, that doesn't justify it. Appeals to tradition are not a sound argument.
What do you define as violence exactly?
Pinching is violence too? Do you let your boys be #violent# during the recess? Because most kids are way more violent with other kids than just spanking. Do you do anything about that or just turn a blind eye to it?
Spanking has been around forever and has never had life threatening or civilization threatening implications. Why dont you compare spanking with nuclear weapons while you are at it?
Spanking has been around forever and has never had life threatening or civilization threatening implications. Why dont you compare spanking with nuclear weapons while you are at it?
"Spanking has been around forever and has never had life threatening or civilization threatening implications."
Thanks for making the point better than I did. The movement against spanking as being bad in such an absolute way is fairly recent. And, afaik, science has not backed this up.
I'm going to open a new thread with this old post on a spanking research by Carl "the numbers guy" Bialik in the WSJ a few years ago:
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4161784
Thanks for making the point better than I did. The movement against spanking as being bad in such an absolute way is fairly recent. And, afaik, science has not backed this up.
I'm going to open a new thread with this old post on a spanking research by Carl "the numbers guy" Bialik in the WSJ a few years ago:
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4161784
It's because some parents lack the intelligence or patience to differentiate. All some of them know is: do nothing... do nothing... then scream to correct behavior. When that doesn't work, things only get more destructive.
"Why won't my kids listen to me?"
"Why won't my kids listen to me?"
Who said anything about spanking?
Just raising your voice can get you in trouble with people these days, or using any kind of physical restraint (for instance, to prevent immediate destruction of property)
Just raising your voice can get you in trouble with people these days, or using any kind of physical restraint (for instance, to prevent immediate destruction of property)
[deleted]
A very nice article. Amongst our Indian friends it is common that NOONE hires a babysitter (that word does not exist in their dictionary), so when you invite someone, you are inviting their children and we see a lot of obnoxious children. It goes without saying that the parenting is to blame, and I think this article is right on, over emphasis on grades, softness of parents on basic things are to blame. Parents will say no, they don't mean it, and then kids learn from that. They are very clever and really take the meaning of an interaction, not just the words. Parents are a bit foolish that way to just go by the words.
In general that happen whens there is too much luxury. The person doesn't know the value of things, what others get after a lot of work and difficulty.
If you know how difficult it is to buy even things like food, clothing and shelter. How hard you have to work to get them, you will have a lot humility in using them. There are a lot of people in the world who would do anything just for 3 proper meals a day, a livable home, clothes to wear and some basic health care.
In my country India(People still live in subhuman conditions) and some would do anything to even have one proper meal a day. They don't have the luxury to be spoilt.
US to me looks like a land of extreme consumerism. People seem to buy all sorts of stuff, even if they have absolutely no need for it. Eating at fast food restaurants, going on vacations, changing cars every now and then, loans, debt and other spending even if you never need it at all. Also US attitude toward the rest of world is frightening to say at the least. I mean I get the patriotism, but most US politicians talk like as though any other place outside is shit. The infrastructure looks like tall buildings, clean roads and all that all designed richest people on earth.
You also have this history, bombing every other nation that says 'no' to you. Invading so many countries and mercilessly pounding them with impunity. Granting aids to other nations like you offer alms. Or having economic sanctions.
All this gives a feeling that US is some form of invincible entity whose dominance on the world scene will last till eternity. And you can do whatever you like and you have free pass.
I think all this counts and gives you a sense of extreme confidence and arrogance that you will get what you demand. And such a run will never end.
If you know how difficult it is to buy even things like food, clothing and shelter. How hard you have to work to get them, you will have a lot humility in using them. There are a lot of people in the world who would do anything just for 3 proper meals a day, a livable home, clothes to wear and some basic health care.
In my country India(People still live in subhuman conditions) and some would do anything to even have one proper meal a day. They don't have the luxury to be spoilt.
US to me looks like a land of extreme consumerism. People seem to buy all sorts of stuff, even if they have absolutely no need for it. Eating at fast food restaurants, going on vacations, changing cars every now and then, loans, debt and other spending even if you never need it at all. Also US attitude toward the rest of world is frightening to say at the least. I mean I get the patriotism, but most US politicians talk like as though any other place outside is shit. The infrastructure looks like tall buildings, clean roads and all that all designed richest people on earth.
You also have this history, bombing every other nation that says 'no' to you. Invading so many countries and mercilessly pounding them with impunity. Granting aids to other nations like you offer alms. Or having economic sanctions.
All this gives a feeling that US is some form of invincible entity whose dominance on the world scene will last till eternity. And you can do whatever you like and you have free pass.
I think all this counts and gives you a sense of extreme confidence and arrogance that you will get what you demand. And such a run will never end.
It was only a century ago when the norm for American children was to receive modest gifts like paper dolls, penny candy and homemade dresses for Christmas. Nowadays, most middle class parents feel guilty if they don't cram a mountain of expensive plastic crap under the tree.
I have seen children become bored with opening gifts on Christmas because there were just so many of them. From what I could gather, the family really could not afford all the gifts either (they'd be paying off their credit cards just in time for the next holiday season, maybe).
From the other side, though, I have a new niece, and my desire to shower her with gifts and things is something I struggle with. Any time I see something cute, I just want to buy it for her. I have to stop and remind myself that she's got plenty of stuff already.
It seems like a difficult thing to balance.
From the other side, though, I have a new niece, and my desire to shower her with gifts and things is something I struggle with. Any time I see something cute, I just want to buy it for her. I have to stop and remind myself that she's got plenty of stuff already.
It seems like a difficult thing to balance.
We really have forgotten that a pile of computer paper and a box of crayons can keep kids entertained for hours.
(Are we still allowed to give kids computer paper, or do they now sell special paper with rubber edges to prevent paper cuts?)
(Are we still allowed to give kids computer paper, or do they now sell special paper with rubber edges to prevent paper cuts?)
Yeah, I have heard the same thing many times: kids are often more entertained with the cardbox than the content itself :) Most of the times, gifts get abandoned after playing a few hours with them.
Tell kids to play with some paper dolls and see how long before they complain about being bored.
If any American parent tried raising their kids like the tribe in this article they'd be immediately sent to prison, probably for several decades if not life. And if any of the kids tried acting like the kids in that tribe, they'd also get sent to prison just as fast.
Not quite as young as the kids in the article- but by age 6 I was handling a pocket knife, building camp fires (with supervision), and cooking over said camp fires (hot dogs on a stick, etc).
Yeah, but you can't take a machete to school and build a campfire on the playground, nor can you go on vacation for a few days and leave your kids to wander around downtown LA with only a machete and some matches.
Why would you want to do things in the city that only make sense in the jungle? While partially correct, I think you are overstating the case.
Spare the rod, spoil the child
I'm from El Salvador and beatings are a regular thing for us.
It's normal for us to start working at 12.
Now that's the extreme, but this whole don't hit your kids movement is an epidemic.
Now that's the extreme, but this whole don't hit your kids movement is an epidemic.
Hitting your kids is parenting for amateurs or dummies. Anytime I catch myself with the urge to hit I remind myself I'm a lot smarter than those little shits (whom I love immensely) and its just a matter of calmly reminding them of their incentives, both negative and positive. The same holds true for yelling. I find that having them look in my eyes and speaking very quietly and calmly accomplishes a lot more. YMMV.
Kids better take their hits from their own family first. They get used to the violence in society later this way, and get stronger through the process. I'd like to see you vindicate your view that adults raised without "physical" education end up being better adults. The trends in society certainly don't seem to indicate your are right.
As long as it's not abusive, disproportionate, and done in the proper circumstances and for the right reasons, there's nothing wrong with that.
Please note I'm not advocating beating up your child for no reason whatsoever. It should be the last resort to educate. But just like the experience of fire is necessary to fear it, the experience of authority through a variety of means has value.
As long as it's not abusive, disproportionate, and done in the proper circumstances and for the right reasons, there's nothing wrong with that.
Please note I'm not advocating beating up your child for no reason whatsoever. It should be the last resort to educate. But just like the experience of fire is necessary to fear it, the experience of authority through a variety of means has value.
@ekianjo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_Ycw0d_Uow metaphorically the best response to your comment on multiple levels.
@larrys Make a list of your kid's 5 favorite things. Make hitting them the sixth option. Give them authority to choose between the bad behavior or losing the items sequentially. With most kids by the time you get to item three you have compliance. No hitting required. IMHO the key is letting them choose among consequences or to pursue the behavior. Gives them independence and boundries at the same time.
@larrys Make a list of your kid's 5 favorite things. Make hitting them the sixth option. Give them authority to choose between the bad behavior or losing the items sequentially. With most kids by the time you get to item three you have compliance. No hitting required. IMHO the key is letting them choose among consequences or to pursue the behavior. Gives them independence and boundries at the same time.
"Hitting your kids is parenting for amateurs or dummies."
That's very absolute a statement.
"matter of calmly reminding them of their incentives, both negative and positive."
As you said YMMV. Children are different from not only different families but within the same family. Punishment that works with one is pointless with another.
That's very absolute a statement.
"matter of calmly reminding them of their incentives, both negative and positive."
As you said YMMV. Children are different from not only different families but within the same family. Punishment that works with one is pointless with another.
As kids we learned from that that resorting to violence is an instant loss of the fight, since even the adult would admit it. Not the worst lesson to teach, I believe.
You know, there are ways to enforce discipline that don't require abuse.
There certainly are.
However, for certain ages and situations, nothing gets the point across quite as succinctly or unambiguously as a sharp thwack or spanking.
I wouldn't, however, consider that as discipline per se--that is something that takes a larger, longer-term sort of environment and character building than fast "don't do that" punishment.
However, for certain ages and situations, nothing gets the point across quite as succinctly or unambiguously as a sharp thwack or spanking.
I wouldn't, however, consider that as discipline per se--that is something that takes a larger, longer-term sort of environment and character building than fast "don't do that" punishment.
That is bad reasoning. Lots of things that you shouldn't do are effective, that doesn't make them any less wrong. That something works does not make it ok. The ends do not justify the means. It is no less wrong to hit your kid than to hit your spouse.
That something works does not make it ok. The ends do not justify the means.
Depends on whether you're consequentialist or deontologicalist, I guess. For a consequentialist, nothing can make something okay other than that it works, and ends are the only thing that can justify any means. :)
Depends on whether you're consequentialist or deontologicalist, I guess. For a consequentialist, nothing can make something okay other than that it works, and ends are the only thing that can justify any means. :)
"It is no less wrong to hit your kid than to hit your spouse."
Presumably a spouse has more intelligence, maturity, and common sense than a child and is a peer (equal) that you can speak to and don't have to resort to "spanking" or much worse.
Presumably a spouse has more intelligence, maturity, and common sense than a child and is a peer (equal) that you can speak to and don't have to resort to "spanking" or much worse.
A person who can't outsmart a child has no business raising one. Words work just as effectively on children when applied consistently.
YOU need to watch Supernanny, holmes.
I'd imagine now days the threat of taking away internet/phone is more effective.
Unfortunately, police abuse is the coming standard. US schools in Texas, Florida, and other states are increasing buildup of cops in k-12 schools, along with the threat of arrest and deadly force by said cops.
Class C misdeameaners are handed out in extreme regularity, with the common punishment is a fine or community service. Seems to me it's an intersection between the prison companies and school companies.
source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/09/texas-police-sch...
Class C misdeameaners are handed out in extreme regularity, with the common punishment is a fine or community service. Seems to me it's an intersection between the prison companies and school companies.
source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/09/texas-police-sch...
It seems like they are trying to get kids used to have police guarding their every movements. So, when they grow up, it will seem pretty normal for them an increasing police state.
Have you ever taught a public school? You'd want police too. Thug culture has infiltrated most public schools.
I actually am a licensed substitute teacher. And I've served plenty of time in Indiana schools.
Yeah, they do tend to get a wee bit rowdy, but I saw no violence or such in the classes I've been in. There has been the usual silliness like paper airplanes and such, but nothing that would get anybody hurt.
I've also learned that they are respectful if you respect them. Tit for tat, with the benefit of the doubt.
Yeah, they do tend to get a wee bit rowdy, but I saw no violence or such in the classes I've been in. There has been the usual silliness like paper airplanes and such, but nothing that would get anybody hurt.
I've also learned that they are respectful if you respect them. Tit for tat, with the benefit of the doubt.
Serving time is exactly the way I would have put it too.
The police are there for liability reasons. If a teacher disciplines children a lawsuit occurs.
> this whole don't hit your kids movement is an epidemic
I think it is a part of the "pay attention to science" epidemic, like stopping smoking, and taking lead out of petrol.
I think it is a part of the "pay attention to science" epidemic, like stopping smoking, and taking lead out of petrol.
It just takes one or two people to take the idea of physical punishment too far before people start calling for change. In the 1970's in the USA teachers were allowed to hit students. I would like to see a teacher try that now.
I went to school back then, and the teachers weren't allowed to hit students. They could send you to the principal for corporal punishment, but his options were strictly circumscribed. His biggest weapon, in fact, was the threat of a paddling.
I can't say that's the way it was everywhere, but they didn't need to rely on that kind of thing - if you made too much trouble they would simply expel you, something I don't think happens these days.
I can't say that's the way it was everywhere, but they didn't need to rely on that kind of thing - if you made too much trouble they would simply expel you, something I don't think happens these days.
My parents were both in schools where they were physically beat, their fellow students were physically beat, and physical violence was always on the table as a response to student behavior. Their resentment (and the feeling of betrayal by their parents who condoned this behavior) lives on to this day.
In the US? What part?
Missouri, circa 50's, catholic school.
So yeah, I think your parent post was talking about public schools. I won't argue that physical punishment (and abuse in some places) was absent from Catholic schools, especially at that time. Missouri also seems to be home to much more conservative Catholics than I'm used to seeing in other parts of the country which may relate to why the teachers/administration behaved that way.
This is my experience. Always the principal.
In fact I got in a spot of trouble in High School in 93-94 and was threatened with a paddle, so it isn't like this practice is ancient.
In fact I got in a spot of trouble in High School in 93-94 and was threatened with a paddle, so it isn't like this practice is ancient.
If by physical punishment you mean spanking, it's all too far. You don't need to hit your kids, ever. The ends do not justify the means.
Spanking has decreased in schools. Violence has increased in schools. Just sayin'
Whales have decreased in numbers, violence has increased in schools. Just sayin'
Right. And whales were once a significant part of school discipline.
Correlation is not causation, my stat is equally as valid as yours. They are both equally worthless for drawing conclusions.
Treatment of children could possibly connected to subsequent behavior of children? Sounds possible.
Which is why you need to be reminded that correlation isn't causation; just because something sounds good doesn't mean it is. You're just repeating a known fallacy.
It also doesn't preclude causation either. Lacking scientific data otherwise, it's a perfectly valid hypothesis that would certainly warrant investigation. All scientific theory starts with a hypothesis based on observation. Dismissing a hypothesis out of hand because you don't like the implication isn't valid science. We could say that correlation doesn't imply causation with CO2 and the climate change debate as well, even though I don't like the implications of CO2 regulation. However that approach is not consistent with the Scientific Method. Until Science disproves a lack of causation of spanking and discipline, then it's just as valid a hypothesis as any other untested hypothesis.
> it's a perfectly valid hypothesis that would certainly warrant investigation
No one said otherwise, but causation was suggested, and hence disputed.
> All scientific theory starts with
I require no science lessons from you.
> We could say that correlation doesn't imply causation with CO2 and the climate change debate as well
There are known causal effects of C02 on the atmosphere, it's physics, the science has moved far beyond merely trying to prove causal effects and well into trying to understand them.
> Until Science disproves a lack of causation of spanking and discipline, then it's just as valid a hypothesis as any other untested hypothesis.
No one put forth a hypothesis, you're arguing against your own straw-man.
No one said otherwise, but causation was suggested, and hence disputed.
> All scientific theory starts with
I require no science lessons from you.
> We could say that correlation doesn't imply causation with CO2 and the climate change debate as well
There are known causal effects of C02 on the atmosphere, it's physics, the science has moved far beyond merely trying to prove causal effects and well into trying to understand them.
> Until Science disproves a lack of causation of spanking and discipline, then it's just as valid a hypothesis as any other untested hypothesis.
No one put forth a hypothesis, you're arguing against your own straw-man.
I don't agree. I recognize that this is a difficult and controversial issue, but perhaps you would allow me to present a contrary opinion.
(Also, understand that this is a general response, not a response targeted only at gnaritas).
A few years ago, the New Zealand legislature passed a law that effectively made spanking a punishable offense(^), which generated a lot of discussion about the topic. About two-thirds of everyone I talked to (classmates, etc) had be spanked as a child, and of those people, I never met anyone who considered it a bad thing or traumatic in any way. In fact, everyone recognized that they had only been spanked because they were misbehaving, and that they had 'earned' the punishment. Let me emphasise that: I have not talked to anyone who has been spanked, and who thought it was traumatic or equivalent to violence in any way.
From this, I suspect that most people who object to spanking have either never been spanked (and assume it would be tramatic), or have parents who thought 'discipline' was an acceptable excuse for abuse. Please understand that I am not defending any parent who abuses their child. Their actions are horrid and without excuse. Instead, my point is merely that spanking, done right, is not at all equivalent with child abuse.
So what makes a 'good' spank? It should be short, sharp, and clearly associated with the crime, not the person.
By short and sharp, I mean that it should hurt but I should not leave any long term effects. There should only be a single strike, the pain should not last longer than 10 seconds, and if there is a bruise then the parent has seriously stuffed up. The purpose is not to inflict pain on the child, but rather to clearly and unambiguously tell the child that certain actions are not acceptable. A baby should never be smacked, because they would not be able to understand the causality, and I would expect that once a child is over the age of 5 or 6, a verbal rebuke or simple smack on the hand should be sufficient. (Note that the smack on the hand would not be designed to cause pain, but rather to serve as a strong rebuke.)
The smack should be clearly associated with the crime, not the person. When my mother smacked me, she would call me into the bedroom, explain what the crime was, smack me once, then hold me as I cried. Also, she always told me that she still loved me.
Gnaritas: you say that the end does not justify the means. I'm not sure I agree with that. If, by being disciplined while I am a young child, I can learn to behave as a civilized member of the human race, I think this is a very good end that does justify the means. I suspect that the only people who can discipline themselves without any external discomfort (whether that's physical pain, boredom from being given a detention, or embarrassment from a boss's rebuke) are those who have been appropriately disciplined when they were young. Certainly, parents should move to the milder forms of punishment as soon as a child will respond to them. But while a child is young (3-5ish), a short sharp smack is an effective tool that doesn't need to be abusive.
I recognize that some people will read this and still thing smacking is horrid. That's okay; you're certainly allowed to form your own opinion. However, please do not make the mistake of assuming that smacking must be abusive or violent, or even that the children themselves resent it. I know I never did. I disliked the pain, but I knew that there was a very good was to avoid a smack -- stop being mean to others around me.
------
^ The purpose of the bill was only to remove a legal defense from those who were 'obviously' Bad Parents, but the ambiguity about what constitutes a Bad Parent made it very controversial.
A few years ago, the New Zealand legislature passed a law that effectively made spanking a punishable offense(^), which generated a lot of discussion about the topic. About two-thirds of everyone I talked to (classmates, etc) had be spanked as a child, and of those people, I never met anyone who considered it a bad thing or traumatic in any way. In fact, everyone recognized that they had only been spanked because they were misbehaving, and that they had 'earned' the punishment. Let me emphasise that: I have not talked to anyone who has been spanked, and who thought it was traumatic or equivalent to violence in any way.
From this, I suspect that most people who object to spanking have either never been spanked (and assume it would be tramatic), or have parents who thought 'discipline' was an acceptable excuse for abuse. Please understand that I am not defending any parent who abuses their child. Their actions are horrid and without excuse. Instead, my point is merely that spanking, done right, is not at all equivalent with child abuse.
So what makes a 'good' spank? It should be short, sharp, and clearly associated with the crime, not the person.
By short and sharp, I mean that it should hurt but I should not leave any long term effects. There should only be a single strike, the pain should not last longer than 10 seconds, and if there is a bruise then the parent has seriously stuffed up. The purpose is not to inflict pain on the child, but rather to clearly and unambiguously tell the child that certain actions are not acceptable. A baby should never be smacked, because they would not be able to understand the causality, and I would expect that once a child is over the age of 5 or 6, a verbal rebuke or simple smack on the hand should be sufficient. (Note that the smack on the hand would not be designed to cause pain, but rather to serve as a strong rebuke.)
The smack should be clearly associated with the crime, not the person. When my mother smacked me, she would call me into the bedroom, explain what the crime was, smack me once, then hold me as I cried. Also, she always told me that she still loved me.
Gnaritas: you say that the end does not justify the means. I'm not sure I agree with that. If, by being disciplined while I am a young child, I can learn to behave as a civilized member of the human race, I think this is a very good end that does justify the means. I suspect that the only people who can discipline themselves without any external discomfort (whether that's physical pain, boredom from being given a detention, or embarrassment from a boss's rebuke) are those who have been appropriately disciplined when they were young. Certainly, parents should move to the milder forms of punishment as soon as a child will respond to them. But while a child is young (3-5ish), a short sharp smack is an effective tool that doesn't need to be abusive.
I recognize that some people will read this and still thing smacking is horrid. That's okay; you're certainly allowed to form your own opinion. However, please do not make the mistake of assuming that smacking must be abusive or violent, or even that the children themselves resent it. I know I never did. I disliked the pain, but I knew that there was a very good was to avoid a smack -- stop being mean to others around me.
------
^ The purpose of the bill was only to remove a legal defense from those who were 'obviously' Bad Parents, but the ambiguity about what constitutes a Bad Parent made it very controversial.
> I have not talked to anyone who has been spanked, and who thought it was traumatic or equivalent to violence in any way.
That the abused don't feel abused doesn't mean they aren't being abused. It just means they're rationalizing or denying; this is common among all kinds of abuse victims and is thus not a measure of whether something is or isn't abuse. Hitting someone at all is abuse, regardless of their age.
> From this, I suspect that most people who object to spanking have either never been spanked (and assume it would be tramatic), or have parents who thought 'discipline' was an acceptable excuse for abuse.
I think you suspect wrong. People who object to violence are objecting to violence because they've reasoned out that it's wrong rather than accept what they were taught is acceptable violence from tradition as you seem to have.
> If, by being disciplined while I am a young child, I can learn to behave as a civilized member of the human race, I think this is a very good end that does justify the means.
And that's faulty reasoning. Lots of things that aren't OK work, that doesn't make them any more acceptable. The question isn't whether it works, the question is is violence the best option, and the answer is no; there is always a better non-violent method of teaching said lesson.
> However, please do not make the mistake of assuming that smacking must be abusive or violent
Hitting someone, regardless of whether it leaves permanent marks, is violent.
> a short sharp smack is an effective tool that doesn't need to be abusive.
Whether a technique is effective or not has no relevance on whether it's wrong or not. By your reasoning, not feeding my kids for a few days (which won't do any permanent damage) is OK as a form of punishment if it works.
Hitting your child is no less wrong than hitting your spouse. You are engaging in rationalization, not logic.
> However, please do not make the mistake of assuming that smacking must be abusive or violent
Hitting someone is violent by definition. There is no assumption involved, it is violence. This is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact. You may be of the opinion that sometimes violence (spanking) is OK, but you are not allowed your own facts.
That the abused don't feel abused doesn't mean they aren't being abused. It just means they're rationalizing or denying; this is common among all kinds of abuse victims and is thus not a measure of whether something is or isn't abuse. Hitting someone at all is abuse, regardless of their age.
> From this, I suspect that most people who object to spanking have either never been spanked (and assume it would be tramatic), or have parents who thought 'discipline' was an acceptable excuse for abuse.
I think you suspect wrong. People who object to violence are objecting to violence because they've reasoned out that it's wrong rather than accept what they were taught is acceptable violence from tradition as you seem to have.
> If, by being disciplined while I am a young child, I can learn to behave as a civilized member of the human race, I think this is a very good end that does justify the means.
And that's faulty reasoning. Lots of things that aren't OK work, that doesn't make them any more acceptable. The question isn't whether it works, the question is is violence the best option, and the answer is no; there is always a better non-violent method of teaching said lesson.
> However, please do not make the mistake of assuming that smacking must be abusive or violent
Hitting someone, regardless of whether it leaves permanent marks, is violent.
> a short sharp smack is an effective tool that doesn't need to be abusive.
Whether a technique is effective or not has no relevance on whether it's wrong or not. By your reasoning, not feeding my kids for a few days (which won't do any permanent damage) is OK as a form of punishment if it works.
Hitting your child is no less wrong than hitting your spouse. You are engaging in rationalization, not logic.
> However, please do not make the mistake of assuming that smacking must be abusive or violent
Hitting someone is violent by definition. There is no assumption involved, it is violence. This is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact. You may be of the opinion that sometimes violence (spanking) is OK, but you are not allowed your own facts.
> That the abused don't feel abused doesn't mean they aren't being abused. It just means they're rationalizing or denying;
Telling people you classify as abused that they are fully incapable of speaking for themselves unless they agree with you is pretty despicable, and a kissing cousin to victim blaming.
Telling people you classify as abused that they are fully incapable of speaking for themselves unless they agree with you is pretty despicable, and a kissing cousin to victim blaming.
Well it's a good thing I didn't actually say that. I'll repeat... That the abused don't feel abused doesn't mean they aren't being abused. That is a statement of fact, not opinion. It doesn't in any way say they are incapable of anything, it merely points out that victims don't always realize they are being victimized; this is especially true of children, as anyone should well know.
By stating that you believe spanking is never justified, it implies that, from your viewpoint, spanking is unjustified violence, aka abuse. If someone who has been spanked attempts to tell you that they do not believe they were abused, you have declared their motivation to be either rationalization or denial.
Further, when someone is debating whether or not spanking is "violent," they are speaking in the connotation of inflicting injury and harm. They do not mean it in the sense that force, such as beating an egg, is inherently violent.
I was spanked by my parents and by a grade school teacher. I think it functioned as suitable punishment in my case, and overall I was under-disciplined. Being told that I am inherently unreliable or unable to make the determination that I was abused or not is irritating and disrespectful.
I do believe current parenting consensus is that spanking has the risk (and perhaps tendency) of causing harm, and will avoid it as a method of discipline with my children.
Further, when someone is debating whether or not spanking is "violent," they are speaking in the connotation of inflicting injury and harm. They do not mean it in the sense that force, such as beating an egg, is inherently violent.
I was spanked by my parents and by a grade school teacher. I think it functioned as suitable punishment in my case, and overall I was under-disciplined. Being told that I am inherently unreliable or unable to make the determination that I was abused or not is irritating and disrespectful.
I do believe current parenting consensus is that spanking has the risk (and perhaps tendency) of causing harm, and will avoid it as a method of discipline with my children.
Spanking is demonstrably not an effective way to discipline kids. There is no measurable correlation between whether a child is spanked, and a greater level of discipline or later life outcomes. Numerous research projects have shown that spanked kids do not behave any better, and several have seemed to suggest that kids who are spanked very frequently demonstrate greater aggression and more problems with discipline later in life.
I understand that because it involves our parents and our children, this is a subject that evokes strong emotional responses. But the objective research is very clear, which is why spanking and other physical punishments are no longer part of any professional educational or child-care profession in the U.S.
In the past few decades there have been significant advances in understanding how the human mind and brain develops during childhood. The results of these advances are taught in academia (i.e. a newly minted kindergarten teacher will likely have learned about them), but poorly disseminated to parents.
The essential thing to understand is that a child is not a human. They are in the process of becoming human. So when a child breaks a rule it is not the same thing as when you break a rule. It represents a step in their development that must be guided. So discipline is not about punishment, it is about teaching and coaching.
I understand that because it involves our parents and our children, this is a subject that evokes strong emotional responses. But the objective research is very clear, which is why spanking and other physical punishments are no longer part of any professional educational or child-care profession in the U.S.
In the past few decades there have been significant advances in understanding how the human mind and brain develops during childhood. The results of these advances are taught in academia (i.e. a newly minted kindergarten teacher will likely have learned about them), but poorly disseminated to parents.
The essential thing to understand is that a child is not a human. They are in the process of becoming human. So when a child breaks a rule it is not the same thing as when you break a rule. It represents a step in their development that must be guided. So discipline is not about punishment, it is about teaching and coaching.
Did you not read where I stated that parenting consensus is that spanking has the risk of and tendency to cause harm? I also stated I would not be spanking my children as a result of the current understanding of its effects. Do you believe that means I am unable to express an opinion about spanking's specific effect on me?
I don't mean either/or exclusively, I mean could be. You cannot deny that some of the abused don't know they're being abused, especially in the case of children. That's the point I was trying to make and I don't think it's debatable.
There isn't just one definition of "violence" and the word is sometimes defined to include a malicious intent. Rarely would one say that a surgeon violently injures his patient when performing an operation or that the first responders administered violent CPR. Usually people project their own moral value judgements onto the word so that only what they deem as bad or evil acts are "violent". This is less a matter of fact than it is a matter of definition.
As for whether spanking is the most effective option, the jury is still out. It wouldn't be surprising to find a correlation between spanking and slightly lower IQ or later behavioral problems, but does spanking cause either? Can scientific literature that relies on self-reporting by parents show anything useful?
Regardless of effectiveness, should one spank? Is it morally wrong? What basis do we decide the morality of it?
As for whether spanking is the most effective option, the jury is still out. It wouldn't be surprising to find a correlation between spanking and slightly lower IQ or later behavioral problems, but does spanking cause either? Can scientific literature that relies on self-reporting by parents show anything useful?
Regardless of effectiveness, should one spank? Is it morally wrong? What basis do we decide the morality of it?
> Hitting someone at all is abuse, regardless of their age.
What about boxing, martial arts, football? Not all hitting is abuse.
> Hitting someone is violent by definition.
That's a pretty contextual term too. Chopping wood with an axe is not particularly violent, but smashing furniture during an angry fight is.
What about boxing, martial arts, football? Not all hitting is abuse.
> Hitting someone is violent by definition.
That's a pretty contextual term too. Chopping wood with an axe is not particularly violent, but smashing furniture during an angry fight is.
Ok, excluding being voluntarily hit, hitting someone is abuse. And in all cases it's violent.
It's wonderful that your anecdotes had such great parents that they spanked responsibly, but it's not the norm. Let's not kid ourselves: any physical act that sends a message more effectively than well-considered words is violent. I don't trust the average person to use violence responsibly.
But the kids have to get hit someday. Better done by you in controlled environment.
Yes, let's give up the idea of civilization. It's just much easier to inflict violence as a means of discipline and control. That doesn't have any long term psychological or behavioral impact.
Hey kids, if you don't like what someone's doing, use violence. Wonder why the world's nations' military policies are the way they are?
Hey kids, if you don't like what someone's doing, use violence. Wonder why the world's nations' military policies are the way they are?
I think your kids should hit you until you can't hit them.
Pig fucker.
Pig fucker.
I get that americans enjoy this self bashing, but aside from being guilty of perpetual war, this is more of a global phenomenon.
I remember hearing how Slavic kids are being kids till late 30-ies, and pretty much it goes the same way as stories in this article. Usually parents would tell their spoiled kids in like 20-ties or so, that american parents around 16 or 18 just show their kids a door. This sounded harsh and cruel to me, as our parents would never kick us out.
Criticism in this article is spot-on, however you can't blame only americans for it, it is a symptom of different requirements life has from people in northern hemisphere or what is called western civilization.
I think it is OK to care and be affectionate with your kids, we just need find better ways of showing it.
What do you think?
I remember hearing how Slavic kids are being kids till late 30-ies, and pretty much it goes the same way as stories in this article. Usually parents would tell their spoiled kids in like 20-ties or so, that american parents around 16 or 18 just show their kids a door. This sounded harsh and cruel to me, as our parents would never kick us out.
Criticism in this article is spot-on, however you can't blame only americans for it, it is a symptom of different requirements life has from people in northern hemisphere or what is called western civilization.
I think it is OK to care and be affectionate with your kids, we just need find better ways of showing it.
What do you think?
Yeah, I suspect "What's the matter with kids today?" is a matter of fundamental psychology.
reading through other comments and opinions, I get a sense that it might be consequence of having fewer kids
"Americans are like a rich father who wishes he knew how to give his son the hardships that made him rich." - Frost
That the abused don't feel abused doesn't mean they aren't being abused. It just means they're rationalizing or denying...
There should be a name for this particular kind of ad hominim fallacy. "Fallacy of the Retreat into the Subconcious", maybe.
Eg "The fact is"---always start with "the fact is..." so that your assertions cannot be doubted---"that they are really very severely traumatized by that violent swat on the rump they got when they were three and trying to punch their mommy, even if they say they're not. They just don't realize it because it's subconscious trauma."
There should be a name for this particular kind of ad hominim fallacy. "Fallacy of the Retreat into the Subconcious", maybe.
Eg "The fact is"---always start with "the fact is..." so that your assertions cannot be doubted---"that they are really very severely traumatized by that violent swat on the rump they got when they were three and trying to punch their mommy, even if they say they're not. They just don't realize it because it's subconscious trauma."
[deleted]
How many people on HN have kids?
Are they?
Um, because their parents spoil them?
Board an airplane in America, and all will be revealed. We are ridiculously entitled people, and by extension our children are precious special little gemstones who shouldn't have to be impinged upon by such trivial things as the entire rest of the world. I haven't spent enough time in other countries to know whether we are unique in this regard, but I know it is true for us, and it's honestly pretty disgusting to me.
You obviously have never been to China. Those kids, especially pre-school are indulged beyond belief thank to the one-child policy.
And they (particularly the boys) are referred to as "Little Emperors." The fact that they are ridiculously spoiled has not gone unnoticed over there, either.
Just out of curiosity, what does air travel have to do with your argument? If you're going to go down the well-worn path of "babies do not belong on my airplane", we parents are well rehearsed in that song.
If by entitled you mean enslaved, sure.
Americans are being boiled alive in the giant nanny state, and are treating their own children like the government treats them, no coincidence. Adults now rarely possess the virtues that are being questioned about the children, and that's where it stems from. Self reliance? Independence? Who needs it, the state or mommy & daddy will take care of whatever is wrong. It's the gimme gimme gimme generation, they want their cake and they want to eat it too.
Boomers were the worst generation of parents (so far) in American history. And so it passes down.
Fortunately, it's all burning to the ground and will be forced to change. Nature doesn't allow such absurdities to exist for long.
Americans are being boiled alive in the giant nanny state, and are treating their own children like the government treats them, no coincidence. Adults now rarely possess the virtues that are being questioned about the children, and that's where it stems from. Self reliance? Independence? Who needs it, the state or mommy & daddy will take care of whatever is wrong. It's the gimme gimme gimme generation, they want their cake and they want to eat it too.
Boomers were the worst generation of parents (so far) in American history. And so it passes down.
Fortunately, it's all burning to the ground and will be forced to change. Nature doesn't allow such absurdities to exist for long.
Where's this magical place where the government takes care of you? I've never been there. More like, if you get injured and can't come up with enough money, go die. If you can't afford food to eat, go die. If you can't find a job, it's cause you're lazy, go die. If you can't afford a car to get to work, we will not provide a bus, go die. What on earth are your generalizations based on?
Haha, that was a good comment :)
> Fortunately, it's all burning to the ground and will be forced to change. Nature doesn't allow such absurdities to exist for long.
Unfortunately, it's never going fast enough. Behaviour change spans over dozens of years.
> Fortunately, it's all burning to the ground and will be forced to change. Nature doesn't allow such absurdities to exist for long.
Unfortunately, it's never going fast enough. Behaviour change spans over dozens of years.
What changed? A trial-by-fire in autonomy in college that I failed.
Basically the story is that I wasn't responsible enough at the time, and it came back to bite me very hard. I returned home with my tail firmly between my legs.
But for the first time I had a taste of true freedom. No nagging, no schedules, no authorities telling me what to do. If I didn't want to go to class, nobody was going to make me. If I didn't want to do laundry, then I had a big pile of stinking clothes. If I didn't want to cook, then I spent money on eating out. I painfully learned what it took to take care of myself as an adult. Hell, I'm still learning.
Freedom is weird like that. On the one hand, it's the greatest feeling ever. The whole world feels like your oyster. On the other hand, it has a MASSIVE cost in both time and money. Rent, showering, work, food, car, gas, insurance, phone, computer, internet, etc. If you want that kind of freedom, you damn well better earn it.
Autonomy is a kind of freedom that I believe we don't give to children here in America. We don't trust them with that kind of freedom, so we swoop in and guide their every move and every minute. This is an enabling behavior because it doesn't allow for children to take responsibility, and yet we want them to magically have it. In fact, I would argue that kids don't even think about the basics because the parents magically take care of it for them, or nag them until it is done.
If we want our children to be autonomous and responsible, we need to give them the space to fail and face the intrinsic consequences of that failure without swooping in to help.