What's the Matter With Having Kids Today?

According to an article at Townhall by Ken Connor on The Purpose of Parenting:

In other words, children have gone from being mere products of economic necessity to the ultimate lifestyle accessories.

This Darwinian or utilitarian or materialistic or inhuman veiwpoint--which you have surely heard before--is not shared by Ken Connor, nor by parents who truly love their children. And part of the parent-child "calculus" is really multi-generational: my grandmother's request while on her deathbed to hold our third child, then a baby, had nothing to do with economic necessity nor a lifestyle choice, unless you call the smile and infectious joy she exhibited holding our child the day before she died a lifestyle accessory. How demeaning. She was the antithesis of the modern attitude towards children, which often amounts to hatred, mere tolerance, or fawning indulgence.

Comments

[Kamilla]

Jim,

What a lovely picture of your grandmother! Sadly, judging from the Brights and their commenters at Christianity Today, "mere tolerance" is the best we can hope from Evangelicalism.

Kamilla

[Robert Espe]

Hmm, American values that would ashame mere pagans, how droll.

Perhaps the biggest problem is that Americans have forgotten how to parent (or be married for that matter). Of course this is all predicated on the availability of reliable birth control. Tie children back to sex and see how many people view them (it) as an uneccessary and depressing fashion accessory.

[Matt]

James M. Kushiner writes, "She was the antithesis of the modern attitude towards children, which often amounts to hatred, mere tolerance, or fawning indulgence."

Maybe I'm missing something, but I really don't see this attitude among my fellow-parents. I don't know any parent who is not incredibly committed to his or her child(ren). Standards are very high for modern parents and "hyper-parenting" is now expected. I think many parents make enormous sacrifices for their children, but I don't know any parent who resents that. What is given is given freely and out of love. The parents I know define themselves first and foremost as parents, even before they are spouses or architects or physicians or whatever,

My grandparents back in England were sent off to boarding school at a tender age and cared for by servants when they returned home. Parenting was very easy for their parents and required some expense, but very little effort. My own parents grew up in the US. Their parents had a relatively easier job than my wife and I do, I think. The kids got themselves to and from school from a young age, and their parents were much less involved with them than most parents are today. By today's standards, their parents would at times have been considered neglectful.

As parents, my wife and I are held to much higher standards than our parents were. Our kids have to be safely strapped into booster seats or infant seats when in the car, They can never be left in a locked car for two minutes while one of us runs into a 7-11. They have annual well child checks and six-monthly dental visits. Any problem is immediately and aggressively addressed. My parents just didn't have that standard of care. My first-born started orthodontics at eight (both my parents could have done with braces, but they weren't such a priority then). One of my kids is dyslexic, so he's getting vision therapy and doing another very intensive program that requires an hour a day of parent participation. One of our kids is a promising musician, so she gets lessons twice a week, plus we take her to orchestra twice a week. We read to our kids every night, take them to the library twice a week, and attend all their Saturday sports games. On Sunday, there is Sunday school and children's choir practice. The appointments and classes and recitals and games are expensive and time consuming, but we are very happy to do this for our children. All the parenting literature and expert advice we've been given strongly suggests that we should do this at the very least. I can't believe any of this is not good for them.

I think people parent much more actively and expertly today, Given the enhanced scope of knowledge on the topic. we have more chances to learn how to parent than our own parents and grandparents did. I think our kids really need the extra help. They face a much more complicated world that requires a lot more education and maturity to negotiate than the world their grandparents inhabited. It makes sense that they need all the help and preparation and education they can get.

[GL]

"I think people parent much more actively and expertly today, Given the enhanced scope of knowledge on the topic. we have more chances to learn how to parent than our own parents and grandparents did. I think our kids really need the extra help. They face a much more complicated world that requires a lot more education and maturity to negotiate than the world their grandparents inhabited."

What utter nonsense. So you think the world of the Great Depression, World War II and the Cold War was less complicated than the world we have today. Yeah, going off to fight the Nazi's and Imperial Japan at 18 years of age didn't require near as much maturity as is required from most 18 year olds today (except for the relatively few that have gone off to Iraq and Afghanistan). I'm sure parenting was a lot easier in the simple world of the Great Depression.

The hubris of the present raises its head once again. Every generation believes it is wiser and faces greater challenges than any other generation in history. And you believe we are doing a better job with our children in a much more challenging world. That's just self-indulgent, self-absorbed, self-congratultory nonsense.

[AMereLurker]

"I think people parent much more actively and expertly today"

Which is why we've got such a crop of hard-working, respectful, self-sufficient men and women of integrity?

Current trends in parenting seem to suggest that the more you make the child the center of the world, the better off the child will be. And then we wonder why young adults end up living at home indefinitely, asking for money well into midlife, or having children they leave for their parents to raise?

[Matt]

Some of you are awfully pessimistic:-)

GL, I don't believe that the trauma of war and poverty is necessarily complicated. Brutality is pretty straightforward and wreaks havoc with family life and mental health. I recently watched that lengthy Elizabethan soap opera, King Lear. I was taught in high school that Lear gained self-knowledge through suffering. I didn't see that. Instead, suffering simply seemed to make him more demented than he already was. Much of what he learned the hard way could have been learned much earlier if he'd been encouraged to be less narcissistic in his youth.

Our world is more complicated today because there is so much more to know. The knowledge base required by the average person in order to function today is many times the size it was 100 years ago. Knowledge of parenting has grown as much as knowledge in other areas. Interventions are available today that weren't available 50 years ago and can make the difference between a blighted, frustrated life and a happy, productive one. My parents often say they wish they'd had the information available to them that my wife and I have today. It's this knowledge that has led to the recent rise in hyper-parenting as manifested, for example, in the homeschooling movement and early intervention programs.

Take for example Stephen Hawking's recent comments about the need to abandon Earth eventually if the human race is to survive. He gives examples of why the Earth might become uninhabitable by humans (e.g., human-induced climate change occurring faster than we can cope with, natural catastrophe such as a collision with a cosmic rock, etc.). Ideally, I'd like to raise children who are directly able to help solve such crises (I hope they get their math/science genes from their mother.) Failing that, I'd like them to know enough to process suggested solutions and choose the best options. What would disappoint me most would be if they lacked the education and skills to help advance society and became a downward drag on the population.

As to kids today being the center of the world and more self-centered, I don't see that either. Many high schools have a social services requirement of a certain number of volunteer hours. I see many examples around me of young people volunteering their time and energy and giving of themselves for good causes. I see unusual kindness in my children and their friends that reflects a maturity and wisdom not necessarily present in much older people.

[CKG]

It is not uncommon, among secular non-parents of my acquaintance, to encounter the negative attitudes toward children described above. My wife, a mother of eight, has been publicly berated by perfect strangers for 'having so many'. And it is not difficult to find articles referring to such as us as 'Breeders'.

So the existence of anti-child attitudes in our society is not an exotic concept, from my experience. . .

[AMereLurker]

"Our world is more complicated today"

The world is the same as always. The problem is still sin, and the solution is still the gospel. Modern parenting practices suggest that we can undo what we Christians know to be the effects of the fall if we follow a particular prescription of parenting advice. Of course, the 'experts' are at complete odds with each other. Feed on demand, or schedule feed? Cry-it-out, or sleep with baby until baby (youngster, or teen) is ready to move out? Spank, or never spank? You'll find parenting 'experts' who suggest all of the above, and everything in between, and promise happy, well-adjusted children if only you follow their (conflicting) advice.

The human problem isn't bad parents or lack of knowledge or dearth of information, it's sin. Parents sin, of course, but even if we had sinless parents, we would still be sinners. Our children are sinners, and no amount of technology or experts or 'mandatory volunteering' (oh, the irony of it all) will change that. What they need is the gospel, not a year's worth of lessons on the French Horn (in and of itself, fine, but as a component to a program to produce 'fine children,' sorely lacking).

To the point of CKG, we also have a large brood, and we field plenty of anti-child comments. "Don't you know what causes that?" "Are they all YOURS?" "Get a hobby!" or "Are you CRAZY?" Two children is the norm, three is for the either brave or careless parents ("Why haven't you gotten a vasectomy?") and anymore than that risks social consequences.

[TimC]

I think both views (Matt vs. GL/AMereLurker) expressed in these comments have some truth to them. As a young parent myself, I see a large cohort of young married parents who are working very hard to provide a good (not just an easy) life for their children in the hopes that they will be productive and generous members of society.

But. There is an unspoken and growing (but not yet, I think, completely pervasive) understanding that being a parent is a choice along the lines of a personal hobby. "You're into kids? Great! I like kayaking and hiking." Children are no longer the natural issue of a culture that connects both with its past and its future. Instead, children are tokens of achievement in a particular pasttime. Thus the growing interest in designer babies. Thus the emergence of "hyper-parenting" and the paralyzing array of parenting manuals; a fact that, contra Matt, I think belies the increased incompetence of modern parenting and the societal failure to transmit cultural knowledge about parenting.

[David Gray]

>Knowledge of parenting has grown as much as knowledge in other areas.

Will Rogers was right, "it isn't what folks don't know, it's what they know that isn't so."

[GL]

>"Knowledge of parenting has grown as much as knowledge in other areas.

Will Rogers was right, 'it isn't what folks don't know, it's what they know that isn't so.""<

Indeed, David. This reminds me of the grocery store tabloids (what used to be Women's magazines, but now appear to just be porn for women) on which I see occasionally a headline about some new discovery which will make having sex better than ever. So in all of human history, no couple ever discovered this "new sex secret" (undoubtedly a disorder act of some sort) before the editors of Redbook. Young adults are so gullible.

>"As to kids today being the center of the world and more self-centered . . . ."<

I wasn't referring to the kids. I was referring to their parents.

[M.J. Miller MEd, LPC, LCSW]

This attitude seems to be reflected in our culture in many ways today and it certainly does seem to be impacting some of the families that come into my office for counseling. Far too many are viewing their kids as stressful burdens. That is kind of attitude is harmful to both children and parents. It reminds me of a sign I saw on at a local school a fee summers ago. It read," Hang in there parents, only a few more weeks until school starts". Personally, I could not relate, I loved every minute of being with my kids and guess what, they never became troubled teens but rather were quite helpful to us. They are all young adults now going to college and running their own businesses. The best advice I can give to any parent is celebrate the gift of your children, spend lots of time with them, teach them to work early and inspire them to realize God has a great plan for their lives.

[Beth from TN]

Matt, some of us are pessimistic about the new "hyper-parenting" because we have to deal with the hyper-parented children in our classes . . . Try teaching college with parents actually contacting you about your attendance policy that is "too strict" . . . or your grading that is "too hard" . . . or your obviously "absurd" insistence that work be turned in on time to count . . . COLLEGE students' parents . . . I've been told that a student didn't really plagiarize when the unambiguous evidence was directly in front of the parent . . .

When my last one was attending the college where I teach, I stayed completely out of his scheduling, attendance, etc., and let both him and my colleagues know that he had to make his own choices about success. Yes, I advised him if he asked me about something, and we discussed his grades at the end of the first semester -- just us, at home. I didn't even *consider* interfering when I knew a professor had not been fair to the class and had treated my son rudely -- because he needed to learn to deal with such life situations; I only told him that Christ called *him* to react righteously and to consider seriously what that meant.

I did to my son and his professors what I would like my students and their parents to do to me, in other words -- keep their influence focused on helping their children to grow up, not on trying to make *me* continue coddling them! And build respect for authority even when the authority isn't perfect (is anyone perfect?).

Yeah, the new school year is about to start. And I'm prepping myself for more helicopter parents. Truly, I am glad for parents who care about their children. But caring is not always denoted by literally "being there" every minute to make sure that life is "fair" and the little darling doesn't experience any pain. We don't live *for* our children; we live *for* the Lord -- and He requires us to *raise them up*, not keep them children. At some point they've got to get some experience in living in a fallen world.

[Bob Srigley]

I think it is probably fair to characterize Matt's family as an example of "hyper-parenting," but a very positive and wholesome one at that. It is inspiring, but also a little sad, for it seems to reflect the breakdown of the surrounding culture.

When I was growing up in a little town in SW Oklahoma in the 50's, we kids mostly just ran together in our free time. There was hunting and fishing and making teepees from sunflower stalks and grass thatch. The town swimming pool (no one had there own) was where all the kids who weren't working on the farms hung out in the summer. I never had swimming lessons but learned to swim pretty well in order to escape the bigger kids who were always trying to catch you and dunk you. I don't remember any kids who weren't in church on Sundays. We were Methodists; there were quite a few Baptists; there might have been a few Episcopalians. Of course it was far from perfect; there was sin and hypocrisy. I was told that I couldn't play with a certain boy because his big sister wasn't "nice." It seemed that she had visitors in the nighttime. And there was a "colored town" across the tracks where, for some reason, the streets were never paved. But all in all it was safe and maybe even good and it did not require eternal parental vigilance, so Matt's point is well taken that parenting nowadays seems to require more focus, more time, more work, and I can only admire those couples who are able to meet such requirements.

The sadness I feel is not only nostalgic for the loss of what can never be recovered, but also for all those parents, some single, who will never measure up to the new standards, whose children are for all extents and purposes cast upon the waters of a storm tossed culture to sink or swim.

My own children, in a Mid-Atlantic college town experienced a Balkanization of their peers that I never knew. There were preppies and rednecks; then there were the blacks. The only group where acceptance was guaranteed was the drug crowd. Perhaps we should be most concerned about dwindling compassion on the part of the high achieving kids who look across a widening gulf of attainment at those less fortunate than themselves.

As in so many things the only hope seems to lie in the gospel-- believing it, living it, extending it and thereby leavening this culture which must otherwise collapse.

[Robert Espe]

For those who are thinking that parenting is more daunting these days, and are genuinely concerned about it, you might consider John Rosemond's "Parenting by the Book". I found it quite refreshing, and he makes a point of helping aspiring young parents realize that the world does not need to revolve around their children for them to be good parents.

[Matt]

Robert Espe writes, "I found it quite refreshing, and he makes a point of helping aspiring young parents realize that the world does not need to revolve around their children for them to be good parents."

Mr. Espe, I don't think parenting well means that the world has to revolve around one's children. It is a misunderstanding throughout this thread that helping one's child to develop optimally is equivalent to spoiling or helicoptering. In truth, I think the better educated the child, the less self-centered he or she is likely to be. Children need to be taught to understand the world's problems and to understand that they are to commit themselves to solutions. Greater knowledge leads to greater responsibility. I find children today very other-oriented because empathy and conflict resolution skills are part of what they are taught. As we develop new techniques of parenting and helping our children overcome handicaps, each generation should be able to do a better job parenting the next. There is now even a brain scan that predicts autism. In a generation or two, there may well be an intervention to cure autism. We owe it to our children to help them with whatever challenges they have. With my son's dyslexia, we explored several interventions and went with what we could manage and afford. The result is a phenomenal improvement in his reading skills. A few generations ago, he would have floundered in school and probably dropped out of high school. Now he's a confident, highly motivated learner.

I have not read "Parenting by the Book", but will try to obtain a copy. A text I would strongly recommend is "21st Century Skills: Learning for Life in Our Times" by Bernie Trilling.

I think Ken Connor's errors in the original article are: 1) to assume that parents are resentful of the obligations, expense, and commitments of modern parenting, and 2) that parents parent only to produce super-children they can show off as status symbols. This is the lazy parents' way of dismissing the efforts of hard-working parents to do their best for their children.

[Bob Srigley]

"In truth, I think the better educated the child, the less self-centered he or she is likely to be."

This statement might hold up if the "better education" is indeed grounded in Truth. This doesn't seem to be the case today in much of public education where absolute values are deposed and the Christian heritage is despised. A forced conformity to non-judgementalism and a tolerance of aberrant life styles do not seem the most promising components for a less self-centered personality.