We pride ourselves on having the friendliest
and most welcoming forums for moms and moms to be! Please take a moment
and register
for free so you can be a part of our growing community of mothers.
If you have any problems registering please drop an email to boards@justmommies.com.
Our community is moderated by our moderation team so you won't see spam or offensive messages posted on our forums. Each of our message boards is hosted by JustMommies hosts, whose names are listed at the top each board. We hope you find our message boards friendly, helpful, and fun to be on!
"The idea that the #1 problem in our society with parenting is that we are too permissive and spoiled brats are running wild is essentially a fiction, a huge exaggeration of reality, in order to rationalize still more of the controlling methods already in abundance. Yes, there are some kids, in some places more than others, who do run wild and make noise in public places, and that's annoying, but for every child like that, there are hundreds of children who are restricted unnecessarily, yelled at, threatened by their parents, essentially bullied... That is the overwhelming reality of American parenting." - Alfie Kohn
I agree and disagree. I don't think that it's an exaggeration. I do think there's a lot bullied-by-parents kids and people don't talk about that as much. I don't think there's quite the disproportionate ratio that he describes though... I think the problem is that most kids today (from an outsider's perspective) seem to fall under one of the two extremes, but I think the two extremes (kids running wild vs kids being bullied by parents) are probably pretty even in quantity/frequency.
I've certainly seen people automatically assume that a bad kid was raised by a permissive parent inevitably followed by that person talking about how they'd smack that behaviour out of their kid.
Occasionally when people talk to me about how they parent the disciplining they talk about sounds more like forceful bullying, and on someone so helpless! These are usually the same people that tsk when you're meeting a babies needs or being sensitive to your toddlers moods because you're "spoiling" them.
You certainly see results with violent punishment, but you also instill a lot of fear and confusion, rather than understanding and love. They do things because they're cowed, not because they understand the situation and its consequences.
So I think I largely agree with the quote.
I tend toward the side of agreeing. I think there is far more bullying, pressure, and emotional warfare happening with kids today. Yes, some parents are completely permissive and don't care what their kid is doing. Those kids are generally lost and confused though. I think kids with no guidance are likely to attach to another adult easily and and be seen as clingy, versus bratty. I do believe lots of technology and lots of absentee parents has created a more violent and controlling system of parenting. Plus, I think there is a high number of children nowadays being "raised" by daycare, grandparents, or other persons not as emotionally invested in the child's outcome. Sure, daycares are supposed to use gentle discipline...but I know that if I lose my patience with my son, who came from my own womb, and say something in anger, they certainly are prone to the same thing. And without that turn around of apologizing and explaining the angry statement, the child just ingrains it and assumes it was their fault and not misplaced anger on behalf of the provider. I find that "escaping" children is rampant right now...tons of parents I know act like they would rather do anything than spend time with their kids. It saddens me.
I don't think permissive parenting is to blame so much as lazy parenting.
Parents aren't disciplining too little; they're disciplining in a lazy way that gets them immediate gratification but teaches kids nothing valuable long-term. By hitting and yelling, they are teaching kids to hit and yell, but no moral values and no empathy. Therefore, they are running wild fighting each other.
I also think parents often are lazy and think that it's the teachers' job to make sure kids learn. I think the parents need to take more responsibility for things like helping kids with homework as well as teaching morals, respect, and empathy.
I think there is a high number of children nowadays being "raised" by daycare, grandparents, or other persons not as emotionally invested in the child's outcome. Sure, daycares are supposed to use gentle discipline...but I know that if I lose my patience with my son, who came from my own womb, and say something in anger, they certainly are prone to the same thing. And without that turn around of apologizing and explaining the angry statement, the child just ingrains it and assumes it was their fault and not misplaced anger on behalf of the provider. I find that "escaping" children is rampant right now...tons of parents I know act like they would rather do anything than spend time with their kids. It saddens me.
I just wanted to comment on this part. I'm not a SAHM but IMO, Juliana may actually be better off because I work. The reason I say this is that it takes an incredible amount of patience to be gentle and kind to a toddler 24x7, 365, which is essentially what a SAHM has to try to do. I don't think I could handle it. I have a nurturing and caring nanny (for 2 more weeks, ha!) who is great with Juliana, in part because she's here 7 hours per day, 2 of which Juliana is sleeping. When I take over in the afternoon, I'm more positive, patient, and enthusiastic than I would have been if I had been doing the same things all day. So in my case I'm not sure if I agree with the daycare argument, although I think if Juliana were in a place where there were 6 or 7 toddlers to one adult for 10 hours/day, it would be a different story.
I went back to work at 12 weeks and I cannot make the same statement for roughly months 3-6. I wish I had been able to take a little bit more time off from work, but the US only allows 12 weeks (with 6 of those being unpaid). I was a super-slacker WFH employee, though, and spent a lot of "company time" breastfeeding.
I know I'm in the minority for a working mom, because I can work from home and still see her, keep an eye on the nanny, and step in when I'm needed. Who knows, maybe that's just my way of rationalizing having a job, but I honestly think Juliana gets a better quality of care this way, overall.
I'm in no way staying that all kids would be better off with a nanny for a few hours per day. I just know myself, and know that I'm not patient enough to really excel at being a SAHM. I have tremendous respect and appreciation for SAHMs! (In fact, if I could not WFH I probably would be one). I think Juliana would get a lot more tv if I as at home permanently. Then again, maybe I would have hit my stride by now and figured it all out.
Feel free to agree or disagree. I'm genuinely curious about what others think.
While I dislike the idea of someone else raising my kids for me, I also think that I would be a better parent if I was able to have someone watch them for a few hours every day while I did something productive and completely unrelated. Sometimes I get frustrated and burnt out with my kids because it's all I do.
So while there are certainly negatives about daycare, I can see it being a very positive thing.
I disagree. The #1 problem with American parenting is the individualistic approach we take to child rearing.
It takes a village to raise a child is not just a saying. Society dictates our moral compass. That's why we try to carefully choose where we live, what schools our kids attend, who we encourage them to befriend and who we keep them away from. Societal influences have an affect on how our children relate to their parents, their peers, and themselves.
If you don't teach your children to care for others like they would their own family, then society suffers. I hear "Entitlement Generation" thrown around a lot, but from where does a sense of entitlement stem? Not from allowing your kids to have anything they want whenever they want it, but from allowing them to believe they are alone in deserving it.
Now, as for the quote itself, I agree that people need to accept children as people with their own wants, needs, and desires which will foster a sense of patience, something that is seriously lacking today's society. But to do that, we have to start thinking about those kids like we would our own.
I just wanted to comment on this part. I'm not a SAHM but IMO, Juliana may actually be better off because I work. The reason I say this is that it takes an incredible amount of patience to be gentle and kind to a toddler 24x7, 365, which is essentially what a SAHM has to try to do. I don't think I could handle it. I have a nurturing and caring nanny (for 2 more weeks, ha!) who is great with Juliana, in part because she's here 7 hours per day, 2 of which Juliana is sleeping. When I take over in the afternoon, I'm more positive, patient, and enthusiastic than I would have been if I had been doing the same things all day. So in my case I'm not sure if I agree with the daycare argument, although I think if Juliana were in a place where there were 6 or 7 toddlers to one adult for 10 hours/day, it would be a different story.
I went back to work at 12 weeks and I cannot make the same statement for roughly months 3-6. I wish I had been able to take a little bit more time off from work, but the US only allows 12 weeks (with 6 of those being unpaid). I was a super-slacker WFH employee, though, and spent a lot of "company time" breastfeeding.
I know I'm in the minority for a working mom, because I can work from home and still see her, keep an eye on the nanny, and step in when I'm needed. Who knows, maybe that's just my way of rationalizing having a job, but I honestly think Juliana gets a better quality of care this way, overall.
I'm in no way staying that all kids would be better off with a nanny for a few hours per day. I just know myself, and know that I'm not patient enough to really excel at being a SAHM. I have tremendous respect and appreciation for SAHMs! (In fact, if I could not WFH I probably would be one). I think Juliana would get a lot more tv if I as at home permanently. Then again, maybe I would have hit my stride by now and figured it all out.
Feel free to agree or disagree. I'm genuinely curious about what others think.
In my statement, I was actually referring more to daycare settings (and potentially burnt out grandparents, not all!) I have been in enough of them (observing for early childhood Ed claseses) to see how they function. I know there are better and worse ones. I see a private home daycare or nanny setting to be way closer to SAHM than a daycare setting. Often those care providers DO become attached to the child and are invested in their outcome (and many grandparents are too...but not all). It is sorta what purrrr is saying. The village thing. We need kids being raised by people who truly care about the outcome of the child. And often...there are far too many people only caring about their child or about their own life (parents of children included). So i agree with the entitlement issue. I have actually thought long and hard about the village concept and want to know what the US does not encourage it. No wonder parenting is so hard and we run into so many obstacles. We try to recreate the systems of other countries, but remove the family-community support aspect. And expect the kids to turn out loving, kind, and empathic...and the parents to be sane and adoring. But that cant happen when the parents are trying to play too many roles and are burnt out before the child turns two. Add in the competive parenting aspect and we have a recipe for disaster!!
But I was in no way saying that working parents are less invested. I actually don't see a huge difference (if the morals of parenting are intact). But I do see a difference in the care providers and wonder if that has something to do with the outcomes we are seeing. Since more of the kids are in daycare in the past 20 years, it does have some correlation with the generation of entitlement. KWIM?
__________________
Thanks Claire1979 for my darling siggy!
Last edited by ashj_1218; April 4th, 2012 at 06:47 AM.
In my statement, I was actually referring more to daycare settings (and potentially burnt out grandparents, not all!) I have been in enough of them (observing for early childhood Ed claseses) to see how they function. I know there are better and worse ones. I see a private home daycare or nanny setting to be way closer to SAHM than a daycare setting. Often those care providers DO become attached to the child and are invested in their outcome (and many grandparents are too...but not all). It is sorta what purrrr is saying. The village thing. We need kids being raised by people who truly care about the outcome of the child. And often...there are far too many people only caring about their child or about their own life (parents of children included). So i agree with the entitlement issue. I have actually thought long and hard about the village concept and want to know what the US does not encourage it. No wonder parenting is so hard and we run into so many obstacles. We try to recreate the systems of other countries, but remove the family-community support aspect. And expect the kids to turn out loving, kind, and empathic...and the parents to be sane and adoring. But that cant happen when the parents are trying to play too many roles and are burnt out before the child turns two. Add in the competive parenting aspect and we have a recipe for disaster!!
But I was in no way saying that working parents are less invested. I actually don't see a huge difference (if the morals of parenting are intact). But I do see a difference in the care providers and wonder if that has something to do with the outcomes we are seeing. Since more of the kids are in daycare in the past 20 years, it does have some correlation with the generation of entitlement. KWIM?
In addition to having loving care providers, for us to integrate the village concept into our society, as much as it pains us, we also have to accept that our children will be disciplined by other people. And we have to allow them to do so (as long as they do no harm) and uphold any disciplinary decisions made by others.
I'll give you an example: When I was a teenager, my friend's mom grounded me. I can't remember exactly what happened, but my mom upheld the ruling and I was grounded for two days.
This concept is haaaaaaaaaaard and it's also why we try to surround ourselves with like-minded people. But our children can't gain a sense of community if we don't allow it.
In addition to having loving care providers, for us to integrate the village concept into our society, as much as it pains us, we also have to accept that our children will be disciplined by other people. And we have to allow them to do so (as long as they do no harm) and uphold any disciplinary decisions made by others.
I'll give you an example: When I was a teenager, my friend's mom grounded me. I can't remember exactly what happened, but my mom upheld the ruling and I was grounded for two days.
This concept is haaaaaaaaaaard and it's also why we try to surround ourselves with like-minded people. But our children can't gain a sense of community if we don't allow it.
I really don't feel like this is always possible. In my situation I have very few people I would trust to babysit because most of the people that would normally be relied on either aren't there or try to subvert my parenting (bullying my kids, not listening to specific important instructions, endangering my kids and blaming me when they get hurt even though I was nowhere near).
I think ideally, you would have a group of people who agree to uphold your parenting and support your child, but when people don't have that you can hardly tell them they need to let their kids be disciplined by people you find abusive.
It's a good ideal, but, again, I feel like it can be unrealistic in a lot of cases.
