Why Are American Kids So Spoiled?
newyorker.com
newyorker.com
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.
Parents often have good intentions, but by attempting to control everything it creates a dysfunctional environment.
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.)
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.
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). :-)
Are you a male? Were your sisters/cousins/etc. treated similarly? Just confirming my (presuming) Indian stereotypes :)
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)
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.
Overall, what I'm trying to say is, I think the research behind this article has too small of a sample size.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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:
"Why won't my kids listen to me?"
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)
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.
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.
(Are we still allowed to give kids computer paper, or do they now sell special paper with rubber edges to prevent paper cuts?)
Now that's the extreme, but this whole don't hit your kids movement is an epidemic.
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.
@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.
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.
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.
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. :)
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.
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...
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.
I think it is a part of the "pay attention to science" epidemic, like stopping smoking, and taking lead out of petrol.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
There is no such thing. Responsible parents don't hit their children, they outsmart them.
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?
Pig fucker.
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?
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."
Another corollary would be dog training.
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.
> 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.