Parents’ Red Queen’s Race
August 24, 2018 9:38 AM Subscribe
“Parents are worried that, unless their kids accumulate extraordinary amounts of skills and accomplishments, they’ll be stuck as mere workers. Based on the way this country treats workers, that is a legitimate concern. But the more that families take on this work, the more competing they all have to do to keep pace.” When did parenting become so fearful? (The Outline)
My first nephew just turned one, so I already have the popcorn ready. Looking forward to watching this discussion.
Personally, I think there's some correlation between parents being irate about other grownups disciplining or correcting their children and everyone not trusting kids to be on their own. Boy, am I glad that random adults told my childhood self not to eat candy off the ground or hit others with sticks while I was off on my own. As a childless adult, I feel a STRONG social pressure to studiously ignore any unaccompanied kids I come across in public.
posted by es_de_bah at 9:53 AM on August 24, 2018 [22 favorites]
Personally, I think there's some correlation between parents being irate about other grownups disciplining or correcting their children and everyone not trusting kids to be on their own. Boy, am I glad that random adults told my childhood self not to eat candy off the ground or hit others with sticks while I was off on my own. As a childless adult, I feel a STRONG social pressure to studiously ignore any unaccompanied kids I come across in public.
posted by es_de_bah at 9:53 AM on August 24, 2018 [22 favorites]
This was a good article, but unfortunately it still doesn't provide an answer to the question: How did we get this way? I'm at a loss because I see so many parents operating in this way and I have no idea why. The arms race hinted at makes sense, but I feel like it must be something deeper.
I think there's some correlation between parents being irate about other grownups disciplining or correcting their children and everyone not trusting kids to be on their own.
That's an interesting observation. To be honest, I'm a little bit dismayed that other adults don't correct my child, and personally I have to hold myself back to avoid doing it to other kids. For some of those things that I've tried a thousand times to get my kid to stop doing, I think someone else objecting to it would be tremendously helpful. And if someone else overreacts or is misguided, well, I can just explain it to my kid afterwards - it's not like they can't get it.
I really don't understand how parents are surviving these days. All the time and energy it takes to follow your kids every move, and they can't even watch TV! Sarah and Duck is great! One of my least favourite things about living in the US is the background fear (one amongst many) that someone is going to call CPS on my obviously negligent parenting. I should get those glasses with eyes printed on them so I can nap in the park while my kid hangs out.
posted by Alex404 at 10:12 AM on August 24, 2018 [12 favorites]
I think there's some correlation between parents being irate about other grownups disciplining or correcting their children and everyone not trusting kids to be on their own.
That's an interesting observation. To be honest, I'm a little bit dismayed that other adults don't correct my child, and personally I have to hold myself back to avoid doing it to other kids. For some of those things that I've tried a thousand times to get my kid to stop doing, I think someone else objecting to it would be tremendously helpful. And if someone else overreacts or is misguided, well, I can just explain it to my kid afterwards - it's not like they can't get it.
I really don't understand how parents are surviving these days. All the time and energy it takes to follow your kids every move, and they can't even watch TV! Sarah and Duck is great! One of my least favourite things about living in the US is the background fear (one amongst many) that someone is going to call CPS on my obviously negligent parenting. I should get those glasses with eyes printed on them so I can nap in the park while my kid hangs out.
posted by Alex404 at 10:12 AM on August 24, 2018 [12 favorites]
Alex404: This was a good article, but unfortunately it still doesn't provide an answer to the question: How did we get this way?
I definitely agree, but dovetailing with the arguments being explored here, the author of the review, Malcolm Harris, is himself the author of my choice for the most persuasive/my favorite non-fiction read of the last year -- Kids These Days: Human Capital and the Making of Millennials. The entire book is a tight exploration of how we got this way (although, persuasively again, at the end not particularly optimistic for how a society might un-get this way if you're reform-minded).
I know recommending a whole book is sometimes a faux pas, so here is a very good overview/review, but honestly Harris' writing voice is funny, sharp, and devastating in the way I as a reader find trustworthy. He isn't trying to sell a product or trademarked method so I would encourage people to take a swing at the actual text*. Pressing questions w/ depressing answers, all that.
*(this also isn't an online shill, I've given away my irl copy twice now because rather than try to summarize I'd rather the new parents and guncles in my life read it, the recommendation is almost a compulsion now)
posted by Chipmazing at 10:37 AM on August 24, 2018 [9 favorites]
I definitely agree, but dovetailing with the arguments being explored here, the author of the review, Malcolm Harris, is himself the author of my choice for the most persuasive/my favorite non-fiction read of the last year -- Kids These Days: Human Capital and the Making of Millennials. The entire book is a tight exploration of how we got this way (although, persuasively again, at the end not particularly optimistic for how a society might un-get this way if you're reform-minded).
I know recommending a whole book is sometimes a faux pas, so here is a very good overview/review, but honestly Harris' writing voice is funny, sharp, and devastating in the way I as a reader find trustworthy. He isn't trying to sell a product or trademarked method so I would encourage people to take a swing at the actual text*. Pressing questions w/ depressing answers, all that.
*(this also isn't an online shill, I've given away my irl copy twice now because rather than try to summarize I'd rather the new parents and guncles in my life read it, the recommendation is almost a compulsion now)
posted by Chipmazing at 10:37 AM on August 24, 2018 [9 favorites]
the question: How did we get this way?
Fear-mongering and sensationalism by the press to sell papers/attract eyeballs.
Our society doesn't like kids. We don't want to see them in public places. It's bad enough when their on a leash with their parents. Otherwise, they're like vermin--liable to get up to something annoying or be destructive. The only thing they're good for is scoring political points.
(can somebody take the term "angel mama" and terminate it with extreme prejudice?)
posted by BlueHorse at 10:37 AM on August 24, 2018 [16 favorites]
Fear-mongering and sensationalism by the press to sell papers/attract eyeballs.
Our society doesn't like kids. We don't want to see them in public places. It's bad enough when their on a leash with their parents. Otherwise, they're like vermin--liable to get up to something annoying or be destructive. The only thing they're good for is scoring political points.
(can somebody take the term "angel mama" and terminate it with extreme prejudice?)
posted by BlueHorse at 10:37 AM on August 24, 2018 [16 favorites]
One thing is that children are genuinely safer - lower rates of death and injury- than when I was a kid. Not letting children swim unsupervised has led to fewer deaths. Not all of it is made up. But another thing is that a child is also a positional good: your child’s accomplishments reflect upon you.
For me in particular to some extent my children’s happy childhood is expiating my own unhappy one, at the cost of my contented adulthood to some degree I am currently trying to understand.
posted by shothotbot at 10:44 AM on August 24, 2018 [15 favorites]
For me in particular to some extent my children’s happy childhood is expiating my own unhappy one, at the cost of my contented adulthood to some degree I am currently trying to understand.
posted by shothotbot at 10:44 AM on August 24, 2018 [15 favorites]
"I wear the chain I forged in life, "I made it link by link, and yard by yard; I girded it on of my own free will, and of my own free will I wore it. Is its pattern strange to you?"
-Jacob Marley
When can I stop girding free will.
posted by clavdivs at 10:48 AM on August 24, 2018 [10 favorites]
-Jacob Marley
When can I stop girding free will.
posted by clavdivs at 10:48 AM on August 24, 2018 [10 favorites]
I definitely agree, but dovetailing with the arguments being explored here, the author of the review, Malcolm Harris, is himself the author of my choice for the most persuasive/my favorite non-fiction read of the last year -- Kids These Days: Human Capital and the Making of Millennials.
I think it's totally okay to recommend a book, and thanks for the tip. The thesis of the book seems to be what the author alluded to in the article.
One thing is that children are genuinely safer - lower rates of death and injury- than when I was a kid.
And the importance of this should in no way be diminished. However, it seems that even as children have gotten safer, we have only gotten more fearful. And I don't think it's the fearfulness that leads to safer children.
posted by Alex404 at 10:51 AM on August 24, 2018 [5 favorites]
I think it's totally okay to recommend a book, and thanks for the tip. The thesis of the book seems to be what the author alluded to in the article.
One thing is that children are genuinely safer - lower rates of death and injury- than when I was a kid.
And the importance of this should in no way be diminished. However, it seems that even as children have gotten safer, we have only gotten more fearful. And I don't think it's the fearfulness that leads to safer children.
posted by Alex404 at 10:51 AM on August 24, 2018 [5 favorites]
Yeah, everything with kids is an arms race these days. Kids in the US taking 6 AP courses - sure, it works for some kids, but not the vast, vast majority of them (like 98%). You just have to check out of it all and pick your battles.
At school you need to get good marks - for most people the objective is perfection, even if that's totally unrealistic.
At work where we have a formal-but-simple system for identifying "objectives and key results" the target is about 70%. You should accomplish about 70% of what you set out to do. Because otherwise you haven't set your goals high enough.
And honestly if you're getting 70% of life in general right that's really not bad at all.
Also, per the article, people are trying to structure their kids' lives to avoid pain. And that's a pretty noble goal but it's sort of self-defeating. If you never learn to deal with minor pain, you'll not really be equipped to deal with major pains. Of course, people who have been through painful childhoods will probably say that's bullshit and would have preferred being spared the pain. I suppose there's some optimal small amount of emotional pain required in life.
posted by GuyZero at 11:05 AM on August 24, 2018 [8 favorites]
At school you need to get good marks - for most people the objective is perfection, even if that's totally unrealistic.
At work where we have a formal-but-simple system for identifying "objectives and key results" the target is about 70%. You should accomplish about 70% of what you set out to do. Because otherwise you haven't set your goals high enough.
And honestly if you're getting 70% of life in general right that's really not bad at all.
Also, per the article, people are trying to structure their kids' lives to avoid pain. And that's a pretty noble goal but it's sort of self-defeating. If you never learn to deal with minor pain, you'll not really be equipped to deal with major pains. Of course, people who have been through painful childhoods will probably say that's bullshit and would have preferred being spared the pain. I suppose there's some optimal small amount of emotional pain required in life.
posted by GuyZero at 11:05 AM on August 24, 2018 [8 favorites]
Small amounts of pain or challenge when you're young allow you to develop skills to handle it later, when things get uglier. It's like immunizations for real life: getting the disease later may not kill you, but it'll suck much more than the temporary discomfort of just taking care of it early.
posted by Cris E at 11:22 AM on August 24, 2018
posted by Cris E at 11:22 AM on August 24, 2018
“What I see is many of them doing for their children as they might have done in their job,” Anderson tells her. “So the kids are very scheduled, they’re in classes, the parents are super-educated, reading how to parent on the Internet instead of trusting instincts.” How fortunate for the child’s future employers, who gain in the form of highly qualified job applicants, which in turn allows them to cut wages.
It's a net drain on society to shape your kid into a highly qualified job applicant? Anyway, some rando calls the cops, capitalism crushes those without wherewithal, and it's Mom's fault? Weird points this article makes.
posted by turkeybrain at 11:33 AM on August 24, 2018 [5 favorites]
It's a net drain on society to shape your kid into a highly qualified job applicant? Anyway, some rando calls the cops, capitalism crushes those without wherewithal, and it's Mom's fault? Weird points this article makes.
posted by turkeybrain at 11:33 AM on August 24, 2018 [5 favorites]
It's not even just parents; I've been stockpiling assets in part so that my niece and nephew will be as wealthy as possible when I die, so that their lives will be comfortable even if they decide to pursue careers in musical theater or one day tell their boss to fuck off.
posted by aramaic at 11:34 AM on August 24, 2018 [11 favorites]
posted by aramaic at 11:34 AM on August 24, 2018 [11 favorites]
"How did we get this way?"
In the US we've been tearing our meager safety net apart for decades and this is one of the consequences of that. Parents fear for their children's future happiness and for seeming like a bad parent for not doing enough compared to the other ones.
posted by Nec_variat_lux_fracta_colorem at 11:40 AM on August 24, 2018 [32 favorites]
In the US we've been tearing our meager safety net apart for decades and this is one of the consequences of that. Parents fear for their children's future happiness and for seeming like a bad parent for not doing enough compared to the other ones.
posted by Nec_variat_lux_fracta_colorem at 11:40 AM on August 24, 2018 [32 favorites]
This was a good article, but unfortunately it still doesn't provide an answer to the question: How did we get this way?
My theory is that our ideological commitment to women being in the home has meant that mothers with who would have once directed their efforts at housekeeping, are now directing it with a lasered focus at child development. For most of home history, mothers in the home spent most of their time on housekeeping tasks: gathering, preparing, and bartering for food; cleaning; sewing, mending, and washing clothes; tending to livestock, etc. Only a small portion of their time was spent on child minding, they couldn't spend too much time on it, they had to work to keep the household functioning.
Now, and since about the 1950's, technological improvements have drastically reduced the amount of time that needs to be spent on housekeeping simply so that the household functions. So what do with all of this newfound time for women? Well, they could go to work in the formal workforce, and many have, but of course there is a still a cultural ideal that women working, mothers in particular, is wrong. Mother's place is in the home, even if the home doesn't need mother as much as it once does.
What's happened is that much of this newfound time and energy has been directed at the children, laboring to turn out the smartest and most highly efficient future workers in the productivity arms race. Whether that amount of sustained parental attention is necessary, or even good, for healthy child development is of secondary concern.
It's a complex phenomenon of course, this is just one small part, but I do believe it is a part. And I should say that I am not opposed to stay at home parents, I think there is a lot they do that benefits society, but instead of fully exploring these other options (e.g., volunteering, community development work, household management to reduce the harms of climate change) we collectively as a culture have decided it's best for them to pursue this highly individualistic path where each family engages in an extended cage match to turn out the best paid workers to meet the needs of our perverse economic system.
posted by scantee at 11:41 AM on August 24, 2018 [15 favorites]
My theory is that our ideological commitment to women being in the home has meant that mothers with who would have once directed their efforts at housekeeping, are now directing it with a lasered focus at child development. For most of home history, mothers in the home spent most of their time on housekeeping tasks: gathering, preparing, and bartering for food; cleaning; sewing, mending, and washing clothes; tending to livestock, etc. Only a small portion of their time was spent on child minding, they couldn't spend too much time on it, they had to work to keep the household functioning.
Now, and since about the 1950's, technological improvements have drastically reduced the amount of time that needs to be spent on housekeeping simply so that the household functions. So what do with all of this newfound time for women? Well, they could go to work in the formal workforce, and many have, but of course there is a still a cultural ideal that women working, mothers in particular, is wrong. Mother's place is in the home, even if the home doesn't need mother as much as it once does.
What's happened is that much of this newfound time and energy has been directed at the children, laboring to turn out the smartest and most highly efficient future workers in the productivity arms race. Whether that amount of sustained parental attention is necessary, or even good, for healthy child development is of secondary concern.
It's a complex phenomenon of course, this is just one small part, but I do believe it is a part. And I should say that I am not opposed to stay at home parents, I think there is a lot they do that benefits society, but instead of fully exploring these other options (e.g., volunteering, community development work, household management to reduce the harms of climate change) we collectively as a culture have decided it's best for them to pursue this highly individualistic path where each family engages in an extended cage match to turn out the best paid workers to meet the needs of our perverse economic system.
posted by scantee at 11:41 AM on August 24, 2018 [15 favorites]
The more we let society become the war of all against all, atomized individuals whose individual choices are blamed for every outcome and for whom no limits on the misery of their fate are envisaged, the more desperately we try to carve out childhood--at least, our child's childhood--as a protected category, and then the more painfully we are aware of the howling chaos standing just beyond the gateway to adulthood.
posted by praemunire at 11:42 AM on August 24, 2018 [24 favorites]
posted by praemunire at 11:42 AM on August 24, 2018 [24 favorites]
What's happened is that much of this newfound time and energy has been directed at the children, laboring to turn out the smartest and most highly efficient future workers in the productivity arms race. Whether that amount of sustained parental attention is necessary, or even good, for healthy child development is of secondary concern.
We also have, at least here in Manhattan, a bunch of women who were educated for ambitious jobs outside the home, but found themselves pressured in various ways into staying home with the kids medium-to-long-term and into pretending that they totally wanted to use their law jobs to change diapers and wipe up juice spills. (NB: I am not saying that childrearing is not an immensely complex task, or that there aren't educated women who find staying home satisfying, but in the day to day, especially when the kids are small, it involves a whole lot of entirely unrewarding, mind-numbing, and relentless menial labor.) So they displace all that ambition onto their kids--and of course they're not being selfish to snatch and hoard advantages, they're being good moms. The results are not pretty.
posted by praemunire at 11:47 AM on August 24, 2018 [27 favorites]
We also have, at least here in Manhattan, a bunch of women who were educated for ambitious jobs outside the home, but found themselves pressured in various ways into staying home with the kids medium-to-long-term and into pretending that they totally wanted to use their law jobs to change diapers and wipe up juice spills. (NB: I am not saying that childrearing is not an immensely complex task, or that there aren't educated women who find staying home satisfying, but in the day to day, especially when the kids are small, it involves a whole lot of entirely unrewarding, mind-numbing, and relentless menial labor.) So they displace all that ambition onto their kids--and of course they're not being selfish to snatch and hoard advantages, they're being good moms. The results are not pretty.
posted by praemunire at 11:47 AM on August 24, 2018 [27 favorites]
This whole thing, as we've established in previous FPPs on the topic is also super regional and cultural. Like, I do not recognize this style of parenting from my own first-hand life (and I am the parent of a 6-year-old). Whenever we go to the local playground, there are unaccompanied kids there (usually ~8-10 year olds with the occasional tagalong younger sibling) and no one cares, because it's a playground and that's where kids go. There are roving packs of children throughout the neighborhood. When my kid plays outside, he's usually by himself (a parent or two is inside the house within earshot, but we're not supervising). He knows the rules: stay on the block, the fire hydrant is your boundary, don't cross the street (this last rule is about to be lifted as he has demonstrated appropriate responsibility in the crossing of streets), come in when we yell. And it ain't because we're all trying to get our kids into Ivies. We're just too damn tired from working all day to give too much of a fuck. (To be clear, this is a middle-middle class racially integrated neighborhood with mostly public service workers like teachers, nurses, water and sewer authority and sanitation workers, first responders, as well as a fair amount of small time contractors and retirees.)
posted by soren_lorensen at 11:55 AM on August 24, 2018 [10 favorites]
posted by soren_lorensen at 11:55 AM on August 24, 2018 [10 favorites]
Oh, helicopter parenting is definitely a phenomenon specific to certain socioeconomic groups. I always think it's worthwhile keeping that in mind--that what is going on with Timmy Uppermiddleclass next door probably doesn't reflect the experience of the fourteen Lowermiddleclass cousins spread out over the state. The parents simply don't have the resources. But of course Timmy sets a certain floor for "respectable" parenting against which others may be judged, sometimes with catastrophic results.
posted by praemunire at 12:04 PM on August 24, 2018 [9 favorites]
posted by praemunire at 12:04 PM on August 24, 2018 [9 favorites]
In the US we've been tearing our meager safety net apart for decades and this is one of the consequences of that. Parents fear for their children's future happiness and for seeming like a bad parent for not doing enough compared to the other ones.
I think parents fear for their own happiness. Will they ever be able to retire? Who's going to pay for the nursing home? That leads them to drive their children towards what they see as lucrative careers.
posted by dilaudid at 12:12 PM on August 24, 2018 [4 favorites]
I think parents fear for their own happiness. Will they ever be able to retire? Who's going to pay for the nursing home? That leads them to drive their children towards what they see as lucrative careers.
posted by dilaudid at 12:12 PM on August 24, 2018 [4 favorites]
Modern parenting always reminds me of how ignorant people are, in general, of history. The majority of parents compare themselves to their parents, grandparents, or what Hollywood has shown them. I love reading pioneer women’s diaries of their early lives in Canada and it was completely normal to leave an infant at home with “older” siblings (like less than ten years old) for several days, alone, several kilometres away from the next log cabin, because of some emergency. You worked with what you had. There also were not people around to judge (which is why horrific child abuse was also more common).
posted by saucysault at 12:19 PM on August 24, 2018 [3 favorites]
posted by saucysault at 12:19 PM on August 24, 2018 [3 favorites]
It's a net drain on society to shape your kid into a highly qualified job applicant?
Yes. Because any kids not "shaped" in this way, and any kids who take poorly to this shaping process, or who would excel in different channels and outlets, get thrown by the wayside, as cosseted employers come to expect and demand an unending stream of perfect candidates who require zero training, and who can be paid little because they're so plentiful, and who have no interests outside of work because they've never been given time or freedom to cultivate any or been allowed to imagine they could be, and who can be easily replaced by someone getting paid even less because all the burden to meet employer needs has been placed on the shoulders of individual parents and children. And all as an upfront investment which is not compensated and may not pay off.
posted by halation at 12:31 PM on August 24, 2018 [17 favorites]
Yes. Because any kids not "shaped" in this way, and any kids who take poorly to this shaping process, or who would excel in different channels and outlets, get thrown by the wayside, as cosseted employers come to expect and demand an unending stream of perfect candidates who require zero training, and who can be paid little because they're so plentiful, and who have no interests outside of work because they've never been given time or freedom to cultivate any or been allowed to imagine they could be, and who can be easily replaced by someone getting paid even less because all the burden to meet employer needs has been placed on the shoulders of individual parents and children. And all as an upfront investment which is not compensated and may not pay off.
posted by halation at 12:31 PM on August 24, 2018 [17 favorites]
Here are my theories:
- we are very invested in the Bad Mother narrative and are constantly changing the criteria. Right now the pendulum is swinging back to “the over attentive mother is the bad mother.”
- collectively, we are becoming more aware of the uncontrollable nature of life. With that knowledge we are increasingly trying to exert control in order to return to feelings of safety.
And if you want reform: Systemic changes to value parenthood. Value parenthood financially & societally. Stop telling parents they are doing it wrong. Look at why what they are doing works for them instead of beginning with the assumption that it’s wrong and needs to be fixed.
posted by CMcG at 12:36 PM on August 24, 2018 [2 favorites]
- we are very invested in the Bad Mother narrative and are constantly changing the criteria. Right now the pendulum is swinging back to “the over attentive mother is the bad mother.”
- collectively, we are becoming more aware of the uncontrollable nature of life. With that knowledge we are increasingly trying to exert control in order to return to feelings of safety.
And if you want reform: Systemic changes to value parenthood. Value parenthood financially & societally. Stop telling parents they are doing it wrong. Look at why what they are doing works for them instead of beginning with the assumption that it’s wrong and needs to be fixed.
posted by CMcG at 12:36 PM on August 24, 2018 [2 favorites]
A non-parent here, so take this with a grain of salt... I tend to agree with the folks saying that the answer to the "how did we get here" question is some variation on "the world is crumbling." I think that on a sub-conscious level (and regardless of political leanings) parents see that things are falling apart and know that if their kids don't make it into the top 5%(?) of society, they're fucked.
posted by snwod at 12:47 PM on August 24, 2018 [8 favorites]
posted by snwod at 12:47 PM on August 24, 2018 [8 favorites]
Some of this is due to escalating income inequality and how we acculturate that fact.
From the article:
how determined upper-class moms and dads can be (how nice to see someone actually name the upper class, rather than the weaselly "upper middle class) - so we have an elite that's increasingly separated from the majority, including a dwindling middle class. They are proud, well educated, and a bit nervous about the possibility of falling down the ladder. Naturally they'll raise their kids to be massively trained members of the elite to come... and fear every touch of childhood development as a sign of weakness pointing them down the ladder.
From the same paragraph:
by the end, Brooks’s maternal superego has her evaluating her preschool son with an occupational therapist because he was exhibiting “sensory-seeking behavior,” according to his teacher. Think of the cultural capital assembled there, and what it took to assemble that.
More cultural developments flow from this. Think of how not being a clearly minded and controlled kid can be a marker of lower class status. Parents can pounce on that to either exclude the proles from their favorite spaces or to police a peer.
Meanwhile, society becomes more atomized, as praemunire notes, more of a Hobbesian war of all against all. That encourages everyone, not just members of the emerging elite caste, to look for signs of weakness in others. Naturally that includes probing for "bad" child rearing.
posted by doctornemo at 12:54 PM on August 24, 2018 [6 favorites]
From the article:
how determined upper-class moms and dads can be (how nice to see someone actually name the upper class, rather than the weaselly "upper middle class) - so we have an elite that's increasingly separated from the majority, including a dwindling middle class. They are proud, well educated, and a bit nervous about the possibility of falling down the ladder. Naturally they'll raise their kids to be massively trained members of the elite to come... and fear every touch of childhood development as a sign of weakness pointing them down the ladder.
From the same paragraph:
by the end, Brooks’s maternal superego has her evaluating her preschool son with an occupational therapist because he was exhibiting “sensory-seeking behavior,” according to his teacher. Think of the cultural capital assembled there, and what it took to assemble that.
More cultural developments flow from this. Think of how not being a clearly minded and controlled kid can be a marker of lower class status. Parents can pounce on that to either exclude the proles from their favorite spaces or to police a peer.
Meanwhile, society becomes more atomized, as praemunire notes, more of a Hobbesian war of all against all. That encourages everyone, not just members of the emerging elite caste, to look for signs of weakness in others. Naturally that includes probing for "bad" child rearing.
posted by doctornemo at 12:54 PM on August 24, 2018 [6 favorites]
THE ECONOMY IS NOT A ZERO-SUM GAME.
Arrrgh.
posted by floppyroofing at 1:16 PM on August 24, 2018 [5 favorites]
Arrrgh.
posted by floppyroofing at 1:16 PM on August 24, 2018 [5 favorites]
I just want my kids to know they are loved, to be resilient, helpful, and to have the inner fortitude to pursue their own happiness. The rest... *sigh*
Otherwise this center-lefter is tempted to throw his lot in with DSA and others like them. (a.k.a. the more crazy news I hear, the further to the left I seem to be drifting) This whole Who Moved My Cheese game is a waste of good living. Let's get back to interdependence and whatnot.
posted by pianoblack at 1:25 PM on August 24, 2018 [3 favorites]
Otherwise this center-lefter is tempted to throw his lot in with DSA and others like them. (a.k.a. the more crazy news I hear, the further to the left I seem to be drifting) This whole Who Moved My Cheese game is a waste of good living. Let's get back to interdependence and whatnot.
posted by pianoblack at 1:25 PM on August 24, 2018 [3 favorites]
We made Kid Ruki take an AP class when she was a freshman. We were wrong, apologized halfway through the year, and lowered our expectation to just passing the class. Don't know how she scored on the test and never interfered with her schedule again. She's now, by choice, planning on enrolling in a program that let's her take full-time classes at the community college in lieu of her senior year next year.
But that was our only big mistake, I think. I was only 22 when she was born, and my parenting style has always been radically more relaxed than most of my friends who had kids when we were in our 30s. And now she's almost 17 and just about every day since she got her license in the beginning of July she's taken my car and done her own thing, and I don't need details (although she usually gives them) because, except for a stubborn refusal to ever clean her room, she's amazingly responsible.
My town has a pronounced socioeconomic divide and Kid Ruki spent her elementary school years split between the poorest and richest schools. I knew more moms at the first school from high school (I grew up here) including one of my closest friends, whose similarly free range oldest just graduated high school with a ton of accolades due to her own ambition, while a lot of the moms I knew through Girl Scouts at the second school were more helicoptory.
posted by Ruki at 2:02 PM on August 24, 2018 [4 favorites]
But that was our only big mistake, I think. I was only 22 when she was born, and my parenting style has always been radically more relaxed than most of my friends who had kids when we were in our 30s. And now she's almost 17 and just about every day since she got her license in the beginning of July she's taken my car and done her own thing, and I don't need details (although she usually gives them) because, except for a stubborn refusal to ever clean her room, she's amazingly responsible.
My town has a pronounced socioeconomic divide and Kid Ruki spent her elementary school years split between the poorest and richest schools. I knew more moms at the first school from high school (I grew up here) including one of my closest friends, whose similarly free range oldest just graduated high school with a ton of accolades due to her own ambition, while a lot of the moms I knew through Girl Scouts at the second school were more helicoptory.
posted by Ruki at 2:02 PM on August 24, 2018 [4 favorites]
I'd like to pop in here, just to bask in the rare modern glory:
This is an entirely apolitical conversation with real value! It's sadly amazing how refreshing that is.
There are plenty of regrettable pejorative terms to deal with when talking about this subject (helicopter-etc) AND the situation disproportionally affects disadvantaged demographics (but...y'know, that's why we call them disadvantaged demographics. It's an unearned, broken damage multiplier that needs to be fixed on two+ levels)
But I know folks of all political stripes that agree or disagree on this subject across traditional boundaries. Don't it make you want to hug your brother?
Also, get your kids off my lawn, or I'll report you for negligence.
posted by es_de_bah at 2:35 PM on August 24, 2018 [1 favorite]
This is an entirely apolitical conversation with real value! It's sadly amazing how refreshing that is.
There are plenty of regrettable pejorative terms to deal with when talking about this subject (helicopter-etc) AND the situation disproportionally affects disadvantaged demographics (but...y'know, that's why we call them disadvantaged demographics. It's an unearned, broken damage multiplier that needs to be fixed on two+ levels)
But I know folks of all political stripes that agree or disagree on this subject across traditional boundaries. Don't it make you want to hug your brother?
Also, get your kids off my lawn, or I'll report you for negligence.
posted by es_de_bah at 2:35 PM on August 24, 2018 [1 favorite]
how nice to see someone actually name the upper class, rather than the weaselly "upper middle class
The actual upper class of the USA doesn't send their kids to public schools and their kids' marks largely don't matter. This is very much a middle/upper-middle class phenomenon. The actual upper class is probably the class most divorced from the raising of their children as they can actually afford to hire people to do it for them. Upper-middle class isn't "weaselly", it's the well-to-do middle class who is still very, very much wedded to their job-based incomes and relies heavily on the public education system. The middle class' dependence on winning at the game of education is one of its defining characteristics.
posted by GuyZero at 2:35 PM on August 24, 2018 [12 favorites]
The actual upper class of the USA doesn't send their kids to public schools and their kids' marks largely don't matter. This is very much a middle/upper-middle class phenomenon. The actual upper class is probably the class most divorced from the raising of their children as they can actually afford to hire people to do it for them. Upper-middle class isn't "weaselly", it's the well-to-do middle class who is still very, very much wedded to their job-based incomes and relies heavily on the public education system. The middle class' dependence on winning at the game of education is one of its defining characteristics.
posted by GuyZero at 2:35 PM on August 24, 2018 [12 favorites]
This was a good article, but unfortunately it still doesn't provide an answer to the question: How did we get this way?
People are competitive by nature. We have a society with communications that allow us to see how the upper classes supposedly live, and we worship athletes and singers who have certain talents, and people see that's how their children may "make it" because they are not rich or have a name that will do it for them.
And then they sign up them up for any and all lessons -- drawing, sports, music, you name it, all pinning their hopes on children breakthrough from their middle-class existence as it were some sort of shame to run away from.
And because there are only X amount of slots, most of those coveted places are reserved for the children of the wealthy, and a few break into it who do not have rich parents to back them up.
But if a fraction do get rewarded, it reinforces it. It is a life lottery, and basic behaviourism tells us that if you reward just a little, you have hooked in suckers for life.
No one thinks of the long-term psychological damage this parental hamster wheel creates: parents start to panic and are on a deep level, competing with other parents, and try to outdo the others.
Parents lose their centre of gravity, and use flawed logic of thinking that more is better. They emotionally isolate themselves from their children because you are not bonding together when the child is somewhere else having to learn something a new skill and practice. You are apart during formative years. The child has different priorities drilled into him. He begins to see himself as superior to the parent who doesn't have this training they are obsessed with, so it must be important, and the divide widens on a quiet level.
And all the socializing activities of play and emotional bonding are deemed less important, if at all, and then there is further social isolation.
Then when that instant fame and fortune doesn't come to fruition, there is anger, shock, self-loathing, disappointment, and most of all, burnout because children were not made to go to all those lessons, and then there is depression and the refusing of genuine work at a "regular" job because that is some horrible thing to avoid at all costs, and now what will he neighbours think?
I have seen the horrific cycle as an educator, and the worst of it all is we are losing the next generation of brave innovators and original thinkers because lessons are rote by nature, and you get in trouble when you do not teach by scripts. People never question anything. They never take a step back and wonder who gave them that script or the reasons why.
I have had students who could reproduce Picasso at eight, but have meltdowns and freeze in place when asked to do something original, and have no social skills to get the know the world and developed themselves as human beings who can observe, feel, and express themselves through their work. They never light up when their parents come pick them up, and they never socialize with other students. They also have no future as artists because that kind of rote work can be done with computer software.
If you say something, people throw temper tantrums. Sometimes I think fame was the absolute worst concept people ever created. They always are inspired to be someone else, never themselves. We should stop putting our all of our resources in just a couple of people, and start learning to develop our own sense of style and originality, even if it is not popular with other people.
So, to answer your question: how did we get this way? By the path of fear. People can be horrible cowards. They are terrified that their children are going to be defective; so they try to prop them up and give them scripts so no one would notice.
Please give children credit to develop and mature in their own ways as they learn the stuff of their souls, even in ways you do not understand. It's those eccentric, out-of-left-field thinking that usually brings us the next generation of brilliance. Stop meddling so much.
posted by Alexandra Kitty at 2:41 PM on August 24, 2018 [11 favorites]
People are competitive by nature. We have a society with communications that allow us to see how the upper classes supposedly live, and we worship athletes and singers who have certain talents, and people see that's how their children may "make it" because they are not rich or have a name that will do it for them.
And then they sign up them up for any and all lessons -- drawing, sports, music, you name it, all pinning their hopes on children breakthrough from their middle-class existence as it were some sort of shame to run away from.
And because there are only X amount of slots, most of those coveted places are reserved for the children of the wealthy, and a few break into it who do not have rich parents to back them up.
But if a fraction do get rewarded, it reinforces it. It is a life lottery, and basic behaviourism tells us that if you reward just a little, you have hooked in suckers for life.
No one thinks of the long-term psychological damage this parental hamster wheel creates: parents start to panic and are on a deep level, competing with other parents, and try to outdo the others.
Parents lose their centre of gravity, and use flawed logic of thinking that more is better. They emotionally isolate themselves from their children because you are not bonding together when the child is somewhere else having to learn something a new skill and practice. You are apart during formative years. The child has different priorities drilled into him. He begins to see himself as superior to the parent who doesn't have this training they are obsessed with, so it must be important, and the divide widens on a quiet level.
And all the socializing activities of play and emotional bonding are deemed less important, if at all, and then there is further social isolation.
Then when that instant fame and fortune doesn't come to fruition, there is anger, shock, self-loathing, disappointment, and most of all, burnout because children were not made to go to all those lessons, and then there is depression and the refusing of genuine work at a "regular" job because that is some horrible thing to avoid at all costs, and now what will he neighbours think?
I have seen the horrific cycle as an educator, and the worst of it all is we are losing the next generation of brave innovators and original thinkers because lessons are rote by nature, and you get in trouble when you do not teach by scripts. People never question anything. They never take a step back and wonder who gave them that script or the reasons why.
I have had students who could reproduce Picasso at eight, but have meltdowns and freeze in place when asked to do something original, and have no social skills to get the know the world and developed themselves as human beings who can observe, feel, and express themselves through their work. They never light up when their parents come pick them up, and they never socialize with other students. They also have no future as artists because that kind of rote work can be done with computer software.
If you say something, people throw temper tantrums. Sometimes I think fame was the absolute worst concept people ever created. They always are inspired to be someone else, never themselves. We should stop putting our all of our resources in just a couple of people, and start learning to develop our own sense of style and originality, even if it is not popular with other people.
So, to answer your question: how did we get this way? By the path of fear. People can be horrible cowards. They are terrified that their children are going to be defective; so they try to prop them up and give them scripts so no one would notice.
Please give children credit to develop and mature in their own ways as they learn the stuff of their souls, even in ways you do not understand. It's those eccentric, out-of-left-field thinking that usually brings us the next generation of brilliance. Stop meddling so much.
posted by Alexandra Kitty at 2:41 PM on August 24, 2018 [11 favorites]
I think that on a sub-conscious level (and regardless of political leanings) parents see that things are falling apart and know that if their kids don't make it into the top 5%(?) of society, they're fucked.
heck even in my late-millennial childhood peer group* it is BLINDINGLY clear that the folks whose parents threw resources and pressure at them in equal measure are the ones who were most able to navigate adulthood in late capitalist society and arrive at high levels of prosperity. The rest of us, even given our substantial advantages, struggle much, much more.
It might be misery-making and unfulfilling for parents to parent this way, but it is in no way stupid.
*same schools, K-12; all graduates of top tier colleges; mostly white, straight, cisgender--the main variance in our experiences was our parents' socioeconomic status and attitudes.
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 2:48 PM on August 24, 2018 [11 favorites]
heck even in my late-millennial childhood peer group* it is BLINDINGLY clear that the folks whose parents threw resources and pressure at them in equal measure are the ones who were most able to navigate adulthood in late capitalist society and arrive at high levels of prosperity. The rest of us, even given our substantial advantages, struggle much, much more.
It might be misery-making and unfulfilling for parents to parent this way, but it is in no way stupid.
*same schools, K-12; all graduates of top tier colleges; mostly white, straight, cisgender--the main variance in our experiences was our parents' socioeconomic status and attitudes.
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 2:48 PM on August 24, 2018 [11 favorites]
I think parents fear for their own happiness.
I wonder to what degree that's cultural as well; my parents (and they may be psychotic) have explicitly told me on more than one occasion that if I have to choose between them dying (the specific version is starving to death) and me being "happy" that I should let them die and not to feel bad about it.
...and every time I'm just so puzzled that this is something they feel they need to tell me, like they're afraid I won't believe them until it's "too late" whatever that could possibly mean.
It's like, uh, guys, you're not a disposable booster stage rocket! I'm in orbit already, it's fine, we're all fine!
(I'm not actually in orbit, alas, but for the metaphor I'll carry through)
posted by aramaic at 4:04 PM on August 24, 2018 [3 favorites]
I wonder to what degree that's cultural as well; my parents (and they may be psychotic) have explicitly told me on more than one occasion that if I have to choose between them dying (the specific version is starving to death) and me being "happy" that I should let them die and not to feel bad about it.
...and every time I'm just so puzzled that this is something they feel they need to tell me, like they're afraid I won't believe them until it's "too late" whatever that could possibly mean.
It's like, uh, guys, you're not a disposable booster stage rocket! I'm in orbit already, it's fine, we're all fine!
(I'm not actually in orbit, alas, but for the metaphor I'll carry through)
posted by aramaic at 4:04 PM on August 24, 2018 [3 favorites]
Oh, helicopter parenting is definitely a phenomenon specific to certain socioeconomic groups. I always think it's worthwhile keeping that in mind
Indeed, and I feel like this piece misses a trick because as a phenomenon, this has actually been studied a reasonable amount by sociologists since at least the fifties.
Robert Sapolsky talks about some of this research in his magisterial book, Behave. It is a class phenomenon, and he cites a study that examined parental language around children, and parenting style.
Upper class parent language and aspiration was focused around self-expression and the realisation of it. As a cohort, these were also the most permissive parents. Lower/lowest class parents were the least permissive, the most likely to be violent, and language was essentially built around keeping your head down and not attracting attention - because the attention would almost always be bad (parents essentially mirrored the attitude society has towards them, towards their kids).
Hovering between these two extremes were the top tier of working class, and the lowest/newest tier of middle class. This is the group the piece is mentioning above in many respects. Privilege is new or tantalisingly close to these cohorts, there's a sense of precarity and that new found stability must be maintained through very hard work and focus.
So:
a) this phenomenon is not new, it has been ongoing since the fifties, and probably much earlier
b) I suspect as inequality has skyrocketed, esp in the US, that sense of precarity has expanded, especially as many middle class families find themselves sliding backwards/barely clinging on.
c) When viewed from this perspective it's wholly understandable, even rational...
It's a great book, I recommend it.
posted by smoke at 5:36 PM on August 24, 2018 [11 favorites]
Indeed, and I feel like this piece misses a trick because as a phenomenon, this has actually been studied a reasonable amount by sociologists since at least the fifties.
Robert Sapolsky talks about some of this research in his magisterial book, Behave. It is a class phenomenon, and he cites a study that examined parental language around children, and parenting style.
Upper class parent language and aspiration was focused around self-expression and the realisation of it. As a cohort, these were also the most permissive parents. Lower/lowest class parents were the least permissive, the most likely to be violent, and language was essentially built around keeping your head down and not attracting attention - because the attention would almost always be bad (parents essentially mirrored the attitude society has towards them, towards their kids).
Hovering between these two extremes were the top tier of working class, and the lowest/newest tier of middle class. This is the group the piece is mentioning above in many respects. Privilege is new or tantalisingly close to these cohorts, there's a sense of precarity and that new found stability must be maintained through very hard work and focus.
So:
a) this phenomenon is not new, it has been ongoing since the fifties, and probably much earlier
b) I suspect as inequality has skyrocketed, esp in the US, that sense of precarity has expanded, especially as many middle class families find themselves sliding backwards/barely clinging on.
c) When viewed from this perspective it's wholly understandable, even rational...
It's a great book, I recommend it.
posted by smoke at 5:36 PM on August 24, 2018 [11 favorites]
We also have, at least here in Manhattan, a bunch of women who were educated for ambitious jobs outside the home, but found themselves pressured in various ways into staying home with the kids medium-to-long-term and into pretending that they totally wanted to use their law jobs to change diapers and wipe up juice spills.
oh hey it's my childhood and my dad's!
I honestly think we do a lot of damage to children in the way that we pressure women to be primary caretakers and tie ambition to be incompatible with family while simultaneously encouraging women to prioritize children above literally all else. I'm lucky enough (?) that I didn't break, but I can certainly relate to children being expected to be avatars of a frustrated parent's ambition, and I see this around me in some of the academics I know.
Education isn't the issue, because ambitious people will always want and will always angle themselves towards whatever social prestige and power is available to them. Like I said, my grandmother also fits this mold, and when she was growing up the education wasn't available--so she channeled her ambition into military wives' parties and political organizing, probably at the expense of her kids. You wind up with these smart, talented, driven women who want to be doing something that matters, that other people will recognize them for, and they feel like the only thing they can do is be a Good Mom because their careers keep getting sabotaged in favor of a male partner's or by the demands of early childhood and pregnancy fucking over their career trajectory, so the only way to get that kind of acclaim is clearly to have the Best Kids. Parenting on its own certainly isn't going to do it.
So they push their kids and they try to optimize them and the kids suffer. It's better to just... let women do what they are good at, not frustrate ambition, and encourage women to do the thing that makes them happy instead of whatever thing "society" wants them to do. Children whose parents have interests and hobbies and fulfillment outside the child are children who aren't nearly as pressured in this way.
posted by sciatrix at 5:37 PM on August 24, 2018 [10 favorites]
oh hey it's my childhood and my dad's!
I honestly think we do a lot of damage to children in the way that we pressure women to be primary caretakers and tie ambition to be incompatible with family while simultaneously encouraging women to prioritize children above literally all else. I'm lucky enough (?) that I didn't break, but I can certainly relate to children being expected to be avatars of a frustrated parent's ambition, and I see this around me in some of the academics I know.
Education isn't the issue, because ambitious people will always want and will always angle themselves towards whatever social prestige and power is available to them. Like I said, my grandmother also fits this mold, and when she was growing up the education wasn't available--so she channeled her ambition into military wives' parties and political organizing, probably at the expense of her kids. You wind up with these smart, talented, driven women who want to be doing something that matters, that other people will recognize them for, and they feel like the only thing they can do is be a Good Mom because their careers keep getting sabotaged in favor of a male partner's or by the demands of early childhood and pregnancy fucking over their career trajectory, so the only way to get that kind of acclaim is clearly to have the Best Kids. Parenting on its own certainly isn't going to do it.
So they push their kids and they try to optimize them and the kids suffer. It's better to just... let women do what they are good at, not frustrate ambition, and encourage women to do the thing that makes them happy instead of whatever thing "society" wants them to do. Children whose parents have interests and hobbies and fulfillment outside the child are children who aren't nearly as pressured in this way.
posted by sciatrix at 5:37 PM on August 24, 2018 [10 favorites]
Children whose parents have interests and hobbies and fulfillment outside the child are children who aren't nearly as pressured in this way.
a friend of mine's dad (long dead now) once said, "There would be a lot less trouble in this world if people just had hobbies."
posted by philip-random at 8:09 PM on August 24, 2018 [2 favorites]
a friend of mine's dad (long dead now) once said, "There would be a lot less trouble in this world if people just had hobbies."
posted by philip-random at 8:09 PM on August 24, 2018 [2 favorites]
My co-worker was chatting with me a few months ago about how his daughter is going to school now and so his wife wanted her to get started on piano lessons. He was reluctant. He wanted his daughter to have more time to play, and also buying a keyboard for her to practice on was fucking expensive.
I thought for a moment. “Why not persuade your wife that your daughter should take singing lessons instead? Amateur singing is still charming whereas amateur piano is just painful. Also, no instrument to buy.”
“Hey, that might work.”
A couple of weeks later we were chatting again and he said “Hey, remember my daughter was going to take piano lessons and you suggested we switch to singing lessons instead? I discussed it with my wife.”
“And?”
“We compromised. She’ll do both now.”
posted by um at 9:28 PM on August 24, 2018 [16 favorites]
I thought for a moment. “Why not persuade your wife that your daughter should take singing lessons instead? Amateur singing is still charming whereas amateur piano is just painful. Also, no instrument to buy.”
“Hey, that might work.”
A couple of weeks later we were chatting again and he said “Hey, remember my daughter was going to take piano lessons and you suggested we switch to singing lessons instead? I discussed it with my wife.”
“And?”
“We compromised. She’ll do both now.”
posted by um at 9:28 PM on August 24, 2018 [16 favorites]
Upper-middle class isn't "weaselly" - it often is. You'll see it used in news media and in people's self-description, because "upper class" is a term we've forgotten to use since the 1930s.
Yes, there's a clear difference between different strata within the top 10% and even the 1%. Some behave as the elite you describe.
Perhaps my aside derailed discussion of the linked article.
posted by doctornemo at 6:27 AM on August 25, 2018
Yes, there's a clear difference between different strata within the top 10% and even the 1%. Some behave as the elite you describe.
Perhaps my aside derailed discussion of the linked article.
posted by doctornemo at 6:27 AM on August 25, 2018
Loved this quote FTA: “Pled guilty to “contributing to the delinquency of a minor” (most commonly associated with buying alcohol for teenagers), Brooks is sentenced to domesticity.”
When it comes to competitiveness, I haven’t seen anyone bring up the decreasing family size as an explanation, but I think it must play a role. We have all our baskets in one egg, so to speak.
I resemble this article, I guess, in that I send my kid to private school. I don’t feel like I’m trying to groom her for an Ivy, I just want her to be happy and to learn stuff I don’t feel confident she’d learn at the local public. I also have her in piano lessons (because she asked to do it) and in swim lessons (because we live a short — and, um, currently decreasing — distance from a river).
We did let her play at the playground across the street from our house solo, twice. The second time I saw an older, slightly larger boy forcing her to kiss him. We won’t be repeating that for a while. Maybe we need to teach her how to land a good punch first.
posted by eirias at 9:08 AM on August 25, 2018 [4 favorites]
When it comes to competitiveness, I haven’t seen anyone bring up the decreasing family size as an explanation, but I think it must play a role. We have all our baskets in one egg, so to speak.
I resemble this article, I guess, in that I send my kid to private school. I don’t feel like I’m trying to groom her for an Ivy, I just want her to be happy and to learn stuff I don’t feel confident she’d learn at the local public. I also have her in piano lessons (because she asked to do it) and in swim lessons (because we live a short — and, um, currently decreasing — distance from a river).
We did let her play at the playground across the street from our house solo, twice. The second time I saw an older, slightly larger boy forcing her to kiss him. We won’t be repeating that for a while. Maybe we need to teach her how to land a good punch first.
posted by eirias at 9:08 AM on August 25, 2018 [4 favorites]
We homeschooled our eldest, back in the 1990s.
The reason was that the area (northern Louisiana) had horrendous public schools, with no openings in the one regional magnet school. Local religious schools seemed to be about indoctrination rather than academics, and the one non-religious private school cost about as much as my professor's salary.
So we homeschooled, and managed to do it through a few advantages. Between my wife and I we had some spare cycles. We had significant education, and I was a teacher. And thanks to our anarchist background, we were ready to collaborate with other homeschoolers in the area. (That was really interesting. Some were hard-core fundamentalists who pulled their kids out of school from fear of secular humanists. As secular humanists, we were nonetheless able to find common ground on some curricula (math, for example; not biology, nor religion) and field trips.)
We were also able to try out more of our anarchist, constructivist, learner-driven pedagogy, Our daughter dove into some topics out of curiosity and learned rapidly.
This cost us in several ways. One was the dismay or even fury of many friends and colleagues in the K-12 world, Saying the word "homeschooling" also raised suspicion among some folks, who expected us to be creationists as a result. It also cost us a lot of time, which became lost income, a problem which stressed our family for years afterwards, given the challenges of living on one untenured English prof's compensation. Homeschooling helped mark us as lower or lower middle class, economically, if not in terms of education. It showed we couldn't afford a private school.
And yet. The girl (now a young woman) didn't receive a lot of training in obedience to authority. So as she grew she always had a... skeptical attitude towards those in charge. I think she's about to organize a union. That's a parenting win, at least for us.
posted by doctornemo at 10:27 AM on August 25, 2018 [11 favorites]
The reason was that the area (northern Louisiana) had horrendous public schools, with no openings in the one regional magnet school. Local religious schools seemed to be about indoctrination rather than academics, and the one non-religious private school cost about as much as my professor's salary.
So we homeschooled, and managed to do it through a few advantages. Between my wife and I we had some spare cycles. We had significant education, and I was a teacher. And thanks to our anarchist background, we were ready to collaborate with other homeschoolers in the area. (That was really interesting. Some were hard-core fundamentalists who pulled their kids out of school from fear of secular humanists. As secular humanists, we were nonetheless able to find common ground on some curricula (math, for example; not biology, nor religion) and field trips.)
We were also able to try out more of our anarchist, constructivist, learner-driven pedagogy, Our daughter dove into some topics out of curiosity and learned rapidly.
This cost us in several ways. One was the dismay or even fury of many friends and colleagues in the K-12 world, Saying the word "homeschooling" also raised suspicion among some folks, who expected us to be creationists as a result. It also cost us a lot of time, which became lost income, a problem which stressed our family for years afterwards, given the challenges of living on one untenured English prof's compensation. Homeschooling helped mark us as lower or lower middle class, economically, if not in terms of education. It showed we couldn't afford a private school.
And yet. The girl (now a young woman) didn't receive a lot of training in obedience to authority. So as she grew she always had a... skeptical attitude towards those in charge. I think she's about to organize a union. That's a parenting win, at least for us.
posted by doctornemo at 10:27 AM on August 25, 2018 [11 favorites]
I recently had a conversation with my mother about my high school and why she and her husband selected our school system. "Your school offered International Baccalaureate classes!"
"Yes," I replied, "and in my class one student, Name withheld to preserve anonymity, completed enough courses to achieve that level of scholarship."
"I don't remember him," she said.
"Of course not," I replied, "He didn't do any non-academic activities. No Boy-Scouts, no choir, no theater, no church, no debate club, no nothing other than a grueling study program to achieve a BA degree during high school."
She didn't understand, and still holds it against me that I didn't complete a course of study that wasn't even well defined or available to a student who didn't dedicate their lives to said program to this day 25 years later.
I knew kids who rushed through the boy scouts to Eagle scout just to tick one more notch on their extra-curricular activities checklist, only to discover that they were still not good enough for the military academy appointment they expected, and 4.0 students who weren't accepted at the ivy league colleges they had assumed they would be a shoo-in for.
Now, if you don't play the game, you can't win no matter much the game is rigged. But that doesn't make it mandatory to play the game. Sadly, not playing the game has now resulted in an entire class of people who are now excluded from what is defined as living "the American Dream" and who are expected to never even try to achieve a station above their origins.
posted by Blackanvil at 11:41 PM on August 25, 2018
"Yes," I replied, "and in my class one student, Name withheld to preserve anonymity, completed enough courses to achieve that level of scholarship."
"I don't remember him," she said.
"Of course not," I replied, "He didn't do any non-academic activities. No Boy-Scouts, no choir, no theater, no church, no debate club, no nothing other than a grueling study program to achieve a BA degree during high school."
She didn't understand, and still holds it against me that I didn't complete a course of study that wasn't even well defined or available to a student who didn't dedicate their lives to said program to this day 25 years later.
I knew kids who rushed through the boy scouts to Eagle scout just to tick one more notch on their extra-curricular activities checklist, only to discover that they were still not good enough for the military academy appointment they expected, and 4.0 students who weren't accepted at the ivy league colleges they had assumed they would be a shoo-in for.
Now, if you don't play the game, you can't win no matter much the game is rigged. But that doesn't make it mandatory to play the game. Sadly, not playing the game has now resulted in an entire class of people who are now excluded from what is defined as living "the American Dream" and who are expected to never even try to achieve a station above their origins.
posted by Blackanvil at 11:41 PM on August 25, 2018
We have a bright kid. He's always tested well, which means the school district tends to push him towards things which improve the district and school scores, more than they seem to care about what he would rather be doing. The district focus on getting into college has been relentless since the 3rd grade. For all kids, not just mine. Pretty much all vocational type classes have been eliminated in favor of college prep and AP.
When my son started high school last year, they put him in 5 AP classes. FIVE! I objected to him, I objected to the school, I tried to explain to him that there was no way he could do 5 AP classes and 2 extracurricular activities, and still have time to eat and sleep. It was a ridiculous ask for a 14 year old. Unbeknownst to me at the time, his school counselor was putting all this pressure on him to take these classes, because "he was too smart to waste his time in regular classes".
Readers, it was a disaster. I mean, I have been to graduate school, and I would have been hard pressed to do this course load. Hell, I didn't even understand what some of his teachers were asking for, in a topic that was my major.
At some point, the workload was so heavy that he would have had to put in 16 hour days to do it all. He gets on the bus at 8, and gets home at 5, and still had at least 5 hours of homework a day. It was insane. And eventually he just stopped. I mean, literally, just stopped. He quit doing anything, and just gave the fuck up. He almost failed the 9th grade.
It took family counseling for us to get him to understand that we didn't expect this level of performance from him. High school sucks enough as it is, we didn't want to make it more hellish. If an AP class interests him, by all means, we will support that, but if he wants to take Introduction to Frisbee Golf, we will support that too. Life is too short to spend your teenage years working like a salaryman.
This year, he's not taking any AP classes, but has time for extracurriculars he wanted to do, and has so far seemed way less stressed and anxious about going to school.
That has not stopped guidance counselors and other parents (mothers) from tsking and shaking their heads that I'm not forcing him onto a hamster wheel.
posted by SecretAgentSockpuppet at 9:54 AM on August 26, 2018 [10 favorites]
When my son started high school last year, they put him in 5 AP classes. FIVE! I objected to him, I objected to the school, I tried to explain to him that there was no way he could do 5 AP classes and 2 extracurricular activities, and still have time to eat and sleep. It was a ridiculous ask for a 14 year old. Unbeknownst to me at the time, his school counselor was putting all this pressure on him to take these classes, because "he was too smart to waste his time in regular classes".
Readers, it was a disaster. I mean, I have been to graduate school, and I would have been hard pressed to do this course load. Hell, I didn't even understand what some of his teachers were asking for, in a topic that was my major.
At some point, the workload was so heavy that he would have had to put in 16 hour days to do it all. He gets on the bus at 8, and gets home at 5, and still had at least 5 hours of homework a day. It was insane. And eventually he just stopped. I mean, literally, just stopped. He quit doing anything, and just gave the fuck up. He almost failed the 9th grade.
It took family counseling for us to get him to understand that we didn't expect this level of performance from him. High school sucks enough as it is, we didn't want to make it more hellish. If an AP class interests him, by all means, we will support that, but if he wants to take Introduction to Frisbee Golf, we will support that too. Life is too short to spend your teenage years working like a salaryman.
This year, he's not taking any AP classes, but has time for extracurriculars he wanted to do, and has so far seemed way less stressed and anxious about going to school.
That has not stopped guidance counselors and other parents (mothers) from tsking and shaking their heads that I'm not forcing him onto a hamster wheel.
posted by SecretAgentSockpuppet at 9:54 AM on August 26, 2018 [10 favorites]
"We just want you to be happy", they said. But, in the neighborhood and school I grew up in, how well do you think it would have gone over if you had come home and announced that going into the Marine Corps, instead of college, was what would Make You Happy?
posted by thelonius at 10:10 AM on August 26, 2018 [2 favorites]
posted by thelonius at 10:10 AM on August 26, 2018 [2 favorites]
I don't remember AP classes as having more homework, just as being less boring. I wish I'd taken more. It's all a question of finding the right fit, I guess. (I didn't take any in 9th grade!)
posted by floppyroofing at 1:21 PM on August 26, 2018 [1 favorite]
posted by floppyroofing at 1:21 PM on August 26, 2018 [1 favorite]
I feel like even in this thread there's competitiveness among parents, or at least, defensiveness. To show why what they did/are doing is right (in the context of this thread, less helicoptering), their kids are successful, by their measure, etc.
I'm not a parent but I hear it among my friends who are, as well. Everything needs to be justified as to why it's actually best for their child, using whatever resources and evidence and data can be mustered. They tell me, me who isn't a parent, and doesn't have anything to compare with them. They have eagle eyes on the other kids in their orbit, to compare and distinguish.
posted by Salamandrous at 11:53 AM on August 31, 2018
I'm not a parent but I hear it among my friends who are, as well. Everything needs to be justified as to why it's actually best for their child, using whatever resources and evidence and data can be mustered. They tell me, me who isn't a parent, and doesn't have anything to compare with them. They have eagle eyes on the other kids in their orbit, to compare and distinguish.
posted by Salamandrous at 11:53 AM on August 31, 2018
« Older A Regular Expressions Sandbox | 10,000 pages of Yukon Indigenous language material... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by eustacescrubb at 9:52 AM on August 24, 2018 [3 favorites]