Parenting Spoiled Children (article)

[Catwoman]

I did once see a BMW with a "student driver" sticker on it. My guess is they were here from Hunt's Point or Medina or something, slumming to play or watch a soccer game. I nearly spit out my coffee.

 

I only saw that once.

Why would that be a big deal? :confused: We see young drivers in luxury cars all the time. Often, when a kid is still a student driver, he is driving one of the family cars until he gets his permanent license. And even after kids get their licenses, many parents buy them expensive cars or give them cars that are a few years old and buy new ones for themselves.

 

I'm not at all surprised by a student driver in a BMW. What surprises me is that you have only seen it once. Maybe it's a regional thing or something.

[albeto.]

I quit reading in the very beginning. I'm tired of hearing over and over that I can't be a friend and a parent to my dds. It's not true. 

 

Me too. This idea that "good" parents are "mean" parents speaks more to how our society values and treats children than children themselves. Can you imagine if I said, "I'm such a mean wife, lol! He learned how to be a convenient member of my life early on, if you know what I mean!"

[SKL]

I agree with the "who is we" question.

 

I will say my kids are pretty indulged and have pretty limited responsibilities.  But they are 8.  When I was their age, I was just beginning to have "responsibilities," and they weren't very serious.  I grew up into a reasonably productive adult, and I see no reason why my kids won't do the same.

 

Some of the most hardworking, successful adults I know were very indulged as kids.  There are whole communities of indulged kids who grow up to be successful by popular measures.  How can that be?

[Runningmom80]

.

[DawnM]

Wow!  I can't even imagine.

 

When my FIL died almost 10 years ago, DH's brother and family came for the funeral.  Their son was about 8 years old.  At the funeral my boys were very quiet and still.  Their son was too.  Dh's sister's kids were not, so it was noticeable that our kids were well behaved.

 

After the funeral, the brother's wife came over to me and commented. She said, "Your boys were so well behaved and quiet, what is your secret?"  I said, "What?  So was your child."  She looked at me and said, "Yeah, that is because we paid him $10."

 

:ohmy:  :ohmy:  :svengo:  :svengo:

 

I asked, "WHAT????"

 

She said, "Yeah, R said he would pay (son) $5 to be quiet and shut up during the funeral and (son) said, make it $10 and I will."  So we agreed to $10.

 

I was in complete shock.

 

I told her that before the funeral, I told my boys (ages about 3, 7, and 9 then) that going to a funeral was like going to church.  We show our respect to God by being attentive and quiet during church services.  That is how we will show our respect to Grandpa, we will sit and listen and not make noises during the service."

[Halcyon]

This article is bizarre and annoying to me. 

 

My ds12 (almost 13) wants a new computer for school next year (he's tired of borrowing my chromebook, and so am I). I said I would split the cost of a chromebook with him--mine cost 200 and i think it's great. He said he wanted a refurbished Apple laptop (my husband is a huge Apple groupie). So he researched and found the approximate cost of the one he wanted (about $700). 

 

I said "How are you going to pay for that?" We decided there were certain "extra" chores around the house (above and beyond his regular chores of laundry, garbage, recycling, watering, feeding dogs) that nobody liked doing and that he would get paid anywhere from $2 to $5 for doing them. I also said I have work at my office, filing papers, scanning and such, that I needed help with (he's a really big help actually!!). Okay, so there's another source of income. DH Is also self-employed and has work for him. 

 

He has been "working" at earning this money for 4 months now. He is about 1/2 way there. He plans to have the money by September--that's his goal anyway. DH and I are considering throwing in $100 for his birthday gift, which is on July 20th but we haven't decided on that yet.

 

When DS12 took an AOPS course recently, he wanted to receive a grade from the school. I told him to be prepared for a low B or maybe even a C. I said "you worked extremely hard and I am proud of you, but this is a very challenging class and a low B is a good grade." He ended up getting an  A (hmmmmm....maybe I am a little too hard on him?) and was thrilled. It was all him.

 

 

My point is this: I want to raise ADULTS not children. I want my children to take responsibility for their choices. be they good or bad. OWN your choices. Figure out what kind of person you want to be, and then be that person. Do you want to be a whiny spoiled brat? Have fun (both my kids know kids like this and really don't like them). Do you want to be a caring, responsible adult? That takes work, effort and looking outside your little bubble, and I think they understand that. 

 

 

[Runningmom80]

Wow, I didn't expect to get such emotionally charged responses.  DH and I thought it had some good food for thought.  We don't pay our kids to play sports, or most of the things that the author talks about, but we still found things to take away and reflect on.  We are pretty minimalist anyways, so we don't have a ton of toys or superfluous stuff, but we don't require any chores, and haven't been volunteering, both of which we wish to change soon. A lot of her  examples seemed extreme, but that's the case in most of these parenting opinion pieces now a days. 

 

I think it's funny that I had more than 5 friends on Facebook sharing this, to a chorus of agreeable comments, and on here almost everyone is appalled. It illustrates the disconnect I often feel posting on the chat board. :lol:

[Lady Florida.]

I didn't read the whole thing, and I agree with "who is this we?". I also hate the term spoiled when referring to human beings. Meat spoils. Vegetables and fruit spoil. Spoiled implies no good. Ever. Throw it out; it's spoiled. Children do not get "spoiled".

[Runningmom80]

I don't understand the point of commenting if you didn't read the whole article.  I'm not trying to be snarky, but what can you really add to the discussion?

[Lady Florida.]

I don't understand the point of commenting if you didn't read the whole article.  I'm not trying to be snarky, but what can you really add to the discussion?

 

I wasn't the first person to say I didn't read the whole thing, and yet I seem to be the one taken to task for it. Perhaps it was just the timing after I posted.

 

Like many people, I'm able to skim an article and understand what the author is trying to convey. Also, most people are capable of reading an ongoing discussion, understanding the gist of it, and jumping in. What I or anyone else adds to the discussion is relative. 

[Runningmom80]

I was speaking to the others who said that as well. I didn't mean to single you out, which is why I didn't quote you.

[SparklyUnicorn]

I didn't make it through the entire thing because I was so annoyed with it. 

[Tsuga]

Why would that be a big deal? :confused: We see young drivers in luxury cars all the time. Often, when a kid is still a student driver, he is driving one of the family cars until he gets his permanent license. And even after kids get their licenses, many parents buy them expensive cars or give them cars that are a few years old and buy new ones for themselves.

 

I'm not at all surprised by a student driver in a BMW. What surprises me is that you have only seen it once. Maybe it's a regional thing or something.

 

Who would give a child a luxury car??? Even a used one? Trade it in! Gyah!

 

I live in a high income area, but we live adjacent to one of the highest income zip codes in the United States. Most teens around here, if they are given a car, are given a Honda to scratch up and wreck if need be. Sometimes, you can see that teens have been given a hand-me-down Subaru or Volvo.

 

You can tell who buys their own cars because they are truly crappy. 

 

I am amazed that you see young drivers in BMWs all the time. I mean, I see relatively young drivers, but that just means, younger than me. I could see if you went straight to work at Google and didn't yet have a family, you'd buy a BMW or a Benz or something, sure. You're young, have your fun. I rarely see 30-something men and women in those cars, and rarely see teens in them.

 

That said, you've given me food for thought. Maybe it was a teen getting a driving lesson in our nice, slow area with lots of parking lots. That makes sense and gives me hope.

 

Also--I have owned where I live. I live in Seattle's Eastside. It is a nice area, a high COL area. We live in a cheap rental and we aren't the only ones, but also, having put it together in the past year we are not doing too bad, except for recession debt related to not having been rich, that is making my life miserable. I feel like... where the heck are people living, that they are seeing teenagers in BMWs all the time? That is crazy. I mean you might see one in your high school, but that's not even the richest kid. So where is this happening? Is it all happening in New York? Because I read a lot of nutty stuff in the New York Times about people's weird relationships with their children. So please, tell me, where do you live where this is happening? I'm not asking for specifics, just, metro area. We need to know which metro area is having this problem so we can figure out who the "we" in this article is!

[SparklyUnicorn]

If you have plenty of money, a luxury car expense wise is not a big deal.  I'm not saying "I" have that kind of money, but as a comparison there are people who would probably not understand why a parent should buy a kid a car at all.  That the kid should earn it and buy it himself. 

 

Even the whole thing about "too many toys".  What constitutes too many toys?  Pretty subjective I'd say.  My kids have plenty of toys.  They don't act demanding and "bratty". 

[SparklyUnicorn]

It didn't come to that, but I seriously considered bribing my older kid to stick with his drama class another year.  I didn't consider it bribing, but more like giving him one more incentive because I felt him sticking with it was important.  Not because I dream of him becoming an actor, but because he has no other outside activities he has done so well with.  I feel it's good for his mental health to have this outlet.  But he struggles for a variety of reasons I'm not getting into.  He decided on his own to continue, thankfully, but I was prepared to offer the incentive if needed.  My point being you often have no real idea why a parent is doing what they are doing. 

[HomeAgain]

I think sometimes we lose sight of the end goal.

 

The end goal is competent adults with various qualities and virtues, right?  Intentional parenting keeps those goals in mind.  I do not see Prince George growing up a brat because he has many things and opportunities.  His parents seem to be intentionally focusing on teaching, guiding, and expecting.

It's when we lose sight and start focusing in the right now "how can I make this happen RIGHT NOW?" we give in to our own weaknesses and desire for instant gratification, and forget that good things take time.  That lack of discipline of a parent will never benefit a child.  I'd agree it doesn't mean "spoiled", but it does mean a loss of values being transferred over from teacher to student...er, parent to child. ;)

[SparklyUnicorn]

When you see top athletes at the Olympics, I'm reasonably guessing their parents have sacrificed A LOT to get them there.  It's not just about the kid working hard and having natural talent.  There was a lot of money involved.  I imagine that often there are a lot of moments involved where they want to throw in the towel and the parent may try to find a way to encourage them to stick it out.  I imagine it is a rare person who never struggles with wanting to give up.  Some people would not consider that kind of family struggle and sacrifice appropriate and fair to the family.  But if that kind of sacrifice didn't happen or exist I imagine the Olympics would not exist as we know it.  People seem to gloss over these details.  

 

 

[Library Momma]

I have only known one family that bribed their child in this manner.  She was a girl on my daughter's competitive level soccer team.  The parents told her that they would pay her $100 for every goal and she did score a few goals throughout the season.  In order to score those goals she never passed the ball to her teammates when she should have, took crazy shots, and at times would steal the ball from her own players.  Guess who didn't make the team the following year.

[hepatica]

I actually found the article quite interesting and not so far off base as the comments here would suggest. Perhaps it is a reflection of a particular culture of affluence. As a boarding school faculty family we are like middle class aliens set down in the middle of a very privileged area. I see these sorts of behaviors and problems all the time!!! It's good that so many here are raising their children differently, but it doesn't really surprise me that homeschooling families are defying a growing cultural norm. When you and your kids are in the middle of a culture where all the kids have iPhones and the tooth fairy pays $10 a tooth, and everyone is fully scheduled and vacation weeks are spent abroad, it is really challenging to remember what reasonable looks like. 

 

I do think some of the good points of the article have been missed in this discussion. Culturally, "we" have become much more child focused than previous generations. Not too many generations ago, children were an economic necessity for a family. They helped the family survive. That is no longer the case in much of the affluent world (using affluent in the world-wide sense here). Kids don't serve a purpose such as family survival, so their actualization has become a purpose in and of itself (I have to admit I often worry that my own homeschooling falls into this category). We expend tremendous amounts of time and resources raising our children - way more than has ever been the case in recorded human history (at least as far as I am aware, I'm sure someone will correct me if that is wrong). And, I think, that huge investment really does change the parent/child relationship. I don't know that the author of the article got it all right, but I think she is pondering something that is real.

[shawthorne44]

I know many people like that.  Many people.  In fact, even before kids I always said I would never send my kids to the local schools.  Which shocked people because the local school district is supposed to be premier.  I actually think that the fact that I pass a tutoring center before I pass a grocery store on each of the four ways away from my house has more to do with it.  But, it is the spoiled kids that I wouldn't want my child exposed to.  My house is in a starter home neighborhood.  I know some neighbors that bought a brand-new Lincoln Navigator for their kid to drive to school while they drove a 10+ year old Nissan.  At the local school you are pond-scum if you don't drive a fancy new car and designer clothes.   Kids certainly don't do chores.  

 

I try hard to not provide too much.   Since we might not be done with kids I haven't sold or gotten rid of any of DD's stuff.  I've been taping up the boxes and going through them since we suspect her birth certificate is in one of them.  I am shocked at the number of boxes of her old stuff.  

[albeto.]

Wow, I didn't expect to get such emotionally charged responses.  DH and I thought it had some good food for thought.  We don't pay our kids to play sports, or most of the things that the author talks about, but we still found things to take away and reflect on.  We are pretty minimalist anyways, so we don't have a ton of toys or superfluous stuff, but we don't require any chores, and haven't been volunteering, both of which we wish to change soon. A lot of her  examples seemed extreme, but that's the case in most of these parenting opinion pieces now a days. 

 

I think it's funny that I had more than 5 friends on Facebook sharing this, to a chorus of agreeable comments, and on here almost everyone is appalled. It illustrates the disconnect I often feel posting on the chat board. :lol:

 

I think the lack of agreeable only comments is a reflection of a couple different things. For one, we're a community that has home education in common, and virtually everything else is up for grabs. Most people tend to select and keep facebook friends based on a number of similarities. Perhaps you wouldn't have a radical unschooling anti-theist as a facebook friend, but here I am. You're linking an article that suggests what I'm doing is "part of the problem." You're wondering why I don't agree that my kids are ruining our Once Great Nation. One doesn't have to be a radical unschooling anti-theist to disagree with the premise of the article, or to note the poor cherry-picking examples and self-egomasturbatory tone of the piece. If you watch South Park, perhaps you'll recognize the reference of the stench of SMUG to which I am referring (**sniiiiiiff**). 

 

But it's not just the obnoxious tone, it's the argument itself. If this article were presented in a more neutral tone, if it weren't so adamant about trying to make some parents feel guilty and others feel self-congratulatory, I maintain the argument itself is flawed. She's not suggesting there's a problem with spoiling children, she's suggesting spoiling is the new spanking. It's just What You Do When You Parent (with the exception of her and her audience who know better of course). That's patently untrue, and shows a remarkable level of ignorance and apathy for kids all over the US, both what they face and what they do.

 

Ultimately, she's relying on a No True Scotsman argument for her identity of "Good Kids." This is part of the moralizing to which I object. Labeling kids as "good" or "bad" is a subtle but insidious means by which society identifies them as convenient or inconvenient, and then puts a moral value on that. That's terrible. I object to that wholeheartedly. I'll note that this fits in with Sparkly's question about kids being encouraged to be unique and chase dreams when they're young, but by the time adulthood sets in, these characteristics are considered undesirable. But anyway, she's arguing that good kids don't get spoiled. She's clearly ignoring kids who are otherwise spoiled (an undefined and therefore useless term) but go on to do great things for their community. She's clearly ignoring kids who are otherwise never spoiled but never learn the social skills of cooperation with people outside one's close, trusted group. She's pointing the finger of blame, and she's doing so in a very vague way that allows the goalposts to be moved in accordance to subjective opinion. That's not insightful, it's just egotistical. Oh the irony. 

[hepatica]

 

 

But it's not just the obnoxious tone, it's the argument itself. If this article were presented in a more neutral tone, if it weren't so adamant about trying to make some parents feel guilty and others feel self-congratulatory, I maintain the argument itself is flawed. She's not suggesting there's a problem with spoiling children, she's suggesting spoiling is the new spanking. It's just What You Do When You Parent (with the exception of her and her audience who know better of course). That's patently untrue, and shows a remarkable level of ignorance and apathy for kids all over the US, both what they face and what they do.

 

 

 

It's funny how the article can come across so differently to different people. I did not get the "self-congratulatory" tone. In fact, it seemed the WTM responses were way more self-congratulatory than the article. Rather, I thought she was including herself and her peers in her condemnation of this type of parenting. She references the sense of entitlement she sees in her own children and the day to day struggle to figure out where that comes from and how to combat it. And, I thought her last paragraph didn't condemn the kids at all, but rather asks parents to be a bit more introspective. I don't see the problem with that. 

[Runningmom80]

I think the lack of agreeable only comments is a reflection of a couple different things. For one, we're a community that has home education in common, and virtually everything else is up for grabs. Most people tend to select and keep facebook friends based on a number of similarities. Perhaps you wouldn't have a radical unschooling anti-theist as a facebook friend, but here I am.  I am rather unschooly myself, a bleeding heart Liberal and wavering Agnostic. and one of my best friends is a radical unschooling atheist.  I usually agree with your liberal POV's so I don't think it has much to do with that.

 

You're linking an article that suggests what I'm doing is "part of the problem." You're wondering why I don't agree that my kids are ruining our Once Great Nation. One doesn't have to be a radical unschooling anti-theist to disagree with the premise of the article, or to note the poor cherry-picking examples and self-egomasturbatory tone of the piece. If you watch South Park, perhaps you'll recognize the reference of the stench of SMUG to which I am referring (**sniiiiiiff**). 

 

I re read the article so I could try to figure out how you would make the leap that unschooling atheist parents are the ones parenting this way, and I don't see it.  At all. You seem to have taken this really personally, which I find confusing.

 

But it's not just the obnoxious tone, it's the argument itself. If this article were presented in a more neutral tone, if it weren't so adamant about trying to make some parents feel guilty and others feel self-congratulatory, I maintain the argument itself is flawed. She's not suggesting there's a problem with spoiling children, she's suggesting spoiling is the new spanking. It's just What You Do When You Parent (with the exception of her and her audience who know better of course). That's patently untrue, and shows a remarkable level of ignorance and apathy for kids all over the US, both what they face and what they do.

 

I didn't read it that way at all.  It's not apathy that drives a parent to produce a hard working, appreciative child.

 

Ultimately, she's relying on a No True Scotsman argument for her identity of "Good Kids." This is part of the moralizing to which I object. Labeling kids as "good" or "bad" is a subtle but insidious means by which society identifies them as convenient or inconvenient, and then puts a moral value on that. That's terrible. I object to that wholeheartedly. I'll note that this fits in with Sparkly's question about kids being encouraged to be unique and chase dreams when they're young, but by the time adulthood sets in, these characteristics are considered undesirable. But anyway, she's arguing that good kids don't get spoiled. She's clearly ignoring kids who are otherwise spoiled (an undefined and therefore useless term) but go on to do great things for their community. She's clearly ignoring kids who are otherwise never spoiled but never learn the social skills of cooperation with people outside one's close, trusted group. She's pointing the finger of blame, and she's doing so in a very vague way that allows the goalposts to be moved in accordance to subjective opinion. That's not insightful, it's just egotistical. Oh the irony. 

 

The term "spoiling" is highly subjective anyways.  We all have different ideas of where to draw the line as far as what constitutes a "spoiled" kid.  I didn't get the whole "good" and "bad" kids vibe either.  She wasn't talking about producing well mannered kids who obey their parents, she was talking about raising good citizens of the world who can take on challenges, and also who show empathy, compassion and gratitude. 

 

[Runningmom80]

It's funny how the article can come across so differently to different people. I did not get the "self-congratulatory" tone. In fact, it seemed the WTM responses were way more self-congratulatory than the article. Rather, I thought she was including herself and her peers in her condemnation of this type of parenting. She references the sense of entitlement she sees in her own children and the day to day struggle to figure out where that comes from and how to combat it. And, I thought her last paragraph didn't condemn the kids at all, but rather asks parents to be a bit more introspective. I don't see the problem with that. 

 

Agreed.

[SparklyUnicorn]

It's funny how the article can come across so differently to different people. I did not get the "self-congratulatory" tone. In fact, it seemed the WTM responses were way more self-congratulatory than the article. Rather, I thought she was including herself and her peers in her condemnation of this type of parenting. She references the sense of entitlement she sees in her own children and the day to day struggle to figure out where that comes from and how to combat it. And, I thought her last paragraph didn't condemn the kids at all, but rather asks parents to be a bit more introspective. I don't see the problem with that. 

 

I don't entirely get what you mean with this.  The fact she included herself in her imaginary category does not really impress me or make her views more accurate and credible. 

[hepatica]

I don't entirely get what you mean with this.  The fact she included herself in her imaginary category does not really impress me or make her views more accurate and credible. 

 

No, but it does mean she is not completely excluding herself as some superior doyenne of parenting. That's why I thought the "we" perspective of the article was humbling (whereas most here seemed to find it offensive)

[albeto.]

The term "spoiling" is highly subjective anyways.  We all have different ideas of where to draw the line as far as what constitutes a "spoiled" kid.  I didn't get the whole "good" and "bad" kids vibe either.  She wasn't talking about producing well mannered kids who obey their parents, she was talking about raising good citizens of the world who can take on challenges, and also who show empathy, compassion and gratitude. 

 

 

Her whole point is that manners and obedience is being purchased at a price, and that's not working out. For one thing, it's contributing to a whole generation of citizens who will not know how to take on challenges, show empathy, compassion and gratitude. The moralizing is implied (not very subtly, either). "Good kids" can take on challenges, show empathy, compassion, and gratitude. "Bad kids" can't. Spoiling produces "bad kids." 

 

I don't mean to confuse you with my personal history, just meant to suggest the variety of parenting styles in this community which might help explain why the article wasn't universally appreciated here. It's not an important point, ultimately, just a thought. What I object to is argument that suggest parents who are "too close" to their children spoil them. Leaving aside the impossible task of identifying what "too close" looks like, I couldn't disagree more. I find the implication that people who are not hard-assed enough to lovingly force their children to comply under threat of physical or emotional harm are turning out the generation that will prove to be 'Murica's downfall to be foolish and ignorant.

 

Every generation, since Eve considered the ineptitude of her own daughters-in-law, has lamented the future.

 

"Woe-is-me. My children have what I never did. My neighbor's kids have what I never did. They're spoiled rotten. All we ever had was a damn fig leaf. We used it for clothes by day and rolled it up for a pillow by night, and we learned to like it!"

 

Let me get my tiny violin. 

[SparklyUnicorn]

No, but it does mean she is not completely excluding herself as some superior doyenne of parenting. That's why I thought the "we" perspective of the article was humbling (whereas most here seemed to find it offensive)

 

She was only hypothetically including herself though because didn't she say she would not think to pay her kids for something like that? 

 

She might be attempting to soften the blow of her judgement, but I have no reason to believe she actually thinks she is as bad as people who pay their kids to try harder.

[SparklyUnicorn]

Her whole point is that manners and obedience is being purchased at a price, and that's not working out. For one thing, it's contributing to a whole generation of citizens who will not know how to take on challenges, show empathy, compassion and gratitude. The moralizing is implied (not very subtly, either). "Good kids" can take on challenges, show empathy, compassion, and gratitude. "Bad kids" can't. Spoiling produces "bad kids." 

 

I don't mean to confuse you with my personal history, just meant to suggest the variety of parenting styles in this community which might help explain why the article wasn't universally appreciated here. It's not an important point, ultimately, just a thought. What I object to is argument that suggest parents who are "too close" to their children spoil them. Leaving aside the impossible task of identifying what "too close" looks like, I couldn't disagree more. I find the implication that people who are not hard-assed enough to lovingly force their children to comply under threat of physical or emotional harm are turning out the generation that will prove to be 'Murica's downfall to be foolish and ignorant.

 

Every generation, since Eve considered the ineptitude of her own daughters-in-law, has lamented the future.

 

"Woe-is-me. My children have what I never did. My neighbor's kids have what I never did. They're spoiled rotten. All we ever had was a damn fig leaf. We used it for clothes by day and rolled it up for a pillow by night, and we learned to like it!"

 

Let me get my tiny violin. 

 

At the end of the day I really don't care what she thinks, but I'm tired of the fact that other people think they know better than everyone else.  She does not know the full story behind the parent paying the kid.  There could be factors she is unaware of that might change her tune.  Maybe not. 

[Runningmom80]

Her whole point is that manners and obedience is being purchased at a price, and that's not working out. For one thing, it's contributing to a whole generation of citizens who will not know how to take on challenges, show empathy, compassion and gratitude. The moralizing is implied (not very subtly, either). "Good kids" can take on challenges, show empathy, compassion, and gratitude. "Bad kids" can't. Spoiling produces "bad kids." 

 

I don't mean to confuse you with my personal history, just meant to suggest the variety of parenting styles in this community which might help explain why the article wasn't universally appreciated here. It's not an important point, ultimately, just a thought. What I object to is argument that suggest parents who are "too close" to their children spoil them. Leaving aside the impossible task of identifying what "too close" looks like, I couldn't disagree more. I find the implication that people who are not hard-assed enough to lovingly force their children to comply under threat of physical or emotional harm are turning out the generation that will prove to be 'Murica's downfall to be foolish and ignorant.

 

Every generation, since Eve considered the ineptitude of her own daughters-in-law, has lamented the future.

 

"Woe-is-me. My children have what I never did. My neighbor's kids have what I never did. They're spoiled rotten. All we ever had was a damn fig leaf. We used it for clothes by day and rolled it up for a pillow by night, and we learned to like it!"

 

Let me get my tiny violin. 

 

I did not read it this way at all.  I didn't see any suggestion that you need to push your kid away to teach them these things.  I also didn't see physical or emotional harm being suggested, or even implied.  I feel like we read different articles. 

 

[MEmama]

I will preface with the confession that I only quickly skimmed the article before my iPad crashed, but I've read enough of them to know essentially how it went. I don't personally know anyone IRL that it would even remotely apply to. Like others have said, though, maybe it's a self selecting group. I couldn't put up for a minute a truly spoiled kid (or a parent who does the spoiling) but I'm comfortable enough with many different parenting styles to know there is no one best way.

 

My biggest addition to this discussion is that I Like every one of Sparkly's comments. :)

 

Carry on!

[Jean in Newcastle]

I read the whole article.  I didn't find it very true to my life in my area - whether you are talking about homeschooled kids or non homeschooled kids.  I didn't find it true to the kinds of advice given in pamphlets at the pediatrician's office or in parenting magazines or at the Y.  As I mentioned upthread, it isn't that I've never ever met a spoiled child but this article seems to think it is the overwhelming norm and I just don't see that.  I have to admit that I'm not fond of this kind of hyperbole ridden article no matter what the message.  There is a spectrum in the parenting styles I see in people around me.  But most of them do not turn out truly "spoiled" kids.  

 

If you feel like you've been remiss in not assigning chores or doing volunteer work then I can encourage you to do so.  My kids have benefited from both.  It hasn't been a panacea for everything.  They still are brats on occasion.  But they are also great young people with a good work ethic and a heart for other people.  

 

And btw - my kids have not been the only volunteers anywhere.  There are in fact waiting lists at some places because there are so many wanting to volunteer.  A big reason for that though is that the schools here require 100 hours of volunteering each year (I don't know the program details).  Dd says that some of the "forced" volunteers are pretty sorry examples of volunteers but most truly want to be there.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Who would give a child a luxury car??? Even a used one? Trade it in! Gyah!

 

I live in a high income area, but we live adjacent to one of the highest income zip codes in the United States. Most teens around here, if they are given a car, are given a Honda to scratch up and wreck if need be. Sometimes, you can see that teens have been given a hand-me-down Subaru or Volvo.

 

You can tell who buys their own cars because they are truly crappy. 

 

I am amazed that you see young drivers in BMWs all the time. I mean, I see relatively young drivers, but that just means, younger than me. I could see if you went straight to work at Google and didn't yet have a family, you'd buy a BMW or a Benz or something, sure. You're young, have your fun. I rarely see 30-something men and women in those cars, and rarely see teens in them.

 

That said, you've given me food for thought. Maybe it was a teen getting a driving lesson in our nice, slow area with lots of parking lots. That makes sense and gives me hope.

 

Also--I have owned where I live. I live in Seattle's Eastside. It is a nice area, a high COL area. We live in a cheap rental and we aren't the only ones, but also, having put it together in the past year we are not doing too bad, except for recession debt related to not having been rich, that is making my life miserable. I feel like... where the heck are people living, that they are seeing teenagers in BMWs all the time? That is crazy. I mean you might see one in your high school, but that's not even the richest kid. So where is this happening? Is it all happening in New York? Because I read a lot of nutty stuff in the New York Times about people's weird relationships with their children. So please, tell me, where do you live where this is happening? I'm not asking for specifics, just, metro area. We need to know which metro area is having this problem so we can figure out who the "we" in this article is!

 

A kid driving a used luxury car isn't that big of a deal.  The low end luxury model sedans are less expensive than many SUVs.  And yes, I often do see teens in very nice cars in the Atlanta suburbs. Housing here is more reasonable than many metro areas and some families with extra disposable income choose to spend it on nicer cars.

 

[albeto.]

I did not read it this way at all.  I didn't see any suggestion that you need to push your kid away to teach them these things.  I also didn't see physical or emotional harm being suggested.  I feel like we read different articles. 

 

I interpret it in sentiments like this:

 

Here’s the real problem with it, adds Weissbourd: “Kids appropriate their parents’ values [by] trying to be like them.†If we are too close to our children, he says, it can make it hard for our kids to idealize us, in part because we are too busy idealizing them. Maybe we’re trying to relive our glory years through our children, or to parent them the way we wish our parents had parented us, or to reconcile our guilt for working long hours or dragging them through a painful divorce; whatever the reason, we’re blurring the lines. Weissbourd isn’t suggesting we return to the more distant relationships of our grandparents’ generation, but he says we need to figure out a way to be more involved in our children’s lives while still promoting their moral growth. “In the end, you have to make decisions as a parent, not as a friend,†he adds.

 

 

I'm close to my kids. Much closer than my parents were to me. Light years closer than my grandparents were to my parents. The author is referencing a time where people maintained social and gender roles under penalty of physical and emotional punishment. Beating one's own child was "private business." Things only seemed to work out, but that really applied to the privileged few.  As a society, we've rejected that, and with good reason, I think. As result, more and more kids don't face the same challenges that kids two generations ago faced. For this I'm grateful. My kids don't have to face their challenges alone, or hide their most intimate vulnerabilities from their own family because my parents rejected that claptrap when they were young parents. My dad stopped the cycle of abuse, and my siblings and I would never dream of living with a person who would hit us, much less hit our children. I cannot fathom how someone longs for these days, except that they are looking at the past with rose-colored glasses. While she recognizes that's a problem, she still does it herself. And she encourages others to do the same. There's a reason societies progress - they're fixing the problems they grew up with. Treating children like accessories is one such problem that people are addressing. Not everyone addresses these problems effectively, but they are trying to fix what is broke. I still wonder under which generation did the bottom drop? What is this elusive "golden era" of moral uprightness in America? 

[J-rap]

I really don't think the number of self-centered kids growing into self-centered adults has changed over time.  It just shows itself in different ways.  I do think parents have to work a little harder to to remain clear-headed about it all to stay on track.  (I mean, we have so much more to think about today than just survival!)  But, I see most parents doing that.

 

It's an attitude more than anything.  We once offered to pay our daughter $100 per song that she composed and performed (with a limit of 3), because we knew music was her life but she was in a period where she felt a little lost and doubted her abilities.  $10 wouldn't have done it, but $100 did.  She took 6 months to compose and perform publicly the three songs, and it changed her life.  She has told us countless times that she would have quit if not for that.  So, you never really know all of the circumstances.  We otherwise do not throw money around like that, at all.  Our kids are definitely not spoiled.

 

 

[goldberry]

I did not get the "self-congratulatory" tone. In fact, it seemed the WTM responses were way more self-congratulatory than the article. 

 

I agree as well.  I took it that she was addressing a broad social issue, one that I see as very real although no, I don't see it as much in the families I regularly associate with.

 

I confess to fighting a similar issue of being too focused on my child's happiness, which is easy to do with an only child I think.  I fight to balance that, but the article was a reminder of those dangers I strive to avoid.  

[Runningmom80]

I interpret it in sentiments like this:

 

 

I'm close to my kids. Much closer than my parents were to me. Light years closer than my grandparents were to my parents. The author is referencing a time where people maintained social and gender roles under penalty of physical and emotional punishment. Beating one's own child was "private business." Things only seemed to work out, but that really applied to the privileged few.  As a society, we've rejected that, and with good reason, I think. As result, more and more kids don't face the same challenges that kids two generations ago faced. For this I'm grateful. My kids don't have to face their challenges alone, or hide their most intimate vulnerabilities from their own family because my parents rejected that claptrap when they were young parents. My dad stopped the cycle of abuse, and my siblings and I would never dream of living with a person who would hit us, much less hit our children. I cannot fathom how someone longs for these days, except that they are looking at the past with rose-colored glasses. While she recognizes that's a problem, she still does it herself. And she encourages others to do the same. There's a reason societies progress - they're fixing the problems they grew up with. Treating children like accessories is one such problem that people are addressing. Not everyone addresses these problems effectively, but they are trying to fix what is broke. I still wonder under which generation did the bottom drop? What is this elusive "golden era" of moral uprightness in America? 

 

Where does she say or imply this? 

 

 

REposting the quote you pulled because it isn't showing up,  "Here’s the real problem with it, adds Weissbourd: “Kids appropriate their parents’ values [by] trying to be like them.†If we are too close to our children, he says, it can make it hard for our kids to idealize us, in part because we are too busy idealizing them. Maybe we’re trying to relive our glory years through our children, or to parent them the way we wish our parents had parented us, or to reconcile our guilt for working long hours or dragging them through a painful divorce; whatever the reason, we’re blurring the lines. Weissbourd isn’t suggesting we return to the more distant relationships of our grandparents’ generation, but he says we need to figure out a way to be more involved in our children’s lives while still promoting their moral growth. “In the end, you have to make decisions as a parent, not as a friend,†he adds."

 

He states we shouldn't return to the distant relationships, which I agree with, and again, don't see the author suggesting.

[Catwoman]

Who would give a child a luxury car??? Even a used one? Trade it in! Gyah!

Well, I certainly will. My parents gave me one, and I plan to do the same for my ds. Why wouldn't I want him to have a very nice and very safe car with a full warranty and roadside assistance?

 

I live in a high income area, but we live adjacent to one of the highest income zip codes in the United States. Most teens around here, if they are given a car, are given a Honda to scratch up and wreck if need be. Sometimes, you can see that teens have been given a hand-me-down Subaru or Volvo.

 

You can tell who buys their own cars because they are truly crappy. [/b]

That is not the case here. Most kids in our area seem to drive fairly nice cars. I'm not saying they are all luxury cars, but they are usually fairly new and in good shape.

 

I am amazed that you see young drivers in BMWs all the time. I mean, I see relatively young drivers, but that just means, younger than me. I could see if you went straight to work at Google and didn't yet have a family, you'd buy a BMW or a Benz or something, sure. You're young, have your fun. I rarely see 30-something men and women in those cars, and rarely see teens in them.

I don't understand the "you're young, have your fun" thing. I would assume that most of the younger people who drive luxury cars will continue to drive them as they get older.

 

That said, you've given me food for thought. Maybe it was a teen getting a driving lesson in our nice, slow area with lots of parking lots. That makes sense and gives me hope.

"Gives you hope" for what? :confused: I don't understand why you would have a problem with a kid getting a BMW from his parents. Why would it matter to you? It's not a character flaw to drive a nice car.

 

I feel like... where the heck are people living, that they are seeing teenagers in BMWs all the time? That is crazy. I mean you might see one in your high school, but that's not even the richest kid. So where is this happening? Is it all happening in New York? Because I read a lot of nutty stuff in the New York Times about people's weird relationships with their children. So please, tell me, where do you live where this is happening? I'm not asking for specifics, just, metro area. We need to know which metro area is having this problem so we can figure out who the "we" in this article is!

OK, that is just plain offensive. :glare:

 

I guess I am just one of those nutty New York types that you seem to scorn.

 

I can't believe anyone would judge another person or group of people by the cars they drive and the cars they give to their kids. Honestly, I think it is incredibly shallow and judgmental to concern yourself with something like that, and I can't figure it out at all. It's not like we are taking your money and spending it on our kids. We are simply choosing to spend our own money on our kids in a different way than you choose to spend your money on your kids.

 

I don't understand why you seem to think it is a big deal. Frankly, I am surprised that you would have even paid attention to who was driving the BMW or that it had a student driver sticker on it, let alone passed judgment on the family about it.

 

Sorry if I seem to be taking this too personally, but my ds will be learning to drive in the not-too-distant future and I would hate to think people are judging him harshly because of the cars he will be driving. He's just a normal teenager and a car is just a car.

[Jean in Newcastle]

Re cars.  Around here at least half, if not more, of the teens are waiting to get their license and to drive.  Ds18 is just now learning to drive and he doesn't feel self conscious about it at all because he is not unusual for his peers.  And when they do drive, most drive Subarus!  (Which is a regional joke since we are the "Subaru capitol" of the US with one out of every ten car being a Subaru   :D )

 

(Other than those anecdotal tidbits, I have no opinion on cars or new drivers.)

[6packofun]

"Parenting Spoiled Kids" is a funny way to say it.  It sounds as if poor mom and dad just happened to end up with kids who became spoiled in a vacuum.  LOL  I think, to a great degree (but not *completely*), that parents tend to make spoiled kids.  But I see the attitude a lot lately that "my child is this way" and everything is done to accommodate behaviors at the risk of injuring their sense of self.  And this is one area where society still--I HOPE--does NOT say that because a child was "made that way" that it means no positive changes should be expected and that the world must tolerate everything they do or else they don't LOVE the child.  I see it happening, though.  Adults have set that example themselves, IMO.

 

That was an interesting article, thanks!

[albeto.]

Where does she say or imply this? 

 

 

REposting the quote you pulled because it isn't showing up,  "Here’s the real problem with it, adds Weissbourd: “Kids appropriate their parents’ values [by] trying to be like them.†If we are too close to our children, he says, it can make it hard for our kids to idealize us, in part because we are too busy idealizing them. Maybe we’re trying to relive our glory years through our children, or to parent them the way we wish our parents had parented us, or to reconcile our guilt for working long hours or dragging them through a painful divorce; whatever the reason, we’re blurring the lines. Weissbourd isn’t suggesting we return to the more distant relationships of our grandparents’ generation, but he says we need to figure out a way to be more involved in our children’s lives while still promoting their moral growth. “In the end, you have to make decisions as a parent, not as a friend,†he adds."

 

He states we shouldn't return to the distant relationships, which I agree with, and again, don't see the author suggesting.

 

It's vague, and evasive, and an emotional appeal to the "good old days." Well, the "good old days" were that way precisely because the consequences for breaching the social standards were disastrous. That system was increasingly unacceptable to the younger generation - as it is with every generation. Young black men started to sit at lunch counters without appealing to the conventional idea of "racial harmony" (separate but equal). Women started to confront bosses who grabbed their asses or demanded sexual favors. Women challenged doctors who refused to respect their medical decisions without the permission of their husbands. Gay men and women increasingly refused to hide their romances and families. Parents challenged the conventional wisdom of beating a child for non compliance.

 

Non of this popped up overnight, and challenging convention wasn't invented in the 1950's. It's foolish and disingenuous and I think irresponsible to then ignore the very things that made this era work the way in which it did. The entire article appeals to a vague nostalgia, peppered with backtracking (as if "calling it" eliminates hypocrisy), and fueled by an appeal to emotions (fear, mainly, and I find that manipulation objectionable). This vague and unidentified era she's appealing to required serious consequences for breaking social ranks. To suggest we go back to the way things were, but not support the way things worked is absurd. Not everyone voluntarily accepts an oppressive regime. Not everyone did then, and fewer will now.

[SparklyUnicorn]

Well, I certainly will. My parents gave me one, and I plan to do the same for my ds. Why wouldn't I want him to have a very nice and very safe car with a full warranty and roadside assistance?

 

 

If I had the money, I wouldn't bat a lash over doing this and I am pretty sure many people here would not either.  I don't get mad at people for being able to afford things I can't.  I'm no martyr. I don't feed my kids nothing buy rice because some people in the world only get rice so why should my kid be spoiled with other foods.  The reasoning blows my mind and honestly it's pretty disingenuous to say otherwise.  Unless you are fully living your life with the attitude you want to walk in someone else's shoes, nothing much to brag about that you would NEVER buy your kid a luxury car.  To many people having any car is a luxury.

[MistyMountain]

I haven't read the article yet but the term spoiled whiny brat bothers me a little. I do not indulge my children or let them have stuff because they whine but they are challenging children with sensory issues and add tendencies who are on the slow to mature side. They get upset easily still and whine sometimes. They have gotten better over time but it has been a long slow process. If you compare them to children their age maybe people would be judging. For the most part I see parents who try even if they have different methods of doing so. I have seen over indulgent parents out there or parents who do not try. It is less common in my area then where I grew up. I agree that each generation has some issue about it that could be better but I do not think people on a whole are so much worse today then in the past. Things were never perfect and in some ways we have gotten better. The materialism and helicoptering is in general worse but other things are better now like civil rights, there is less corporal punishment, no slavery, blatant racism is not looked kindly upon, women have more equal rights and crime in general is down from the 70s.

[Runningmom80]

It's vague, and evasive, and an emotional appeal to the "good old days." Well, the "good old days" were that way precisely because the consequences for breaching the social standards were disastrous. That system was increasingly unacceptable to the younger generation - as it is with every generation. Young black men started to sit at lunch counters without appealing to the conventional idea of "racial harmony" (separate but equal). Women started to confront bosses who grabbed their asses or demanded sexual favors. Women challenged doctors who refused to respect their medical decisions without the permission of their husbands. Gay men and women increasingly refused to hide their romances and families. Parents challenged the conventional wisdom of beating a child for non compliance.

 

Non of this popped up overnight, and challenging convention wasn't invented in the 1950's. It's foolish and disingenuous and I think irresponsible to then ignore the very things that made this era work the way in which it did. The entire article appeals to a vague nostalgia, peppered with backtracking (as if "calling it" eliminates hypocrisy), and fueled by an appeal to emotions (fear, mainly, and I find that manipulation objectionable). This vague and unidentified era she's appealing to required serious consequences for breaking social ranks. To suggest we go back to the way things were, but not support the way things worked is absurd. Not everyone voluntarily accepts an oppressive regime. Not everyone did then, and fewer will now.

 

I think you may be reading way more into it than the writer intended. I didn't get any of that at all.

[albeto.]

I think you may be reading way more into it than the writer intended. I didn't get any of that at all.

 

You brought the article to our attention, then were amazed at the lack of positive feed-back. I'm sharing why my feed-back wasn't positive. To this end, I'm just articulating "out loud" what the author is implying. 

[Runningmom80]

You brought the article to our attention, then was amazed at the lack of positive feed-back. I'm sharing why my feed-back wasn't positive. To this end, I'm just articulating "out loud" what the author is implying. 

 

I wasn't amazed, I found it funny.  I really don't think the author was implying that we would all be better off in 1950.  That's really a stretch.

[Lady Florida.]

Well, I certainly will. My parents gave me one, and I plan to do the same for my ds. Why wouldn't I want him to have a very nice and very safe car with a full warranty and roadside assistance?

 

 

In my day (did I really just type that?lol) the teen got the cheapest, crappiest car possible. Sometimes it was a family car on its last leg, sometimes it was a car the parents found at a really low price. I'm glad we've moved past that attitude. I want my teen/young adult in a safe, reliable vehicle. That might not, actually probably won't, translate to luxury car in our family, but he's not going to get a piece of scrap metal. I want to know that every time he drives away, we've at least made sure the vehicle he's in will get him where he's going and keep him as safe as possible.

 

Re cars.  Around here at least half, if not more, of the teens are waiting to get their license and to drive.  Ds18 is just now learning to drive and he doesn't feel self conscious about it at all because he is not unusual for his peers. 

 

 

 

Ds will be 18 in a little over 6 weeks, and just got his license last week. I made the appointment for his test because I'm tired of driving him everywhere (and we don't have a public transit system in my area). If I hadn't done that, he probably still wouldn't have his regular license. Many of his friends, both homeschooled and ps kids, either don't have a license yet or waited until they were 17-18 to get it. It does seem to be a common thing these days.

[albeto.]

I wasn't amazed, I found it funny.  I really don't think the author was implying that we would all be better off in 1950.  That's really a stretch.

 

So when were we all better off? That's been my question from the beginning. 

[SparklyUnicorn]

In my day (did I really just type that?lol) the teen got the cheapest, crappiest car possible. Sometimes it was a family car on its last leg, sometimes it was a car the parents found at a really low price. I'm glad we've moved past that attitude. I want my teen/young adult in a safe, reliable vehicle. That might not, actually probably won't, translate to luxury car in our family, but he's not going to get a piece of scrap metal. I want to know that every time he drives away, we've at least made sure the vehicle he's in will get him where he's going and keep him as safe as possible.

 

 

 

That wouldn't even be possible where I live.  All cars are inspected yearly.  You cannot drive a car on its last leg here. 

[SparklyUnicorn]

So when were we all better off? That's been my question from the beginning. 

 

freaking never

 

LOL