Kids these days
Thursday January 24, 2008
I was talking on the phone yesterday with a conservative acquaintance who mentioned that he'd been listening to Laura Ingraham's radio show. I forget what the topic was, but he said that he likes her show in general, but she...
Filed Under: conservatism, Kids
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Advertisement
Advertisement
Search This Blog
Recent Posts
About Crunchy Con
Rod Dreher is an editorial columnist for the Dallas Morning News, and author of "Crunchy Cons" (Crown Forum), a nonfiction book about conservatives, most of them religious, whose faith and political convictions sometimes put them at odds with mainstream conservatives. The views expressed in this blog are his own.
Subscribe
Archives
Blogs Worth Reading
- Front Porch Republic
- The American Conservative
- Patrick Deneen
- Conventional Folly
- The American Scene
- First Things
- Andrew Sullivan
- The Plank
- Eunomia
- Get Religion
- Postmodern Conservative
- Alex Massie
- The Corner
- Contentions
- Sharon Astyk
- Barry Ritholtz
- The Oil Drum
- Mere Comments
- First Principles (ISI)
- Brian Kaller
I knew a school counselor who was a rather staunch Calvinist. Insisted that some people were born solely to fuel the fires of hell. Used stories like these to drive home the point.
Before I ever had children I heard a radio show with a couple whose teen daughter had a few years back committed suicide a few years prior to the broadcast. The daughter's suicide note said, "Dear Mom and Dad, you gave everything to live life with, but nothing to live life for."
Rich or poor, black or white, conservative or liberal, if our children don't understand that there is a purpose beyond themselves given by a Creator bigger than themselves, they will continute to drift and we as a society will continue to drift.
I continually remind my own children (three of six are now teens) life's not about them and it's not about me, it's about Him.
>>>I believe we have come to the point where we're entering into real "Love in the Ruins"-type shit.
That was reason number two for my deciding not to have kids.
Reason number one being that I didn't think I would do a good job.
The one thing that children need more than anything, the one thing our world finds it harder and harder to give them, is unconditional love.
I think it's true that this is more difficult to give children when they come from broken homes, divorced or never-married parents, and so on. But I also think that every parent on earth struggles with the obligation to do this, and struggles on a daily basis.
An intact marriage helps. The ability for a parent to be home with the children full-time helps. Homeschooling, even, helps, in that it provides a visible example to the children of their importance in their parents' lives.
But none of these things are guarantees. We're all impacted by the reality of sin: we try daily, we succeed daily, and we fail daily. Ourselves still struggling against our own worst natures to be love to our children, we constantly fight the battle of the Self; if we lose too many skirmishes we may yet lose the war, but we can only start again each day with the promise that we will be present to them, that we will listen, that we will give them time, attention, praise--the coins of love and appreciation, tied not to what they achieve but only to who they are, and who we are to them.
And without grace, we will fail in the end; we give our children the greatest gift when we share with them the Father Who truly does love us unconditionally, Who sent His own Son to be poured out for our redemption, Who runs to forgive us when we are still journeying towards that forgiveness, Who desires eternal union with us, and Who alone can help us to be better earthly parents to these precious children of His, whom He has temporarily entrusted to us.
Deo adjuvante, non timendum.
Great post, Rod.
the experience of child-raising has made me both more conservative and more merciful.
I'm weird, I guess. With every additional kid I have, I become less merciful, and less tolerant of the typical parent. Before I had kids, I thought everything was cool. Now, I believe 90% of the "behavior problems" and a good chunk of the health problems with children today are caused by the poor diet and lifestyle of the parents. I'm still too merciful (I'm an anti-death penalty bleeding heart liberal on law & order issues) but now I'm starting to worry about myself. I have little or no sympathy for poor parenting.
I think we finally have reached the point where the young -- and this is a gross generalization, I realize -- are really, really pissed, utterly adrift and are starting to turn on society.
I call it the "carnage." Most older people have no clue what is going on, or are in active denial. You know, "the kids are alright." Institutions, especially, should be worried. The bowling-alone effect is not helping matters.
I often walk by the schools when they get out, and watch the kids walking home: walkmans on, hoods up, eyes withdrawn, many overweight - the body language is frightening. For every normal looking kid I find, there is at least one who looks truly hopeless. If s/he were my kid, I would freak out.
An excellent article to read on the "carnage": http://www.gazette.net/stories/011008/princol132359_32358.shtml
Well, I don't have children yet (though being newly married the possibility is always on my mind), so I hope this humble contribution to the public debate doesn't completely miss the point or state the obvious (and my profound apologies if it does).
Being conservative and merciful don't strike me as being paradoxical at all; I've become more conservative over the last few years *because* I care about people, because I want people to flourish and believe that the well-being of families is intimately tied with the well-being of society in ways we don't even fully understand, and because I want for peoples' children (and my own one day, I hope) to grow up in a more decent world than the one I grew up in. Real conservatism acknowledges the transcendent, including notions of right and wrong-and really, morality is hardly arbitrary; it is supposed to be good for us, although I know conservatives can communicate this in a much deeper and more loving manner than we do now-and at the same time there is really nothing rigid and ideological about it; it is very much grounded in real life and in real people. There is abundant room for mercy, charity, and understanding. I love it for this; it seems to strike a good balance.
I think this is something that really needs to be discussed more often and I'm very glad that it was brought up (I often find myself thinking that about many of the posts here). Being a young married person myself it is something I think about, prepare for, and worry about pretty much every day; it is an enormous challenge. The silver lining I am hoping for is that the cultural decay, isolation, and family problems kids grow up with today will make them yearn for some kind of meaning and stability and commitment and that this yearning will lead them to Christ, to strong marriages, to wanting to give their children the things they lacked and to care very deeply about the world they will grow up in. Then again, it could very well be filled by other things as seems to be the case now-sex, violence, drugs, stuff, money, tribalism-especially considering how much we have broken off with our past and how much we have forgotten as a culture. All we have is the present (the word multi-generational isn't even in our vocabulary), all that is allowed to have significance is the material and the rational, all we have to live by are a few lectures about being safe. But then, in some ways I can't blame my parents' generation; they were being swept away by a tide that started before some of them were even born, that was started by people who, unlike most of us, could afford the consequences-in some ways, anyway.
And what Erin said. Absolutely beautiful.
I am a mother of five (19, 18, 15, 13, and 2). We home schooled the first four until the oldest hit high school. A year later we moved and put the other three into public school. I subbed in the high schools until our two year old was born. Last year my now senior in high school had a pretty rough experience so we decided to home school him for his senior year. My husband with an MFA in theatre scenic and lighting design is now a self employed carpenter and I work a weekend graveyard shift at a group home. I provide this back ground to say: Our children have never worn designer jeans, they've learned to do laundry, cook, and work when they're asked. We play together and talk. I've had more indepth conversations (political, social, religous)in the last month with most of my children than I ever had with either of my own parents my entire childhood. And still, I know that the negatives in the culture they have to navigate are incredibly attractive and the pressure to "try it you might like it" is constant. Do we need morals? Intact families? Religion? Maybe. But I think we mostly need purpose. I used to compare myself to my sister (probably to try and make myself feel good). Her children went from six weeks on the breast to daycare and on into public school and college. They are "good kids" in that they haven't gotten caught drinking or having sex. Her son was involved with sports and both were B or better students. Who could complain--right? The problem is neither one has a clue what they want to do in life--no passion, no dreams. They've walked through life with few opinions, no goals, meeting the basic expectations, but... Yes, some of the youth today are as was mentioned earlier angry, but to me at least, most simply don't care about anything. Apathy will doom our world a lot faster than anger.
John E. (first commenter), I don't want to tell you how to run your life, or give you advice about something so personal. I also don't know how old you are or what your marital status is.
But I'll say that it's people who think the way you do, who recognize their own limitations, and realize intuitively the difficulties involved in raising children, who make the best fathers. So don't sell yourself short.
"God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble."
One way of dealing with the problem Rod is speaking of, is for more children to be born into families who do actually care, and who make their children the top priority. That doesn't mean the kids will turn out good, but it's more likely than if the parents don't give a damn.
I have two children. I can't say I'm a good father, but I love them to death and they mean everything to me. I intend to be the opposite of my own, criminally negligent father. And my kids, at least right now, are doing all right.
As far as the culture goes, and this messed up world, all you can do is be faithful to your own responsibilities. Don't let this evil world win. That is, don't let your observations about how sick the culture is keep you from bringing something beautiful into the world (namely, children born into a family that loves them).
Again, sorry if I'm presumptuous. It's your life, and you have your own reasons. But even if it's no longer a possibility, your very short comment means to me that you would be a very good father.
Oops, John E. was the third commenter, not the first.
M_David: I'm weird, I guess. With every additional kid I have, I become less merciful, and less tolerant of the typical parent. Before I had kids, I thought everything was cool. Now, I believe 90% of the "behavior problems" and a good chunk of the health problems with children today are caused by the poor diet and lifestyle of the parents.
Let me clarify a bit. I find I'm more tolerant of parents who are really trying, but who miss the mark. I could not have understood until I had kids of my own how much a family needs the support of a sane culture around them. We don't have that, so good parents are having to fight a guerrilla war to raise safe, sane, well-adjusted children. But like you, I have absolutely no bloody tolerance for parents who are so caught up in their own selfishness and thoughtlessness that they're not even trying.
He told me that we'd get a much different kind of conservatism if more conservative intellectuals had kids, or were more involved in family life. Conservatives whose intellections and contributions to public debate don't factor in family life are in general too narrowly focused for their own good, he said.
Okay, then, can we have a roll-call of "conservative intellectuals" and find out which of them have children, and which of them are in the "NYC-DC Bubble" when we use that as a euphemism for childlessness? I'm honestly asking. From what I can tell...
Ross Douthat: just got married, so we'll give him a pass.
David Brooks: don't know.
Christopher Caldwell: don't know.
Austin Bramwell: married one of Rod's NRniks in 2003 with a splashy NYT announcement--have they been fruitful and multiplied yet?
Daniel Larison: has blogged that he "is not suited for marriage". So one would assume no kids.
The NRO Corner: JPod has kids. So does Goldberg (one, I think). K-Lo does not. Ponnuru? Miller? I dunno.
Reihan Salam: don't know.
James Poulos: ditto
Peter Suderman: ditto
Michael Brendan Dougherty: don't know but I doubt it, as he always seems to be mooning over the girlfriend who dumped him.
Any intelligence from Rod et al. on these or others? Spare me any privacy arguments--once you set yourself up as a public intellectual with recommendations for the larger polity of the US, I think your track record of governance of the smaller polity of a family or household becomes fair game.
It's a fair criticism. The thing is, none of these people-Limbaugh, Ingraham, et al- go through the daily grind of getting lunch together, getting out the door to school, getting to Cub Scouts/basketball/football/baseball games and practices(and I volunteer on baseball). And working. At the end of the day, the idea of getting poltically involved is simply beyond me. And you can see that there's are strain on pols and media people and their families. And yet all that daily slog of life is stuff I'll never go through again. I don't understand how you miss it, or what could be more important.
I watch Hannity and O'Reilly-2 guys who have small kids-and wonder if missing all that regualr family stuff, as much as a grind as it can be, is worth it to them. Do their careers supercede their families? My sons are going to play only so many Pop Warner/CYO/high school games. And as I've learned with the teen, there comes a time that you aren't so cool to your kids any more(though it's not killing me, just life; based on my personal experience, that changes dramatically at 25 or so; suddenly those crazy people called parents get much more prescient as you get older).To paraphrase noted waste management specialist Tony Soprano, no one goes to their grave wishing they spent more time at the office. As a tax attorney, my busy season is now starting, which means missing hanging out with my little guy and probably missing some basketball and baseball. And that kinda kills me. To miss all that stuff-how?
And based on last night's debate, what's the difference anyway?
I think we've lost our way by changing the definition of a parent.
We're seeing the culmination of successive generations redefining the parent.
Originally the parent was the provider, father, and caregiver, mother. No where in there was playmate mentioned. In fact playmate suggests the older one is the fool and the younger one is in control.
The boomers changed it because they felt since their father hadn't been a their playmate they'd been denied proper parenting. So they modified the role of parent to be father, provider, and father, playmate when available. Mother was still caregiver of course, some traditions never change.
The boomers brats took the role of parent and really moved it backwards. Backwards is the only way to define it in my book. They made it all about them, the boomers brat. Making the role of the parent about being the playmate. Parenting is all about continuing their childhood through their children.
We need to go back to parenting one oh one. Parents aren't playmates and playmates aren't parents.
When I hear praise for the sound of praise for a child doing what children are supposed to do anyways I recall my father's position on me growing up. He didn't give me attaboys. He respected me enough to believe I would know the difference between doing good or not so good.
The only reason for childhood is preparation for being an adult. That is best learning about human interactions between others at that same stage in life. All of the social badness we see in people can be traced back to inappropriate behaviors by adults contaminating that experience.
I say the thing to do is get the adults out of the playground and leave it to the kids. Then the adults can learn to be adults and forget once and for all about what their childhood should have been. It wasn't and that's the way it's supposed to be.
Oh, my father? He's alive and well thank you. Eighty two in less than two months. My wife saves when dad and me are together it's almost magical in the way we communicate. That comes from us working together side by side for almost twenty years. We're still very very close. We became friends after I became an adult.
Rare as it is, I second Harvey's post.
I'd also recommend South Park's parody of the Dog Whisperer, too.
The level of dysfunction never hit me until driving around on a Friday night and seeing youths idling everywhere. Then I started seeing it on other nights of the week. Then I started seeing it during the daytime. I was still shocked when I learned that a tony suburb of Madison, WI, had the fastest growing crime rate in the state. The crime was being done between 3 and 5. Of course this was an expensive suburb that required both parents to work, and so the subdivisions were largely abandoned during the day.
Modern conservatism really doesn't like families or family life in general. Turbo capitalism is all about people working ungodly hours to sustain a living in the US of A. That's the "freedom" of the market. I never could understand how you can be a Christian and be a turbo capitalist, but oh welll, it's the US of A and we are the "exceptional" nation. O
Or whatever.
It's not a surprise that the Western European democracies have a very generous social safety net and lo and behold! family life is much better and quite honestly people are much more happy. Imagine, actually being able to raise you family without worrying about child care or health insurance, etc. etc!!! Our dog eat dog system sucks! It ain't very Christian at all--or moral.
MinnowSpeaks, Apathy will doom our world a lot faster than anger.
I agree.
Rod, I find I'm more tolerant of parents who are really trying, but who miss the mark.
I don't think I was clear, either. What bothers me is the majority of parents out there who have very bad ideas about parenting. They are certainly trying, but within the framework of failed lifestyles, so it's all moot. They have attempted to repeal and restructure the reality of the human condition. In other words,
+ their kids (and they) eat loads of sugar, junk, coffee, etc.
+ they think institutionalization of children is without consequence
+ they are tv watchers
+ they don't sit down for meals
+ they can't cook and eat only processed foods
+ they don't breastfeed, or sleep with, their newborns
+ their children don't have many siblings or extended family
+ they don't think they, or their children, need a spiritual life
+ their homes are full of video games and movies...but no books
+ they "baby" their children with faux "love" for their own feelgood reasons
+ they do not believe that one cannot give to their children what they do not have
I know lots of parents who are trying, but only within the framework of bad ideas. Thus, there is no hope. I have lost sympathy for these parents, who stubbornly cling to their failed ideas even as the consequences of their lifestyles become strongly reflected in their children (even the most casual observer).
Parents are quick to whine about how hard they are trying and throw up their hands and blame the child. However, the consequences of their poor lifestyles are so myriad and multifactorial, who could ever figure out and prove the cause-effect? So many of the medical problems, the autism, the ennui...so much could be avoided through proper diet, exercise, spritual life, parenting, and being careful when instutionalizing children.
But this would interfere with our lives and freedom, eh?
I have good kids with some challenges. What that has meant is that my children didn't fall into the standard development models. All parenting books were pretty much useless. Friends without children really don't understand and have unrealistic ideas about how to raise children. Then there are those parents with wash-and-wear kids. You know the type. That wasn't us. Every stage was difficult. Now my children are on the threshold of adulthood and they are both kind, warm, human beings. I think that is because they know life is not easy.
Every kid is a unique human being and you may have to be tough with one, and soft on the other. Whether you are a strong disciplinarian or a softy really doesn't much matter. What matters is that your really love your children and sacrifice for them. In the end children are very resilient to parental mistakes. Then there is the unexplainable bad child or parent that we simply can't account for.
You folks just don't get it.
Most people don't have the time or the money to do the kind of child rearing you propose. Yes, there are lots of bad parents out there, but most folks are just trying to get by. And that means going with the bare minimum.
Why are there latch key kids?? Really, ask yourself that question. It's mosty economic, not moral as most Christianists believe. No jobs, or crappy jobs, leads to family break-up and social pathology and disintegration. Add no social safety net to the equation and you have a presciption for more of the same.
And seriously, you can raise a good kid without forcing him/her to go to church. People are way more secular in Europe and guess what? Lower crime rates, less rape, etc. etc.
I have a question for the rest of you that pertians to this topic. There has been a major shift in the way children view thier sexuality and I don't understand it. I have addressed this with my boys and they look at me like I am crazy.
I noticed that when my oldest son started playing high school football he was always filthy when I picked him up. I didn't think much about it until one of my jr. high son's acne started flairing up. Then after one game my 10th grader got in the car and he was bruised and dirty and I told him to go back into the locker and take a shower. He refused. It was late so we left. I talked to the coach about it the next day and he showed me the shower room, full of equipment. He said boys are more modest today. I told my sons how we would strip down after practice and dance to "Jean Jean the Dancing Machine" into the showers popping each other with towels. They gave me the three letter response that they use to descibe everything negatively. That's so GAY!
One the other hand, the girls of today wear no panties, make sure that every bit of cleavage is showing, flaunt themselves in front of boys in public, think they are missing out if they have not experimented with lesbianism, jump in front of cameras for "Girls Gone Wild" poses for their Myspace and Facebook accounts, and look up to Paris Hilton and Britney Spears as role models. Of course I know all girls are not like that, but the ones who aren't would not dare be "judgemental" of those who are.
I can tell you that I have talked to a lot of coaches in different places and they tell me that jr. high and high school boys will not shower with other boys no matter how filthy they are. This is not just the jocks but kids in 1st period PE in 95 degree heat.
What gives? My wife and I like to dance. We were at the Crazy Horse Saloon in Nashville with the boys and we told them we were going to dance. When they gave me that "don't embarrass us" look I shot back with a "don't test me now" look. Later we talked about the difference between the way our generation dances and theirs does. If you can call "freak dancing" dancing. There is no formal introduction to intimacy today. Why bother with holding a girl in your arms and learning to be graceful with each other? Girls bump and grind on each other "freak dancing", no boys necessary. Can someone explain all of this to me?
They gave me the three letter response that they use to descibe everything negatively. That's so GAY!
Impossible. All the polls show that kids are more accepting of homosexuality. I simply refuse to believe your lying eyes.
It's not a surprise that the Western European democracies have a very generous social safety net and lo and behold!
They have low fertility rates and declining populations.
One thing I notice-GAY is about the most harsh adjective a teenager can use. For all the PC nonsense that gets shoved down their throats, teens have a way of adopting, rebelling and ignoring all the nonsense that society tries to sell. I suspect after a work life of ritual torturing at the hands of the sensitivity police at those awful workshops(""Hispanic" is negative because of the the word "panic" is in it and patriarchial for "his""-apparently this particular workshop parasite had never heard of the Spansh New World settlement called Hispanolia), they'll at least not say such things in public. John Derbyshire had a mention of this a while back as well. No teen will wear GAP clothing because it's the San Francisco-based company's logo is thought by teens to be an acronym for GAY AND PROUD.
"teens have a way of adopting, rebelling and ignoring all the nonsense that society tries to sell."
Or completely absorbing the intolerant nonsense that so many in society tries to sell.
The Omaha kid was just a sociopath, I hope. He gave no warnings. He was quiet. The fact that people are born without empathy or consciences is frightening. But I sincerely hope it is not an increasing trend.
I'm an alumnus of high school and college football lockerrooms (mid to late 70s through early 1980s) and I have also observed this neurotically homophobic avoidance of collective nudity. I first noticed this growing trend in the mid 1990s and mentioned it to a coach. He simply shrugged and said "That's how these kids are nowadays."
In all fairness to these kids, however, it has dawned on me that I may very well be a member of one of the most immodest generations of males this country has ever produced. I get the impression that some of today's kids would faint dead away at witnessing "The Jock Jump" -- an annual ritual observed by my college football team. We thought it was one of the funniest things on earth. Would shock and dismay have been a more appropriate response? Maybe.
My better guess is that kids have been exposed to so much hyper-sexualized media imagery -- including overt and subliminal homoerotic imagery -- that they have difficulty distinguishing between nakedness as a natural state and nudity as a context for erotic activity.
Not to minimize the disorientation, violence, etc., because I think things probably are getting worse, but they have been trending this way for a long time. Read Joan Didion's Slouching Toward Bethlehem, or her definitive treatment of one major aspect of the '60s in the title essay of The White Album.
I was struck by M_David's description above of the kids getting out of school. I think it must be a good ten years ago, maybe a bit more, that we received an unsolicited catalog from some trendy seller of teen clothing--we had several teenagers at home at the time. The graphics and general presentation were pretty stylish. My wife, who is much more visually-oriented than I am, pointed out that not one of the kids modeling the clothes was looking at the camera. Either the eyes were averted, generally sort of down-and-sideways, or they (and often the whole face) were not in the picture at all. And not one was smiling. Once it was pointed out to me, I found it creepy--a very portrait of depression. Even creepier, you know the people who designed the catalog made it that way because they thought it would best connect with the kids.
Something is very wrong when youth is so sad.
John C, There has been a major shift in the way children view thier sexuality and I don't understand it.
I found your post to be an excellent example of how difficult it is for anybody to know the cause-effect of most problems today. It's too multifactorial to know for sure what the effects are going to be when we revamp the entire culure to our own will.
We only started to reorganize the culture around the '60s - it takes time. One bad change, and we can handle it. Two, more difficult. Today, we've changed so much we are starting to see really serious consequences. Your "modesty" issue is exactly the kind of strange effect from who knows how many potential causes.
Just look at all the potental causes:
+ media is simply hypersexualized
+ male/female relations are not healthy or even consistent
+ homosexuality is argued as normal when it's not
+ the culture is divided and kids get different messages, making them unsure of what is normal
Just add on another dozen nobody has even thought about.
Another reason children might not want to be naked around each other: We worship "perfect" bodies and we condemn less-than-"perfect" bodies. Even apart from sexuality, most people -- including children -- are taught from early on that their bodies don't measure up.
Mrs. Pringle
Ugh, sorry about that last sentence -- it makes no sense. But I think my intent is clear.
Mrs. P
I know what is normal--nudity and sexuality (straight, gay or bi!). Again, Europe is way ahead on this!
That's why you see all of these twisted American Christianist ministers caught with their pants down doing crack or meth with male prostitutes. People need to be comfortable with their sexuality.
Can't see you see it? Really, I mean really!
The mug shot on Favog's blog ... the face of evil, literally and figuratively. Those dead eyes (shudder) ...
BUT:
Why the constant condemnation for those who realize they've grown up in dysfunction AND CHOOSE NOT TO REPEAT THE CYCLE?
Otherwise, it's saying there's a religious/moral/ethical obligation to reproduce, even imposing it on someone who was never parented properly themselves, and then throwing them to the wolves if they don't do everything 110% right with their kids. Just as those who don't have kids are blasted for not living up to "responsibility." (Oh, and letting evil Muslims take over the world, to boot.)
IMHO, that's called trying to have it both ways.
M_David:
One of the "dozen more" is undoubtedly the earlier menarche of young girls -- by three or four years just compared to two generations ago.
Hormones in our food? The possible suspect, but who really knows. Nevertheless, no question, it affects the equation big-time.
Larry Parker, Why the constant condemnation for those who realize they've grown up in dysfunction AND CHOOSE NOT TO REPEAT THE CYCLE?...IMHO, that's called trying to have it both ways.
Fair enough. I agree, if a parent can't or won't do the job, they shouldn't breed. Stay single. Or use NFP. Or birth control.
But I think you mistake natural law as "condemnation." Personally, I'm fine with people doing whatever they want - free will and all that. Go for it! It's a free country. My issue is the "shock" expressed when we see exactly what is expected.
Sure, have as few kids as you like. Just don't complain when your culture is replaced by those who do.
Sure, be a poor parent. I'm all for parent rights. Just don't be shocked when the kids don't turn out very well. And don't expect sympathy, at least from me. All my sympathy is used up on the poor kids.
One of the "dozen more" is undoubtedly the earlier menarche of young girls -- by three or four years just compared to two generations ago.
According to my sister, who is an elementary and middle school teacher, that fact and an earlier rejection of childhood that goes along with it is the underlying cause of much that is going on in youth culture. Adolescence is prolonging in both age directions.
It's prolonging into the late twenties arguably because of the past 7-8 years of domination of the public arena and public policy by the interests of people in their sixties and seventies, who basically have been recapitulating and rearguing the Sixties and Seventies, and reallocated as much of the wealth of the country to themselves as they could get away with. The reason the intelligent young are widely listless and depressed seems to me to be that they are net defunded and their creative powers are some mix of ignored, suppressed, or channeled and rewarded only in narrow endeavors- writing computer games about their hopes and angers and things that feel more engaging and real than what they live, embarrassing/promoting themselves in ways caught on video, and writing surrealistic political screeds. Of course this goes along with a proliferation of acting out and frustrations, and vices.
I am concerned about several generations that can't actually do anything. They can't cook, change a switch-plate, fix a simple plumbing problem, change a tire, grow vegetables or livestock, sew a pair of trousers or even mend clothing they buy.
In our region, a wonderful little family sheep farm, producer of world-class cheese, suffered a terrible fire (arson) in the lambing barn a few years ago. The insurance company won't pay up until the arsonist is tried and convicted. The workers were all let go and the farmers' young sons had to pick up the slack. Just like farm kids of previous generations.
The wife/mother wrote an article about the ways this is changing her children. They learned that the animals don't take a day off from eating or pooping, so the work of taking animals to pasture and cleaning the barn doesn't allow a day off. Rather than complaining, these children are maturing. They understand the reason for what they do, see the impact, and take pride in their ability to contribute essential work to the family. Instead of bemoaning a lost childhood, they are rising to the situation.
We not demanded enough of children since the end of WW2. Work and Consume have been the order of the day in cities and suburbs since The Organization Man of the 50s.
"it's the self-centered, couldn't-give-a-s**t parents she can't abide."
and do you assume those are not "conservative" parents?
crappy parents come in all kinds of socio/political/religious disguises.
I do love that little "I wonder what the poor people are doing today" comment about families who don't have health insurance for their children, before he goes on to say that being a parent has made him more conservative; i.e. more determined to ensure that those kids don't get healthcare.
MikeN's comment is much more than snark. In my admittedly limited interactions with poor children over a period of some years, I saw the truth of his words. I saw children whose parents could not afford to buy them glasses. I saw children with uncontrolled asthma and diabetes, childen with obvious yet undiagnosed and untreated learning disabilities and mental illness. I saw children without dental care. I saw children who were gettng terrible nutrition, as well as some children who were obviously just plain hungry. You can talk about what's wrong with their parents till you're blue in the face, but that won't do anything to create a better future for the children. And anyone who thinks they have a level playing field and should be able to do just as well as anyone else is delusional.
I am disturbed, as well, by the contempt expressed for the parents. I know how easy it is to get mad at one's fellow grownups for not acting like grownups. But if you really got to know them and looked at their lives, you might find they had missed out on some of the essentials of life, too. Everyone starts out as a child. Everybody was once someone's cute little baby--just what some folks never tire of urging we all have more of. Everybody, for that matter, was once one of those darling, precious, godly little embryos, each and every one of which must be protected at all costs. So where is the dividing line where a person suddenly goes from "gift of God" to "self-centered, couldn't give a sh*t" moral reprobate upon whom we can spit without remorse?
Kudos to Mrs Pringle on the correct diagnosis about fear of nudity - the "that's so GAY" rejoinder has much more to due with fear of being deemed imperfect physically than sexuality as such. Boys have simply adopted what was once confined to women - self-consciousness about their own shortcomings in terms of physical beauty. That also helps to explain the hideous clothing fashions dominant among boys and young men - they disguise the body with a kind of comparatively neutral graffiti.
That's the market at work - because it's the market's job to make consumers anxious so that they will buy a product or service to relieve their anxiety. Much more of an issue than feminism or gay activism.
M_David: Dead eyes and overweight are "dead giveaways" for an awful lot of kids on anti-depressants, anti-psychotics, anti-seizure meds like Depakote, etc. These drugs cause dampening of affect, sluggishness, suicidal thoughts, and sometimes severe overweight. Their use is "black-boxed" by the FDA for teens, but doctors continue to prescribe them by the bushel-load anyway. Parents demand them. It's far, far worse than mere "institutionalization."
Stefanie:
I'm the first to admit doctors are too easy to prescribe Ritalin. And that children who are seriously ill are not monitored enough on anti-depressant medications that can animate their will to action before it elevates their moods, with potentially (if rarely) tragic results.
Yet and still ...
The increased diagnosis of depression and bipolar disorder in children is NOT quackery. Numerous scientific studies have concluded that the higher prevalence is NOT merely an issue of overdiagnosis. I know, as someone diagnosed with bipolar disorder in my 20s, when I go back with hindsight and read my old high school journals, I HAD BIPOLAR DISORDER THEN. I would have benefited enormously from having medication at an earlier age.
There seems to be a consistent anti-psychiatry bent among Crunchy Cons. Which is strange, because I would think you would be the last folks on earth to make common cause with Tom Cruise and his fellow Scientologists.
"So where is the dividing line where a person suddenly goes from "gift of God" to "self-centered, couldn't give a sh*t" moral reprobate upon whom we can spit without remorse?"
At birth? If not, obviously, the earlier you can date it, the better. The earlier the age at which a child becomes "irretrievably" messed up, the less responsibility anybody else has to help him or her.
I appreciate your post very much. We adopted toddler brothers from Russia in 2004. We didn't see ourselves up for special needs kids. We didn't think our boys were "special needs" kids. Our boys--wonderful, lovely boys--have extensive emotional behavior and some learning problems. After 3 years, the emotional battles and defiance have not gotten better. We have been working on changing our techniques. It is incumbent upon us to do so. I broke my "conservative" principles by agreeing to sending them both away from their mommy to Pre-K where they can get some structure and learning. Most recently, we have succumbed to medication for ADHD in one and possible seizures in the other. It has been painful to admit we are not able to give them all that they need with our love and affection. Firm and clear rules are also vital to children's wellbeing and sense of security. It has been heartbreaking to realize how damaged they were by spending 2 yrs (oldest) and 6 mos (younger) with their lethargic alcoholic bio-parents and the time in the orphanage. [It's a larger sadness for society in Russia, of course.] They've been through a lot. I don't know how much loss and pain we can heal. I hope as they get older, we can teach them more effectively about behavior and academic matters. [I am annoyed at the pressure the public school has on academic objectives for K entry!] And as long as we need special services, which are excellent in the small town we moved to, we can't send our boys to the parish school.
Thanks for the opportunity to share this sadness I feel of late and confirming my distress at having felt like I abandoned my high-minded principles.
We are celebrating our big boy's 6ht birthday this weekend. He's so excited. His school friends are coming, as are many cousins. It is such a joy to see such happiness in his little face. Pax.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.