5 ms·

While I think his insights on how we treat our children is amazingly insightful, and I love how it's described as a religion (the point that children are our sa

by Vexs 11y ago

While I think his insights on how we treat our children is amazingly insightful, and I love how it's described as a religion (the point that children are our sacred cows is very good in particular) his attempt to relate it to marriages seems shoehorned at best. There's a lot of problems with the way we treat children, but I think it's relation to marriage is the least of our issues. But seriously, the whole "children as a religion" point is great. I mean, think of some of the bills and laws that get passed because "think of the children". It's not too different from religious laws.

saeranv 11y ago
Yes. I instinctively expect the worst when I see the words 'concerned parents' in the news.
sakopov 11y ago
I don't think it's shoehorned at all. The author makes it clear that marriage should come first and children second because if you lose touch with your husband/wife while focusing solely on your children you will inevitably become miserable with each other and it will rub off not only on your kids but also your marriage. I've heard the same thing from just about any married couple I know.
tinalumfoil 11y ago
I don't think he's being insightful at all. All his observations seem to be shallow and his conclusions are weak. > parenthood became a religion in America...Nothing in life is allowed to be more important than our children...a human achieves its peak value at birth and declines thereafter Most Americans tend to believe their children come first. This isn't a religion, it's an evolutionary instinct. A species can't continue if its organisms don't put enough effort into their offspring if their offspring are completely defenseless for the first decade of their life and only 3 are born to every female. If I kick a 40-year-old out of my house he'll find a hotel to stay at temporarily and be fine. If I dump a 2-year-old on the street, they'll be roadkill within the hour. Caring more about children isn't any more unique to this time period than it is to this species. > Another sign of the parenthood religion is that it has become totally unacceptable in our culture to say anything bad about our children, let alone admit that we don’t like them all of the time. I grew up in a household where my parents weren't afraid to tell the truth to me and it was pretty brutal. There's enough negativity at school that it feels like people are surrounding you at all sides with insecurities. Honesty isn't bad but if your kid goes to public school he already knows where he falls short. Also, saying things behind your kid's back isn't any better. It'll come back around to them. > Mothers are also holy in a way that fathers are not expected to be. Mothers live in a clean, cheerful world filled with primary colors and children’s songs, and they don’t think about sex. I don't know where this is coming from. Maybe this was Jesus' ideal for a mom, but nowadays the ideal mom seems to be one that argues over who's carpooling next week and buys their 16-year-old birth control just in case. I think anyone who can could and do laundry probably automatically counts as a good mother nowadays. I think the problem is the author treats kids more like a car than a living being. Your car's muffler isn't going to get fixed until you admit it's broken. You don't fix your kid by bringing him into the shop one day after work. Being a parent requires being a teacher, boss and friend at the same time. In no way is "owner" ever part of that definition.
- discardorama 11y ago
  > I don't think he's being insightful at all. All his observations seem to be shallow and his conclusions are weak. Thank you; you put it better than I could. A small example that demolishes his crackpot theory: we just had a kid a few weeks ago. We have a cat, who has never been around children, and who has never had children. And yet, when the child cries, the cat comes running; and if the cries do not subside soon enough, she'll start howling. And then there's this example: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30893297 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30893297 Is the cat following some religion too? Hogwash.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- dennisgorelik 11y ago
  > species can't continue if its organisms don't put enough effort into their offspring "Enough effort" is not the same as "Nothing in life is allowed to be more important".
- Someone 11y ago
  "If I dump a 2-year-old on the street, they'll be roadkill within the hour. Caring more about children isn't any more unique to this time period than it is to this species." OTOH, evolutionary, if you die, that 2-year-old and its siblings do not have a bright future, either. If that 2-year-old dies its sibling may survive. Even if it is your only child, you may be able to bring another child into the world. If you model this, I expect that you can make either strategy optimal, depending on small twists to your model's parameters (increase family ties a bit, and chances are that 2 year old will get adopted; increase child mortality, and that 2-year-old may only count as half a 10-year-old in terms of expected number of surviving children, even if its parents stay around to care for it)

by Vexs 11y ago

saeranv 11y ago

Yes. I instinctively expect the worst when I see the words 'concerned parents' in the news.

sakopov 11y ago

I don't think it's shoehorned at all. The author makes it clear that marriage should come first and children second because if you lose touch with your husband/wife while focusing solely on your children you will inevitably become miserable with each other and it will rub off not only on your kids but also your marriage. I've heard the same thing from just about any married couple I know.

tinalumfoil 11y ago

I don't think he's being insightful at all. All his observations seem to be shallow and his conclusions are weak. > parenthood became a religion in America...Nothing in life is allowed to be more important than our children...a human achieves its peak value at birth and declines thereafter Most Americans tend to believe their children come first. This isn't a religion, it's an evolutionary instinct. A species can't continue if its organisms don't put enough effort into their offspring if their offspring are completely defenseless for the first decade of their life and only 3 are born to every female. If I kick a 40-year-old out of my house he'll find a hotel to stay at temporarily and be fine. If I dump a 2-year-old on the street, they'll be roadkill within the hour. Caring more about children isn't any more unique to this time period than it is to this species. > Another sign of the parenthood religion is that it has become totally unacceptable in our culture to say anything bad about our children, let alone admit that we don’t like them all of the time. I grew up in a household where my parents weren't afraid to tell the truth to me and it was pretty brutal. There's enough negativity at school that it feels like people are surrounding you at all sides with insecurities. Honesty isn't bad but if your kid goes to public school he already knows where he falls short. Also, saying things behind your kid's back isn't any better. It'll come back around to them. > Mothers are also holy in a way that fathers are not expected to be. Mothers live in a clean, cheerful world filled with primary colors and children’s songs, and they don’t think about sex. I don't know where this is coming from. Maybe this was Jesus' ideal for a mom, but nowadays the ideal mom seems to be one that argues over who's carpooling next week and buys their 16-year-old birth control just in case. I think anyone who can could and do laundry probably automatically counts as a good mother nowadays. I think the problem is the author treats kids more like a car than a living being. Your car's muffler isn't going to get fixed until you admit it's broken. You don't fix your kid by bringing him into the shop one day after work. Being a parent requires being a teacher, boss and friend at the same time. In no way is "owner" ever part of that definition.

discardorama 11y ago
> I don't think he's being insightful at all. All his observations seem to be shallow and his conclusions are weak. Thank you; you put it better than I could. A small example that demolishes his crackpot theory: we just had a kid a few weeks ago. We have a cat, who has never been around children, and who has never had children. And yet, when the child cries, the cat comes running; and if the cries do not subside soon enough, she'll start howling. And then there's this example: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30893297 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30893297 Is the cat following some religion too? Hogwash.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
dennisgorelik 11y ago
> species can't continue if its organisms don't put enough effort into their offspring "Enough effort" is not the same as "Nothing in life is allowed to be more important".
Someone 11y ago
"If I dump a 2-year-old on the street, they'll be roadkill within the hour. Caring more about children isn't any more unique to this time period than it is to this species." OTOH, evolutionary, if you die, that 2-year-old and its siblings do not have a bright future, either. If that 2-year-old dies its sibling may survive. Even if it is your only child, you may be able to bring another child into the world. If you model this, I expect that you can make either strategy optimal, depending on small twists to your model's parameters (increase family ties a bit, and chances are that 2 year old will get adopted; increase child mortality, and that 2-year-old may only count as half a 10-year-old in terms of expected number of surviving children, even if its parents stay around to care for it)