2 ms·

My impression of the general trend is the opposite. When I think of parenting 50 or 100 years ago, I think of it as more formal and detached. Children address

My impression of the general trend is the opposite. When I think of parenting 50 or 100 years ago, I think of it as more formal and detached. Children addressing their parents as "sir" and "ma'am". Fathers who were emotionally distant and leaving much of the parenting to their mothers. Discipline that involved respecting the authority of all adult figures. When I think of parenting now I think of extensive concern with kids' emotional well-being, parents who take kids sides in quarrels with teachers, etc. I don't know if these impressions are broadly true, but it's interesting that my impression is of an opposite trend. I agree with the overall premise of the article, which is that kids are more fragile than they have been in the past. I'm just not sure that a decreased parent/child bond is the right explanation.

setpatchaddress 11y ago
Don't know, but you can certainly find historical descriptions of warm and loving fathers (as we would recognize them today) from the 1900's. My grandmother described her relationship with her father (born during that era) that way. I wonder if it's possible, at this distance, to quantify the emotional quality of family relationships from the early 20th century. Probably requires scouring a lot of oral history.
zeveb 11y ago
> When I think of parenting 50 or 100 years ago, I think of it as more formal and detached. Children addressing their parents as "sir" and "ma'am". I don't think that's detached, but precisely the opposite. Treating one's parents like anyone else says, 'you don't matter any more to me than anyone else does,' whereas treating one's parents as one's superiors says, 'you are my parents, older and wiser than I am, and I treat you unlike some random people on the street.'
- cholantesh 11y ago
  Right, but the familial bond isn't expressed by formal, ritualistic practice. That only creates a relationship of command.
  - zeveb 11y ago
    > Right, but the familial bond isn't expressed by formal, ritualistic practice. Seems like human society has for millennia worked by having formal rituals, and it's bound people together pretty well. I'm more than a little cautious about throwing all that out. > That only creates a relationship of command. What's wrong with that? A 'relationship of command' is exactly what the relationship between a parent and a three-year-old must be: when the parent shouts, 'don't touch that stove!' the kid must immediately shrink back; there's no time for inner reflection or external debate on the merits and demerits of stove-touching. As the child grows, the relationship becomes less and less commanding, but a wise adult will always listen to his parents (because they really do have more experience) and a wise adult will not command his grown child except as a last resort (because it's the only thing with a chance of getting through).

setpatchaddress 11y ago

Don't know, but you can certainly find historical descriptions of warm and loving fathers (as we would recognize them today) from the 1900's. My grandmother described her relationship with her father (born during that era) that way. I wonder if it's possible, at this distance, to quantify the emotional quality of family relationships from the early 20th century. Probably requires scouring a lot of oral history.

zeveb 11y ago

> When I think of parenting 50 or 100 years ago, I think of it as more formal and detached. Children addressing their parents as "sir" and "ma'am". I don't think that's detached, but precisely the opposite. Treating one's parents like anyone else says, 'you don't matter any more to me than anyone else does,' whereas treating one's parents as one's superiors says, 'you are my parents, older and wiser than I am, and I treat you unlike some random people on the street.'

cholantesh 11y ago
Right, but the familial bond isn't expressed by formal, ritualistic practice. That only creates a relationship of command.
- zeveb 11y ago
  > Right, but the familial bond isn't expressed by formal, ritualistic practice. Seems like human society has for millennia worked by having formal rituals, and it's bound people together pretty well. I'm more than a little cautious about throwing all that out. > That only creates a relationship of command. What's wrong with that? A 'relationship of command' is exactly what the relationship between a parent and a three-year-old must be: when the parent shouts, 'don't touch that stove!' the kid must immediately shrink back; there's no time for inner reflection or external debate on the merits and demerits of stove-touching. As the child grows, the relationship becomes less and less commanding, but a wise adult will always listen to his parents (because they really do have more experience) and a wise adult will not command his grown child except as a last resort (because it's the only thing with a chance of getting through).