2 ms·
The larger point was that though kids don't need their parents hovering over them and planning their activities, as it happens now, they still need a community
by macspoofing 7y ago
The larger point was that though kids don't need their parents hovering over them and planning their activities, as it happens now, they still need a community - whether that community is are immediate or close relations, or a tribe, doesn't matter. If a kid has 6 siblings, you almost don't need parents to be anything other than income providers since the kids will socialize and raise themselves. The alternative of a parent living their own life, and abandoning kids to a nanny and a set of structured managed activities isn't that great. The nuclear family is perfectly fine too. That was also a reality throughout a lot human history.
This mother describes the worst of all worlds. She's not involved in the lives of her kids. The kids are shuttled between her and her father. The nanny and her preschool teacher are the primary caregivers. It just isn't great. The fact that she wrote this article in the nyTimes to pat herself on the back for what a great job she's doing for society (Hint: She's not that important and society will survive without her) - is distasteful.