22 February 2011

Parenting

Sara writes:

We ended our last blog with a question of nature vs. nurture, if you'll recall.  Frankly, the topic is way too debate-class for my taste.  I also find it tedious to cycle through a litany of arguments when I know the answer is going to end up in the "a combination of both" range.

However, a branch of this discussion that is very much on my mind is how it relates to parenting techniques: comparing the results of helicopter parenting vs. hands-off parenting.  (Again, the answer will be "a combination of both," but the nuances of when and where one should swoop in to the rescue are very interesting to me.)


A couple weeks ago, I cleaned out our library’s supply of books by Jim Fay, who pioneered this “Love and Logic” approach to teaching. He was a principal, I believe at an elementary school. He got tired of kids being rescued by their helicopter parents, not so much because they didn’t experience concrete consequences (although I bet that was irritating) but because the child learned that they’d always be rescued. That’s not only omitting a powerful potential lesson, but actively teaching something that’s going to make this kid’s life hell when they finally decide to join the real world (at 16, 18, 24… Whenever they move out of their parents’ basement).

My instinct is to hover like a Black Hawk. Always be just a foot away, intercept any danger or conflict before it becomes real in any way. I know this isn’t doing anyone any favors, though. I’ve trained myself to keep back, observe, and only step in when sharp objects are perilously close to eyeballs.

The cool thing about these books I’m reading, though, is that they do take it beyond just switching off helicopter mode. They propose a really interesting combination of total support and empathy along with a healthy dose of real consequence. An easy example is one of preparing oneself for the elements: Instead of fighting over wearing a coat, you let your child choose whether to wear one (or shoes, for that matter). Share what you’re going to do, and perhaps why (“Man, it looks cold. Think I’ll wear my coat today.”). Let the child do what he will.

Let’s say it’s 30 degrees outside, and the boy decided he didn’t want to mess with a coat. You still go out, you play, you do whatever you planned, for as long as you know you’re not actually endangering your child. He might be uncomfortable.

I’m all for that. That’s the “Logic” bit. The nuance that I’m appreciating reading about (and have yet to totally put into practice) is, oddly enough, the “Love” bit.

To make this really work, you’re supposed to suppress the natural tendency to lecture, and really empathize with the kid.  When you get on a “Well, you should have thought of that before! How many times do I have to tell you?” soapbox, the child’s brain shuts off in irritation, hurt and anger. Now YOU’RE the problem, not the coat. If you’re just empathetic (“Aw, bummer. I hate it when I’m cold.”), the brain is still open to learning mode. Then the little person can still think, internalize a lesson and apply the new knowledge to the next situation that comes up.

Funny: We’ve been applying the Logic side pretty regularly since our first child was 6 months or so. (If she’d hit us, for example, we’d put her down and walk away. There’s your consequence.) But as the kids get older it gets harder and harder to remain neutral, much less genuinely empathetic, when they’re total pills. Consequences are clear: If you race your car on the dog, you get a time-out (and perhaps a nip from a pissed-off Dane). As far as showing empathy instead of total frustration when it’s the fifth time this has happened in twenty minutes? My instinct is to let the dog do the teaching.

I can absolutely see how Love and Logic would work, and I love the theory. It’s just going to take a lot of practice, training, sleep and coffee (fatigue and patience have an inverse relationship, I’ve found).

So, to circle back to helicopter vs. hands-off: I'll be attempting strategic hands-off doused in love and empathy.  We'll see how this goes.

_____________

Rob writes:

One of the things that fascinates and annoys me about conversations involving child-rearing (heh heh, I said “rear”) is that we as a society seem to hold that area of discourse off-limits in terms of our willingness to criticize. It’s a sacred cow, territory we dare tread only on tippy-toes and eggshells. Even when the president’s wife promotes positive methods of raising children, Sarah Palin is able to get away with publicly criticizing her, which I realize is utterly political, but the underlying message is: “Don’t tell me how to raise my kids.” And it’s a message that seems to resonate, whether or not you agree with Palin’s politics.

By the way---tangent!---on this matter of my kids. Any time I hear a parent stress the word "my" before "kids," I want to say to him (or her): Hey dick (cunt), you're the guardian of that child, not its owner. Raising children is about stewardship, not property rights.

But it's true. Parents don’t want to be told by society how to raise their kids. And yet, nothing could possibly have greater repercussions for society at large. Try to think of something that impacts society more than how our children, and our neighbors’ children, are raised. The race of the child? Nope. The religion with which it's raised? Close, but no cigar. Its socioeconomic status? Of course not. All you need to prove the point is to accept that a child’s blackness or whiteness is less important than how he’s raised; that being raised Catholic doesn’t remotely guarantee a good girl; that poor kids can grow up to be contributing members of society, despite their financial disadvantages.

I’m not saying that good parenting is a guarantee---I reckon determining what “good parenting” even means would require some application of the scientific method---but it is more at the root of society’s goods and ills than anything I can think of, and I’d be wildly curious to read any well thought-out opinion to the contrary.

I’m glad for women like Michelle Obama (and their male counterparts), and really anyone with a voice who’s taking an active role in shaping society’s understanding of what it means to raise a child well. For my part, I lack the patience for such a role, as a recent encounter in a bar well illustrated for me.

By way of setting up the story, I give you two quotes from Louis CK’s HILARIOUS (which is both the name of the film and an apt description of the same):

“Kids are the only people in the world that you’re allowed to hit. They’re the most vulnerable, and they’re the most destroyed by being hit, but it’s totally okay to hit them. If you hit a dog, they will fuckin’ put you in jail for that shit. You can’t hit a person unless you can prove they were trying to kill you. But a little tiny person with a head this big who trusts you implicitly---fuck ‘em.”

Louie continues, in response to someone who defends hitting his kids as an effective way of getting them to do what he doesn’t want them to do:

“That wouldn’t be takin’ the fuckin’ easy way out, would it? How ‘bout talkin’ to ‘em for a second, ya fuckin’ retard? What are you, an idiot? What are you, a fuckin’ ape? They’re a pain in the ass? Well, you fucked a woman and a fuckin’ baby came out of her vagina, now you be patient.”

I don’t know about you, reader, but that shit makes me want to cheer. If nothing else, my love of Louis CK will be well documented over the lifetime of this blog. But anyway, my story.

So it's last December, and I’m at a bar in downtown Klamath Falls, Oregon (read: bumfuck nowhere), waiting for some friends. At some point, the subject of kids comes up, and I say to the bartender---you know what I do? I basically steal from Louie; that is, I paraphrase some of the lines quoted above, and I do it almost theatrically, confident that no one within earshot could possibly argue that it’s a good thing to hit children.

Except maybe the large fellow wearing the skin-tight Wranglers and cowboy hat three feet to my left.

“What, you don’t think it’s ever okay to hit a kid?” he drawls. He's one of those guys who moves and speaks super-slowly, giving one the impression of a wound-up snake ready to strike.

“Um, no,” I respond, matter-of-factly. “I don’t.” 

Dude looks at me like I've just said the stupidest thing he’s ever heard. He looks at me like I've said I don’t think it’s right to feed kids every day. “Well, how do you suggest dealing with ‘em when they get outta line?” he asks. I can hear in his tone that he wants to call me “smartass.”

“By reasoning with them---” I start to say, at which point dude looks at his old lady, then the bartender, and snorts.

“You ain’t never had kids. They don’t know what reason is.”

And I’m thinking, “Yeah, because you lack the patience to teach them, you fuck.” I can feel his temper, though, so I turn away and say nothing. I know he’s willing to smack his own kids around, so it isn’t gonna be a stretch for him to take a swing at me. I go back to my beer, fuming, wallowing in the ironic fact that I want to punch this bully in the face for hitting his kids---kids who will grow up with the understanding that hitting people they disagree with is an acceptable first response. And maybe that’ll affect me, and maybe it won’t, but it’ll affect someone.

And that’s one of the reasons I think it’s okay---hell, it's necessary---to talk about what constitutes good parenting. Because fuckstick parents raise fuckstick kids, and they fucking affect the rest of us.

As for you, Pavs, I’m inclined to just nod and agree with what you’ve written above. I know you, and I know you’re an exceptional person and parent, and I’m not worried about your kids. I trust that your methodology for raising them is thoughtful, compassionate, sound. But that shit isn't the case for a lotta-lotta parents out there, and a lotta-lotta monsters are being inflicted on the rest of us, and I think it's time we all get our heads out of our asses and ask ourselves: What's the better plan? Pouring millions of tax dollars per year into locking these bastards up? Or maybe---juuust maybe---should we as a society stop relying on band-aids and start working toward that precious ounce of prevention?

I know. I'm a lunatic.
_____________

Sara writes:

I LOVE your Louis C.K. excerpt (and the man himself). That’s spot-on.

And your friend at the bar, re: kids not knowing what reason is — that’s just maddening. We all have an animal nature as well as the potential for higher thought. Using your unfair physical advantage to scare a kid into doing what you want is just your lizard brain zapping his lizard brain. Short-circuiting the possibility of higher thought.

I’m not saying a squalling two-year-old is ready to be reasoned with, but there are techniques for waiting out the storm until his brain surfaces again. Then he sure as hell can learn. And if you’re not teaching him the power of words and thought, then you’re teaching him the power of the fist. And someone else’s kid is going to pay for that in middle school.

Here’s the hurdle, though, to raising the overall level of child-raising in America: I can’t think of something that’s more personal than parenting. I’m sure it’s different for everyone, but for myself and most of my parent-friends, the gravity of creating and raising a person coupled with the dearth of definitive instructions makes for some massive insecurity. (If that wasn’t obvious from our last post.)

It’s like you’ve been given a set of Tinkertoys (or my personal favorite, Capsela), told that you’re responsible for building something that will determine the happiness of the person you love most in the world — and impact the lives of hundreds of other people. With 20 sets of conflicting, vague instructions.

You do your best, right? And then move the hell on, because dwelling on the potential for making a poor choice is maddening.

But when someone says you’re parenting incorrectly, it strikes deeper than a simple criticism of technique. It snaps you back to that insecurity, and frankly feels like an implicit criticism of your children, and stand the fuck back when that happens.

So, you’re right. We need to have more open discourse about parenting techniques, and the responsibility parents have to raise children who won’t screw up other people (at the very least). There are clearly better ways and worse ways to raise children. I just wish I had a better idea for how to get around knee-jerk mother-bear reactions, so those ideas can be heard and considered.

What would work? Widespread research, perhaps coupled with institutionalized education of expecting parents. (How else to mandate that parents-to-be stop and think, even for a few hours, about how they’re going to teach their kids to be people?) Sounds suspiciously like big government, though. Good luck getting people to listen to ideas coming from that corner.

Hm. We need to get the Love and Logic guru to come up with a plan whereby bad parents see immediate consequences, get empathy, consider their choices and learn from their mistakes. Evidently it works for two-year-olds.


11 February 2011

Porn

Dear reader,

It has now been three weeks since our last entry. I would like to say that the delay is rather more a result of the subject matter of this entry than any disinterest on the part of Sara or myself. This was a tough nut to crack, and I don't know that we cracked it after all, but we did approach it honestly, and we filtered nothing.

NOTE: The video linked below is NSFW, or kids, probably, for that matter.
_____________

Rob writes:

Let's kick things off by clarifying our thoughts on the Die Antwoord video. Is it, or is it not, pornographic? For my part, I'd rather call it juvenile than pornographic, but then I don't like the word "pornography" to begin with. It's too subjective, as illustrated by Justice Stewart's famous "I know it when I see it" line. I'd be well out of my depth in any formal discussion of the law, but it seems to me we've done a decent job of defining murder, rape, arson, and so on. When it comes to obscenity, though? Not so much.

So what is obscene? What's pornography? Surely it can't be defined in terms of physical arousal or revulsion. If that were the case, anything and everything would be on the table to be classified as porn. By the way, if you'll indulge a quick tangent, I'd like to point out an irritating double standard where this sort of thing is concerned. To wit: I flipped past SCHOOL TIES the other day---that beloved, early 90s piece of shit---and was reminded that not only is there a naked shower fight between college guys in the film, but the motherfucker's rated PG-13! And I'm sitting there thinking, Jesus Christ, imagine the public and critical response to a PG-13 film that featured a nude Brooklyn Decker tussling with an equally unclothed Megan Fox in a dormitory shower. (Hang on. Let me just picture that for three and a half minutes, maybe four.) The point is, I'm sure there are plenty of gay dudes, and maybe even a few chicks, for whom SCHOOL TIES is perfectly serviceable beat-off material, and yet I've never once heard anyone crack wise about the gratuitousness of that shower scene. Which I'm sure would happen with my hypothetical Decker / Fox picture. Which I am now going to write.

Anyway, back to the question of what people and politicians consider to be obscene. My response to that is fairly simple: Who. Fucking. Cares. Because it's the wrong question. So what are the right questions?

Question #1: Hey, grown-ass men and women, why don't you quit being such pussies, and instead of endlessly bitching about the "offense" you took to a film or painting or political cartoon, how bout you just change the channel or stay the fuck away?

Question #2: To parents: You mind doing the rest of us a favor and stop expecting everyone else to "protect" your kids from the big, bad world?

Parents, raise your own fucking kids. Take responsibility for your progeny. Talk to them honestly, instill them with values, and try not to smack 'em around too much, and you know what? They'll probably turn out fine, pornography or no. And by "fine," I of course mean "average," which ain't great, but I'm sure it'll be enough to allow them to meet someone they like, crap out two or three kids of their own, get divorced, and then live vicariously through their grandchildren before they die. And the planet will magically continue to spin.
_____________

Sara writes: 

Man, I LOVE your view of family and humanity. It warms my cockles. 

So. Die Antwoord. I...I really don't know how much I can say about that. I find it super-disturbing, but I suspect it's more because of the juxtaposition of so many ridiculous penises with the freaky monster-rat imagery. I'd have to agree that it's more juvenile than pornographic, but I'm sure as hell not showing it to my kids. Ever. Even when they're 40. I don't think I'd ask anybody to watch that.

I know I'm basically Prudence McIronpants. There's a little, razor-thin slice of the porn market with which I'm comfortable: Mutually respectful lovey porn and mutually respectful accidental porn (think pizza boy, repairman, etc. "Hey, looks like you're here." "Yeah, looks like you're here too." "Hey, check it, I'm naked!" "Guess we should have sex."). I'm aware that the rest of the pie (and now everything I write, I'm going to be seeing with a 13-year-old boy's eye for innuendo, so, sorry about that) is chockfull of images and situations I'd rather not see. Combinations of fluids and holes and subjugations that have nothing to do with my concepts of love, sex or pleasure.

I don't really mind that it exists. Well, evidently I do, but I know I'm not at liberty to curtail other people's behavior or viewing habits. 

Where I see an actual problem is in that window where what I'd consider obscene porn (and I'm as subjective as Justice Stewart here) might shape someone's view of how the sexes should interact. I don't know how valid that is, or how often it happens. But it seems likely to me that seeing something...disrespectful, for lack of a less judgmental term---seeing something disrespectful, multiple times, without a proper filter...that could make an impression.

Here's the thing: I'm not convinced that young people have their self-and-everyone-else-respect bases totally set up. I worry that seeing something that denigrates women, for example...Without some sort of filter noting that it's fucked up, will they know, KNOW KNOW KNOW that it's fucked up? Or on some level would it be intriguing? And would they have been intrigued without having seen it? On their own, created the thought?

I don't have an answer. It's something I'll have to work on, because give me 10 years and I'll have some curious kids on my hands. I'm doing my best to teach them to think critically, discern and consider, but I don't really know how it's going to work.
_____________

Rob writes:

Dear Prudence,

Glad you came out to play.

I realize I sometimes come across as a misanthrope, but that really isn't the case. I've got a lovey-dovey streak in me a mile wide. It's just difficult for me to square what I've seen around the world with the golly-gee-aren't-we-all-precious-snowflakes mentality I encounter so frequently from Portland to Los Angeles (my two favorite cities, by the way). That said, your kids will no doubt land on their feet, thanks to you and E., and be far better than average. The girl's a shoo-in, from what I can tell. That must make you happy. Anyway, moving on.

You wrote:

"Seeing something disrespectful, multiple times, without a proper filter...that could make an impression." 

Again, for me, the answer's pretty simple (and I'm speaking generally, not specifically to you, Pavs): Parents, raise your kids. If you teach your kids that respecting others is a virtue, and you outline what that entails, then they'll recognize disrespect when they see it (and probably recoil). Course, if you come down too hard on them, smother them, use guilt and shame---religious or otherwise---as tools to get them to do what you want them to do, then your efforts will be at odds with your purpose. You worry about young people seeing something that's fucked-up "without some sort of filter noting that it's fucked up." To that I say: The filter is you. Parents are the filter.

I suspect a lot of parents don't like this responsibility. I suspect it makes them uncomfortable. Which is why so many of them would rather just make all this horrible porn stuff go away. I mean, that would be so much easier than having difficult conversations, right? Uh huh, but guess what? You had the kids. You knew what the world was---at least you should have---before you had them. This is just one of the challenges you accepted when you took the rubber off and let those fluids fly. This one's on you. Sorry.

As for so-called "deviant" sex. Does anyone imagine that this shit didn't exist hundreds, even thousands of years ago? The fact that it's more easily accessible today---that is, more easily viewed---doesn't mean it's more pervasive. And, if it seems more pervasive, I'd argue that the reason is that the people who used to have to be closeted about it now have readily available outlets for that same sexual energy. And as long as they're engaging in mutually consensual behavior between adults, I say more power to them. Hell, maybe their lives are completely miserable otherwise, poor bastards, and this is the only pleasure they get. Well, better they get it online or in a dungeon than roam the streets feeling all constipated and rapey (or shit-in-someone's-mouthy). 

By the way, while I'm on rape: Every girl I've ever been with who wanted to engage in a rape fantasy (which I would categorize as something quite a bit more than merely "disrespectful")---that is, a "fuck me forcibly while I struggle to escape" scenario---every one of them was an intelligent, articulate, productive member of society, one was a bona fide feminist, and all had what I'd consider to be good-to-solid childhoods. Some abandonment issues here and there, but nothing insurmountable. My point here isn't to flaunt my sex life, but to say that everyone's got their kink. Whether or not they're with someone they trust enough to explore it is another story, but it's there for everyone. And so what.

In the last analysis, doomsday predictions about porn ruining our youth and culture generally strike me as fairly ignorant and alarmist.
_____________

Sara writes: 

OK. Here goes. 

I can get behind most of what you're saying. People should be able to do what they consent to. People should be able to get their energies out in a safe manner, as long as nobody's getting hurt (without volunteering for the position). 

Here's where I take exception:

You write, "I suspect a lot of parents don't like this responsibility. I suspect it makes them uncomfortable. Which is why so many of them would rather just make all this horrible porn stuff go away. I mean, that would be so much easier than having difficult conversations, right?"

The difficult conversations are thrilling. That's where the real growth happens. That's the real stuff: the meat of life. What makes me uncomfortable is simply the fact that as much as a parent might do to ensure she's raising a happy, adaptable person, there's no guarantee at all. Parents absolutely are the filters, as you say, but I'm not convinced the filter is bulletproof. It's that uncertainty that makes me peek into the dark corners and wonder if my efforts will be ambushed at some later date, when I have even less control over the child's outcome than I have now.

I'm a code monkey, you know? I write a certain bit of nonsense into a program and I get a result. Wherever I put that bit of nonsense, as long as I account for other potential parameters, I'll get the result I'm looking for. To shift from that control and predictability into the world of growing a whole person, with countless and unimaginable future parameters, hoping hoping hoping that what I'm trying to instill will be able to withstand whatever trauma life throws into the path of the child...That, my dear, is phenomenally frightening.

Which is why, I'm sure, I haven't enjoyed thinking about this or writing about this, and why this post has ended up taking a month. I'd much rather close my laptop, walk across the hall and squeeze the shit out of my little guys, while I can. While I have more control over their "user experience" than I ever will again.

So, see  ya. I have three warm little bears that need squeezing.
_____________

Rob writes: 

I would be wildly interested to study the differences between folks who were raised by hands-off vs. helicopter parents. Based strictly on my own experience, and firsthand accounts of those I know and have listened to, I'm inclined to say that kids with helicopter parents (endlessly hovering, micro-managing) fare worse than those mostly left to their own devices. I have no hard data to support that statement, only anecdotal evidence, but I feel fairly convinced that Nature deals each of us a hand, and the best a parent can do is not fuck a kid up. Yes there's love, and yes there's cuddling, and yes there's a sense of family, of unity. But Nurture isn't necessarily as nurturing as it sounds. Something to consider in the context of this discussion.
_____________

Sara writes: 

Let's also consider it in the context of our next discussion. Can of worms you cracked there, my friend. To be continued....