7 ms·

I agree and think that this is a huge growing cultural expectation - "you have to live for your children". I don't think it used to be the case. Well OK sure I

by a1exyz 2y ago

I agree and think that this is a huge growing cultural expectation - "you have to live for your children". I don't think it used to be the case. Well OK sure I get that that would be good for kids but you're also gonna limit the number of parents if that's the new normal.

hiAndrewQuinn 2y ago
It might be mildly good for kids on net, I actually don't really have a lot of confidence around that claim - kids are quite good at keeping themselves entertained. I have high confidence around the claim that it is moderately bad for parents, and so my sympathies lie quite strongly with reducing the workload on them.
orangecat 2y ago
Well OK sure I get that that would be good for kids And past a certain point it's not.
- WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
  >> Well OK sure I get that that would be good for kids > And past a certain point it's not. Where do you estimate that point is? What harm do you believe lies past it?
  - TeMPOraL 2y ago
    Parent of small kids here. Tricky to estimate, because the desire to not have your kids be worse off because you didn't do enough, and the desire for them to have it better than you, are strong and not really bounded. However, the idea of parents giving 100% of themselves to the children is also an unsustainable one, and fundamentally horrifying one - if everyone things this way, generation by generation, then this robs existence from any meaning. It's admitting that all the good and nice things in the world, all that separates us from other animals, are all accidents, all made by people who weren't good enough at giving their children their best, and instead wasted their time on stuff like arts and sciences. So I think there must be a point somewhere. And perhaps a hint of that is the observation that kids are better off with happy parents than with unhappy ones.
    - WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
      > However, the idea of parents giving 100% of themselves to the children is also an unsustainable one, No one is suggesting giving 100% because it is an impossibility. What is suggested is that parents and children have the same priority - the children's wellbeing. I have 5 adult sons. The value of my wellbeing is that it enhances their wellbeing. This reflects the nature of our one-way debt. They owe me nothing. I owe them what I can give.
Vegenoid 2y ago
I actually think it is good for kids to have exposure to: - entertaining themselves - working/providing for themselves - having to do things that they don’t want to do - being told no, and dealing with unfulfilled desire All with balance, I am not proposing that kids are just left to fend for themselves. Caring for your kids materially and emotionally is important, but so is living your own life and making them live theirs. I may be having kids in the not too distant future, and when I think about how I would parent, I consider 2 families I know who I have seen raise children. In one, the kids are often denied requests they make for objects they want to own and activities they want to do. The parents drag their kids along to things that they (the parents) want to do, rather than not doing the thing because the kids don’t want to. At family gatherings, their parents expect that they will take care of and entertain themselves, while the parents enjoy time with the other adults. In the other family, the kids are showered with toys and attention, and their mom goes to great effort to open any door for them that they express interest in. At family gatherings, the parents are always checking on their kids, and indulge every request the kids make of them. Which family has happier, more capable, and well-adjusted children? Which family has happier parents? The answer to both is the first family.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- closeparen 2y ago
  The high-effort parents I know aren't overly concerned with that their kids want, but they constantly sacrifice their own time and sanity for what they deem to be in the child's best interests. Kids love screens, parents love getting to do their own thing while the child is quietly occupied, but a certain type of parent feels the need to go to war over the screen time limit rather than enjoy their dinner. Neither father nor son is having a good time at soccer practice, but a kid's got to have a sport. And so on. We're calling for something bolder here than merely the will to override a child's wishes. Parents need a permission structure to prioritize their own desires, not just the ones they have on behalf of the children. There was a good Ezra Klein episode about this [0]. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/22/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-caitlyn-collins.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/22/opinion/ezra-klein-podcas...

by a1exyz 2y ago

hiAndrewQuinn 2y ago

It might be mildly good for kids on net, I actually don't really have a lot of confidence around that claim - kids are quite good at keeping themselves entertained. I have high confidence around the claim that it is moderately bad for parents, and so my sympathies lie quite strongly with reducing the workload on them.

orangecat 2y ago

Well OK sure I get that that would be good for kids And past a certain point it's not.

WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
>> Well OK sure I get that that would be good for kids > And past a certain point it's not. Where do you estimate that point is? What harm do you believe lies past it?
- TeMPOraL 2y ago
  Parent of small kids here. Tricky to estimate, because the desire to not have your kids be worse off because you didn't do enough, and the desire for them to have it better than you, are strong and not really bounded. However, the idea of parents giving 100% of themselves to the children is also an unsustainable one, and fundamentally horrifying one - if everyone things this way, generation by generation, then this robs existence from any meaning. It's admitting that all the good and nice things in the world, all that separates us from other animals, are all accidents, all made by people who weren't good enough at giving their children their best, and instead wasted their time on stuff like arts and sciences. So I think there must be a point somewhere. And perhaps a hint of that is the observation that kids are better off with happy parents than with unhappy ones.
  - WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
    > However, the idea of parents giving 100% of themselves to the children is also an unsustainable one, No one is suggesting giving 100% because it is an impossibility. What is suggested is that parents and children have the same priority - the children's wellbeing. I have 5 adult sons. The value of my wellbeing is that it enhances their wellbeing. This reflects the nature of our one-way debt. They owe me nothing. I owe them what I can give.

Vegenoid 2y ago

I actually think it is good for kids to have exposure to: - entertaining themselves - working/providing for themselves - having to do things that they don’t want to do - being told no, and dealing with unfulfilled desire All with balance, I am not proposing that kids are just left to fend for themselves. Caring for your kids materially and emotionally is important, but so is living your own life and making them live theirs. I may be having kids in the not too distant future, and when I think about how I would parent, I consider 2 families I know who I have seen raise children. In one, the kids are often denied requests they make for objects they want to own and activities they want to do. The parents drag their kids along to things that they (the parents) want to do, rather than not doing the thing because the kids don’t want to. At family gatherings, their parents expect that they will take care of and entertain themselves, while the parents enjoy time with the other adults. In the other family, the kids are showered with toys and attention, and their mom goes to great effort to open any door for them that they express interest in. At family gatherings, the parents are always checking on their kids, and indulge every request the kids make of them. Which family has happier, more capable, and well-adjusted children? Which family has happier parents? The answer to both is the first family.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
closeparen 2y ago
The high-effort parents I know aren't overly concerned with that their kids want, but they constantly sacrifice their own time and sanity for what they deem to be in the child's best interests. Kids love screens, parents love getting to do their own thing while the child is quietly occupied, but a certain type of parent feels the need to go to war over the screen time limit rather than enjoy their dinner. Neither father nor son is having a good time at soccer practice, but a kid's got to have a sport. And so on. We're calling for something bolder here than merely the will to override a child's wishes. Parents need a permission structure to prioritize their own desires, not just the ones they have on behalf of the children. There was a good Ezra Klein episode about this [0]. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/22/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-caitlyn-collins.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/22/opinion/ezra-klein-podcas...