The front of the July 19, 2010, edition of TIME magazine has a boy smirking at the camera with a hand from his Mom in one of his hands and his Dad’s hand in the other. The title reads The Only Child Myth and the sub-title is “They’re supposed to be selfish, spoiled and lonely. In fact, they’re just fine – and on the rise.”
For those of you who don’t know me, I am the father of eleven (11) - yeah, that is right - eleven children. And I am proud of it and happy that I am. It was no mistake and I take my responsibility to care for each them very seriously. So this story immediately caught my attention. You see, before even getting into the story, I already disagreed with the premise – in many ways. And I think that this will become my topic for this entire week. Why is it that we are so messed up on our perspectives of parenting? What should we believe about our responsibilities – before man, before Christ, before our spouses?
Before even reading the article I knew that I would disagree with just about everything written. In fact, I figured that the premise would be this…”economy is bad, children are expensive…children deserve to be happy and spoiled…discipline is wrong…we need to be careful not to overpopulate the world because we are like maggots destroying the earth (us humans)”. But I chose to be open-minded and reasonable and hope to find some positive in the article. So let’s see what I found:
- It starts off with a little sob story of how expensive children are. That just for milk and diapers it is at least $150 per month for her one child – and she (the author) couldn’t imagine having two, or even three children. The point – children are expensive and we must look at them from a monetary perspective. We are in a recession in our culture so child bearing must be kept to a minimum…next point…
- For the last 120 years, our mind-set has been flawed by a man named Granville Stanley Hall, who established one of the first American psychology-research labs and was a leader of the child-study movement. He portrayed a faulted perspective that children without siblings would be misfits…oddballs. The author works to discredit his findings with evidence that not only are they not oddballs, they are smarter…way smarter than children in multiple child homes. Her information is based mainly on two studies – one of only 115 and the other 200 children…not very conclusive in my mind but I guess it was good enough in her mind to be conclusive…next point…
- Moves into the fact that we are prejudice against one-child households and our perspective must change. Refers to China’s one-child laws several times (I am sure with goals of beginning to normalize the philosophy into US governmental policy). Have a feeling she would be very interested in a regulatory system in America determining the maximum amount of children per household – would love to be proven wrong though…next point…
- As we have more children, we are hurting our children because we have to “dilute our resources” and that is not acceptable or beneficial for that child. They need to be spoiled because it helps their self-esteem. They will grow out of it. They must have more to be happy and successful…next point…
- Parents of one child will spend more time with them. They will all be able to do dance lessons, piano lessons, and prep courses because the family unit is secure…oops, I think she forgot to look at any statistics about families staying together or parents being willing to come home and spend time with their children. But that would hurt the point she is making which is in essence that households with only one child are rich and happy. They can afford the expensive dance lessons, piano lessons, their children will be in prep schools because they have so must expendable income (don’t see that as legitimate – how about you)…next point…
- To quote, “But if only children (children from single-child families) do get it all…” – what??? Is it just a given that only children get it all…wow! I had no idea. I was not aware that only children get it all. Very nice perspective though…well written…next point…
- Parents of one child “have significantly higher expectations of academic achievement and attainment”. So in essence, her point…they are better parents. That must make me…well you know. I wonder how they are on character and discipline. I wonder if these children make it further in life because of the expectations. Do these parents actually spend more time grooming their children or do they just have higher expectations…next point…
- Parents who have only one child are happier. Now here is the kicker…happiness…its’ what life is really all about. If we are happy, we are achieving our goals and we are doing what we should be…
I am going to end here mainly because I think I could keep writing for a long time. The article is so focused on proving the point that families must accept the reality that they should only be having one child. These children will be happier, smarter, and more successful. And the parents will be happier this way. Ultimately, our society is better off as well and this is the “New Traditional Family” in America.
One of the most interesting “plugs” in the entire article is a small little plug where Lauren Sandler (author) says that even though women are desiring to only have one child, that “friends and relatives – not to mention supermarket cashiers, pastors, and, I’ve found, strangers on the subway – continue to urge parents of only children to have another…”. So why would pastors be linked in with cashiers and strangers…interesting. Maybe because they don’t have the right to tell us biblically what is right or wrong. Or could it be that they are linking people who make bad decisions (more than one child) in parenting to religious, right-wing nuts. I don’t personally even find today that most pastors would be pushing couples to have large families in general. I could be wrong, but I see much the opposite.
As I write this, I know that I am at complete opposites with the views portrayed in this article. I have eleven children, love God, believe in healthy discipline of my children, love my wife, and believe in freedom – real freedom. I don’t believe under any circumstance that the amount of children we have should be regulated by the government. I believe children should be an example of good character, and that they are here to be a help and benefit to society – yes, even as children – and not a hindrance. Children should not be expected to rebel as a teenager and it should not be expected that children are difficult, unruly, and selfish at a young age. They should not scream in the supermarket when they don’t get what they want and they should listen the first time they are talked to by their parents. It used to be that children were a blessing to the family. Our society used to see children as an asset, not a financial responsibility. It’s no wonder why we see so many abortions. Women have been fed a lie and don’t see the children the way they should.
As I say all of this, I want to be careful to make sure I end this blog stating that I am not just simply against single-child families in general. It is not my decision or place to determine how many children people have. It is also not the place of government or society to determine this either. But the expectation that only having one child is the responsible thing to do, that this creates happiness, success, and a good society is ridiculous and unfounded and needs to be challenged.
Those on the “left” want us to believe that government and society should be of one-mind, and that one mind regulated and determined by the government. Regulation of family size, family structure, and child-rearing including discipline and education, should be left in the hands of the government. This philosophy is dead wrong and cannot be allowed to penetrate the church or our Christian beliefs.
More on this point this week. Those of you who don’t believe that there is a major international movement for the government to regulate your rights as a parent stay tuned. You might be amazed at what you find…your thoughts…
No comments:
Post a Comment