Thoughts on parenting

[mamagotcha]

So FaceBook has been all atwitter about that article about why parenting sucks, and I have some thoughts about it.

I think a lot of the problem isn't just having kids, it's the WAY Americans raise their kids that's causing so much strife and agony.

The example of the homework battle used in the article? Looked pretty simple to me... cooperatively set up an agreement about the homework before the TV viewing started, along with a consequence for failing to meet the expectation. Or, let the kid take the natural consequence for not finishing the homework. But the prevailing attitude of "kids need parents to make them do the right thing" is the same mentality as "kids need schools to tell them what to learn," which I fundamentally disagree with.

And even though both of those attitudes have caused HUGE family disharmony in our culture, people still cling to them as if they were the laws of physics.

It makes me really sad, because I think people are causing a lot of their own problems with their kids... unconsciously, or unintentionally, because they don't know there is another way to approach parenting.

The decay of the nuclear family and surrounding community breakdowns are also huge factors in why parents (especially mothers) feel so isolated and frustrated. If you met up with the same group of moms each day to let the kids run around together, only a couple of moms would need to be on top of the kids at any given time... the others could be pursuing their own interests.

There was a statistic in the article, about how married couples spend so much less time with each other than they did in 1975. That's because elementary-school-aged kids were expected to pretty much take care of themselves, and with the crazy-ass environment of fear (along with the plan-every-minute-of-the-day parenting style) of today, there's very little time for kids to just run around and be kids. I often jokingly say that I raised my kids via benign neglect, and while that's somewhat of an overstatement... there's a goodly bit of truth in it, too. I let Linc play in the front and back yards by himself often, and I never see other kids his age on our street do the same thing... it's just NOT DONE anymore. I don't think there are any more rapists or murderers out there than there were when I was a kid... they're just feared more today.

Keeping kids scheduled or locked up indoors to prevent abduction makes me think of the campaign to make babies sleep on their backs to avoid SIDS... that has resulted in a huge number of kids with flat head syndrome, or the rising number of allergies might be a result of withholding foods instead of early exposure, or the medicalization of birth that has resulted in a 30%+ cesarean rate. If there was a large-scale study of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated children, I'd be willing to bet that there would be a large number of chronic diseases and conditions associated with fully vaccinated children, too... but the PTB that would be damaged by such a revelation certainly are doing their best to make sure such a study never happens. And even if such connections were proven, there would STILL be a huge push to continue vaxing as prevention, that the lesser evils of the risk of contracting Crohns, eczema, asthma, or diabetes are worth it.

In other words... from where I sit, the problems caused by the solutions are often worse (and certainly affect far more individuals) than the initial conditions. Like our acceptance of the PITA rules for air travel, we each meekly accept many small indignities and problems to offset the tiny chance of being hit by a big one. I'm not sure how we turned into such a society, how our risk assessment and management got so skewed... but I know I'm in the minority by turning away from it.

TL;DR: No, I don't think parenting is supposed to make us deliriously happy. But I don't think it has to make us miserable, either.

Comments

[justme8800.livejournal.com]

Mom, I can understand your being put off by comments focusing on a such a small part of your post. However, you've gotta realize how jarring it is to come across this kind of thing in the middle of what is usually intelligent and insightful dialogue.

I know you don't see it this way, but vaccine skepticism is, to us, at a similar level as 9/11 truth or faked moon landings. When you nonchalantly say things like this, it's hard to not respond. I'm especially impressed with 2006 for being able to approach this so gently. It reminds me of how I'm impressed with my dad for getting along so well with a Mormon.

It's sad that what would otherwise be an interesting and thought-provoking piece is tainted like this. Every time it happens, I try my best to look past it and move on, but it's not easy to ignore. I didn't want to be the one to stand up and say this, but yes, it's quite justifiable for this to be the only thing one takes away from your response.

PS, thanks for raising me to have an open mind, think for myself, and not be bound by the views I grew up with. It seems to have worked. :)

[mamagotcha.livejournal.com]

Fair enough. Thank you for your response (well, both of them).

I suppose I'm glad you, of all of my kids, feel this way, because I think you were the one who had to deal with the damage I feel was caused by a vaccine (specifically, the destroyed enamel of your pre-erupted teeth from the high fever).

I just have a really hard time believing that healthy immune systems need artificial support. We were told artificial milk was better, and we all know how THAT turned out.

Reading the works of Michel Odent, Robert Mendelssohn, William Sears, and observing the relative health of the nonvaxed vs. vaxed communities in my own environment/family, reinforced the notion that optimal health for the individual coincided with refusing or at least delaying vaccines.

I totally get the argument that we all must vaccinate for the health of the weakest among us. I have a hard time with the lowering-the-individual-for-the-sake-of-the-group idea... kind of the communist view of health care.

Well, anyway, that's not what this post was about. Thanks again for your honesty!

[2006in2006.livejournal.com]

The vaccine thing wasn't the only thing I took away. Not at all. In fact I agreed with pretty much everything else you said, and you're right that I should have said so. But Cord is very perceptive that it's quite jarring to see this coming from an otherwise very well informed writer, especially when you invoke "PTB" conspiracy theories. That's the exact same argument that creationists use against the teaching of evolution, and has just as much basis in reality.

In early 2003 I agreed with your idea to not vaccinate Linc based on your argument that (a) the current studies casting doubt on the safety of vaccines, (b) the surprisingly low number of cases in the U.S., suggesting that the risk of relying on herd immunity was comparable to the risk of vaccination, and (c) uncertainties about the very early developing immune system and how it might be reacting.

A) is no longer operative; Andrew Wakefield was a profiteering fraud who broke medical ethics, fabricated his data and has profited over half a million british pounds from it. Studies done since 2003 have shown absolutely no association between thimerosal and autism. Other studies (like the ones I linked) have shown no association between vaccines and allergies. Even the Generation Rescue telephone survey -- a study done by an antivax organization, with huge ascertainment biases -- found that the fully vaccinated kids had less autism than the partially vaccinated kids. The evidence of bad effects just hasn't held up from what it looked like in 2003.

B) is no longer operative; because of concerns about vaccines, the lowered vaccination rate has increased the rates of these diseases. This means that herd immunity is weaker and the odds of encountering a pathogen are higher. (Also, if we're relying on herd immunity for Linc, shouldn't you REALLY be encouraging, not discouraging, absolutely everyone in your social circle to get their adorable little vectors vaccinated to the gills?)

C) is no longer operative; Linc's immune system has had 6 years, lots and lots of nursing, and plenty of nasty dirty things coming off the floor and into his mouth to get fully developed. He's no longer an infant with a naive immune system.

I think your philosophy will be proved absolutely right that a less aseptic approach will give better, healthier outcomes. Avoiding exposure to normal environmental dirt (by witholding foods, not sharing germs, not prechewing for babies, antibacterial soaps everywhere and getting covered in good old fashioned dirt) are all contributing to the increase in autoimmune diseases. Our immune systems evolved to be under constant assault, and it is easy to see how an idle immune system could get bored and start attacking the body. But think about this:

Vaccination is not an "artificial support" to the immune system. It is an artificial challenge.

I saw this pointed out recently, and it made me realize that the dirt-is-good-for-you hypothesis actually suggests vaccination should be a good thing. It is exposing the immune system to non-diseases to make it think it's being attacked by real diseases -- giving it something foreign to aim at. It's tickling the immune system so you will already have antibodies against the real thing in case you ever encounter it. It's like going to the gym for your immunoglobulins. The side effects of vaccination feel like a cold, because the ill effects of a cold are mostly caused by your immune system kicking in -- and that's exactly what the vaccine is supposed to make happen. Look at figure 2 of that second study I linked above; the vaccinated kids had lower incidence of wheeze/asthma. Probably not significant (suggesting -- again -- that if there is any effect here, it's really weak) but consistent with the idea.

Based on this, I dont' think vaccination is a matter of "lowering-the-individual-for-the-sake-of-the-group." I think its more like buying auto insurance; paying a reasonable price to hopefully prevent catastrophe (either for you individually, or protecting someone else you might run into).

[2006in2006.livejournal.com]

Sorry just realized I should have said 2004 not 2003 in the 2nd/3rd paragraphs. Doh.

[jedusor.livejournal.com]

FWIW, if you were just saying, "Cordell had a bad reaction to a vaccine, and such reactions demonstrably run in families; therefore, I don't want to risk similar things happening to my other children," I would be totally fine with your position. My incredulity comes from all the crappy science and flawed reasoning and weird conspiracy theories you throw in on top of that.