Podcast on Parenting
Today, we are talking with fellow bloggers, James Lileks and Cathy Seipp, on how parenting has changed over the last thirty or so years. Lileks is the author of Mommy Knows Worst : Highlights from the Golden Age of Bad Parenting Advice,
which is a hilarious book about the bad parenting advice from the 1940's and 1950's. You can see a review of his book by me here at TCS Daily. Seipp is a columnist at the LA Times and blogger at Cathy's World. She has some interesting ideas about parenting that she shares with us.You can listen to the podcast here or you can subscribe to us on iTunes by clicking here.
There is an archive of past podcasts here. And there's a lo-fi version for dialup here.
Please leave comments or suggestions below.
posted by Helen at 7:41 PM
36 Comments:
Good fun. I want one of those windowboxes for my kids.
Does Glenn always sound like that? He sounds like he's making a specified effort not to sound southern.
Great show Helen. I like to hear other people's opinions on parenting. James is right when he says he wants his daughter to do whatever makes her happy. I think modern parents live with a lot of fear and anxiety. Popular culture, media, academia all contribute to a vast stream of information about parenting and children. Our expectations are easily cut loose from our personal experience. It is overwhelming and unsettling. Trusting yourself and your children is essential to good parenting.
Very nice! I've read Lileks talking about parenting quite a bit but it was really delightful to actually hear the sound in his voice while talking about some of this stuff. It's very inspiring to see how well he's managed to make the work/parenting combo work for himself.
Helen,
It's great to hear four of my favorite bloggers in conversation. For such a momentous occassion you should have been gathered on a stage in front of appreciative undergrads somewhere, looking droll and sane while your respective accents dueled...
PS- does your daughter share her mother's accent, or is she falling victim to the yankee migration south?
Great show. I've listened to it twice so far. I, too, regularly read all four blogs represented and find all of you very edifying and entertaining. Please keep up the good work!
Liked much of what was in the interview. For example, "college is overrated" and “if your parents are your chauffeurs, then you see the whole world as your servant.” Concerned about the notion that our goal for our kids to be happy. If they pursue what "makes them" happy we may be setting them up to become victims, because if their life is not one of happiness, they won't know how to handle it. It seems that responsiblity and meaning are a whole lot more important than being happy. The Parenting Initiative is approaching parenting from a values standpoint, much like what parents did 50 years ago, but didn't know it. Now parents can do it consciously. www.parenting-initiative.org. It charges no fees for its services. Keep up the good work.
I'm a soon to be parent. I just learned this morning about the booster seat laws. (Which according to the Freakanomics guys don't actually reduce childhood fatalities in car wrecks). I don't own a car. I live in the city of Chicago. I realize that I will not be able to take a cab with my child until he/she is 8 years old...this is retarded.
I am SO ANGRY. After 2, these seats don't help protect your kid, they just break your back trying to lug them around.
How can parents not be neurotic with inane laws like ours in Illinois that make it nearly impossible NOT to behave in neurotic like ways.
Hi Helen, I liked your point about how some women can be amused and entertained by babies and toddlers for hours on end. Like you, I'm not one of them, but thankfully, I'm just getting past that stage, and into the fun stuff -- summer swimming, learning to do cartwheels, learning to read. I think the school-age years are going to be really jazzy!
Jeff,
My daughter does not seem to have a Southern accent. I'm not sure why I do--mine seems to come and go depending on how long I stay somewhere. I lost it when I lived in NYC after about five years but now have it back, having lived in Knoxville for a while.
Thomas,
I think the idea with happiness is that an ivy league degree and a certain social standing are not really the way to happiness. As a parent, I would rather my child be happy attending to a flower shop then unhappy at some ivy league school or in a certain job that she feels forced into. One can work hard and have responsibility and also be happy. Happiness and contentment come from a sense of purpose in life and enjoying a feeling of mastery in a variety of areas which many parents forget on the way to trying to keep up with the Jones's. I think what you are calling happiness is actually a sense of entitlement--that they should feel good all of the time with no effort. That is a different psychological construct then happiness.
Anonymous 2:52,
I sympathize with you. I really hate car seats--I can still barely figure out how to work them and probably put them in wrong half the time. The laws keep getting stricter in regards to child raising and I think this makes people on the margins think twice about having kids. But kids are amazing and fun at times, especially as they get older--the young stage does not last long!
Nancy:
The school age years are great--I used to treat mainly 8-12 year old girls years ago when I first started out in practice. They were so great at that stage--smart and witty, but not yet taken over by adolescent hormones. I look forward to that stage next.
Helen,
Thank you for the clarification of what you think happiness is. Most non-psychologist parents don't know that. Am aware of Seligman, et al and their notion of authentic happieness, which I think is what you're talking about. Agree that the common notion of "making me happy" fosters a sense of entitlement. Can remember a number of prospective grooms say to the brides father: "I just want to make her happy." As you know, that's impossible and we should raise our children to know the difference between a temporary "feel good" and long term sense of satisfaction which the Parenting Initiative says comes form "Reversing the Flow."
Kids who are taught to focus primarily on "happiness," as such, tend, as one would expect, to translate into a pre-occupation with their own happiness. Which tends to make them selfish and lacking in empathy. Which tends to make other people not enjoy being around them so much. Which tends to lead to ... unhappiness on the part of the kid, at some point, whether as a kid, or later as an adult.
Funny how that works.
Helen,
I'm curious: what ws the reaction to your accent when you lived in NYC? I have several friends here who tell me that southern accent are like nails on a chalkboard for them. I take this with a grain of salt as I often encounter NY accents that make Bogs Bunny sound like Oscar WIlde!
It's usually well-educated non-natives who disdain southern accents. (like Stephen Colbert, of S. Carolina!)
In Utah, the booster law applies until you are 4'9".
Jeff,
I rarely got remarks as I lost my accent a few years into living there. No one ever said much to me about my accent nor seemed to care--if people did ask about it--it was just to ask where I was from or out of curiousity. I never heard anything negative about it.
I think the disdain for southern accents by southerners is from insecure people who go to NYC to escape the "rubes" down here in the south who didn't know what hot stuff they were--I saw a lot of that when I moved to New York. People who felt that they were too good for the rest of us hicks so they had to move to New York. They were usually just as lame there but could lie to themselves that they had "made it" somehow--whatever that means. Personally, I like southern accents as well as Brooklyn ones.
Helen, I don't think you are a representative example of the southern experience in New York. Your accent woul charm the birds from the trees, (especially Yankee birds!)
Seriously, having grown up in Texas and Virginia, and having lived in Philly and NY, I've experienced a variety of accents- yours is one of the better ones that I've heard. I hope it grows on your daughter!
Cathy Seipp appears to be a femelitist bigot who believes that little boys can be "rightfully" denied the same basic protection of their genital integrity as has been guaranteed to little girls by federal law.
Now, I can't actually cite the documentation of this that I personally recall, due to the convenient disappearance of the relevant comments from her blog, but I distinctly remember asking her to explain the above conundrum and receiving instead a blatant attempt at camouflaging distraction from her failure to address that very question through a patent Ad Hominem negative characterization of the Intactist movement in general.
But even though the documentation of her sexist, female-chauvanist bigotry has disappeared from the internet record, I rememember, and unless and until it is properly acknowledged and apologized for, I am not going to condone any journalist -- including podcasters such as Glenn and Helen -- giving her a "pass" on her failure to correct her stance on what may be the single most glaring and undeniable issue of the violation of the civil rights of inarguably innocent victims of our day.
I refer, of course, to the genital mutilation -- as empirically documented as such by Taylor, Lockwood, & Taylor in their 1996 British Journal of Urology article -- of over ONE MILLION little boys annually in the usa, alone. Despite the crimiminalization, at the Federal level, of even lesser physical violations of the genital integrity of little girls.
I am just about out of patience with you two on this issue. It's time to take a stand, because it's past time that either of you meaningfully addressed this question: DO PARENTS HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE TO HAVE THEIR MALE CHILDREN SEXUALLY HANDICAPPED FOR LIFE THROUGH ROUTINE OR RITUAL PREPUCECTOMY?
The booster law is until you're 4'9"??
Sweet lord, I'm 4'10" and I'm 24!
reader_iam-
Happiness and selfishness don't go hand in hand, unless of course the thought that someone, somewhere is having a good time offends you. Most people realize that their happiness shouldn't come at the expense of others - most healthy, mature adults, that is. You know, "your right to wave your arms around ends at my nose" and all that.
Anonymous,
Good point. Happiness and selfishness don't necessarily go hand in hand. The danger we must work to prevent is when children(adults, too) come to a point where they expect others to make them happy, rather than being responsible for their own happiness, joy, ecstasy. Children can also grow up knowing that they can be happy whereever they are in whatever they are doing--whether working in a florist or an investment banker on Wall St, because their happiness resides in the unique human ability to CHOOSE.
thomas-
I had a couple quibbles with your comment:
The danger we must work to prevent is when children(adults, too) come to a point where they expect others to make them happy, rather than being responsible for their own happiness, joy, ecstasy.
Of course this kind of argument shouldn't be used as an excuse for some people to avoid accountability. If someone steals from you, someone shouldn't raise BS new age or spiritual criticisms of you to avoid paying what is due back. A mugger calling the victim he steals from "greedy", "materialistic", "spoiled", or says they have a "sense of entitlement" because the victim wants their money back is just laughable.
Children can also grow up knowing that they can be happy whereever they are in whatever they are doing--whether working in a florist or an investment banker on Wall St, because their happiness resides in the unique human ability to CHOOSE.
Of course this also shouldn't be used as an excuse by some parties to avoid responsibility. What if a person didn't like being rejected and ruins a professional's career by making a false accusation? Are you saying that Dr. Helen would be just as happy with her reputation ruined working as a short-order cook? Of course not - that's BS psychobabble. And of course it shouldn't be used as an excuse for the false claimer to avoid criminal and civil liability - saying that Dr. Helen should be happy in her new vocation as a short order cook, rather than collecting the damages and reparations that are rightfully due. I know that excuse wouldn't fly with me, and I assume it wouldn't fly with Dr. Helen or just about anyone else.
Anon--
I don't disagree with you. With children, the worst thing we can do is give them an excuse. They'll take it. I think you are against that, too.
One thing that we might differ on is whether we can take adversity, regardless of how bad, and use it for our betterment. People do it all the time and it is those people who take total responsiblity for how they are in the world. Would they experience, sadness, disappointment, grief, fear, etc. on the way? Of course, but the ultimate goal is to end up better off than before the negative events occured. Numerous people prove the possiblity of that. It doesn't happen, however, when parents rescue or enable victim behavior in their children--and it may be one of the most prevalent parenting missteps. Thanks for the opportunity to respond to your excellent points. Concerning what you label as my psychobabble (not being a psychologist, I suppose I'm guilty), I have been impressed by the capacity of several personal acquaintances who have had horrible things happen to them and they move through it almost without a ripple of negativity or victimization--and some weren't interest in suing anyone despite good cases. So,if we're looking at the average person, that is not likely to happen (our pervasisve culture of entitlement being one of the things that militates against it), but the fact that there are a few who gives hope for the rest of us because they show the possibility. Have a copy of great story about Andy Fastow (of Enron) and how his parents rescued him once as a child. Predictable results.
I don't disagree with you. With children, the worst thing we can do is give them an excuse. They'll take it. I think you are against that, too.
It depends on whether the excuse is valid or not. I don't have a problem with valid excuses. If my child didn't succeed at something because someone assaulted or defrauded them, then that is a valid excuse and a criminal that is in very deep trouble civilly and criminally.
One thing that we might differ on is whether we can take adversity, regardless of how bad, and use it for our betterment. People do it all the time and it is those people who take total responsiblity for how they are in the world.
I take responsibility for everything I do, but I don't take responsibility for the lies, fraud, dishonesty, criminality, etc. of others. If someone actually violates someone else's rights, they have to face the consequences. There are things that can be overlooked - my car has been vandalized, some furniture I had in storage was stolen - but other violations of rights are serious enough to demand civil and/or criminal action.
It doesn't happen, however, when parents rescue or enable victim behavior in their children--and it may be one of the most prevalent parenting missteps.
Again, it's a matter of degree. You don't want to coddle children. (We're talking about actual children here, not adults that some people are trying to treat as children for various reasons.) But you don't want to let other people violate their rights, or violate those rights yourself. That's not being a good parent, that's being a cowardly and/or sadistic enabler and/or perpetrator of abuse.
So,if we're looking at the average person, that is not likely to happen (our pervasisve culture of entitlement being one of the things that militates against it), but the fact that there are a few who gives hope for the rest of us because they show the possibility. Have a copy of great story about Andy Fastow (of Enron) and how his parents rescued him once as a child. Predictable results.
I don't see how the logic follows as predictable. You can "rescue" a good kid and he runs into another bad situation. You can "rescue" a bad kid and he never runs into another bad situation. So I don't follow your reasoning, or think it really constitutes reasoning. I think you have some kind of strange reasoning where you think that a parent should hold their children responsible for a given situation, but not hold other parties who are at fault responsible for the same situation. Sort of like "The Parenting Style of Marquis De Sade" or "If There is a Controversy - Always Buckle, Whimper, Blame My Kid, and Take it Out On Them".
Is that about right?
Dear Anon,
You are taking me too black and white. There are always shades of gray and wouldn't argue some of your points.
You said: I think you have some kind of strange reasoning where you think that a parent should hold their children responsible for a given situation, but not hold other parties who are at fault responsible for the same situation.
My focus is on the children, not what others do. Of course, in the right situation, I'd hold others accountable--have spent over 25 years as a trial lawyer!
Reality time here, folks. Parenting is leadership and leadership is parenting. Think for a moment about the best boss you ever had. That boss called you on your mistakes and helped you fix them. Then they moved on, they did not rub in your mistake and use it as leverage in future issues. When you are raising kids you help them unscrew their mistakes, you do not save them from the consequences. You teach them humility, responsibility and compassion.
As a cop, I have seen way too many parents come running to the rescue of their little darlings. One guy came in after his very drunk and abusive teenager was arrested for 102 mph in a 30 zone and drunk driving. He asked me what he should do. I told him he should visit his son at the jail on Sunday. Failing that, he should probably wait until morning to bail the little creep out, at least then he’d be sober. Dad followed the police car to the jail and immediately bailed him out, resulting in a call for police at the residence a short while later because junior was still in full blown idiocy mode. Then he bought the kids version of events and complained to us that we had violated his rights and treated him meanly. It really doesn’t surprise me that the kid has been arrested again and again since for ever more serious offenses (home invasion and assault, most recently). If there are no consequences, there is no deterrent. The kid’s dad loves him (I have no doubt), all the way to prison.
Are you raising babies or are you bringing up children to be independent adults who contribute to society? The successful end state is a peer. That takes about 30 years, work hard and be patient.
Are you raising babies or are you bringing up children to be independent adults who contribute to society?
That's it exactly. We've so idealized children that we've forgotten what the whole point of childrearing actually is.
My focus is on the children, not what others do.
Well if you have a controversy both need to be considered. Automatically going after your kid simply because a controversy has occurred is a sure-fire way to let scumbags flourish.
Are you raising babies or are you bringing up children to be independent adults who contribute to society? The successful end state is a peer. That takes about 30 years, work hard and be patient.
The independent adult part I agree with. Of course part of being an independent adult means standing up for your rights against all comers - including "society" - when they are being violated.
As far as "contributing to society" is concerned, I'm not sure what that means. If it means obeying just laws and not violating anyone else's rights, so be it. But "society" will just as soon swindle, abuse, and shit on you as accept your "contributions".
As far as the emotional story about the teenager is concerned, who knows. We don't have any other side of the story. After all, there are an awful lot of abusive and crooked cops out there.
And a lot that won't go after the right criminals.
children are never responsible for their own actions anymore, stories about them jumping on parked cars, swearing and insulting everyday people.
there is a problem when parents become the kids friend, there is no discipline, and therefore no respect for the parent or anyone else. these kids dont even respect themselves, thats why we have so many violent children, they havent been taught right from wrong (there are exceptions).
Dr. Helen,
Enjoyed the Podcast. A toss-away comment you made rang true with me about kids smoking. You said that it was looked down upon when you were growing up. It wasn't a cool thing to do. That was the same in my High School. I grew up during the "Just Say No" era and very few of the with-it kids did drugs or smoked. It was cool for my sister-in-law, ten years younger, and friends who are ten years older. There did seem to be an "uncool" window. Not sure if stats support that or if it is just anecdotal.
Of course there are exceptions, some older people deserve to be yelled at and insulted. There's a lot of older liars, thieves, and criminals.
Hi Helen,
I really, really enjoyed this Sunday's podcast. I have a bunch of comments about this:
http://louminatti.blogspot.com/2006/06/laika-children-and-neurotic-parents.html
To boil it down, we shouldn't be surprised that so many middle-class couples don't produce enough children. Not only is it prohibitively expensive, the fear of something bad happening is making us quivering wrecks!
David Brooks of the NYT would make an excellent future guest on this (and many other) topics. He has lately been writing a lot about child rearing. I think it would be a counterpoint to Dr. Helen's thoughts during this podcast parents should "go with the flow".
Love the show, guys!
http://www.bicolbusinessdirectory.com/isulong-seoph/
This is great! isulong seoph
視訊做愛視訊美女無碼A片情色影劇kyo成人動漫tt1069同志交友網ut同志交友網微風成人論壇6k聊天室日本 avdvd 介紹免費觀賞UT視訊美女交友..........................
999成人站999成人站aio 網路交友愛情館aio 網路交友愛情館聊天室交友聊天室交友聊天室交友聊天室交友聊天室交友聊天室尋夢園聊天室尋夢園聊天室尋夢園聊天室尋夢園聊天室尋夢園聊天室ut聊天室ut聊天室ut聊天室ut聊天室ut聊天室找一夜聊天室找一夜聊天室找一夜聊天室找一夜聊天室找一夜
Post a Comment
<< Home