NY mag article Why Parents Hate Parenting - Page 3

[texmati]

Originally Posted by Oriole

* I don't think women were meant to mother their children in a vacuum system. As it stands, the stress of providing adequate child-care for your baby drains that joy that could be parenthood for many families. It's tough. We are wired to nurture and protect, and yet have to make a choice: exhaust ourselves to fulfill that nurture and protect part, or go off to work and stress over who is nurturing and protecting our babies.

It's a hard, hard road for women in this country. I look at how children were raised in joint families and such in India, and it was easier. literally easier, less draining ect. I think in general, as a country, we raise our children the hard way.

[Surfacing]

subbing to come back later and read

[Smokering]

I think this is one of the most brilliant pieces of journalism I've ever read. Really.

[lach]

Originally Posted by Tigerchild

Except...that is *simply not true*. Everyone did NOT get married. Everyone did NOT have a family. And MOST people could NOT put the "family first" in the sense that we think of today--they had to put survival first. If that meant treating the children with what most today would consider neglect in order to tend the field or go to outside employment (par for the course and always has been for the lower classes in the US), so be it. If children had to wait until their late 20s in order to get their inheritance and then be eligible for marriage, so be it. If people lived together in common law "marriage" so be it.

It's harder to imagine the "spinster daughter" of those days because women thankfully have other options available to them even if they do not marry. They may hold property, start a business, ect. Marriage is also not the business deal that once it was, so people can marry for other reasons than to increase property/wealth holdings or protect them.

But this does speak to part of the angst in the article though. I think for all our protestations of how "the family" isn't valued "like it was in those days", we tend to have more problems with overromanticization and accepting cultural mythology as fact. People apply the practices of the upper class Victorians to all families (when they comprised a VERY small minority). Or people apply the (heavily edited by her daughter) "memoirs" of someone as total factual representations. People glorify noble savage type of views. People think that advertising and TV shows from the 1950s were accurate representation and not carefully commerically cultivated bills of goods. Ect.

Newbymom, believe it or not, divorce skyrocketed in the 1950s and increased more then than it did in the 1960s. There are a variety of reasons for that. It was the 1950s where the cultural consumerist revolution took place. While one can't say definitively there's a causal relationship there, I do think that an increase in "Buy buy buy you need this to be happy" and "Look at this model of what happiness is, if you don't have it, then you suck and your family is a failure" had a huge impact.

I don't think there has ever been a period of American life (and I'll bet none in Canada or Europe or anywhere else) where family life has been easy. I think people today have a greater expectation that it should be fun, easy, and/or effortless though--a combination of overromanticization with a *heavy* dose of commercialism IMO.

Well said. (I especially like the jab at the certain author).

And don't forget that the spinster daughter's role was important because there were no pensions, so social security, no medical insurance, no nursing homes. I think that most of us will be more than willing to help our parents out when they need it, but equally happy that we will not be required to completely support their every need once they are no longer able to support themselves.

As to the instinctual parenting that was discussed earlier in this thread, I think there's a good amount of research that there is no parenting instinct in higher primates and humans. It's purely learned, from communal living. Part one of the problems with this is that many people in our generation have absolutely no experience with babies and young children. And starting in the 1930s, child rearing became heavily medicalized and a lot of really, really bad advice was given to about two generations of mothers. How many of us here have mothers and grandmothers telling us to start solids at 3 weeks or to put baby on a strict 2 hour schedule at birth?

I feel like most people in our generation of mothers are completely relearning how to parent and feel completely lost because we get so much conflicting advice: we're primed to listen to advice from the older females in our pack, but there's so much other information telling us to do the opposite. I think that a lot of unhappiness comes from this: we all want to do parenting the right way, but I feel that, as a culture, we're trying to re-learn what the right way is. And it's sometimes like being the proverbial blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat.

[MamatoA]

AWESOME response to this self-involved tripe

The NY Magazine article was crap. I thought this writer really hit the nail on the head with her short, pithy response. http://www.salon.com/life/broadsheet...ing/index.html

[MamatoA]

Originally Posted by newbymom05

I thought it was an interesting article, although a little depressing. I'm a big fan of the writer/psychologist William Doherty .

Funny you should mention that. I attend the same church as Bill Doherty and emailed the article to him when I saw it yesterday. His response was less than glowing. I don't have his permission to repeat what he wrote but it suffice to say that he was not wowed by its argument.

[mamadelbosque]

Well, I loved the article, but I also have to smile and largely agree w/ the response in Salon. I really do think that the vast majority of moms & dads over annyalize every little thing that their kid(s) do ro don't do... and drive themselves batty over it - if its not 100% organic, its awful. If they're getting anything less than straight A's they must need tutoring. If they are anywhere but the 40-60th percentiles they must be borderline anorexic or fat. If they don't talk by 18 months, they must be delayed. Etc. It just gets riduculous - some of the threads around here and on other parenting boards are just freaking nuts.

[lach]

Originally Posted by MamatoA

The NY Magazine article was crap. I thought this writer really hit the nail on the head with her short, pithy response. http://www.salon.com/life/broadsheet...ing/index.html

I liked the Salon article too.

I thought it was interesting how several commenters attacked the author for having a lactation consultant. I'd bet money that most of them don't actually know what a lactation consultant is or why anyone could possible need one, and assume it's to get your child in the 99th percentile of breastfeeding. But I know I would have been completely lost without the lactation consultants at my hospital, and "get a good lactation consultant" is a default suggestion here and even on more mainstream parenting boards. Why? Because there is nothing "instinctual" for the mother about breastfeeding. Yes, it's a reflex for the infant to suck anything it can get its mouth near, but there is no coded knowledge in our genes that the baby should be sucking on the areola or what do to about chapped nipples or in case of a bad latch, inverted nipples, thrush, mastitis, or any of the other hundred things both minor and big that can cause problems with breastfeeding. Those things have to be taught, and many of us are completely lost when presented with a newborn. Though I don't know anyone who didn't breastfeed (at least originally), I was the first of my friends to have a baby and I had never even seen a baby breastfeed before my daughter was born. My mother did it 30 years ago, but it's not like I remember.

This is just using breastfeeding as an example, but I think that it is a perfect one of the different forces pushing and pulling parents. All of the literature says breast is best, and most mothers in the US intend to breastfeed. But most probably know very little about breastfeeding: and ignorance about how to provide basic sustenance for your child doesn't exactly make you feel good about yourself. Grandma is saying "breastfeeding is for poor people!" and Mom is saying "Oh just supplement. It never did you any harm." Your friends are saying "hire a lactation consultant!" (don't diapers already cost enough without hiring the baby an entourage?) parts of the internet are saying "you're an awful mother if you don't breastfeed! Try harder, even if you don't know what you're doing!" and then other parts are saying that lactation consultants are apparently something that only rich Brooklynites need to get their kids into fancy New York pre-schools. Meanwhile, the baby's crying and you haven't slept a full night in months.

What's there to be happy about in the above situation?

[txbikegrrl]

Good example above. Also I'd like to add that I identify with much in the article and I don't overschedule or stress about being the best. DS was not speaking at 18 months so ped suggested ECI but I waited knowing DS understood us but just seemed not ready to speak. He wasn't frustrated so I decided to wait a few more months. He had a language explosion 2 months later. Nothing wrong with early services though honestly why not get the eval? Because I was in the first tri and busiest time at work which also influenced my decision to wait. It's a balancing act and when both parents work FT and have no family within 1000 miles. On a related note DH and I really need just a little couple time but can't afford a sitter for date night which is what is always recommended here and elsewhere... Staying at home does not work for us we want/need to get out but it's just not possible now...

[Lady Mayapple]

The day to day is hard work, but I am lucky to have different perspectives that make me grateful to be a parent. Many of my colleagues and co workers are younger than me or much older with no children. The young people seem dissatisfied and disorganized, and some of the older folks also seem dissatisfied or rather immature considering their age. I had a professor once who randomly spilled her heart out to me about not finding the right person, getting married too late, spending too much time on her career. and now it's too late to have children. I was shocked because she was the type who, when asked if she has children or is planning on having them, replies with a disgusted "Ohhh no no I would never have children", and still does. But as I found out, it's a front for how she really feels about it. I told her she shouldn't feel badly, after all she has dedicated her life to teaching young people and passing on her gifts and sharing them with a new generation. To me, that is what's important, and having children is not the best or only way to accomplish that.

I made a conscious choice to have children when I was young, and I am glad I didn't wait. I think waiting and spending all of my 20's just partying and doing whatever it is all my 20-something friends do would have made becoming a parent that much harder. When my kids go off to college, I'll be just shy of 40 and have the rest of my life to enjoy.

I will say this: Being a parent turned me into the person I wanted to be. There is sense, not just of accomplishment but of completion. I often must remind myself that when I am feeling like I hate being a parent, that those emotions are being fed by artificial, outside sources. Our society degrades what was once the respected position of Parent, particularly Mother. Young women are expected to spend a decade or more in university, working their way up the corporate ladder, or transforming into fabulous entrepreneurs like Oprah or Suze Orman. If women make the decision to have children instead, society turns its back and treats them like second class citizens. Perhaps this is a regional thing, but where I live people seem to think that all parents are single moms on welfare and Section 8 who pop out babies like gumballs to collect another paycheck, or irresponsible teenagers who are "playing house". Normal, hardworking families like mine seem to be lost in the fray and lumped into these categories. In other words, only the "lower class" people have children. Upper class people just "don't do that". It could be funny if the statistics didn't reflect it. More middle and upper middle class people are deciding NOT to have children, which is a tragedy in my eyes. Well-to-do, highly educated people are PRECISELY the kinds of people our country needs to be rearing children. But that's a whole 'nother ball of wax for another day.

[spedteacher30]

Basically, I don't think happiness comes from situational factors. If you are a happy, self-actualized person, you will be happy with kids, happy without kids, happy with a great job, happy with a cruddy job, happy married, happy single.

if you are unhappy and not fulfilled internally, you will be unhappy with kids, unhappy without kids, unhappy with a great job, unhappy with a cruddy job, unhappy married, unhappy single.

Having a baby/getting married/getting a college degree, etc will not change your fundamental outlook.

[spughy]

Another thing worth pointing out is that happy, contented families are typically those who focus more on actual interactions with their kids, family dinners at home, cutting back work hours or having one parent stay home. These parents are probably less likely to spend money on kids' extracurricular programs, gadgetry, etc... in short, happy contented families are, I suspect, not really good for an economy based on consumer spending.

[ThisCat]

Originally Posted by Lady Mayapple

When my kids go off to college, I'll be just shy of 40 and have the rest of my life to enjoy.

I'm just shy of 40 and have a four year old and a one year old, and I have the rest of my life to enjoy too. I don't feel waiting till I was in my 30s to have kids made parenting harder on an emotional level. Even on a physical level, I don't think it mattered with my first. I do feel a bit more tired now with my second, but I'm not sure that's due to age or just having two kids and being a bit worn out from two pregnancies, nearly five years of breastfeeding, and sort of unconsciously putting my physical well being on the back burner since becoming a mother.

Anyway, while I liked the article overall, I strongly disagreed with the psychologist that theorized that delaying becoming a parent leads to more dissatisfaction. I can see advantages and disadvantages to having kids on the younger side and the older side and everywhere in between. I don't think there is a one size fits all answer and think people should just have them when they're ready. I know lots of parents of young children who are in their 30s and even 40s and a few in their 20s, and no group seems any more or less satisfied with parenthood than any other.

[staceychev]

I love MDC! Some really great, thoughtful responses.

I agree with the PP who said about being "content" rather than happy. Having battled depression in my earlier life, I'm not looking for a specific happiness that seems untenable to maintain in the long run. I'm quite pleased with general contentment coupled with random intervals of feeling blessed.

And, I agree with the PP who talked about having children later. DH and I were just talking about this. I don't know what it's like to be a younger mom, so I don't miss the energy, but I do know what it's like to go to grad school, and move to NYC, and go to lots of restaurants and bars and hear live music several nights a week. I had a good, extended youth, and I don't feel any regrets.

OK. Gotta finish the article!

[mambera]

Am I bizarre because I find motherhood *more* fulfilling and enjoyable than I expected it to be?

And yeah, I'm on the older side (lived in NYC from ages 17-29, had DD at 31) so it's not like I don't know what it's like to go to a bar. I would 1000x rather have a ticklefest with DH and DD than go to a bar.

[NellieKatz]

Originally Posted by spughy

Another thing worth pointing out is that happy, contented families are typically those who focus more on actual interactions with their kids, family dinners at home, cutting back work hours or having one parent stay home. These parents are probably less likely to spend money on kids' extracurricular programs, gadgetry, etc... in short, happy contented families are, I suspect, not really good for an economy based on consumer spending.

Wow, you said a mouthful there, and very succinctly! And that's our family. I dropped out of the workforce to be a SAHM/WAHM/HSing Mom. We therefore have next to no money. But we're suspicious of overcommercialism and the school system anyway....so we are bad "consumers" of all that's being peddled. (unless you count yard sales, art supply stores and farmers' markets...then look out!) :-)

But we don't miss most of the consuming because for the most part we don't want it.

But we ARE loving watching this little new human of ours grow up. I think that a common mistake people make is thinking that they're racing toward some kind of parenting GOAL that is "out there" in the future. Like "success in a great college" or something, or some kinds of test scores or trophies or programs and then they race through hoops and all kinds of stress and put all kinds of pressures on themselves to HAVE and to DO and to BE something that someone's telling them to have/do/be, and they trash their present-day to achieve this thing that is to happen "later." The old phrase "be here now" is a good one.

And I thought the mom in the article sounded like a psycho, with the confrontational, violent and unwise way in which she dealt with her son on the video game. That approach looked like a sure-fire recipe for round-the-clock strife; who wouldn't be unhappy in that sort of environment!?

Oh well I better get back to work. Hope I was coherent after all my editing and re-editing.

[CatsCradle]

Wow, you said a mouthful there, and very succinctly! And that's our family. I dropped out of the workforce to be a SAHM/WAHM/HSing Mom. We therefore have next to no money. But we're suspicious of overcommercialism and the school system anyway....so we are bad "consumers" of all that's being peddled. (unless you count yard sales, art supply stores and farmers' markets...then look out!) :-)

But we don't miss most of the consuming because for the most part we don't want it.

I agree with the premise that consumerism is part of the western problem. But as a WOHM, the real problem for me lies in the work culture itself. The inflexibility of corporate culture leads to the never ending black hole of trying to achieve balance (for both moms and dads of all economic stations). As much as I think that things have gotten better over the years, the concept of family life is still very undervalued. That is my primary area of discontent. It was easy to meet my own needs. It was pretty easy to meet our respective needs when we got married. Meeting the needs of children, however, who are entirely dependant on you for EVERYTHING, that is a different story. It is a huge shock to the system.

Regarding the issue of "older parents." I didn't have DD until I was 42 and frankly, it has reinvigorated me as well as made me overwhelmingly exhausted...if that makes sense. Frankly, I don't see how anyone, no matter what age, can be better prepared for parenting. Raising a human being is hard work no matter how wise or experienced you think you are. Nothing can prepare you for that task.

Maybe the real issue here is over-analyzation. We have more information available to us than in any other age, and conflicting information to boot. I think that when we reach the ability to put survival issues aside (like foraging for food and shelter and warmth), humans tend to turn to philosophical issues. Those pesky brains of ours!