Paranoid Parenting

I’m mostly writing notes to evaluate Furedi’s arguments and add my own thoughts. If you’re interested, you can check out Part 1, Part 2, Part 3 and Part 4. This will be the last of these posts since I’ve finally taken the book back to the library.

Chapter 5: Parenting Turned into an Ordeal
Furedi says: More and more parents are complaining that they have insufficient time to parent – despite the fact that today’s parents spend more time with (and actively involved with) their children than any other parents in the previous century spent with theirs. Society has taken off the rose-colored glasses that suggest that parenting is a walk in the park, but they’ve replaced them with “parenting as an ordeal” lenses.

I say: Yep. The expectation of parental involvement has grown and grown – such that parents feel an undeniable pressure for quality *and* quantity time with their children. For the record, my parents spent a lot of time with us kids growing up – but only a small segment of that time was parent-directed. Mom and Dad actually had conversations with one another while we were all sitting in the living room in the evening. Mom read books to herself while we kids played on the floor. She hoed the garden while we kids played in the backyard. She didn’t feel compelled to create sensory bins and learning activities and structured play times (not that those things are bad in and of themselves, but they aren’t a litmus test for good parenting.)

Chapter 6: Why Parents Confuse their Problems with Those of their Children
Furedi argues that now, more than ever, children are a part of their parents’ identity – and parenting advice is more focused than ever on changing adult behavior. Furedi believes the “competitive parenting” is an outgrowth of this confusion of parental identity with childrens’ identities. The most interesting suggestion Furedi makes in this chapter (from my point of view) is that, as adult relationships are increasingly fragile and temporary (due to increased impermanent cohabitation, high divorce rate, etc.), adults are more frequently turning to their children as the most permanent relationship in their lives. Thus, the relative perceived returns of investing in their children versus in a spouse or romantic partner have increased. Parents are now, more than ever, investing in an emotional relationship with their children out of a presumption that this is the one relationship that they can count on for the rest of their lives.

It’s a fascinating hypothesis, although difficult to prove or disprove empirically. Nevertheless, I wonder if some parents’ difficulty in letting their adult children “leave” to cleave to another is in part due to this co-mingling of a parent’s and a child’s identity.

I believe strongly in the permanence of marriage. Daniel and I will be married until one or the other of us dies. He is the one with whom my identity has been mingled (…and the two shall become one…) I will fight to keep my marriage as the central human relationship of my life.

But I still wonder how easily I might fall into the trap that my children’s behavior represents my success or failure at parenting. I have plenty of strong ideas about how things should or shouldn’t be done. I spend my days teaching parents how to alter their own behavior so that their kids won’t be fat (or will be less picky or will gain weight or…) So what happens if I end up with a fat, picky, or underweight child? Will I consider my identity so wrapped up in my child’s that this will devastate me? I don’t know. Or what if I have a child who doesn’t like to read? I don’t know.

I pray God would give me grace to parent well, not in order to bolster my own self-image, but as a faithful steward of the children God gives me.

I’m mostly writing notes to evaluate Furedi’s arguments and add my own thoughts. If you’re interested, you can check out Part 1 and Part 2.

Chapter 3: Parents as Gods
In chapter 3, Furedi goes deeper into a concept he introduced in the previous chapter – infant determinism (also referred to by Furedi as “parental determinism”.) This idea purports that parents are uniquely responsible for all sorts of childhood and adult behavior – and that therefore parents should take a strong role in actively shaping their children’s lives (because if they don’t do it intentionally, they will be sure to mess up their children!)

“Today, parenting has been transformed into an all-purpose independent variable that seems to explain everything about an infant’s development.”

The author goes through a huge list of things that modern science blames on parenting – the terrible twos, school failure, depression, eating disorders, and more. Here’s where he starts talking a bit on my area of expertise: nutrition.

“Nutritionists claim that many parents are mistaken in the belief that a healthy diet for an adult is a healthy diet for children. It is claimed that babies and toddlers who receive normal adult fare are deprived of energy-dense food and therefore lack the right calorie intake….Parents not only have to constantly monitor the food they give to their toddlers, they also have to set the right example during meals.”

Here’s where I wonder if these are the messages parents are really receiving – because they’re certainly not the messages I’m sharing. The truth is that many people are mistaken in their beliefs about what constitutes a healthy diet, period. While extreme low-fat diets were popular, there were indeed parents who mistakenly thought that their infants and toddlers should go low-fat too – and those infants ended up with essential fatty acid deficiencies. But extremely low-fat diets actually aren’t healthy for anyone (and hopefully, no dietitians are spouting that in 2014!) – and children are actually uniquely vulnerable to nutritional deficiencies (as opposed to adults) because they’re still building their bodies (as opposed to maintaining them as adults are.) And setting a good example? Is he really complaining about that advice? It seems like common sense that if you expect your kid to eat vegetables, it helps if they see you eating vegetables too.

The disconnect between what I share as nutritional parenting advice (and really, my job is to give parenting advice) and what Furedi perceives as current nutritional parenting advice makes me wonder where else the messages researchers and educators give are transformed into paranoia.

And then I look at Furedi’s sources: Mother & Baby magazine, Prima Baby magazine, Baby magazine, Parents magazine. These magazines were purportedly quoting experts or giving advice based on research – but I’m not at all confident that journalists have the skills required to give advice based on scientific research. I see it all the time with nutrition. A new study comes out suggesting that high intake of cinnamon increases insulin sensitivity. This is interesting, but hardly something to start giving nutritional advice based upon. Yet Fitness magazine has a big feature full of cinnamon-rich recipes announcing that this is a scientific way to prevent diabetes. The advice, of course, pays no attention to the minimum dose required for response, the magnitude of the response, or the quality of the study. I suspect that much of the “scientific” parenting advice one reads in parenting magazines is similar.

But don’t blame it on the experts, this time. If you want someone to tar and feather, tar and feather the journalists who prey on parent’s fears and inappropriately translate research into guidelines.

That said, Furedi does have a good point to make: children tend to be remarkably resilient. The magnitude of these parenting effects is nowhere near as large as the popular media would have you think. My parents didn’t follow all the nutritional advice I give my clients (and I actually give them good advice :-P) – and I’m not a fatso with an eating disorder. It’s okay to relax – you don’t have to follow every new fad the parenting magazines tout in order to not mess up your child.

I’m mostly writing notes to evaluate Furedi’s arguments and add my own thoughts. If you’re interested, you can check out my introductory comments here.

Chapter 2:The Myth of the Vulnerable Child
Furedi argues that today’s children are regarded as uniquely vulnerable to outside forces (almost all of which are considered risks) and NOT resilient to manage such outside forces. As a result, parents seek to minimize all risks, not considering any potential benefits of risk. Furedi points to the modern playground as an example of the outerworking of this fear of exposing children to risk.

“It is easy to overlook the fact that the concept of children at risk is a relatively recent invention. As I argue elswewhere, this way of imagining childhood involves a redefinition both of risk and of childhood. Until recently, risks were not interpreted by definition as bad things. We used to talk about good, worthwhile risks as well as bad, foolish ones. Risks were seen as a challenging aspect of children’s lives. Today, we are so afraid of risk that we have invented the concept of children at risk. A child that is at risk requires constant vigilance and adult supervision.”

But the myth of childhood vulnerability is not limited to physical vulnerability to danger. Today’s parenting culture considers children to be emotionally and developmentally at risk, subject to what one psychologist calls “infant determinism”. Without just the right childhood circumstances, a child could be scarred for life – destined to be a psychopath or mentally ill. Yet this concept, while popular, is largely ungrounded in empirical evidence. Yes, infants in third world orphanages who are never touched or held are more likely to experience psychological difficulties – but these extreme examples do not prove that children in general are at risk of developmental and psychological issues if they are not held or watched every moment. Children are much more resilient, both physically and psychologically, than current parenting culture wants to admit.

Furedi’s playground argument hits home with me. The modern playground is so far removed from the playground of my childhood that I reflected to my husband (and to Facebook) that the modern playground seems designed to eliminate all risks, including the risk of gross motor development.

While we were dating, Daniel and I took my niece to one of the old playgrounds in my parent’s neighborhood. She was maybe 18 months and I stood a step behind her, terrified, as I let her climb the slide’s steps all by herself. I was fully aware of the risks, of the rails that were simply something for her to grab to help her climb, not something that would keep her from falling 10 or more feet to the ground if she slipped. I was aware that, if the weather were warmer, the metal of the slide could get hot and burn her. My heart was in my chest. But I value learning and independence. I think that’s important. I took the precaution of being a step behind her so she was within hands reach if she faltered. But I let her climb by herself.

Last year, a whole group of our family went to another of my parents’ old playgrounds (they have three old playgrounds within walking distance!) My sister Anna got on the merry-go-round (yes, it actually has one of those) with the Little Miss (who was now two and half) and Daniel pushed them. He went faster and faster and faster while I bit my fingernails watching them turn. I felt sure that Anna was about to throw up and feared that the Little Miss would emerge from the experience terrified of her uncle Daniel. Anna cried uncle and Daniel stopped them. They stepped off the merry-go-round and the Little Miss slowly reoriented to the world. When she found her bearings, she turned towards Daniel and demanded “Again.”

Children are resilient. Yes, risks exist – but so do opportunities that can’t be obtained without risk.

A child broke her arm after falling out of a tree. Her father contemplated banning tree-climbing. I broke my collar bone at age 2 falling out of bed. Perhaps we should also ban bed-sleeping. I say it ironically, but take a look at parenting literature and you’ll read of the advantages of toddler beds set close to the floor, maybe even with a soft mat alongside to break a child’s fall. You can add a mesh rail to your child’s bed to prevent falling entirely, but you must be careful lest your child get stuck between the bed and the rail – another risk.

All of us have stories of risks we took as children. We have stories of risky behavior that didn’t result in damage and risky behavior that did actually hurt us. Most of not only survived but thrived despite (or even because of) these experiences.

But it doesn’t stop with physical risks. We have emotionally “traumatic” experiences in our memories too. I slept in my closet on a pile of dirty clothes for weeks at a time because I got tired of having my sister tickle me in the bed we shared. One of my siblings grabbed a knife from the kitchen and threatened me with it. A drunk man got too close for comfort when I was waiting for my mom after ballet class when I was nine or ten. I experienced fear and anger as a child – but I also experienced love and safety and comradery. Today, I laugh at those “traumatic” stories and have great relationships with my siblings.

Ironically, the “traumatic” experience from my childhood that still has the power to excite me to anger is of an overprotective cop who got angry with my mother for leaving six of her children (with their eleven year old sister- me) in their wrecked van by the side of the highway while she called for help from the car of a Good Samaritan who stopped a hundred feet or less ahead of us. I still become angry when I think of someone daring to disapprove of my mom’s sensible action in the face of our accident.

So there you have it. Kids are resilient – physically and emotionally. Risks exists, but are not always bad. Parents need not be paralyzed with fear of risk – instead, they should consider which risks are truly problematic and how to wisely manage risk while maximizing childhood.