RoR: Forum

Rebirth of Reason

Forum : Article Discussions : Tough Storge

Monday
November 27, 2006

Tough Storge by Luke Setzer

Parents have a moral obligation to do their best to raise their offspring into fully functioning adults. This obligation comes as close to "duty" as one would ever come in the Objectivist ethics, but it still arises from causality, i.e. from the parents causing the effects of their children's very existence in the first place. The task of nurturing incapable infants into capable adults must include conditioning children to deal with the best and worst aspects of both the metaphysical and the man-made. Helping them to confront the very nature of self-responsibility and its difficult values choices becomes a necessary aspect of sound parenting. These three stories offer concrete, real life instances of such instruction. Objectivists would serve themselves well by learning from them. (Read more...)
Discuss this Article (51 messages)

Monday, November 27, 2006 - 7:24am

Nice article, reminds me of what my mother did to my little brother once.

Everytime we went to a department store he would always take off and go exploring. We would always have to waste a lot of time looking for him later when we wanted to leave. So one day in a Sears my mom just left him there for about half an hour (by left I mean we just waited by the checkout line). Sure enough in a few minutes we heard his balling accross the store crying "my momma left me!" Sure enough he stuck next to her like white on rice the next time we went shopping.

Monday, November 27, 2006 - 7:44pm

ZERO:
Nice stories. Thanks for sharing.

ONE:
Storge (στοργή storgē) means affection in modern Greek; it is natural affection, like that felt by parents for offspring. Rarely used in ancient works, and then almost exclusively as a descriptor of relationships within the family.
-- wikipedia: "Greek words for love"

TWO:
Freakonomics by Chicago economist Steven J. Levitt offers evidence that parents have little affect on how children turn out.

THREE:
At my school, we have a saying: The plural of anecdote is not data. These anedotes of tough love have counter-examples.

FOUR:
We lived in Lansing in the 1980s. For about ten years, it was our habit on Friday nights to go shopping for books and to buy ice cream and coffee and other delicatessen treats in East Lansing. One night, our daughter who was about seven then decided that she did not want to go along. When we were on the street, we went one way and she went another and when we got to Curious Books, each of us thought the other had her. About 90 minutes later, we realized that we had a problem. We went to the police station and sure enough... she had gone to an upscale store, spent the evening, and when it closed, they called the police and she got to ride up and down the street looking for us and when that produced no results she went back to the cop shop and had hot chocolate with a social worker. That was the genesis of a long relationship with the juvenile justice system. One night, she was arrested for driving without a license. She was 12. I had taught her to drive when she was 10, having read and given to her, The Girl Who Owned a City. On the way to the cop shop, my wife had nothing to say... about the time we got there, she turned to me and said, "You and your libertarian ideas!"

You could blame us -- certainly, we blamed ourselves; well, my wife blamed me: I don't believe in blame -- but, all along the way, our daughter made her own choices, as a child, as well as an adult. I encouraged that, but, again, I can take no credit: she just came out that way.

For my criminal justice seminar class, my term paper is titled, "Crime and Genes: to what extent is human behavior genetically determined?"

Science has no good explanations for human development, leastwide not for individuals -- only statistics for large numbers. In Freakonomics, Levitt tells of two children, one white and privileged, the other black and under. No need to guess who turned out how.

Tuesday, November 28, 2006 - 5:48am

These stories have as much to do with the sanity of parents as with the wellness of their children. Storge flows both ways and, like all healthy emotions, involves a strong element of philautos or love of self. As long as the laws hold me responsible for raising my child, and accountable financially for any damage that child might do, I will keep my child on a moral leash of appropriate length until he reaches the age of legal adulthood. At that point, he can continue to live his life my way or he can exercise his political freedom to hit the highway. I will eventually send him onto the highway anyway, so he jolly well better prepare for it.

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 11/28, 6:08am)

Tuesday, November 28, 2006 - 6:55am

Luke,

Do you have news for us?

Tuesday, November 28, 2006 - 7:15am

Sorry, Jon, I should have made myself more clear. No, I do not expect to become a parent. So my statement remains purely hypothetical. If I did have a child, my prior post would represent my general attitude as a parent.

Wednesday, November 29, 2006 - 4:03pm

That's an irrational expectation for a 5-year-old. At this age, the concept of time is just barely within her grasp. Kindergarteners learn how to equate certain months with seasons of the year, and only the truly exceptional ones are even able to look at a clock and tell what time it is. Furthermore, refusing to prepare proper meals for a child this young is negligent parenting. That particular story of Tough Storge is sorely lacking in the storge part.

Luke, should you ever decide to embark on the "misadventure" of becoming a parent, you may find that your attitude evolves.

Thursday, November 30, 2006 - 5:30am

Of the story about the kindergartener whose mother taught her self-responsibility at a very young age, Deanna wrote:

That's an irrational expectation for a 5-year-old.

Rubbish! The resulting evidence in this case clearly proves your statement false. You vastly underestimate the abilities of young children.

I myself do not recall when I started serving myself my own cereal, but I did start at a young age. Serving cereal just does not equal a difficult task for a reasonably intelligent young child. I will admit that my parents awakened me until I left home, but I left home at 16. I have no doubt that I could have set my own clock and awakened myself at a much younger age had they demanded it.

By contrast, a roommate at the summer conference we both attended at age 16 never would responsibly awaken himself. So he asked me to do it for him. I tried, but he kept irresponsibly whining, "Luke, I'm up!" and promptly fell back to sleep. He finally got another friend essentially to kick his sorry ass out of bed, but even his friend grew weary of such in loco parentis coddling. The sleepyhead also attended the same boarding high school I did but failed after the first semester because of his poor sleeping habits and constant tardiness.

One story I forgot to include in my article illustrated another point about parenting, namely the property rights of parents.

The Would-Be Naked Runaway

During a casual chat with a coworker, the subject of parenting arose. It seems all children threaten to run away from home at some point, and he certainly did once as a boy. When he made the threat, his father laid down the law:

"If you leave home, you do it naked and empty-handed. That food you eat? Those toys? Those clothes in the closet? Those clothes on your back? They do not belong to you. They belong to me. I bought them. I paid for them. They are mine. I let you use them by permission and not by right."

He decided not to run away.

Give a child an inch and he will mistake himself a ruler. Parents need to assert their own rights as well as recognize the legitimate rights of their children. This particular father legitimately asserted his property rights with his child and thus set valid boundaries on what the child knew he could do.

Thursday, November 30, 2006 - 6:07am

I agree with Deanna. The other two examples are good, but not that one by any stretch.

And it's not a matter of estimating children's abilities, but of the proper and just and healthy way of treating others.

(Edited by Rodney Rawlings on 11/30, 6:16am)

Thursday, November 30, 2006 - 6:31am

When you have to tell your son that the shirt he is wearing is yours, you have failed as parent already.
Ciro

Thursday, November 30, 2006 - 6:43am

I welcome the dissenters to submit articles explicating their own ideas about the "proper and just and healthy way of treating" their children. This would include how the parents can retain their own sanity and the rights to their own lives as well as the avoidance of coddling of children past the age of coddling. As for myself, I stand by what I posted and respect the methods of the parents in question.

Thursday, November 30, 2006 - 8:15am

As I said, the other two examples were good.

Thursday, November 30, 2006 - 10:31am

One healthy way to support your children, is, for instance, to tell them that they are not alone in this world
and that you are there to support them on every decision they make, because you are only concerned with their happiness and not your own. It is up to them to chose for their life. And if they fall? you help them to get back on their feet.

Few more things I want to add : Let your children love you, tell them that their love is important to you, show them what be responsible means, protect them, fight for them, tell them that they are your top values, play with them, cry in front of them
show them how much you love their mother, show them courage and you will see that your children will imitate you.

Ciro.

(Edited by Ciro D'Agostino on 11/30, 10:38am)

Thursday, November 30, 2006 - 11:37am

Ciro, we obviously have very different ideas about parenting owing in part to our very different backgrounds. Suffice it to say that my heart does not flow with the sorts of boundless love and compassion that you elucidate. I especially find the parts about supporting them "in every decision they make" and being "only concerned with their happiness and not [my] own" and "if they fall ... help them to get back on their feet" at odds with Objectivism.

If my grown child wants to smoke crack cocaine or join Amway, I will not support that decision and will say why. No rational person would want children except ultimately to advance his own happiness. If they fall after refusing to listen to reason, I will not help them back onto their feet but will let them struggle and learn those hard lessons themselves and ask them, "So what did you learn from this?" Reality does its own spanking so I do not have to engage in the practice.

By the way, who in hell keeps sanctioning the posts of Deanna and Ciro in this thread?

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 11/30, 12:02pm)

Thursday, November 30, 2006 - 1:10pm

Luke, I don't think it is a background issue, or about objectivism, I am more convinced
than not that some people biologically are not able to feel some emotions.
BTW, I thought that we were talking about raising children and not about adults smoking crack cocaine.
Ciro

Thursday, November 30, 2006 - 1:23pm

Even young teenagers smoking cigarettes or engaging in underage drinking do not deserve my support and will not get it.

You may have hit the nail on the head regarding the biological basis of emotional capacities.

Thursday, November 30, 2006 - 1:28pm

>who in hell keeps sanctioning the posts of Deanna and Ciro in this thread?

Ooops, just can't keep away from the hell. ;-)

BTW, Luke, what have you been taking?

Thursday, November 30, 2006 - 1:28pm

Luke Setzer opined: "No rational person would want children except ultimately to advance his own happiness."

I thought so, too, when I was first a parent. And I did, indeed, enjoy the experience immensely. I miss being a dad. It was the best part of life so far. ... but, you know... when you have that attitude, you run the risk of hinging your own happiness on someone else's actions. People have free will. You can bust your hump and do everything rationally right and not get the outcome you expected.

I recommend Levitt's Freakonomics. The hard, cold, objective data shows that parents matter little in how a child turns out. Peers matter more. What matters most is what is inside the kid -- and that is determined in the instant of conception. You have nothing else to do with it.

So, if you will enjoy the process, the doing, just the being, then, yes, parenting is selfish. But if you want a return on your investment, buy bonds. If you want something (not someone, something) that loves you back, get a dog.

Thursday, November 30, 2006 - 2:22pm

Luke,
Perhaps I should have said "irrational expectation for a typical 5-year-old". Child development is studied by many, so it isn't very difficult to find studies that support my assertion. Piaget is well-known for his work in the area of time conception development from toddlers to older children. I choose to place my trust in that research rather than in your anecdotes. I'm sorry if that offends you or the 5-year-old you speak of. She's obviously an exception to the rule.

As for preparing meals, my 2.5-year-old can pour cereal and milk. Granted, he's not always neat about it, but he can do it. Lately, he insists on doing it himself if that's what we decide to have for breakfast. Some days we want waffles for breakfast, though. Some days I know he's going to have a particularly busy (ie. fun) day and he won't want to slow down to eat right so I want to make sure his breakfast is more well-balanced with plenty of protein. He can't make that kind of breakfast himself. It's my job to make it for him. It's my responsibility to make sure the most important meal of his day is going to sustain his growing mind and body. In addition, this is the only time of the day when I have him all to myself. We sit down together and talk about what we plan to do and who we will see. I will still do this when he is 5.

Age appropriate behavior is something every parent needs to understand in order to have age appropriate expectations. Personality is just as important. What works with one child may not work with another. I also know a mother who sent her son to military school the first time he made a mistake. He's dead now. He was stabbed to death in prison. He never thanked her. I'm not saying that's her fault. I'm simply pointing out that this child's personality was vastly different from the one you know who turned out great.

As for property rights, haven't you heard the "Toddler Rules"? It goes something like this:
If it's in my hand, it's mine.
If it's in your hand, it's mine.
If it's on the floor, it's mine.
If I played with it yesterday, it's mine.
If I've never seen it before, it's mine.
If it moves, it's mine.
If it looks like fun, it's mine.
If I can wear it on my head, it's mine.
If I can break it, it's mine.
Well, maybe it doesn't go exactly like that, but you get my point. As soon as a child can say "mine", he will begin to exert that force. That's when you begin teaching property rights. If you intend to teach that child that nothing is his then you're going to end up with one very developmentally damaged child.

I'm not advocating coddling children 24x7. I'm advocating parenting each child as an individual, supporting age-appropriate behaviors, and coddling a child when coddling is called for.

Thursday, November 30, 2006 - 2:29pm

Marotta writes: when you have that attitude, you run the risk of hinging your own happiness on someone else's actions.

It only depends on what kind of man you are, Mr Marotta.

Thursday, November 30, 2006 - 2:33pm

Even young teenagers smoking cigarettes or engaging in underage drinking do not deserve my support and will not get it

Why not? Luke.
Ciro