Sigh. Bang head on desk.

I skimmed the article quickly, but I wonder if she's bored because parenting has become so 24/7. It apparently wasn't always that way. See here

Ah, TSO, you've linked to more of Derb's drivel about parenting. His thoughts on the matter dovetail well with his views on religion.

I would seek advice on parenting from a sack of hammers before I'd listen to Derb.

The reason the author of the initial essay is bored is that she's 1) wrapped up in herself and 2) has only a secular sense of what motherhood is about.

In short, she's a spoiled, post-Christian, career-minded, idiot. I have no sympathy.

She's bored with two tween-aged kids? Pathetic.

oh goodie, we have a discussion!

first of all, this woman of the original article is probably so disappointed with mothering because her premise "Kids are supposed to be fulfilling, life-changing, life-enhancing fun" is all wrong.

but, i happen to agree that many parents today "hyper-parent" and are obviously overcompensating for their own [real or imagined] "neglect" during their own childhoods.

just look at all the helicopter parenting today. bleck! it makes me sick. all this hyper-parenting is creating a generation of narcissistic brats who will never learn to function independently in the real world.

The article paints a false dichotomy. You can avoid being a "helicopter parent" without going to the extreme of finding your children boring.

But then, just as we are not here to constantly entertain our children, they are not here to entertain us. We read them bedtime stories not because it's fun for us (though that's a nice benefit), but because it's fun for them. We grit our teeth and play Candy Land because it's fun for them. And we do these things because these are ways for us to get to know them, and grow in our love for them.

This woman's been passing up the little moments of parenting since her children were infants, because they were boring. And now her children have learned their lesson: Mom finds our society so tedious that she can't even make it through a movie or a ninety-minute board game with us. Easier not to ask her than to be disappointed again.

I hope Daddy or the grandparents saves the article to show to the kids when they're all grown up - so that they'll understand why they despise their own children, if they have any. Then they can say with pride, "We owe it all to Mummy."

I firmly believe that it is not my children's purpose in life to intellectually stimulate their parents. Comic relief, OTOH, YES! But I have always considered it one of my jobs as a parent to intellectually stimulate my children. It's right up there with: feed nourishing food, feed SPIRITUAL food, encourage independence & resourcefulness, and keep the house reasonably sanitary.

Dear Summa Mamas...I would love to read these comments...but truly the print is so small, I can't read them. Does anyone else have this problem?? Or is it just me and my old eyes?
Donna

they are not here to entertain us.

Oh yes they are.

Well, that and to assist in the kitchen and yard.

If anyone wants me to play devil's advocate, just to keep this discussion going, just let me know.

*grin*

Miz Booshay, the type is indeed very small. If you're using Firefox, you can do Ctrl + to make the type bigger.

Derb's wrong about most things, but it is a truism that parents used to realize (but no longer do) that genetics play a big role. Most of us don't like to admit it, but twins raised in different environments do tend to turn out similar. (Facts suck.) My own anecdotal evidence is from my grandmother (who turned out to be right).

Genetics do take a big role, which is why I am proud of the extra cubic centimeters cranial capacity I get from my Neanderthal stock! Half a chimp smarter than you so-called "modern" humans. Ha! And German, to boot! Ha HAAA!

+JMJ+

I'm sorry, but that author bored me to death! I stopped reading about halfway through.

In case I missed it, did she mention anything that she likes doing with her children? We can rule out children's parties, bedtime stories, children's sports games, and several other things. Does she spend any time with them at all (not counting the time she took to pose with them for that photo, of course)?

Sure, genetics plays a big part, but then don't many parents start their parenting careers by giving their children their chromosones? For most parents, passing on their genes is their first act of parenting :)

(
Seriously, that's one of the variables that complicates twin studies. People tend to choose mates that are like themselves, and that tends to "stack the deck" genetically speaking. And FWIW, I've known identical and fraternal twins who were raised in the same home and turned out very differently. I think the interaction between genetics, parents, individual children's perceptions, and individual children's free wills are just too complex for simple equations.

Even if you buy Derb's numbers and accept his assertion that "life outcomes" are 50% due to genes, that's still 50% left for the environment. Derb chalks up another 40 to 45% to "communal upbringing", but he himself notes that a lot of that is directly influenced by the decisions of parents: where to live, how to school, how much to expose the children to a particular environment. That's part of parenting.

And that percentage is going to vary wildly for kids depending on how much time they spend outside the home. I simply don't see how that 40-45% is going to apply to young children who are cared for at home, or even for school-aged children who come straight home instead of spending another three hours in after-care. If you let your kids run wild all day, of course "the environment" is going to have a large influence over them.

Of course, parents can do the best they can and still have a child who uses his free will the wrong way. How big of a percentage does free will play in his equation?

But even though genetics is very important, I simply can't see how that minimizes the importance of parenting. Even if you buy Derb's numbers (which I don't), isn't even a mere 5% of one's influence on a human soul of infinite importance? If you have a child who is naturally timid, do you just shrug your shoulders and say, oh well, it's in his genes? Or do you get to know him and gently encourage him -- and pick appropriate outside activities -- so he can make the most of his temperament?

And what constitutes a "successful life outcome," anyway? For Christians, it's going to involve knowing, loving, and serving God in this world and the next. Somehow I think that Derb has something else in mind.

Of course, there's one act of parenting that has 100% influence over a child's "life outcome" and that's allowing the child to live. Derb forgot to put that into his equation. He's A-OK with eugenics (as long as the guvmint doesn't get involved) and abortion.

Just realise that the silly woman is as thick as a brick and her kids are hopefully 90 percent her husband's dna not hers. When she is old and boring, i hope they don't visit her in the nursing home they will be in a rush to dump the silly woman in. Usually such parents are rather shallow and lacking in grey matter if they don't like and find their kids company enjoyable.