"My parents were more interested in having kids than things"

[lilwriter85]

My pet Mormon blogger Heather posted an interesting blog posting regarding entitlement. She brings up good points about why kids shouldn't be spoiled or feel entitled. Quick backstory on Heather, she has four older biologial sisters and two younger sisters that were adopted from foster care. Her mom was a SAHM and dad was the worker. She kind of slams smaller families and two income homes.

paralyzedwithjoy.blogspot.com/2013/03/enabling-parentsentitled-kids.html

I saw another interesting episode of Steve Harvey's talk show last week that made me shake my head. A mother wrote in to the show because she was sick of her husband spoiling/enabling their daughter. The daughter was 28 and still living at home. The father pays all of her bills and expenses, and he also buys her expensive gifts whenever she asks for them (which is on a regular basis).

I was definitely NOT a spoiled child. My parents provided me with everything I needed, but not much more than that. My parents were middle-class people; my dad worked at an average-paying job and my mom was a stay-at-home mom. We were a large family (nine of us total) and my parents were more interested in having 'kids' than 'things.' Money was pretty tight, and I admit that I always felt rather poor compared to my friends/classmates that grew up in smaller families where both parents worked and there was more money to go around.

Some parents are just more liberal with their money and don't see the harm in buying their kids lots of things. As a kid I was envious of my friends that seemed to have "everything," but now that I'm older and wiser I'm SO glad that I didn't grow up getting everything I desired. I'm grateful that my parents didn't spoil me and that they taught me the value of a dollar and the importance of working for what you want. Even if my mom and dad had had more, it's not like they would've done things much differently. I think it's good for kids to know what it's like to want for things and to have to work for what they get.

As I've learned from the wise Dr. Phil, a lot of times when parents buy things for their kids, they are actually doing it more for themselves than they are for their kids. (I'm not really wording that as well as Dr. Phil does, but hopefully you understand what I mean.) A lot of parents buy their kids things out of their guilt of being "absentee parents." Parents also have a desire to give their children everything they lacked when they were children. I can actually relate to this feeling because when I was in middle school I remember thinking that I should start saving my allowance so that one day I could give my kids all of the things I wanted, but didn't have. I now know better and know that this isn't good for kids. I can't say it enough; kids need to work for what they get!

I think she generalizes smaller families a bit too much and the quote about absentee parents is a bit unfair to say. I also doubt that her friends from smaller families had everything.

[2xx1xy1JD]

I didn't read her other posts, but this one didn't seem to be slamming smaller families in general.

She makes it clear that there was enough to provide what was needed. That's a huge point. There's a big difference between a large family that can provide for their kids but doesn't spend a lot on extras, vs. a family that is clearly struggling and NOT meeting basic needs.

If her point is that giving children more (beyond their actual needs) is not always better, it's a valid POV. Money can be used as a form of control, a symbol of love, a guilt offering, etc.

[Rosa]

what we see, though, is a lot of the large-family advocates redefining "wants" to include things like "enough food", "healthcare" and "a decent education", much less the kinds of middle-class footholds into the future job market (higher education, clothes that will pass in a middle-class setting) that most parents aspire to for their children.

It makes the whole discussion suspect. Not to mention that the "more" you can give your kids with diminishing returns includes siblings.

[AVENues]

There should be and people have proven that there is a grey area between being p*ss poor and having kid after kid after kid and 3 course nutritionless rice meals... and raising brats who won't leave home forever.

I have, however also seen lower class families with aging children living at home, partying and showing no intention of moving out at all - blaming the government, the "crisis", everything but their own spending habits. So rich kids living at home is rather an odd thing to me.

But what is wrong with giving kids more than necessary? Like, I'm teaching English and people are willing to pay me money to teach their kids one on one. They could still get by with what they learn at school, or no English at all, but that would be a really narrow world to live in for them. What's wrong with supporting them with their hobbies - photography, sports, etc? What's wrong with sending them overseas to travel, see the world, learn, meet people, etc? What's wrong with traveling the world as a family? If I had kids I would sure as heck take them on vacations to Africa, South America, the Caribbean, etc. I would, even if that would mean no fringe for us parents. I'd save up, book early, would take extra jobs, would get the kids weekend jobs to chip in but I think it is important to have those extra things. I also like exotic food, if I would not want to eat out, I'd cook them at home. I don't say I would support my kids with nonsensical hobbies - collecting video games, clothes, gaz guzzling cars - but I would do my utmost to allow them a lifestyle that enriches them culturally.

**I can see Rosa's recent post and ITA.

[lilwriter85]

For me, what bugged me about Heather was the part about where she said "my parents were more interested in having kids than things". There many reasons to why people have smaller families. Maybe materialism is a reason for some people. But for a lot of people that I know, their reasons have to do with education savings, giving kids more opportunities for educational or recreational hobbies to help the kids learn, money for cars when the kids come of age etc.

Heather had done similar postings where she talks about smaller families having more. Maybe she isn't slamming them, but sometimes I get the feeling that she does. I also suspect resentment on her part over the fact that her family struggled quite a bit. A year or two ago, she did a posting about how some of her high school friends were given cars to them by their parents. She mentioned that they were from smaller families. She talked about how she worked to a buy used a car and how she felt that she appreciated more because she bought it herself. Kudos to Heather for doing that, but I thought it was unfair for her to assume that her friends didn't appreciate the cars given to them. Maybe some of them didn't, but I think some did appreciate their parents buying them cars.

[lilwriter85]

There should be and people have proven that there is a grey area between being p*ss poor and having kid after kid after kid and 3 course nutritionless rice meals... and raising brats who won't leave home forever.

I have, however also seen lower class families with aging children living at home, partying and showing no intention of moving out at all - blaming the government, the "crisis", everything but their own spending habits. So rich kids living at home is rather an odd thing to me.

**I can see Rosa's recent post and ITA.

I agree with a lot of this. I also don't think it is wrong to give them more than necessary in certain situations. There are a lot of ways to save on hobbies, but sometimes you did put in a little more money for certain musical instruments, sports equipment, etc. I agree with you on vacations. I would want any kids that I have to see some of the world. I doubt I would frequently vacation, but going on a vacation every couple of years wouldn't hurt.

[Jinger Jar]

Heather needs to stop projecting and figure out what is was about her childhood that she still resents. She's a grown woman who has faced *a lot* since becoming an adult, and the fact that she's still going on about her childhood indicates something isn't resolved. Maybe she resents being given the bare minimum. Maybe she resents watching neighborhood kids getting stuff her family told her they couldn't afford. Or maybe she was punished or made to feel guilty for asking for stuff. I dunno, but she protests waaaaay too much for someone who has left her childhood in the past - where it belongs.

[2xx1xy1JD]

There is a point at which basic necessities are being compromised. If you are using 2 chicken breasts mixed with milk in a blender and poured over rice to feed 11 people and then locking the cupboards so that the kids can't access more food - basic nutrition is suffering. Health care is a need. Living in a house that has heating in the winter, by modern North American standards, is a need.

I don't think that it is wrong to do more if you have the means. In our family, we like to travel. It's the only way that hubby and I ever manage to truly get away and relax without getting calls from work, so I justify it by saying that it's an investment in family and our own mental health.

At the same time, teaching kids to save up and work for "wants" is good training for life. My husband and I grew up with families that had very different attitudes toward money, and he had to play catch-up. It took a while for him to be able to say the word "budget" without having a panic attack, because his parents only budgeted when they were on the verge of bankruptcy. We also had to fight a mindset that said that you "should" be buying the best car, best house, etc. even if it wasn't financially prudent. Let's just say that when parents get older - you want to be related to the savers, not the spenders.

[lilwriter85]

Heather needs to stop projecting and figure out what is was about her childhood that she still resents. She's a grown woman who has faced *a lot* since becoming an adult, and the fact that she's still going on about her childhood indicates something isn't resolved. Maybe she resents being given the bare minimum. Maybe she resents watching neighborhood kids getting stuff her family told her they couldn't afford. Or maybe she was punished or made to feel guilty for asking for stuff. I dunno, but she protests waaaaay too much for someone who has left her childhood in the past - where it belongs.

I also think there is something there that isn't resolved. I suspect that Heather's parents originally choose to only have 5 kids which is kind of common for some Mormon families that don't want double digit amounts of kids. Heather said that her parents got into fostering at some point. When they got Laura she was recovering from burns. Heather has never given additional details on her blog, but on Laura's blog she has said that the burns happened due to an incident involving her birth mom and possibly another person. Heather's parents decided to adopt Laura and then later on social services called them about Chandra who was also a burn victim and later they adopted her. Heather's parents had big hearts to adopt those girls, but I think they might not have thought about finances and they ended up struggling more than they expected to.

[MrsYoungie]

I am also more interested in my kids than in things. We are a working/middle class family with 2 sons. We are not rich by most standards. So we only had 2 children so they could have what they needed and some of what they wanted. I know both my boys extremely well and was able to spend a lot of time with both of them doing what they liked to do.

My older son is a sports nut. Because I don't have a dozen other children, we were able to put him in sports, provide him with equipment and attend almost all of his games.

My younger son is a musician. Because I don't have a dozen other children, we were able to make sure he had a guitar (a good one!) and got him whatever lessons he needed.

You don't have to have a huge family just to prove you love "children". I love *my* children. And they know it!

[yetanothermeg]

I have a small family cause I would go batshit crazy with more children. Its got nothing to do with "things".

[nimerha]

Ultimately, her post (and many, many others) seem to be a justification, not an observation. As in, it was good for us that we were poor, it built character! And then implying, to a lesser or larger degree, that a rich person lacked this opportunity and therefore now lacks the character. Vilifying other lifestyles to feel better about yours, always a favourite. Now with added sprinkles of, well, they wouldn't be so well-off and comfortable if they were godly as us!

It's such bullshit.

Rich parents and spoilt children share perhaps a correlation, but not causation. It it perfectly possible to spoil a child rotten, to bring up a codependent, entitled, whiny brat when living hand to mouth - just look at half the blogger list! Expensive toys and possessions are hardly the only way to spoil a child. And vice versa, of course. Money may not buy happiness, but it can buy a hell lot more great, enriching things than just basic nutrition and shelter.

I also question the blogger's issues with her childhood. Perhaps I was lucky, but it wasn't till my mid-teens at least that I realized my family was fairly poor when I was a child. I remember things we didn't have or do, school trips that I didn't participate in, toys that my friends had but my parents wouldn't buy - I however don't remember feeling deprived or poorer than my peers.

[lilah]

I think that children are not naturally going to be greatful for what they have, they tend to focus on what they wants becuase children are naturally egotistical. It's part of their development to give them a consience and realize that you aren't going to always get what you want and that there will always be people who have more than you and people who have less.

That said, I don't think you can claim God wants you to have more children if you can't provide them

-A proper place to sleep in (LIAS, ThatWife)

- Healthy nutricious meals that are in portions correct for growing bodies (GenCeder, Emily and Dna)

- An education that will allow them to fully particpate in society (Duggars and too many others to count)

- Love, safety, security, parental bonding (Duggars whose little J's probably think the Jslaves are their moms, adoptive babycollectors, That Wife)

-

[MandyLaLa]

There should be and people have proven that there is a grey area between being p*ss poor and having kid after kid after kid and 3 course nutritionless rice meals... and raising brats who won't leave home forever.

I have, however also seen lower class families with aging children living at home, partying and showing no intention of moving out at all - blaming the government, the "crisis", everything but their own spending habits. So rich kids living at home is rather an odd thing to me.

But what is wrong with giving kids more than necessary? Like, I'm teaching English and people are willing to pay me money to teach their kids one on one. They could still get by with what they learn at school, or no English at all, but that would be a really narrow world to live in for them. What's wrong with supporting them with their hobbies - photography, sports, etc? What's wrong with sending them overseas to travel, see the world, learn, meet people, etc? What's wrong with traveling the world as a family? If I had kids I would sure as heck take them on vacations to Africa, South America, the Caribbean, etc. I would, even if that would mean no fringe for us parents. I'd save up, book early, would take extra jobs, would get the kids weekend jobs to chip in but I think it is important to have those extra things. I also like exotic food, if I would not want to eat out, I'd cook them at home. I don't say I would support my kids with nonsensical hobbies - collecting video games, clothes, gaz guzzling cars - but I would do my utmost to allow them a lifestyle that enriches them culturally.

**I can see Rosa's recent post and ITA.

I couldn't agree more, especially with how competitive getting into college is now, a part of me feels like you're selling your kid short if you have so many kids that you have nothing left over for sports, extra curricular activities, tutors if needed etc... Good grades aren't good enough anymore, colleges want a well rounded applicant who gets good grades, volunteers, plays sports and is super involved. That costs money. As a future parent I would never have more kids if it meant not being able to provide the above to my children.

I also really don't like the unspoken theme of these types of messages which is that rich people are all spoiled and bratty and all they care about is money and their kids never learn the value of a dollar.

[AVENues]

I so agree with nimerha. (also many of you here!) The easiest way to spoil a kid is with undeserved praise. If you do that, you turn any kid into a jerk even if all you have to give them is *reaches for a bucket, sorry :mrgreen: * one fifth of a chicken breast blended with milk. (This is my day of nausea of the year apparently.)

Point is, before I make myself sick via overimagining the chicken breast liquid, if you keep calling your kid undeserved superlatives (prince, little boss, little godfather (really?!), my little winner, genius, master, hero) while your kids does absolutely nothing noble to earn these titles (and anyways...) he'll turn out to be totally stuck up and will expect the world to treat him as a boss, a master etc without accomplishing a thing. They are in for a rude awakening, except they keep hanging out with folks half their age that they can talk down on, and their circle of friends will keep changing.

Again, you don't have to spend a penny on them to "achieve" this. Stuck up, misogynistic, biblical nonsense about superiority of men, superiority of Christians, superiority of Baptists over Catholics, etc... will do the thing just fine. There you are, with a kid proud of nothing practically. *Mandylala, I see ya, thank you and I agree with ya!

[AVENues]

I also really don't like the unspoken theme of these types of messages which is that rich people are all spoiled and bratty and all they care about is money and their kids never learn the value of a dollar.

QFT, I really wanted to mention that. Seeing all rich people as evil is something they call cognitive dissonance. Money's from the devil - right, Vatican?! - whomsoever gets wealthy probably robs, steals and kills. I never liked such talk and never liked listening to it, god knows how many times I used to bite my tongue to refrain from calling people with horrible spending habits out for such generalizing statements. It's just as bad as saying "all people that are poor are lazy", I wonder how do they like such talk. That is probably capitalistic darwinism to them. Yet wealthy people get to be called names like thieves, criminals all the time... Is that okay? I don't think so.

[lilwriter85]

I couldn't agree more, especially with how competitive getting into college is now, a part of me feels like you're selling your kid short if you have so many kids that you have nothing left over for sports, extra curricular activities, tutors if needed etc... Good grades aren't good enough anymore, colleges want a well rounded applicant who gets good grades, volunteers, plays sports and is super involved. That costs money. As a future parent I would never have more kids if it meant not being able to provide the above to my children.

I also really don't like the unspoken theme of these types of messages which is that rich people are all spoiled and bratty and all they care about is money and their kids never learn the value of a dollar.

That was one of the issues I had with Heather's posting. She doesn't specifically mention rich people, but she was directing some of her feelings to two income homes that fit into the upper middle class or wealthier classes. My parents were solid middle class for several years and then in the mid 90s my father got a major promotion and a higher salary. My parents were the types that would buy us occasional gifts for doing well in school and they supported the costs of our hobbies and extracurricular activities. My parents encouraged all of their kids to try and work for some of the things we wanted. Sometimes I saved up my allowance for many things I wanted and once in awhile I mentioned wanting something and my parents would buy it if it wasn't something extremely expensive. When I had summer jobs during high school I used most of the money for clothes. Sometimes my mom and dad would encourage me to buy "wants" for myself and they would give me some extra money for clothes. My parents did buy cars for my siblings and I. They viewed that mostly as helping us getting a start in life. We had to pay for part of the insurance, maintenance(which was a bit low due to a dealership agreement) , and gas.

I have seen other people from two income families that were raised like me. Their parents provided more for them in certain aspects while the kids did work for other things. I had a college friend whose father was a surgeon and her mother was general practitioner. Her parents paid for her car insurance, cell phone bill, and they would send her grocery gift cards or cash for food. She worked to pay to rent and other bills. She used to only buy clothing and certain things on sale. Some people in our circles called her spoiled, but I never viewed her as that. She was getting help from her parents, but they weren't paying for every single thing.

[AVENues]

That's totally natural for parents to help out their children who are trying to achieve their goals. Parents who see their children try to actually help themselves and work hard tend to help more, which is natural. I tell you what's not natural, dear Esther... having kids without a roof over their heads, plenty, nutritious food, medical insurance, a safe environment, any kind of hope fro a good education and career, yet collecting them. Now the thing with children is, that they are the most expensive things to "collect". You don't collect them actually and they are not things or nothing to be compared to things. The financial, emotional, physical need of a child is tremendous. What do you do if, god forsake one of them needs serious and long term care?! God giveth, god taketh?! And I don't think that the worsening of the quality of their anyway miserable lives will help them get to like each other more. When you're still hungry and the bowl is empty because there are too many mouths to feed for the amount of food available, I don't think that is can be called responsible childraising.

[Closed Womb]

The daughter was 28 and still living at home? The father paid all of her expenses? Sounds like several of the fundie families we know.

[AVENues]

The daughter was 28 and still living at home? The father paid all of her expenses? Sounds like several of the fundie families we know.

:o :lol:

*ba dum tss*

Do we have an "apply cold water to burn" smiley?

[2xx1xy1JD]

I so agree with nimerha. (also many of you here!) The easiest way to spoil a kid is with undeserved praise. If you do that, you turn any kid into a jerk even if all you have to give them is *reaches for a bucket, sorry :mrgreen: * one fifth of a chicken breast blended with milk. (This is my day of nausea of the year apparently.)

Point is, before I make myself sick via overimagining the chicken breast liquid, if you keep calling your kid undeserved superlatives (prince, little boss, little godfather (really?!), my little winner, genius, master, hero) while your kids does absolutely nothing noble to earn these titles (and anyways...) he'll turn out to be totally stuck up and will expect the world to treat him as a boss, a master etc without accomplishing a thing. They are in for a rude awakening, except they keep hanging out with folks half their age that they can talk down on, and their circle of friends will keep changing.

Again, you don't have to spend a penny on them to "achieve" this. Stuck up, misogynistic, biblical nonsense about superiority of men, superiority of Christians, superiority of Baptists over Catholics, etc... will do the thing just fine. There you are, with a kid proud of nothing practically. *Mandylala, I see ya, thank you and I agree with ya!

Huh?

I'd agree that teaching your child misogynistic and/or superiority crap is obviously bad - but what does that have to do with praise? Is there some snark post that I'm missing?

Plenty of normal people praise their kids and give them affectionate nicknames. It's hardly the worst parenting practice out there.

My formula for creating a spoiled child looks something like this:

1. Ignore your child much of the time, esp. if they are making a reasonable request in a normal tone of voice.

2. Respond to your child only when the child, who has been ignored until now and become frustrated, starts to really kick up a fuss.

3. Initially say no, but make sure that you eventually give in when the noise reaches a certain level.

4. Repeat often enough to convince child that tantrums, and only tantrums, will work to get what they want.

5. Make sure to equate stuff with love. Declare that you buy things for your child because you love them.

6. If possible, get divorced or at least make sure that you don't get along with the other parent/caregiver. Never miss an opportunity to suggest to the child that the other parent doesn't love them as much if they say no to them, or buy them something that is less expensive. A suggestion to shop at a discount store should be treated as the equivalent of child abuse.

7. If the other parent ever says no to the child, make sure that you say yes.

8. Never, ever expect your child to apologize to anyone.

9. Never, ever place any expectations at all on the child. If the other parent tries to do so, suggest that they are mean, demanding and possibly abusive, and that you love them so much more.

10. Allow the child to expect that others will do things for them, and that "the help" can be criticized for anything and everything. Be sure to teach this by example.

11. Loudly complain about things in front of the children.

12. Be sure to point out which families have less money, which brands are inferior, etc. Make sure the kids know that you would never be caught dead in THAT area, or agree to live in THAT type of home, or drive THAT kind of car. Openly mock these things as cheap.

13. Show your kids that you respect other people more when they have more money.

14. Make a big deal about how your kids look and what brands they are wearing, but never, ever praise any sort of core value.

[AVENues]

I wasn't expressing myself really clearly - really late over here - what I wanted to emphasize is that UNDESERVED praise, superior nicknames that boost the kid's ego through the ceiling do harm. Praise is important, my pupils live and die for praises, but they go out of their ways to earn it. See? I guess we are on the same page.

[lilwriter85]

Another thing I forgot to mention a previous post, was that I get a feeling that Heather kind of sees her family as superior because her mom was a SAHM.

A lot of parents buy their kids things out of their guilt of being "absentee parents."

These are just my personal feelings. I'm so grateful for parents (especially a mom) who taught me the value of work and how to be grateful for the things that I've been blessed with.

I had to wonder if she was partially referring to working mothers.

[2xx1xy1JD]

I wasn't expressing myself really clearly - really late over here - what I wanted to emphasize is that UNDESERVED praise, superior nicknames that boost the kid's ego through the ceiling do harm. Praise is important, my pupils live and die for praises, but they go out of their ways to earn it. See? I guess we are on the same page.

Some praise for actual deeds is a good thing, but kids also need to receive unconditional love from their parents as well. It's the foundation for a secure parent-child attachment, not a sign that they are spoiled.

[2xx1xy1JD]

About the blog in general - I took a look through some more posts, and I really don't get a super-fundie vibe from it.

Yes, the family was larger than average, and yes, she's religious - but that doesn't automatically mean she's fundie.

I didn't see anything on her blog that was particularly offensive or intolerant. She was getting an education and working when she had the accident. She's read some decent books and doesn't seem to reside in a bubble. Yes, she mentions that her mom happened to be SAHM, but she's a far cry from Lori or those who insist that all women MUST stay home. From what I've read so far, she's not really preachy or dogmatic. A lot of the blog seems to just be about the accident, living with her disabilities, her family and life in general.