A Paradox for the Parents

[osudude]

Can't I want something in between? Reality isn't this dichotomy...

 

[Gawd]

Can't I want something in between? Reality isn't this dichotomy...

No, not immediately choosing your childrens side in all things makes you an evil person. Your wife would never accept that.

 

[Y2Khaos]

I don't know the answers to those questions per se but I will leave whatever I can to my kids and hope they don't take that as a sign of "I don't have to do anything." I try to be a good parent but I also try to show them how to live in the real world. Everything is not always nice and turns out the way you want it to. Hard work does pay off but I can't guarantee success, happiness, or them not being crazy assholes. I do what I can with what I have and hope they pay attention to at lest some of it.

 

[CrayonWendigo]

Conclusion 2 (a bit of a stretch, maybe): Are you likely to raise a decent person if you spend 100% of your time raising your child at the cost of living in poverty? If you had all day, every day to supervise your child, play with them, help them when they need it, monitor what they watch and who they interact with, allow them to make their own mistakes, discipline them, foster their interests, etc, aren't you almost guaranteed to raise a good, happy kid (assuming you know what the fuck you're doing)?

It depends to what extent the poverty is.

But this is why men should work and their wives should raise their legitimate children 100 percent of the time.

Question 1 (that is especially directed to the Sherdog parents - and most especially to the single parents): Why do you take so much pride in "working to put food on the table" when your children could likely get by with a minimal amount of food and a maximum amount of parental care?

Because a man's duty is to provide for his family, it's a woman's to care for her family.

Question 2: Is it more important to provide opportunities for economic mobility for your child, or to raise them to be a good, honest, happy human being that is kind to others, has integrity, and values life?

Kindness to others is primarily a feminine virtue. So let us say instead: A job of a parent is to raise manly sons and feminine daughters.

Question 3: Would you be willing to live in poverty if it came with a 100% guarantee that your child would turn out happy and "good"? If not, why not?

To what extent of poverty are we speaking of?

Question 4: The opposite of 3. Would you be willing to work all day every day if it meant your child would live the most comfortable life imaginable and be wildly successful (Harvard grad, president of the US, UFC Champ and popular/critically acclaimed rockstar), but turn out rotten, spoiled and an asshole?

I don't want to raise an inferior person, so no.

 

[KGB256]

Premise 1:

When someone like Bill Gates says that he's not going to leave any fortune because he wants them to learn the value of hard work, most of us applaud him, right? We all agree that not having tons of money can help build character. By association, we accept that money cannot make your child turn out to be a good person.

Premise 2:

We additionally, as a culture, applaud those who spend time with children. "Mothering" is considered a legitimate occupation even though it has no primary economic impact and fathers who even look at their kids once a week are hailed.

Conclusion 1:

Time is more important to good child rearing than money.

Conclusion 2 (a bit of a stretch, maybe): Are you likely to raise a decent person if you spend 100% of your time raising your child at the cost of living in poverty? If you had all day, every day to supervise your child, play with them, help them when they need it, monitor what they watch and who they interact with, allow them to make their own mistakes, discipline them, foster their interests, etc, aren't you almost guaranteed to raise a good, happy kid (assuming you know what the fuck you're doing)?

Question 1 (that is especially directed to the Sherdog parents - and most especially to the single parents): Why do you take so much pride in "working to put food on the table" when your children could likely get by with a minimal amount of food and a maximum amount of parental care?

Question 2: Is it more important to provide opportunities for economic mobility for your child, or to raise them to be a good, honest, happy human being that is kind to others, has integrity, and values life?

Question 3: Would you be willing to live in poverty if it came with a 100% guarantee that your child would turn out happy and "good"? If not, why not?

Question 4: The opposite of 3. Would you be willing to work all day every day if it meant your child would live the most comfortable life imaginable and be wildly successful (Harvard grad, president of the US, UFC Champ and popular/critically acclaimed rockstar), but turn out rotten, spoiled and an asshole?

Nitpicking, but this isn't a paradox. The answer is that you need a balance of spending time away from your children to provide for them, and spending time with your children to help guide them into healthy, happy, productive adults.

Q1: Most of us don't want to "get by". We want to provide good things for our families, and opportunities for our kids and ourselves. I'd like to retire at some point. I want to pay off my house. I want to send my kids to college without burying them in massive debt. If that means I have to work (mostly during the hours they are in school anyway), so be it. I'd rather do that than raise the most well-adjusted McDonald's fry cook in history.

Q2: Both, but if I had to choose one or the other, I'd place more importance on the latter. But understand the reality is that you try to achieve a balance.

Q3 and Q4 (same answer to both): Nope. I'm doing just fine as is, thanks. I'll take my chances that I will raise my kids to be good people, as well as provide them with a chance to make a good career for themselves.

 

[MortalWombat]

Are you likely to raise a decent person if you spend 100% of your time raising your child at the cost of living in poverty?

stats say no

 

[Chernabog]

Question 1 (that is especially directed to the Sherdog parents - and most especially to the single parents): Why do you take so much pride in "working to put food on the table" when your children could likely get by with a minimal amount of food and a maximum amount of parental care?

Because if your kid gets too skinny in the USA you could go to prison.

 

[Caution]

It depends on the parents, the childs genetics and the environment the child is raised in.

 

[Abezal]

Premise 1:

When someone like Bill Gates says that he's not going to leave any fortune because he wants them to learn the value of hard work, most of us applaud him, right? We all agree that not having tons of money can help build character. By association, we accept that money cannot make your child turn out to be a good person.

Applaud what.

By the virtue of their last name they will get offers no one else would, he may leave then no money but will spend millions on their future.

thus I would applaud nothing.

 

[Lost]

i had been a parent for 3 years when i was 19...

sorry man I wasn't trying to judge you or anything. Glad you've been there for your kid.

 

[Level25Virgin]

First off, great thread topic. Much better than some of the drivel in Mayberry. And below I attempt to objectively enhance your premises and conclusions.

Premise 1:

When someone like Bill Gates says that he's not going to leave any fortune because he wants them to learn the value of hard work, most of us applaud him, right? We all agree that not having tons of money can help build character. By association, we accept that money cannot make your child turn out to be a good person.

Modified premise 1:
Money is a detriment to a child's character if the child is allowed to be spoiled by it. Otherwise, it is an excellent character enhancer as it can afford opportunities and learning experiences not otherwise available in a state of poverty.

Premise 2:

We additionally, as a culture, applaud those who spend time with children. "Mothering" is considered a legitimate occupation even though it has no primary economic impact and fathers who even look at their kids once a week are hailed.

Agreed, spending a lot of time with your child is a good parental, moral, and ethical behavior, but change "mothering" to "parenting" and withdraw your incorrect conclusion that character has no impact on personal economics.

Conclusion 1:

Time is more important to good child rearing than money.

Modified conclusion 1:
A balance of time and money on some sort of sliding scale is important to good child rearing.

Conclusion 2 (a bit of a stretch, maybe): Are you likely to raise a decent person if you spend 100% of your time raising your child at the cost of living in poverty? If you had all day, every day to supervise your child, play with them, help them when they need it, monitor what they watch and who they interact with, allow them to make their own mistakes, discipline them, foster their interests, etc, aren't you almost guaranteed to raise a good, happy kid (assuming you know what the fuck you're doing)?

Modified conclusion 2: Raising a child in poverty does not increase his/her chances of being successful or happy. Likewise, spoiling a child with money does not increase his/her chances of being successful or happy.

Question 1 (that is especially directed to the Sherdog parents - and most especially to the single parents): Why do you take so much pride in "working to put food on the table" when your children could likely get by with a minimal amount of food and a maximum amount of parental care?

You have to work to eat, but you also must balance your time working and parenting.

Question 2: Is it more important to provide opportunities for economic mobility for your child, or to raise them to be a good, honest, happy human being that is kind to others, has integrity, and values life?

Why not both? They are not mutually exclusive.

Question 3: Would you be willing to live in poverty if it came with a 100% guarantee that your child would turn out happy and "good"? If not, why not?

I think this is a silly question. Poverty only guarantees struggle and scarcity. It may or may not help foster hard work and happiness. You can teach your kids to be good and raise them to be happy without living in poverty. In fact, I think your chances are better to accomplish this is you are not constantly grinding day to day, month to month just to survive.

Question 4: The opposite of 3. Would you be willing to work all day every day if it meant your child would live the most comfortable life imaginable and be wildly successful (Harvard grad, president of the US, UFC Champ and popular/critically acclaimed rockstar), but turn out rotten, spoiled and an asshole?

I think this refers to a premise I proposed earlier where a money is a detriment to a child if they are allowed to be spoiled by it.

Again, just because a child is raised in a well to do family does not necessarily mean they are spoiled and just because a child is raised in poverty does not necessarily mean they are virtuous. I'm not even sure those are likely circumstances in either case.