A Paradox for the Parents

[Leagon]

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?

 

[YPMG]

I'm not a parent but this is an awesome thread!


Question 1 -
Taking pride in putting food on the table is something that is passed on through generation after generation, eating at the table together is also symbolic of a family coming together and relaxing each and every night. You're correct that children could survive on minimal food but food on the table is the fruits of your labour - the tangible gift of why you work, so they can enjoy the finer things in life and will never go without.

Question 2 -
I'm a firm believer that opportunities can be created and I know how much I can't stand rude, arrogant, misbehaving children. I would rather be strict on my child and have them turn out to be polite, ethical and sincere - with those characteristics they can create their own opportunities in life but most of all, they will know what it feels to be good and happy. Happiness is the greatest thing you can give your child.

Question 3 -
Define poverty? Are we talking slums, housing project or completely on the street?

Question 4 -
See question 2. Life is all about balance, I would rather spend time with my children and foster a good home environment so that my family is close and will remain close of the rest of their lives. It all boils down to happiness once again! TBH I couldn't care less if my child ends up being a Dr or someone who spends their life working in retail - so long as they are happy and doing what they love.

 

[JuliaB4GSP]

We got a serious feminist thread up in the 'berry?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics_of_care

Mothering does have a measurable economic impact out x number of years. The more time you spend with your children the better their chances to be more productive economically as adults. The assumption is that mothering means a structured life and someone better trained to participate in the most structured activities, school and then work. Time is more valuable than money always and everywhere.

Problem is, our economy doesn't favor parents spending time with their children. The economy pushes kids into daycare, pre-k, then elementary school so parents can be at work instead of creating the best possible structure for future laborers. Social Services will pay someone more to watch your kid than what you will earn from your job. It's very interesting.

 

[Leagon]

I'm not a parent but this is an awesome thread!

Thanks, man! I appreciate it. I dig your response as well, and I think I can agree with pretty much all of them. I'm eager to see how the parents respond, though, cause I imagine it's a different mindset for them.

Question 3 -
Define poverty? Are we talking slums, housing project or completely on the street?

I'll leave this up to you. How poor would you be willing to be to 100% guarantee that your child turns out a genuine, decent, happy person?

 

[MSK1010]

single father here i have my son every weekend. and while that is more than most single dads get its still not enough i miss out on all his school activities. I pay child support close to 400 a month along with clothe and feed him when i have him. Let me say that if he learns nothing from me in life other than whats right and wrong and how to treat others with respect i will be content with what ive done as a parent.

 

[Phreaxer]

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.

I don't applaud that. I see it as a waste. If I die with millions, I want to pass that on to my children. I didn't work hard to earn the money so my family wouldn't reap the benefits. I'd also expect that I raised them correctly and they are going to use some of the money to help other people/charities/etc... That should be part of the tradeoff for me being away while working. Granted, I'd be very content to provide what I could to them and die nearly 'even' (no debts, minimal money to pass on) and I'd be happy if my parents and inlaws did the same.

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.

I was a stay-at-home dad with my son for the first year of his life while my wife worked to provide for our family. I wouldn't say it's a illegitimate occupation. It was the hardest job I ever have had. And fathers who look at their kid only once a week should be punched in the face and told to grow the f up. The kids needs both parents as much as possible.

Conclusion 1:

Time is more important to good child rearing than money.

True.

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)?

The environment you raise your child in also plays a part in their development. You can't raise a kid in the ghetto and expect them not to be affected. I have seen a number of stories about great kids getting caught in crossfires, drug wars, etc... while walking from their school or whatever just because their lived in the wrong place.
Bolded portion: Part of the challenge of being a parent is knowing that you are never sure of what you are doing. It's not like there is a book, or series of books explaining how to be a parent. Every kid is different and therefore every parent is different and their process of parenting is different too.

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?

It is important to me that I provide a nice house, good food, and a decent amount of material possessions for my kids (I have 3 btw). I also make it possible for my wife to work less and thereby spend more time with our kids. Working also allows me to put our kids in a high-end daycare/preschool and homeschool our older one. All providing a better chance of success for them.

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?

Without values, they are not going to have the ability to make money (Jersey shore cast aside). There is some bleedthrough on doing both of these things to provide them the best opportunity for success in their own life. Kids don't need a lot of money to be happy, but they do need a lot of love.

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?

Reference my comment above about the environment in which children are raised. I wouldn't raise my kids in poverty if it were possible to avoid. My kids deserve more from me than allowing that. But I wouldn't sacrifice knowing them and helping raise them to be wealthy.

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?

No. Not a chance.

 

[RoryFan]

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?

Awesome thread, unfortunately i'm not a parent so I can't offer much insight but I have been wondering about this for ages! obviously the ideal answer is you want both a child that is happy, honest, good and fits into society and is economically sound. But if you knew the outcome of the child would be:

A. A "hippie" who typically doesen't work what would be considered a regular job, is generally living in poverty but is super nice, friendly and helpfull and cares for his family

or

B. A wall street type guy who is considered by most to be arogant and egotistical but is financially very well off and cares for his family.

I know essentially it's a ridiculous question but which do you aim for?

 

[Lost]

Great thread. I'm only 19 so I can't provide incite

 

[Leagon]

I don't applaud that. I see it as a waste. If I die with millions, I want to pass that on to my children. I didn't work hard to earn the money so my family wouldn't reap the benefits. I'd also expect that I raised them correctly and they are going to use some of the money to help other people/charities/etc... That should be part of the tradeoff for me being away while working. Granted, I'd be very content to provide what I could to them and die nearly 'even' (no debts, minimal money to pass on) and I'd be happy if my parents and inlaws did the same.

Good point. But I think the idea here is that time = money. If you spent the time it requires to amass Bill Gates money, you probably haven't spent very much time with your kids. Which means that you probably didn't "raise them correctly" Or at all, for that matter.

I was a stay-at-home dad with my son for the first year of his life while my wife worked to provide for our family. I wouldn't say it's a illegitimate occupation. It was the hardest job I ever have had. And fathers who look at their kid only once a week should be punched in the face and told to grow the f up. The kids needs both parents as much as possible.

Agreed.

The environment you raise your child in also plays a part in their development. You can't raise a kid in the ghetto and expect them not to be affected. I have seen a number of stories about great kids getting caught in crossfires, drug wars, etc... while walking from their school or whatever just because their lived in the wrong place.

But if you don't have to be gone all the time to go to work, you can control this environment to a pretty large degree. You can be there immediately to pick your child up, or even homeschool them. My parents raised 5 black kids in some of the poorest parts of America, and we all turned out to be college-educated, financially stable, generally-responsible and happy people because our mother kept us away from all the terrible shit that happens in poor communities.

Bolded portion: Part of the challenge of being a parent is knowing that you are never sure of what you are doing. It's not like there is a book, or series of books explaining how to be a parent. Every kid is different and therefore every parent is different and their process of parenting is different too.

Good point. I just meant, by the bolded part, that whatever the parent was doing was actually a good thing and not simply something that the parent thought was good (e.g. feeding your child KFC every morning. Chicken is protein, right? They'll grow strong!)

It is important to me that I provide a nice house, good food, and a decent amount of material possessions for my kids (I have 3 btw). I also make it possible for my wife to work less and thereby spend more time with our kids. Working also allows me to put our kids in a high-end daycare/preschool and homeschool our older one. All providing a better chance of success for them.

Better chance for success, but does this make them better people? Though your wife spends time with them, so it counds like you two have got that front covered as well. Good on ya, sir.

Without values, they are not going to have the ability to make money (Jersey shore cast aside). There is some bleedthrough on doing both of these things to provide them the best opportunity for success in their own life. Kids don't need a lot of money to be happy, but they do need a lot of love.

I agree with the last sentence, but I don't know how much I agree with the stuff before it. I know plenty of pretty rich people that have truly awful, twisted values. I don't think success by any means implicates that a person is good.

Reference my comment above about the environment in which children are raised. I wouldn't raise my kids in poverty if it were possible to avoid. My kids deserve more from me than allowing that. But I wouldn't sacrifice knowing them and helping raise them to be wealthy.

Response to the bolded: Every hour you spend at work is sacrificing knowing them, to a degree. All the little thing they do throughout the day that shows they type of person they're becoming at what not. And how much is "wealthy"? 100k a year? 50k a year? Just above the poverty line? If you took a shitty, part-time job and worked 25 hours a week, you could still put a roof over their heads, food on their table, and provide them with minimal material items, but you'd also be around much more to see them grow.

Don't mean to challenge your childrearing, as you seem like a great father and a decent man, but I just want to make sure we're fully understanding each other.

No. Not a chance.

Word.

 

[michal001]

This thread is silly and immature and poorly thought out. It poses problems in concepts of extremes and fails to take into account too many important variables such as quality of time.

spending time with your children is important. so is money. without money you can't spend quality time with your children. both are important.

i can take the converse extremes you did to disprove your point:
if all you had was time but NO money, you would not have food, shelter, education, etc to care for your child and you and your child would spend all your time carving out a base existence if you survive at all.
but, in reality money alone is not adequate either. both are important and required at a minimum amount to allow successful child rearing.

bottom line, you need a some amount of both and more to succeed. in fact, if all you had was time and money but you had no skills, quality, community, etc, your children would no grow up successfully. many crack whores, welfare moms, etc have little money but lots and lots of time but are unable to successfully raise their children into "good" people.

finally other nuances of working make it important.
-you teach kids by example. working hard to develop a successful career and family can be considered important example to teach.
-a parents life is not just about parenting. parents who are well rounded and fulfilled (i.e. not just working or not just parenting) will be more satisfied and may have improved quality of parenting time


cliff notes
-thread is stupid
-many things are required to raise good children including time, money, quality, etc.
-having only one or two of these things will not result in "good" children
-finding a balance of many things is required
-each person's idea of balance is different

 

[Leagon]

spending time with your children is important. so is money. without money you can't spend quality time with your children. both are important.

1. Without money, you can still spend quality time with your children. It's called being poor.

2. Both are indeed important. That's why the thread states "Time is more important than money." The word "more" signifies that money indeed contains some importance.

i can take the converse extremes you did to disprove your point:
if all you had was time but NO money, you would not have food, shelter, education, etc to care for your child and you and your child would spend all your time carving out a base existence if you survive at all.
but, in reality money alone is not adequate either. both are important and required at a minimum amount to allow successful child rearing.

bottom line, you need a some amount of both and more to succeed. in fact, if all you had was time and money but you had no skills, quality, community, etc, your children would no grow up successfully. many crack whores, welfare moms, etc have little money but lots and lots of time but are unable to successfully raise their children into "good" people.

The presumption, and it seems like most people understood this, what that by "time," I meant valuable, beneficial, quality parenting time. In the same way that by "money," I was referring to actual, usable, valuable money and not the inconsequential currency of an imagined defunct government.

finally other nuances of working make it important.
-you teach kids by example. working hard to develop a successful career and family can be considered important example to teach.

Good point.

-a parents life is not just about parenting. parents who are well rounded and fulfilled (i.e. not just working or not just parenting) will be more satisfied and may have improved quality of parenting time

Good point. But if a parent's life was solely about parenting, do you think that they wouldn't be a more effective parent? I assume that someone who devotes their life to physics is a superior physicist than someone who keeps it as a side hobby. Would this not hold true for parenting? Ignoring the individual happiness and fulfillment of the parent, I mean, and focusing simply on their ability to produce good children.

-finding a balance of many things is required
-each person's idea of balance is different

Agreed. This thread is to see what each person's idea of balance is and judge the legitimacy of that rather arbitrary point.

 

[MSK1010]

Great thread. I'm only 19 so I can't provide incite

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

 

[Oblivian]

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?

Both of us work, but my mom is able to watch our son throughout the week. If it was a choice between the wife working + day care or wife staying home, we'd probably go with the latter. I can't emphasize enough how much stress financial security gets rid of. Most people want to see money as the ability to buy material things, but accumulating money for an emergency fund, ease of paying bills, retirement, health savings, etc. takes a huge load off.

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?

Both are important, but the latter is far more important. If you raise a good child, he/she will be able to make his own opportunities for economic mobility.

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?

This question can't really be answered, but I'm going to go ahead and say "no". I'm fairly sure we can raise a happy and good child without the need for poverty.

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?

No. Why sacrifice my happiness for that?

 

[H4r4 K1r1]

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?

I think it is all a matter of balance. Too much of any of those things is not good. Spending 100% or of your time with y our kid means that he will interact less with other people. Your kids are different when you are not around. That's how they learn who they are and what they are capable of. It builds confidence.

I would do anything to make sure my kid grew up happy. But the best way to do that is to live a happy balanced life myself and show him how. Lots of time with him, but he still goes to daycare. Live well financially but not to excess so he can learn the value of working hard for success. And make a solid effort in my relationship with my wife so he can see how two people can work together and live harmoniously through the good times and bad.

 

[MSK1010]

you also have to consider that fact that some children are born evil and no amount of parenting can change them... mostly red heads

 

[Phreaxer]

Good point. But I think the idea here is that time = money. If you spent the time it requires to amass Bill Gates money, you probably haven't spent very much time with your kids. Which means that you probably didn't "raise them correctly" Or at all, for that matter.

Hitting the lottery would be the exception. but yeah, I wouldn't sacrifice that amount of time to make that amount of money. it's not worth it to me. Millions can be earned without the rediculous level of work often associated. Part of my ideal business plan would be having people in place to run it while I oversaw the overall operations...

But if you don't have to be gone all the time to go to work, you can control this environment to a pretty large degree. You can be there immediately to pick your child up, or even homeschool them. My parents raised 5 black kids in some of the poorest parts of America, and we all turned out to be college-educated, financially stable, generally-responsible and happy people because our mother kept us away from all the terrible shit that happens in poor communities.

True, but if the child grows up seeing all the things they would see living in the ghetto; drugs, homelessness, violence, crime, etc... they are much more likely to accept those things are normal or acceptable. Good job to your parents, that's not an easy task in today's world. It's also, unfortunately, the exception and not the rule. I can't tell you the number of times I have seen the story of a good kid being raised right, growing up straight and narrow being killed either by accident or intentionally for no legitimate reason. The common denominator is the enviroment in which they are being raised...Granted, kids being raised in very affluent neighborhoods are also killed from time to time... so that's not a hardfast rule

Better chance for success, but does this make them better people? Though your wife spends time with them, so it counds like you two have got that front covered as well. Good on ya, sir.

Success isn't about money to me. It's about legacy. I can provide all the money to charity in the world, but if I don't raise them right I am not leaving a proper legacy in the world. The same goes for the way they leave this world when their time comes. A legacy is more valuable than any amount of money.

I agree with the last sentence, but I don't know how much I agree with the stuff before it. I know plenty of pretty rich people that have truly awful, twisted values. I don't think success by any means implicates that a person is good.

I agree with that completely. Money doesn't make a person good on any level. Money also doesn't make a person successful by my definition though either.

Response to the bolded: Every hour you spend at work is sacrificing knowing them, to a degree. All the little thing they do throughout the day that shows they type of person they're becoming at what not. And how much is "wealthy"? 100k a year? 50k a year? Just above the poverty line? If you took a shitty, part-time job and worked 25 hours a week, you could still put a roof over their heads, food on their table, and provide them with minimal material items, but you'd also be around much more to see them grow.

You make a valid point.

Don't mean to challenge your childrearing, as you seem like a great father and a decent man, but I just want to make sure we're fully understanding each other.

I don't see your comments as challenging or insulting. It's a healthy debate/discussion. Besides, its the internet, I'm not likely to get offended. lol (but thanks for the disclaimer/clarification)

 

[jackietreehorn8]

Interesting stuff...so much to tackle, and a lot of it deals with generalizations and assumptions that may not be true.

The main thing going through my head as I read your OP questions and the responses is how important it is for both parents to be around. Or even a mom and a grandma or whatever...the more supportive people around, the more you can kind of get the best of all worlds - money and plenty of time and guidance for your kids. I think you need a certain amount of money to be happy - if you're at or below the poverty line it's going to be tough to focus on much parenting, you'll be in a constant state of stress.


Also, one assumption that you're making that I don't agree with is that time away from parents is always somehow a bad thing. Daycare can be great for kids, in-home babysitters can bring a different perspective and discipline to the kids - maybe they fill in a gap that the parents are missing, preschool is great for kids, it opens their minds...school teachers can be amazing people, football coaches can instill some really good work ethic into a kid, etc. I bring my kids to the gym almost every day where they spend an hour with other kids and college girls that supervise and play with them. Supervision from a college girl getting paid to do this is much different than supervision from me, their father, and I like the fact that they are getting exposed to lots of different sets of rules, personalities, adults with varying value sets and words of wisdom, different games and activities I would never bother with, etc. Essentially, what I'm saying is I have no problem with letting others help me raise my kids...I am not egotistical enough to think that I, and only I, know the right way to guide them into being good people.

 

[Kitafuji]

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

Curious, how do you think your parents would answer this op? I am not saying just because you got a girl pregnant at age 15/16 your parents did a good or bad job raising you, I am just curious to hear what you think they would say given your situation.

I think it is honorable that you are being as much of a Dad as you can be and that she did not take the easy route and abort.

When I was young my view of my parents and how they were parenting me is completely different than what it is today at age 46 and it is continuing to evolve as my kids and I get older.

 

[Long Dark Blues]

I'm a father of two boys, a 12-year-old and a 3-year-old. I was 17 when my first child was born...

#1.) Because putting quality food on the table ensures your offspring will grow to full potential, physically speaking. A better physical specimen will have a better chance of furthering their, and thus your own, genes into the future.

#2.) It is better to raise them to be well-adjusted, independent, hardworking, self-sufficient individuals who are honest and have integrity. With that foundation, they can ensure their own opportunities for future economic mobility.

#3.) No. There has to be a trade-off. I need to be happy as well. Everyone in a family needs to be happy, to varying degrees, otherwise the family doesn't function efficiently and doesn't do it's "job" of supporting each other.

#4.) No. See directly above.

 

[jackietreehorn8]

you also have to consider that fact that some children are born evil and no amount of parenting can change them... mostly red heads

Nature vs. nurture...huge in my opinion. There's no doubt people are wired certain ways and no matter what environment they are in, people will drift toward what their inherent personalities and values are. It can most certainly be tweaked and steered in different directions through guidance and environment, but a big chunk of anyone's personality comes with them the moment they are born, or conceived or whatever.


This is something I think more parents should learn about and understand. I see too many people trying to fit a square peg in a round hole so to speak. I think you gotta let kids be themselves to a certain extent. This doesn't mean discipline goes out the window - if a kid "being himself" involves throwing eggs at the neighbors houses that needs to be dealt with. But approaching parenting with a set of rules you read in a book and thinking those things can be applied equally to all kids is just going to make it harder on everybody.