Spoiled Little Brats
Should you teach your children that they are special? Jeff Zaslow says no:
Don Chance, a finance professor at Louisiana State University, says it dawned on him last spring. The semester was ending, and as usual, students were making a pilgrimage to his office, asking for the extra points needed to lift their grades to A’s.
“They felt so entitled,” he recalls, “and it just hit me. We can blame Mr. Rogers.”
Fred Rogers, the late TV icon, told several generations of children that they were “special” just for being whoever they were. He meant well, and he was a sterling role model in many ways. But what often got lost in his self-esteem-building patter was the idea that being special comes from working hard and having high expectations for yourself.
Now Mr. Rogers, like Dr. Spock before him, has been targeted for re-evaluation. And he’s not the only one. As educators and researchers struggle to define the new parameters of parenting, circa 2007, some are revisiting the language of child ego-boosting. What are the downsides of telling kids they’re special? Is it a mistake to have children call us by our first names? When we focus all conversations on our children’s lives, are we denying them the insights found when adults talk about adult things?
Let me, a conservative Dutchman, answer those questions: yes. Yes. Yes.
More?
Just being born does not make one special. What makes one special is that one takes full responsibility for one’s life, for one’s failure for one’s success. What makes one special is that one tries to be the best one can be. What makes one special is that one takes care of one’s family. What makes one special is that one chooses to serve others. What makes one special, is how one lives. Not that one lives.
And – I find it completely ridiculous that children are allowed to call their parents by their firsts names. It’s “mother” and “father,” or “mom” and “dad,” not “Jane” and “Joe.”
25 Responses to “Spoiled Little Brats”
Why is it ridiculous that children are allowed to call their parents by their first names?
Blame the parents, not Misterogers!
To be correct, it is “Mother” and “Father” or “Mom” and “Dad” when children are addressing their parents — in such cases these must be capitalized.
Why would anyone ever ask such a question?
I don’t consider Mr. Rogers to be the equivalent of any dopey, harmful “self-esteem” program instituted in public schools in California (in place of much-need real education), say, or with any radical who wants not merely to give everybody As, but to eliminate grades altogether.
No. What makes one “special” in this context is that the child receives at least some unconditional love from his or her parents. The parent is present, and the presence is positive.
To be clear, I couldn’t image calling my parents by their first names. It just seems odd.
With that said, I don’t see why it’s a big deal if the parents think it’s okay. Each person prefers being addressed in different ways.
You can call me Count Strahd von Zarovich.
Why? Because, as the article indicates, it gives the child the feeling that he or she is equal to the parents. the child is not.
DLS: when a child screws up, you are there for your child. When he or she asks why, you don’t say “because you’re special,” but “because I love you.”
The Count proclaimed:
With that said, I don’t see why it’s a big deal if the parents think it’s okay. Each person prefers being addressed in different ways.
It’s unnatural and abnormal in normal circumstances because the children are not peers of their parents, their equals, and it is not the way things are done in our society. That’s despite the gross abuse of first-name addressing in the world of celebrity, entertainers and athletes and often politicians as well. (Note: Hillary Clinton put the name “Hillary” on the map and this is a common exception to the rule of abuse of first-name use.)
That’s not to say there are exceptions. First-name use is common where the parent is a step-parent, to distinguish between that person and the child’s biological (real) parent. “Mr. X” or “Ms. X” is too formal and distant to substitute, except in a Dickens novel! First-name use is also common in a case I experienced for years, where a single parent’s boyfriend or girlfriend is not the parent (even if he or she is in practice the real parent!); this is the same as a step-parent. And then of course in special situations as well as adoption, the first name would be replaced anyway by “Mom” and “Dad.”
There’s no law against first-name addressing of parents by their own (biological) children, but it is weird, and it smacks of false egalitarianism. Blame it on custom and [gasp] tradition if you wish, Count.
I’m liking this Count thing already… just remember to spell it right
But more to the point, I think we should be more worried about how respectful our children are to strangers and people like teachers.
Maybe living under in a more authoritarian structure teaches children to be more respectful of others, but I think the opposite could be just as true. As I watched many of my friends grow up, I noticed that the ones with stricter parents always ended up being the ones that were the most reckless in college and away from authority.
I’ve mentioned false egalitarianism already, as well as the surrogate expression (the children are not the peers of their parents).
There are exceptions to why first-name use is wrong, but those are in exceptional circumstances, obviously.
Right — present, and positive, as I have said.
As I said already: unconditional love
The Count ponnnnnn-ti-fi-ca-ted:
Note that too sloppy a relation between child and parent is fundamental and also affects how they may or may not be sufficiently respectful to others. Not being sufficiently deferential (or implying no such deference is ever needed) is what is seen with the first-name addressing of parents by children.
First-name stuff is hardly (most of the time) the same as the radical family-destruction and so-called “children’s rights” stuff that’s the equivalent of the most outrageous stuff PETA does from time to time, which distracts from the good PETA does. But it is still true that children should be guided as they grow, which means parents must assume their proper duty of authority. And children must defer.
[...] University Link to Article louisiana state university, lsu Spoiled Little Brats » Posted at The Moderate [...]
First off that name thing is COMPLETELY ridiculous, it doesn’t matter what your children call you. What does matter is the tendency of most parents, and precollege schools to always rescue children from the consequences of their actions.
The downsides of telling kids they’re special are … “yes”?
I am afraid the logic here is missing. It is illogical to connect Mr Rogers with students asking for better grades. Why conclude they are doing it because they think they are “special” as taught by Mr Rogers? I dont see the connection.
Two, each of us is by definition “special” since the beauty of genetic reproduction assures that each of us is unique, which is a definition of special.
I love my children unconditionally. I assure them each that they are each special and unique. But they are also being taught that good things come to those who dream big, work hard and play by the rules.
There is another explanation for what the students do and it has nothing to do with Mr Rogers. Permit me to offer an alternative: I call it the Vince Lombardi syndrome. When I grew up it was “its not whether you win or lose, its how you play the game.” That was a nice philosophy to live by. Starting with Vince’s immortal words, it became “winning isnt everything, its the only thing.” Take THAT philosophy to its logical un-restrained conclusions, and you become a cheater. You will do anything to succeed, to get ahead.
So blame Vince Lombardi not Mr Rogers.
I loved watching Mr. Rogers with my children.
His program was a space for calm, for imagination and yes, respectful behavior.
Abusive behavior was nowhere to be seen, nor were heard shrill pronouncements about what’s wrong with children. It was teaching by example, the best kind.
The whole idea of children, or adults, being special (i.e. of value) has been mutilated beyond recognition here. Behaviors are equated with intrinsic value. The ultimate good behavior is said to be success at meeting prescribed goals.
Goals and success are great motivators and can benefit the individual and the community.
Success and failure, however, depend on a lot of factors, some of them beyond anyone’s control: luck, natural talents, genes, etc.
Of greater value are good behaviors that don’t lead to an itemized goal. Sportsmanship amd playing by the rules are more important than winning the game, or they should be, if we really mean it when we crtiticize public figures. Trying one’s best is more important than winning.
Being special means that a person has value which is not dependent on reaching specific goals .
Anyone who says a newborn baby isn’t special has simply never had one.
As a sixty year old father of four, grandfather of nine and great-grandfather of one, I know you’ll understand my reluctance in give much weight to advise and opinions of twenty-three year old single, childless man on the ins-and-outs / does-and-don’t of child rearing.
Actually, where I come from kids that presumptive get categorized with those in the title of this piece.
I find it completely ridiculous that you think it’s anybody’s business BUT the parents what they are called by their children.
My parents would never have stood for it, that’s for sure!
Several things are missing.
One is not special for any other reason than they contribute something unique and valuable.
Genetic differentiation makes one unique, not special. If everyone is genetically different, then genetic difference is a commonality, of sorts.
A Catherine Zata-Jones is special because she’s gorgeous. So is a Halle Berry. A Brad Pitt is special because of his looks. But, as they had nothing to do with that, that sort of specialness is low on the scale. An Alex Rodriguez is special because he’s a great athlete, but that’s no great contribution to mankind. Artists, leaders, scientists, and those great in them are the truly special. Darwin, Picasso, Lincoln.
Getting straight A’s is nice, but most valedictorians become middle managers.
As for Lombardi, his saying was applicable to sports and games, not life. To decontextualize it, as is often done, is to miss the point.
As for unconditional love- that is part of the problem. Nothing in life comes without conditions. This attitude leads to enabling. I’ve talked to many parents, I’ve been a child, and I’ve talked to many people who’ve complained of family dynamics. In EVERY family there is a child that is the special one and then the less special one. One could not be human without that being true. No 2 people are equal- save for under the law (in theory) and no 2 people engender the same feelings. My mom preferred me. My dad preferred my sister. My natural father prefers the son he raise dto me, as well the adopted son he raised to his own flesh and blood. These preferences are human.
To deny or repress reality is unhealthy- be it in things like abortion, politics, stem cells, or parenting.
Again, everyone is unique. Very few are special.
Nothing in life comes without conditions.
To love children doesn’t require conditions. To love what they may do, may.
It would require a predisposition toward doing so. Were that not true, there would be far more happy childhoods, and far better parents. Sorry, it does require a condition, whether you are aware of it or not.
And you do likely prefer one kid over the other. Again, that’s just human, not a comment on your parenting. If the Nazis proved one thing in a positive vein, with their famed choice of this kid or the other lives, it was to validate the premise that all people have hierarchies of the people in their lives, kids or other.
“My parents would never have stood for it, that’s for sure!I”
————–
What does that mean? Stood for what?
Nobody is advocating giving passing grades that haven’t been earned,
Mr. Rogers certainly never did that.
There is a truly weitd connection being made here between appreciating each child in his own right and the lack of standards.
That’s just crazy, IMO.
On the contrary, settting standards is part of appreciating the child, and vice versal
Leave Mr. Rogers alone. I miss him.
Total agreement withwhat domajot said!
Some of the remarks in this thread sound like they’re coming from those who have only lived ‘one side’ the child’s side. This is not meant to infer that your remarks are childish but to say that opinions and thought change when you spend a while on ‘the other side’.
Just yesterday I read a John Wilmot quote that sums up what I’m trying to say… “Before I got married I had six theories about bringing up children; now I have six children and no theories.” You all can talk as tough as you want but if you teach your children well (hat tip to CSN&Y) Teach them love, respect, and responsibility it doesn’t much matter what they call you.
HELP, HELP, Hall Patrol… What’s happened to the “Preview” feature? Please, please don’t tell me I’m going to have go back to using MS Word first… please!