Apparently my whole feed is late 30s bloggers writing about child rearing now, even the ones I subscribed to for the AI news.
Today it's Zvi, continuing last week's discussion from ACX about free range kids, with a side of Aella's very odd childhood and perspective on allowing children agency.
Zvi, as usual, has dozens of somewhat interesting links, and is worth checking out. A lot of it is related to the issue that reporting parents for potential abuse or neglect is costless and sometimes mandatory, but being investigated imposes fairly high costs, and so even among families that are not especially worried about their kids getting hurt walking to a friend's house or a local store, they might be worried about them being picked up by the police, and that can affect their ability to do things other than stare at screens or bicker with their parents. I have some sympathy for this. When I was growing up, inside the city limits, there weren't any kids I knew or wanted to play with in the immediate neighborhood, or any shops I wanted to go to, and my mother was also a bit worried about getting in trouble with the law, so I mostly played in the yard. But perhaps there would have been, if wandering were more normalized? I asked my parents about this, and they said that when they were younger, they also didn't necessarily have neighborhood friends they wanted to visit, and also mostly played in their own yards and houses, but they could have wandered around more if they'd wanted. That was in the 60s, and I'm not sure it's heading in the same direction as the ratosphere zeitgeist or not. My dad does remember picking up beer for his grandma as a kid, which is also mixed.
My impression of the past is mostly formed by British and Scottish novels, where lower class children would rove around in packs, causing trouble (a la Oliver Twist), and upper class children would have governesses, tutors, or go to boarding school, where they were supervised a bit less than now, or about the same amount, and the boys would oppress each other a bit. Upper class girls could go for a walk in the garden with their governess. The police probably have an interest in stopping children from forming spontaneous gangs, which the suburban families were seeking to avoid. The not firmly classed rural children (educated, able to become teachers, but not able to enter high society) are represented as roving the countryside a bit (Anne of Green Gables, Little House on the Prairie, George Macdonald novels), and get into a bit of trouble, but there were only a few families around, and everyone knew who everyone was. My grandmother grew up in such a place, then divorced before it was cool, and taught in the South Pacific. I can't tell if wandering through the heather or prairie a lot is better or worse than reading lots of books and playing in the backyard.
The free range stuff, while it may be important for some people, seems a bit orthogonal to the Everything is Childcare problem (probably more about lack of extended family), since the age at which a child could feasibly be wandering the countryside or neighborhood (8? 10?) is the same age when they can be quietly reading novels or playing with their siblings or being dropped off at events while their parents drink a coffee or visit a bookstore or something. Unless that's also not a thing anymore?
Anyway, I don't necessarily have a firm conclusion to present, other than that that people are talking about it. @Southkraut gave me a bit of pushback for writing on screens in my daughter's presence, which I felt a bit bad about, but also not. I do agree with Zvi and Scott that it's probably bad if Everything is Childcare, and parents aren't allowed to read an article and post about it because the children might be infected by the proximity to a screen. (The children are painting. They have used their agency to decide that they want to paint, asked for the paints and supplies they need, and the older one has made a little notebook full of concept sketches)
Gaashk
6mo ago
Hi!
As far as I can tell, the biggest thing is that some families do quirky homeschooling because they like that kind of thing, and then maybe their ideology guide what they do for it, what books they read and groups they join, but in general they're just into that kind of thing. Bryan Caplan and David Friedman's families sound like that, my mom was like that, and this generally goes well. If it turns out the child wants a lot more structure or interactions than the parents are providing, or the parents get super stressed over the whole thing, they can find a school and go there, or do some other arrangement. This is interesting and aesthetic. How well it goes depends on both the personalities of the parents, and also the kids. I liked it quite a lot, and especially liked doing a lot of 4-H clubs and reading a lot of books. Sewing club with Jane Austen film watching and tea was lovely. College was fine, but it might be worth having the child take a real math class at some point, most families aren't up to teaching math that well even when they know it, because it's a subject that benefits from extrinsic motivation.
Other families do it for strict religious or ideological reasons, but are not really suited to it, and years later their daughters write blogs about how awful the whole thing was, but they didn't say anything at the time for fear of getting into even worse trouble. Some of my childhood friends have done that. Aella has a lot to say about it. It mostly seems to come down to situations where some super intense ideologically opinionated parents believe that Public School is Bad, and the Homeschooling is more moral, and then go on to subscribe to very specific advice about child rearing that doesn't necessarily work out for the parents or children in question. The can go either way -- intense punishment focused child rearing, or negligent attachment parenting, but with no checks, and taking it too far. It seems to go especially poorly when the children in question were adopted, and do not share a bond from infancy and similar proclivities, though biological children sometimes inherit the same personalities that led to their parents rebelling against the mainstream. Anyway, I do feel quite suspicious when some mother says that they don't necessarily like the process of homeschooling, but are doing it because her husband read some super scary articles about Groomers in the Public Schools, so now it's the Only Moral Way.
We are not currently homeschooling, and don't have any plans to. We do use tablets, though I feel a bit bad about it. Here's an interesting post from Zvi this morning on a related topic. We are very heavily in the Everything is Childcare phase of parenting, even with the public schooling, and I might have different opinions in the future. The child in public school especially really likes organized activities, structure, friends, rainbows, unicorns, and Disney princesses at this point in her life, and I might have a very different experience with another child, or at a different stage.
Gaashk
6mo ago
Also, people were bored. Nobody wanted to hear that we had solved everything and we just had to a) wait for laissez faire economic growth to solve all our problems and b) accept that anything which wasn't solving itself just had to be that way. They/we wanted change and adventure. I always think that was a big part of the response to Covid - people were longing for a Big Problem in which we could all Do Our Part.
Yeah, I think this is a big part of the Fourth Turning stuff.
Gaashk
7mo ago
Is that a reference? A joke? I don't get references, because I was raised in a homeschool bubble determined to turn us all into 18th Century boomers.
Gaashk
7mo ago
It doesn't sound so much bitter as sarcastic. Ah, yes, someone has run the numbers on heavily selected women 20 - 30 vs much less selected men 20 - 40, and found that there are more men. Shocking. Who could have guessed?
Gaashk
7mo ago
Yeah, I think most of the state is mostly Democrat because they want to use the oil money for daycare, extra school, extra Medicaid, and whatnot. But not the "LGBTQ for 5 year olds" kind of school, just the "too bad we don't have more high achieving kids here, maybe we can teach the ones we have to read and do math if they just sit in a classroom for more hours" kind. It's not like the sheriffs want to enforce the governor's orders about disallowing guns or wearing masks alone in the desert, so they don't.
Gaashk
7mo ago
A SYSTEMIC ISSUE THAT IS EFFECTING EVERYONE IN EVERY COUNTRY SIMULTANEOUSLY
Wait.
America doesn't have enough eligible bachelorettes because it has too many promiscuous fat single moms.
(maybe, I don't have an opinion about that)
But South Korea has even fewer marriages, because their women simply don't want to be wives and mothers, it's worse than just working. Despite the women being much more likely to be thin and simply not bother having sex at all.
So we should... execute the attractive cads, get rid of welfare, and ban dating apps until (looks at South Korea) we are left with a lot of celibate women working in low wage labor?
So you could go farther down the hole. You could ban the women from working even rather sad little jobs outside the home. Then they'll become hot trad wives!
Perhaps we should just have another war at that point and let the men kill each other. The King David solution.
Or bring back subsistence farming, that has a proven track record.
Gaashk
7mo ago
I left the Motte for a week, because I felt kind of embarrassed and irritated based on last time I tried posting here, but did want to post on this.
Anyway, yes, it came across as very odd, especially from Caplan. I had more sympathy for Scott, since he did not write a book about how easy raising kids is, has young twins, and comes across as more self deprecating.
Both Scott and Caplan are writers, which is unusually incompatible with small children. I've mentioned before that I really enjoyed Virginia Woolf's take on that in A Room of One's Own -- mothers were almost never writers, even when they were educated for it, since writing (and she was focusing on poetry) takes an unbroken chain of thought through multiple hours of the day. I would be interested to hear more about George MacDonald's writing habits, since he was poor by modern standards, and he and his wife raised eleven children, and he was en unusually excellent writer. All his stories have the characters wandering around among the heather at sunrise, thinking, and I imagine him doing the same. It's probably no coincidence that his best work is in fairy tales, so he probably told them to his children. David Friedman talks about how much more he enjoyed his children once they learned to read. Dickens sounds like he had a pretty tumultuous home life.
I listened to a storyteller a few months ago, who tells stories to rooms full of children at schools, and also publishes books. He said that his process is to tell the stories to the children first, a lot of times, for months and months, maybe dozens of times, see what gets good responses, and then writes it down afterwards. That's my impression of ancient storytellers as well. I knew a priest who told unusually excellent sermons, but almost never wrote them down, but I think his process was similar: he would watch the people in real time, and iterate off of that. Scott doesn't seem to have a process anything like that, as much as I like Unsung and shorts like the one about the Hinge of History, and wish he would write more fables.
There was a passage in The Road to Wigan Pier, as I recall, where Orwell was talking about how the British underclass weren't really educated to be literate, but that when charity workers would come around and offer books and classes they mostly weren't interested, and Orwell thought that was just as well, reading and writing weren't much compatible with the lives they were leading. Which seems reasonably likely. There's a lot of noise about lower than hoped for literacy rates in America, <a href=https://kittenbeloved.substack.com/p/college-english-majors-cant-read">where "literacy" is, for instance, understanding and appreciating something like Bleak House, but the hoped for outcomes of that campaign are under discussed. I remember my uncle (who owned multiple businesses, was athletic and had a teacher wife and three children) talking to my dad (who reads Kierkergaard out of personal interest) about not reading books. He didn't like reading books, he liked playing sports and doing business stuff. He was probably functionally illiterate, by the Bleak House test. That might be a perfectly valid strategy, actually! Meanwhile, the kids are in bed, and I'm here writing this, which isn't necessarily an improvement, or any more civilizationally useful, even if I can read Dickens just fine.
Gaashk
7mo ago
My husband has done it, and finds it harder than most jobs, emotionally. We buy a lot of half prepared food from Costco. Out house is not clean.
I meant the stay-at-home dad comment to mean more that men don't seem to be particularly unsuited to housekeeping, certainly not to a similar extent that (trads say) women are unsuited for work outside the home.
I suppose. The main problem for stay a dad at home with a young infant and the mother away is that (depending on the baby) they might need a lot of soothing, and breasts are way better soothing implements than bottles or pacifiers, it can be very frustrating for all concerned. The father is unhappy that it's hard to sooth the baby, the baby is unhappy that there are sometimes breasts and sometimes not, and the mother in unhappy because she's either pumping at work or giving up on food snuggle times.
Of the churchgoing families with babies I know, some have stay at home moms, some have the dads at home (but maybe feel a bit shy about it, and won't actually say "stay-at-home-dad"), and some have the mom and dad working complementary shifts (I assume this is hard for rest). All have rather messy houses, none vacuum twice a day and are happy about that. Marie Condo now has a messy house, because cleaning dozens of times a day was not bringing her joy.
I'm still not convinced that their roles are really complementary, and my impression is that it used to be less unequal.
It doesn't necessarily stay complementary once the children are older than three or so, and, yeah, I don't really understand women who aren't homeschooling staying as housewives once their youngest is in elementary school, unless they are literally running a home business. I don't think that stay at home dads of older children is a thing at all, unless they're doing some kind of seasonal or creative work, in which case they would say they're doing that, not cleaning the house.
I do find cleaning a single house as a primary job description to be a bit demeaning, but not looking after very young children or homeschooling.
Gaashk
7mo ago
I know some women who are like that as well, and can see the appeal. You can use the greywater from the washing machine for the orchard, if you're into that kind of thing.
Those are mostly creative, social kinds of hobbies that are fun to do with children once they aren't absolute babies. I was homeschooled, and basically did 4-H instead of middle school, so we were always keeping animals, sewing, quilting, making fancy leather projects, and so on. My family uses a wood stove for heat, and we have a dead fruit tree that at some point we need to chop and split for firewood, which we plan to do ourselves. My housemate used to do home-brew stuff, and it looked like fun, I would definitely consider it.
But also, those are things men also participate in, more than cleaning, probably because they're more interesting than cleaning. It's extremely hard to keep things clean in a truly equal house with children, where nobody is extremely conscientious. My parents' house is very bad in that way, but many home crafts have been made there.
Gaashk
7mo ago
Sure, it's possible that women have some temperamental lean towards homemaking
They don't, necessarily. But if TitaniumButterfly says he found one who does, and is excited to get a vacuum for Christmas, I guess I'll go with that story for her, specifically. I do not personally know any women like that. I've known several with mothers who drilled the necessity of housekeeping into them and are neurotic and angry but effective about household things, but that isn't the same thing.
you don't see a broad movement of stay-at-home dads complaining about having to be around their kids and do chores all day
Yeah, because people would tell them to get a job and put their kids in childcare. Which is also what they mostly say to women who complain about it. Or get a nanny, in some social circles.
in any case the actual complexity of the work (and thus its associated status) is still low.
In the sense that she's doing the job of one and a half nannies plus a maid, that is correct, that is lower social status than running a business.
But plenty of higher status people would suck doing lower status work. It is complementary but unequal.
you could do her job perfectly well
While it's true that he could almost certainly do all the actual tasks, it's very likely that he couldn't do it happily, without becoming bored and alienated, which is actually quite rare and valuable. Assuming, of course, that his description is accurate.
Have you read the recent ACX post about Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids? I want to have a top level post about it, but haven't thought of anything interesting to say for that. I enjoy Scott's honesty about being an introverted professional writer with twin babies and a wife who's probably something like him, and very much not a Christian twenty-something who's happy about vacuuming. His wife is apparently staying with the kids, but he feels guilty (presumably she's overwhelmed, not happily keeping a clean house and warm meals), and hires a nanny. Even with the nanny and wife at home, they are still overwhelmed.
Scott:
I was curious enough about this that I emailed Bryan and asked him how much time he spent on childcare when his kids were toddlers. He said about two hours a day for him, one hour for his wife. Relatives and nannies picked up the rest.
Which is just such a funny exchange.
Neither Scott nor Caplan sound like they could successfully do the non childbearing parts of Mrs. TitaniumButterfly's work.
Gaashk
7mo ago
talking about sitting next to eachother with our heads together chatting?
Is that what canoodling is between a grown man and woman? I imagined more contact than that, but probably less than sex. But I also can't recall anyone ever actually using that word. Maybe in a book somewhere?
Gaashk
7mo ago
Candy: Dark chocolate peanut butter cups from Trader Joes. Like Reeces, but better. Snack: Chips and salsa
Gaashk
7mo ago
Everything I've heard of dating apps lately sounds awful, I'm hoping my kids will be able to find someone in some sort of organization like I did and my parents did and their parents also did -- college, church, volunteer work, whatever.
Not sure what's going on with the woman in question, though, or the in person compliments.
Gaashk
7mo ago
Is that how it's usually meant?
It seems like I've mostly heard it applied to women in a context I assumed was criticizing the tendency to want a man to take initiative, but maybe that's just my interpretation, and not the actual intent.
Gaashk
7mo ago
The whole thing seems very weird, probably fake, and not primarily about "agency." What kind of weather situation were they in where he was actually cold, not just making idle chatter, and a "nice scarf" was going to fix that? And then he just went around wearing some random woman's scarf the rest of the evening? It sounds funny, I guess they could have a good laugh over it? Definitely manic pixie dream girl vibes.
But, also, I've been confused about how "agency" is being used lately. Assertiveness? Willingness to take action? It seems kind of new to hear that discussed in terms of agency, but seems to have become a thing lately.
Gaashk
7mo ago
I'll tell you what the real scissor statement part of that story is - I can't possibly have been the only guy to read this guy explain how he told his girlfriend he was cold and immediately think 'cuck' can I?
I wouldn't take it that far, but do also feel that stealing a scarf because your man is cold seems more snarky than caring. Could be in a fun, flirty way, it would depend on specifics.
If it's actually cold, because it's cold out and he isn't dressed warmly enough, go into the hotel and drink a coffee with him. A scarf won't help all that much. What, the hotel happened to have one of those enormous chunky knit wool scarves on hand that's kind of a long blanket? Really? If he's not particularly cold and is just saying stuff, the way everyone in Phoenix mentions that it's hot every day, then a scarf will also not help, there's nothing to be helped. I have a lot of scarves, and do like wearing them as wraps, but no man would be willing to do anything like that unironically.
Gaashk
7mo ago
I worked at a large corporate coffee chain for a while, and the entire charm of the job was a series of short, easy, straightforward interactions. Someone wanted a mediocre but predictable latte and a smile. I would smile and make them a latte. It was positive and predictable for all concerned. Everyone was happiest during the rush phase of the day, when these small positive interactions happened in quick succession. Everyone was least happy during the slow part, when we had to engage in daily cleaning tasks like restrooms, mopping, drains, and sometimes odd customers who would try to chat about my ethnic background or something.
The interaction described above sounds quite unpleasant from the perspective of the worker, more than remaking a coffee. But, yeah, mostly it's because he isn't actually a customer.
Gaashk
7mo ago
I'm just skeptical of uncritical complementarian narratives that declare that men and women are simultaneously unequal in their dispositions and yet equally valuable in their own domains, because it seems pretty obvious to me that men get the better deal.
It doesn't seem obvious that men get the better end of the deal in the current society, which is admittedly working pretty hard to make sure that they don't. They probably do have a better deal in a state of nature, but nobody who's posting on online message boards is living in a state of nature. Very obviously, whether it's more of a hinderance to be a neurotic woman or a man who can't control his temper will depend on what kind of society you're living in -- in ours it seems likely that the latter would be worse.
Why would you remove conformity? It seems useful for both the society and the individual that most people are fairly high conformity, and there are only a few highly disagreeable outliers.
Why should women take more risks? What kinds of risks should they take more of? We've probably gone a bit too far into saftyism, but high risk taking in men pays off in winning wars or having lots of sex with women they're attracted to. What does it get women?
I'm not sure what you mean about agency in this context. That they should be more assertive?
I guess the positives you listed would be nice to have more of. We can have even more aspiring novelists who run half marathons and organize aesthetically pleasing parties that they post on Instagram (though observationally this seems to be an occupation for thirty something women without children to show that they're still important, interesting, worth attending to, etc).
Yeah, it seems like it would certainly be desirable both for the kids to have somewhere they want to walk/bike, and to be allowed to do that.
I had heard about that, though some people push back that it works because Japan is full of Japanese people, and a lot of places in Europe have also stopped allowing it lately. Like the the map about the historic childhood ranges near Rotherham.
More options
Context Copy link