Our Children, Our Food

To begin with, notwithstanding the title, this essay has nothing to do with Jonathan Swift's proposal. Now that that's out of the way I'll proceed with some food for thought. Note as well that this essay and “Our Children, Ourselves” are a unit totally unrelated to other discussions of parenting and written at a later time.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Crediting Hashem for our children and the way they turn out, a friend of mine wrote, “I am a firm believer in that what you get in the nursery after they are born is what you get. If you are lucky, you can move them maybe an inch, but that’s it.” I'm not quite sure I fully agree with it, but I think my view needs a little expansion.

First of all, as I mentioned in a previous essay, I'm sure the child will develop along the lines he learns from his parents and friends, and from his teachers. But even that needs to be clarified. It's more than I said before. I'm comforted by the knowledge that, according the Jewish teachings, there are three who contribute to a child's birth, the mother, the father, and Hashem. But it's not over with that. What comes next is of great importance, not only to them, but to the society, and the world, in which they live.

There's an old, and bad, Jewish joke – a chestnut as it were – that claims to express the meaning of our holidays and our celebration of them. It boils down to “They tried to destroy us. We won. Let's eat.” As I said, it's a bad joke, but in its own way it explains a lot of what we understand about our children and our religion. All references to food and Judaism begin with the “Jewish mother” who is forever trying to feed us – to stuff us – no matter the circumstances. She is our first teacher. We get our initial education along with our mother's milk. It may start as simple comforting and feeding but, sooner or later, leads to the simple stories and ideas of our people. And later on, as the parents set the table for Shabbat dinner, they are preparing their children for the Shulchan Aruch. Certainly the bentching following the meal does so.

Those considerations, however, raise the question of how are children are fed both physically and spiritually. Before Sinai the Jews wailed for food and water. Perhaps, however, they sought Hashem's laws which hadn't yet been revealed. Perhaps their hunger was not only for physical food but for the Torah that revealed to them how they were to live. It would be from the Torah that learned both of their heritage and their future. That was the mahn and the water. And the quails as well. And there they would learn other lessons as well. They'd learn, along with all the other mitzvot, that, according to the laws of kashrut, they should not be eating whatever they want, but what Hashem wants. And they would learn from what they ingested into their mouths and minds, both the physical food and the message it transmitted.

They would also learn, after being instructed to “love the Lord thy G-d with all they heart, with all thy soul, and with all thy might,” that if they turned aside from Hashem … the land [will] not yield her fruit.” The words come as part of a paragraph which deals with reward and punishment and, equating “fruit” with Torah and the halakhot, it tells us that if we do not follow Hashem's laws, they would not be ours. A meet punishment.

The same prayer, the Sh'ma, tells “And these words … thou shall teach them diligently unto thy children.” In the end the goal is “That your days may be multiplied, and the days of your children, upon the land that the Lord swore unto your fathers.” Both we and our offspring will be rewarded if what we feed them is not only food for their bodies but for their spirits as well.

It is interesting to give thought to the excesses of learning, for that can be understood to be the transgression of the rebellious son mentioned in D'varim (Deuteronomy). His gluttony can be understood to be the eagerness to go beyond the Torah and learn false teachings. “They [his parents] shall say unto the elders of his city: This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he doth not hearken to our voice, he is a glutton and a drunkard.” That is how his parents might describe the behavior of a son who has strayed from his tradition. He has ingested words and ideas other than those of Hashem, and it is as if he had eaten of foreign fruit.

As parents we have a responsibility, along with all the others, of feeding our children nourishing food for their souls as well as their bodies.

My friend accepts the idea that children are unchangeable. It's possible that we have the same view, only that when she believes “that what you get in the nursery after they are born is what you get” she is presuming that the development that we teach and encourage is already built into our offspring no matter what we do. Perhaps, but I think it's our responsibility to help them along even if they don't need help. We learn that Hashem's omniscience is compatible with our free will. Similarly proper training of our children does not interfere with the development He plans for them. It is an aid not a challenge. After all, all three of us participated in his (or her) creation.

Let's eat. Spiritually. And let's feed our children the same.

August 31, 2017

There He Goes Again

I've said it before and I'll say it again, but (and I've said this before also) I'm not interested in rereading all my previous essays to make sure I'm not repeating myself.ⁱ One of the joys of aging is that we say the same things over and over. (My wife has heard some of my thoughts and stories ad nauseam, but wedded bliss also has a down side. She knows that, and she usually suffers in silence.) That, of course, is not the only reason I cover the same territory more than once, but my life up until now isn't changing and whatever I've thought I've thought, and whatever I've read is read, so all I have are the resulting views, even if I don't know where particular ones came from. It all forms part of my past experience, which is the major source of my current ideas. And it's well known, and has been for a long time, that there is nothing new under the sun. So if you've heard this before, remember that its repetition is better than the sun burning out.

I have some recommendations for parents. In my infinite wisdom I've lectured them before about how to raise their children, but I want to add to it. It's about education. Although I spent most of my career in medicine in academic settings, I'm not a professional educator. I've never taken courses in how it's done. I've relied on the enjoyment of my subject (Radiology) and the irritating ability I have to needle my students. And to make them think for themselves. And they catch on because they are learning the subject since they want to – they're well beyond the age of compulsory education but they're in the process of learning a trade.

In any case the subject of interest – childhood education – has piqued my interest because of the fact that I'm aging. Never having studied the subject, and having neither basic knowledge of it nor experience in it, I can be completely objective. Lacking the tools of the trade and a life devoted to childhood education, I won't be bothered by subjectivity. I'm purely a dilettante, but so, I suspect, are some of the “experts” who write books and make wise recommendations on the subject. If they can do it, so can I. Judge for yourself.

There seem to be some subjects that I tend to forget as the years pass, areas of interest to me in which I know basic concepts but not all of the ones I've learned more recently. All sorts of memory aids are available, in terms of advice about how to remember and, especially, a plethora of herbal products that their promoters claim will make your brain younger.

And that's just what I need – a younger brain. I need a brain with fewer vascular plaques and more neural connections. I have quite a few, and they've served me well, but some of them don't seem to be working as efficiently as they were in the past. It's not a unique experience, but it is an aggravating one. Some of it may have been avoidable and some inevitable. And I cannot discount the contribution of aptitude to acquisition of knowledge, nor aging as a reason for its loss, but there is certainly a contribution to learning that is based on the input of facts and skills at an age when the brain is prepared to receive it.

And that's what I want to discuss. It's well known that children learn fast – faster than us adults. Which leads to the obvious lesson. The earlier you start to educate your children the better the result will be. It's become an industry – partly sensible, but too much of it is without merit. And too much of it involves parental pressure rather than presence and encouragement.

It is undeniable that professionals are better prepared to conduct educational programs at all levels, but the competition for seats in the “best” schools, and early registration in order get a place for children, is not the way to go. And pressure on children to get high grades is little more than a form of bullying. That's not to suggest that doing well isn't desirable, but too often approval is withheld by parents seeking perfection. (On the other hand, rewarding everyone for everything, including just showing up, limits the value of merited praise.)

Additionally there have been gimmicks. One of the most famous and popular of the commercial entries into the market has been “Baby Einstein.” It is claimed to heighten a baby's understanding of the world around him by the use of classical music. It's alleged that the stimulation that the music provides will lead to an improved vocabulary. And because a parent can “educate” his child without any personal involvement or expense of time it's popular.

However it doesn't improve vocabulary. What seems to help with vocabulary is vocabulary. Surprise. Not a list of vocabulary words read to a baby, but talking and reading and an honest show of affection. Attention and concern (especially by a parent) are necessary. Babies learn a lot, and they learn fast, but they can only learn what we teach them. Perhaps those exposed to Baby Einstein will wind up with increased ability in music, but that wasn't the goal.

Language is skill that babies are best prepared to learn. So childhood is the best time for them to learn it. Even more than one language – preferably separating one from another. As we age we lose the ability to do so. Polyglots usually start young, even if they don't finish their education in the subject until much later. In the meantime they've learned how to learn. They may not be aware of that. It may simply be the development of certain neural pathways, but it's there. And they learn from others, whether parents, teachers, or peers. Language, especially, may be learned on the street from friends. Interaction is important, so recordings aren't likely to achieve very much. Perhaps in the future that interaction will be provided by computer applications, but for now we need people. A machine, however, cannot replace a loving parent or teacher or a friend.

There are, of course, some areas of study that flourish even without parental or societal reinforcement. A genius, after all, is a genius. Math, physics, chess, and some other theoretical subjects (even music) are often beyond the grasp of parents. But encouragement and concern are not. And love is not.

There are no gimmicks. There are inborn abilities and there is love. It's less expensive and far more efficacious than what they're hawking, and what zealous parents are buying. But it takes time and it takes true concern. Sadly that's too high a price for some.

December 6, 2016

I     I'll try not to repeat this idea too often in future essays, but trust me. I'll forget.

Our Children, Ourselves

Too many parents make life hard for their children by trying, too zealously, to make it easy for them. - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

On a couple of previous occasions I've written about parenting. In this essay I want to address the reality of being a parent, and what our expectations should be of our children and of ourselves. It's something we don't think about all that often, except to complain or brag about the kids. We rarely consider what our own role is in their development. There's nothing original here, and I've probably said most of it before, but it bears repeating.

What is our role in their upbringing? We have responsibilities. What do we want of our children? What do we expect of them (and ourselves)?

In all likelihood we want our children to be healthy and confident. We want them to be well educated and capable of dealing with society both fiscally and emotionally. We want them to love and respect us, and we want them to know right from wrong. And we want them to have a better life than we.

In the past children were raised with the anticipation that they would help out on the farm and support their parents as they got older. However much they may have been loved, life was not made easy for them just as it had been difficult for their parents. They were expected to marry to continue the cycle, but care for, and assistance of, their parents was expected. Children, and future generations, provided joy for their parents, but we made demands of them. They served us and now, as times have changed, we must serve them. The bargain, in prior years, required contributions from both sides, but now it is primarily the parents who must take responsibility.

That doesn't mean that we must make life easy for them. We do them no favor by catering to all their demands. Goethe had it right. It takes what may be perceived as a hard childhood to provide the necessary preparation for a productive and rewarding adult life. And, to a degree, that “hard childhood” is difficult for us as well. But it's worth it. What follows are some of the lessons I've learned from some reading and from rearing my own children, of whom I'm very proud.

One of the qualities that please parents is the quickness of their learning – even before they start a formal education. And every parent believes “my children are smarter than yours.” They're learning every moment even without the intention to learn. They internalize whatever they see and hear around them. And that makes their parents their first teachers. So everything you do should be a model for what you want of them. If they see you dealing fairly with them they're more likely to deal fairly with others. If they perceive that you are lying to them, they'll interpret that as meaning that lying is acceptable. If you want them to work hard, they should know that you work hard. And if, for example, you want them to visit your grave, be sure that they've seen you visiting your parents'.

They'll base their political and religious philosophies on what they hear and experience in the home. At least as a starting point, though they may alter their views as they learn from others well. And it's from you that they'll absorb their first biases. So it's up to you to set an example. In short, don't say or display any traits that you don't want them to have. It's not easy. We're not perfect, even if our children believe that we are – at least they believe that in their early years.

Also important to their development is structure – rules, responsibilities, expectations, and care in what they do. Though they will rebel against them – complain that you're demanding too much of them – and it might be easier to give in and do their chores yourself, such a practice won't contribute to their development of responsibility. It may be harder to insist on them completing their own tasks rather than palming them off on you but that's what you must do. That includes homework and other school projects. It's not unreasonable to help and direct them, but in the end they must do the learning themselves – learning that will benefit them in their adult years, even if they doubt its relevance in their childhood. They'll tell you they hate and resent the other jobs too. Even so, however, the knowledge that you're depending on them to perform those tasks is important for their self-image, and the successful completion of their assignments is certain to contribute to their self-confidence.

Importantly, they'll learn, by your fairness and firmness, a respect for proper authority. They may ultimately reject particular authorities, but, assuming everything is being done for the common good, they'll work to support those acting on their behalf and serving as their leaders.

In addition, they should learn to accept others not in authority – even those who may lack some of the abilities they themselves have; that they're responsible for, and must attend to the needs of others who are not as fortunate as they, whether physically or economically.

Most important, however, is their experience of your love – especially the knowledge that you've given up some of your own wishes in order to help and please them. They should know that you respect their informed decisions (applauding whims teaches the wrong lesson) and that you learn from them as they learn from you. And they must know that choices appropriate to their age are theirs; that they are not fulfilling your fancies or are required to achieve what was beyond your ability. As the cliché goes, it's not about you.

In the long run, however, you get no guarantees. There's nothing more satisfying, though, than knowing that whatever the outcome, you've done your best for your children.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I have more that I want to say on the subject however it will have to wait. But it will come. Enough for now. Pop psychology 101 is currently on vacation.

August 30, 2017

Obama, Roosevelt, And Rocky

Being a parent is hard work. It takes practice. And practice comes from on-the-job training. So you never really learn how to do it until you're done.

But it's worth it. And the lessons extend far beyond the home. In fact they can be applied to national and international policy. Indeed, in the other direction, the lessons of national and international policy can provide guidelines for child-rearing.

Let's back up a little. My dog is a gem.ⁱ At least figuratively. His name is Diamond – that's what my kids named him – but I call him Rocky. He's well trained and will never relieve himself on my property or anywhere near it unless given permission. And he'll never leave my property unless such movement is sanctioned. He's gentle with children, and very protective of them. And of all of my family. He loves us and we love him.

Achieving this result may not have been easy, but it wasn't as hard as it might have been. It resulted from a combination of love, respect, rewards, and punishment. Were I considering a horse of a mule, I might call it a “carrot and stick” approach, however in this case the tools, apart from love, were doggy treats and an “invisible” fence. I've never yelled at him, but I made my desires clear.

I treated my kids the same way.ⁱⁱ I tried not to yell, though they knew when I was disappointed with them, and they responded to my concerns. Punishment, while dished out with love, was clear and predictable, though not violent – at least not from me directly. When one of the kids was struck by another, I didn't hesitate to have the victim deliver “payback” in my presence, and to have the wrongdoer “take it” without response.

And the rules were organized and explicit. Expectations of each of the children were posted, and the list of individual responsibilities served as a guide to their performance. They understood both the rules and their roles, and they knew that failure would have consequences. They respected me and I respected them – but rules are rules. Notwithstanding free will, they knew what would result.ⁱⁱⁱ

I'm a great admirer of Teddy Roosevelt's philosophy. My approach is similar to what Teddy Roosevelt wrote in a letter to Henry Sprague:^iv “Speak softly and carry a big stick.” He was not yet President when he wrote it, but it was a view he took with him to higher office. We are a country that sees itself as a major power. Indeed, we'd like to believe that we're the predominant power on earth. One of the major debates we have had as a nation through the centuries involves the degree of involvement with other nations. Should we act as “the world's policeman,” or should we mind our own business? Time and events have shown us^v that we have a responsibility for our fellow men^vi around the world. That's where the “big stick” comes in. Carrots are nice, however they don't always work the way we'd like.

For, sadly, respect for our position is difficult to maintain in a changing world, and it's even harder to credit our worthiness of it when we're as deeply in debt as we are – especially to our chief rival for dominance, China. Having said that, however, there is no doubt that our importance to other nations remains a critical factor in the thinking and planning of nations around the world. Unfortunately it is because we have, and we offer, a lot of carrots. So other nations dangle hopes before us in exchange for what they hope to get from us.

And we wind up where we are now. We speak loudly but wield only a small stick. Our current foreign policy is one of threats of action if our ideas are ignored, but the dangled hopes keep us from acting – except to offer more carrots in the hope of getting others to follow our leads. We want to believe that we are respected, and those with whom we deal will agree with our analysis. We make contingency plans but never implement them, preferring to accept the word of those whom we are threatening that eventually they'll do what we ask. No threat we make is credible. The worst the current Administration is likely to do is “view with disappointment,” and suggest sanctions. There are no real consequences of continuing policies we consider wrong.

Those who oppose our “sticking our nose” into the affairs of others, along with the tyrants we threaten, are comforted by that knowledge. But those who are not isolationists – who view our behavior as an abdication of responsibility – mourn our loss of resolve, and regret that heinous actions will do no more than get us to wring our hands.

I hope my kids know better. My imaginary dog certainly does.

Next episode: “Romeo and Juliet: Democrats” – But you would have predicted that.

I        Actually we had a cat. She was good but a little independent, and the story of the dog, though imagined, is much more to the point. (If I had had a dog, that would have been the way I treated him or her.) The rest of the essay is true.

ii       Now we're back to fact. (I loved my cat but let's face it. Cats train you. You don't train them.)

iii     My children – now grown and with kids of their own – still tell me that I'm predictable. I view it as a compliment.

iv      January 26th 1900, though he repeated the sentiment later.

v       They've certainly shown me. And, I suspect, many others as well.

vi      That's figurative as well. Read “men, women, and children.”

The Bottom Line

                                                                                                 

Some time back I wrote about parentingⁱ and, in light of recent experience, I thought I'd address one aspect of the subject again. One point I made then was that I thought that properly administered corporal punishment (spanking) could be a useful and an appropriate tool.

Yes, I know that many consider it to be abuse. And I am also aware that there are many studies that condemn spanking, suggesting that it is associated with negative outcomes for the children, including aggressiveness as adults. Ever since the time of Dr. Spock – and probably well before – it has been the practice of many to speak to their kids rather than punish them; to treat them like adults. The reality, of course, is that they are not adults,ⁱⁱ though some who have survived many more years than they act like children.

But before I discuss the issue, let me relate the “recent experience” which I mentioned. No, I have not had any children lately. But my wife and I hosted my daughter and her family (one husband and five children between twenty-two months and twelve and a half years. They've gone home now after three weeks and my eardrums are recovering. I had small children once (a long time ago) so I know what's likely to happen, but my tolerance for such shenanigans isn't what it used to be. Testing is expected, but sometimes it goes too far. There was no striking of the children but there was much yelling and screaming – both from the parents and the children. The dynamic was very different from “the old days” when children would “be seen but not heard.” Perhaps spanking is now frowned upon, but that's the way it was.

In the interim, however, the practices of parents vis-à-vis their children have changed – largely in response to the opinions of “experts,” governments, the courts, social workers, and meddling neighbors. There are those who view children as small adults who should be treated as such, with logic rather than aversive therapy; with the tongue rather than the hand. Indeed, in the country where the children were born and are being reared,ⁱⁱⁱ corporal punishment of children by parents, is unlawful.^iv Whether or not that's the reason for the attitudes of parents and children,^v there are several countries that have accepted this kind of policy.^vi (It's of interest, however, that spanking is legal in all of the United States as well as most of the world.)

Let me clarify what I mean by “spanking,” since the reader may assume that I am calling for wholesale battery for all offenses by all children. First of all, spanking should never be the first line of defense. It should be used selectively and only occasionally. Most children act like children, and most make honest mistakes that they regret. It is important that adults not act like children and that they avoid mistakes that they might regret. Parents should be able to recognize such “normal” rowdyism and unintended actions and deal with them in a non-violent manner. In most cases a stern rebuke^vii will be taken to heart by a child who feels he is in a safe environment and has loving parents. A discussion of the problem may be all that is necessary to help both parent and child understand what happened, and it may lead to a fruitful plan for future behavior for both.

On occasion, however, further steps are necessary. For some, who are convinced that corporal punishment will turn their children into abusive bullies, the “further step” that is employed is yelling and threatening. I don't place much stock in it. Children who are testing are quick to learn when they are facing a paper tiger – when the bark is worse than the bite. We teach them to walk away from those who taunt them, with the knowledge that “names will never hurt you,” but the same (it won't hurt you) applies to parental screaming. It's full of sound and fury, but in the end it signifies nothing. Except for teaching them that yelling and screaming are acceptable tools. A child who is yelled at, but knows that he has nothing to lose, will yell back, and yell at other times.

Spanking, however, and sending a child to his room,^viii make it clear what is unacceptable, and demonstrate that there are consequences for that kind of behavior. I know that many – perhaps most – experts disagree, but I am convinced that there is a place for corporal punishment when other forms of control are ineffective. The parent is usually bigger than the child he is spanking, so fighting back will not be a very useful tool for the child. As for the punishment itself, in this instance I agree with most of the experts. It should usually be imposed on smaller children – between two and six years old – and with an open hand on the rump. And it should be used only occasionally. (If an older child requires punishment, other means should be sought, or if it is needed frequently, consultation with a psycholgist may be appropriate.) As I emphasized in my prior blog, “Properly performed (relatively early in their development and never on the face), accompanied by an explanation of the offense, and followed by a display and declaration of love, this is likely to achieve the goal of order in the household along with an understanding of the hierarchy and the importance of following the rules.”

It is normal for children to distrust authority. “Because I said so” won't seem a logical justification for some acts you require of them and which they are resisting, but there are many times, especially when danger is involved, when a long discussion is not reasonable and when the imposition of authority is necessary. Children may dislike and distrust authority, but they must learn to repect it and, on occasion, to fear it.^ix And they will usually benefit from the setting of limits and the imposition of enforced guidelines. In fact they probably seek them. That's what testing is all about.

One final word. If a child's behavior is too different from what you expect, consult your pediatrician. The problem may be your expectations, or it may be a condition involving the child – one that requires remediation. In either case, the sooner the situation is evaluated, the better for you both.

But, as to the bottom line, spanking, though not a first choice, should remain a choice.

Next episode: “Rights And Wrongs” – Depends on whose bull is gored.

i      “Parenting For Dummies,” February 6, 2011.

ii      That message was emphasized over and over when I was on my pediatrics rotation in medical school. They have different diseases, are in different stages of development, have limited experience, and very different interests from adults.

iii     Israel

iv     Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporal_punishment_in_the_home. See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanking.

v       I've never discussed this legislation with them so I don't know if they're aware of it, or if that it is the reason for their behavior.

vi      Wikipedia, ibid. See footnote iv.

vii     Rebuke, not yelling.

viii    Nowadays we impose “time outs,” but they're no different from the “Go to your room!” of old.

ix      There are many with whom such an idea will not sit well, but even those who practice civil disobedience, who violate the law in the hope of changing it for the better, expect to be punished by properly constituted civil authorities. The law is the law and should be respected, along with the authorities who imposed it.

Parenting For Dummies

It's very much in vogue nowadays to say that “it takes a village to raise [sic]ⁱ a child.” That idea was popularized by a politician, a lawyer, who was probably seeking votes (at that time – 1996 – for her husband, but probably in the expectation that it would serve her well personally in the future). The idea, of course, wasn't new, having its origin in an old African proverb, and, in fact, “It Takes A Village” was the title of a book that appeared two years before hers – just about the time that her ghostwriter started hers.

In any event, the concept may have been applicable in seventeenth or eighteenth century Africa – and, indeed, the ideas of cooperation and responsibility that it proclaims are certainly true today – but it is currently more rooted in politics than parenting. The idea would certainly have been popular among the founders of the kibbutz movement in Israel in the early and middle part of the twentieth century, because many of them favored the communal rearing of children.ⁱⁱ It is also probably considered “correct” in societies elsewhere that look to the community as the source of goodness and wisdom, and minimize the individual, whose primary value is as part of the group. And among women.^iii,iv And it is a way of blaming the larger community for any failure in a child's upbringing rather than accepting personal responsibility. We are, after all, a litigious society, and always looking for someone else to blame.

But there are problems with such a system. Now that there are usually smaller families, and most live in cities lacking social communities similar to those in African villages, the idea does not seem to be as applicable.^v In all likelihood, each member of the social circle in which the child and his/her^vi mother exist will have read a different book by a different “expert,” and every one of them will tell of the ''right” way to rear a child – one unlike all the others. Hence the village will “raise” the child in different, and often conflicting, ways – ways which are likely to be at odds with any inclination of the parents. That, of course, will be confusing to the child and make him less, rather than more, likely to act in the civilized manner that mother and father had in mind.^vii What's to be done?^viii,ix

The problem is that there are too many “experts” – especially in a village.^x The solution, obviously, is another expert, but one who works within the context of a family. And that's I. I make no pretense at originality. Parents have been raising children forever, but from what I've seen and heard, too often they may go off in the wrong direction.^xi What I'll try to do (and succeed at doing if you're paying attention and if you really care how your children develop) is to give some basic rules that are guaranteed (or double your money back) to make you a good parent.^xii Even if it's not easy, it can be very rewarding.^xiii

First of all, the best parents come in pairs: preferably two people who are of different sexes (with genders that match the sexes) and who like each other. In addition, it is best if they have like ideas about raising children, and ideal if those ideas are the ones I am giving here. Those ideas center on the concept that children know they are children and, though they wouldn't admit it, they are aware that they don't know everything.

Proper family structure is critical to success in bringing up children.^xiv Parents may have different philosophies on the subject, but they should be worked out in private – never in front of the children. The decision of one of them, once expressed to the child, should never be contradicted by the other.^xv The children should never profit by playing off one parent against the other. In fact, punishment for such an attempt should be considered. A vital aspect of parental behavior is consistency – both on the parts of the parents individually, and the two together. If the children can anticipate the results of their behavior in advance, there is likely to be less “testing.”

Children need structure^xvi – both in the family hierarchy and in the way their lives are run. There should never be any question about who is in charge. And it should never be the children.^xvii Children should be taught the “rules” as early as they can understand them,^xviii and the penalties for violations should be clearly delineated. You should never make a threat you are not prepared to carry out. And you should always carry it out. They should learn to respect you. And, equally important, you should respect them.

At times this will require corporal punishment^xix which should be dispensed when the children refuse to do what you tell them to.^xx After a few applications they will get the point. Properly performed (relatively early in their development and never on the face), accompanied by an explanation of the offense, and followed by a display and declaration of love, this is likely to achieve the goal of order in the household along with an understanding of the hierarchy and the importance of following the rules.^xxi A respect for authority rather than a questioning of it will serve them better in life, and properly performed it won't turn them into homicidal maniacs. The frequent alternative, prolonged yelling, is more likely to contribute to testing as the child tries to see what he can get away with, knowing that the only risk is noise, which he rather enjoys.^xxii A side benefit of the judicious imposition of the “rod” rather than screaming is that the other children in the family will learn by what they see happening to their sib, and will be less likely to test.

As with yelling, children learn a lot from their parents.^xxiii,xxiv Two examples will illustrate this point (although the actual situations are too numerous to mention): if you eat what they'd like to have (perhaps a snack, something else more tasty than nourishing, or the last portion of a food they like) while telling them they must eat something else (like okra or broccoli), they may refuse food altogether. And if you partake of self-serving dissembling when speaking to your spouse, they will learn to lie. Never lie in front of your children.^xxv Never! As early as feasible they should learn that trust is the basis for relations between people. As they expect you to tell the truth – especially when you offer them something – you expect them to tell the truth at all times. The penalty for not doing so should always be greater than that for whatever they're trying to hide.

Food is a different problem. Children often refuse food because of its appearance and before they've had the opportunity to taste it. And it's fun to throw it around. Fortunately children eventually get hungry. Negotiation over meals is not permissible. Ideally the child will be told in the morning what will be served for dinner. And when dinner is served it should be a “take it or leave it” affair. The children are under no obligation to eat, but if they're hungry the food is before them.^xxvi And it's useful to establish regular meal times during which all members of the family will sit together at the table whether they choose to eat or not. Of course neither newspapers nor other reading materials should be permitted during meals.

There are times when a child, for whatever reasons, displays what is often viewed as “middle-child syndrome” – even if he in not a middle child. He may become belligerent or teary. He's sensitive. But he needs reassurance that everything is all right and you still love him. Sometimes all it takes is the suggestion that he go to his room and rest, and come back when he feels better. A few minutes of your undivided attention and a good hug then are wonderful reinforcement of the entire process.

One more note should be kept in mind. (There are many more pieces of advice I could offer, but those here will probably provide a good starting point and you'll learn the rest as you go along.) Your children will sometimes try to help you. But, of course, they'll have their own ideas about what constitutes help. You'll probably try to emphasize that “help” is doing what you need to be done, not what they feel like doing.

Remember that, when you consider your own responsibilities. You may mouth the mantra “I'll always be there for you,” but that support is of greatest value when they need it, not when you have some free time and can give it without disrupting what you're doing. And whether or not you think they need it, it's worthwhile, for both of you, if you throw in a physical demonstration of love every now and then.

Finally, outside experts like me don't have to live with the results of their recommendations, but you do. Neither do they have to face the everyday problems not outlined. That, of course, doesn't make the recommendations wrong. But it places all the real responsibility where it belongs – on the parents.

Good luck.^xxvii

Next episode: “Proust For The Masses” – From the past to the present.

i     “Rear” is probably a better word to indicate nurturing, and it saves a letter. It's also a good site for the application of disciplinary measures. More on that later.

ii     It's interesting that the model of group children's houses is less in favor now and there has been a return to the nuclear family.

iii    My intent is not to be sexist – even if this is read that way – but a recognition of the greater interest of women than men in the rearing of children, and in the fact that women are, by their nature (again this may appear sexist even if there is scientific backing), more social than men.

iv    Perhaps supporting the previous point is the fact that the politician, her ghostwriter, and the author of the original book were all women.

v     Societal, as well as absolute, “norms” play an important part in child rearing as well as everything else. We have to live in the society in which we exist. However other patterns may be closer to Truth in a Platonic sense, if they differ significantly from those around us, they will be detrimental.

vi    That's my nod – and my only one – to egalitarianism. At this point I'll revert to more comfortable and historically based language patterns.

vii    If your mindset is centered on the village, though, ignore the sanctimommies. You'd be best following the suggestions of some grandmothers (and the grandfathers). They've been through the experience of raising children, and they survived. And they've probably heard all of the “rules” that the academics promote and can balance them against life in the real world.

viii   The lawyers have taught us never to ask a question unless we already know the answer and it is one we want to hear.

ix    Although some would suggest locking up your children until they're thirty (children should be neither seen nor heard), and then throwing them out of the house, that's not always the best alternative.

x     "When the eagles are silent, the parrots begin to jabber." -- Winston Churchill

xi     In this matter, as well as in many “self-help” matters, the ones who read this material and try to put it to use are the ones who don't need it. The dysfunctional, who might benefit, aren't likely to be reading such works. Intelligent people would probably do as well, or better, (and save a lot of money) by following their own instincts. That was the pattern until a few decades ago

xii    It goes without saying (but I'll say it anyway) that I know the right way to rear children, just as I know the Right way to do everything.

xiii    The instructions that follow are long. I offer no apologies. You'll have twenty or thirty years to work them out.

xiv    Division of responsibilities (work, housekeeping, cooking) need not be in accordance with what some view as usual social “norms,” (actually the concept of responsibility will be covered in a future essay) but should be understood in advance so there is no need to argue over it. Both parents should play a prominent part in child care.

xv    Every now and then it may be necessary, after such a private discussion, to change a decision, but that should be done and explained by the one who made it, not by the other parent.

xvi     Children are, by their nature, destructive and disruptive. It goes with the territory, and you'll have to break them of those tendencies. You should know, however, that both are normal even though correction is necessary.

xvii   Children know how to push buttons. Be alert.

xviii   Lists and schedules of activities, chores, and the like are a good way to provide structure and to delineate expectations. Responsibilities should be spelled out clearly. So should bed time. If the child is regularly late for sleep or a school bus or something of the like, make the scheduled time earlier. That might be hard on you as well as the child, but it may have to be done.

xix    If you think logic will work you're living in another world. “Children, I guess, must have their own way the minute that you say 'no.'” – The Fantasticks, 1960, Schmidt and Jones.

xx    Yes. I know. It hurts you more than it does the child. Live with it. Both of you will be the better for it.

xxi   There's a lot to be said for reward and punishment. Although I've emphasized the punishment, don't forget the rewards. Bribery is a useful tool when rearing children, and the people who advise against it are flat out wrong.

xxii   Babies cry. That's the only way they know to get attention (but you don't have to jump every time it happens because children are healthy, resistant and resourceful beasts). As they get older they learn to yell and scream. If they hear yelling from parents it will feed into that tendency on their part. A calm voice with an explanation, a spanking, and love are a more effective alternative. And they're less bothersome to the neighbors. Sound and fury don't necessarily indicate anything, either from children or parents.

xxiii   In “The Nature Assumption,” Judith Harris points out that most of what children learn is from their peers, rather than their parents. But I am convinced that this must refer only to the specifics (of which there are many) rather than basic principles.

xxiv   Children also learn from their sibs, especially bad habits. And they always believe (whether it is true or not) that you are favoring the other. It is important to get them to focus on their own behavior and their own benefits rather than to compare themselves to a sib. And it's important that you don't make such comparisons.

xxv   Or, for that matter, anyone else.

xxvi   A single backup meal, like a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, could be available at all times, but no more than one. Otherwise there will be interminable negotiations.

xxvii   You'll need it.