This isn't as much about place as it is about time and could have easily been entitled, "Why 1950s Parents Are Superior."
We were raised in the U.S. in the 50s and 60s much like the French children in the article. We weren't treated like children, but like small adults. There were no children's menus in restaurants. If we wanted to go to out to eat, we dressed and acted properly and ate real food with our parents. If we wanted to go to little league, piano lessons, or anywhere else, we got off our butts and found a way to get there while Dad was at work and Mom was watching younger siblings. We walked to school from age 5. If we were late for dinner, we didn't eat. If we were late getting home at night, we didn't get to go out again. If we wanted money we got a job, not an allowance. If we misbehaved...I don't know what would happen. We didn't misbehave; we just knew better.
Most of our cousins and friends were the same, with a few exceptions. That was just the way it was.
Then somebody somewhere fucked it all up and now schools are surrounded by parents in minivans picking up special people who never really grow up. No wonder.
The French aren't different, just late. Just give them a few more years and they'll fuck it all up, too.
This somebody was the Baby Boomers, which sounds like your generation. Not only will BBs be one of the very few generations to leave this place worse off than they found it, but BBs have also screwed up parenting to the point where we now have to have a "radical" parenting movement ("Free Range Kids") that desperately tries to restore some some sanity.
I grew up in Eastern Europe during communist times, which was very old-school and worlds apart from today's parenting, but still managed to provide me with a great childhood. If I want to bring up my kids in the same way (lots of independent, unsupervised play from very early on, real responsibilities), then I'd be viewed as some kind of pariah and my neighbours will probably call child services.
Not only will BBs be one of the very few generations to leave this place worse off than they found it...
For some strange reason, people have an overly romantic view of the past.
A friend of mine, after watching mad men, was waxing nostalgic about how nice things seemed back then. Life was simpler, world is now so screwed up, etc. I just pointed out to him: "You realize that in 1950, you and your girlfriend wouldn't be allowed to live in the same neighborhood, right?"
(The girlfriend was Turkish, and dark brown. Not a chance of her passing.)
The 50's might have been better in some ways, but the boomers also got a few things right.
"A friend of mine, after watching mad men, was waxing nostalgic about how nice things seemed back then."
Wow. The main failure of that show is that there's people who think this after watching it. I mean, things in the show are enormously screwed up, the only thing that is nice is the scenery, which to me only makes the contrast more obvious, but apparently for many people that pulls attention away from the main subject of the show.
Also, yeah, long ago parents had their children walk to school alone even when said children where 9. And did other silly stuff. Silly stuff makes for good stories, though, and you can get to use the "what doesn't kill me" line as if it was science.
Also, yeah, long ago parents had their children walk to school alone even when said children where 9.
Which seems perfectly normal. And nothing happened to them. The perversion is to think that 9 year old children are not capable to walk to school alone. Or to have built a society where people will harm them if they do so. (Actually, in most European cities you'd still be considered paranoid to think 9yo children cannot walk to school).
Michael Ventura, an Austin Chronicle columnist and writer, puts it very nice in this column of his:
My birthday is late in October, so I was still 7 in 1953 when I saw my first film without "parental guidance" -- or parental presence. Frankly, it kind of shocks me to write that, for I can't imagine the parents of 7-year-olds today allowing their children to go to the movies alone. In fact, I doubt a lone 7-year-old would be sold a ticket now anywhere in this country. But once upon a time, it was no big deal. (All of which makes urban parents of 50 years ago sound permissive. They weren't. We would never have dreamed of speaking to our parents, or to any adult, as I now hear so many minutely supervised kids speak to theirs. Disrespect was not tolerated. Neither was whining. I know that sounds like an exaggeration. It's not.)
Actually the whole article is interesting, and it's about movie going in the fifties and children:
And? So? Ages ago, 9-year olds went to school and nothing happened to them, except when it did, but then they wouldn't write about their own romanticized experiences in a newspaper, so nobody cares about them.
Also, "Disrespect was not tolerated. Neither was whining." is begging for "unless the one disrespectful/whining was the parent, then it was okay".
Finding yet another guy whining about the fact that he has to pay more attention to his kids than his father did doesn't really change anything about the previous dude who did that.
And? So? Ages ago, 9-year olds went to school and nothing happened to them, except when it did, but then they wouldn't write about their own romanticized experiences in a newspaper, so nobody cares about them.
You have some mental model where 9-yo going to school were ...commonly harmed and we only get to learn about the few that both survived and romanticized their experiences?!! Nothing of the sort happened --it's just the modern safety paranoia speaking.
First, yes, a FEW kids got harmed, just as a FEW kids get harmed today too. Even adults get harmed. Shit happens. That doesn't mean that harm was something more widespread or it was more prevalent that it is today. Are you that crazy to suggest that parents of the fifties let their kids walk to school (and all around) DESPITE KNOWING that they will get frequently harmed? It is precisely because nothing of the sort happened 99.9999999% of the time that they did so. And this is exactly why Europeans in most EU countries, Africans, Asians and Latin Americans, still allow their kids to do exactly the same.
No, despite CSI, FOX News, etc, the world is not hostile, every black/latino/asian person is not a murderer, every guy in the park is not a pedophile with a van, and serial killers are not a dime a dozen. (Actually, the reports say they are like tops 30-50 active in the US at a time, so more like 1 in 10,000,000).
And it's not like this is something that happened in ancient history. Fifties is not exactly ages ago, not to mention that this happened way up until the seventies / early eighties. It's just that most post 70's american parents just don't know when to stop with their spoiled and overly protected brats --which is what TFA is all about.
Also, "Disrespect was not tolerated. Neither was whining." is begging for "unless the one disrespectful/whining was the parent, then it was okay".
Even if we fathom your idea of the "disrespectful/whining" parent, that is not an excuse for tolerating the case of disrespectful/whining kids. That would be a sure-fire to produce EVEN MORE disrespectful/whining adults when those kids grow up. People you wouldn't look forward to having social/professional interactions with...
Besides being able to be sexist, you were also allowed to treat women as women, something you have to bypass a certain byzantine PC-code to be able to do today.
Besides being able to be sexist, you were also allowed to treat women as women, something you have to bypass a certain byzantine PC-code to be able to do today.
Ah yes, the curse of the modern straight male. It's like a child who had all the toys and now is told they have to share. Men's Rights groups tend to think that things are crazy now, you can't treat a woman like a woman! You have to treat them as an equal! Madness!
Yeah, as if to "treat a woman like a woman" must imply treating her like an inferior creature. Whatever.
FWIW, it just means to not treat here like some sexless thing that you have to approach with the utmost caution because the PC police might find anything and everything offensive.
(I understand that some people automatically even the second version to: "so you want to treat women like a sexist pig, slapping their asses and making vulgar comments").
It's getting all the more difficult to discuss this kind of things with americans.
As for the alcohol, true, I don't mind. However, I don't really miss it either - it wouldn't be sufficient to make me want to live in a Mad Men world. And there does not seem to be happening much else besides drinking and philandering.
Among other things, the recognition that there exist two (or more) different sexes that occasionally want to flirt with each other, and that, horror of horrors, this also happens with co-workers.
But we live in a age where they expel a 6-year old boy for kissing with a same-age girl in kindergarten.
Well, he couldn't (easily) have a Turkish girlfriend in the 50's. On the other hand, for perspective, he would be welcomed, as an American, in most (if not all) of the islamic countries. You know, like all those expats living in Tangier.
Also: segregating not by race but by income, trailer folks and poor blacks are still effectively not allowed to live in the same neighborhoods as rich white folks. And not only because they can't afford it.
Ours must be the only generation ever willing to blame the previous one for just about everything. Also, by what measure is the world a worse place today?
That's what I meant, the previous poster claimed that BBs screwed stuff up as opposed to previous generations - but previous generations did stuff like fight world wars and drop atomic bombs around.
What exactly did the BBs screw up. Do you want the good old values of early 20th century back? Women belong into the kitchen? No sex before marriage? And what not...
I was specifically referring to the massive economic fuckover they've been responsible for over the last 30 years. Not to mention the coming 20 years of kids having to support unsustainable retirement lifestyles with huge debt burdens.
Well now we have the "Great Recession" (according to Wikipedia, though technically apparently it ended in 2009), before WW2 there was the "Great Depression". Since the baby boomers are born shortly after WW2, I suppose the Great Depression was brought about by their parents or grandparents. I think people were far worse off back then.
Also, will the kids support the unsustainable retirement lifestyles if they can't afford them? It seems unlikely.
And we still don't know how things will play out. Maybe it was a genius move to take up all that credit.
The boomers do have the advantage of being a large political force, and have all their life, so have had the possibility to shape the political landscape around them as they have passed through the various phases of life. This assumption is of course based on them being a fairly homogeneous group of people, which may or may not be true.
To be fair, the previous generations (of Americans) did not start those wars, but actually fought to prevent murderous dictators from taking over the world.
I just think you should differentiate between 'fighting' in a war and 'starting one'.
Germany didn't start WWII without reason. We didn't try to take over the world, but we did give cause for others to want to take over the world (e.g. overly harsh response to WWI). Can't exonerate blame based on one event and not the timeline.
Well, one county's previous generations started those wars, the rest of the planet had no choice but to respond. However, these more recent wars, are wars of choice. So, that's several screw ups to start with.
As for the atomic bombs, yes it was terrible, but some one was going to. And for once, "we" saw and learned that particular lesson. (I pick that out because I think not dropping a nuke since is actually one of humanity's greatest achievements)
Good old values of ..... OK. If I shoot it back in your direction, I could accuse you of wanting SOPA and Islamic terror. That's the other extreme, and I assume you would deny both.
Of course some things we have today are way better. But you have to admit, that if we cant get our kids right, if we cant have proper freedom in the West, if we cant have the free flow of uncensored information, if people in general dont care about each other much and only see life form their own position, can I really not say that the previous generations got it wrong? I mean, these are fundamental things, and what we get in return for their loss is iPads.....
IMHO, we now live in a "I see pretty, must have pretty" society. Dunno if you noticed, but it just went bust. And it went bust because "we" borrowed to get "pretty". First ever recession that was caused by pure greed. And no one is about to change that. Its all about how we get back to it, so we can have our pretty stuff again. And this was created by the baby boomer lot. And they wont let go.
I dunno. To me all sense of balance has gone, and people are generally just selfish and horribly judgemental. We live in an extreme. And I don't like it that much.
I'm not historian enough to argue about WW2, but I think there was some context to those wars, even if technically one country can be blamed. It didn't come out of nowhere.
In any case I seriously doubt there was more free speech in earlier times than now (off the top of my head, what about those commie hunting days?). SOPA has not yet been passed, either.
People don't care for each other yadda yadda yadda. Sorry, that is just ideological bullshit. I don't think people are less emotional today than they used to be. And people will never change, complaining about that is just a waste of time.
As for the economic problems, wake me when Apple (a company that has 60% markup on their products) is no longer the most valuable company in the world. Poor people don't buy iPhones.
What would it mean if the most successful corporation made a product poor people used? How is that relevant? (Let's ignore Google, creator of perhaps the most valuable product ever created, which they charge absolutely nothing for.) It would be something like real estate, slum lording, which is a quite profitable industry (but no one consolidated company), that isn't helping anyone.
In any case I seriously doubt there was more free speech in earlier times than now (off the top of my head, what about those commie hunting days?)
Oh, but there was. For one, to have commie hunting days, you had to have commies. Which you did. And you also had a mighty, not communistic, labor union movement.
Nowadays, not many are sticking up their necks that much, if anyone.
What about the OccupyWhatever movement? I don't miss commies, but I don't think in the commie hunting days everybody who was hunted actually was a commie.
What would you stick up your neck for? I mean what things would get you into trouble? Wikileaks is the only example that comes to mind (and pretending to be a terrorist, obviously).
What would you stick up your neck for? I mean what things would get you into trouble? Wikileaks is the only example that comes to mind
Things worth to stick up your neck for and/or that will get you in trouble if you do? Lots of things. From ACTA/SOPA/PIPA, to labour laws, to the bailout, to the mass (statistically imbalanced) imprisonment of blacks, to the profitable prison work-for-rent industry, to the death penalty, to mass surveillance, to foreign policy, the patriot act, to bio-ethics, to Monsanto, to the sorry state of news reporting, to the race for the bottom for jobs (moving to cheap foreign labour), to corporates getting their way, the list goes on and on. Seriously challenging any of those will get you in trouble.
For the most part, this didn't really start to shift until the late 80's I think.
I remember coming home from school to no parents till 7:30 or 8:00, running around as I wished (within some very loose limits several miles across), playing with friends etc.
"Be home by dark" and "let us know where you'll be" were pretty much the only rules.
When I was in middle school my parents moved from the apartment complex I grew up in to a house in the country...sometime in the late 80s, but my school was back in a local small city. The first day at school, I left school to walk to the local mall where my parents would pick me up after work and the principal nearly had a heart attack. "But he has to cross 4 or 5 intersections!" "What if something happened?!" My parents were non-plussed, but unfortunately relented, and for the rest of the year I paid $5 for a taxi to drive me 4 blocks to the mall. It felt ridiculous.
None of the other parents thought it was unusual.
Today? There's two bus stops on my street. One for the middle school that's less than a quarter mile away and one street crossing over, and for the high school that's less than a half mile away and one street crossing over -- both have clear pedestrian walks and lights.
They stand there, 20 or 30 minutes waiting for the noisy bus to pick them up, then make 3 or 4 more stops, then drive the quarter of half mile to their schools where they're dumped off.
I don't even know what to say when I leave for work and see the lot of them huddled there waiting to be shuttled the minimal distance that they all run and walk and play after school anyways.
" They stand there, 20 or 30 minutes waiting for the noisy bus to pick them up, then make 3 or 4 more stops, then drive the quarter of half mile to their schools where they're dumped off."
Do you mean you believe that what you describe for 50s/60s matches what is happening currently in France? If so that's far from it, at least from the people I know here (and I know a couple :-).
Children here aren't considered small adults, and there's no way (for most at least) they walk to school when aged 5 etc.
I don't think (honestly) that Europe or France is just applying the same recipes years after the US; things are really different for some parts, not happening later IMO.
Wow, I thought the illusion that other cultures are simply behind the US instead of genuinely different had all but disappeared. (With the exception of Micheal Arrington of course.)
Some things are physically impossible. There is no parking space in front of my kids' school (I have 3: 6/3/2), and so it's not possible for everyone to drive their kids to school in SUVs at the same time. Most people walk their kids to school, and most kids at age 7 go to school by themselves.
I also can't imagine not having three meals a day and letting my kids just take things out of the refrigerator at any time (there is almost nothing in the refrigerator that can be eaten as is, anyway; if you can't cook you can't eat).
It's true we're a little more lax than our parents, but not that much, I think. We'll see.
France is exactly like parenting in the 50's and 60's, and in some ways that's better but in the vast majority of the ways, that's much worse. We've made huge progress in our understanding of parenting and France throws it out to do it the way their grandparents did it, to their general disservice.
I'm an American living in France, raising my child here. The two big things the French get wrong (that the 50's got wrong) that outweigh everything else they get right are:
1. Corporal Punishment. The French beat their children. Innumerable studies have been done and the results are remarkable consistent: Don't do it. Don't spank. Don't hit. In the 50's it was acceptable to hit your wife and kids. Let's not turn the clock back on that. Please.
2. Children should be seen, not heard. Like in the 50's, the French don't interact much with their kids. This is a terrible mistake. Yes, kids need some alone time -- that's a cop out. They'll make it clear when they do. The big mistake was that we started thinking that good parenting was karate classes and doing puppet shows, but this is like baking cookies: fine occasionally, but don't over do it. Take time with your child, let them direct their play, mainly watch. This is huge for them and one of the best things you can do as a parent. See your child. Understand your child. Be there for your child.
This Wikipedia article is interesting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_abuse#Prevalence.
USA and UK ranked lowest among industrial nations with respect to the wellbeing of children. Comments are all a matter of personal experience.
Thanks for that, but "well being" also includes child neglect and other forms of abuse other than punishment, so it's not really what I'm talking about here.
The French, as a culture, condone slapping and hitting their children much more than most other cultures. If we want to talk about one culture versus another, that should be included and sadly, that alone outweighs any of the other positive aspect of French parenting.
Or maybe to have well behaved kids you just have to give them a good beating now and then?
Just saying - I don't mean to advise beating kids (I would never do it, and it is also illegal where I live), but to point out that below the surface, not everything is necessarily what it seems to be. These articles advising strictness towards kids pop up with steady frequency... They might benefit the parents more than the kids.
Funny how it is portrait as being advantageous for the kid to leave them crying in the night, so "they can learn to fall asleep again". Or maybe they just got some emotional scars, but hey, they can sleep.
I took the opposite approach with my kid (16 months) - we always rushed to his bed side when he was crying. He did not sleep through the night from day one, but in general, he is very pleasant company. We wanted to give him confidence and I think so far it has worked. He doesn't need to terrorize us because he knows in general we treat him fairly.
Kids must experience all kinds of feelings to learn to cope with them. If you always run whenever your kid cries, it will never learn to deal with things alone and it will cry far more often.
Also, I believe that your approach is the more convenient to the parent, because you don't have to deal with guilt about possibly leaving emotional scars to their kid. But in fact you're just spoiling it and do bad for its health. Sleeping the whole night, at least for 6 continues hours, is very important for kids from half to 2 yo for their proper/healthy development.
The night cry mentioned in the article is just a specific example, it doesn't make much sense to come to a conclusion based only on how you delt with this particular case.
It worked for us because he doesn't cry a lot, counter to your theory. Also, can you back up your claims?
Of course I am aware that he will eventually have to deal with tough things alone. However, it is not obvious that he should have to do so as a helpless baby.
Honestly, I am a bit shocked that you can be so convinced of a potentially evil theory. I would be very interested in your sources.
The theory to "experience a lot of tough things to become tougher" also sounds rather backwards to me. How far should we go? Should we give him a short lived pet so that he can learn to deal with death? Should we beat him, so that he is prepared for school yard bullies?
Suppose you try climbing a tree for the first time. Is it really easier if daddy is not standing there prepared to catch you if you fall? Would it make you more inclined to try climbing the tree if daddy wasn't there?
My kid is in the autism spectrum and we have seen 3 doctors, 2 psychiatrists, 3 ergo-therapists and 2 logo-therapists. They all seem to agree that when a kid cries with no reason (you learn how to distinct that by experience) you just ignore him until he learns that this is not the way to get attention. It's not that we never give him attention, we just don't overdo it so he won't become manipulative.
They've also advised us that night sleep must be complete, as I mentioned in my previous post. That we should not encourage him to wake up by letting him getting up or giving him food, and it worked. When he has 6 months old, we switched the night milk with water or tee and after a few nights he stopped waking up in the middle of the night. Since then, me and my wife can get some sleep at nights and some rest instead of being wrecked every day.
As far as where is the limit, how far to go? You don't have to go anywhere, you just have to use some common sense, if it has a real problem rush to help it, when it doesn't have a real problem don't encourage it. Yes, be there the first time it will try to climb the tree, but not every time it gets into its mind that it wants to climb a tree. Of course you don't have to start beating it. Duh! I'm a little shocked myself that you find it normal to wake up every night for 16 months.
How else do I know that I'm right? I see other people's kids. When parents rush to serve every vice their kids have just to avoid the crying, the end is that their kids cry all the time and they are never satisfied with anything. Parents that set limits and don't continuously run behind their children, not only have some time left to enjoy their life, but their kids are more polite, they are easier satisfied and happy, and they also make friends easier, since they are not obnoxious.
You say your kid is fine anyway, don't know you-can't confirm it, maybe it's an exception to the general rule, which is if you let crying to be a bargaining card, the kid will cry all the time. Maybe in your country there is no sane parent left for you to see the difference, maybe you should plan some vacation time in France.
I think it really depends on the kid. We don't have the feeling that crying is a bargaining card or that he cries with no reason. If it were, perhaps we would react differently. We never had to try hard to stop the crying, as other parents tell. So we were probably lucky.
Recently of course sometimes he protests when he doesn't like something. I don't want to suppress that completely, though - I think it is good that he protests and fights for what he wants. If it is a good reason he can not get it, he won't get it, at other times, why deny it just for the sake of denying it (he doesn't get sweets, it is more about playing with certain things).
What do you mean here? Your kid is not a neighbor you would have to treat fairly our not, he or she is your own blood, you love your kid, you don't treat them. That's a part of American education problem, kids are like clients, with rights and all.
That love manifests in your treatment. Having moved to the west at a young age from Eastern Europe, the contrast in attitudes has often struck me.
Over there you appreciate the level of sacrifice your parents made to make your existence possible, everything they give you is a gift. Over here it almost seems like the child automatically deserves the world from their parents for the great injustice of having been born.
Now I'm not saying parents west and east are different in wanting to give their child the very best they can. It's the attitude of entitlement towards what is given that differs and I still struggle to grasp the western perspective.
Apologies up front since I don't think I was able to capture my thoughts on this topic with a great deal of eloquence here.
Imagine I had a girlfriend from Moldavia totally dependent on me for money and her visa so I could do almost anything to her short of harming her physically just like with a baby. Because she didnt grow up with our material culture she has problems with shopping too much. I want to teach her to better restrain herself so I lock her upin the apartment when I go to work. Of course she screams when I leave but soon she learns how to comfort herself and when I get home she is normal again. Next time she goes out she has learned her lessen, I mustbe a great boyfriend.
I dont understand why positions of power are seen so different just because the weaker party is ones offspring.
I am not American. Also not a native speaker, didn't know how to describe it better. What I mean is we take good care of him, so he doesn't need to protest all the time. Why should he wake up screaming in the night if there is no issue? So either there is an issue, in which case he screams, we appear and try to fix it. Or there is no issue, in which case he also doesn't scream. It is no fight or power game, as with the "let them scream" school of parenting.
Of course he is only 16 months now, so I can not really make that many claims about the effectiveness of our parenting... Also kids just may be different, but I didn't see the french woman take that many samples, either (did she check the French suburbs, I hear there is a lot of troubled youth around).
Well I think you are wrong in thinking babies don't cry without a reason. Crying is a normal activity for kids. If the belly is full, the diaper clean and there no sign of other discomfort, then I think letting cry is an option. Happy parents is the best gift you can give to you kids, and stress, sleep deprivation, guilt, etc, are not the way to be happy.
It's true what you say about the happy parents, and probably you can't generalize to all kids. They are all different.
However, I also had a feeling that since the baby is totally dependent on me (he could not even turn on his belly in the first weeks), it was asked too much for him to entertain himself. Why do I get to decide what is enough for him (well fed and diapers cleaned has to be sufficient)? He could not even change his view without my help. This is just a very personal thing, though, everybody will feel different.
On a related note, I just read a book about sleep research and one experiment they did was exposing people to extreme boredom. That is they were made to lie in a bed for days and not even allowed to read or anything - so their situation is quite similar to those helpless babies. Turns out they would settle into a 4h sleep pattern, similar to babies.
I wouldn't say it is about boredom and entertainment, your kid is in the survival stage, fill basic needs, stay close to caregivers, etc. So, in fact, the crying had a function when we were apes in the Savannah, it was to call the mother in case she lost you. Now this need is deprecated, and the babie will have to be separated someday from parents, so letting cry for 5, then 10, then 20 minutes is a good compromise, imo better than teaching early your kid that whatever they want is easily obtained through loug crying.
Babies need more than just food and warm clothes. And they are dependent on you for a long time. I don't see the point in weaning them off things when they are still too young to provide them for themselves. For example, they can't just log on to Hacker News when they feel bored. Crying might be the equivalent to typing "news.ycombinator.com" into your URL bar. Is it really so bad to take care of your babies' needs?
I don't like idealizing 50s and 60s parenting, and I firmly believe most things have gotten better (as described by other commenters), but the article was a good read.
A single family cannot change everything though.
Traffic has increased so much around schools (with parents in a hurry to work) that even parents that would normally let their kids walk often drive their kids. This was not the case just a decade ago.
Another thing is non-supervised play. Kids used to play and do sports in their neighborhood, now there's no one available for your kid to play football, because everyone else is at organized football practice.
The kids who grew up in the 50/60's and thought "this sucks" are the ones who "fucked it up." Apparently they were the super majority, having grown up in 80/90s I'm fairly glad they did too.
Reading the description, i agree this seemed to kind of suck. But I'm French and also wanted to say; it wasn't like that when I grow up in the 80/90s, and it also not at all like that now. Children are treated like children not miniature adults, but adults are simply not there to unconditionally serve caprices of their children and give them 100% attention all the time they are around, and be stupidly paranoid about what could go wrong if they aren't protected by a bodyguard 24/7 (I'm exaggerating, but you see the idea...)
Of course if you always spoil kids and never gives them limits and make them believe the world is 100% safe when somebody is watching over them and so unsafe otherwise that they have formal interdiction to explore on their own, they will get agitated and misbehave and drive you crazy. Not really news to most French people I think...
They are various other factors also, depending on the precise context. For example, in Paris and Petite Couronne most people lives in tiny flats (by American standard and even by French standard in other regions) and you can't afford to let your child make a mess for too long in the living room (or even in their own room) because that would occupy the whole area. So making them tidy up more often mechanically increase discipline. I think that that kind of thing can become cultural and applied even by people who have more space. The way an important proportion of people live in a country impact the way the whole typically behave (and even more true because there is less multiculturalism isolated from each other than in the USA)
-- "Just give them a few more years and they'll fuck it all up, too"
I feel you've profoundly missed the point and failed to provide reasons beyond "that way just the way it was".
No they don't. Only because a person has more disposible income does not mean they /have/ to consume more. The poster has actually a point. In a "consumerist" culture however, "instant satisfaction" is much more important and constantly promoted as important.
Since mom didn't work, she had time to stay home and cook
Mothers working? Why that would be child abuse. A mother should stay in the home and look after her children. Also, we can't have them taking jobs away from men!
Not from a "keeping up with the Joneses" basis. Or from a "you spent less because you had to spend less" basis.
The first assumes that a large amount of spending is done in order to signal or gain social advantage. Signaling would be ostentatious consumption to express a higher social status. Gaining would be, say, buying a house in a good school district in order to gain social advantage for your children. A perverse logic of a constrained-resource economy may be that such socially-driven spending may increase, not decrease.
The second assumes that one didn't need to go out to eat, because one spousal partner (OK, the wife) stayed home and incorporated the roles of cooking, cleaning, childcare, etc., which are now frequently treated as external expenses. Likewise shorter commutes with cheaper gasoline.
On a "keeping up with the joneses" basis, we are exactly as rich now as we always were. In 1950, 1960, and today, there were 50% of people above the median. If your dad had more "keeping up with the joneses" buying power, it's only because someone else's dad had less.
Incidentally, when you compare people to their parents, you find that income went up vastly more than you think. It's only when you compare people today (Americans and immigrants) to the parents of Americans that incomes appear to have stagnated.
If we're talking aspirational spending, no, we're not.
It's not the median, but the marginal cost to advance to the next level.
In 1947, to go from the top of the first quintile by income to bottom of the top 5%, required increasing your income 501%. In 2001, the differential was 685%. Wealth disparities tend to exceed income (your marginal savings and/or investment growth increases with marginal income).
Another relationship is to consider ranking determined by mean (not median) income. If half the wealth and spending power is in the top 5% rather than top 20% of households, then the relative wealth of the lower 95% has decreased -- they're not keeping up with the Jonses.
It's not the median, but the marginal cost to advance to the next level.
Again, the marginal cost to advance to the "next level" can only increase if more people are able to achieve it. "Keeping up with the joneses" is a zero sum game.
Also, if we are talking about "keeping up with the joneses", then it's irrelevant to focus on income or wealth. We should focus on consumption - interestingly, consumption inequalities are lower than both income and wealth inequalities.
.svg){kind=link}
We were raised in the U.S. in the 50s and 60s much like the French children in the article. We weren't treated like children, but like small adults. There were no children's menus in restaurants. If we wanted to go to out to eat, we dressed and acted properly and ate real food with our parents. If we wanted to go to little league, piano lessons, or anywhere else, we got off our butts and found a way to get there while Dad was at work and Mom was watching younger siblings. We walked to school from age 5. If we were late for dinner, we didn't eat. If we were late getting home at night, we didn't get to go out again. If we wanted money we got a job, not an allowance. If we misbehaved...I don't know what would happen. We didn't misbehave; we just knew better.
Most of our cousins and friends were the same, with a few exceptions. That was just the way it was.
Then somebody somewhere fucked it all up and now schools are surrounded by parents in minivans picking up special people who never really grow up. No wonder.
The French aren't different, just late. Just give them a few more years and they'll fuck it all up, too.