Tag Archives: culture

My kid is superior to Baby Jesus

This holiday season, similar to the past few holiday seasons, many of us received a card with somebody’s kid on it, and by somebody’s I do not mean Mary’s. By somebody’s, I mean relatives’, friends’, coworkers’, and even distant acquaintances, clients’, or other people we do business with.

Since the printing companies made this kind of service available (and are now licking their lips at the profit they make from narcissistic people), American parents replaced Baby Jesus with their own kids. Where there used to be Mary and Joseph bending over newborn Jesus in the crèche, or Santa Claus, a snowman, or a Christmas tree, they paste pictures of their own kids instead. Most of the people who do this consider themselves Christians, yet, they replace their God with their own offspring. By doing so, they pass a message that their kid is more important than the Nativity, Santa, and all the snowmen and trees in the world. Doesn’t it seem a bit arrogant?

I have never seen these kinds of cards in any other culture. With the general secularization and commercialization of Christmas in many contemporary societies, using winter landscapes, playful penguins, reindeers, Santas, and decorated trees are more often seen than the Nativity, but none of the societies I know took it as far as replacing the above with their own kids.

Sending a card with one’s kids on it to their grandparents or to someone else who knows and likes them is not as shocking, although even in this case a normal card could be used and the pictures given or sent separately. However, it is really ridiculous to give these kinds of cards to coworkers or someone they just do business with. Even the relatives that do not know these kids, have seen them once in their lives, and do not remember their names, or do not care about them at all should not be bombarded with their pictures, and the front of a Christmas card is the least appropriate place to put them. It is like telling people “look what a miracle I am and these are little carbon copies of my precious and special self” or “look at what an eighth wonder of the world I produced”. The purpose of sending these kinds of cards is not to make the recipients happy but to please the senders’ vanity and to indulge their own overinflated ego.

The truth is that most people do not really care and do not really want to see those kids’ cards. If they say “awww, that’s so cute!” upon receiving them, that is because they are too polite, too mendacious, or too harassed by the kid-obsessed society into silence to tell the arrogant author of the card (and of the kids on it): “nobody actually wants to see your kids”. What would the authors of the kid cards say if their childfree coworkers or business partners sent them a Christmas card with an ultrasound picture of their permanent birth control on it? I purposefully do not give an example of the childfree people’s pets on a card because these would trigger patronizing and condescending comments: “Poor Lucy, she does not know the joy of parenthood so she uses the ersatz of her cat”. An ultrasound picture of a permanent or long-term birth control method is a more accurate equivalent and many American parents should in fact get some of them for a couple of holiday seasons in a row to actually understand how ridiculous and inappropriate their cards with kids’ pictures are.

Kids’ pictures do not belong on Christmas cards, unless it is Mary’s kid whose birth is celebrated on that day. The cards should remain with Santas, snowmen, winter landscapes, Christmas trees, and Nativities on them. I know that most people in this kid-obsessed country will not be assertive enough to tell the sender of an unsolicited card with kids on it that they do not really want to receive this kind of a card; that a Christmas-related picture on it would be much more appropriate and desired. If this is the case, they may post or send this article instead and hope that the arrogant parent of the kid(s) on the card understands the allusion.

The “trying hard” excuse

There is a new fad promoted recently by the media in a very importunate way. It appears its goal is to make people accept extreme rudeness when it comes from a kid or a parent or to manipulate them into feeling guilty whenever they require the minimum of respect in public places. Its main message is that parents try so hard to make their kids respectful in public places like churches or supermarkets, and they should be praised for the simple fact that they have a kid instead of being brought to order for failure to make the said kid respect other users of the public space. Parents try so hard? Let’s look at it closer.

In kid-obsessed America, all sorts of public places are full of extremely rude kids running wild, yelling, screaming, throwing food all over restaurant dining rooms, bumping into people in stores or on the street, slobbering food products that are subsequently sold to unaware customers and doing so as they enjoy unlimited impunity. They are always accompanied by an adult, in most of the cases a parent or both of them, but get away with all kinds of unacceptable behavior simply because these parents do absolutely nothing to enforce respect and politeness. They do not “try hard”, they do not try at all. Even the fact that these kids are so rude tells a lot about their parents: they do nothing to raise their kids, to teach them basic respect and manners, or to discipline them before bringing their bundles of germs to public places.

I am pretty sure that everyone who has lived in kid-obsessed America for some time saw, and especially heard, outrageously rude kids in restaurants running through the aisles, throwing food around, sticking their snotty fingers into other customers’ food, or into buffet containers,  accosting other patrons for attention, and above all screaming and yelling at the top of their lungs. These kids do not go to restaurants alone. They are brought there by their parents, and these parents have a duty to control their children. Out of countless times of seeing unacceptably rude kids in restaurants, I have never seen a single case of a parent trying to discipline the kid for any type of rudeness and make it behave respectfully. I do not even mention any trying “hard” because they were not trying at all. They were enjoying themselves, selfishly oblivious to their ill-mannered progeny disrespecting other patrons and ruining their evening out.

In respectful cultures, these problems usually do not happen because responsible parents teach their kids manners before bringing them out. If, however, as an exception, a kid is trying to be rude, the parents bring it to order immediately, in the same second when the unacceptable behavior starts, and this includes removing it from the premises instantly to end other people’s exposure to it. This is the most efficient way of teaching a kid what is unacceptable: curb the behavior in the same second when it starts. The kid will most likely never do it again. However, American parents never try to bring their rude kid to order, even if they claim they are “trying hard”. There should be no mercy and no excuse for them. They should be strictly required by the business to leave immediately if they do not want to respect other people. Respectful customers should strictly require the restaurant to remove them or cancel their orders and leave.

Another example that most likely everyone has seen is extremely rude kids on planes, yelling, running wild up and down the aisles, kicking the seats in front of them, or slobbering other passengers with their hands sticky of saliva. As a frequent flyer, I have never, not even once, seen a parent discipline his or her kid for doing any of the above. They not only do nothing to bring the kid to order, but also become extremely aggressive when requested to do so by an offended passenger or by a flight attendant. They use their “it’s just a kid” or “kids will be kids” excuses and belligerently defend their precious snowflake’s usurped “right” to be rude. Respectful kids of respectful parents do not scream or kick other people’s seats and if they exceptionally try to do it, they are curbed by the parent in the same second when they start.

The most egregious American kid’s behavior I witnessed on a plane was the one that was screaming and yelling aggressively, jumping like a monkey on the back of the seat in front of it every ten or so seconds hitting the passenger sitting there on his head, and beating (!!!) its parents. The parents seemed so proud of the offspring they produced that when given “the look” by many passengers, returned plastic smiles with messages on their faces saying “just look at what a miraculous wonder we produced”. They obviously did nothing to end the appalling behavior. They did not “try hard”, they did not try at all. They were so infatuated with their obnoxious brat that they seemed to want to force it on everyone around. I required the flight attendant to impose order, and only thanks to her intervention all the wild behavior ended.

Kids acting in an unacceptable way in supermarkets and stores are also a common view in kid-obsessed America. Screaming wildly, slobbering on the produce, throwing objects, destroying goods, running wild, and bumping into people is unacceptable but widespread. The lazy, oblivious parents ignore their offspring’s behavior completely. They do not “try hard”, they do not try at all. If they had the minimum of respect for other shoppers, they would have curtailed the unacceptable behavior immediately, or taken the kid outside and brought it to order there. However, they are too entitled to do it. They selfishly continue shopping and make it not only miserable for everyone else but also cause a health hazard for people who buy the products with their kid’s saliva, snots, and germs on them.

Also, in American churches kids behave in an unacceptable way, similar to the behavior anywhere else as described above. Their parents fail to teach them respect, to discipline them, or to remove them. Again, they do not “try hard”, they do not try at all. The purpose of a church service is a respectful and pensive worship of whichever God one believes in. Church services are not to worship a kid deity (other than baby Jesus in the case of Christians), or to succumb to its whims and get exposed to its unacceptable behavior and germs. I was shocked, driving by churches during service times, to see numerous kids being kept outside by a few adults who were doing it, as it seemed, as a job. Later on I learned that it was indeed a job, whether on a professional or volunteer basis. I was shocked to learn that it is a common assumption to keep kids in day care-like settings while the adults are attending the service. These kids were old enough to be required to sit or stand quietly and respectfully not only for an hour but also for a couple of hours in any place accessible to other people where respect for the other people is required. Their parents failed to have taught them that and preferred to leave them out. They were not trying hard, they just passed the problem onto somebody else, and these kids did not learn that they should be respectful. There are also parents who do not leave their kids out but take them inside and allow them to ruin other people’s experiences with God. These are not trying at all, either.

When I was taken to church as a kid, kids of all ages, including toddlers, were strictly required to stand still and quiet during the whole service. They were also required to give up their seats for adults, and it was strictly enforced, except for the service for children when they had priority seating. The kids’ service did not mean a kid could be rude, it only meant the intellectual level of the service was adjusted to the youngest minds. When a kid exceptionally tried to be disruptive, also during the kids’ service, the preacher required the parents to remove it and did it publicly, right from the pulpit using the microphone for everyone else to hear. It was an extreme shame for the parents to be brought to order for being disrespectful and an effective measure to provide peaceful services. It was not the “old good days” thing as that society still conducts services the same way now. When I travel to different countries and go to services of different denominations (driven by a traveler’s curiosity of the culture, not for worship), I never see or hear children being rude or being kept in separate places to prevent rudeness. They are strictly required to have basic respect just as I was.

The authors of the articles that promote the fad of more acceptance for extreme rudeness should rethink what they write because they have two problems. First – the information they spread is simply not true because parents not only do not try hard; they do not try at all. In these very few exceptional cases when they seem to try a little bit, they give the kid an order, let the kid totally ignore it, and do nothing to enforce it, thus, setting themselves for a total parental failure. Second – kids’ rudeness in public places is absolutely unacceptable and should never be promoted in the media or otherwise as normal kids’ behavior or as a behavior that should be accepted or excused by polite people. This approach is very harmful, not only for the society, but also for the kids themselves. Every attempt of unacceptable kids’ behavior must be curbed immediately when it starts. The society should strictly enforce order and respect.

The unconditional love myth

Childfree people in America often get nagged by those with kids about unconditional love. People who have kids imply in a very intrusive way that if their interlocutors choose not to have a kid, nobody will love them unconditionally. “Who will love you unconditionally?” or “You will never know what unconditional love is” it goes. But do American parents really experience unconditional love from their kids? Their behavior shows that they not only do not, but the kids’ love, if any, is strongly conditioned by bribes and concessions from their parents.

Seeing American parents kowtowing to their kids throws a shadow of doubt on their unconditional love statements. Do they really believe it, in spite of their behavior that proves the contrary? If so, they must be really naive. Do they not see that what they call “unconditional love” actually depends on constant bribing and catering to the kid?

It is very easy to observe anywhere in public places that American parents are scared that their kids will not love or even like them. They do not make any demands for proper and respectful behavior for fear that their precious snowflake will not like it and, in turn, not like the parent who made the demand. They beg the kid instead of giving clear and strict orders and put themselves at the mercy of the spoiled, bratty kid. “Please, please, would you please, you are hurting my feelings, please do not scream this much, do not hurt my feelings, please, please, please” is their way of telling a two or three year old to stop ear-piercing screaming in a public place where silence is a standard required behavior. “Keep quiet”, “stop it” or “quiet, right now!” with a strict, serious face (and an immediate smile after the kid complies) is enough to get a normal, well-trained kid to comply, and this is what millions of people all around the world successfully do. However, Americans not only lack those skills, they are also too insecure and have a constant need to kowtow to the kid for fear it will not love them. So, where is the unconditional love?

American parents do not require the kid to eat what they decide is good for it but give it too many choices, often unhealthy, and let the kid that is too young to make such decisions eat whatever it wants, just because it wants to. Wherever food is served, it is easy to notice frequent scenes of this kind. I also remember an article published quite a few years ago about a woman from California (actually occurred before the more recent case in San Francisco) who started an action to ban within the whole town a fast food meal choice that included a toy just because her two year old kid was harassing her (her own term) to buy it. This behavior is not only a terrible lack of child-rearing skills and the spine to say “no”, but also the mother’s insecurity that the kid will not love her. So, is this the unconditional love?

Americans stuff their kids’ mouths with candy bribes whenever they can and at a single kid’s whim. They fulfill kids’ orders obediently and immediately. They buy tons of toys just because the deity kid requested them, played with them for a short time, and after dumping them in a far corner to be forgotten, made requests for new ones that the insecure parents obediently bought. Even worse, if the parents buy a toy the king or queen does not like, they get yelled at, thrown insults at, and jump into the car to get the right one, terrified that the little dictator will not like them. Companies play marketing tricks on parents’ insecurity by offering more and more toys and tons of plastic add up in landfills, ruining our common heritage – the environment – just because someone who has a kid does not want to say “no”. So, where is the kid that loves unconditionally?

Love normally includes respect. American kids, however, disrespect their parents severely, and the parents let them do it terrified that they may not get “unconditional” love if they bring the kid to order. I heard kids, starting at a very young age, disrespect parents in public places with unmentionable insults, “stupid” being the lightest of them. I have heard young kids talk back to their parents in such a shameless and aggressive way that a normal parent in any other culture would react immediately with proper punishment. I have read outrageous stories of very young kids abusing their parents verbally and physically (no, not teens with criminal backgrounds, but preschool and early elementary school kids of middle and upper middle class parents), with parents doing nothing to counteract it, just complaining about it. I was appalled to see kids actually beat their parents in public places with no reaction on the adults’ side. So, does unconditional love really involve verbal and physical abuse?

In so many societies around the world, parents teach and train their kids strictly. They make demands and requests, they make the kids work, they punish the kids for any attempt of disobedience and disrespect, they are never at kids’ whim, to not kowtow to them, do not obey kids’ orders (kids would never dare to give orders to adults, they may only kindly ask), they would never let a kid talk back to them, not to mention a kid hitting an adult. Those kids do not have expensive toys and happily rely on what they invent to play with. They do not have designer clothes, some of them barely have any hand-me-down clothes at all. They do not get candy bribes, extracurricular classes, or expensive vehicles with permanently unemployed mothers to drive the kids.

Yet, these kids are happy, polite, and respectful. They love and obey their parents, respect them and, in the lack of reliable social security systems, take good care of them when they get old (nursing homes in these societies are scarce or nonexistent). It is a result of parents’ wisdom in loving and disciplining the kids accordingly. It is the child rearing skills passed on from generation to generation, leaned by living one’s life in a participating society, without succumbing to any fads of “parenting styles” but also the confidence that results from these skills. These parents are not insecure or terrified that their kids will not like them. They are sure of their kids’ unconditional love which indeed has no conditions or requirements just as their parents and grandparents were sure and confident.

Love is not about bribing. If a bribe is needed to get something, it is corruption, not love, and by no means is it unconditional. Worshiping and bribing kids, putting them on a pedestal as the center of the universe, and kowtowing to them is harmful for both the kids and the society as a whole. It spoils the kids, makes them extremely rude, self-centered, and entitled. Just look around, this deplorable result is clearly visible (and especially audible) in all sorts of public places. Kids must be disciplined wisely, by responsible, confident adults not terrified or insecure that the kid will not like them. The unconditional love will follow as a result of the proper child rearing process.

Defining women through procreation

When non-American women are introduced, their professional position, job title, education, and achievements are mentioned. The same is true when women introduce themselves. Whether they appear in the media or in other professional settings, they are labeled and label themselves as professionals and experts in their discipline, their reproductive choices not being mentioned, as they are something that belongs to the private sphere not to be discussed publicly. Americans, however, tend to define women through procreation. Not only does the media label women this way, but also women tend to picture themselves as mothers whether is it relevant in the situation presented or not. Also, the emotional term of “mom”, not the biological term of “mother” is used in relation to a stranger.

Some of the examples are article authors’ introductions in the media: Jane Smith, mom, wife, lawyer or Jane Smith, mom of 3, author, doctor, the term “mom” often being capitalized in the middle of a sentence. Where European, Latin American, or African media focus on the characteristics relevant for the information presented, the American ones not only bring up the person’s private information on her reproductive choice, but also put it in the first position, before all the achievements she had to work so hard for. Another example are news articles like: Washington Mom Sues the State Over (here comes the reason completely unrelated to her status as a mother) and further down the article mentions that the woman in question also happens to be a highly educated professional in a prestigious field. Why not a “Washington Scientist” then?

This way of defining women seems to be so deeply rooted in the culture and so strongly and persistently drummed into women’s heads that they do not seem to notice that there is something wrong here. While their European counterparts would protest against this gender discriminating approach, American women not only do nothing about it but also internalize it as a way of defining themselves, regardless of their scientific or other achievements. I have never encountered this approach in other societies, not even when talking to a civil society activist in a remote Angolan village who had a baby in a scarf attached to her back. She never mentioned anything kid-related in a professional interview even if her society is known as conservative and kids are very important in her culture.

American women not only introduce themselves or let others introduce them as “mom” but also label their cars this way. Proud Army mom, proud Air Force mom, volleyball mom, swim mom, gymnastics mom, insert-any-sport-discipline mom, are widespread in kid-obsessed America. When I first saw a bumper sticker “hockey mom” on a vehicle, I was still very innocent about the kid-obsessed culture. I thought this meant that the car owner plays hockey and happens to have a kid as well. When my friend corrected me, I was shocked that the person in question defines herself through the kid or as an attachment to the kid. All of us, not only successful professionals, have certain qualities that distinguish us from the others, like fast knitter, sunflower grower, or pet rescuer. If a person has a need to be exhibitionist about her privacy, it can be done in a thousand ways, not necessarily through the kids. At that time, however, I had no idea that in kid-obsessed America there is no life besides kids.

When trying to buy a book from an online book store, I was struck by lightning. A book review started: “As a busy mother of 3…” This one at least was not as emotion-loaded as the ones using “mom” instead of “mother”. But anyway, the book subject matter was not even distantly related to kids. At that point I skipped to the next one. I have no reason to read a review written by someone who has no identity apart from reproduction. People can be busy with many things, not necessarily by having a kid. However, it looks as though in this kid-worshiping society women were programmed to be walking wombs that do not exist without a kid and cannot imagine that it could be any different.

Another story comes from a supermarket. I could not find an item so I asked about it. I was told: “see that mom at that aisle? It is right there”. The salesperson labeled a complete stranger she knew nothing about just because that lady happened to be with a kid. Maybe she was a sitter, an aunt, an elder sister, any other relative or a friend? No, she was described with the emotional term of “mom”. If I asked the same question anywhere else, I would get an answer: “see that person in a red sweater and blue jeans?” or “see that woman with long brown hair?”. Not in kid-obsessed America. Here a woman is described as a “mom”.

The most shocking comment to me was what my non-American friend heard from a salesperson in a women’s clothing chain store in New Jersey. My friend is a highly achieving professional and out of the blue she was told the following about her successful career: “when your husband makes you a kid everything will end”. She was left speechless. Very assertive as she is she could not say anything in self-defense because in her worse nightmares she would not imagine that not only a woman may say something like this to another woman but also as a customer she did not expect this level of disrespect from a salesperson. The same actually happened to her in a doctor’s office in the same state when she was told something very similar by a nurse. Similar to my reaction to the bumper sticker, she was then new to the kid-obsessed culture and too shocked to act. Coming from a modern European city she could simply not imagine that a Western society can be so backward. Now she says she would definitely sue both companies and make sure that the two women would be fired.

What other Western society has an expression of “career woman”? In modern societies a career is a normal part of life for both men and women and no labels are used because there is no need for them. In this kid-obsessed society, however, women are nagged by friends, relatives, coworkers and complete strangers about their reproductive plans, and patronized or condescended based on their answer. It seems like in America uteri are public property, open for anyone to look into and comment. Strangers, instead of talking about something neutral like weather, literature, music, or art, nosily interfere in women’s privacy and reserve themselves the right to make negative remarks or even harass women who say they are not interested in procreation. On the other hand, these women are unable to defend themselves from aggressive interference or even are afraid that any self-defense would be impolite (and what is the intrusive interference if not a lack of basic manners in its extreme version?) and end up cornered and humiliated.

The American society needs to stop treating women like attachments to a kid and learn basic manners and respect. American women need to be much more assertive in defending themselves and more willing to show that they have identity, personality, and achievements apart from a kid and that these characteristics are equally or more valid in comparison with procreation.