People should really clarify what ages they're talking about when they argue about childhood independence and whether parents are too controlling. 15-year-olds are much more similar psychologically and biologically to adults than to children, and yet legally and culturally they're considered children, with a range of restrictions on their behavior that would seem unthinkable if applied to 30-year-olds. This, in my view, is madness.
I think it's clearly reasonable to liberate teenagers and give them adult-like freedoms (freedom to drop out of school, work, own property, etc.). But I don't think that means we should necessarily let 5-year-olds control their medical decisions or even their bedtimes.
Agreed, I think I should have clarified that I'm only talking about younger kids, and I expect this to change as they grow older.
Agreed. Also good parents can tell reasonably well when their kids are mature enough to have freedoms, like for some it might be closer to 11, for others closer to 15.
My thought process is "would my kid endorse me having restricted their freedom in this way when they reflect on it as an adult". I'd make a best-effort prediction of this based on the kid's personality and qualities.
My son, 12, is fairly quiet and strongly self-directed. He works hard, studies hard, games hard and follows instruction. As long as I don't push on him too much, he responds well. He has a strong sense of fairness. He does his chores when asked so the living relationship is very easy. I learned the hard way that he tends to clam up and be less responsive if I over dad him.
My daughter, 8, is a firecracker. Extremely extroverted, wants to meet everyone, talks incessantly, never cleans her room, hates to study, changes clothes six times a day. Getting her to learn to flush the toilet when she was younger was a battle. Getting her to throw away trash was (still is) a battle. Getting her to do any kind of chore is always pulling teeth. She's an incredible, lovely person, but also a hot mess. She responds better when given structure between periods of freedom.
A problem with parental discourse is that a parent who has a certain experience wants to write as if the techniques that they learned are the authoritative guide to parenting success. This will often not look like a parenting model someone else would want to adopt or should adopt for their own children, based on their own good read on their kids' personalities.
Even this idea of having two kids who are very different in their behavior will seem alien to someone who has three kids who all behave similarly or all respond well to a similar set of techniques. Other parents will immediately understand, but their kids won't lie on the same axis of divergence in behavior.
The baseline for most parenting advice is to generalize from personal experience (whether as a child, or as a parent) in a way that fails to understand the broad diversity in (healthy) parent-child dynamics that can exist. Or to generalize from a moral frame into rules that ignore the specific parent-child personality interaction.
The baseline for most parenting advice is to generalize from personal experience (whether as a child
Also reminds me of
There's a lot of data on teaching methods that students enjoy and learn from. I had some of these methods...inflicted...on me during my school days, and I had no intention of abusing my own students in the same way. And when I tried the sorts of really creative stuff I would have loved as a student...it fell completely flat. What ended up working? Something pretty close to the teaching methods I'd hated as a kid. Oh. Well. Now I know why people use them so much. And here I'd gone through life thinking my teachers were just inexplicably bad at what they did, never figuring out that I was just the odd outlier who couldn't be reached by this sort of stuff.
That said, for all the reasons above I end up needing to override my children's decisions and force them to do what I want them to do about every 5 minutes.
Hmmm. This feels like a lot. Every kid is different and has unique needs, but assuming your kids aren't too far out of distribution, I think there is a path to giving your kids more autonomy and you more peace of mind.
Before you write me off, I should say that I too, left to my own devices, often feel compelled to override and control my kids (ages 2 and 5). The big turning point for my parenting approach has been reading Hunt, Gather, Parent by Michaeleen Doucleff. The big thesis of that book is that children thrive if given more autonomy, which more closely approximates childhood in an ancestral environment. The book is well worth the read.
After reading the book, I've learned to pause and avoid intervening prematurely. I'm sure the strategy has lead to more scraped knees but I think it's been well worth the trade in terms of my kids being more autonomous and feeling more respected. I am far from perfect in implementing everything Hunt, Gather, Parent has to teach (because I am also a tired, busy parent), but I've found my kids have been pretty merciful toward me when I apologize to them. They also like walking me to time out when I deserve it.
Edit: Lest it sound like the only advice from the book is "intervene less", here are a few of the takeaways that have stuck with me. Still better to read the whole book.
I'm not sure how much your and Jefftk's (or Aella's) approaches or attitude really differ. I sure can imagine needing to intervene every five minutes with a 1, 3, and 5-year-olds. I had boys that ages, four in fact, and at that age, you have a very busy life. And much of that is intervening: Taking away a thing that can break or hurt, "No, you can't bite the candle." Moderating play between them. "Don't bite." Limiting action that causes a mess to clean up. "Stop throwing the Bolognese." Sure that gets less, but if there is a sibling misalignment, you may be able to moderate and train is, but it may change and resurface as they age and learn. Two of my boys were great playmates most of the time but due to incompatible temperaments and perception got into conflicts at least every week, and that meant fighting, hitting, kicking of different types. Strategies, weapons, and defenses were invented. And despite all our best efforts at arguing, practicing, pleading, this went on and off until late teenagehood. And then suddenly stopped for good without any clear reason why. I was so relieved anyway.

ghiblified to protect the innocent
But I can also interpret what you say as you try your best to see them as people you do not own, whom you help develop their own personality and follow their own goals. I had many arguments with my children and listened to their positions and didn't overrule them just because I could (I did have a tie-breaking vote in the family council though).
It would maybe help if you could describe a specific intervention with your 5-year-old in more detail.
And despite all our best efforts at arguing, practicing, pleading, this went on and off until late teenagehood. And then suddenly stopped for good without any clear reason why. I was so relieved anyway.
I believe this is completely normal! At least, the same seemed to happen in my family (where I'm the oldest of seven, all homeschooled).
Also, due to my position I have some experience in managing this without myself being able to resort to coercion (due to also being a child). The main thing that helps is simply distraction. Secondarily, mediating what often end up being communication errors and pointing out possible trades. And thirdly, imposing social costs or providing a shield to the victim (often literally lol).
The main thing that helps is simply distraction
The potential long-term cost of this is that it doesn't teach conflict resolution. I have a strong learned response to seek distraction any time I am uncomfortable, but I don't want to pass that on to my children.
True, but a cost issue. My mother (of six) also used distraction a lot. It is a cheap, quick, and low-coercive intervention.
However Aella doesn't have any children, and I suspect that once she does she will discover that she ends up needing to discipline her children far more often than she expected.
That's dirty pool.
I myself have some pretty strong beliefs about how much consideration and autonomy children should get. Having read your post and Aella's, I'd say my view is much closer to hers than to yours (and my own childhood was nothing like hers; if anything I probably got fewer absolute commands and less punishment than most). I didn't become a parent until late. One among many reasons for that was that I was afraid I wouldn't be able to meet my own standards on those issues.
Before I became a parent, I'd get into discussions about the status and autonomy of children and it seemed I constantly heard "You're not [1] a parent; you can't know" used as an all-purpose argument.
Then I did become a parent... and my view didn't change much. Although I had to make compromises (and mistakes), there weren't as many as I feared. Probably the biggest sacrifice of her autonomy was the whole "school" thing; that still bothers me a lot even though she never much seemed to mind. But what I never had to do was to adopt an attitude that accepted such compromises as the "default". Not through my daughter's entire childhood. She's 18 now.
That's N=1, and I am pretty sure that my kid was an unusually easy case. But even if I'd had to make more compromises, I have trouble believing I'd have had to give in to depriving somebody of agency as the standard approach, or sink to "because I said so".
Absent parent intervention children will be hitting each other every 5 minutes.
That's not my experience, and I don't just mean of my own kid. Even quite young children can spend plenty of time in even quite large groups without that happening. Something is wrong if kids are constantly hitting each other.
Unfortunately most parents are of average intelligence, busy, and tired. If your solution to chattel childhood doesn't account for that, it's not a general solution (but may work for you as an individual parent).
This presumes that it's OK to become a parent under such circumstances. As part of my solution, am I allowed to suggest that it might not be?
The word "not" here was embarassingly added on edit... ↩︎
Agree with parts of this but on the whole this comment seems pretty extreme.
> This presumes that it's OK to become a parent under such circumstances. As part of my solution, am I allowed to suggest that it might not be?
You realize tfr would be like .2 if people actually behaved like this? I know this is a little tangential but I feel like this instantly can be thrown out with reductio ad absurdum.
> Something is wrong if kids are constantly hitting each other.
Strongly disagree. It is extremely normal and probably even beneficial for pre pubescent kids, especially boys, to get physical. Depends on the context of course, just slapping people in the face for no reason would imply something is wrong. ordinary pushing, grabbing, wrestling, toy conflict escalation, and sibling roughness are not by themselves evidence that anything wrong.
In general yes it seems to me you are way overindexing on your child being easy. Even an average kid will be way more problematic to many parents with your attitude and walk all over you.
You realize tfr would be like .2 if people actually behaved like this?
I don't see that as a problem.
I mean, yes, people aren't going to buy into it. But those same people aren't going to listen to any "solution" I (or anybody here) come up with, so it's actually no more unrealistic than anything else I could say.
Strongly disagree. It is extremely normal and probably even beneficial for pre pubescent kids, especially boys, to get physical.
"Every 5 minutes"? No, sorry. I was a prepubescent boy. It was a rare month in which I hit anybody or was hit by anybody. I've watched parks and day cares full of kids who were not hitting each other or even shoving each other. Wrestling as a game, perhaps.
That's not my experience, and I don't just mean of my own kid. Even quite young children can spend plenty of time in even quite large groups without that happening. Something is wrong if kids are constantly hitting each other.
Big difference between siblings and non-siblings. Even kids who never ever hit other kids get into physical fights with their siblings. A lot.
I had a sibling, we didn't get along all that well, he was the person with whom I got into the most physical fights, and we didn't hit each other every 5 minutes, or anything remotely within extreme hyperbole range of 5 minutes, at any age I can remember, and I believe not at any age at all. We were kind of far apart in age for that, though... so I have to fall back on the fact neither did anybody else I knew then or now. That is an insane level. You wouldn't have time to do anything else. And we definitely wouldn't have done anything like that anywhere where our parents could do anything about it... even though in most cases the correction would have been more like a disapproving remark, only sometimes sharp disapproval, than physical restraint or any kind of punishment.
I don't think "every 5 minutes" is to be interpreted literally. After all, that would imply the siblings sleep in shifts so that one is always able to hit the other. (Or that they are in a constant boxing match throughout their waking hours to compensate for the lack of hitting during sleep.)
Most days, my children (3 and 5) have periods of the day (usually toward the evening) in which they have exhausted their patience for trying to talk it out and they hit each other at least every five minutes, unless we keep them separated. They also have periods in which they reason, empathise, and negotiate better than many adults I've met. The latter periods are rare, but getting more frequent with age.
My wife has been worried about the amount of hitting, so we have talked to child psychologists about it, and they claim it is well within a couple standard deviations. That doesn't have to mean anything, of course, but the data on this is sparse, as one could imagine.
That was not my experience with my two brothers close in age (one twin, one two years older). We never hit or fought each other. Now, we did have a younger brother with anger issues who frequently attacked us. The attacking isn't my evidence of anger issues, just a symptom. He didn't attack people at school, so I guess that's evidence other people, even without anger issues, might hit siblings but not non-siblings.
This presumes that it's OK to become a parent under such circumstances. As part of my solution, am I allowed to suggest that it might not be?
If there was a moral rule that forbid most parents from becoming parents and this rule was widely followed, then we'd be facing an even more drastic fertility decline and population collapse than we're seeing now. Possibly enough to wipe out humanity within some generations (assuming no drastic transhumanism like indefinite life extension in the meanwhile).
Populations would initially collapse, but then people who follow the rule will exponentially increase the population.
Are you supposing that the majority of children of allowed-parents would themselves qualify to be parents? If the trait was only weakly correlated across generations, then the exponential argument might remain less than unity for many generations.
I am assuming that there are sub-sub-subcultures which will have higher success rates of instilling this trait in would-be parents and at least one will have higher than replacement rate. Maybe a fertility cult that happens to give lots of child autonomy.
I don't think that would occur until we got to apocalypse levels of depopulation where a modern economy simply dissolves due to lack of workers. My assumption (given I and my wife are both highly intelligent, well off, are non-violent, don't suffer from any significant physical or mental health issues, and are generally reasonable people) is that we are in the top say 10% of parents in terms of child welfare. If we don't make the cut, and TFR is already about 1.5 without this rule, then in one generation world population would be 90% less, and if the desired traits aren't maximally heritable, another generation would see it drop to 95-99%.
Yes, that's why I said populations would initially collapse. I think you are missing that there are already groups of people who would qualify, live close enough together (or would be willing to relocate), and instill that culture on their children. And if there isn't, I expect some religious cults will quickly spawn once the gods reveal themselves and start enforcing this new moral law.
There definitely will... eventually. What bad things happen in between when we have 1 billion people too old to support themselves and 300 million working age people? When food prices go through the roof because there's not farmers to produce food for everyone? When supply lines collapse because the modern economy is built on a certain density of population and minimum demand that no longer exists.
Kids, especially little kids, still need guidance but I think you're missing the point here. Children nowadays are very coddled compared to the past, and that seems to be genuinely stunting their emotional growth into maturity. My parents had tons of stories about them going out and playing in the woods only coming home for lunch and dinner. My mom would go biking miles away with her friends and explore the world around them, interacting with people all over and learning independence. Now half of parents apparently don't even let their 9-11 year olds go to another aisle alone!. I've seen kids now still have babysitters at the age where my peers were the babysitters. Kids would be working the farms for their parents, carry buckets water and clean up the house, look after younger siblings. Benjamin Franklin was an apprentice printer at 12 years old. David Farragut was famously in charge of a captured British whaler at that same age during the war of 1812. Page apprenticeships in the medieval times started at 7 years old. Even today across the poor part of the world, child labor is the norm. I'm not expecting every kid to be a Ben Franklin or a Farragut, and I don't think we should be pushing for much child labor anymore when our society can go without that and parents don't want it for their kids, but when push comes to shove most children are way more capable than we give them credit for once you start actually expecting it from them. Modern wealth just allows us to coddle our kids in a way that the people of the past and the modern global poor don't get, and we've forgotten just how independent the children really can be.
Heck in Japan, there's a long running reality show about toddlers going to the local store and getting groceries. Now obviously I'm not saying toddlers should be expected to do everything perfectly, but contrast that with not even allowing an 11 year old into another aisle.
However I do try and remember whenever my children request something to stop and think about it for a second instead of automatically saying no.
Small thing, but with children age 3 and 5 I have started to say "Yes, if you can sort out the logistics of it."
Most of the things I deny my children aren't because I don't want them to have it or do it, but because I cannot find a way to fit it into our resource constraints, be it time, equipment, money, health, etc.
When my children respond to that with a genuine interest in trying to make it work, I inform them of the constraints and they ask feasibility questions. Sometimes they do come up with a plan that actually works! Most often they realise it would be too much work to be worth the payoff, and they think of something else to do instead.
(Given the topic of person vs. property at hand, I should also say that half the time my challenge is met with screaming demands that I must make it happen. Then, in my mind, they have used up their chance to act as a person and chosen to be "merely a child", and I have to bluntly deny the wish without further discussion. (I might still try to explain it, depending on how much my patience has been drained already.))
I also don't have kids, and don't have particularly strong opinions on how other people choose to parent their kids. I do think that we as a society have collectively raised the bar of what counts as a good parent far higher than it ever was before, and it seems incredibly unlikely a priori that all those recent changes are helpful, let alone helpful enough to be worth the demands they put on parents. But I can say that by the time I was 3 and in pre-school, we weren't getting intervention from adults every 5 minutes. And by kindergarten at 5 it was much less often still. Groups of us would go whole hours or days without anyone hitting anyone else. I think the only time I got hit by anyone from age 4 on was one time in 6th grade? First, because yes, if you did, you got punished enough to not want it to happen again. And second, because you learned that if the adults didn't punish you for whatever reason, the other kids would. Maybe that's part of what's been lost? The willingness to have a society of kids that internally regulates by dealing with its own problems, even if it does so in ways the adults may not prefer? Letting kids take on more of certain kinds of risk as the price of autonomy, and deal with the consequences of when it goes poorly?
I think that hugely depends on temperemant of the child. I was constantly getting into fights til labout the age of 11. Not in a bad way, they were mostly good fun, but yeah lots of fighting.
Interesting. All of my friends at that age were too nerdy to want to do that kind of fighting. I did martial arts, but that's a controlled setting, and also made it very obvious why real fighting is undesirable.
I'm genuinely curious, then: If in your case you said this was in good fun, do you think it would have been an improvement had adults constantly intervened to prevent those fights? Where do you, personally, draw a distinction between unacceptable fighting and acceptable roughhousing? Do you consider it plausible that kids are fighting in part because they've never really had the opportunity to learn through direct experience that actual fighting is bad, and also to learn how to tamp it down to play-fighting that all involved parties enjoy? What alternatives to actual fighting are available to kids today that achieve the kinds of social and physical goals/roles that good-natured fighting served in your own childhood?
we don't have the sort of personality that would cope with looking after children all day - we are drained every weekend and school vacations take a lot of mental preparation.
to my read, everything in the post seems downstream of this: the kids are a problem to be solved, not friends whose company to enjoy.
sorry, how?
i don't deny that kids are a lot of work. i don't deny that parenting can be very tiring/frustrating/interminable.
i actually have no particular criticism or judgment of the op: they are doing their best to raise a family. they are taking the actions which, by their measure, will result in the best outcomes for them and their kids. i believe this is what they should (continue to) do!
however, i guess i don't understand the point of op's essay, if not to elicit this sort of feedback.
Contra Aella on chattel childhood
Aella has a post where she argues that today's parents don't sufficiently respect the independence of their children:
It's a hard hitting piece, and it certainly makes me, and presumably other parents, feel uncomfortable.
Unfortunately I don't actually see much of an alternative. Aella seems to think it's as easy as not treating your children as property:
However Aella doesn't have any children, and I suspect that once she does she will discover that she ends up needing to discipline her children far more often than she expected.
So I think it's worth going over the different reasons why I, as a parent of a 5,3, and 1 year old, can't just let my kids do what they want. Everything here only applies to very young children, and I know that teenagers are a whole different ball game.
Most parents aren't perfect:
I'm going to start off by saying that sufficiently skilled, patient and kind parents can handle most of these situations without ending up at loggerheads with their child. Jefftk seems like just such a parent and his posts have given me a lot to think about.
Unfortunately most parents are of average intelligence, busy, and tired. If your solution to chattel childhood doesn't account for that, it's not a general solution (but may work for you as an individual parent).
So read this less as "parenting is impossible", and more as "being a good parent is really hard, and don't blame parents who you think are stifling their kids independence".
And every child is different. Read all of these as arguments about particular types of children, not fully general statements about all children.
Children are a danger to themselves...
There's the obvious point here, namely that toddlers will run straight in front of a passing car as if they have a desperate desire to get crushed. Your only option is to pull them away whenever you see them heading off into the road and making the situation sufficiently unpleasant that they won't treat it as a game and go straight back out the moment your back is turned.
Even when they get older they still can't be fully trusted by themselves. Our 5 year old knows not to go on the road, but doesn't always look when he's crossing the neighbours drive. If we want him to eventually be allowed to walk places by himself, we have to continuously drill into him that checking a drive before you cross it is important.
But there's a more general point, which is that because children can't keep themselves safe in a large variety of situations, you can't give them the independence they crave, which drives some of the problems discussed later on.
... and others
Aella recognises that sometimes you do have to step in:
However what I think Aella is missing is just how common this is. Absent parent intervention children will be hitting each other every 5 minutes. They'll do it to see how the other child reacts, because the other child's annoying them, because they want the other child's toy, or because they're jealous that their younger sibling is taking their parent's attention.
The only reason my children hit each other "just" a couple of times a day is because they have learnt, through lots of unpleasant interactions, that if they do hit they will get in more trouble than its worth.
Parents have a life too
I agree that homeschooling can teach kids far more efficiently than school. I agree that schools are deeply problematic on many levels.
Unfortunately my wife and I work, and even if we didn't we don't have the sort of personality that would cope with looking after children all day - we are drained every weekend and school vacations take a lot of mental preparation.
So we don't have much choice but to send them to school. And if they're in school, unfortunately they're going to have to do homework, however pointless it is, because otherwise they'll just end up in a spiral of trouble at school which will make them far more miserable than just forcing them to do their homework. At least though I can help them speed through it by teaching them how to use ChatGPT at a young age.
Similiarly my kids often want to go to a park, or shops, or wherever, but they can't yet go on their own. So I am forced to say no to them if it doesn't work for me - especially as I have 3, each with their own demands.
It's for your own good you know!
When my children don't have enough sleep, they are grumpy. They will spend the entire day tantruming whenever something doesn't go exactly their way, and exactly their way includes things like dropping a toy on the floor, getting too much/little milk with their cereal, or me not instantly responding to their every demand.
This obviously doesn't make anyone happy, least of all themselves. But left to their own devices they'll fall asleep at about 11 in a pile of toys on the floor, wake up at 5 AM, and proceed to have a horrible day. So I am forced to put them to sleep at 7.30, and train them not to wake up till 6 by forcing them to go back to bed if they wake up early until their body clock adjusts and they do that naturally. Then every time they have a late night or the clock changes we have to do it again.
Many kids will also refuse to go to the doctor, learn to read, get dressed, go to the toilet etc. without a steady mix of carrot and stick. I don't think an attitude where your child can decide whether or not they should wear a diaper for the rest of their life actually leads to them being better off.
But can't you still treat them like a person?
Of course I love my kids, and I definitely view them as people - they each have incredible and unique personalities.
That said, for all the reasons above I end up needing to override my children's decisions and force them to do what I want them to do about every 5 minutes. As they grow older that number decreases, but slowly.
At that frequency it's not practical to try to reason with them each time, or have an attitude where in principle they have autonomy but in this one instance we have to override it. Instead what actually works, and in fact reduces the amount of pain and suffering for both child and parent is to have a clear rule where the child just has to do whatever the parent says, and that's that. If the child understands that, it allows you to get whatever needs to be done out the way quickly and painlessly and move on to them doing what they want to do. If you sometimes give in, then everything turns into a fight, which actually ends up far less pleasant for everyone.
I don't like this. I hated the idea of calling my child a "good boy" just for listening to me, as opposed to acting morally. But unfortunately, it's what works, and I, mediocre parent that I am, don't actually have a better option.
However I do try and remember whenever my children request something to stop and think about it for a second instead of automatically saying no. It's easy to get into a habit of refusing every time they ask to go to a restaurant, or a park, or a shop that you never say yes, even when it does work for you and them. Fighting this habit is an important task.