Never let anyone tell you that our current standard of "normal" is normal. It's only the pressures of the world that make teenagers retract from their parents.
Every emotion you've ever felt has been developed, whether by God or by hundreds of thousands of years of natural selection. Conscious thought may deliver us to emotion, but the emotion that you arrive at is something that has always been inside of you. When feel something isn't right, it's a good indicator that something isn't the way it's supposed to be. There's no reason that the world would be made in a way where mothers of teenage daughters are supposed to be miserable and shut out. There's no reason that the transition of growing from a baby to becoming an adult should not be smooth and untraumatic for all involved parties. What is the evolutionary advantage of making mothers miserable as a necessary part of producing offspring?
The idea that the family has become such a secondary consideration in modern society, to the point that this mother is advocating to others mothers about the opportunity to vicariously know your own child via the Internet... It's nothing short of heartbreaking.
Nothing is more certain in my mind than the idea that it doesn't have to be this way, and historically has not been this way. Kids have been sexualized and have to grow up too quickly. Kids have been made into tiny workers that do busy work for most of their childhood, away from their parents, because both parents have to work.
> Kids have been sexualized and have to grow up too quickly. Kids have been made into tiny workers that do busy work for most of their childhood, away from their parents, because both parents have to work.
> It's dystopian, disgusting and perverted
Correct me if I'm wrong, but for most of history, weren't "kids" already married and working to support a family when they were in their teens?
I know my grandparents, my great-grandparents, and a few before them were married before they turned 18. And two of my grandparents told me they worked at a factory when they were around 7!
Add to the fact that if you got married and then moved to another state, it could be years before you see your parents again.
After my paternal great-grandmother got married at 16 and moved across the country, she never saw her parents again. They did exchange letters but that was it. And according to my grandfather (her son), it was pretty common.
Yeah this is very not new at all. Before industrialization they were tiny workers that did actual work on the farm when both parents were working. Those lucky enough to be nobility were trained from a young age in the various areas a noble needed to know.
Marriages tended to be a bit older among peasants just because there was 'less of a point' but nobility had marriages at 12 or so - and not even always with a comparable age partner. Certainly not stating that this is /right/ but the point is that normal doesn't really mean much and don't look to the past for arcadia.
Really historically if anything kids are growing up 'slower' than they were for centuries - and that is a far better adaptation to our current needs - we need more skilled specialist work outproduces manual labor thousand fold.
And beyond all that, puberty is when our bodies start telling us we're adults, while society tells us we're not. A large part of teenage rebellion seems to stem from that disconnect.
I think your sentiment is well-meaning but maybe a bit dangerous. It's setting up an unrealistic expectation of how adolescence "should" be, which risks leading parents to blame themselves or their kids when it doesn't turn out that way. Because it's extremely unlikely to turn out that way.
Adolescents are frequently at odds with their parents for the same reason 3 year olds are famous for temper tantrums: because it is part of the normal development of the human mind. Infants make no distinction between themselves and their parents; adults understand the difference completely. It takes about 18-20 years for that to develop, and there are well-known milestones along the way.
Teenage/parent conflict is certainly not a new phenomenon. You can find examples in stories almost as far back as there are records of stories.
> Conscious thought may deliver us to emotion, but the emotion that you arrive at is something that has always been inside of you.
Emotion precedes conscious thought; a big part of growing up is learning how to use conscious thought to identify, understand, and manage emotions. For very young children, emotion can be terrifying; it's great to feel happy but suddenly they might feel bad, angry, have scary thoughts, etc.--and it's all unexpected and unexplained. Teenage years are difficult because an entirely new set of powerful emotions, related to love and sex, emerge and the teenage conscious mind has to learn how to deal with them.
> What is the evolutionary advantage of making mothers miserable as a necessary part of producing offspring?
The answer to this obvious: to improve the fitness of the offspring. Conflict with parents happens during adolescence because adolescents are learning to how to be independent adults, and that means challenging authority.
Much respect to moms, but evolution does not give a shit about the mom once the offspring develops reproductive ability. Evolution does not give a shit about anything, really; I would not look to evolution to explain why people should be good to their moms.
> Teenage/parent conflict is certainly not a new phenomenon. You can find examples in stories almost as far back as there are records of stories.
So are conflicts between siblings of any age or spouses or friends. We however do not treat good relationship between the two as exception and toxic relationship as expected development the way some do it with teenagers.
Also, as a parent in current society, I suspect it is not so much child starting to see itself as distinct from parent at age of 14 (the kid should get it sooner), but more of parent loosing control. Teenagers were and will be moody and emotional due to biological reasons. However, a lot of other conflicts has to do with expectations and lifestyles.
> The idea that the family has become such a secondary consideration in modern society, to the point that this mother is advocating to others mothers about the opportunity to vicariously know your own child via the Internet... It's nothing short of heartbreaking.
Great point. At the same time, I think there is an evolutionary pressure to rebel and fight against parental control. Those that were obedient and stayed quietly at home might have never ventured out to explore and discover new things. Eventually those that did, ended up spreading their genes better so to speak. If parent don't know what you're doing, they can't control you and tell you what to do.
Also I think at one level, parents might say, "don't stay up late", "don't date this or that person", "don't to go the dance club". But at the same time if the child listened and actually stayed in the house and were as obedient as the parent insists, they might eventually disappoint the parent.
Another thing that I observed is that some parents cannot handle this rebelliousness well and it spirals out of control. Ultimatums being uttered, other drastic measures, police being called etc.
I think that children used to be independent much earlier before humans invented agriculture. By your mid to late teens your body is developed enough to survive on your own and have children of your own. The evolutionary advantage in a hunter-gatherer society of making parents miserable is encouraging offspring from separating from their parents to start families of their own and not compete for the same resources. You see it with all kinds of animals.
And if I'm not mistaken it wasn't at all unusual until fairly recently for daughters to be married off and for sons to start an apprenticeship in their late teens. Only the necessity for decades of education for getting a job keeps children dependent on their parents so long.
Through most of history, in terms of "general", "average" lifestyle both parents have worked from dawn to dusk doing manual labor or. If they saw their (over ~6 yo) children during this time it was because the children were working with them.
It's always been normal for children to grow up and be less known to their parents.
20 years ago the same people would complain how their kids would go to the mall and they'd never know what they were doing.
The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. -- Socrates, ~420BC.
This famous quote by Socrates was likely make up by William L. Patty and Louise S. Johnson in Personality and Adjustment on page 277 in the fifties (1953). If Plato actually did mention this as a saying of Socrates was later (1966) researched and evidence of the quote existing was found lacking.[1]
Actually.. It's not as simple as that (of course).
There are no primary sources of Socrates, so there are questions around anything from him.
However, in this case it seems to have come from a summary of Greek thinking written by Kenneth John Freeman in 1907[1]. It seems likely one of his sources was "a paraphrase of a quote (lines 961–985) from Aristophanes' The Clouds, a comedic play known for its caricature of Socrates."[2]
This information apparently came to light when Google Books scanned the Freeman essay, so the researcher quoted by Bartleby (in 1966) didn't know of it.
Furthermore, Plato did complain about this behavior[3] and much of what we know of Socrates comes via Plato.
Edit:
Doing some primary sources research on Google books found the quote used in a 1947 newspaper edition[4]! And here is another from 1944[5].
That's interesting.. although I can't access the source itself so perhaps Google has mis-parsed the date?
> The idea that the family has become such a secondary consideration in modern society, to the point that this mother is advocating to others mothers about the opportunity to vicariously know your own child via the Internet...
Teenagers have been sneaking around behind their parents' backs, trying to assert their own newfound agency and independence, long before the Internet existed. I'm sure parents in the 1960s worried about their 16 years olds "smoking the reefer" and socializing together in groups, late at night, without adult supervision.
I don't think it's unusual at all for a teenager to consciously make a decision not to share every detail of their personal life with their parents, so it's logical that if you want to know what they're really discussing amongst their peer group, look at their social media profiles.
When she was fourteen, my wife's mother was sent out to work in a carpet factory by her parents. Because that was the earliest age at which she could be withdrawn from school. The past was not an Eden from which we have been outcast.
> evolution
All that evolution can promise is strategies that have a reasonably good chance of perpetuating some of your genetics. It certainly doesn't promise to keep you happy or even alive after you've had children.
Children always had peer influence.
But the accessible sexualized media streams -- have become an overpowering influence.
It is so powerful, that many have been brainwashed to think that it is 'normal' and just the sign of modern times.
Just like you, I do not think so.
Just looking at the salary/compensation of the folks in the enterainment industry (moves/sports/etc) -- it shows how disproportion their influence and reach is, compared to any other historical presedent.
Clearly, enterntainer skills have been 'multipled' by the TV, and now internet explosion. That makes them very influential as well as accessible.
It is not engineers/statesman/doctors/accomplished military personnel -- that drive the 'standards' and the influence.
It is, instead the folks from sports, entertainment and fashion industries.
They have their own set of standards (or whatever you might call that) -- it is based on sexuality, appearance, being funny, being dismissive and 'outspoken' for something.
The above traits, when fire-housed on our kids through the they information channels, are very difficult for us as parents -- to manage/reason about.
You could be right. But evolution is full of examples of adversity and pain in the short run has long term benefits. Illness breeds resistance, bacteria strengthen the immune system, exertion leads to regrowth of stronger muscles. Perhaps the transition to adulthood must be difficult and tough and painful and challenging simply because an adult is a person that has faced all that and learned and grown stronger, smarter and kinder?
Where was their childhood when my parents had to go look for the sheep in the mountains all by themselves, even as they had just started in school? When their favorite little lamb that they had cared for for years became dinner? When the parents were too busy trying to scrape together enough food for winter to play with them or look after them? My point isn't that things were much worse then, but that it's never been easy. Things are just difficult in a different way.
Maybe, maybe not - something doesn’t have to be pleasant to be advantageous and unpleasant things can be selected either directly or for other reasons.
I would also guess that sexuality is delayed later today than historically.
Childhood has changed a lot in recent centuries.[0] Now, in most developed nations, at least, it's child-focused. And as hard as that may sometimes be for parents, it's a great thing.
0) The History of Childhood by Lloyd DeMause (1995).
One theory exists that teenagers sleep cycle is offset from parents so that they can more easily socialise with each other without parental interference.
There could be plenty of reasons our hormones have evolved to make us act in ways that parents do not like.
The author's attempt to connect with her daughter seemed obviously misguided to me.
Upon discovering that her daughter -- a budding guitar player -- liked listening to one of the same songs she did, she thought it would be wise to demonstrate that she, the experienced adult, already knew how to play that particular song on the guitar. Next, she offered to teach her daughter how to play it herself, robbing her of any opportunity to a) learn the song on her own, and b) decide for herself that it was a song she wanted to learn in the first place.
I think a lot of parents could do with a bit more empathy for their teenage children. Teenagers are developing newfound desires for autonomy and mastery, but still feel largely trapped by their circumstances. It's no wonder they lock themselves in their rooms -- it's the only environment they have any control over.
Yes. I’m nearly 30 and my mother still has the power to instantly discourage any hobby I’m picking up by spamming me with tips, telling me the equipment I’ve bought is no good and I should buy what she has, and insisting on “showing me how it’s done”. That’s not bonding with your child, it’s overpowering your child. It’s subtly telling them that you, the parent, are all-knowing and all-powerful and you’ll never be impressed because you can always do better than your child. It’s asking the child to be impressed by you instead.
As a parent it is really hard to find the right balance between wanting to spend time with your kids and trampling all over their hobbies. Especially if it is a hobby where they need you to drive them somewhere and stay or pick them up later.
My father and I used to compete in the same sport and I always hated it when he did well. Because however well I did, it was always how much ahead of him I got that mattered.
With my sons I have conciously either not competed against them, or only competed in events that I am rubbish at. And I don't go anywhere near their online games and social networks.
Discovering the fake perfected Instagram version of her daughter.
Maybe she couldn't deal with the not-so-perfect normal life daughter, and that is why said daughter shut her out.
Maybe not - but after "ruining" the Led Zeppelin song for he daughter, now she went after the one other thing that seems to make her daughter happy, which is Instagram. What if that article now gives her daughter unwanted fame and ruins that part of her life, too? Maybe it is still about control, not participating in someone's life?
If the daughter thinks that a song is suddenly uncool or ruined just because her mum liked it when she was younger and wanted to share that with her, then pardon my French, but the daughter sounds like a bit of a cunt. I’m sure there are a lot of people here who have picked up some top tunes from their parents.
Of course we don’t see the full picture here, but I think it’s great that the mum sat down to play a tune that her daughter likes on the guitar.
My perspective of the article, which seems to have not even crossed your mind: The mother's actions aren't those of someone trying to understand her daughter, but instead co-opt her daughter's interests to make it all about herself instead of her daughter.
It's not so much that it's "uncool" or "ruined", but that her mother isn't allowing her to find her own identity, trying to pull her back into defining herself in terms of her mother. And she doesn't want to be just her mother's add-on.
We certainly don't know the full story, so I am not giving an absolute judgement. It was just a guess. I have to say that the mother is using her daughter for her articles is already a huge red flag to me. Especially since according to article, the mother is perfect and it is all the weirdness of her daughter that is to blame.
On the other hand, of course, people have to be able to discuss their parenting issues, and it is important that there are also articles about that. I don't know a good solution for that problem.
"I had never asked to see Paulina’s feed. I didn’t even know the name she used."
I think therein lies a big part of the problem. She's feeling rejected that her 15 year old daughter won't listen to her acoustic cover of some band from her generation, but then doesn't express interest in this huge part of her daughter's generation.
I don't have children so this is just armchair/backseat parenting which I understand is much easier from the sidelines. That being said, it seems very evident to me that it would probably help her tremendously if she would update herself with pop culture and technology a little bit to make herself a more accessible and relatable to her daughter, because playing music from yester-generation is only going to make herself seem more foreign and distant (in this particular scenario)
I think you nailed it from the armchair. My parents and my wife’s parents reminisce fondly about evenings spent playing cards and singing songs with their families growing up, and they’re sad that those things aren’t much a part of our culture any more (at least not in our small circle of the world). The other night though, my wife and I were playing Stardew Valley multiplayer with two of our young children and it hit me that we had basically organically stumbled upon family game night just from trying to do things that the kids were interested in as much as us that also involve some interaction with each other (as opposed to say, watching the same TV show next to each other).
Have a big upvote from me. Your family sounds awesome, and, I guess, just the kind of family that I wanted growing up. A family that would be as interested in the world of Harry Potter and Tolkein as I was. Or in the music I found interesting.
I really like this style of parenting that I see here in the US where children are not treated "childishly"; are actually listened to and the parents try and build a relationship with their children by engaging in activities that all enjoy.
Consider it the other way -- she's giving her child privacy.
I never asked to "friend" my son on social media (and told him why) and he invited me to FB, which I believe he curates pretty heavily and doesn't use much -- basically to make a picture for old people.
He hasn't asked me to friend him on instagram or snapchat and that's OK (and various IG pictures leak out anyway via other channels, like other people)
Perfect mix of giving them room and still having an open door. I'm not a parent, but I remember being young, and I remember what a difference such a live and let live attitude made. The implicit understanding that I can have my "secrets", that I don't have to pretend to not have any, but that if there's anything serious, I'll say something.
The adults I trusted and the ones I was wary of I could divide roughly along that axis I think: give me room and I'll feel grateful and proud and super grown up and will try to be responsible, or be pushy and patronizing and nothing good will come out of it (certainly when it was just random adults, not my parents or teachers, I could out-stubborn anyone).
To be fair to her, she played it because she heard her daughter listening to it and thought they would be able to bond over it. It must feel terrible to have your kid actively reject something they previously liked because they found out you liked it too, even if it’s a normal part of adolescence.
Even as the parent of a 4 year old I feel that my opinion is somewhat “armchair/backseat” but I agree with you, with an addendum.
It’s good and important for parents and other adults in teenagers’ lives to keep current on pop culture, but even at 30 years remove I remember how cringe worthy and counter productive it was when such an adult thought that they could relate because of a few radio and tv shows that they watched. Following your child’s Instagram feed may well give a way deeper insight, maybe asking to share their playlists too
yeah but what if you were not really interested in current mainstream pop culture even when you were younger? i don't listen radio crap for long time, have clue about celebrities and i have similar child as you, same goes for TV shows where i am very picky and i don't have Facebook, twitter or other social network account besides Reddit, let alone youngsters snapchat or Instagram which i find meaningless already now, not 10-15 years from now when my children will be teenagers
My mom listened to the Doors and Motown, my uncle played guitar like Eddie Van Halen.
Grandparents listened to jazz. I thought it was all f’ing awesome and still do.
This seems mostly like a not-so-humblebrag about her daughter than anything else. Child of NYTimes editor and journalist in Brooklyn has 1000 followers on instagram. Real big news.
It's more of her having an emotional discovery of how she can still see and view her daughter's life, even if she hasn't figured out how to be an active participant yet.
Sure she used her position to write about it and throw it up on NYT but the bigger point is that it could help many parents who have similar issues find some solace, or maybe another avenue to reconnect with their teenager's life. I think this is something that resonates with those who have children that are pulling away.
I really don't think making a claim of 1000 followers is a humblebrag in any kind of sense. It's only slightly above average (the average being 843), so kind of a weird thing to think of as a brag.
Not really, unless the picture they're attempting to take includes me in it. I'll never understand why so many people are insistent on taking pictures of others who are clear that they're not comfortable with it.
(Sorry for hijacking your pet peeve thread to bring up my pet peeve)
I'm pretty aggressive about telling people not to use the flash when we're out in public; a flash in a bar or other public low light area is super rude, imo.
But just taking a picture with no flash? I know it's a personal thing, but I personally find it less offensive than any other reason you'd pull out a phone.
Not really, I don't expect everyone to enjoy experiences in exactly the same way as me. Some like taking lots of photos of themselves or their friends, some like photos of just the landscape they're in, and others don't like photos at all. If it bothers you, find more like-minded people to hang out with so it doesn't become a nuisance.
I love taking photos whenever I go somewhere unusual or I do some new or special. Every few months or years I sit down and look through photos from different stages of my life, and I reminisce about those experiences. Sometimes it's by myself, but other times it's fun to revisit old photos of shared experiences with friends, which I think can help deepen bonds of friendship.
Edit: I thought this extra point would be interesting. Some of us also extend this behavior to certain online communications. Sometimes in group chats with friends different people will take screenshots of funny or amusing moments and share them with each other a few months later. Other times people will save a particularly humorous meme and re-share it to revisit any past discussion surrounding it.
It depends on what you're taking pictures of. A lot of people seem to snap pictures of landscape, with or without other strangers in it. Those are the kind of pictures that aren't really durably interesting over the long haul. For well known places you can always find a pro who did a wonderful job capturing it. Now, if you're taking pictures of yourself and/or your friends, that makes perfect sense to me. As long as it doesn't get in the way of actually enjoying the experience.
Landscape pictures can serve as a reminder of what you were doing, a sort of diary. Sure, you could find professional photos, but they won't be as rooted in your memory.
By looking at an old photo you remember where you were, what you were doing, and _why_ you decided to take the photo.
In other words, while a pro may be able to capture the location better, they won't capture your memory of visiting it as well.
This is a matter of taste; I'd much prefer taking and remembering landscape pictures most of the time. I know who I was with, and I don't want my face in frame spoiling the view.
The difference between a pro photo and my photo is that I own my photo and know exactly where and when it was taken.
While I also question the necessity of having every single moment documented and framed, I don't think you or anyone else has the authority to decide what's worth capturing and what isn't.
My wife is of a similar mind. She is so beholden to the idea that everyone is a perfectly unique snowflake that she thinks all generalized experience, observations, and advice are completely irrelevant. She may be right.
That’s the thing though. We all enjoy experiences differently. Taking pictures helps me focus on interesting events and primes me to notice more about them. 90% of the time I never look at those photos again but the act of having taken them helps the event stick in my memory longer.
Like taking notes during meeting or whatever. It’s a mindfulness device.
I love taking my DSLR in a bag with me, in the hopes of finding a photo on the way to wherever I'm going. I rarely take it out, I got real lazy, but just having it with me still "makes me" look at things differently, and I enjoy that. I don't know if it makes me more mindful, but it makes even a boring street I might walk down every day much more interesting.
I must be extremely disconnected from this author's perception of the world (and their relationship with their daughter).
This quote at the very top of the article really grinds my gears: "Few things are more painful than loving a 15-year-old girl, particularly when she is your child."
The rest of the article isn't as catchy, but reads a lot like a very long (15-year) case of postpartum depression.
Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially when mixed with rage. None of us, including you I'm sure, wants HN to be the kind of place where people just secrete unfiltered bile.
The last comment is quite rude and clearly unsubstantiated.
The writer speaks of missing the daughters childhood. That is not postpartum depression.
I see a mother respecting the boundaries a young person is experimenting with as she forms new relationships outside her parental ones. Something I expect is quite difficult as both parties make mistakes.
You speak as if you find human disconnect baffling. Perhaps you've had no trouble in your relationships, but I'm extremely disconnected from your apparent perspective that parental relationships with teenagers can't be a source of a lot of pain for all parties.
(I write as a 22 year old remembering my own somewhat recent teenage years.)
I appreciated that the author even related her disconnection to her daughter to her own perspective of the same thing when she had been the same age.
The whole point of childrearing is that the kids have to disconnect as part of becoming responsible independent adults. While the ultimate level of disconnection varies by parent/child, the process of getting there is going to oscillate above and below the "ideal" amount.
Every emotion you've ever felt has been developed, whether by God or by hundreds of thousands of years of natural selection. Conscious thought may deliver us to emotion, but the emotion that you arrive at is something that has always been inside of you. When feel something isn't right, it's a good indicator that something isn't the way it's supposed to be. There's no reason that the world would be made in a way where mothers of teenage daughters are supposed to be miserable and shut out. There's no reason that the transition of growing from a baby to becoming an adult should not be smooth and untraumatic for all involved parties. What is the evolutionary advantage of making mothers miserable as a necessary part of producing offspring?
The idea that the family has become such a secondary consideration in modern society, to the point that this mother is advocating to others mothers about the opportunity to vicariously know your own child via the Internet... It's nothing short of heartbreaking.
Nothing is more certain in my mind than the idea that it doesn't have to be this way, and historically has not been this way. Kids have been sexualized and have to grow up too quickly. Kids have been made into tiny workers that do busy work for most of their childhood, away from their parents, because both parents have to work.
It's dystopian, disgusting and perverted