A kid's behavior is more largely influenced by its peers than its parents. That makes me somewhat cynical about a parent leaving a lasting influence on the next generation in the same way that a teacher can. A teacher at least has the statistics in their favor: out of all the kids that pass through, one out of twenty will probably be influenced, and over the years that's a lot of kids. A parent is making a crapshoot with just a couple kids (or in your case, one). What if the kid hates you and decides to live its life exactly opposite to yours? What if the kid is run over by a truck? Not much of an indelible mark you're leaving.
If all you want is to be remembered after your death (you don't care how long) and at least one of your kids outlives you, then good job, you've succeeded ... but if you want to make an indelible mark, the only way to do that is to do something the history books will remember you for. I don't understand that either, mind you. I'll be dead. Who cares if I'm remembered? I certainly won't. This whole thing is alien to me.
I could see raising kids as someone's greatest accomplishment because it's damned hard and changes you, but I can't see it as a good way to leave an indelible mark on the world. They're different issues, really.
But you're right, I don't spend much time around parents and children. I spent years turning down babysitting gigs in middle/high school. I have one friend at Vassar who has a kid and I like spending time with her alone more than with said kid-- not because of her or her kid's behavior so much as just because I really am brought no special joy by kids, and if there is a child around, all attention is always on the child. My interest in them is pretty much academic: "Oh, you've learned that grammatical construction, interesting, and you've reacted poorly to this thing, I wonder if you have object permanence yet," not "Oh my god the way you said that word was so cute AND THAT SMILE! AIDHOFISDHF!!!"
If a child is so scarred by their parent that they decide to live their life the exact opposite way (or even just chooses a totally different path and uses reasoning like "jeez, I can't believe I had to grow up with x"), then that parent has had a pretty damn indelible effect on that kid. Also, a person's peers are usually determined by their parents: no, the parents don't pick the kids friends, but parents do decide where to live and where to send the kid to school and if they're going to pay for art lessons or whatever. A parent who actually tries is there for their kid every damn day. Do you honestly know anyone who wasn't influenced by at least one of their parents, or lack thereof? (Skipping out on your kid leaves a mark, too.)
If your child is run over by a truck you have far more immediate and pressing concerns than what mark you'll be leaving on the world.
The parent/kid thing is really something you can't fully understand academically. It's a case where lived experience trumps reading about it every time. Part of it is such a non-rational, emotional thing. I've heard as much from every parent who's bothered to tell me and actually cares about their kid. Since I have never been a parent--and I recognize that I am still quite young and perhaps people who have lived more than I have, and had life experiences that I haven't, might know more about what those kinds of experiences mean--I trust their take on it.
I get that parenting/dealing with kids is really, really not your thing, but I think this is a case where how other people feel is just as valid as how you feel. There are as many ways of living and viewing the world as there are people in it.
My interest in them is pretty much academic: "Oh, you've learned that grammatical construction, interesting, and you've reacted poorly to this thing, I wonder if you have object permanence yet," not "Oh my god the way you said that word was so cute AND THAT SMILE! AIDHOFISDHF!!!" See, I respond to kids in neither way. They're people. I'm interested in them as people. Some are fun, interesting people, others are annoying and try my patience, a lot of them are in-between. A child is just a younger, smaller person. The only major differences are they're still developing and figuring out just who they'll be, that if they are annoying/cruel/stupid/whatever, there's more chance that they'll grow out of it or you can fix it, and that they're a lot more likely to be dependent upon and look up to/emulate on others. But they're people, just the same. (There's plenty of grown-ups you'd have to pay me good money to spend time around. Kids at least have some kind of excuse for their behavior, not that it's any more acceptable.)
As a child, I vividly remember hating the latter response just as much as the whole disliking/discounting me because of my age. I wasn't some fucking doll or animal to coo over. I maybe didn't have the words for it, but I knew I wasn't supposed to be an object.
As a child I always got pissed at people who tried to coo over me too.
I treat kids like people, because frankly I don't know how else to treat a kid. The cooing does not come naturally to me. Example: my friend's toddler was trying to get someone to take a gross sticky piece of trash from her the other day and tried to offer it to me. I said "No thank you," and she turned to someone else, who cooed and smiled and said "Aww I'll take that!"
My point, though, is that having an effect -- even an indelible one -- on a person (or even two or three people) is no less transitory than having no effect, like you would if you were a hermit. Once you die and your children die (or everyone you taught dies), your effect is gone. No one remembers you. Maybe the effect you had on these people, who probably will have an effect on someone else, is enough to satisfy?
I'm not trying to understand the parent-kid thing academically. There's a difference between making a mark and doing something important, though. Your mom might feel the need to "make her mark" on the world and do that with her super cool lawyerin', but also consider raising you the single most important thing she's done. It's the indelible thing that I take issue with. If you want to be remembered after you die, you need to do something worth being remembered for, not push that off to the next generation.
A kid's behavior is more largely influenced by its peers than its parents. That makes me somewhat cynical about a parent leaving a lasting influence on the next generation in the same way that a teacher can. A teacher at least has the statistics in their favor: out of all the kids that pass through, one out of twenty will probably be influenced, and over the years that's a lot of kids. A parent is making a crapshoot with just a couple kids (or in your case, one). What if the kid hates you and decides to live its life exactly opposite to yours? What if the kid is run over by a truck? Not much of an indelible mark you're leaving.
If all you want is to be remembered after your death (you don't care how long) and at least one of your kids outlives you, then good job, you've succeeded ... but if you want to make an indelible mark, the only way to do that is to do something the history books will remember you for. I don't understand that either, mind you. I'll be dead. Who cares if I'm remembered? I certainly won't. This whole thing is alien to me.
I could see raising kids as someone's greatest accomplishment because it's damned hard and changes you, but I can't see it as a good way to leave an indelible mark on the world. They're different issues, really.
But you're right, I don't spend much time around parents and children. I spent years turning down babysitting gigs in middle/high school. I have one friend at Vassar who has a kid and I like spending time with her alone more than with said kid-- not because of her or her kid's behavior so much as just because I really am brought no special joy by kids, and if there is a child around, all attention is always on the child. My interest in them is pretty much academic: "Oh, you've learned that grammatical construction, interesting, and you've reacted poorly to this thing, I wonder if you have object permanence yet," not "Oh my god the way you said that word was so cute AND THAT SMILE! AIDHOFISDHF!!!"
Reply
If your child is run over by a truck you have far more immediate and pressing concerns than what mark you'll be leaving on the world.
The parent/kid thing is really something you can't fully understand academically. It's a case where lived experience trumps reading about it every time. Part of it is such a non-rational, emotional thing. I've heard as much from every parent who's bothered to tell me and actually cares about their kid. Since I have never been a parent--and I recognize that I am still quite young and perhaps people who have lived more than I have, and had life experiences that I haven't, might know more about what those kinds of experiences mean--I trust their take on it.
I get that parenting/dealing with kids is really, really not your thing, but I think this is a case where how other people feel is just as valid as how you feel. There are as many ways of living and viewing the world as there are people in it.
My interest in them is pretty much academic: "Oh, you've learned that grammatical construction, interesting, and you've reacted poorly to this thing, I wonder if you have object permanence yet," not "Oh my god the way you said that word was so cute AND THAT SMILE! AIDHOFISDHF!!!"
See, I respond to kids in neither way. They're people. I'm interested in them as people. Some are fun, interesting people, others are annoying and try my patience, a lot of them are in-between. A child is just a younger, smaller person. The only major differences are they're still developing and figuring out just who they'll be, that if they are annoying/cruel/stupid/whatever, there's more chance that they'll grow out of it or you can fix it, and that they're a lot more likely to be dependent upon and look up to/emulate on others. But they're people, just the same. (There's plenty of grown-ups you'd have to pay me good money to spend time around. Kids at least have some kind of excuse for their behavior, not that it's any more acceptable.)
As a child, I vividly remember hating the latter response just as much as the whole disliking/discounting me because of my age. I wasn't some fucking doll or animal to coo over. I maybe didn't have the words for it, but I knew I wasn't supposed to be an object.
Reply
I treat kids like people, because frankly I don't know how else to treat a kid. The cooing does not come naturally to me. Example: my friend's toddler was trying to get someone to take a gross sticky piece of trash from her the other day and tried to offer it to me. I said "No thank you," and she turned to someone else, who cooed and smiled and said "Aww I'll take that!"
My point, though, is that having an effect -- even an indelible one -- on a person (or even two or three people) is no less transitory than having no effect, like you would if you were a hermit. Once you die and your children die (or everyone you taught dies), your effect is gone. No one remembers you. Maybe the effect you had on these people, who probably will have an effect on someone else, is enough to satisfy?
I'm not trying to understand the parent-kid thing academically. There's a difference between making a mark and doing something important, though. Your mom might feel the need to "make her mark" on the world and do that with her super cool lawyerin', but also consider raising you the single most important thing she's done. It's the indelible thing that I take issue with. If you want to be remembered after you die, you need to do something worth being remembered for, not push that off to the next generation.
Reply
Leave a comment