Chapter Review : 12 rules for life : Raising Children

Captured below is a synopsis of Rule 5 : Do not let your children do anything that makes you dislike them.

Note : I’m paraphrasing JP (Jordan Peterson). Some of what follows may not be exactly as he intended them, and I don’t necessarily agree or approve of his thoughts. Nonetheless they make good fodder for thought.

JP feels strongly about playing an almost devils advocate’s role in rearing and bringing up. Instead of hampering them with no boundaries he feels you’re better off for the long-term by being guardians against their decadent behavior, nipping undesirable proclivities in the bud ruthlessly and efficiently before they turn recalcitrant.

He starts off with, as he normally does, with anecdotes about parents doting over their darlings, giving into every whim and fantasy, feeling proud over how they’re not hampering the little one’s creativity whereas in reality they’re doing exactly that. This was a zinger that caught me off guard. He backed it up with research which proves that, concluding with “Too much chaos breeds too much order (and inevitable reversal)”. He emphasizes the dangers in not daring to teach a kid what “No” means.

Then he touches upon an example of a self-proclaimed feminist mom defending, to the ends of earth, the right of her darling king to do anything instead of punishing undesirable behaviors. He says the future mates of such persons would hate their mothers-in-law. He makes an interesting characterization of such a (feminist and doting) mother. “Such women will object vociferously to any command uttered by an adult male, but will trot off in second to make their progeny a PBJ sandwich if he demands it, while immersed self-importantly in a video game.” Now, while I respect JP a lot, this characterization didn’t sit well with me. Why such a stereotyped and personalized attack on a hypothetical anecdote. Does capturing that she’s an advocate of full gender equality who won’t listen to command of an adult male really have any bearing on the matter at hand. It saddens me to see JP needlessly trying to burn the effigy of something he doesn’t subscribe to. I’m a fan of his rational analysis and reasonings behind the myth that is full gender equality but tangentially denigrating it seems projects an unhealthy inner hatred, which in my view, detracts from the core thesis which is:- excessively pampering kids is detrimental to their long term growth.

Moving on, he shifts attention to preference to male children in ASEAN region. Here he tries to give his take on this phenomenon and after some interesting arithmetic claims that Genghis Khan was father to 8% of all men in Central Asia (if true, wow!) concludes that there’s a deep, biological reason viz. in the yesteryears having a male progeny meant more exponential propagation of genetic material, which might be a driver for this trend(it’s fascinating to note that a woman might give birth to say 9 offsprings but somehow still a man is more capable of inseminating more offsprings!). Personally though, originating from such a region, I’m not so sure about his hypothesis, and this again, to me, unfortunately smells of an out of touch western philosopher/thinker trying to fit their complex sound-bite into an alien environment yielding nonsense. Garbage in, garbage out! My sense of preference for male progeny is, they tend to earn sooner and better, are able to support the family, and in some regions earn dowry for their families, and also the culture is indeed paternalistic, driven by socio-economic differences between men and women although it’s, fortunately, shrinking. I, for example, personally wouldn’t really be biased towards either gender because the strata that my life revolves around doesn’t particularly favor one over the other consistently. Another dig against JP’s thinking is as follows; if what he’s postulating is indeed a driver of preference for male offsprings; shouldn’t it be agnostic of the region in the world? Shouldn’t we see across the world a desire for male progeny over female? Given that we don’t, his forced conclusions , in my view, don’t have legs to stand on.

Then he moves into more logical and relevant parts about kids. His view is that preferential treatment awarded to a son breeds a confident, well-rounded man who potentially feels like a conqueror and this breeds real life conquests and success as well. But then he cautions this can translate into becoming an “actual conqueror” which works well from the standpoint of a ‘selfish gene’ but can also mutate into something indescribably dangerous. This is a rather interesting insight which, I admit, took me by surprise since I felt breeding such a trait might be optimal. I’d certainly take this into account when having kids.

Then he rails about an absentee mother (a psychologist) whose son was starved for love and hence clung to his wife, and makes this passing comment about “The things you can see, with even a single open eye. It’s no wonder people want to stay blind”?. Not sure if that was called for. I also feel for the people that he references in his book given his outreach and popularity. Imagine when he rails against you and delivers such a sick burn. Remind me to behave super responsibly around JP! I guess he was disapproving of such parental traits but including almost personally identifiable information to make a point seems like a step too far to me.

He then switches gears into how the often repeated patterns, howsoever small each instance of it might be, add up to a big hole and need to be surgically fixed. Quite the sensible point, I must agree. I too fundamentally believe oiling recurring parts of your life to perfection goes a long way to a fulfilling and productive life. He argues that ineffectual engagement, over time ,will bring out resentment even against the closest ones to us. What might be a solution to this? He says the society pinning the fault entirely on the adult is sub-optimal. There are no bad children, only bad parents. I have to admit, I kinda assumed this to be true as well. But he cautions this attitude is dangerously and naively romantic. If society is corrupt, but not individuals within in, then where did the corruption originate?, he asks. How’s it propagated? It’s a one-sided, deeply ideological theory. I love these mind crunchers that JP throws our way and is one of the reasons I love reading and researching him. I only wish he explained it in simpler words as I have to re-read multiple times and mull over individual sentences to begin to see daylight. He’s a learned man and an intellectual, so it’s probably second nature to him to explain stuff in a scholarly way. At least I pick up new words with an unprecedented pace when reading his books!

To be continued….