Birth: It’s Just Business As Usual.

Recently I watched The Business of Being Born, a documentary about the way births are performed in the U.S. I think the title of the documentary is very tongue-in-cheek, because it explores the way in which birth really has become a business in the U.S., a business that is about expediting processes and making money (much like the majority of healthcare in the U.S.) rather than looking out for the best interest of the woman and the baby. It was really disturbing to hear experts talk about how interventions made by doctors can actually create complications in the birthing process, how there is a correlation between drugs given to women in labor and the likelihood of a caesarean section, and the lack of choice the women have in all of it.

C-sections are absolutely terrifying to me. All of the sawing through flesh and muscle and maneuvering around internal organs is just a little too gruesome for me. But what is almost more terrifying is the fact that the rate of c-sections has increased tenfold, and that nearly one-third of births in the U.S. are performed through c-sections. If there is something wrong with the baby or a complication in the delivery, I absolutely think that a c-section should be performed; but for the most part these days, it’s an issue of time efficiency. If performing births really is a business, then the concept that time is money definitely applies, and if a woman is in labor too long, taking up space in the hospital, a doctor can find an excuse to propose a c-section just to move things along. And then there are women who actually opt for voluntary(!) c-sections because it’s quicker and easier than huffing and puffing and pushing and screaming. You get a nice sedative and wake up with a baby, and have no thoughts about the complications that may arise further down the road.

After watching this documentary, I’m definitely interested in finding out more about home births. And though my giving birth is, like, years and years away, I was already certain that I wanted to have a midwife instead of a doctor. There’s something so much more calming and relatable about a midwife, like they’re actual normal people, as opposed to doctors who sit up on a high horse of knowledge and bask in their own loftiness… but maybe that’s just me. There’s also something much more reassuring about putting your child’s birth in the hands of someone who has specialized knowledge about the birthing process rather than a doctor who has a broad and limited understanding of it and who has probably never witnessed a live birth before. Did you know that in Europe and Japan, a midwife is present at over 70% of births, whereas that number is less than 8% in the U.S.? And yet, the U.S. has the second highest infant mortality rate of all industrialized nations. I see a correlation there.

But let’s return from that tangent back to home birthing. The film shows several different women performing home births (some of which are in little pools!), and, bloody mess aside, it was a really beautiful thing to witness a birth happen naturally, the way that it’s supposed to be. It was so different from the horror show that birth is depicted as on TLC shows, so much more calm and fluid and positive. I never before thought that I could possibly do a home birth; I thought home births were for crazies. But from watching these home births in the documentary, there are several things that appeal to me about it for myself:

1. It happens in my home, a place I’m familiar and comfortable with and that isn’t cold and sterile. And I know where the bathroom is.
2. I’m allowed, nay encouraged, to move around instead of laying on a bed for hours upon hours, and I can even take a nice bath if I so choose.
3. There aren’t hoards of medical professionals intervening without my consent. There is one midwife (and maybe a doula), and she is focused on me and my experience and committed to seeing it through to the end. I don’t have to worry about her rushing off to someone or something more exciting.

And I think #3 contributes to the greatest reason why home birth appeals to me: because I get to be in control. I want to be free to do what I’m comfortable with, to be fully present in the experience of the birth of my child and be an active participant instead of a passive observer. I want to have the final say in all decisions and work with someone who is there through the entire process with me and who respects my wishes; I don’t want to be at the mercy of a doctor who tells me that a c-section is the best option because he wants to make it home in time for dinner. One of the midwifes in the film said something that I really liked: she was talking about home births and said that it was based in “the philosophical underpinnings of giving the power back to the woman.” I don’t think there’s anything more I could ask for than that.

Humanimals.

Last weekend Josh and I caught part of Children of Men (excellent movie) on television. Even though we had both seen it before, we were completely appalled by the scenes where Clive Owen and the pregnant girl are being taken into the refugee camps. Those poor, poor refugees, getting beaten and shot because the British had the power. And then Josh and I started talking about how, if anything catastrophic like the cessation of births for eighteen years happened in real life, it would be exactly like it is in the movie: countries scrambling for preeminence of power, and whatever country seized it would use it to subjugate anyone not of their country or ethnicity.

What a depressing reality.

It makes me wonder if morality and ethics are just a front, just a way of being politically correct when political correctness is valued. In times of widespread crisis, no one seems to give a rip about being moral or ethical; it is all about self-preservation. Or, preservation of the people that are like you. And that is an animal instinct, to use your strength to cut down the weaklings in order to assure your own survival, caring about nothing but preserving your genetics so that they can be passed on. That’s survival of the fittest. And I would say that humans on the whole are social Darwinists, but I think it goes much deeper than that: I think when humans, or groups of humans, are threatened, they revert to the ferocity of their pure animal natures, right and wrong be damned.

These dual natures seem like they should be in conflict a lot more often than they actually are. But perhaps because ethics and political correctness are virtues that are socially ingrained from a young age, we are only able to let them go under extreme stress, or because of extreme fear. This isn’t a pun, but I think fear is one of the most terrifying things in the world, because it can brainwash, it can make people do things that are hateful and vile. It can deprive us of our humanity, and blind us from seeing the humanity of others. It can make someone torture another person, a human being just like themselves. Because if you do it to someone else, that means they can’t do it to you. If fear was eradicated, or at least dealt with in a rational way, we could avoid having to witness things like genocide and terrorism.

This is what happens when I watch post-apocalyptic movies: I get depressed and start ruminating on everything that is wrong with the world and whether or not humans are inherently good or inherently evil. I can’t help it!

So as not to end on a downer note, can we have three cheers for Prop 8 being repealed in California? That, I think, is one huge step in recognizing everyone’s humanity and conquering fear.

Pity Party Deluxe.

I was in Seattle this weekend, and despite our best laid plans, somehow most of Friday evening turned into a pity party in which Josh and I were the pathetic guests of honor. We just laid on his bed and lamented over our joblessness for a few hours, how having degrees has done nothing for us and how we don’t even have enough experience to get a job at a damn restaurant.

I’m sure everyone (all five of you) is getting tired of hearing me complain about not having a job, but it is just too rough not to talk about. I did my four years of college, and now I want to move on from youthful college student to working adult but without a job I can’t do that. So I’m stuck in this limbo between youth and adulthood, just floating with no way to move forward, and this limbo looks an awful lot like hell.

I get incredibly depressed looking at Craigslist postings, which is like a daily self-beating, because all the jobs that look interesting or that I think I might be qualified for, want anywhere from two to five years of experience in said position. How could I have that much experience when I’ve been in college for the past four years? It’s like these people are intentionally excluding college graduates from potential employment. And even retail jobs or restaurant jobs require previous experience. And with entry level positions, it’s like my degree is too intimidating to even allow me a chance at an interview, or the hiring people see that I’m a college graduate and expect that this would be an in-between job (which it obviously is, but still) and don’t even give my application/resume a second glance. I am damned if I do and damned if I don’t.

This is probably the worst possible time I could have graduated, but it’s not like I had a choice. If I had known the job market would be so hopeless, I would have gone straight to graduate school and stayed there until further notice. I’ve barely even had any serious prospects in the past four months, and I’m just burning through my savings trying to stay afloat and avoid having to move in with my parents in Georgia. And even that is starting to look like a distinct possibility, as I suspect I’m beginning to wear out my welcome in my rent-free living situation. All I want is to have a job so that I can support myself, pay my own rent and not have to rely on my parents anymore. And maybe have a little extra cash to go out and do things so that Josh and I don’t have to stay cooped up in our houses for lack of funds when we see each other. There are only so many episodes of tv shows we can watch on our computers before we need something more.

The other day Josh was talking about how this is the only time in our lives that we could go anywhere or do anything for an extended period of time without having to answer to a boss, but we can’t do anything because we don’t have any money. Ironic, eh? And so it goes.

Kendall The Sad Sack: The Life of an Unemployed College Graduate.

The lack of posts in the last week and a half can be explained in one small but earth-shattering phrase: graduation weekend.

My parents and youngest brother have been here for the past week and have been shacking up with me, which is both fun and slightly overwhelming. My parents met my boyfriend’s parents for the first time over dinner last Saturday. I donned a cap and gown on the hottest day Seattle has seen in recent months and sat through a three-hour long ceremony that pronounced me a college graduate and saw people that were once my friends, but who I will probably never speak to again, and felt immense peace about it. All of this is supposed to be like the transition period between being a college student and being a working adult and contributing member of society. This is not my life.

My life is disappointment. I’ve been applying to jobs for the past two and half months, jobs that I am insanely overqualified for, and cannot find employment anywhere. I heard on NPR today that having a college degree is not the impressive asset that it used to be, and I think my present condition is the manifestation of that sentiment. My degree does not mean shit to anyone that I’ve interviewed with, because I’m having to compete with people who aren’t college-educated but have way more experience than I do. People keep asking me how it feels to be a college graduate, and keep telling me what a huge accomplishment it is to get my degree, but truthfully, it doesn’t feel like anything to me because having a degree has not done anything good for me thus far.

NPR also said that it is becoming more common for people to get jobs based on networking and connections, rather than through education or experience. Which is just adding insult to injury for me because I don’t have very many connections, and the ones that I do have that I’ve tried to use to my advantage haven’t even been able to be translated into a job.

I just feel hopeless so much of the time. Like, what is the point of emailing my resume in response to a Craigslist ad when I know that 90% of the companies I email will never respond and that 30% of the ads I respond to are scams anyway? I had one position that I interviewed for and made it down to the top two candidates, but what’s the point of interviewing for any position when I know that if it’s between me and one other person, the other person probably has more experience and will be chosen over me? It’s so hard to keep sending resumes and filling out applications and calling to check up on my application status because there has been nothing encouraging that has resulted from it. I just keep getting doors shut in my face and promised phone calls that never come. Sometimes I think I should just go live with my parents in Georgia, for free, for a year and then go to graduate school directly after. At this point, it seems like there’s nothing I can do with what I presently have. I either need more education, or more experience, to get anywhere.

It’s a depressing and frustrating life I’ve become accustomed to. I think this photo accurately sums up my current attitude:

Overzealous Parents and Getting Accepted to Nursery School.

If there was any doubt in your mind that the “cult of the child” is not a reality (and a disturbing one, at that), you are hereby required to watch the documentary Nursery University. The film follows several groups of parents in New York City who are frantically and obsessively trying to get their two- and three-year-old children into the elite nursery schools in the city, because they assume that starting out at the best nursery school will lead to the best elementary school which will lead to the best high school which will lead to the Ivy League. It is amazing how much emphasis these parents put on starting their children’s education on the right foot when their children aren’t even fully potty-trained yet, and what lengths they will go to in order to get their kids accepted into their (the parents’) first choice school. It is also horrifying. (Although, there is one particularly hilarious scene where one of the couples sits down to open the decision letters, and the husband explains to his wife, who is a native Argentinian, that big envelope packets usually mean acceptance, while little envelopes mean rejection. The wife then opens and reads aloud each of the seven little envelopes, all of which are acceptance letters.)

Throughout the whole film, my feelings were split between understanding these parents on an emotional level, and thinking they were just batty. I really do feel like all of the parents in this film had their hearts in the right place, and were willing to spare no expense (some NYC nursery schools cost $20,000 per semester!) in order to give their children every opportunity to succeed, which is really admirable. And I suppose it’s never too early to get a head-start on education. But at the same time, it worries me how early these parents are beginning to micromanage their children’s lives. There is no conclusive evidence that shows that children who attend a prestigious nursery school (if there even is such a thing) will go on to attend a prestigious college, and it takes a lot of the fun and frivolity out of being a kid when you’re being groomed for college before you’re even out of the crib. And if parents start micromanaging their kids at a young age, it sets a precedent of micromanagement that inhibits a child’s abilities to make their own mature decisions without parental intervention, and can keep them in a state of permanent infantility (Betty Friedan definitely talks about this in The Feminine Mystique). Also, there is the danger that these rich families that use nursery school as a funnel into the Ivy League are just furthering the nepotism of the private school network that seems to be especially heinous on the East Coast, teaching their children that having connections is the most important thing instead of working hard and earning their success. (In the film, one of the nursery schools did a random drawing to choose who would attend, which I thought was a wonderful way to go about it: it levels the playing field, so that no matter who has the most money or the best connections, everyone has an equal chance. I wish all schools were like that; it would make it so much easier for able students, who happen to be poor, to go on to higher education.) Money and connections can only get you so far before you have to actually prove yourself worthy. Just ask George W. Bush.

Basically every film I see is an opportunity for me to mine some future parenting skills, and I feel like this film gives me both sides of the spectrum, positive and negative. I’d love to hear anyone’s thoughts on this topic of over-parenting and education obsession.

Digitalization Nation and the Rise of Technology.

This past weekend I took the train up to Seattle to retrieve the rest of my things and transport them via U-Haul to my new home (or, rather, storage unit). While I was waiting for my boyfriend to pick me up from the train station, a man sat down next to me and started reading. On his Kindle. It was a bizarre thing to witness since, heretofore, I have only seen pictures of Kindles on Amazon and have never witnessed one in the context of someone actually using it. Another man came up to Kindle man and started asking him questions about it, and Kindle man said that now that he has a Kindle, he reads more than he ever has before. Because I’m a snoop, I slyly looked over his shoulder to get a peek at what he was reading, only to find that he was reading the same book that I had been reading on the train, the physical manifestation of which was in my purse at that very moment.

I’m sure that I’ve railed on e-books and the like before, but I think that my disdain is actually directed more toward the technological revolution as a whole rather than the e-book as a singular entity. Obviously there are certain aspects of technology that have really become inescapable (ie. email, texting, etc.), but there are some aspects that I just can’t (and my never be able to) bring myself to subscribe to, namely e-books and digital cameras.

Two weekends ago when I was at the Olympic Sculpture Park, I had my old Canon film camera with me and an older gentleman came up to me and asked if I was an art student. When I told him I wasn’t, he said he had assumed that I was because he never saw anyone with a film camera anymore. We talked for a little while about the pros and cons of both digital and film cameras, and he said that one of the best things about digital cameras is that you get instant feedback on your photos instead of having to wait for them to be processed at the grocery store or what-have-you. I found this comment really interesting, and it got me thinking about technology in the context of our perception of time.

The U.S. tops the list of countries that are wholly preoccupied with time: we want things fast and efficient, which is why we have thirty-minute lunch breaks at work and eat alone in the car while we’re driving, as opposed to Brazilians, who get two hours for lunch during their workday so that they can go home to eat with their families. Americans have a hard time valuing time, unless we’re saving it. I feel like it’s especially prevalent in my generation, which I like to refer to as the “instant gratification” generation: we want what we want and we want it now. And I suspect that technological advances are born out of our desire to save time and to get what we want instantly without waiting. Your email will reach its recipient within seconds whereas your letter may take days to arrive. You can instantly play a DVD from the beginning or skip quickly to a particular scene instead of having to fast-forward or rewind on your VCR. You can see what your digital photos looks like immediately after you capture them instead of having to wait for a slow elderly photo attendant to process your images.

But I think that in an effort to make time bend to our wills through technology, we’re losing (or maybe giving up) so much aesthetic tangibility.
I read a review of Rihanna’s newest album on Pitchfork, and the critic wrote that the break-up ballad “Photographs” was anachronistic because actual physical photographs are passe for Rihanna’s generation; instead of looking at photographs, we click from digital image to digital image in our iPhoto library. This critic is correct, but it still makes me sad, because there is such a lack of romanticism in digital technology, and such an abundance of sterility and distance. I love getting snail mail because, unlike an email that takes a person a millisecond to type and send, it shows that the person took care with their words and that they value me enough to spend the time it takes to handwrite a letter and mail it. I get excited about shooting photos in my film camera because it’s so unpredictable and I never know what I’m going to get for results, and the time between dropping off my film to be processed and picking it up and being able to see my photos is always rife with giddy anticipation. I think I will always favor holding a book in my hands, and being able to feel the texture of the paper and the creases in the binding and the gentle flexibility of its shape instead of the cold hard plastic and digital screen of an e-book.

I’ve read numerous headlines that allude to declining interpersonal communication skills among youth because kids are so used to communicating silently via text that their verbal skills are waning. I worry that this is what my kids will inherit: this digitally over-stimulated way of life that simplifies what doesn’t necessarily need simplifying. I worry that my kids won’t be able to spell because they’ll use SpellCheck to proofread their papers; I worry that my kids will want cell phones when they’re eight years old so that they can text their friends in class; I worry that my kids schools will require e-books instead of textbooks, and that my kids may never know what real books are, or even that they may regard them with incredulous and mocking curiosity. I worry that if technology continues to advance at the rate it has been, that we’ll all end up like the morbidly obese humans in Wall-E, eyes glued to a television screen and riding around on hovercrafts until their muscles atrophy and they lose the ability to walk. The future looks like a scary place.

I appreciate what technology can do for people and I definitely reap the benefits of it in my everyday life. I just question technology especially in the context of entertainment and correspondence, and at what cost we are embracing it. (Blogs the girl on her laptop.)

my current disappointment in republicans.

usually, one of my favorite things about visiting my parents is having regular access to a television, namely to be able to watch msnbc. what i’ve seen the past week in regards to the health bill and the republican outcry against it has made me wish for tv-lessness. everything i’ve seen has made me lose faith in humanity in general, and republicans in particular.

for one, i don’t understand why republicans are looking on the health bill as if it were a sign of the apocalypse. there are no seven-headed beasts in sight; only the institutionalization of something that the majority of americans don’t have, but need in order to stay healthy and alive and to avoid having to claim medical bankruptcy. the united states is the only industrialized nation that doesn’t have universal health care. why is it a bad thing to want all americans, rich or poor, to have access to health care that will protect them and take care of them? it’s a recognition of human rights, and of humanity in general, to attempt to extend health care to all people, not just those who can afford it. i hear the word “socialism” being thrown around casually and as a synonym for “communism,” but i suspect that most americans don’t even know what the word actually means.

actually, i do know why republicans are having a coronary over the health bill: abortion. of the hundreds of pages of the health care bill that outline plans for comprehensive health care for all americans, the topic of abortion gets singled out and dwelled upon until the entire process is at a standstill. the democrats and republicans who voted in favor of the health care bill, as i understand it, were not condoning abortion; they were admitting that abortion is one small component of health care, and that americans’ right to health care shouldn’t be compromised by this single issue. as a result, democratic senators are receiving death threats from angry republicans and are fearing for their families’ safety, and republicans have done nothing to discourage them, and have in fact abetted this awful behavior. i say shame on you, republicans.

shame on randy neugebauer, republican senator from texas, who shouted “baby killer!” at michigan’s democrat senator bart stupak, who is pro-life. shame on sarah palin, who created a map with gun crosshairs in areas where the state’s senators voted for the bill, in order to identify republican “targets.” shame on the men and women who have called bart stupak’s home and threatened his and his family’s life. shame on the man who went to what he thought was virginia senator tom periello’s house (which was actually periello’s brother’s house) and cut the propane gas lines, and double shame on republican senators for not condemning it. shame on fox news and glenn beck for being brainwashers and propagandists.

there’s no reason why, if so many people are upset about the health care bill, that there can’t be a civil discussion and dialogue about it. there is absolutely no reason to threaten senators or vandalize their homes and offices. there is no reason that the health care bill has to be a partisan issue that splits our governing body and pits republicans and democrats against each other as enemies. there is no reason that republican senators shouldn’t be chastising the people who are vandalizing and threatening democrats, and urging americans to work together toward a solution that is viable for everyone, instead of egging them on to propagate violence against democrats who are just trying to do what they feel is best for the people they represent. republicans, you need to step it up. let’s be adults here.

sex-ucation.

i read an article in the new yorker a while back about the relationship between religion and teen pregnancy for one of my classes, and the article mentioned a documentary called “the education of shelby knox.” shelby knox was a teenager in lubbock, texas (a town that has the highest incidences of teen pregnancy and stds in the nation), who was part of a youth commission that championed comprehensive sex education in public schools.

the documentary follows shelby for three years during her efforts to expand the abstinence-only sex education policies of the lubbock public schools. what i found interesting is that shelby was a pretty devout christian and pledged virginity until marriage via true love waits; but i guess that fact is less interesting than the flack that shelby gets from church members for supporting a cause that they believe is immoral. what i was wondering throughout the film echoed shelby’s argument: if abstinence-only sex education isn’t realistic for all students, then why shouldn’t they have a comprehensive sex education that shows them how to be safe if they choose to be sexually active?

this seems like common sense to me. public schools shouldn’t be teaching faith-based sex education because not all people that attend public schools are religious. it wouldn’t be inaccurate to say that abstinence is the only way to avoid pregnancy and stds, but it’s irresponsible to say “abstinence is the only option” because it’s “moral,” and simply leave it at that. it’s pure idealism to think that abstinence should work for everyone; it is not a one-size-fits-all. whether a school teaches abstinence-only or not, there will always be kids who are going to deviate from that and have sex anyway. even for people who proclaim abstinence as teenagers, having knowledge about safe sex and birth control can only help kids if and when they find themselves in a situation someday where they’re going to have sex.

i’m reminded of an essay i read in my women’s studies anthology about a catholic woman who was the director of a local planned parenthood, a fact that got her excommunicated from her church because she was seen as advocate of abortion. this woman was not, in fact, an advocate for abortion but merely gave women information about abortion and let them use their own conscience to decide what was best for themselves; nevertheless, the church saw it as advocation. sex education programs suffer from this same kind of dualism: in the documentary, shelby says of her school administration that “they have it so set in their heads that telling kids about sex will make them go have sex.” it is dangerous to treat sex as a taboo, to resist acknowledging that it happens outside of marriage and between teenagers: in my mind, that perpetuation of sexual ignorance is what causes teen pregnancies and std’s. if sex educators would realize that there’s a way to teach safe sex without advocating sex, the results would assuredly be fewer teen pregnancies and std’s.

while comprehensive sex education would be a good start, the real issue at the heart of this debate is the negative connotations attached to sex, especially by religious groups. if everyone was of the mindset that sex is not a privilege that only married people are entitled to, and that sex is not solely reserved for procreation but is something that god intended both partners to enjoy within a loving relationship, radical things would happen. young people would no longer rush into marriage so that they could have sex without feeling guilty or immoral (an especially heinous epidemic at my college); women would no longer have to feel like they’re just wombs in the context of sex; unmarried couples would practice safe sex out of responsibility to, and respect for, their partner, not just for fear of an unplanned pregnancy that would expose them as sexually active; men and women would no longer have to experience their sexual desires as something shameful. as long as sex is stigmatized, there will always be ignorance and irresponsibility, which means there will always be unplanned and unwanted pregnancies.

polanski.

i’ve had the roman polanski documentary “wanted and desired” in my netflix queue for months, but in lieu of his recent arrest in switzerland, my attention has been sufficiently piqued and i decided to sit myself down this afternoon and watch it.

it was a really disheartening film, but one that i think is important for people to watch if they want to have any kind of educated opinion about the situation polanski finds himself in. the film does an excellent job of giving reasons why polanski should perhaps be pitied (the death of his mother at the hands of the nazis and his childhood struggle for survival in poland, the murder of his wife by the manson family, etc.), but ultimately doesn’t deny that his furnishing a 13-year old with quaaludes and then having sex with her was wrong and inexcusable. the film focuses more on the trial, and how the fame-whoring judge presiding over his case treated polanski and his case completely unlawfully. so much of this story has been skewed by disreputable media sources, that having all of the information sheds a new light on this debacle.

after watching this film, i feel even less sure of my opinions about this situation. obviously, it was wretched that he had sex with a minor, but there is something about him and his life that impels me toward empathy. i think polanski is often painted as either a monstrous figure or a duplicitous one; i just see him as a person filled to the brim with an overwhelming amount of sadness, and as a person who made a really big mistake and simply wants, after thirty years, to be able to move on with his life. he’s an incredible artist, but no one is above the law; similarly, the representatives of the law had no right to abuse him because of his celebrity status. it’s a big twisted mess, if you ask me. watch the film and tell me what you think.

EDIT: there was an article in the new york times movie section today about “wanted and desired.”

spank that child!

my nanny job is starting to grate on me, not because i don’t love kids in general or the kids i nanny for in particular, but because i am constantly appalled at how the kids are parented. i’m basically biting my tongue for two straight hours and thinking “i could do such a better job.” and of course, the place that i would start (and likely get the best results) would be spanking.

when did there become such a bloody stigma around spanking children? i feel like the benefits of spanking far outweigh the negative parts. yeah, lots of kids are abused by parents who don’t know the line between spanking and maiming, but spanking shouldn’t be looked down on because some people don’t know how to do it right (everyone knows you don’t spank your kid when you’re still angry because that’s when you get out of control… duh). and i don’t buy the argument that parents should just try to reason with their children; children aren’t reasonable! that’s why they’re children! certainly it’s good for kids to develop a good sense of reason and certainly parents can help with that, but i think trying to reason with kids is an excuse for not disciplining them. adults, when will we all learn that parents are supposed to be parents, ie. authority figures, to their kids and not their friends? so many parents are too concerned with being buddies with their kids, that their kids end up running the show and the parent must helplessly do what the child says to avoid catastrophe. please spank your child! there’s a time to be your child’s friend (like when they’re of voting age and don’t live in your house anymore), but there’s also a time to teach your child right from wrong and then punish them when they intentionally do wrong. and no child wants to be spanked, so it takes relatively few spankings to get your point across about what is acceptable and what isn’t. there would be so many more well-behaved children, who would grow up to become polite and upstanding citizens as adults, if parents would just bite the bullet and spank their kids every once in a while.

my parents spanked me and i turned out just fine. obviously.