Daria Doering

Daria Doering

Education 239V

3/12/00

A FAMILY OF VALUE

by John Rosemond

John Rosemond has built an empire around the premise that what modern psychologists are telling us about childrearing doesn’t work.  In compelling arguments which range from ‘“Because I said so” is the most honest answer’ to “Marriage is supposed to be ‘till death do us part,’ not ‘till children do us part,’” Rosemond  plunges a sword into the heart of contemporary childrearing advice, and rips it from limb to limb.

Rosemond’s own journey began when he was a psychology graduate student in the ‘60’s, earnestly trying to save the world with the “new ideas” in psychology.  However, what set him apart from his colleagues was that he had a wife and two actual flesh-and-blood young children.  As he and his wife practiced this new gospel, and then found their lives being directed and ruined by their obnoxious and tyrannical children, they reluctantly came to the conclusion that the childrearing tenets of modern psychology – which he calls more of a cult or religion than science – simply don’t work.  So began his transformation into what he calls a heretic.

Rosemond describes how psychologists essentially employ an “Emporer’s New Clothes” type model.  Parents are given advice by psychologists that does not work.  However, if they reveal that the prescription is not working, they are told that the cause of the problem is their own neurosis, or dysfunctional family dynamics, and the solution is more flawed therapy.  This all conspires to cover up the fact that the psychologists’ advice “sounds good, but doesn’t work,” as one of his chapters is titled.

Rosemond goes on to attack, or rather annihilate, sacred cow after sacred cow of the “democratic” tradition of childrearing.  In fact he doesn’t believe in democratic childrearing at all, and points out that although our political system is democratic, the daily workings of our world most certainly are not.  It’s hard to imagine any adult who has a democratic relationship with their employer, for example.

His remedy?  Essentially, a “return to the ‘50’s.”  This might be an immediate turnoff – who wants to return to an imperfect past – if it weren’t for the incisiveness of his analysis and defense of traditional values.  Some of his major points:

• Rosemond derides the “child-centered” family, saying that families should be “adult-centered” or more ideally “marriage-centered.”  He gives a fascinating analysis of how all of the emphasis that used to be on marriage has been transferred to children, even in the language that we use.  A “housewife” is now a “stay-at-home Mom,” a “working wife” is now a “working Mom.”  He recommends husbands spending two hours with their spouse for every hour spent with the children.
• He also makes the very interesting claim that children who clamor for attention probably get too much already.  Attention has become a “fix” for them that they can never get enough of.
• Rosemond organizes all of his ideas around his “3 R’s” of character, which are respect, responsibility, and resourcefulness.  We’ve all heard about respect and responsibility, but the “resourcefulness” leg of his triad is quite interesting.  He argues in many different contexts that modern parents are essentially disabling their children by doing too much for them and giving them too much.  He argues that the current urgings for parents to be “highly involved” with their children is wrongheaded.  He says it prevents children from learning everything from how to entertain themselves, to how to discipline themselves to get their homework done, to how to solve their own problems.
• Rosemond is merciless in his gender role analysis of the contemporary family.  He describes how women of the ‘50’s routinely and unashamedly told their children to “leave them alone,” “get out from underfoot,” and “go outside to play and don’t come in until lunch time,” which actually benefited their offspring by forcing them to be more resourceful.  Contrast that with the supposedly “liberated feminist” women of today, who have been persuaded that they need to be highly involved in their children’s lives.  These women essentially wait on their children hand and foot, in everything from driving to endless after-school activities to being the nightly homework helper.  They are trapped in an endless cycle of serving their offspring, and when problems arise, the only solution they see is more service!  Meanwhile, fathers have been demonized as inept or abusive, and marginalized by being treated as merely a “parenting aide” to the mother, or as not being necessary to a family at all.  According to Rosemond, mothers of the ‘50’s were truly liberated, and fathers were not remote, just busy with work and their marriages.
• Another of his more compelling arguments starts with his defense of the old maxim, “Children should be seen but not heard.”  He makes the case that there needs to be a clear division between the child’s world and the adult world.  The adult world should be something that children look up to and aspire to; but do not have access to until they have earned it.  Contemporary adults have extinguished that boundary by promoting customs such as children calling adults by their first names, and not extinguishing the widespread malady of children interrupting adults, which he equates with their having no respect for adults.
• Rosemond also cuts children slack in unexpected ways.  He says “let children have the last word.”  He thinks that asking for both compliance and a “good attitude” is asking too much, and recommends letting children vent.  He also says that children do not have to completely cooperate for a consequence to work.  Additionally, he thinks that expecting siblings to love each other is expecting too much.

What to make of all this?  Well, you have to give Rosemond credit for being a lonely crusader, for taking on the prevailing wisdom.  You have to thank him for giving words to the intuitive misgivings about modern psychology which many of us have had for so long.  And he is so good at it; no wonder his colleagues hate him.  Rosemond has managed to sniff out countless rotten spots of hypocrisy, baloney, and advice which simply doesn’t work.  For example, is anything really going to be solved by “active listening”?  Or take the more extreme “no rewards, no punishments” concept.  Sure, it’s a great goal, for highly evolved adults, but to start out with that philosophy with a two-year-old?  Most of us with children think not.

Even the politically correct doublespeak of “consequences” instead of “punishment.”  The reasoning actually makes sense.  But some of us are simply so sick to death of doublespeak that we long for the most pithy and honest methods of expression.  Shouldn’t we just bring back the word “punishment,” along with the concepts of “wrong,” “shame,” “guilt,” “repentance” and “redemption?”

The one place I would have to disagree with Rosemond is in his “grin & bear it” prescription regarding children and unsatisfactory school situations.  There are many experiences which can “build our characters,” but requiring children to endure inadequate schools and dysfunctional teachers may not be the best choice.  The opportunities in life for learning to “deal with difficult people” are innumerable, and applying that reasoning to children and their teachers can do more harm than good.

Another misgiving I have is that Rosemond extensively attacks psychologists such as Thomas Gordon, author of Parent Effectiveness Training, but gives them no credit for seminal work they have done, apart from what he sees as their flawed ideas about “democratic childrearing.”  Let’s not forget that Gordon originated “I-messages,” still an invaluable communications concept; as well as the “ownership of problems” paradigm, used in countless theories that followed.

The ultimate answer is probably somewhere between John Rosemond and Thomas Gordon.  However, anyone who does not take the “old fashioned advice” to heart – of which Rosemond is one of the few secular sources – is missing an essential piece of the childrearing puzzle.