Families: Democracy's Most Important Need

 If you were to make a list of all of the variables that impact and contribute societal flourishing and happiness, it would be quite lengthy.  For example, a list might include : education, health care, security, liberty, peace, democratic institutions, positive expectations of the future, just to name a few.  However, as you made the list, you would notice that a number of variables are dependent upon other variables.  In other words, some of those variables would not exist without another variable upstream.  In theory, items like peace, liberty and security are really dependent upon the form and function of government and therefore considered a dependent variable.   We could then begin to categorize variables into dependent and independent, at which we would end up with a handful of really important components, the independent variables,  that are the foundation to societal bliss.  Well, maybe not bliss, but definitely societal betterment. 

I would propose that there are four major variables that impact society: Form and function of the government, the type of economic system, the moral ethos of society, and the family.  While I am not going to elaborate much on governments, economies, and the moral ethos,  I will provide a brief explanation.  Governments with democratic foundations that protect and promote freedoms, liberties, peace, and security tend to have better outcomes than their authoritarian types of governments.  Economic systems that are more market driven, tend to create more goods and services and help limit the pains of scarcity and provide people with more opportunities to pursue their economic self-interest , both as producer and consumer.  Conversely, centralized economies fail to adequately supply the goods and services people need and offer very little opportunities for mobility and advancement.  The moral ethos refers to the values that a culture honors, celebrates, and holds sacred and also what it vilifies, shames, and holds in contempt. Societies that promote values such as respect, loyalty, hard work, compassion, and generosity tend to be more happy than those that promote self gratification, materialism, and power. 

Clearly, those three variables are interrelated and play a significant and reciprocating role with each other.  The laws governments enact are often economic in nature or are an expression of the moral ethos of the society.  The moral ethos also plays an important role in the goods and services being provided and how they are consumed.  However, in Western style democracies, all of these variables are really dependent upon the most important of all, the family. 

First it is important for me to clarify Western democracies.  Western democracies are styles of government that share a number of important concepts that act as its foundation.  First, the people participate in the legislative process through free and fair elections, along with active engagement in the political process in a variety of methods.  Essential to democracy is the belief in the rule of law, not the rule of men.  In other words, the law governs, not the whims of the people who hold office. Similarly, due process plays a significant part in ensuring that governments actions follow a clearly articulated and transparent process.   Perhaps most important, is the protective legal status of the individual and their property.  Securing certain “unalienable rights” as beyond the reach of the government’s authority reveals  Western democracies attempt to equalize the individual to the power of the government   These are the essentials to all democracies and exist in varying degrees. All of these foundational components are a result of the underlying belief about democracy and that is, the individual should be protected, valued, and free. 

With that being said, I have spent enough time setting this up.  My point is that if the “people” are the focus of democratic institutions, then we need to understand some important characteristics of “people.”  The most important understanding of people is that people come from families and these families are the most significant aspect that will determine one's life.  And, if families are the most critical aspect of how people turn out, maybe we should spend some time looking at how these families are formed and what kind of families raise the kind of people who contribute to society in positive ways.  My argument is that if we want better societies, governments, economic systems, or a moral ethos, it is going to happen at the familial level first. 

First, families begin with a man and a woman. This fact is due to biological realities and shouldn’t be controversial in any way, but I am sure it will trigger someone. The fact is that  procreation could not happen any other way. Although technology has allowed for a variety of ways in which a person can be conceived without the physical act, conception needs a male and female participant.

The biological and physiological process of conception, while fascinating in and of itself, is really a small part ( and often too quick…I kid) of the bigger part of the story. Because not only do men and women bring the biological needs to procreate, they also have other characteristics to raise and develop their progeny.  I know this should not be another controversial statement, but men and women are different in more ways than genitalia.  They each possess traits that, when combined, compliment the other in a manner that enhances both traits.  Together, they work to provide an environment that can significantly produce better humans.  However, this is not entirely instinctual.  The raw traits need to be carefully cultivated and refined through deliberate teaching, promoting, and modeling.    

The amount of studies that show that children have a better life, one of flourishing and fulfillment, when they are raised by a mother and father in the same house, is staggering. It's not up for debate…at least honest debate.  Children, when born, come with a default setting that expects both parents to participate in their development. From their physical needs to the more important psychological and emotional needs, children are wired to be raised in such a manner. The problem arises when that does not happen, then the default setting gets rewired.  This is the origin of most psychological and emotional problems.  Unfortunately, these problems are often exhibited in ways that negatively affect the society at large. 

When a person looks at statistics and data regarding all of the most negative societal indicators, the family is a leading indicator.  Incarcerations, poorly educated, abused, abuser , suicidal, and physical health are almost always highly correlated to some form of broken families.  As an educator, both teacher and administrator, for twenty years, this fact became distinctly and routinely obvious.  When I was a principal at a continuation school (where students with disciplines, attendance, and credit deficiencies go), the stories of these students were heart breaking.  Nearly all of the students had parents either incarcerated, addicted to drugs or alcohol, or missing from their lives entirely.  It was, and is, heartbreaking to see students and young people dealing with so much baggage and garbage from the adults who made them.  I was lucky to have a staff who cared so much for these students and worked so hard to help them overcome their circumstances.  But, too often, it felt like we were swimming against too strong a current.  

Needless to say, we could substantially improve our communities by enhancing and promoting our families, specifically the traditional nuclear family.  The problem is that so much of our current culture and moral ethos is working against such an ideal.  Between feminism, excesses of capitalism, and promotion of self-gratification, the family structure has been decimated, left as an afterthought and not as the most important component of one’s life.

Feminism

In the 60’s, radical feminism grew out of liberal and progressive enclaves of universities and began to infiltrate much of main stream ideals.  While there are many layers and nuance to all that feminism is, I will simplify it to its common denominator.  Essentially, the radical feminists of the 60’s took a very Marxist approach to gender and sexuality, arguing that society had been largely constructed on the false premise of the patriarchy.  In other words, the power in families, in businesses, and almost all organizations were disproportionately controlled by men, and designed that way.  They were not wrong.  I am not contending that society was not male dominated.  Nor am I saying that women didn’t have legitimate complaints.  I am, however, arguing that radical feminism threw the baby out with the bath water.  Instead of taking a real nuanced and realistic understanding of the sexual and gender dynamic that existed, they took a shotgun approach and saw everything as a result of the oppressive nature of the patriarchy.  The outcome was that many girls and women were taught to see both marriage and motherhood as antithetical to their happiness and fulfillment.  This philosophical perspective nurtured a competitive and contentious dynamic between the sexes.  Many women were taught to see men as their enemy, not as a potential life-long mate who they could share their life with.  

Feminism, instead of correcting illogical and irrational access and opportunities for women, attempted to redefine the realities of gender differences.  By ignoring the facts that men and women are inherently different in more ways than physical features, they often sold women on a bill of goods that defied reality.  Much of feminism is a misunderstanding and incorrect perspective of men, based largely on envy.  In other words, women would look at the lives of men, and feel like they were being short changed.  In their eyes, men got careers, power, sexual gratification, with little or no downside.  Perhaps the most glaring error, was the belief that women and men can pursue and engage in sex in the same manner.  The problem was, and is, that women and men are entirely different creatures when it comes to sex.  Too many women, being convinced that they can seek sexual gratification in the same manner as men, eventually face the harsh reality that this was not the case.

While feminism created many more opportunities for women outside the home, it also created many difficulties.  Inevitably women, influenced by feminism, began to pursue career goals as the standard for their self perception of happiness.  However, most heterosexual women still have the innate desire to have a partner or spouse and become a mother.  What I have witnessed many times over, is that women will have children and attempt to maintain their career.  In doing so, many struggle with the internal conflict and guilt of raising their kids versus the demands of their career.  If they don’t struggle with guilt, they struggle with the absolute hectic nature of trying to raise kids and work full time. This often chaotic time period often puts stress on the marriage and leads to marital disruptions.  Unfortunately for feminists, men don’t have the same internal struggle, and that enrages them even more.  Men, unfortunately to many feminist, are not wired that way.

What pursuing a career did do, is that it led to many children being raised by people other than their parents.  So many young kids spend the majority of their most important developmental stages in the care of other people.  I know this dynamic is not entirely due to feminism, much of it is due to economics, but it has definitely contributed.  I also know this commentary pisses a lot of people off…but that is because it is true. I also am aware that many families are able to handle this dynamic without too many negative side effects. But there are side effects, and many choose not to see them as a result of their choices.  The fact is children will fare so much better if they are raised by their parents.

Feminism not only changed cultural standards of women, it has played a huge role in reshaping men’s place in society.  The unintended consequences of feminism, is that traditional masculinity was replaced with a far less supportive and less mature version.  One of the most telling signs of this is in education.  As feminism took hold in academia and worked its way through the K-12 system, an underlying narrative was that any disproportionate outcome in school was due to the oppressive vestiges of the patriarchy.  Schools across the country were focused on increasing educational outcomes for girls.  Again, I am not saying this is bad.  There should have been a targeted focus on addressing specific systems that prevented access.  But what has happened is that boys are on the short hand of the stick.  Boys dominate all of the least positive data indicators. They drop out more, perform worse on assessments and in school, go to college less, and are disciplined and suspended more often.  The result is an unbalanced pool of possible mates.  College educated women rarely seek non-college educated partners.  So, we will have a group of men competing for smaller segments of women, and larger groups of women competing for a smaller group of men.

Feminism has also attempted recast men’s innate characteristics as toxic.  The problem, again, is not that this is false in total, but it doesn’t account for a broader and deeper appreciation for men.  Men, are more aggressive, more competitive, more sexually driven, less emotional, and more logical.  Men are problem solvers, fixers, doers, and more tactile.  These characteristics, however, need to be honed and brought under control in a way that prevents the manifestation of over correction.  But from the time boys are sent to school, their natural instincts are often singled out, by women dominated elementary schools, as being inappropriate.  Boys are taught that their female counterparts are equal in every way.  Again, the logical outcome is that boys and girls don’t understand the differences between each other and engage in a relationship that is unmoored from reality.  Girls are seen as something to compete with, to be conquered, and to be used.  Instead of teaching boys that their strength, competitive spirit, and potential for violence is best understood as a means to provide and protect a spouse and their children, it is left to its own devices, seeking self gratification.  These aspects of men need to be used in constructive and productive manners, otherwise they will be used in destructive ways.

Radical feminism, needs to be countered by a feminism that promotes the power and importance of wives and mothers.  We need to elevate the feminine characteristics and traits and appreciate their intrinsic value, instead of placing them in opposition to men.  Where the patriarchy limited women’s access to opportunities, radical feminism has prevented women from appreciating the immense value of marriage and motherhood, and has lessened the values of fathers and husbands.  Both of which have eroded the family.  The bold fact is that there is no more important role in all of society as a parent.  It is a person's most important role and identity!

Economics

Feminism is not the only problem facing the family, economics also has had a roll to play.  Specifically, the excesses of capitalism have weakened the family by placing a value on the accumulation of things as opposed to the concept of sacrificing temporary enjoyment for long term satisfaction.  The desire to have a house, a car, picket fence, and all the modern accouterments plays a substantial role in families.  It forces both husband and wife to work, it places too much focus on the checking account, and it leads to marital tensions and stress.  

Feminism played a substantial role in this economic reconfiguration.  By pushing more women in the workforce, it created more supply of workers, thus lowering wages.  It also created more demand for products, thus increasing the cost of living.  So, if a substantial portion of married couples have dual incomes, they will be able to out spend their single income peers.  As a result, things like cars and houses increase dramatically in price.  Thus, leaving the only way to be able to purchase a home would require both parents to work.  

But it is not all feminism fault.  The general increase of prices of important products such as housing, healthcare, and energy, all lead to a need for more income.  The desire to have stuff, either necessities or luxuries, increases the demand and ultimately the prices of all goods.  Add easy access to credit, and people end up in economic situations that make it hard to build a family on single incomes.

All of this is spurred on by an economic culture of capitalism that is untethered to a value system that can limit its excesses.  In other words, America’s materialistic nature has no major mechanism to act as guardrails.  The most important being a value system that transcends urge to have stuff.  Where the Protestant work ethic once promoted hard work, thrift, and responsibility, it has been replaced by a “you only live once” mentality that leads to economic disaster.    My wife and I were fortunate to be able to have her stay home for the first ten years of our children’s lives.  There were many variables that played a role in this, but none bigger than our purposeful decisions that allowed the idea to become a reality.  We bought a smaller house, in a humble neighborhood, and bought used cars.  We went without cable, didn’t do major vacations, or buy the newest technologies.  This was because we placed a huge value on having her stay home with the kids.  She loved it (not all the time) and I did too.  

The economic pressure on family ends up creating so much tension in families that often that tension ends in divorce.  When financial and material expectations are not met, disappointment turns to disgust, and families soon dissolve.  We should be promoting ideas of sacrificing the temporary gratification for long term goals.  We need to teach our young people resiliency and stick-to-itness as young families.  We should celebrate the early difficulties as a way to appreciate the good times that will follow.  My grandparents, who lived through The Great Depression and faced many financial difficulties, gave my wife and I a five gallon bucket of pinto beans with the advice that we will need it.  And, they were right.  My wife and I look fondly back at our life back then and appreciate those days because they gave us such a great perspective.   When my wife eventually went back to work after our kids were all in school, that extra income made us feel like we were so rich.  However, we are not any happier with more money than we were when each month was a challenge to scrape by with something left in the bank account. 

Another economic factor that affects families in negative ways is the almost insurmountable burden of having a child out of wedlock or while economically unstable.  As I have mentioned, one of the leading variables in terms of life outcomes is the type of family in which the child is raised.  When a child is raised in a single parent home, especially as a result of pregnancy outside of marriage, the domino effect is tremendous.  Essentially, the child is raised in economically unstable situations, in which the parent relies on help from government programs, such as housing, welfare, and health care, along with the help they can get from family members.  The result is often being raised in geographical areas that have higher crime rates, drug use rates, dropout rates, etc.  Moreover, this prevents the mother and father from pursuing better career options, as they tend to settle for employment that leads to an immediate source of income.  All of a sudden, college, trade schools, and apprenticeships become less of an option, and working at minimum and low wage jobs is the most expedient way to make ends meet.  When unexpected things happen, like a car trouble, they are left with options that are bad to worse.  Almost every obstacle that people face are compounded when children are conceived out of wedlock to parents with little or no economic foundation.  This scenario affects people of color at much higher rates.  We could do so much to increase the equity of people of color if we decreased the amount of children born to children!  

Self Gratification

One of the more pernicious current cultural concepts is the fear of missing out (FOMO).  At the heart of this construct is the belief that self gratification is life’s ultimate goal and by missing out on some of that gratification, one’s life will be less fulfilled.  This mindset erodes the family in a number of ways.  First, it influences people to behave in ways that impact their ability to be spouses and parents.  It also fuels the idea that families are a hindrance to fulfillment and not the cause of fulfillment.  Most importantly, it creates a culture of self-centeredness that blinds people to the needs of others.  There is a reason many say the two biggest causes of marital problems and divorce are money and sex.  Both are manifestations of a combination of unmet expectations and selfish pursuits.  

In terms of the pursuit of self gratification, none is more disastrous than that of sexual gratification.  Similar to the radical feminism of the 60’s, the Sexual Revolution, brought about by those same feminist, cultivated an ideal that conflicted with reality.  This ideal promoted a sexual behavior untethered from a sacred act between a man and woman and the means to construct a family.  In it’s place was the belief that sex was merely a physical act, a mere means to an end.  To the chagrin of many progressive idealists, was that this unrestrained sexual activity does not come without consequences.  Many women who thought of sex in this manner in their youth, became disillusioned in their age, realizing that the sexual revolution did not bring about genuine fulfillment, but rather much regret.  And while the sexual revolution benefitted many men in terms of easier and increased quantities of sex, it has corrupted their minds in ways that make them see women as objects of their own gratification.  

The reality is that sex is much more than just a physical interaction between two or more people.  In fact, there are huge psychological implications in regards to our sexual interactions and most are long lasting.  Have you ever seen the data on what happens to children who are sexual abused?  Or, have you heard the intense traumatic effects of rape?  If sex merely a physical event, the long term psychological effects would be minimal.  But it is not the case.  I know some will counter that these incidents are vastly different than when two consenting adults engage in mutually agreed upon activities.  And, I agree in part. However, the more compelling issue is that there is a clear emotional and mental aspect to sex that many try to ignore completely. 

Engaging in unrestrained, promiscuous sex has huge consequences for families. One of the reasons  is the law of diminishing returns.  There is no other act as intimate and sacred in which  two people can share.  However, repeated sexual exploits diminish and lessens the importance of intimacy and sex.   When a person shares it with a vast number of people, each time they do, their ability to carry on a lifetime commitment with one person is weakened. I used to ask guys and girls what their reaction would be if they found out their partners had sex with other partners.  It is not all that interesting or surprising that as the number of partners increased, the less comfortable they felt.  Why?  Again, it is because sex and marriage have an important connection that goes well beyond just the physical act.

In a culture that places a premium on sex as the most important and sought after form of gratification, there is bound to be many assorted issues.  Pornography, before the internet, had already transformed and corroded the psychology of sex.  With the internet, this corrosion has increased exponentially.  Essentially, porn has created a hugely unrealistic and false perception of sex, especially in the ways male’s think about how women view sex.  Too many women and young lady’s are pushed into sexual acts they find unsatisfying or repulsive, but cultural pressures force them to yield. Too many men are told that their goal in life should be to have as much sex as you can and sexual conquests equate to your status as a male.  The problem is that there are long term consequences no one likes to talk about.  The most important being the inability to maintain a relationship with a significant other.  I have argued that the reason God placed such an emphasis on sexual behavior is because unchecked sexual behaviors can be extremely toxic, corrosive, and detrimental to our mind, body, and spirit.

I am not arguing for a return to “Victorian” prudishness regarding sex.  I don’t think sex should be something that is never discussed or framed as dirty.  We should talk about it…truthfully.  We should celebrate it as the most sacred and intimate act one can share with another…and it is really enjoyable and fun!

Sex is just one form of self-gratification there are many others that can also plague the family.  Materialism is perhaps the most common.  Materialism, in short, is the pursuit of physical things and stuff.  Houses, cas, technology, and clothes probably top the list of “things” we pursue.  Again, capitalism plays a distinct role in this as does our cultural ethos.  Corporate marketers have done an excellent job of selling the idea that stuff and things are that of which happiness is made.  Corporations also have deliberately utilized planned obsolescence as means to get consumers to buy the most up to date product, even though the current product is fine.  

The pursuit of stuff places many stresses on the family and often acts as a distraction. The pursuit of things requires money, which requires the family to place money as the focus of its attention.  As I mentioned before, if people prioritize things and money, they end up neglecting the more important matters.  One can’t “serve two masters” although many try.  Slowly but surely, money and things prevent families from making decisions that are best for the growth and development of their kids. Instead, their kids adopt and internalize the modeled behavior of their parents.  Ultimately, this formula lessens the individual's appreciation of human relationships, depletes the capacity for compassion and empathy, and weakens the ability to make short term sacrifices to promote long term betterment.  

This sort of thinking and perspective on life often “plunge people into ruin and destruction”.  Whether it is the mounting piles of debt that one incurs in an attempt to keep pace with the Jones, or attempts to secure stuff in immoral ways, or leading to neglect those with whom you should be loving.  When money and things become your central aim, it's usually what you get.  Unfortunately, you forgo genuine happiness, fulfillment, and satisfaction.  More importantly you raise awful children who have adopted your world view.  

Husbands and Wives

One of the most important things we can do to strengthen our families is to promote the roles of husbands and wives in a way that attempts to celebrate their different roles as  opposed to having those roles compete with each other.  Although my perspective is based on Judeo-Christian concepts of husbands and wives, I think these approaches could be accepted by all, without a religious conversion.  Too often, men and women come into a marriage with really bad ideas about their roles and how they should perform them.    

One of the interesting trends in our society is that many people are delaying marriage much later than previous generations or renouncing it all together. While the reasons for this trend are many and complex, one of these is the belief that marriage prevents gratification and fulfillment. It's not that people are not in relationships, it is that they are choosing other forms of relationships such as cohabitation or some form of open relationships. These types of relationships tend to minimize real commitment and sacrifice of oneself. Relationships are viewed more from practical, economical, and utilitarian perspectives that place all of the focus on themselves.

This trend has been propagated, unfortunately by not just by the usual suspects of media, social media, and Hollywood, but by parents themselves. I have often heard parents encourage their kids to almost avoid marriage for as long as possible in an attempt to do all the things they, themselves, never got to do. More importantly, parents for the last 30 years or so, have made their kids' life paramount in the life of the family. In doing so we have inadvertently created a self centered and narcissistic people, consumed with their own happiness. The problem is that this approach often results in the exact opposite outcome. The  increase in the levels of depression and anxiety are, in part,  a consequence of pursuing superficial and materialistic ends.  Unfortunately, these ends often don’t meet expectations, leaving one bitter, confused, or disillusioned. All of this has equipped our young people with a mindset that seeks to extract from a marriage instead of serving their spouse.

We need to be more deliberate in cultivating an appropriate understanding of the role of a spouse and celebrating the impact of that role.  Young boys need to be taught that their strength, aggression, and competitive nature is one to be used in service of their family.  Future husbands should understand that their role is to provide and protect their family, physically, emotionally, and spiritually.  We should teach our boys that they are to honor their wives and be willing to put their wife’s needs in front of their own.  By appreciating, valuing,  and supporting their wife’s roles and contributions, husbands can nurture a reciprocal respect that sustains the relationship.   Likewise, we should teach young women that their role requires them to also provide and protect their family in ways that are different from that of the father.  Women should understand that respecting the husband’s contribution and efforts to the family is hugely important in maintaining a strong relationship. When two spouses see their role as one of service in sacrifice to each other, the service and sacrifice all of a sudden don’t feel so burdensome.  

Parents

There is no greater role in our society than that of the parent.  As such, when one becomes a parent, they take on an enormous responsibility.  However, many become parents with little thought about what that means or how they should approach it.  If they have placed some thought on the matter, they often turn to really bad advice or are influenced by inferior models.  Certainly the media, Hollywood, and pop culture provide a plethora of bad parenting examples and advice. Even the “expert” advice one can get from so-called experts and psychologists are often horribly wrong. The result is a large group of parents who take on the role, ill equipped for the job.  And, as many of you know, it is a big job.

Probably the most important concept a parent needs to understand is that they are the adult and should act like it.  In other words, they need to realize that it is their job to exert authority over their children to help them grow into quality people.  I have seen way too many parents allow the “inmates to run the asylum”.  Now I know kids are not inmates, but they quickly become the kind of people no one wants to be around when parents acquiesce their authority to their children.  

With that being said, parents need to be firm and set clear expectations of their children in four key areas. First, all parents should ensure that their children are respectful to them, to other adults, and their peers.  This must start at the earliest and parents should hold the line.  Never allow children to throw temper tantrums or argue with you, especially publicly, and especially in their early ages.  Next, honesty should also be demanded from the earliest ages.  Kids need to know that nothing can damage their reputation more than being deceitful and untrustworthy.  Sometimes, it can be cute when young kids lie or fib about something, especially when it is obvious.  However, when a parent communicates the value and importance of honesty, children will internalize that, so when they are older, they are more likely to be honest adults.  Honesty is also something that has to be modeled.  Once a kid realizes that their parents are dishonest, they will not value honesty, or respect you.  Third, parents should promote the idea of effort over specific outcomes.  When our kids were going to school or participating in sports, we told them that our only expectation was they tried their hardest.  We never had conversations about grades, only about effort and work ethic.  Trying hard and giving your best effort, even when you do not want to, is a trait that will serve them extremely well.  FInally, parents should teach their children that their attitude is something they can and must control.  When they are angry, sad, upset, or discouraged, we should help them develop the discipline to manage their emotions and control their attitudes.  Emotions are not excuses for poor behavior or poor decisions.

One of the more difficult aspects of being a parent these days is to find the appropriate balance of your child’s activities and the family.  Having three girls that participated in soccer, softball, marching band, and church, we were constantly on the move, and rarely did we have a lazy weekend.  And while I find these activities important and significant, I also can see the potential of losing perspective.  Too many parents are suckered into the idea that these activities are going to lead to their child getting a scholarship or other recognition, and consequently spend enormous amounts of time and money on these pursuits.  I have watched parents get more upset, irrational, and nearly lose their mind over their nine year’s old soccer game than they do with just about anything else.  When parents act like this, they inadvertently teach their children that these activities are the most important thing in life.  We tried to go to every game or event of our daughters, but there were plenty of times when we made the choice that other things were more important.  We communicated that with our kids and they understood.  

As a parent, I always viewed my job as teaching and equipping my children to be independent, productive, and have agency over their life.  Too many parents have become either “helicopter” parents or “snowplow” parents.  Helicopters are the parents that constantly hover over their child, always fearful that something unexpected will happen to their child with which they won't be able to manage.  By constantly monitoring and inserting themselves in their child’s lives, they weaken their children's ability to become adults.  Snowplows don't hover, they remove every obstacle in their child’s way.  When they get a poor grade, they are down at the school demanding the school fix the terrible injustice.  When their child doesn’t play in a game or get the lead role, they call for the coach to be fired.  Instead of hovering and plowing, parents should allow their kids to struggle, be embarrassed, and fail.  They should start at early ages making their lunch, doing their laundry and doing the dishes.  When faced with a conflict, parents should let their children figure out how to resolve it.  When they don’t get the grade they wanted, have the students talk with the teacher.  If they are not playing, have them talk with the coach.  These are invaluable skills that parents should instill in their kids because they are the kinds of skills that society needs more of.  We need people to be able to manage their life and have a sense of self-reliability.  Hoverers and snowplows only destroy that ideal. 

I respect the people who choose not to get married or to have children.  The last thing this world needs is people, who don’t want the enormous responsibility of raising a family, to be raising a family.  I am by no means trying to shame them.  But the reality is that in our democratic society, one in which the people play such a prominent role, we need good people.  Good people are most often formed in good families.  Unfortunately, families, specifically the nuclear family, are under threat from a society that doesn’t value its importance or impact.