Throwing out Baby with the Bathwater, Part 1

In the USA, there is a widespread belief that a child should be turned out of the house at the legally (and arbitrarily) defined age of majority, i.e., 18. This author has heard the sentiment often expressed, and while it seems to cut across economic lines, the sentiment is most often expressed regarding sons. One supposes that daughters are expected to get married and thus relieve the parents of an economic burden in a different fashion.

Is this a harsh assessment of these sentiments? Well, considering the following comments pulled from the internet, there appears to be a definite financial aspect to the mentality:

Then, from the onset, make sure that each child understands that when he turns 18, he is responsible for his own life, including earning his own tuition for college through loans or scholarships, and all other living expenses. There can be no free ride for children once they reach their majority.

Yes, as if "18" is some magic age whereby every child instantly realizes their role in life, and knows how they are going to financially hack the incredible expenses involved with attending college.

If the child fails to get a job, don't let them back into the house. A few nights spent sleeping on a cold park bench is likely to provide a lot of motivation. ( And in the long run, is likely to be better for the child than continued coddling.)

Wow! Let's put them on the park benches, that'll teach those lazy young-un's! Hopefully, they won't get raped, robbed, or murdered while learning what street life is like. Depending on the police attitude of a locality, they may even be jailed for vagrancy. Certainly, there are many fine things for a young person to learn in jail, especially from the more experienced inmates.

Along these lines, why not make a MySpace account dedicated to your slacker kid and post his sad life for all to see?

Ah, humiliation. Well, a big red A is certainly better than pointing to a park bench.

Sheesh, looking at these comments, one would be hard put to believe that people are talking about their children. But then, this is the USA we're looking at in these instances. Not that Americans are particularly bad parents, but I have to believe that American society has been propagandized on this point. Let's consider a couple of facts:

Fact: No wealthy family would EVER adopt any of the proposals quoted above. Okay, the wealthy have money, so financial pressure isn't a real issue. But there is more than meets the eye here -- as many middle-class families could also support their children longer, but have been socially trained that it is inappropriate to do so. And yet, it IS appropriate for the wealthy to shelter their children as long as necessary?

Fact: Other modern societies do not advocate turning children out of the house at some magic age, to the contrary, children tend to stay much longer in their family's houses in these countries -- causing no apparent damage to their societies. In some of these countries, multiple generations live together quite happily in the same house -- might one dare suggest these are healthy, functional families?

Well, it is apparent that parental money and who gets it is a driver in this attitude, leading one to conclude that there is some personal greed involved. Greed is certainly nothing new, but what is interesting in the "boot them out" attitude is that this attitude, while destructive to society's most basic unit (the family), is generally approved by society when it is applied to middle- and lower-class children. Call me skeptical, but historically, societies that have engaged in self-destructive behavior haven't been long for this world. Conversely, those societies that have treasured the family above all else tend to be around for a long time, even if they aren't the king of the hill all of the time.

(Continues in Part 2)