My rant against John Rosemond

I used to like "parenting expert" John Rosemond a lot, before I had children -- HA!!

I still sometimes read his stuff, for a few reasons:

1) I think he's a good writer and speaker;

2) It keeps me on my toes;

3) I do agree with him, at least partiall, about some things


I was checking into his website the other day and saw this column, which basically states that the number one problem facing today's families is that parents are too involved with their kids.

Yes, you read that write. I almost couldn't type it without laughing. Is he serious??

Here's an excerpt:

Symptomatic of this ubiquitous state of bad mental health is mother-to-mother conversation, which will almost invariably be all about their children: what they’re doing for their children, their children’s latest magnificent accomplishments, and so on. That today’s mothers cannot seem to think of anything else to talk about is rather, well, sad. My mother once told me that when mothers got together in the 1950s, they talked about everything but their children. “We talked about interesting things,” was the way she put it.

I have a few thoughts about this:

1) If a group of teachers got together and talked about their students, their classroom activities, and so on, would that also be "sad" and "not interesting"? What about a group of college professors discussing their job and their students?

2) Rosemond always talks about how women in the 50's, and earlier, always did this, or that. Really? How could he possibly know what "most women" did over fifty years ago? How could that possibly be the same for almost everybody? Anyone have clues about this one, based on conversations with your grandmothers or something? Is this really accurate?

3) Why in the world would you bother to have children if you don't want to be involved with them or spend time with them? Oh wait .... maybe these wonderful women from the 50's didn't choose to have children.

4) Is it really "sad" that I find my children and my life with my children interesting? I would think it's sad if you didn't! We have interesting conversations. They have interesting observations. We read interesting books, watch interesting TV shows, play and sing and listen to interesting music together, go to interesting plays together, hang out with other interesting people, do interesting projects, and go to interesting places together.

The more I think about it, the more this is a perfect example of the totally condescending, "What you do doesn't matter because you only stay home with kids. We, on the other hand, are intelligent and interesting people."

I guess a lot of people questioned this article, because he has a follow-up to it here.

Yes, you read my audacity correctly: I am the contrarian of parent involvement. I think it’s bad for parents, bad for children, bad for families (obviously), and for all those reasons, bad for America.

Wow. Don't even know what to say to that.

Parenting is a form of leadership. In order for a leader, in any context, to be effective, he or she must command (as opposed to demand) the respect of the people being led. This requires a boundary between the leader and the led, the permeability of which is controlled by the former. “Get involved with your children” puts relationship before leadership, the cart before the horse.

This made me think of Jesus, the Ultimate and Perfect Leader. Did he get involved with his disciples? Didn't he spend plenty of time with them on a regular basis?? Please do chime in on this if you can, because I really would like to learn something here and not just be critical.

... the child’s primary challenge was to keep his parents from getting involved.

Bwaa-ha-haa!! Well, maybe if he liked his parents more, he wouldn't desperately want them to stay the hell away from him! Give me a break!! I'm supposed to feel like a terrible parent because my kids like my company?

[I should point out here than you can never win a "Rosemond" argument, because he always says that if this ideas sound crazy, or cruel, it's just proof of how upside-down our society and current culture is. Okay.]

It's interesting that I know from other writings that Rosemond thinks that having an at-home parent -- as well as homeschooling -- are good things.

He said in one book that "a mother should be home for her children, in case they need her, but not be home with her children."

Uh-huh. In other words, she should quit her job and hang around at home all the time, just in case her kid breaks a bone or something, I guess, but stay away from all her kids. Just be home doing "interesting" things (whatever they would be) in another room while her kids basically fend for themselves -- because, apparently, they don't want to be around her either!

And how in the hell does that work with homeschooling? Yes, homeschooling is good, but you shouldn't actually be around your children, or involved in what they're doing, or talking about it with other parents?? Huh? What, is his idea of homeschooling to stick the kids in another room with "assignments" and then go in another room and do your own [interesting] thing?

I guess so.

It bothers me that this bothers me. It makes me feel like he must have hit a nerve. But, really, I find it very insulting. I am an intelligent, well-educated, yes, interesting person (even though I kid that I'm not), and the fact that I spend time with my children and do things with them, and know them well, does not make me less so.