Intensive Parenting Is (Probably) Incompatible with Having Many Kids
Is it possible to be seen as a good parent today if your main goal isn't perfecting your children, but rather simply being their “safe place”? I don’t have a definitive answer, but being a warm and loving parent who provides a sense of security is both a meaningful and demanding aim.
Editors’ Note: This essay is the second part of a three-essay series on the challenges of Western parenting. The first essay, written by Elizabeth Grace Matthew, can be found elsewhere.
Recently, I was surprised when a mother in a local Facebook group expressed frustration about people she believed shouldn’t be parents — specifically, those who can’t afford to pay for their kids’ college tuition and contribute to a down payment on their first homes. As usual in mom circles on social media, this sparked heated debate. Some accused the mother of being elitist, while others agreed that good parents should have substantial savings to assist their children’s transition to adulthood.
I thought, surely it can’t be that only upper-middle-class Americans deserve to have children. The current standard for good parenting isn’t just having enough money to fully pay for college and help buy a home. While it’s admirable when parents can provide this support, it cannot be the one and only measure of good parenting.
Nevertheless, this mother’s criticism reflects a wider trend in the United States toward intensive parenting. Intensive parenting remains a controversial and widely discussed topic.
“Is it possible to be considered a good parent today if your top priority is not perfecting your children, but rather simply being their ‘safe place’?”
Summary: Modern parenting debates highlight the tension between intensive parenting ideals and realistic family resources, questioning whether financial support alone defines good parenting.
Would you like the summary to be more formal or conversational?