A Simply Unbelievable Article
Jason Kuznicki on Jul 30th 2006
I guess the absurd headline should have been a warning: “Are You a Toxic Parent?”
Here are some true/false statements; you’re supposed to think yourself a bad person if you answer “true” to any of them. But tell me — isn’t one of these things rather not like the others?
·Kids are going to drink anyway, so they might as well do it at home, under adult supervision
·Restricting teenagers makes no sense when they’ll be on their own in college soon enough
·You’d rather be your child’s friend than an authority figure
Sure, serving alcohol to teenagers is against the law. But if your choices are 1) serving alcohol and removing car privileges for the night or 2) kids driving drunk, suddenly the law doesn’t make so much sense anymore. And maybe we ought to rethink that law. There is, after all, more than one way to restrict your teeangers so that they behave responsibly. And setting clear rules about alcohol that keep teenagers safe is exactly what a responsible authority figure should do.
Meanwhile, here’s how the article proves that you’re a bad parent if you serve alcohol to minors:
Silvia Johnson, the suburban Colorado mom who entertained high school kids at weekly parties with Jack Daniels, Bacardi rum and peppermint schnapps. Johnson provided the liquor, did shots with the 15- and 16-year-olds, supplied the methamphetamines and joined the kids in taking them. And she sexually serviced at least five of the boys, right there at her parties. She did this, she told police, to be the “cool mom.”
The lengths we’ll go to avoid sensible solutions in this country…
Filed in The Bistro, The Bureau
Sure, the slippery slope exists with any liberalization of alcohol laws, so much so that one drop will eventually lead to sex with minors. But apply that same slippery slope argument as an example and it’s ludicrous. Right, brilliant.
You said:
Sure, serving alcohol to teenagers is against the law. But if your choices are 1) serving alcohol and removing car privileges for the night or 2) kids driving drunk, suddenly the law doesn’t make so much sense anymore. And maybe we ought to rethink that law.
But really, aren’t you ignoring the third, responsible choice? 3.) Set clear guidelines for your teenager and enforce them. As a high school teacher, I am so sick of the argument you’ve provided. Get some balls and be a freaking parent. The end of the article said:
“What some parents don’t get, several kids said, is that ‘nobody cares if the parents are cool.’ What they do crave is parents who act like parents.”
Sarah–
First off, I don’t much care for the attack on my masculinity. It was completely uncalled for.
So honestly, aside from the law, what is wrong with parents supervising alcohol use by teenagers? What is wrong with taking away their car keys for the night, locking them in, and making sure that they drink responsibly? What’s wrong with teaching about responsible alcohol use in a socially restricted family setting? I might note, by the way, that the rest of the modern world already does it this way, and they find our prohibitionist attitude absurd.
So it’s not about being cool at all — if it were, maybe I’d approve of the meth-and-sex approach quoted above. What is *is* about is teaching young adults how to use alcohol responsibly, in a supervised setting. This is an option the article completely avoided discussing, as though it did not exist. Because, I suppose, it gets more readers when you scare people.
I have to agree with Jason here. The sentence “Kids are going to drink anyway, so they might as well do it at home, under adult supervision” is phrased somewhat flippantly, implying that agreement with it will be judged irresponsible. But it’s true - if kids aren’t supervised by their parents, they will drink anyway, and will be supervised by their similarly uneducated peers instead. The same goes for sex education, learning to drive, and a host of other things that young people need to learn in order to become responsible adults.
Besides, sipping wine with one’s parents would make alcohol consumption as UNcool as it could likely ever be.
Kris –
Your last sentence pretty much sums up my own introduction to alcohol. It’s part of why I feel the way I do on the issue.
I agree completely. I often found that those teenagers whose parents took a less prohibitive stance regarding alcohol were also the ones less likely to go on binges when they were introduced to it at the legal age. Alcohol, as with sex, and certain illegal drugs, is one of those things that teenagers are going to be curious about, and are going to be exposed to. A rational, educational, and realistic is simply the best way to deal with it, as opposed to taking the “Just say no” approach and burying your head in the sand.
If young people are given the correct and proper information, and are given a venue to explore them, then it prevents the possibly disastrous consequences that can occur when they are sneaking around and trying to hide it.
I’ll accept your argumenet if you have a teenager. If not, you’ll be surprised where all rational thought goes when dealing with one.
VRB –
Am I correct, then, that you admit it’s irrational to bar teens from all alcohol whatsoever — but that you have to do it anyway?
On what grounds?
VBN,
For what it’s worth, I agree with Jason all the way, and I am a parent of two children. One is now 23 and the other is 14.
I believe in teaching kids the things they need to know to be responible adults and that includes how to handle alcohol, sex and money.
As a big believer in moderation and avoiding absolutes in parenting which engender rebellion, I agree with the overall tenor of your post - though I don’t much care for the “they’re going to do it anyway” argument applied to one’s own children.
But I have to say when I read your question “isn’t one of these things rather not like the others?” followed by those statements, it was statement #3 which I found really didn’t belong, and best betrays the humorless “angry God” approach to parenting which is so odious. These folks ought to read “The Scarlet Letter” every few months. It’s not that I’m against authority, but friendship is a better context for it. Worry first about character and wise choices should follow, and placed limits will make more sense.
Hmm… I seem to be reading two seperate arguments here. Jason seems to be arguing for teaching teenagers about the responsible uses of sex and drugs. He is arguing against people saying that you shouldn’t say, “Well, since teenagers are going to be getting drunk and having sex anyway, we may as well facilitate it.”
The attitude of “Can’t stop it, may as well serve shots and hand out condoms at their parties” seems different from, “teens are going to encounter alcohol and sex and should be shown how to deal with these things responsibly.”
Didn’t everyone have at least one friend in high school who’s parents let them drink? And how often did you and your friends take advantage of that by drinking at their house (and staying there)? Maybe once in a great while. Not that I’m saying the angry god approach is better, but kids don’t want to be around their parents, whether they can drink or not. Personally, I think setting rules should stop once your kids reach their mid-teens. They are rational enough to make the right decision; whether they do or not is another matter and I don’t think it’s someone’s place to make sure another person always makes the right decision. As long as they are capable.