Imagine this scene:
Two mothers have their toddler sons at a park. The boys are still quite young, no more than
four years old. One of the boys, we'll
call him Sam, has a shiny new toy that he recently got for his birthday. It's obvious that he loves this toy. He doesn't want to let it out of his
sight. Unfortunately, the other boy
comes over and takes it right out of his hands.
Sam turns to his mother, distressed.
She encourages him to share the toy with the other boy, who simply
doesn't treasure it like Sam does.
Within minutes the other boy has dismantled the toy and scattered the
pieces, then stands eyeing Sam's backpack to see what other toys he has. Sam is heartbroken over the destruction of
his favorite toy. Sadly, his mother only
gently reminds him that it is 'just a toy' and that it's more important that he
learn to share like a good boy. The
other boy once again approaches and tries to take a toy but this time Sam yanks
his bag away and holds it tightly against his chest. His mother scolds him for not sharing,
somewhat embarrassed by his behavior.
But Sam knows what happened last time and won't risk it again, so when
the boy tries to take another one of Sam's toys, Sam wallops him. His mother descends on him like a hawk, yanks
the backpack away from him and hands it to the other boy who immediately starts
sifting through it just as carelessly as he had with the first toy. Meanwhile, Sam is getting scolded for not
sharing AND for hitting.
Who is the bully in this situation? Who is getting taken advantage of?
I watched a scene almost exactly like this when I was first
pregnant with Jett. I was very
idealistic at that time and had thought often about how I would raise my
children to be respectful, generous, caring adults. Of course I had all the answers. Ha.
But when I watched this scene unfold, a flicker of rage grew within
me. Sam's mother was just doing what she
felt societal pressure to do in that instance.
For one thing, no one wants to be the mother of the kid who won't share
and who resorts to hitting. But even if
she had seen that he was simply defending himself, it wasn't her place to
address the other child's behavior even though his own mother certainly wasn't
paying attention. Regardless of all the
factors out of her control, I was upset with Sam's mother for caving to outward
pressure when she should have been protecting her son. Perhaps the scene would have unfolded like
this:
Sam plays with his shiny new toy with great glee. The other boy, let's call him Tim, comes over
and tries to take the coveted toy out of Sam's hands but Sam's mother stops Tim
gently. "This sure looks like a fun
toy, doesn't it? It belongs to Sam
here. He got it for his birthday. What did you get for your
birthday?" Tim looks up at Sam's
mother and says something that sounds like "truck". She continues, "Oh, a truck? Did you bring it?" Meanwhile, Sam stops playing with his toy and
watches the exchange. Tim shakes his head.
He didn't bring any toys with him to the park. He again eyes Sam's toy. Sam's mother turns to Sam and says "Sam,
would you like to share your toy?".
Sam is wary and clutching his toy closely. Then he tentatively shakes his head no. He's not ready to give up his prized
possession just yet. "Is there one
in your backpack you'd be willing to share with him?" Sam opens up his backpack and pulls out a different
toy. It's smaller and well-used, but Tim
accepts it gratefully nonetheless. Both
boys smile timidly at each other and then play side-by-side for a while, Sam
with his favorite toy and Tim with his newfound borrowed toy. They are both content for the moment. After a while, Sam's mother pulls him aside
and quietly asks him again if he would be willing to share his new toy with
Tim. Sam mulls it over carefully,
turning to watch the other boy play with his other toy. Then he spontaneously nods his approval. "But Mom, he can't break it. And I want it back in just a little
bit." Sam's mother smiles at his
directives and tells him that it is his toy, so he gets to make the rules about
how and when it is played with. Sam runs
over and hands his toy to Tim, who lights up upon receiving it. The boys play together for a while longer and
then it's time to leave. Tim gives the
toy back to Sam and sings "Thank youuu!" as he walks back to his
mother. Sam's mother thanks him for
sharing his toy and tells him that it was very generous of him to do so since
he wasn't required to. Sam beams with
pride.
How would society view THIS exchange? Would this mother be viewed as a deadbeat for
not making her child share? I have
thought about this for over four years since watching those boys play together
that one day. Ultimately my husband and
I have decided that we will teach our children that their things belong to
them. Gifts that they receive alone
belong to them alone. We do not require
them to share their own toys if they don't want to. We encourage them to share, but if their
answer is no then that is the final word.
Eventually they seem to want to share their beloved toy, but they are
not chastised if they never choose to.
This is not to be confused with 'taking turns'. Just because we don't force them to share
their own things doesn't mean they don't have to share community property or
wait in line. If they receive a gift
together, they must take turns and learn to share it. If they are playing with a toy that belongs
to a friend of theirs, they are required to take care of it or they lose the
privilege of playing with it, and they are only allowed to play with it with
the other child's permission and blessing, NOT just the permission of the
child's mother.
There are several lessons I hope they will learn from this
practice:
1. I have ownership
of certain things. I have control over
how those things are treated by others.
2. I do not expect to
have control over things that do NOT belong to me.
3. I will take care
of the things I use whether they are mine or not.
4. I appreciate when
someone shares with me but I do not expect it or demand it.
5. My toy, my rules.
I hesitate to share this only because I know how
misconstrued this could be. People might
think this is a terrible practice, that I'll raise my children to be bossy and
domineering and greedy. But I do not
think it is better to teach my children that they must share no matter what,
even with children who do not take care of their things, nor do I care to teach
them that if something they love is taken from them and destroyed that they
should just lay back and get over it.
Because if I teach my children that this is how life is, I risk
inadvertently teaching them to treat other children that same way. They might yank a toy away from another child
and say "You have to give this to me.
My mommy says we have to share." or they might break another
child's toy and assume there will be no consequences and that the other child will
simply have to 'get over it'. I want to
treat my children the way I want them to treat others. I think it would be vastly contradictory to
try to teach them to respect another person's property in one breath but then
insinuate that their own things are not worthy of respect in another breath by
telling them it's 'just a toy' when someone else breaks it. If I will ever teach my children to respect
other people and their property, I must first show respect for my child and his
or her property.
This really isn't a parenting lesson. In fact, I'm going to shift gears
entirely. A few years ago, a coworker of
mine had the terrible misfortune of a house fire that destroyed the home she
and her fiance were going to share after their wedding the next week. They lost the home completely as well as all
the contents, including many of the things they had prepared for their wedding,
gifts they had received early, and things they had brought together from their
respective homes to put in the home they would share. It was truly a tragic event. A fund was set up for her and many people
made donations to try to help. Those of
us who worked directly with her were just heartsick for her and the things that
were lost. We saw her struggle with the
loss of many emotionally valuable things that simply couldn't be replaced. We would have done anything to undo the
situation if we could have. But
ultimately the donations and sympathy and good intentions were not what saved
them financially. It was the fact that
they had insurance. In fact, the
donations they received were barely a drop in the bucket compared to what they
received from the insurance company, without which they would've truly lost
everything. I hope that doesn't sound
cold because it is merely the reality of their situation.
I have floundered politically for a few years. I hesitate to share my views with others not
because they're so polarizing but because I don't have all the answers and I'm learning new
things all the time. I used to be a bit
more vocal, but I have learned a lot since then and have chosen to keep things
to myself for the most part. This is not going to be a political essay in
the sense that I'll identify with any one party. This is merely my humble opinion on a few
things that I feel I have learned. I
like to think that I've become quite open-minded in the past few years and
because I have not affiliated with any one party, my pride has not precluded me
from changing my mind on various issues.
Political
disclaimer aside, we have arrived at the whole point of this essay. Think about Sam in the first example. He was forced to share what was rightfully
his. Tim took what didn't belong to him
and treated it with no care, thereby breaking it. He went for the backpack, expecting yet
another toy. And Sam's mother all along
ordered him to share and to not value his things over the other child's
enjoyment. We could maybe all agree that
it wasn't even the other child's enjoyment she was so worried about as the
societal pressure to make her child share.
Finally, when Sam tried to defend his property from being swiped again,
his mother again came down on him harshly, this time for refusing to share and
also for hitting. Sam simply could not
win.
Does this sound familiar?
Many, many people can identify with Sam.
They work for the money they earn to buy the things that they want. Imagine how hard it would be to have the
authority figure in your life (in this case the government) tell you that you
have to share, no matter what. So you do
it, not necessarily cheerfully or out of good will; it is only because you are
required to. Then you watch as the very
thing you worked so hard for, the thing you prize, is treated with no
respect. Your handout is taken, wasted,
and then you are expected to give again.
This would make any rational person lash out in helplessness and anger,
just as Sam did.
But what if you were told that your things are yours? That you don't have to give them away if you
don't want to? That you could do it as a
loan, or you could place conditions on it, or that you could even assess first
if someone would treat it with respect before sharing? Would this make you greedy and bossy and
domineering? Or might it lead you to
share out of goodwill like Sam in the second example because you have control
over what is shared and the terms under which it is shared? That's a hypothetical question I truly don't
claim to know the answer to. It's
certainly something I have mulled over a lot.
For every Sam (who responds negatively to being forced to
share) there is another kind of person who doesn't mind it. They see the need, turn a blind eye to the
wastefulness when it happens, and share what they have because they believe it
to be good and helpful, the right thing to do, the only conscionable thing to
do. But think again to my coworker and
the house fire. We desperately wanted to
help her. It wasn't FAIR! She was down on her luck, she didn't deserve
it, and everyone rallied around them to try to help. But it wasn't what saved them. It couldn't be. We didn't have the resources regardless of
how terrible we felt for them. What if
the city government stepped in and ordered everyone to chip in a certain
percentage of their income because of this horribly unfair thing that happened
that must be rectified? Think of the
outcry. Because that was just one house
fire out of numerous fires that summer alone.
What if we had a fire tax? No one should have to bear the burden of
something so unfair alone, right?
Especially when it isn't their fault.
But then people who have a fire clause in their homeowner's insurance
would strike that out. No need to pay
for it if the city will just tax the citizens to come up with the money
instead. People will see no reason to
bear the burden of their own fire insurance if they are going to be expected to
pay a portion of the costs of every fire that happens in the city. As fewer people have fire insurance, more
people will be completely reliant on the city to continue with the fire
tax. Each citizen will come to expect
this treatment. Soon it would be so
prevalent that it could never be undone.
What started as an act of humanitarianism for people down on their luck
has become an expectation by the people that they will receive the same treatment
in a similar circumstance. In fact,
people who voluntarily paid for their own fire insurance while continuing to
pay the tax on everyone else's fires would likely be viewed as a bit of a
schmuck for paying for something unnecessarily when the government is giving it
for free. The people who initially cried
out against the fire tax would soon give up and just go along with it. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.
In other words, if you treat the people like Sam and force
them to share, you will soon have a population of Tims who expect a handout.
There are a LOT of unfair things that happen in this
world. I'm not even going to touch on
the things that happen in other countries because I've read lots of horror
stories but I don't have a true understanding of what worldwide humanitarian
efforts would cost us. If we stick to
America alone, there are lots of ways people find themselves down on their
luck. They are laid off, injured in a
car accident, robbed, scammed, starving, drowning in medical debt, or yes..
they lose everything they own in a fire.
Terrible things happen to good people every day. I die inside when I read about starving people,
homeless people, unemployed or injured or mistreated people.. so much so that
my human inclination is to bury my head in the sand and try not to think about
it because it's so very painful to imagine their suffering. These are legitimate causes. There are so very many people who
desperately need help that they may or may not be able to get for
themselves. It's cynical to think that
everyone in desperate situations got there only because of the decisions they
have made. But it's naive and arrogant
to think that we as a nation can help all of them. It's hard to be pragmatic in the face of a
sympathetic crowd, isn't it? Almost
impossible, actually. Because the
sympathetic person can so easily villify the pragmatic person and make them out
to be cold and heartless money grubbers.
I know this because that's ingrained in me. I give food and money to people who stand
with a sign asking for it. I make
donations to humanitarian causes. I weep
when I see images of terrible suffering and I would give anything to help. But I have learned that it's impossible to
rectify all of the unfairness that people of this country and world face. It's impossible. To acknowledge that does not make us
monsters. To deny help should not make us
villains.
There are a lot of visualizations that attempt to
demonstrate how futile it is for us to try to help everyone who needs
help. It would be difficult to describe
them here. But powerful as those
visualizations are at showing the futility of helping people in their need,
they don't even touch on the exponential effect of human motivation. We as humans love freebies. We love samples. We love incentives. We love gifts. We love tax refunds. And why not?
We'd be fools not to! Who doesn't
love free money? Exactly.
There is no way to accurately depict how much human
motivation causes humanitarian efforts to fail.
I repeat, if people are forced to share their things or money with
people who are getting it for free, those people who previously knew the value
of working hard for their things will see that it's a lot easier to not work for things and get them for
free. It's human nature. If your favorite sandwich shop had two
locations and you learned that the one you don't normally go to started selling
their sandwiches at a quarter of the price the other place charged because it
was in a neighborhood with a lower average income, how long would you hold out
before going there to get your sandwich?
And once word got around, how long before the franchise with the more
expensive sandwiches has to close their doors because they've lost their
customer base? Of course at first they
would try to be competitive, but it would only be possible by laying off half
their staff and skimping on ingredients.
The half of their staff that remains employed is expected to work longer
hours at less pay. The ones who are laid
off get in line for unemployment compensation.
Now imagine this is happening throughout the whole country. (Not too hard to imagine, is it?) Unemployment skyrockets and the ones still
working are being overworked even while their wages are being frozen. The government tries to step in and help all
these poor unemployed people who aren't as lucky as the ones still working (tongue in cheek), but
there are just so many people who need the assistance that there is a public
outcry that the government help by expanding unemployment benefits. Remember Sam's mother? She forced Sam to share because she felt
pressure to do so. We the people have
the power to apply the very same pressure to our government. So the government does intervene and forces
everyone to share whether it's fair or not.
The employed people get frustrated because they have worked hard for the
very things that the unemployed are getting for free. And since not all of them value the help
received because they didn't have to work for it or earn it, some waste it and
then expect more help. The government
steps in and orders more 'sharing'. The
ones who are being forced to share are growing more angry and resentful toward
the ones they are helping. But the
government has essentially told them that the things they have worked for are
not really theirs so they see that only a fool would continue to work in conditions
where he is expected to work longer hours and cover more duties for less money
when his now unemployed former coworkers are getting payment for doing
nothing.
I feel like I'm just talking in circles at this point and
I'm going to assume that my point has been made as well as I'm going to make
it. But ultimately this isn't me crying
out against humanitarian efforts or taxes or socialism or anything that clearly
defined. What this is to me is the
general realization that just like with parenting, where you will never teach
your child to respect you or anyone else by taking away their rights and
belongings and making them feel powerless, the government cannot make the citizens
of a country respect said government or each other without first making those
citizens feel that they have certain rights that will not be violated; that
they can have possessions and ownership rights; and that they can earn money
and give it away only to whom they see fit if they so choose. In scenario 1, would you rather be Sam or
Tim? Sam had his things taken away and
destroyed and he was rebuked for being angry about it. Tim got to play with toys that weren't his
for free and he was not rebuked for destroying them or for expecting more. But in scenario 2, it was Sam who had the
better toy. He didn't have to let Tim
play with it at all, but once he trusted Tim to be careful with it, he allowed
him the opportunity. There's nothing
wrong with Tim in either scenario. He's not
the bad guy, just opportunistic. But try
to tell Sam that. When forcing him to
share, you have pitted him against the other boy and made him defensive and
aggressive. But grant him his rights and
treat him with respect, and he's a different boy altogether. Simply put, if the government makes it preferable to be Tim, that's what many people will choose to do. But if the government instead empowers Sam, it will show every Tim that it's profitable to work for what you want because you can't have it for free. I know there are at least a thousand shades of
gray I couldn't touch on here, but I feel that this simplistic notion is at the
very heart of our economic crisis in America today.
