The myth of the spoiled child Challenging the conventional wisdom about children and parenting

IT IS ENTIRELY POSSIBLE, if you Sit down on a comfy couch with a plump pillow, a good reading light and a crack pipe, that you can read a bunch of parenting books and not feel terrible. And I say that having written one. Generally, the fault lies not in the individual books, but in the fact that they keep coming at us: an endless avalanche of breakthroughs proving that whatever you sort of thought made sense - eating while pregnant, perhaps - is actually fraught with peril. The flip side is that these books sometimes offer up fascinating information about how children develop, and even how to make them a little healthier or happier. And so we keep reading. Two of the latest, "The Myth of the Spoiled Child," by Alfie Kohn, and "Do Fathers Matter?," by Paul Raeburn, are filled with surprising insights and counterintuitive data, along with some of the hairsplitting, head-spinning advice that makes you think: "Wait, I just put my kid's painting on the fridge and said 'I love it,' not T love you.' Have I ruined him forever?" Kohn's book is an energetic - O.K., steam-shooting-out-the-ears - argument against all the columnists, politicians and pundits who insist children today are spoiled. To those who say parents are too permissive and children too coddled, Kohn, the author of several books on child rearing, says au contraire: Parents are too controlling, while our kids are being pummeled by a world gone mad with competition and cruelty. Among the hot-button issues he takes on is trophy culture. The idea of children getting trophies for merely showing up seems to drive a lot of people crazy. But not Kohn. There is no reason to send little losers home empty-handed, he says. "Being disappointed neither imparts a skill nor promotes a constructive attitude." Which is true: Disappointment is not a great motivator. Once asked if it was hard to write on the heels of "My Fair Lady," it's said, the show's lyricist Alan Jay Lerner replied that it's a lot harder to write after a flop. Disappointment is nonetheless a fact of life. But anyone pointing this out earns Kohn's contempt for telling kids, "Better Get Used to It," a phrase he shortens to BGUTI. Bguti types are so heartless, they see the blessing of a skinned knee rather than its pain. "If we were interested in helping children to anticipate and deal with unpleasant experiences, it might make sense to discuss the details with them and perhaps guide them through role-playing exercises. But why would we subject kids to those experiences?" he asks. Do we really have to role-play what it would feel like not to get a trophy for eighth place out of nine? (My older son actually got one of these.) Can't we assume that children can roll with at least some minor punches? Kohn says no. We must examine every interaction and expectation we have, to make sure it isn't soul-crushing. He finds most of them are. If parents push for obedience - or even high-five their child for doing the dishes - they are making their love conditional, a type of psychological control that is, he writes, "damaging." But if they push for independence, they should realize "there's more to growing up than just going out on your own." If parents do too much for their children, this "may really be just another way of doing things to one's kids." (I agree.) But if they step back, "remember that too little involvement in kids' lives is even more problematic." Excuse me while I refill my pipe. Kohn cites a lot of evidence for his overarching idea that unconditional love and support are the greatest gifts a parent can give a child. This means that kids who feel worthwhile just for existing aren't the slag heaps of self-regard blasted by the bloviators, but the kind of psychologically stable young people who can take on life's challenges, knowing that even if they fail, they're still O.K. But of course, if they all get trophies for losing, that's something they may never learn. which brings us to Paul Raeburn's strikingly similar recipe for raising good children: Be kind, show respect, pay attention. But to this list he adds one critical ingredient: Keep Dad in the picture. In a country where 27 percent of children live apart from their fathers, this recommendation is bound to stir some ire. So Raeburn, the author of a memoir about raising children with depression, takes pains to explain that even though his book is all about the crucial role fathers (human and otherwise) play in their children's lives, "the evidence ... emphatically does not show that the children in families without fathers in the home are doomed." What the evidence does seem to show is that fathers make "important and unique" contributions to family life, starting by just being there: Families with a father present are less likely to live in poverty. Dads also interact with their kids a little differently. One study of swimming lessons found that mothers tended to stand in front of their children while fathers stood behind, possibly imparting a bit more bravery. Another researcher (and most anybody who's ever been to a playground) found that when fathers play with their children, they generally do more rough and tumbling, and challenge them more. Kids love this! "Two-year-olds who wanted to play sought out their fathers more than their mothers," Raeburn reports. Moreover, when playing, fathers, in the words of one researcher, "use objects in an incongruous way." They're goofier. This unpredictability may stimulate children and encourage them to take risks, which Raeburn sees as extremely important. Then there are all the invisible ways fathers influence their children, starting with their genes. The chapter on how the older a man gets, the more chance he has of siring a child with anything from autism to schizophrenia is enough to make men freeze their sperm at puberty. And that is the most disturbing aspect of this book. As much as it celebrates all the ways dads can help their kids, it also warns of all the ways they can, even with the best of intentions, end up hurting them. For instance, Raeburn cites one study of adult male mice that had been exposed to chronic stress (a bad mouse boss?) and then bred with normal females. Alas, "the pups showed physiological and behavioral changes resembling those of depression and anxiety." So did the grandpups. "Studies such as these are appearing all the time," Raeburn writes. "The more that researchers look for these changes, the more they find them." So stop looking! We are already awash in studies showing all the ways parents are ruining their children. Fortunately, Raeburn doesn't dwell on the negative. To celebrate dads, he romps through the animal kingdom finding male mice that cuddle their babies (to keep them from freezing), male monkeys that do the kid-carrying (to give Mom a break) and certain male frogs who "pick the eggs up and hold them in their mouths" until the tadpoles develop. While it's unclear whether this is the exact role model most men need, Raeburn's point is a significant one: Men stick around when they believe they have something valuable to offer their offspring. His book is a wide-ranging plea for both genders to remember that dads are not also-rans in the business of child rearing. They are just as valuable (and just as liable to screw up) as moms. LENORE SKENAZY is a public speaker and author of the book and blog "Free-Range Kids: How to Raise Safe, Self-Reliant Children Without Going Nuts With Worry."

Kohn (Feel-Bad Education: And Other Contrarian Essays on Children and Schooling, 2011, etc.) attacks the status quo on child-rearing and parenting. Nearly every generation, from Socrates to today, has been convinced that its children are being raised by parents who are too permissive. But as the author expertly analyzes, the definition of "permissiveness" has shifted as society has evolved: "It doesn't signify humane treatment or a willingness to nurse infants when they're hungry; it means coddling kids in a way that's unhealthy by definition." However, as Kohn also points out, there are many who believe children are being raised by overly protective parents who stifle children's natural curiosity and sense of learning. Via research and interviews, Kohn closely examines the current media-backed perceptions of permissive and controlling parenting and contrasts them with actual data, deflating popular beliefs that children are now more spoiled and unruly than ever. He delves into sports and education and inspects the pros and cons of encouraging children via rewards, trophies, honors and grading systems, concluding that "what matters isn't how motivated people are but how people are motivated." Adults and children often lose themselves in projects and endeavors they love due to the joy they bring, not the money, trophies or rewards they afford them. Kohn points out that the child who doesn't complacently follow orders in school might actually be the person who succeeds later in life, as that child has maintained a sense of self and of curiosity and not blindly given over all control to others. Kohn intelligently rationalizes how trusting one's child and supporting him or her with love and nonpunitive guidance builds a sense of safety, allowing the child to venture forth and make cooperative and respectful decisions. A thought-provoking, semicontroversial scrutiny of modern parenting practices.]] Copyright Kirkus Reviews, used with permission.