If people payed to read this, I would say they got what they payed for.

A comment: it is not the proper desire of a parent to be loved by his children; the aims of parenthood are to produce strong, intelligent, independent young adults. What they parent gets out of all this is irrelevant. I fear, also, that a parent seeking acceptance from his children will have reversed the proper order of that relationship, damage his children, and ultimately will worship them--how profane!

Taken under these constraints, a parent should never expect requital of his affections and should be content in being, more or less, forgotten. Thus the human comedy continues unabated.

I work as a social worker in the King County jail, and I can tell you that the one thing that nearly all of my clients have in common is that their parents would have acted as this article enjoins us to act: as dismissive, unkind, and unsympathetic to the more simple needs and innocent qualities of their children. When young, we have more sensitive and receptive states of mind (a mind that isn't fully developed offers its own qualities that are lost to us adults- like ceaseless curiosity and ease of enthusiasm. It's a treasure to behold, if one can see it). What I have learned in my work and my studies is that when that "treasure" was never held dear to the caregivers in a child's life, they often become desperate, aggressive, and often destructive members of society. They also have trouble learning and becoming "useful" to use the crude lexicon of the author. ( I find it interesting that as an artist himself, the author would say this about a child's drawings: " [they] hardly resembled the things they were supposed to represent". Who can know the things an artist was meaning to represent? In working with children, I find that their drawings represent true, primitive states and a view of the world that is skewed from our all-rational one- the same place every adult artist strives to be: like Dali, Munch, Bunuel, or any great artist. Since when is the linear and representational the only valued art form?

I will give you this: as irreverance goes, you've outdone yourselves this time, since it's not everyday that you see an African-American male boldly espousing the virtues of treating your children like burdensome animals. That is, unless you work in the jail, in which case it is every day that you see that.

I work as a social worker in the King County jail, and I can tell you that the one thing that nearly all of my clients have in common is that their parents would have acted as this article enjoins us to act: as dismissive, unkind, and unsympathetic to the more simple needs and innocent qualities of their children. When young, we have more sensitive and receptive states of mind (a mind that isn't fully developed offers its own qualities that are lost to us adults- like ceaseless curiosity and ease of enthusiasm. It's a treasure to behold, if one can see it). What I have learned in my work and my studies is that when that "treasure" was never held dear to the caregivers in a child's life, they often become desperate, aggressive, and often destructive members of society. They also have trouble learning and becoming "useful" to use the crude lexicon of the author. ( I find it interesting that as an artist himself, the author would say this about a child's drawings: " [they] hardly resembled the things they were supposed to represent". Who can know the things an artist was meaning to represent? In working with children, I find that their drawings represent true, primitive states and a view of the world that is skewed from our all-rational one- the same place every adult artist strives to be: like Dali, Munch, Bunuel, or any great artist. Since when is the linear and representational the only valued art form?

I will give you this: as irreverance goes, you've outdone yourselves this time, since it's not everyday that you see an African-American male boldly espousing the virtues of treating your children like burdensome animals. That is, unless you work in the jail, in which case it is every day that you see that.

"...it's not everyday that you see an African-American male boldly espousing the virtues of treating your children like burdensome animals."

And there you have it. "Boldly espousing virtues?" The piece is one big sarcastic ironic satiric intentionally shallow and perverse perception of what it means to be a child, what it means to be a father, and how a father should behave. Do those of you who've responded with outrage honestly believe Mr. Mudede is enjoining parents to take this approach to raising children seriously?

Sure, the idea that some parents do actually behave this way is hard to stomach. But parents who do think like this and have such a warped and FUBAR idea of what being a family is about--somehow I don't think they'll be able to articulate it this well. By speaking of parenting in such academic, soulless, priggish language, he's underscoring the fallacy of such a messed up and misguided perception of a parent who comes anywhere near actually believing any of what he's suggesting is acceptable.

It's a JOKE, y'all. Pure hyperbolic horseshit. Satire that's laying bare an ugly truth: parents with ego issues can, and often do, seriously fuck up their kids' heads.

Very well done!

There are so many things in here that ring absolutely true. I remember our daughter, at a young age, got into this habit of talking to our friends when we had dinner parties and such. It got to the point where we had to take her aside and tell her to just talk for a minute or two and leave the rest of the evening to the adults—people didn't come over to speak with a 7 year old all evening. We explained that we don't sit and talk to her friends all evening when they come over so she needs to slip away when the adults come by. So many things you mention are the dirty little secrets of parenting--it's simply not that much fun. After watching a bunch of kids chase a soccer ball around for the third or fourth Saturday, my wife and I got into the habit of taking a long walk during the games—watching 8 year olds kick a soccer ball around for an hour is the definition of boring even if it is your own kid. No wonder our parents were smart enough to avoid all the driving around and participation in every little thing we did as children.

The third time you get a rock painted blue, it loses its charm. Sure, you act excited, but let's face it: what do you do with a drawer full of blue rocks with something that could be an orange cat painted on them? Thank god our child is now 18 and out of the house. Finally, she is becoming an interesting person. Thanks for this great article.

When I read this article I was surrounded 5 or 6 children and their nannies. It was like being in an asylum. It was just a bunch of inanities, dropping things, bumping around, crying, screaming, etc. It made me laugh thinking of your article. Kids really are useless for their first 10 years or so.

Very well done! I can feel the honesty in your article, and it's the honesty few parents will own up to which means there is a problem. Having kids is work, work, work, and money, money, money with very few thanks. Somehow the hug and kiss can not replace the the thousands of hours of thankless work and love given but not returned. You can barely get a kid to take out the trash, but they will not blink at asking for 5 hours of your Saturday to run them around and wait, wait, wait.

There are so many things in here that ring absolutely true. I remember our daughter, at a young age, got into this habit of talking to our friends when we had dinner parties and such. It got to the point where we had to take her aside and tell her to just talk for a minute or two and leave the rest of the evening to the adults—people didn't come over to speak with a 7 year old all evening. We explained that we don't sit and talk to her friends all evening when they come over so she needs to slip away when the adults come by. So many things you mention are the dirty little secrets of parenting--it's simply not that much fun. After watching a bunch of kids chase a soccer ball around for the third or fourth Saturday, my wife and I got into the habit of taking a long walk during the games—watching 8 year olds kick a soccer ball around for an hour is the definition of boring even if it is your own kid. No wonder our parents were smart enough to avoid all the driving around and participation in every little thing we did as children.

The third time you get a rock painted blue, it loses its charm. Sure, you act excited, but let's face it: what do you do with a drawer full of blue rocks with something that could be an orange cat painted on them? Thank god our child is now 18 and out of the house. Finally, she is becoming an interesting person. Thanks for this great article.

When I read this article I was surrounded 5 or 6 children and their nannies. It was like being in an asylum. It was just a bunch of inanities, dropping things, bumping around, crying, screaming, etc. It made me laugh thinking of your article. Kids really are useless for their first 10 years or so.

"...honesty few parents will own up to..."

"...thousands of hours of thankless work and love given but not returned."

"...dirty little secrets of parenting..."

"...the definition of boring."

"Kids really are useless for their first 10 years or so."

Wow. Dead soul? Innate psychosis? Shriveled, dried up husk of a heart? Brain malady or injury that left an empty space where imagination should reside? Some combination of any or all of these unfortunate conditions?

High horse? Do-gooder family values? Gee whiz.

I never said or implied in any way that I'm a perfect parent. You, however, have done a fine job of demonstrating that you're an idiot, an asshole, and a miserable hypocrite. There's loads of subtext in your vitriol. You should talk to someone about this darkness you hold inside.

Or you might consider suicide. Do yourself and planet earth a favor.

What is it? Did your parents molest you as a child, and then pimp you out so they could make nice bank from child porn and pedophile johns. Is that it? Maybe now you've got children of your own and you're doing the very same thing to them. You just can't break the cycle. That has to be difficult. Or maybe not. Maybe you've come to terms and are OK with it.

Still, you do seem a little cranky. It must be a very hard job you've given yourself, Keepitreal, trying to 'keep it real' and set everybody straight.

High horse indeed. How many steaming piles of shit like your pathetic little rant does your horse leave behind when you go out for a self-righteous ride?

But, seriously, all kidding and jabbing aside-- I mean this sincerely, and in the nicest way possible: fuck you.

I love Mudede. You nay-sayers clearly prefer the simulacrum of life far more than the reality.

As with most of Mudede's writing, I got absolutely nothing of value out of this. If it's intended as satire, it's very poorly executed.

For all of you readers who disagree with this article, consider youself the 90% majority....sadly 90% of what's wrong with the kids of today is the fault of the parents...you raised little Johnny and Suzie with thoughts of they are always winners and everthing they do is so wonderful. They are so unprepared for the real world but that's OK.....you'll give them money and try to fix their problems instead of raising them to take care of themselves...

Charles Mudede has the courage to show you the truth...

@110 -- he's trying to goat ya. Relax brother, I loved your stories. My daughter just discovered bubble bath and it was mind blowing for her.

Of course she's just a stupid worthless toddler with nothing to contribute to this miserable existence except for that un-jaded smile we all wish we still had.

People get so angry. Maybe he is kidding. Maybe not. Who cares.

In places it sounds like your being facetious then denying it as satire but truth to make a point or your crazy which is it? For instance pointing to being an absent father as good thereby teaching a child the world is absent and is not to be interacted with as an adult. Huh? I think most of the world believes the problem is not interacting or acting as a team.

I'm sorry, but I don't really see anything that would make this piece qualify as satire. It's just a lame attempt at being funny about something easy to criticize in a rag that is mostly targeted for people who are 25 and live on capitol hill.
Hyperbole and satire are not synonymous.

But I also happen to agree with the others who are not fans of Mudede's writing or journalistic style in the first place (who still calls themselves Marxists anymore??), so maybe it's just a matter of preference.

wow and Liz has way too much time on her hands I did not even have time to verify if my first post on here was successful before she noticed a change in the blog and responded with critism of my choice of words to ask a question. Without telling you my opinion of the article I am asking what is the intent before fully making judgment. Also in context of having listened to Mark Driscol for years I do hear satire.

On reflection, that sounded unnecessarily cynical. I like the Stranger, it's just not where I turn for family friendly advice.

No, I meant that MY comment was cynical- guess we posted at the same time. Sorry for the confusion!

Generally speaking, the majority of the comments here are:

1: people who find the piece apalling and despicable and think Charles Mudede is satanic and should have his balls removed.

2: people who think it's satire, or might be satire, but it isn't humorous or clear enough to them as satire, or it doesn't meet their expection of what satire is supposed to be, so it's shitty satire, and they're pissed off about it.

3: people who applaud the piece for the harsh reality they see laid bare by its brutal honesty, and so praise Charles Mudede for being a courageous, insightful father whose children will undoubtedly be stronger, well-adjusted individuals, better prepared for the world because of his truthfulness.

Astonishing. My 11-year-old kid had no problem picking up on the humor in the sheer frontal force of the bullshit piled high in it. And to me there are flags jumping up all through it that clearly identify it as satire.

Jesus Christ, you don't prepare your kids for life in the world by alienating and discouraging and disenfranchising and ridiculing them. Or by disacknowledging their feelings and making sure they know they're not "real people" and don't have the same "value" that adults have. On the other hand, of course you don't coddle and spoil them and tell them they can do no wrong. Or that every time they speak it's poetry and their farts smell like lilacs and sound like Bach.

How much imagination and insight--and just basic decency and common sense and fucking KINDNESS--does it take to see that there is a huge chasm of space between being a cruel asshole and an overindulgent fuckwit as a parent?

Awesome article. There are many kernels of truth to this. Those who can't appreciate Mr. Mudede's honesty are living a lie; they simply cannot deal with the fact that parenthood sucks.

You have missed the point of fatherhood and squandered the chance to lovingly guide your children through the world. I hope they forgive you and do not repeat your mistakes. My husband's parenting practices are the opposite from yours and we are blessed with a happy family. You are a cautionary tale.

It's really poorly written, narcissistic,lame satire.

After reading his review of "The King's Speech", I decided to read a few other things he's written. Not because I liked it, mind you, but because it was such a lazy, juvenile piece of 'writing' that I was curious.

I'm beginning to think this is one big prank; that The Stranger is curious to see what the response is to the crap this guy writes. According to his bio, he is over 40 and writes like a 20 yo who would corner you at a party and rail against American Imperialism. He's like a Dead Head who can't have a conversation without bringing Jerry Garcia into it-this guy can't write anything without making it about his world view. And, as someone else said, who calls themselves a Marxist anymore?!

Why do you write all this shit whose sole point is to leave us wondering whether or not you could possibly be serious?? You're a one trick pony that The Stranger only keeps around because people enjoy debating if you could actually be as awful a human being as you portray yourself to be.

Charles, I am your newest fan.
Thanks for being.

The whole bit about the "stranger in the house" reminded me of another brilliant piece of satire, Frank O'Conner's "My Oedipal Complex." Anyway, I laughed out loud about five or six times reading this piece over lunch. Thank god I'm not a father and don't have to deal with the countless quandaries of raising a kid and imposing your values upon him. Ugh. In a moral universe, we'd stop reproducing. But "moral universe" is an oxymoron, so we can all relax.

Good up the good work, Mr. Mudede! And knitting doesn't make you gay. Musicals do. Get it right.

Mudede,

Is it ok to knit while jerking off to teen girl porn after reading Hegel?

I could not stop mastubating while reading this amazing piece of smut that you wrote. Genius!!

Mudede,

Is it ok to knit while jerking off to teen girl porn after reading Hegel?

I could not stop masturbating while reading this amazing piece of smut that you wrote. Genius!!

Sure it's OK. Why wouldn't it be? But, how does one "knit while jerking off"? Sounds very difficult and even more dangerous. I jerk off WHILE I read Hegel, but that requires only one hand. . . If you can knit with one hand you're seriously talented.

I've posted a few times on this thread. These last two, #135 and 136, were a welcome refreshment. Like I said earlier back in #124, I'm astonished at how much bile this stirred up in folks. I'm a dad and I thought it was excellent. I'll admit I was reeled in for a few lines--I was thinking WOW this guy's fucked in the head--but by the time I got to the hyberbole of the "poor body chemistry" the "chatty child" hyperbole, it was obvious to me that this is satire.

Parenthood is what it is. Sometimes it's a joy. Sometimes it's a nightmare. But it's always a great source of material for satire.

Seems a lot of folks really dislike Mudede's writing, and they read this piece so they could bitch in the comments thread about how horrible he is. I haven't read much by him, so I could only judge this on its own merits. . . but--ya know--if you know his writing, and you don't like it, don't read it.

Your children will only not return your love if you are as emotionally retarded as the guy who wrote this article. When it comes to children, you really do reap what you sow. This fucking guy works in a moral universe where only something that is effective (or "useful") has any value, and treats his children as such under the flawed premise that everyone in the world shares his perspective. Any parent that treats their child like a tool will end up with a tool.

The saddest thing about this essay-attempt is that the whole idea is stolen from Louis C.K., who made a career out of this material. Only when Louis C.K. does it, it’s brilliant. And self-aware. And funny.

Still, I suppose one must be charitable during these hard times. Clearly, The Stranger is feeling the pinch, and just can’t afford to hire good writers. best hopes for a more prosperous, and more intelligent, 2011.

The saddest thing about this essay-attempt is that the whole idea is stolen from Louis C.K., who made a career out of this material. Only when Louis C.K. does it, it’s brilliant. And self-aware. And funny.

Still, I suppose one must be charitable during these hard times. Clearly, The Stranger is feeling the pinch, and just can’t afford to hire good writers. best hopes for a more prosperous, and more intelligent, 2011.

wrote the editor to ask for your termination

If you can't teach your child how to draw, you are not doing him any favors by telling him his work sucks. All you are doing is discouraging him from making any further effort. That is not helpful. I say this as a full grown artist who knows how to draw. My parents didn't heap false praise upon my work, and they were willing to give me useful artistic criticism when needed, but they didn't hold me to the standards of an adult either.

@129 "Why do you write all this shit whose sole point is to leave us wondering whether or not you could possibly be serious??"

It really makes you think, doesn't it?

Though the odds of the author reading this comment are uncertain, I still feel the need to post it.

I found great solace in your article, as well as hope that, perhaps, I am not a monster. Even if I am, a monster redeemed by a realization of likeness in the thoughts of another.

It was refreshing to read an article ballsy enough to express the truth of the situation rather than an uninteresting volume of empty words. Though while reading it I felt as though I should have felt offended, and thus felt I should be ashamed when I realized I wasn't.

The reason I am writing this is because your article made me sad. I am saddened and horrified that a child can neither return the love nor affection of his parent. I am sad to realize that the mother who raised a child who respects himself; the mother who raised a child neither narcissistic nor introverted; the mother whom I would praise above all others (keeping in mind my welcome experiences with those others) will not be returned the love she deserves.

I feel alien in my feelings, but this is never the less the way I feel. Though I may not be successful in matching the affections given to me, your article has been the catalyst to at least try.

Thank you.

Ho-hum. If you were going for wit and satire, you should have edited it down to about a quarter of its published length.

And you should track down the comments who are taking it seriously and saying how insightful it is (like @107 and @145), because I'm pretty sure they don't even know what satire is, and pose an actual danger to their children.

He sure has out-Mudeded himself this time!

This is the best article I have read in 2011. Bravo!

Just a note on the Lolita reference at the beginging: Absolutely wrong.
The whole point was that Humbert "loved her, this Lolita, pale and polluted and big with another man's child. She could fade and wither - [he] didn't care. [He} would still go mad with tenderness at the mere sight of her face." Yeah, he had some effed up ideas of sexuality, but that wasn't really the point. He didn't care whether she stayed the same or not; he loved HER. (which isn't the whole point either, but is a pretty damn important part of the book).
If you're going to reference famous literature to support your point, make sure you're well versed in what you're referencing.

As far as this article as a whole: meh.

You are going to question me on Lolita? The novel? You actually think I did not think of this? You have no idea.

This was my favorite article of the year, by my favorite writer. thx

I started this thinking it was satire, and by the end of it, thinking it was abhorrent and depressing. je suis, I somehow think it'd be better if you'd written it. Your writing is a hell of a lot funnier than Mudede's.

P.S.: I never read much of Mudede's, so I wasn't sure why so many people on Slog hated him so much, but his writing really does make you want to gouge your eyes out. I wonder if, like someone else said, it's all part of a Colbert-like created persona? That would make it much more bearable, but still...so...dry...and...boring... Must...get...water...

LOVE IT.

Charles,

Like other readers, I'm unclear as to whether this is satire or not.

Assuming satire: Swift's proposal was a bit more obviously over the top, it's hard to imagine actually eating Irish children. However, it is easy to imagine the cold, resentful father you portray. Not funny.

Assuming not satire: If being a parent is such a miserable business, why become one? Moreover, if being a child is such an awful experience, why force an unwitting person to become one?

Either way: New York State of Mind has every right to question your interpretation of Nabokov's writing. You ought to respond with a seriour answer.

A Nabokov scholar would be able to easily defend his position on the writer's intent. Even a casual reader should have some considered reason to back his interpretation.

Your response, "You are going to question me on Lolita..." is little more than a "don't go there", which is hardly a convincing argument.

-Ean

I find this deeply comforting.

You had a problem with your kid showing you his drawings?????? You sick bastard. You're calling his humble drawings complete, terrible crap because they can't compare to an accomplished adult's?--well, no, they can't, yet. What you SHOULD have been doing was encouraging his progress as a *child* so that one day he might be a talented *adult* artist. If you don't encourage his creativity from the beginning and tell him it's shit, why in the hell would he ever pick up a crayon again after that? The point of being a parent is to encourage and support their learning and creativity so that one day they will be this "interesting" adult, as you say. They're not born adults (as you keep cruelly reminding him), so praise their accomplishments for their current level of development. How sick you are for comparing your little child's progress to an adult's. Why would he ever work on anything ever again if that's the kind of feedback he gets from you?

People like you are the reason children grown into suicidal, psychopathic adults and shoot up a school with machine guns.

Just because your kid shows an interest in knitting doesn't mean he is gay! So now, because he won't "admit" something that probably isn't true, you threaten to cut off his allowance if you ever catch him knitting? It would make more sense to me if you would cut off his allowance because you disapprove of him being gay--but no, you threaten to cut it off as punishment for him not admitting something that isn't even true?! I can only imagine the damage you are doing to this kid.

It's no freaking wonder than your child ignores you and has stopped crying, and stopped showing him his attempts at creativity. Congratulations, you've created a hostile environment for your children to express themselves.

Funny picture, but dude, be nice to them, they're just kids and someday you'll regret it.

Truly a horrible article and a complete waste of time. I love how the people who pretend to like and understand this try to paint those who don't as incapable of understanding satire or deep intellectual thought. Nice try bozos - this sucked ass. The End.

I think the ambiguity of this satire (though I only found it ambiguous for the first 3 or 4 paragraphs) is a strength and not a weakness as some (many) people claim. He got people worked up, talking and thinking about it. For an artist, that is often a sign of a work being successful. If the satire were more obvious, people might have a little laugh (or not) and move on, but wouldn't expend so much time and energy talking and thinking about it. So, from an artists point of view, the fact that people have such a hard time seeing this as satire indicates how effective it is.

Also, satire need not be funny. It CAN be and often is, but it isn't necessary. One can simply use irony and exaggeration as this author did to create effective satire. Criticizing this piece because it isn't funny seems to show a misunderstanding of the definition of satire.

wow dad, i didnt realize that you hated my drawing so much.

TL;DR

Re: kids being uinteresting.

It's important to remember that children didn't ask to be born, and therefore don't owe their parents anything, including entertainment. Adults choose to procreate for their own selfish reasons, and they have a responsibility to take care of the children they bring into the world and provide them with the best upbrining they can manage. Many parents fail at this and become resentful of their children. If you're a person with petulant tendencies, you should give this matter a great deal of thought before deciding to become a parent.

And the cats in the cradle with the silver spoon...

HOW DO YOU MAKE MONEY WITH THIS SHIT

Haha, "I don't get it, so that means it's stupid, and it means that all of you are stupid for implying that me not getting it means that I'm stupid."

Also, "I don't like Mudede, and this piece in particular pisses me off, so despite a sizable segment of the population being obvious fans of him, I will declare that nobody likes him, and The Stranger would be better off without him"

I hope to god this was meant as a polemic, or satire, and not something to be taken seriously. That it's hard to tell speaks to not to the virtue of ambiguity, but to Mudede's ineffectiveness at making his point.

If this is meant to be a serious essay, than heaven help your kids, Mr Mudede, as you are well on the way to building some seriously conflicted relationships, guaranteed to bring a you lifetime of misery, and your children a hell of an obstacle to overcome.

There are no perfect childhoods, and tragically too many unhappy ones, but there is a large swath in between in which many happy, imperfect childhoods reside. Your children didn't ask to be here. You brought them into this world of your own accord, and now that you did, it is your sacred obligation, as their parent, to do whatever it takes, and make whatever sacrifices are necessary, no matter how much it may suck at times, to give your children the happy, imperfect childhoods that they deserve.

I didn't realize until halfway through that this was a humorous piece but it redeemed itself in droves. Excellent work!