I’ve done research on growth and development of the human race against other species. Animals and creatures live less, but develop really quickly compared to the human. The average human fully develops by their early 20s, and yet our lifespan has grown expeditiously since the dawn of time. However at the level of a mother’s biological system, it’s almost as if it’s pre-biblical times.
In recent years, say since the radical 60s, mothers have expanded their responsibilities of not just protecting their children from physical or imminent harm, to protecting their psyche. Starting with some of the Gen-Xers, Millennials and Gen Z are stereotypically known for having overprotective parenting, that lead into the “helicopter parenting” practices. This is mostly a mother derivative practice, leading to children to grow up with a perception that they are entitled, are unable to handle let downs (hence the start of the “Participation Trophy”) and the enablement of micromanaging the child’s life literally hour to hour, day to day. It’s presumed this is at the mother’s side not on the father’s side because statistically it’s mostly the female to the offspring that has these traits over the male (or father.)
But despite to popular views; is the on-paper good-mama-bear good for everyone else? And why should they care?
Because their adult (or hierarchal) “children” are burdening society of their broken ego, and ability to self-survive on the basic, or the most trivial things. These people who are barely biological adults, or even barely with an adult mind; are incapable because the mama-bear figure disabled their ability to:
- think independently
- the ability to have self -awareness
- the ability to have self-understanding to the world around them, because mama-bears tend to “instruct” their children to the point there is a completely proper way, and a “wrong way”, and the “kids” can’t figure on their own what’s right and not right.
While in society people mock them as “special snowflakes” no one has the audacity to blame this on the parents (mostly the mothers) for enabling the idea to disable the children from being independent individuals. TV series like The Goldbergs, and even worse for special needs parents, Speechless gives a confirmation bias of it’s perfectly OK to overprotect your children, and that because it’s on TV it must be real.
In researching for this post: I had seen some claims if this had to do with single parenting. I do not like to discuss that issue at all because I come from a single family. One issue that I have not seen elsewhere but seen on social media years back about single mamas identifying themselves as “the love of a mother with a strength of a father”. For one thing that is scientifically false because the contrarian view is that women and men are different. A woman can’t be a bi-gender individual because most often the estrogen takes control on everything. They can’t be “strong” and “supportive” because the hormones calls for emotion and protection; most often a single mother will be a smother/overprotective, etc.
This goes back to the issues with the most at risk, not “special snowflakes” but individuals with disabilities. The mother is by default, almost entirely the “caretaker” and the word “care” implies protection and physical indemnification. Moms are rewarded for further disabling the children, already enhancing emotional instabilities and the inability to self-control.
Mothers rarely are held accountable for their inactions, and are always rewarded like they are a sister/bestie to the hierarchal child. Instead of celebrating backass parenting practices, the easiest thing is to delegitimize the group of sisters, and not celebrate Mother’s Day as it doesn’t celebrate the have-nots like the woman who created the day, who wasn’t one.