Photo by Sean Dreilinger

I was out buying a winter hat and some mittens, when I overheard a dispute in the next aisle between a mother and her small child. “But Mom, we have the money,” the boy whined.

Now, I have no idea what it was the boy wanted, but what was interesting to me was the way the mother handled it. The mother was silent. She ignored her little son, who I’d guess was about four years old. It was obvious that the boy had recently learned reasoning skills, and I laughed to myself at the irony of the situation.

“Mom, we have the money.” He whined again, but the mother was still silent. She continued to ignore her son, as if his reasoning had stumped hers. It seem their roles were reversed. The mother was the obstinate one, and the child was the one trying to reason. “But we have the money.” he whined again, but she still refused to answer him.

Now, of course, just because parents have the money to buy something doesn’t mean they should buy it for their children, but this is something that this child didn’t understand, and this was a perfect opportunity for the mother to teach her son this point. But instead, the mother passed it off as a moot point. A point not worth discussing with her son.

Perhaps, she thought it was a point to advanced for her son to understand, but it would be wrong of her to think this. Children have an amazing capacity for understanding, and it is the adult underestimation of children, and the adult’s lack of communication that often inhibits the intellectual growth and maturity of a child. This lack of communication compounds itself and exacerbates misunderstandings between children and parents. Sure, it’s difficult to explain the concepts of money and the importance of savings and budgeting and the fact that you can’t just buy everything you want, but you’ve got to begin somewhere, and the earlier the better.

Some parents feel cursed by these moments when their child disagrees with them. Somewhere down the path of modern society parents have come to believe that parenting is supposed to be a hassle. Our perception of parenting is the Married with Children paradigm. Parenthood and family is supposed to be somehow sentimentally enjoyable while most of it is a pain in the ass, but this is a terrible outlook, which actually detriments how parents will handle a situation before it is presented to them. A parent who thinks this way is likely just to pass most family problems off, saying “That’s just the way it is,” instead of challenging these issues for the better. Some parents just wish their child would behave, and when he or she doesn’t they just accept it as the undesirable reality of parenthood. But it doesn’t have to be this way.

The way I see it, every point of disagreement between a parent and child is an opportunity for development of intelligence and reasoning skills, no matter the age. At the same time, it is a chance for parents to develop a more intimate relationship with their child. Some parents, however, seem to prefer to stifle their child’s reasoning and intelligence, by exercising their power, instead of communicating with their child. In this way, they also stifle their relationship with the child. As a parent, the way of power is the easier way to get things done. Explaining things is difficult and it takes an investment of time. It’s easy just to say “No,” or just to deny a response to your child’s unreasonable pleas. But in this way, the child never develops an understanding of the social experience. He doesn’t develop a close relationship with his parents. He never develops a respect for his parents as people. Instead he only comes to respect the power which his parents represented. But if parents communicate with their children, and respect what their children have to say, even if it is,at times, unreasonable, parents will not only benefit their child’s intelligence and reasoning skills. They will also earn a respect and trust from their child which is necessary to develop a healthy parent/child relationship.

Hannah Montanna is just so hip and sexy. Why wouldn't you want to buy her jeans?

I was resentfully assaulted by this whole Hannah Montana sensation upon a rare visit to my local Wal-Mart. Images of her plastic face decked with copious amounts of foundation, heavily liner-laden porn star eyes, lips sparkling with her own brand of lip gloss were enlarged and plastered on display bins and posters at every turn in the store.

Her face was branded on bicycle helmets, movies, compact discs, backpacks, alarm clocks, swimming suits, clothes, lunch boxes, jewelry, stickers, games, scooters, play phones, bath beach towels, notebooks, planners, key chains, iPod docks, dolls, books, folding chairs, blankets…I’m frankly too fed up to go on.

Now I have nothing against Miley Cyrus personally, but don’t you think she’s a little young at the age of 15 to be in bed with fat dandies like Wal-Mart and Disney? Wait, there’s no age of consent law when it comes to selling your body to a corporation. But this is really undignified. One could say she entered into these agreements on her own free will. But these corporations own her. They made her who she is. They put her up in front of the lights, up in hot new clothes, in layers of makeup, and they purchased the rights to her body for just a couple million dollars a year. Despite all the money they’ve paid for her services, they know they’re getting the better deal. They are ravishing this young woman, and they’ll gang bang all the money they can out of her hot little bod until she’s dried up on drugs.

What’s even more disturbing is how parents aren’t disturbed that their little girls are eating it all right up. And that their pubescent boys are salivating at the mouth. Sure it’s effective marketing, but what does it reveal about the idiocy of our culture? Are we not concerned about the dignity of our girls who are parading around as little Hannah Montana wannabes? Are we not concerned that this underage sex-icon is setting the standard for young women? Is this perfectly-primped Barbie-doll-superstar millionaire-teenager, really the role model we want our girls to aspire to and compare themselves against?

Of course not. But is Wal-Mart going to pull Hannah Montana items from their shelves in moral indignation? No. Are Wal-Mart customers going to boycott in outrage, until they do? No. Hannah Montana is the product of Disney, a great and paternal corporation. When a great and paternal corporation endorses something, the customer is obliged to endorse it as well. Who is a single man to disrespect a great and paternal corporation?