You feel this intense divide when you have a child these days. There you are, thinking you are joining the ranks of the blessed—or the hassled, or however you’ve come to think of parenting—and boom, where you really are is in the crosshairs of the parent experts and their disciples. Not planning to breast-feed? How selfish. Breast-feeding in public? How barbaric. Your child sleeps with you in bed? How co-dependent. You banished your baby to a crib? How unenlightened, how pathetically American.

  Amid these intense factions, it’s hard to find anything these days that American parents agree on. But I think I’ve found two things. First, most parents in America believe that they themselves are strict. Second, they are pretty certain that they are the only ones.

  In 2006, we did a poll of Americans with kids under 18 living at home, gauging different groups along a scale of permissiveness/strictness. Some things weren’t surprising—the strictest parents attend church weekly or more, identify as conservative, live in the South, and are older. The least strict parents are younger, liberal, live in the Northeast, and were themselves raised by permissive parents. Men are a little stricter than women. Protestants are a little stricter than Catholics.

  But when you look at the overall group of parents polled, you realize that one unifying principle is that most parents think they’re tough. Fifty-five percent of parents say they’re strict, compared to only 37 percent who say they are permissive. Fifty-two percent of parents (and 58 percent of older parents) say it’s better to guide children with “discipline and structure” than with “warmth and encouragement.” And by more than 2 to 1, American parents say it is more important to make their children good citizens than it is to make them happy.

  What’s funny is that American parents also overwhelmingly report that other parents are not pulling their weight. A whopping 91 percent say that “most parents today are too easy on their kids,” compared to only 3 percent who say most parents today are too strict.

  So we’ve got a bunch of parents who think that they’re strict, but no one else is. The truth is, they’re only half-right—and it’s about the others. Today in America, nearly all parents are more permissive with their kids than in generations past, despite their self-perception as Bad-Ass Moms and Dads. When it comes to permissiveness, today’s parents are, like the title of a popular book, in a state of denial.

  It starts with those infant nights. In the first half of the twentieth century, parents were told to keep their infants on strict sleep schedules, even if it meant having to let them “cry it out” in the middle of the night. In the 1950s, Dr. Spock was branded “permissive” for suggesting that, sometimes, it was all right to go in and comfort the child—although in later versions of his book, he, too, said it was generally best to let babies cry it out. In the 1980s, Dr. Richard Ferber of Harvard advised parents in his best-selling Solve Your Child’s Sleep Problems to let the kids gently learn over time to cry it out—a practice now generally referred to as “Ferberizing.”

  But what do American parents think of Ferberizing? As usual, some swear by it, but most think it is like hanging the kid on the gallows. Sixty percent of the parents in our poll declared that “babies should be comforted whenever they cry”—compared to just 35 percent who said babies should be allowed to cry it out so they’ll learn to sleep. And among Moms, who presumably make more of these actual decisions, the split was 66 to 30—or more than 2 to 1—in favor of comforting babies whenever they cry. (The Dads talk big, but then somehow they’re more able to sleep through the screams.)

  Which is closer to your view?

  All Dads Moms

  Babies should be comforted whenever they cry 60 48 66

  Babies should be allowed to cry it out at night

  so they learn how to sleep 35 44 30

  Don’t know 5 8 4

  When it comes to kids and sleep, our entire societal center of gravity has moved to the left of even Dr. Spock, who was called permissive in his day. Dr. Ferber himself has gone to great pains in the 2006 edition of his book to clarify that he never used the term “cry it out,” and what he advocates is “progressive waiting.”

  Perhaps the most significant flash point on parenting is around spanking. In 1968, there was near-universal approval of corporal punishment, with 94 percent of Americans saying it was okay to spank your kids. By 1994, approval had fallen to 68 percent, and has held steady at about 65 percent ever since. While 65 percent is still majority approval, you would be hard-pressed to come up with another social trend that has fallen out of favor so far and so fast. Even the death penalty, also now at about 65 percent approval, dropped from only 80 percent.

  As if attitudes toward sleep training and spanking weren’t enough to show America’s increasing permissiveness, what really struck me is how parents say they actually deal with their tweens and teens. Our poll asked parents what they would do if their 9-year-old son cursed at them and said he hated them. Overwhelmingly, the top answers, across age and gender of parents, were “sit down and ask him why he feels that way” and “tell him you’re sorry he feels that way, but that you love him anyway.” (If the child was a daughter, the numbers on those options were even higher.) Only 14 percent of parents said they would smack him, and among parents under 35, smackers were fewer by half. Barely 2 in 10 parents said they would take the child’s privileges away for at least a week.

  Suppose you had a 9-year-old son/daughter who screamed a curse word at you and said he/she hated you. What would be your likely response?

  multiple response

  The 2 sets of numbers are Son/Daughter All Dads Moms Parent

  Under 35 Parent

  Over 35

  Sit down and ask him/her why

  he/she feels that way 58/64 60/59 57/66 53/63 61/64

  Tell him/her you’re sorry he/she

  feels that way, but you love him/

  her anyway 56/57 44/51 63/60 63/67 51/57

  Send him/her to his/her room 44/46 37/38 49/50 51/53 40/41

  Take away privileges for up to a week 34/33 39/27 31/35 41/39 30/28

  Take away privileges for a week or more 21/25 22/24 21/25 15/26 25/24

  Smack him/her 14/14 18/2 11/20 8/20 17/10

  Do nothing 0/2 0/4 0/1 0/1 0/2

  Don’t know 3/1 1/3 4/0 7/1 1/1

  Okay, you say—but the child was only 9. And he was just flexing some newfound independence. But we also asked parents what their first response would be if they found out that their 15-year-old was using illegal drugs. And this time, fully 3 in 4 parents said they would sit down and talk—with almost 1 in 10 saying they would confide in their kids about their own illegal drug use. Only 15 percent of today’s parents would take away privileges (fewer than 1 in 10 Moms would take them from a son), and virtually no one said they would hit.

  Suppose you had a 15-year-old son/daughter and you found out he/she was experimenting with illegal drugs. What would be your likely first response?

  The 2 sets of numbers are Son/Daughter All Dads Moms Parent

  Under 35 Parent

  Over 35

  Sit down and ask him/her

  why he/she was doing it 68/66 55/70 75/63 73/68 65/63

  Take away his/her privileges

  for a month or more 10/6 16/7 6/5 4/4 13/7

  Tell him/her about your own

  experiences with illegal drugs 7/8 11/9 5/7 8/8 6/7

  Take away his/her privileges

  for up to a month 6/8 13/6 3/9 6/9 7/6

  Call the police 4/4 3/3 4/4 1/3 5/4

  Get counseling/Send him/her

  to rehab/Send him/her to a

  scared straight program 1/2 0/0 1/4 1/1 0/3

  Talk to him/her about peer

  pressure/Tell him/her about the

  dangers/ramifications of drug use 1/1 1/3 2/0 1/0 ½

  Hit him/her 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/1

  Other 0/3 0/0 0/4 0/1 0/4

  Don’t know 3/3 1/2 4/4 4/5 2/2

  “Spare the Rod and Spoil the Child” has been replaced with “Have a Good Heart-to-Heart Talk.” I won’t pass judgment on either approach, but I will observe how dramatic this change has been. While more and more kids are getting a free pass, more adults are going to jail than ever—the judges, spurred by changes in the laws, have gone the opposite direction of the parents. Are parents passing on more problems to the system? Could be.

  And yes, the poll data are self-reported—so maybe parents say they would sit and talk, when actually they’d yell or hit. But this is the same crowd that skewed strict in describing the best way to raise kids. They think this is strict.

  What does all this newfound permissiveness mean for America?

  It’s a loaded question, as each parenting camp derives passion not only from love for their kids, but also from a sense that the future of the world depends on their winning. Social conservatives would say that greater permissiveness, as described here, means kids who will grow up to be self-centered, disrespectful of authority, and criminal. They would point to even liberal black leaders across America who have publicly said that the occasional whack from Mom or Grandma is what kept them in line. And within our survey, they would point to the fact that way down on the list of strict parents, along with the liberals, Northeasterners, and people raised by permissive parents—are also, perhaps surprisingly, rural parents. During the great crime drop of the 1990s, rural crime fell far more slowly than either urban or suburban.

  Liberals, on the other hand, would point to the decades of studies that say that hitting kids produces short-term compliance, but more severe longer-term problems—including, ironically, disobedience. So that greater permissiveness in America will mean, ultimately, a healthier society.

  But either way, the bottom line is that it has become socially unacceptable to discipline children. I was on a plane recently where an overwrought Dad threatened to take away a ski trip if his kids did not shape up. And the other passengers seemed so alarmed—by the Dad’s reaction—that I thought we were going to have an intervention right then and there to restrain him. Taking away a ski trip—that was viewed as way over the top. Again, I don’t know who was right or wrong—but just beware that if you discipline your kids in public, most people will side with your children.

  Today’s permissive parents have real commercial implications. In the 1990s, it was ardently believed that what busy parents most needed was technology—like V-chips and Internet blocking software—so as to screen out bad influences before they entered the house and prompted all kinds of family fights. But it turns out—no one uses them. In 2001, more than two years after the V-chip became standard fare on new televisions, fewer than 1 in 10 parents used it. Our poll showed that while a remarkable 85 percent of parents with computer-using kids monitor them, fewer than 1 in 3 do so with filters or software. Today’s permissive parents say they want more slick tech tools, but what they really need is guidance on how to have “The Conversation.”

  In the old days, kids just got the rod, or at least the riot act. Now they get picked up, timed-out, and negotiated with at great length. The jury is out on whether we’ll get a more nonviolent society, or more people unwilling to listen to authority.

  Pampering Parents may be more than a microtrend—this trend affects millions of parents, and has enormous societal implications. But what is so counterintuitive about it is how parents think they are being strict, when in fact they have at a minimum redefined what strict is, and turned it from a belt on the behind to a swift chat on the chin.

  THE INTERNATIONAL PICTURE

  So America is getting more “child-centered,” what with all the rushing in to comfort crying babies in the middle of the night and the rapidly declining corporal punishment. But a glance at trends around the world show that the United States is perhaps still stricter than the rest of the world when it comes to spanking, but perhaps not strict enough when it comes to academic discipline.

  While Americans disapprove of corporal punishment at higher rates than ever, our approval rate is still a near-supermajority 65 percent. And twenty-two states still allow corporal punishment in schools. That puts us in the minority.

  ·Europe. In Iceland, Poland, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Italy, Belgium, Austria, France, Finland, Russia, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, Denmark, Cyprus, Germany, Switzerland, Ireland, Greece, and the United Kingdom, corporal punishment is formally banned in the schools; and in many of those countries, it is also banned at home. Even the U.K., which as recently as 2004 passed a law ensuring a parent’s right to hit a child, may be getting ready to reverse course. A survey conducted by the Children Are Unbeatable Alliance found that 71 percent of British adults now favor giving children the same protection from assault as adults.

  ·Africa. In Africa, corporal punishment in schools is banned in Namibia, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Zambia, and Kenya.

  ·Asia. The governments of Japan, China, Thailand, and Taiwan have all told teachers to spare the rod and resort to some other punishment instead. (Of course, in 1994, Singapore was willing to publicly beat an American 18-year-old for vandalizing a couple of cars.)

  So America is real tough, globally speaking, when it comes to smacking our kids around, but when it comes to cracking down on the schoolwork, we are relatively and perhaps harmfully lax. According to a survey conducted by Pew in 2006, 56 percent of Americans think that parents place too little pressure on their children to excel in school. But in China, India, and Japan—countries known for their competitive educational environments—solid majorities of parents say parents put too much pressure on their kids.

  And of course, Asian students do score higher on certain international exams than Americans. The United States placed 24th out of 29 OECD countries on a global mathematics literacy test in 2003, far below Japan and China. Could this be linked to the fact that, as the RAND Corporation and the Brookings Institution have found, the typical American student spends less than an hour a day on homework?

  Maybe we should spare the rod and spoil the teachers—and just make kids sit down and do their homework.

  Late-Breaking Gays

  In August 2004, Governor James McGreevey of New Jersey stood before local reporters, the national press corps, and 300 million television viewers to announce that he would be resigning because he had had an affair with a man that had left him vulnerable to “false allegations and threats of disclosure.”

  There were lots of swirling sub-stories. Had public funds been misappropriated to hire the lover as a “security expert” when in fact the guy had no training? Was the relationship an abuse of power, since he had worked for the state? Could a rising politician who lied about sex be trusted on any other matter?

  But less discussed was another sub-story: Dina Matos McGreevey. She was the governor’s wife, standing loyally by during her husband’s announcement. “My truth is that I am a gay American,” McGreevey said, as his wife of four years, and the mother of their 2-year-old daughter, watched with a plastic smile.

  McGreevey and Matos had met in 1996, after McGreevey had separated from his first wife. They had walked together to her car, and kissed the same night. After a four-year courtship, they got married in a small ceremony in Woodbridge, Virginia, followed by a reception in the elegant Hay Adams Hotel overlooking the White House (where, perhaps, soon-to-be Governor McGreevey aspired one day to live). Two years later, they celebrated the birth of little Jacqueline. And now, nearly four years into their marriage, on national television, Jim McGreevey, age 47, was telling the world he was gay.

  Such Late-Breaking Gays are a growing force in America. While exact numbers are hard to come by, experts estimate that there are at least 2 million gays and lesbians who were once married to people of the opposite sex or still are. According to a 2002 survey by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ National Survey of Family Growth, 3.4 percent of currently married men aged 15–44—or nearly 900,000—say they’ve had sex with other men (although such reporting, it should be noted, is broader than reporting that one is gay). When you add in men who were once married, you get over 1.2 million men in America who are or were married and who report having had sex with other men.

  Most Late-Breaking Gays, it seems, don’t enter their marriages with intentional deceit. Some come to the realization quite late; at least one study has found that 1 in 5 married gay men were past 40 when they had their first homosexual experience. Other Late-Breakers suspected it, but came out only after years of wrestling with their inner truths. Still other Late-Breakers get outed against their will, often by the wife who discovers gay porn or sexually explicitly e-mails on their computer. Or, as in Governor McGreevey’s case, by the lover himself. Remember Colorado pastor Ted Haggard, whose paid male lover of several years finally decided he’d had enough of Haggard’s public rantings against homosexuality? When the prostitute, Mike Jones, outed Haggard in 2006, Haggard was 50, had been married for 28 years, and had five children.

  I suppose Late-Breakers “officially” became a national phenomenon in 2004 when Oprah Winfrey ran a show entitled “My Husband’s Gay.”

  Whence the Late-Breaking Gays? The rise seems directly attributable to the increasing acceptance of homosexuality. Back when most of these men were in high school, well under 30 percent of Americans considered homosexuality an “acceptable alternative lifestyle.” Now, in 2006, the trend has reversed, and a solid majority of Americans say they’re fine with it. Fully 88 percent of Americans say gays should have equal rights in the workplace, up from just 56 percent in 1977. And gay and lesbian support groups have proliferated to virtually every corner of America.