‘Because I’m being supported’ is, I think, the best way not to listen to children’s opinions.

Lately, I sometimes think about what kind of existence parents should be. That's probably also because I myself have started to think, "It might be nice to have children soon."

I'm the type who can't act unless I understand things thoroughly in my head, so I've started to think deeply about what kind of parent I want to be before I have children.

The other day, a certainfamous blogwas discussing whether children should be grateful to their parents. This article seems to follow a format where the blog author receives questions from the general public and then responds to them.

The questioner seemed to have grown up receiving many harsh words from their parents as a child. They were asking if they still had to be grateful to their parents.

And looking at the comment section on social media, while the majority of comments said it was up to the individual whether to be grateful or not, there were also comments like, "But they still raised you, so you should be grateful."

Saying "You should be grateful because you were raised" feels somehow wrong.

Whether one should be grateful or not, putting that aside, what bothered me was the phrase "because I was raised."

I thought it was strange to say, "You should be grateful because you were raised." Somehow.

Thinking paradoxically, do parents then think that if they raise their children, they will be thanked for anything they do? That's what it comes down to.

Well, if you speak of the correct theory, you probably should be grateful.

But to take an extreme example, should one be grateful even if they suffered severe abuse? There are many such parents, aren't there? They often make the news. Should one still be grateful? It's impossible, thinking normally. No matter how much they were raised.

The phrases often heard in childhood, "Even though you're being supported" or "Even though you can't even be independent." I think adults often use these to interrupt children's opinions.

And I myself believe these words should not be used. After all, they gave birth.

At the point of giving birth, parents should have the responsibility to raise their child. If they abandon childcare just because something was said midway, that's simply selfish murder. There's no way it's acceptable to give birth and then quit childcare because something unpleasant was said.

Also, they should have been prepared for various things at the time of birth. And they bring that up when arguing with their child. Is that really acceptable? In some cases, children might interpret "I won't raise you" as "I'll kill you."

When you think about it, "Because I'm raising you" is the best way not to listen to a child's opinion.

If parents use "providing for" as a weapon to silence their children's opinions, it's, to put it extremely, not much different from treating them as slaves. It's unavoidable for children to be provided for; there's no other way. They have no choice but to try and leave home as soon as possible.

Is there anything sadder than that? If they leave, there will be no gratitude there.

If parents use providing for as a weapon, refusing to confront their children's opinions head-on and only trying to impose their own will, what should children do? They might be forced to act as a pleasant presence for the parents who gave birth to them, an object of affection.

In short, the moment "but you're being provided for" is brought up in an argument, children are powerless. It's a complete silencing. And at the same time, it's "the easiest way to avoid confronting a child's opinion." It's a foul play that can most easily suppress the other person's opinion.

Since they have no choice but to be provided for, they are forced to keep silent.

It's like saying "Let's have a knife fight" and then bringing a tank and shooting them down. There's no room for growth in that, is there? They can only try not to get hit. Until they can prepare their own tank.

I wish we could stand on equal footing, without using strange advantages, and truly face each other.

What parents should truly do, I believe, is to genuinely accept what their children are saying, think it through carefully, and then help them find answers. Relying on the ultimate weapon of "providing for" without doing that is something that should never be done.

Because from that point, it ceases to be a discussion with the child.

When a child says "Let's play sword fighting," don't get angry and pull out a real knife. Instead, face the child fairly and squarely and talk to them. I believe this is what must be done.

So, if I ever become a parent and get into an argument with my child, I would never use the phrase "I'm providing for you." Rather, I'd want them to think that being provided for is natural.

Instead, when my child has children of their own, I hope they will face their children's opinions squarely, without using advantages like "even though you're being provided for."

Listen carefully to what the child is saying. Then, together, think about what the best conclusion is. It's not about whose values are right or wrong, but about both of you figuring out what is most correct. I want to teach them that kind of discussion.

Rather, perhaps because few people have such discussions in childhood, arguments always end up like "VS."

Furthermore, I don't think a parent's duty is just to spend money or provide food. Children don't feel something for their parents just because they are being provided for. This is my opinion as a child, but it's not the act of being provided for itself that evokes feelings; rather, the essence lies in seeing their parents working hard for them, trying to protect them, trying to understand them, and trying to overcome difficulties together. I believe children come to appreciate their parents by seeing such efforts.

In extreme cases, a parent-child relationship where only food is placed on the table daily with no communication will become abnormal. In any case, silencing a child's opinion with "because you're being provided for" won't solve anything.

But well, in that case, it means they should become self-sufficient as soon as possible.

However, I think it's also the current situation that it's difficult to change reality. In such cases, even without relying on employment, one can create a source of income from their own home. No matter how small, it doesn't matter. People call that "starting a business."

Do you have a computer at home? Do you have any special skills yourself? Nowadays, YouTubers are becoming a dream for the future, so creating a source of income from home will become more and more common.

However, what you shouldn't misunderstand here is that you don't need to "search for something that could be a job on the internet," but rather "create something you can offer yourself."

When it comes to creating a source of income, you tend to search the internet and get dragged down by suspicious information. Then, you misunderstand entrepreneurship and the ability to earn, and end up being continuously exploited.

Anyway, any money-making ideas you get on the internet will become unusable within a few years.

Therefore, it is necessary to fundamentally think with your own head, create a business, and acquire the ability to monetize it. That is the most sustainable way to secure a source of income.

At that time, please consult us. We also sell textbooks, so please learn how to create your own work and how to hunt.

And once you can support yourself as soon as possible, you'll be able to talk to your parents on an equal footing, without worrying about phrases like 'because you're being supported.'