Strict parenting questioned as housing costs rise

Working from age 20 to 70 for a 60 m² flat in Barcelona

A forum user recounts asking a father what the point was of his own strict education, given that he has been working since age 20 and will continue until 70 just to end up with a 60-square-meter apartment in Barcelona. The question went unanswered. Five seconds of staring and a goodbye. This scene summarizes the disagreement discussed in the thread without reaching consensus.

Because the issue, according to the premise, is not about educational methods. It is about economics. What do you promise a child if the prize at the end of the road is a mortgage and a working life stretched to age 70?

Half a century of work for a small mortgage

The calculation used in the conversation is stark: someone who starts working at 20 and lasts until 70 will dedicate five decades to labor. In the case that started it all, the destination of that effort is a 60-meter apartment in Barcelona. No villa, no second home.

Some argue this is precisely why one should educate with severity: preparing the child for a competitive market. Others counter that, under these rules of the game, discipline only creates docile labor. The gap is not sarracena, but one of expectations.

The mirage of "study and you'll be somebody"

The generation that now has children grew up with a mantra: study if you want to make something of your life. Part of that generation observes that the mantra has broken. One user cites the example of a Biology graduate who, at 30, is still unemployed and cannot pay rent.

This contrast—high qualifications, low salary—is what fuels distrust toward parental promises. It is not that effort is worthless; rather, they argue, effort no longer buys a house. When the reward recedes, severity is perceived as punishment without cause.

Discipline, consequences, and the rod argument

Proponents of tough parenting have their own doctrine. They claim that being strict teaches something basic: actions have consequences and responsibility is not optional. They cite without hesitation the proverb: "He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him." The idea is that a blow at home anticipates the blows of life.

The counter-argument does not deny discipline; it denies excess. One intervention notes that many strict parents prioritize their own comfort over the child's well-being, and children eventually detect this. A stable environment, with security and trust, is requested before blind obedience.

The nuance comes from those who claim to be strict when necessary and tolerant when appropriate. It sounds trivial, they admit, but that is where almost everything is decided.

Parenting, the most exhausting job

Questioning how someone raises their children causes the most controversy. Some state it clearly: of all life's challenges, being a good parent is the most demanding, and no joke on the subject is tolerated. Nothing keeps you awake more than worries about your children, and when it seems things are going half-well, another facet of the child appears and you start again.

From this also arises one of the thread's most uncomfortable criticisms: the view that parenthood is lived as competition through imitation and keeping up with the neighbors, rather than real desire. A highly competitive society, housing that consumes half a lifetime, and a childhood where some see training and others, early bitterness.

A father was asked why he wants to see his children suffer to end up as slaves. He did not answer.