During my childhood, the sibling rivalry in our home manifested itself in complicated and nuanced ways. I grew up with two sisters, four years my senior and one year my junior. My father passed away when I was nine, and thus I ended up growing up as the only male in the house. As such, in a Chinese culture that is predominantly patriarchal, it similarly colored many of my experiences. Depending on the nature of the situation, I may possess an implicit seniority over my older sister. It’s something that is cultural which I navigated strictly by ‘feel’. To delicately unwrap all those interactions would take more time and space than this simple post. Similarly, to attribute an outcome as a product of culture (whether Chinese, Spanish, or American) or as a function of our individual personalities would be even more complex.
Instead, I’ll focus on simply one sibling (the older child) and one situation (their getting a new sibling). Specifically, we’ll discuss the instance where that child is acutely aware that this new sibling has impacted their life in both situations and resources. Though more specifically, let’s observe the older child’s response. Naturally, this will vary with situation, but we may at least bucketize them.
Type #1: They understand that everyone has different needs
I had a very wise manager tell me in one of our early meetings, “My goal is to treat you all differently but fairly.” It took me years to truly understand what he meant. Different people have different needs and even that varies by situation. Most managers can effectively manage at least one type of personality (and their inherent needs); truly effective managers will adapt to the needs of the employee. They’re a purple unicorn; this manager was a purple unicorn.
As a child grows older, they’ll naturally become more self-sufficient; conversely, newborns require almost constant attention. The very nature of this process leads to that older child receiving a disproportionately smaller fraction of their parents’ time and attention. At times, that child may be asked to ‘work’; this may entail changing diapers or watching over their siblings. Assuming that child is old enough to develop cognitive empathy, they’ll understand that their sibling is like they themselves were years before.
In some instances, they will happily take on these tasks understanding that it’s part of a greater good. Occasionally, they’ll act out in efforts to secure their parents’ time and attention.
Type #2: ‘Fairness’ is that same rules apply to everyone
There was an old episode of Happy Days, where two roommates ‘resolved’ their conflicts by painting a line down the middle of the apartment to divide it. The oven was on one side of the kitchen and the refrigerator was on the other side. Naturally, this didn’t work, but we knew this from the beginning; it’s comedy.
However, that doesn’t stop kids from demanding equal time, attention, or resources. Similarly, it does not stop some parents from managing all of it by splitting all of it proportionately (each child gets 1/x of their attention), lest become engulfed by guilt. I remember an account of twin sisters, each who wanted a camera and an iPod respectively; their parents responded with, “You may both get a camera, or both get an iPod”. This is an instance of that rule in steroids.
Still, many rationalize that “everyone abiding by the same rules” is the fairest rule. However, they conclude that without thinking about the needs of the individuals and hearing their accounts.
Type #3: They honestly believe that they should have it ‘their way’
When I was young, my mom instructed me to fold the laundry. I responded that I should be excused because I didn’t do it well; she then reasoned if I never do it, I won’t get any better at it. I didn’t dodge that chore. My initial response was honest, it made sense to me. She demonstrated my bias and held me accountable.
Given limited resources, that child genuinely believes that they should be exempt from the rules or abide by different rules. In some instances, the counterpoint is historical. They didn’t change their sibling’s diaper when they themselves were only four years old. Why should they need to do it now at twelve years of age? “I always had two slices of pizza before… Why do I need to limit myself to one now?”
I will note that like Type #1, different people do have different needs, so there may a legitimate point about different rules applying to different situations. However, first Type #1 aspires to address the best results for the most people. Second, we need to understand that no one can make a case for ‘having it their way’ and hope to be objective; by definition, you’re biased.
Type #4: They understand that ‘their way’ is unfair, but they don’t care
This child still wants to have it their way, so they’re very similar to the Type #3 above. This time they fully understand that what they want is not reasonable. They don’t even pretend to try to justify it, they simply engineer a scheme where they get what they want.
We can most easily convey with one simple phrase: cookie-licking. Imagine a plateful of cookies to be shared among the siblings. Eventually, it gets down to one cookie, and it belongs to one of your siblings. In a simple act of defiance, you pick up the cookie and lick it, thus rendering it ‘icky’ to that sibling.
Here’s the synopsis. You know it’s unfair. Your perceived adversary (in this case, your sibling) will not get that which you both want. There’s a better than average chance that you’ll end up getting what you want.
Observing this behavior at a population level
Our country endured many changes over the course of decades. We abolished slavery. Women and black citizens acquired the power to vote. We nullified laws against miscegenation. The list is long and distinguished. With each of them, there were struggles and opposition; change is hard. The mere idea that some owned other humans as property is foreign and sparks moral outrage. In a very real sense, our country is that older child faced with the prospect that ‘life as you know it’ has effectively ended. Pandora’s Box once opened it cannot be closed again; the genie escaped the bottle. The only real question is how we choose to respond to it, and naturally some will respond differently. Furthermore, each will respond differently based on each issue.
Type #1: The ally
As mapped by the above description, Type #1 is the ally. We empathize and we understand that different people have different needs. One of the most common forms of this is the BLM movement. We understand that black motorists are 20% more likely to be pulled over across the board. We researched and found that black criminals are uniformly given 20% longer sentences for the same crimes. Upon searching for work, we acknowledge that black sounding names are 50% less likely to be called back. In summary, not only do we understand that certain people have different needs, but we also endeavor to help as much as we can.
Your childhood zip code accurately predicts your success in life; we find this deeply troubling.
Some will oppose this. They’ll react like that petulant child with responses like, “All Lives Matter.” Though I can’t remember the last time when a police officer kneeled on the neck of a white criminal for over nine minutes after being subdued.
Type #2: Same rules for everyone
This premise is made to sound fair, and it deceives many people into believing that this is generally the way that we should conduct ourselves. However, this mindset speaks to equality; we should be aiming for equity. There are many places that outline the subtle difference; here’s an article that outlines it. As mentioned above different people have different needs, equity aspires to address their needs, not simply what they get. When we think of fairness, we aim for equity.
Some will oppose fairness, will use equality as a “wolf in sheep’s clothing”. Incidentally, poll taxes were one example of ‘same rules for everyone’ that was intentionally written to impact minorities more severely. It has since been ruled unconstitutional.
Type #3: Everyone should be like us… because we’re right
You understand that the rules are skewed and biased, but you don’t care because you believe that you’re right. We see this most commonly seen when pockets of people try to legislate morality. The very first amendment to our Constitution includes the freedom of religion. This implies the separation of church and state. If your religion doesn’t believe in divorce (some Catholics don’t), don’t practice it, but don’t deny others the right to practice it. Similarly, if your religion doesn’t believe in homosexuality or gender fluidity, don’t practice it, but don’t deny others the right to practice it.
Muslims abstain from eating during daylight hours during Ramadan; I know of no laws that outlaw the eating of food during daylight hours to browbeat everyone to being like them. If it doesn’t directly impact your life, give others the grace to live their life as they would.
Hypocrisy bizarrely permeates how they enforce this ‘morality’. Your religion may consider theft or dishonesty sinful, but don’t dismiss people from their jobs for committing this sin outside of work. You don’t extricate its mention in the educational system for the entire state. It has nothing to do with sin; it has to do with ‘ickiness’. You understand that it’s sinful to “covet thy neighbor’s wife”, but if you live next to Gal Gadot, you understand it.
Type #4: We should totally do this… because we can get away with it
If we live in a democracy, then majority rules. Simple. Natural exceptions will occur, like flag desecration laws. Even if most people agree with something, you can’t impinge in the rights and freedoms of others. Still there are instances where you know that something is unfair, but you have engineered some clever way to get your way. You’ve made your peace with ‘winning’ being more important than ‘playing fair’. One of the prototypical examples of doing this is gerrymandering, the political equivalent of cookie licking.
Might does not make right.
Walking through that threshold
Some thresholds that we cross that can’t be reversed. We can’t un-tell our children that Santa doesn’t exist. If the ultrasound tech accidentally reveals the gender of your child, you can’t unlearn it. We’ve opened Pandora’s Box; let’s navigate it with grace. Tragically, some will try to revert our world into that of June Cleaver’s, a world literally without color that never actually existed.
Our homosexual brothers and sisters are an integral part of our world. They can get married; we protect them from discrimination when it comes to employment. Why do so many oppose to normalizing their experiences? We would begrudge who they love in order to fulfill our biased sense of ‘order’. Tragically, that gay uncle may take his life; we collectively failed them.
We now draw those lines around transgender boundaries. There’s new legislation withholding medical treatment; this includes financial support in suicide hotlines. They’d label the supportive parents of such children as child abusers and seek to separate them from their children. Let’s wrap our heads around that; we would literally opt for our children to take their own life over being transgender. Not only that, but we further stipulate that no other parent in the state may support their child in that transition.
Please just stop. The world has changed; stop behaving like that petulant older child and accept the new reality with empathy and compassion.