more kid ranting

[quietann]

I'd probably post a tongue-in-cheek summary of the hazards of this house, along the following lines:

"WARNING: this house contains many things that are hazardous to people of all ages, and some that are specific hazards for children. For example: lead paint, occasional loose nails in the hardwood floors, glass, animals (all of which will bite if annoyed), three staircases, a dirt-floor, dank, basement, unprotected electrical outlets, possibly poisonous plants, toys that can break, bookshelves that could come crashing down if there is an earthquake, books, hot water, dust, mice, algae, mold, spiders, small toys which can be swallowed, piles of Stuff, 2 toilets, two bathtubs, one occupied by rats, several rocking chairs, the Internet, cans of paint, cleaning supplies, a stove, old televisions, computers, medical devices (including syringes), breakable glass objects, sharp pointy tools, foods to which some people are allergic, medicines, alcohol, caffeine, car parts, car oil, cars, gasoline, and many other things but we are too tired by now to catalog them all. Oh, not to mention Other People, who may be as dangerous as anything else in this house, especially en masse.

"In other words, this is a normal American household which is reasonably safe for people who possess minimal Clue. While visiting our house, it is up to YOU to enforce Clue upon members of your household who are too young or otherwise impaired to have their own Clue. It is NOT my responsibility, and it is not reasonable to expect me to kidproof my house just so you can ignore your kid while you socialize."



It's really rather amazing how much bubbling hostility I have about this. I like kids in small doses. I like parents, too, as long as their brains haven't been stolen by their kids. What I see too much of in the current crowd is kids who run their parents' lives, who demand and push and don't listen and don't understand "no, you can't, because I said so." (which all kids need to hear once in a while) I've seen kids kick, hit, and bite their parents, other kids, and other adults when they don't get their way. Not just toddlers, either (it's completely normal for toddlers to do this, because they don't really have a better way of expressing frustration. But parents can and should still intervene when their toddlers act out...)

If I had kids, I have no idea whether they'd be well-behaved -- though given my temperament, and Ben's, I rather suspect they'd be quiet and easy to be around as long as they had something to read or play with.

Comments

One Disclaimer to Rule them All

[spaceshotscot.livejournal.com]

As a parent, I like your disclaimer!!
Permission to reproduce? With credit of course.

Re: One Disclaimer to Rule them All

[quietann.livejournal.com]

of course!

Re: One Disclaimer to Rule them All

[achinhibitor.livejournal.com]

Uh, Scott, haven't you reproduced already?

[klingonlandlady.livejournal.com]

Ugh- I just saw a prime example of that in a store yesterday... some mom with a small child who was kicking things, and the mom ineffectually saying "now, stop that, dear" and then placidly turning away, when her words had No Effect Whatsoever.

All I could thing was, "Wow, you are going to be so fucked when the little darling is a teenager!" I'm not at all sure I'd do a better job, but that scenario is one reason I don't want to bother trying it.

[hawkegirl.livejournal.com]

Ah, shit.

I tried really hard not to comment to any of this, but obviously I couldn't not comment at all.

What's been on my mind is your comment about "no, you can't because I said so" and that all children need to hear that once and a while.

That makes me sad to read from you.

I value your input on parenting quite a bit, but I have to say I differ here. I don't think people should talk to people that way (regardless of their age). I think telling a child something along the lines of "you need to stop running around the house because you are making other people feel uncomfortable" or "you may not have any more soda, because I think it will be more sugar then is good for you" or ~whatever~ the situation is is very important. Even possibly a "no, stop that" followed by instructions later as to why it's not okay to run with a cleaver if you have to in an emergency situation. But No because I said so, seems less productive to me on so many levels. I would encourage you to think more on it, if you feel like it.

[quietann.livejournal.com]

I'm going to take the cowards way out and say that I was on a tear of kid-negativity when I said that.

However... when *you* get your kids to stop doing stuff by explaining to them why they should stop, they *listen*. I know too many parents who do the explanation, and if the kid just keeps doing whatever, they try explaining again, and then the kid just ignores them, or starts arguing with them, and eventually Bad Things happen (either the parent blows up, or gives up, which makes the kid Everyone Else's Problem, which is what I was objecting to in the first place...) I don't know what you do differently, but it *works*. Your kids are kids, but they are not savages.

A lot of my anger over this issue comes from having kids be made My Problem, because the parents are too preoccupied with other things, or have given up, or just don't notice that their kids are being annoying. This especially happens when there are mobs of kids -- perhaps because no *one* parent wants to deal with all those kids, or single out their particular kid for correction when all the rest are still running around like crazed monsters.

I would like the kid-free and the parents to have a big summit someday, to set some ground rules for everyone. Also get the older kids involved for their perspective (I have no doubt that Gregorian would have quite a lot to offer...)

[hammercock.livejournal.com]

Disclaimer: I am not a parent, only someone who would like to be one and has spent a fair amount of time around small children.

I do think that it's not especially a problem to occasionally assert supreme authority as a parent and not need to explain why, at least not at the time the authority is being asserted. Why? Because a lot of little children these days are turning into rules lawyers. If you keep giving them reasons when they keep asking why, instead of simply enforcing the rules, they learn that they can wheedle their way around anything if they just do it long enough. I've seen kids like that, and I find them annoying and spoiled, and their parents are harried and wondering what they're doing wrong. And the sad part is that the parents mean well; they're trying hard to be good parents, but they've lost control of the situation, and the kids know it.

You don't have to deny children choices arbitrarily, but you don't have to give them unlimited choice, either. I think you can gradually introduce the concept of choices in a limited way ("would you like an apple or an orange?"), then expand their range of choices as they get older and better able to handle them ("what would you like for a snack?"). That ability will obviously vary from child to child.

Can "because I said so" be abused? Certainly. But I do not think that it is always wrong to play the "because I'm the parent" card, nor is it always harmful.

Again, this is my personal opinion, and I'm well aware that one's parenting theories may well fly out the window once they're put to the test. :-}

[hawkegirl.livejournal.com]

That is certianly a standard well accepted approach. Definatley not mine though. What does a child learn when someone asserts that supreme authority? Their parents are dictators? They should do what they're told for no reasons?

I don't think (and it's hard to be objective here) that my kids are rules lawyers, or can wheedle their way around things, and I have never ever said "because I said so".

I think the contrary is true, infact because I talk to them about things they learn first and fore most how to handle some situations they wouldn't otherwise. If we're at the Lefton house for a party say, and some friends of theirs are running around the house and they start running around too. I will stop them, point out to them that it makes me uncomfortable to have running in a house where people are trying to talk because it makes it hard to hear a person you are talking to, also when people have plates of food in their hands they are easy to nock over and make a mess. The most balking I might get to that is "but I'm careful about people holding plates and wont knock them over" to which I can say "even if you are being very careful, the person holding the plate still feels nervous about it, and that can be a very uncomfortable feeling". So, there I have just given them respect, treated them like a person, -explained- the situation so they understand it, and layed down ground work that they should be more thoughtful to other people in a room at a party- even specifically about how other people feel about noise when they are trying to talk, or feeling nervous about making messes. (If I'm in overly thurough parenting mode I would add a bit about, if you want to run around you can see if there is a spot outside where no one is standing that might get nervous about a collision and run around there) In that case they also learn to think of alternative ways to get what they want (which also seems like a very important ground work for living in this world) that works for their society.

Personally I feel like there is harm to asserting that "because I'm the parent" not just that it's not helpful because you are loosing an oppertunity to help them A) behave and B) have respect for themselvs, you as their parent, and the society of people they live in.

Please note there have been times where I do say "I'm too tired to explain right now, please ask me later", "trust me" or somesuch, but they have learned to trust I have a reason, and that I will explain it to them (though I'm not sure they ever have asked me later when I've said they could). Sometimes I'll even say something along the lines of "I'm wondering if you can think of reasons that shouldn't be running around this house right now?" and then (they usually think of more reasons then I did) I can praise them for thinking things through so thuroughly (then they're happy they we able to think of other people so well, and do it more often).

It is definatley a philosophy thing like you say, and I don't mean any disrespect for non parents when I agree that when you become a parent things are very different it's true. (though sometimes you loose perspective as well as gain it)

I'm not trying to say you're wrong, just encourage you to try thinking differently about it. Ann says my kids listen in this situation where other kids don't seem to, so obviously the above mentioned bit is a piece to a larger puzzle/philosophy. I have no trouble whatsoever of leaving a party because a child (or my husband, myself, or guest for that matter) can not behave themselvs appropriately. My kids know that. They like people and parties so they work at trying to make sure they can continue to have a good time, while making sure others good times are not hindered by them (as much as possible anyhow).

(I still have your Thai order I'd love it if you could get it soon.)

[quietann.livejournal.com]

this all sounds good.

One mistake I see being made a lot is that the reason given for stopping doing something doesn't enforce other peoples' points of view enough. Clearly your approach is to do exactly that. Your kids have a lot of empathy for others, something which is sorely lacking in a number of our elboid children (especially those whose parents are very domineering ... hm, I wonder if there is a connection there!)

You know, Rachel once told me that when her kids were small, and there were almost no other kids in the crowd, she enforced upon them that they were "Child Ambassadors" to the susboid community at large, and thus it was their responsibility to show people (many of whom really didn't like kids, or at least had very little experience with them) that having kids around is a Good Thing. It's pretty clear that J,T, and G took their mission pretty seriously!

[achinhibitor.livejournal.com]

I think that the larger philosophy is so implicit that neither of you can bring the words to mind -- and the difference between your position and Ann's is more a matter of words than reality.

What happens when someone is being antisocial and just doesn't care? If you believe that children, or adults for that matter, always have a deep desire to be cooperative and helpful, then your system (of childraising, or of politics) is going to break down the first time someone decides he doesn't care if he's causing trouble. But in reality, occasionally, you have to compel people to be pro-social. In the adult world, it's called The Law, in the child world, it's called discipline. Yes, when either The Law or discipline is applied, it's best to explain to the subject as much as possible what the system is, and why it is so. But its application does not depend on the consent of the subject.

[hawkegirl.livejournal.com]

If someone is just being antisocial and just doesn't care, then they shouldn't be at a party full of people.

I don't think the larger philosophy is so implicit that I can't bring the words to mind, I think I'm trying to address some of the points specifically, as this doesn't seem the right time and place to write a whole book. ;>

[quietann.livejournal.com]

well, Dale is very rules-bound :) He probably believes that well-behaved children cannot be raised without rules and punishment.

I keep encouraging him to visit you and your children, especially since he lives about a mile from you. He'd either be very impressed, or completely befuddled, or maybe both.