![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
fruitkakechevyInteresting documentary on helicopter-parenting. If you don't want to watch the whole 45 minutes, here's an overview. And a nice reactionary sort of blog that I follow.
I think that people are a little under-involved in their babies, and over-involved in every other age. Sure, your baby needs you to come when they cry, because they have no idea that they're fine, you're coming back, and that lions won't eat them in the meantime. Some babies aren't happy unless they're plastered to your body at all times.. that can be a little crazy-making, but they'll grow out of it. Your 2 year old can deal a little better, and as your kids get older a progressive relaxation is in order. I have exactly zero expectation that Josh will get kidnapped by some stranger if he plays outside by himself (once he feels comfortable doing it) while I'm in the kitchen, or if he walks to the park by himself at 8 (or younger?). Kids have an extreme need for their parents when they're little, but as they get over that need they'll move on. Josh won't always sleep in my bed (now for only part of the night! Yay!), or nurse (now only a few times, mostly related to sleep), but I believe that meeting these needs now will make him a more confident individual later on. Pushing your kids away when they're babies in order to make them more independent is completely counterproductive, and leads to either anxious, clingy children or kids that shut down the part of themselves that is hurt by your rejection - unlike encouraging them to stretch themselves and try new things when they're a little older. I don't remember about kindergarten, but I know that in grade 1 I walked to school by myself, played in the woods behind our house, and walked up the street to drop in at friend's houses. I felt totally safe doing this, and I hope Josh will feel he can do the same.
I went to a moms' group this week, where we talked about "age appropriate stimulation", and how parents were reading about what a kid ought to be doing at 6 months or a year, and then stressing about their child being behind and needing "remedial sitting lessons", or some such nonsense. I was reminded of a hothouse, and making flowers bloom out of season, and I shared the analogy of a rose not blooming very well if one arbitrarily decides that it's time and pries the petals open. The rose will open on its own time, and no amount of massaging will make it happen sooner. Music classes should be done with a child if it's fun, and not to somehow create a little Mozart - what a horrible set of expectations for a child to be saddled with. Expose them to a lot of stuff, if you like, but there's no reason to do it all at once in order to somehow create little child-shaped hand-puppets through which you can live your own failed dreams of genius. All kids need beyond the basics, really, is to actively feel that they are loved - a huge relief to me, since there's no way we can afford 60 zillion special classes, followed by the right preschool, private tutors, and the right private school for Josh. (Given my apocalyptic leanings, who knows if a university education will be useful or even exist in 15 years!) Making babies feel loved is easy, though very physically demanding. Making older kids feel loved without hovering is a matter of knowing your child, and knowing how they experience love so you can share that with them without smothering.
One of the moms in the group (with a child a little older than Josh, and a new baby) was remarking on how mellow she was about her second compared to her first: she credits it to the laid-back attitude of the moms she met at La Leche League meetings, whose kids seemed "remarkably intelligent", despite eating goldfish crackers off the floor, not having scientifically designed age-appropriate stimulation all day, not being driven to a zillion classes, and generally being allowed to be kids. Some of the moms unschool their older kids, which is a philosophy of education that really makes sense to me.. we'll see if it works for us, when the time comes. It allows a lot of time for free play, and lets kids follow their own interests instead of spoon-feeding them specific things on a pre-determined schedule. It helps kids to keep their drive towards self-directed learning, and avoids the industrial model of education that, despite the best efforts of educators, has to prevail when one gets a large number of kids together in one room. (And yes, unschooled kids spend time with other kids - I think that there is a huge myth about the kinds of socialization that kids get in school being beneficial.)
I've heard attachment parenting (AP), which I follow more or less, lumped in with helicopter parenting, and while it certainly can be it the one doesn't necessarily follow the other. AP is more about giving babies what they expect in order to be happy, given two million years of evolution. It can be a little crazy-making, given that a lone parent is trying (and cannot possibly succeed) to be an entire tribe, where there is always someone to hand the baby off to. The philosophy makes anthropological sense to me.
For older kids, attachment parenting can be continued without hovering. My favourite book about this is written by Gordon Neufeld and Dr. Gabor Mate (Vancouver guy!). It's more about kids that are a little older than Josh, so I haven't read it for a while, but it was more about maintaining a loving parent/child bond so that the kid WANTS to please you, and less about being your child's best friend. That sort of relationship is completely daft. Kids need to be friends with other kids; their parents should be their PARENTS.
All in all, I'm glad that this stuff is being more widely reported. Lenore Skenazy started her blog when an article she wrote about her 9 year old taking the subway by himself garnered her the title of "World's Worst Parent" in a number of news sources. That's ridiculous - he was safe, knew what he was doing, and had no trouble at all getting home. In order to be guaranteed to abducted from their own front yard by a stranger, a kid would have to sit there for something like 70 000 years. Still, though, babies and toddlers need to be treated with consideration given their limited understanding of their situation, and whenever I read an article about helicopter parents I fear the lumping in of AP principles with otherwise very valid observations. Parents don't need any more information about how to make their babies independent, what they need is permission to let their kids grow as they will and take progressively more responsibility for their own lives. We can stop being afraid that we're somehow holding our kids back by not scheduling every moment - let them grow on their own. Let them show you what they can do.
I think that people are a little under-involved in their babies, and over-involved in every other age. Sure, your baby needs you to come when they cry, because they have no idea that they're fine, you're coming back, and that lions won't eat them in the meantime. Some babies aren't happy unless they're plastered to your body at all times.. that can be a little crazy-making, but they'll grow out of it. Your 2 year old can deal a little better, and as your kids get older a progressive relaxation is in order. I have exactly zero expectation that Josh will get kidnapped by some stranger if he plays outside by himself (once he feels comfortable doing it) while I'm in the kitchen, or if he walks to the park by himself at 8 (or younger?). Kids have an extreme need for their parents when they're little, but as they get over that need they'll move on. Josh won't always sleep in my bed (now for only part of the night! Yay!), or nurse (now only a few times, mostly related to sleep), but I believe that meeting these needs now will make him a more confident individual later on. Pushing your kids away when they're babies in order to make them more independent is completely counterproductive, and leads to either anxious, clingy children or kids that shut down the part of themselves that is hurt by your rejection - unlike encouraging them to stretch themselves and try new things when they're a little older. I don't remember about kindergarten, but I know that in grade 1 I walked to school by myself, played in the woods behind our house, and walked up the street to drop in at friend's houses. I felt totally safe doing this, and I hope Josh will feel he can do the same.
I went to a moms' group this week, where we talked about "age appropriate stimulation", and how parents were reading about what a kid ought to be doing at 6 months or a year, and then stressing about their child being behind and needing "remedial sitting lessons", or some such nonsense. I was reminded of a hothouse, and making flowers bloom out of season, and I shared the analogy of a rose not blooming very well if one arbitrarily decides that it's time and pries the petals open. The rose will open on its own time, and no amount of massaging will make it happen sooner. Music classes should be done with a child if it's fun, and not to somehow create a little Mozart - what a horrible set of expectations for a child to be saddled with. Expose them to a lot of stuff, if you like, but there's no reason to do it all at once in order to somehow create little child-shaped hand-puppets through which you can live your own failed dreams of genius. All kids need beyond the basics, really, is to actively feel that they are loved - a huge relief to me, since there's no way we can afford 60 zillion special classes, followed by the right preschool, private tutors, and the right private school for Josh. (Given my apocalyptic leanings, who knows if a university education will be useful or even exist in 15 years!) Making babies feel loved is easy, though very physically demanding. Making older kids feel loved without hovering is a matter of knowing your child, and knowing how they experience love so you can share that with them without smothering.
One of the moms in the group (with a child a little older than Josh, and a new baby) was remarking on how mellow she was about her second compared to her first: she credits it to the laid-back attitude of the moms she met at La Leche League meetings, whose kids seemed "remarkably intelligent", despite eating goldfish crackers off the floor, not having scientifically designed age-appropriate stimulation all day, not being driven to a zillion classes, and generally being allowed to be kids. Some of the moms unschool their older kids, which is a philosophy of education that really makes sense to me.. we'll see if it works for us, when the time comes. It allows a lot of time for free play, and lets kids follow their own interests instead of spoon-feeding them specific things on a pre-determined schedule. It helps kids to keep their drive towards self-directed learning, and avoids the industrial model of education that, despite the best efforts of educators, has to prevail when one gets a large number of kids together in one room. (And yes, unschooled kids spend time with other kids - I think that there is a huge myth about the kinds of socialization that kids get in school being beneficial.)
I've heard attachment parenting (AP), which I follow more or less, lumped in with helicopter parenting, and while it certainly can be it the one doesn't necessarily follow the other. AP is more about giving babies what they expect in order to be happy, given two million years of evolution. It can be a little crazy-making, given that a lone parent is trying (and cannot possibly succeed) to be an entire tribe, where there is always someone to hand the baby off to. The philosophy makes anthropological sense to me.
For older kids, attachment parenting can be continued without hovering. My favourite book about this is written by Gordon Neufeld and Dr. Gabor Mate (Vancouver guy!). It's more about kids that are a little older than Josh, so I haven't read it for a while, but it was more about maintaining a loving parent/child bond so that the kid WANTS to please you, and less about being your child's best friend. That sort of relationship is completely daft. Kids need to be friends with other kids; their parents should be their PARENTS.
All in all, I'm glad that this stuff is being more widely reported. Lenore Skenazy started her blog when an article she wrote about her 9 year old taking the subway by himself garnered her the title of "World's Worst Parent" in a number of news sources. That's ridiculous - he was safe, knew what he was doing, and had no trouble at all getting home. In order to be guaranteed to abducted from their own front yard by a stranger, a kid would have to sit there for something like 70 000 years. Still, though, babies and toddlers need to be treated with consideration given their limited understanding of their situation, and whenever I read an article about helicopter parents I fear the lumping in of AP principles with otherwise very valid observations. Parents don't need any more information about how to make their babies independent, what they need is permission to let their kids grow as they will and take progressively more responsibility for their own lives. We can stop being afraid that we're somehow holding our kids back by not scheduling every moment - let them grow on their own. Let them show you what they can do.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-03-06 05:38 pm (UTC)I always appreciate reading what you write about parenting. Somehow, I don't think you're too likely to turn into a helicopter parent. My helicopters aren't usually interested in their child as a person so much as they are interested in the status in the community a successful child brings them and they are also terrified to let their child fail at anything (they have no idea how to help their child turn failure into a learning experience.)
My quote of the year is "I will not give them what they deserve, but I will give them what they need.", which makes me think less about wants and power struggles and more about helping my kiddos turn into creative, thinking people.
Also makes me think about how in my 'well off urban community', while there are families who schedule every moment, when I ask the kids who played outside, they all say they did, and they played with rocks and sticks and dirt and had imaginary adventures in the park. Makes me happy :-)
Thanks for the blog links too... I've bookmarked a few blogs I've heard of from you.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-07 02:09 am (UTC)Exactly. The phrase "What they deserve" is commercial, ad-culture lingo that makes me cringe. "What they need" is quite a bit more in line, I think. Yay for creative, thinking people! Glad to know yours get outside to play with rocks and sticks and dirt.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-07 02:49 am (UTC)I use it when I want to keep a kid in for recess with his head down; he DESERVES it and that would make ME feel better. But it would do very little to help him avoid the problem in the future, so he NEEDS something else. So we usually chat about why his actions were a problem and work out a plan for the next time. Of course, this sometimes results in some missed recess too, since that's when I have time for a one-on-one conversation, and it's respectful to have these conversations in private.
I've thought about having "Boredom Parties", which which I'd have a few kids and give them no instruction, but a few interesting materials and see what they come up with. I just think that would be fun, and I betcha I could get some kids to participate. I think I'll wait on this idea until later, should I decide to have my own progeny.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-07 06:28 am (UTC)I like the idea of Boredom Parties :)