# Anyone read "Hold On to your Kids?" Do you try to avoid peer-orientation?



## bluedaisy (Sep 5, 2008)

I just read this book and it's pretty thought-provoking. His main argument is that children are naturally programmed to attach to their parents and have their parents be their compass point for learning how to act. However, today children are becoming peer-oriented and attaching to one another instead of attaching to their parents or other adults.

He says that "children today increasingly look to their peers for direction - their values, identity, and codes of behavior. This 'peer orientation' undermines family cohesion, interferes with healthy development, and fosters a hostile and sexualized youth culture. Children end up becoming overly conformist, desensitized, and alienated, and being 'cool' matters more to them than anything else.

What do you think? Do you have ways that you intentionally try to keep yourself adn your spouse more important in the lives of your children than their peers? Do you try to limit interactions with peers?

My DD is only 2 so I haven't experienced much of this yet but I have heard from many people how important it is that she spend time with other children even at this age, which he argues is not as important as most people believe it is.


----------



## rightkindofme (Apr 14, 2008)

I haven't read the book, but if you do a search you'll turn up a bunch of threads.


----------



## meemee (Mar 30, 2005)

dd is 8. no i dont worry about that at all - or try to make sure we have the connection.

nothing seems to be broken that needs to be fixed.

i have given dd a good foundation to think and analyse. i do hope - probably when she is a teen that she separates from me and looks at her peers and makes up her own mind based on what she thinks is right rather than me or her friends.

i take some of that book with a grain of salt. of course in my teens i was 'cool', didnt listen to my parents. i did the opposite of what they said. and we went our own ways. but it wasnt for ever. i was back after i was done with that phase.

i think the book talks about too much in teh extreme. we as parents can only do so much. ultimately its our child's job to figure out which path to take. based on the critical thinking skills i have given dd she should be able to make those decisions. i can never imagine us losing connection though. even if it is a possibility.

i have never limited interaction with peers. i have never chosen her friends for her. and i have never stood up to fight for her. instead i've helped and guided her to deal with the bullies (mild) in her school. in fact its been the opposite. i've tried encouraging friends and dd has asked me to stop. she wasnt interested in them.

there were a couple of kids i didnt really like. they were unfortunately not taught what socially acceptable behaviour was and was getting dd into trouble too at 4. i spoke to dd and asked her to be a little more awere. if i saw her in public and could tell she was getting to the point where she was getting too excited adn would be hard to bring down i would correct her. but i still did not stop her playing with them. in fact in time soon enough she herself stopped playing with them.


----------



## sweetpeppers (Dec 19, 2007)

I think the problem is that parents set themselves up as the enemy (though that's too strong a word from what I mean). I would have loved to have a closer connection with my parents growing up as a teenager, but it was always us against them. We snuck around to do what we wanted because we knew it wouldn't be allowed or we would get in trouble or they would take the teacher's side or ours, etc. They weren't bad parents, and I never did anything "bad" just stuff they wouldn't approve of. To avoid the drama, we just disconnected and did our own thing without them knowing about it. That's one of the reasons why I think it's important to not try to control our children's lives.

Even though I can understand the importance of the book, I can see parents reading this book, and just driving their kids further away by limiting their friends, etc. I think attachment parenting shouldn't be an excuse to micromanage our children's lives to keep them from ever getting hurt.


----------



## Wild Lupine (Jul 22, 2009)

I loved that book. My kids are still very young, 4 and 2, and I think the most important thing I got from the book was to respect their need for dependence and connection. I don't push them to be independent, but let them decide when they are ready to separate from me a little. There can be a lot of societal pressure to push kids to be independent too early and this book helped me resist that pressure. Before reading the book I thought kids needed to be taught how to be independent, that I needed to actively help them separate from me i.e., encourage them to sleep independently, dress themselves, etc... Now I believe that kids demand to be independent when they are ready for it, and that if I meet their needs when they present them, they'll be ready for healthy independence in their own time, in their own way.

I know this isn't all the book says, and that other books might say something similar, but that was the take-home message for me and it completely changed my approach to parenting.

ETA: About limiting interactions with peers, I don't do that now, and don't know if I will in the future. If I do it will be more about honoring family time and connections. I will make they spend time with me through special outings together, family meals, and vacations, and I'm sure some of those times they'll rather be with their friends than Mom. But I don't think I would restrict time with peers just for the sake of it.


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

I don't limit peer interaction, but I make sure there is lots of time for family interaction as well - family dinners, games after dinner, "family days" which we do regularly where we do one thing after another all together as family. My daughter plays outside with kids for hours and hours a day in good weather. That's great exercise, great use of imagination as they do a lot of imaginative play, great living with nature as they play out in the woods, etc. I don't want her to do without that either as it is also valuable. I did like the book and I value the perspective, but I've decided limiting her play with neighborhood kids isn't in her best interest. There's room for both lots of play with kids, and lots of interaction with us. I don't think there's an "us against them" issue in my family.


----------



## midnightwriter (Jan 1, 2009)

I love the book.

I don't limit my kids' interactions, but I don't "work" on creating them either--something that many mainstream parenting philosophies suggest as necessary.

Many would make you believe that if a 2 yo doesn't have 'friends' they are missing on something, and if you don't have your 2 yo in playdates and playgroups you're a bad parent. "OMG, they NEED to have FRIENDS!" I highly doubt that.

My 8 yo now has friends, my 6 yo is still not very interested. He loves playing with kids his age, but is still too self centered to understand what friendship is.


----------



## Dandelionkid (Mar 6, 2007)

From what I recall the book doesn't advocate limiting kids relationships with other kids but rather making the parent-child connection the strongest it can be. I love that book!


----------



## GuildJenn (Jan 10, 2007)

I didn't like the fear-based sections of that book. While I think some of his points are fine, the idea that if you don't foster the exact right attachment -- and don't limit/discourage other types of attachment -- really didn't sit well with me. I think sometimes parents take that as an excuse to micromanage, as a PP said, inappropriately. I also think peer attachments can be extremely positive; the idea that all the OTHER kids are into bad stuff is suspect to me. I know teens that really encourage each other to volunteer, get involved, study, etc.

I much prefer Mary Pipher, particularly Raising Ophelia if you have girls, and The Shelter of Each Other on families.


----------



## LynnS6 (Mar 30, 2005)

I too interpreted "Hold on to your kids" as "keep a close relationship" with them and not "keep them away from other kids". While I found parts of the book a bit fear mongering, I think that the overall message was positive: Your kids actually do want to spend time with you when they're teens, even when they don't look like they do.

For me, it's about balance -- if your kids' social lives keep them from doing anything with the family, that's not good. At the same time, if your family life keeps them from having friends outside the family, that's not good either.

A lot of it in our family is routine: We eat dinner together as a family. Even when that means waiting until 7:15 to eat because ds has basketball practice, or 6:40 because dd has piano. When our kids are teens, it'll take some creativity. I fully expect some resistance to going to church on Sundays, but we've built the routine now. We're also building relationships with peers and families at church so that they'll be connected. We're building relationships with families at school, again so there will be relationships not only with kids, but with families. We also play together -- playful parenting ideas really do help build this connection so kids want to be with you.


----------



## elisheva (May 30, 2006)

I love Gordon Neufeld. I don't think he means that parents should micromanage - just that they should take a more active role in knowing who the kids are hanging out with/knowing the parents and making sure they are people your kids can look to as substitute "compass points" if they are under their care. I don't find this unreasonable at all. It's the pervasive belief in North American culture that when our kids push us away as teenagers, we should passively accept it because it's "normal". All Neufeld is saying is that this "norm" causes more problems than we realize and that it's within our power as parents to change the culture in our own families - even if this means limiting extra-curricular activities and friend-time so that the family takes priority.


----------



## contactmaya (Feb 21, 2006)

I read the book over 2 years ago now, but it made an impression on me, and i still have many unanswered questions about it. It is actually one of the main books on the Attachment Parenting reading list. Despite that, there are no people irl i know who have read the book, with the exception of the AP leader. She said she felt it didnt apply to her (wasnt sure why), so i could never get much of a conversation going.

I think the idea was, that if you lay a good attachment foundation in the beginning, you wont get the problems of peer attachment later.

Im not sure this is true. My then 2yo (ds1) seemed to be a case in point.

Many parents i know, and for some reason, more of them in the ap crowd ( im not sure why this is, maybe i just spend more time with them) struggle with children who wont separate, and who act asocial, but my son was always the opposite. He separated without a problem, and thrived on the company of his peers. For eg, on a playdate (usually spontaneous), he could not wait to share his toys. The sharing of toys and playing together with someone else, was part of the fun for him. This from the age of 1. I always thought he was an extreme extravert because of it. I struggled to find friends for him, not in order to 'socialize him' (which seemed to be the preoccupation of most other parents i met), but so he could have fun, laugh, run around, in ways that kids do with other kids. I still havent met another parent who values this as much as i do.

Ds2, has always had the benefit of a sibling. He seems to get the need for laughter and goofiness from playing with his brother. So that preoccupation of mine is a thing of the past.

I like the book because Neufeld seems to explain alot of things i have always wondered about, like the apparent amorality among some teenagers, and the lack of respect children develop for their parents. I found it a good explanation, but i still think there is more to it.

I was always respectful of my parents. So i never went through that stage. I also think that if parents were more respectful of their kids(in the consensual living sense), maybe this wouldnt happen? I dont think Neufeld addresses this. I could pretty much do as i pleased growing up, so i attribute that to why i didnt 'rebel'. I used to wish i had a reason to rebel, because it seemed like fun. But i didnt. I thought my parents were cool.

Jumping generations, what bothered me about the book, was the assumption that children who are extraverts must also have some kind of attachement disorder with their parents. I was with my ds1 24/7. He was just an extravert, not disorderly attached.

Also the notion that attachment to peers is unnatural, and a response to an attachement disorder with immedate family, seems to be a little far fetched.

The solution to the dilemma of increasing peer attachement seemed to be that a parent has to get to know a childs friends-always host the parties, playdates etc. While i think this is a good idea, how is it workable for every parent? I mean if one parent is always hosting, when do the others get to host?

In short, im still confused. Im sure my post is as clear as mud.


----------



## seashells (Jan 23, 2009)

I like the book very much. I agree it does not recommend limiting peer relationships, only strengthening parent relationships. It didn't lead me to do anything different with DD, just reinforced and clarified what I wanted.

I was raised to be oriented toward my parents (my mom, mostly) so this is kind of just natural for me.

I do think peer orientation is not ideal. But I think what gets people up in arms is a misunderstanding of the word "orientation" - it doesn't mean that peers are bad for kids (at all! in fact, I firmly agree that children absolutely need friends and peer relationships!). It refers to how children are oriented for their input, learning, approval, etc. Children who are oriented toward their peers are a disadvantage because their peers are no more mature or formed or able to guide than they themselves are. Children who are peer oriented are subject to rapidly changing degrees of acceptance, for example - I think we can all remember stories of kids who turned on a particular kid suddenly, or a popular girl one week who was totally on the outs the next week, or a couple in a trio of friends suddenly reject the third and so on. Children who go through this who are oriented toward their parents will be crushed (I can attest to this personally) but they can also get through it with the loving and STABLE support of their parents (I can, again, attest to this personally). Children who are peer oriented who go through this may feel they have lost the very foundation of their lives, and may have difficulty recovering. Acceptance is only one example, there are other ways that a parent orientation is far more stable, secure, caring, helpful, moral and effective than a peer orientation.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

There is really no shortage of cultural examples illustrating kids growing up financially and socially oriented to their parents and extended family, and this resulting in desirable qualities such as loyalty, respect, self discipline, etc. Many, many cultures, including many Native American cultures, as well as (and ironically) frontier European American culture, socialized children first and foremost to the work, religion, and values of the parents. Time with other children was associated with leisure time; something that came after all other responsibilities were addressed.

Japan is an interesting example of this issue. I just took a course on Japanese culture that focused on modern Japanese family and education systems. The Japanese socialize children to absorb both an intense loyalty to family, as well as thoroughly socializing children to have a strong peer identity. This goes deep into Japanese culture, as they have a very complex social system, in which forms of status and power are not the same thing--which is fairly unique. Hierarchy is extremely important in determining proper behavior towards a person (am I senior to you, or vice versa?). There are endless ways of determining this. Terms of address will differ depending on who is senior/junior in the exchange, even among older/younger siblings, they will have different ways of addressing each other. The only person who is truly your equal is same aged classmates, and this group identity is a critical part of Japanese socialization. Children usually move through elementary school with the same group of children and the same teacher. Children are always grouped by age. The peer identity is used to foster a non-competitive, conformist, group identity that will later transfer to identity with Japanese culture as a whole. Although teens will be introduced to the idea of competition WITH peers, up till aged 12 or so, kids are carefully shielded from competitions between classmates, and most Japanese games focus on cooperation and the necessity of the group to reach a goal. Discipline focuses on conformity. All attention and praise rests on conformity. A child who, for example, refuses to sing a song and plays with blocks will be redirected to singing, and if they still refuse, will be totally ignored by the teachers and other children, as if they don't exist. Attention can only come from conforming, and then the child is praised extensively when they return to the group. In other words, discipline issues are usually seen as conformity issues. The solution is helping the child cooperate and conform to group activities. Throughout your life, your same age class mates remain a special type of relationship, one that is important to the Japanese people.

In other words, for Japanese culture, socializing a child to develop a strong peer group identity is CRUCIAL. Parents might debate WHERE to send a child to school but there is no doubt they WILL start school at 6 years of age. Virtually no parent would think of homeschooling. That would rob a child of an essential part of growing up Japanese. Although Japanese value individualism, they do not value individuality in the way the West does--we tend to picture ourselves as the center of our universe with everything else radiating out like spokes on a wheel. Understanding your place in relation to others is very important to the Japanese, who place themselves in relation to others in a very complex web that is ever changing, and tremendous energy is spent by parents and teachers inculcating proper concepts of this social system into children.

This is all according to my teacher--if a Japanese person wants to correct anything here please do!


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:
Originally Posted by *sweetpeppers* 


> Even though I can understand the importance of the book, I can see parents reading this book, and just driving their kids further away by limiting their friends, etc. I think attachment parenting shouldn't be an excuse to micromanage our children's lives to keep them from ever getting hurt.


I read and enjoyed the book and I can't see how anyone would get that from it, honestly. The whole thing was about maintaing your place as your child's compass point, not about micromanaging their friendships.

I don't limit peer interaction. However, I'm also homeschooling (decision made long before I read Hold Onto Your Kids), partly because I don't like the peer vibe in the schools. I'm not talking about stuff I read in papers, either. DS1 was public schooled and there's a peer "thing" there that I don't like. We consider it normal in our culture, but I don't really think it is. It makes no sense to me that children should be learning how to behave and what social expectations are from other children, instead of from adults.

I've certainly never tried to prevent my kids from getting hurt. I don't like it when it happens, and I do guide them and comfort them, but getting hurt is part of life. I absolutely never limited any of my children's friends, including one 2-3 year friendship of ds1's that I considered toxic (it eventually imploded on its own). I don't think it's my job to tell him who to like and hang out with...and it doesn't work, anyway.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *contactmaya*
> 
> I think the idea was, that if you lay a good attachment foundation in the beginning, you wont get the problems of peer attachment later.
> 
> ...


----------



## elisheva (May 30, 2006)

contactmaya - don't confuse attachment with *orientation*. Peer orientation means that a child looks to a peer or peers for guidance on how to behave/dress/etc INSTEAD of looking to his/her parent(s) who are children's natural compass points if only the relationship is maintained and nurtured.


----------



## karne (Jul 6, 2005)

I'm parenting an almost teen, and I find that peer orientation is part of the package, and I would worry if it wasn't. It doesn't really impact our family in terms of parents being the "compass". We are. I found the book interesting, but not really relevant, esp. as a more experienced parent. It doesn't make sense, to me, to fear or try to keep away the normal process of separation that kids go through.


----------



## elisheva (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *karne*
> 
> I'm parenting an almost teen, and I find that peer orientation is part of the package, and I would worry if it wasn't. It doesn't really impact our family in terms of parents being the "compass". We are. I found the book interesting, but not really relevant, esp. as a more experienced parent. It doesn't make sense, to me, to fear or try to keep away the normal process of separation that kids go through.


If you are your kid's compass then they aren't peer-oriented. They may be attached and I agree this is normal. Peer orientation is the norm in our culture and definitely not desirable.


----------



## karne (Jul 6, 2005)

But we are the compass, and she is peer oriented. It's not really an either or situation, and I definitely wouldn't want to set it up as such. By peer oriented I mean that friends/peers are becomingly increasingly important, and being part of a group of friends, and having some common bonds is important as well. Having some ideas and experiences that are shared with peers, but aren't part of home life happens at this age too. The compass part comes in when there are issues of judgement and trust involved. What we've taught, and our values, are the compass. I don't however, mean to say, that we expect, or want, our dd to think and act in lockstep with us. At this age, she's her own person with thoughts and feelings that are her own, which we respect. I think this is why we do have such a good relationship-and when you get to the years of parenting kids moving into their teens, this is no small thing.


----------



## contactmaya (Feb 21, 2006)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *elisheva*
> 
> contactmaya - don't confuse attachment with *orientation*. Peer orientation means that a child looks to a peer or peers for guidance on how to behave/dress/etc INSTEAD of looking to his/her parent(s) who are children's natural compass points if only the relationship is maintained and nurtured.


Well that certainly clarifies things.
But i would still like a precise definition of orientation versus attachment. It seems to me that orientation requires some sort of attachment, and attachment leads to some kind of orientation, not sure where to draw the line. (i mean, off the bat here) I dont recall this kind of distinction made in the book, but maybe i missed it. Or maybe it was assumed, but i didnt study psychology, so im not aware of the definitions.

(i look forward to reading posts in detail later-ds wants to play chess (with me)


----------



## elisheva (May 30, 2006)

If we're speaking about the book, the definitions are important as they are used to explain Neufeld's concepts. I'll try to sit and find his specific defs this afternoon and post more.


----------



## raksmama (Feb 20, 2005)

I like the idea of Hold on to your Kids but also have mixed feelings. It is one of those books like Continuum Concept, that sound good in theory, but the principles are easier to apply with younger children than older ones. In a perfect world let's say you lived in a small community in an extended family it would be easier. I breastfed DS until he was 4, co- slept even longer, but perhaps because we live in a town where neither of us has family (DH found a job, that is why we are here) and DS (12) is an only child, he is still more influenced by peer pressure than I would like. As others have pointed out, this is very common in our society. In the Hold On to Your Kids he often talks of the families in Europe but being different, but having lived in Europe for 15 years I can say they have the exact same issue as here. My husband actually does come from a large extended family living in a small community and he would be quick to point out that while there are advantages to this it is also not perfect. Yes the book is thought-provoking!


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

I'm going to have to read the book again. I don't remember anything about extended family being desirable. My grandmother was the single biggest threat to our relatonship with our parents, so I'd be very doubtful about that if I read it.


----------



## elisheva (May 30, 2006)

He defines peer orientation over pg 6-7 in several paragraphs. In a tiny nutshell (italic emphasis mine) : "...children have an inborn need to find their bearings by turning toward a source of authority, contact, and warmth...The parent - or another adult acting as a parent substitute - is the nature-intended pole of orientation for the child....Social, economic, and cultural trends in the past five or six decades have displaced the parent from his intended position as the orienting influence on the child. The peer group has moved into this void with deplorable results...As we will show, children cannot be oriented to both adults and other children simultaneously...the child's brain must automatically choose between parental values and peer values, parental guidance and peer guidance, parental culture and peer culture whenever the two would appear to be in conflict. The problem is not that children have friends their own age or that they form connections with other children - such ties are only natural and can serve a healthy purpose. In cultures that are adult oriented, in which the guiding principles and values are those of the more mature generations, children attach to other children without losing their bearings or without having to reject parental influences. In our society, that is no longer the case. Peer bonds have come to replace relationships with adults as children's primary sources of orientation."

Re: Europe - the only example he give, AFAIK, is of families in a village in Provence where he observed older generations picking the schoolchildren up at the school gate in the afternoon...he says that most Western industrialized nations have the problem of peer orientation but it seems less in some smaller villages.

Re: relatives as adults we want our kids to orient to - AFAIK he says extended family MAY fill this role in many cases but not all. I'm SURE he would exclude toxic relatives. He also talks about match-making between your child and other adults you trust (teacher, daycare provider, parents of friends) that your child will see that adult as a substitute compass point and NOT experience an attachment void where peer orientation is likely to occur.

FWIW, it's worth reading this book several times to really understand what he's talking about. It's 100% psychologically sound. If you are happy with your kids orienting to peers, then this book is not for you.

I'll close with an example: A woman I know once remarked to me that her university-aged son was in town for the weekend for the first time in months. Though he was sleeping at home, she said she doubted she'd see him as he would spend every waking moment with his friends. This made me very sad. It's NOT natural or desirable. It's normal in our Western industrialized society but that doesn't mean that individuals have to accept it as an ideal. So much of attachment parenting is saying that we aren't going to let prevailing culture (CIO, breastfeeding, etc) dictate our parenting choices - why should the issue of peer-orientation be any different?


----------



## meemee (Mar 30, 2005)

you can never make generalisations in this regard. both sides exist in all kinds of culture.

its the same thing here. i see sooo many connected adults. what stands out to me of course are mother dd relationships where they talk to each other a few times a DAY. one of my friends pulling out from work the first thing she does is call her mom. she was not raised AP perr se but she has a v. close bond with her family. the poor mom. all her kids check in with her.

dunno. for me i dont find peers such a bad thing. not all peer is bad. and i find dd learns a lot about herself when she associates with peers.

wouldnt it be a generation thing? also how open parents are. there is so much involved here, you cant really write down. is the parent open enough to be worthy enough to continue holding onto.

in one sense i feel parenting for me doesnt really start till dd is 13. anything that comes before that is easy comparatively.

will i still be able to stay open and respecting dd's wishes as i do now?

i do what i do for my dd - because there is no other way for me. that is what feels right to me and love for my dd makes me behave the way i am.

i never once look at it as oh boy i better do this now so she connects with me when she is 13.


----------



## elisheva (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *meemee*
> 
> dunno. for me i dont find peers such a bad thing. not all peer is bad. and i find dd learns a lot about herself when she associates with peers.


With all due respect, have you read the book? Nowhere does he state that peers are bad. That's NOT the argument here. If you notice my pp, Neufeld explicitly states "The problem is not that children have friends their own age or that they form connections with other children - such ties are only natural and can serve a healthy purpose."

No one is denigrating friendships or peers. I just don't think it can be argued that what North American culture does in handing teenagers over to themselves is at all healthy or productive.


----------



## Trinitty (Jul 15, 2004)

To answer the title:

Yes. And, yes. 

I will read your post and thread now.

Trin.


----------



## contactmaya (Feb 21, 2006)

*Cant get the quoting thing to work because my connection is playing up- i hope what*

*wrote is intelligible.*

Elisheva 
<<If we're speaking about the book, the definitions are important as they are used to explain Neufeld's concepts. I'll try to sit and find his specific defs this afternoon and post more.>>

*Great idea, thankyou! I read the book over 2 yrs ago, so dont have a memory of precise definitions. I do recall reading most of it, rather than just skimming. I may have skipped some essential sections i guess*.

Stormbride <<I'm going to have to read the book again. I don't remember anything about extended family being desirable. My grandmother was the single biggest threat to our relatonship with our parents, so I'd be very doubtful about that if I read it.>>

*Yes, i remember clearly his advocating the importance of extended family, which puts alot of us without close extended family in a dilemma. (But im pretty sure he would exclude toxic relatives as Elisheva said) *

Elisheva <<Neufeld<<Peer bonds have come to replace relationships with adults as children's primary sources of orientation."
The parent - or another adult acting as a parent substitute - is the nature-intended pole of orientation for the child
Peer bonds have come to replace relationships with adults as children's primary sources of orientation>>

*Again, although I agree in principle with the argument of the book, when I saw my own son in action, it didn't seem to fit. Nowhere, to my knowledge/memory, does Neufeld address the introvert/extravert issue. I do feel, that even with solid orientation to his family, my sons love and need of peer interaction makes him more vulnerable to the peer pressures talked about in the book. I mean, I don't know, he's only 5. But I have seen him pick on his little brother to impress his peers *









Karne <<But we are the compass, and she is peer oriented.>>

*This clarifies things for me somewhat.*
*But still doesn't explain to me how to deal with the vulnerabilities of an extravertive child*

Stormbride <<He's separating - heck, he may be moving out in a few months! - but I still know what goes on in his life, in a general sense. He still knows I'm here if he needs guidance. And, his friends also have parents who are involved and are around, as well. These aren't people who have just been cut loose to figure it out on their own. As far as I can tell, the parent orientation and solid family attachments they've all been blessed with have given them a very good foundation for healthy, positive peer attachments, as well.>>
Karne <<I'm parenting an almost teen, and I find that peer orientation is part of the package, and I would worry if it wasn't. It doesn't really impact our family in terms of parents being the "compass". We are. I found the book interesting, but not really relevant, esp. as a more experienced parent. It doesn't make sense, to me, to fear or try to keep away the normal process of separation that kids go through>>

*Its so interesting to hear from people with older kids like this. *


----------



## meemee (Mar 30, 2005)

i must be honest. its been a few years since i read it. however all i remember while reading it is this storm going thru me. i was liking bits and pieces and could not accept some parts of it. i remember talkign aloud to the book and differign with it.

perhaps i didnt word it right. i am not talking about friendship. i am talking about the peer thing. as karne pointed out and watching my 8 year old go thru trying to figure out what i said and what her peers say i felt it was part of growing up.

i mean in that sense i found just the title 'hold on to your kids' kinda negative. i know what he is talking about in general. it comes of as planning when your kids are babies and doing stuff to hold on to the kids. well first of all i think this book really isnt meant for 'us' here or parents who connect to their kids.

i think the book is for all the parents who are so into the parenting and the rules that they forget the kids.

to me a certain amount of disconnect is obvious, normal - part of life.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *elisheva*
> 
> With all due respect, have you read the book? Nowhere does he state that peers are bad. That's NOT the argument here. If you notice my pp, Neufeld explicitly states "The problem is not that children have friends their own age or that they form connections with other children - such ties are only natural and can serve a healthy purpose."
> 
> No one is denigrating friendships or peers. I just don't think it can be argued that what North American culture does in handing teenagers over to themselves is at all healthy or productive.


----------



## Linda on the move (Jun 15, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jalilah*
> 
> It is one of those books like Continuum Concept, that sound good in theory, but the principles are easier to apply with younger children than older ones.


Interesting point.

I liked this book more when my kids were younger. They are 12 and 14 and I just don't see that it has ANYTHING to do with us. My older DD has Asperger's and we actively work at getting her MORE peer orientated. Learning social cues is important. Separating from family is important. Seeing the extreme opposite of this every day through the lense of my DD's special needs, makes it very clear to me that this is an area where balance is the ideal -- not either extreme. I feel that the author sees one extreme and doesn't like it, and misses the point that there is another extreme that is equally as undesirable.

My NT dd is learning balance -- she's very close to us but separating gradually and in healthy, positive ways. I don't see the goal as "holding on to her" but rather giving her a safe base and then helping her find her own strength so she can soar.

Frankly, I find the title "hold on to your kids" to be very limited. The real goal is to raise functioning adults -- not to hold onto children. My questions now are about how I help them develop their independence in positive ways. I can see all around me that doing otherwise only leads to either rebellion of living a shadow of life by never separating from parents.

My extended family is highly toxic, and my DH's is another country. The other adults in my kids lives are primary teachers at their school and the folks who run various activities they get involved in -- people that my kids know because they are involved in things set up for them and their peers! I find it ironic.

I see posts often on mothering where moms have taken the basic ideals of this books and are really freaked out about the impact that other children will have in their kids. Although I don't remember the book as intending to be super fear based, I see that trend in APing. I think this is an issue where there is much fear and little trust.


----------



## elisheva (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Linda on the move*
> 
> I see posts often on mothering where moms have taken the basic ideals of this books and are really freaked out about the impact that other children will have in their kids. Although I don't remember the book as intending to be super fear based, I see that trend in APing. I think this is an issue where there is much fear and little trust.


The book isn't fear based. People are taking their own ideas and projecting them onto the book. If people want their kid to be peer-oriented according to their own definition, that's fine. Just don't misread or misstate what Neufeld is saying. His definition of peer-orientation is where the children CEASE TO VIEW THEIR PARENTS AS COMPASS POINTS and instead use their peers. He likens it to the cliche the "blind leading the blind" - how can your child learn what he/she needs to thrive if they are only looking to another immature being for advice on how to grow and thrive? Again, if this is ok for you personally, that's absolutely your right as a parent. I sincerely doubt that most of us want that, though.

People in this thread and elsewhere are mixing up the ideas of orientation and attachment. I find it frustrating because Neufeld is getting needlessly slammed and his ideas ARE very important. Linda, I can totally understand why you are trying to foster positive peer ATTACHMENTS for your SN child. Orientation is a whole different matter.


----------



## Dandelionkid (Mar 6, 2007)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *elisheva*
> 
> The book isn't fear based. People are taking their own ideas and projecting them onto the book. If people want their kid to be peer-oriented according to their own definition, that's fine. Just don't misread or misstate what Neufeld is saying. His definition of peer-orientation is where the children CEASE TO VIEW THEIR PARENTS AS COMPASS POINTS and instead use their peers. He likens it to the cliche the "blind leading the blind" - how can your child learn what he/she needs to thrive if they are only looking to another immature being for advice on how to grow and thrive? Again, if this is ok for you personally, that's absolutely your right as a parent. I sincerely doubt that most of us want that, though.
> 
> People in this thread and elsewhere are mixing up the ideas of orientation and attachment. I find it frustrating because Neufeld is getting needlessly slammed and his ideas ARE very important. Linda, I can totally understand why you are trying to foster positive peer ATTACHMENTS for your SN child. Orientation is a whole different matter.


Thanks for explaining it so well. I am a huge advocate for independent thought and experience for my kids and attempt to foster many peer-attachments but I have seen peer orientation at work, especially teen years, and it definitely is an extreme and unhealthy form of independence.


----------



## karne (Jul 6, 2005)

I think that it would actually be pretty interesting to see this posted in the preteen/teen forum, because I suspect that those of us raising older kids have slightly different points of view, based on experience.

To me, the flaw in saying that it's fine for people to "choose" to accept peer orientation, is to think that as a parent you have the ability to control how your child thinks or feels. Part of the work of early adolescence is about exploring within the the context of peer relationships. Part of the growth comes from mistakes that are made. It does not always look pretty, but it is a normal. Again, I don't believe this is an either or situation, or at least it hasn't been for our family. I have seen a family that has set up this dynamic with their young teen, and it's very tough, and frankly feels very odd. The parents have essentially given a road map to rebellion, and they are having a tough time of it.

ETA: I do completely understand the impulse behind wanting to be your child's only compass point, so I don't want to seem unsympathetic to some of the ideas expressed. It's more that as healthy families grow (and families do have their stages of growth, not just individuals within the family), there needs to be room for that growth to take place, without the system being so fearful of new ideas, or exploration, that it clamps down too tightly.


----------



## Tjej (Jan 22, 2009)

I read this book a couple of years ago and remember gleaning a lot from it. I think it really resonated with me because my brothers and I were all quite peer-oriented. I think I ended up lucking out in a way because a number of my friends that I looked to for values were themselves parent oriented.

The idea of orientation is not about being friends or liking parents or peers - its about where your home-base is.

I find that a lot of the techniques Neufeld talks about are very useful in dealing with the kids at a local weekly childrens' club that I help run. Gathering the kids, connecting with them at their level, "orienting them" to the situation (telling them what is going on - where and when) - all help the small group leaders have a relationship and some respect as an authority figure. I find it is very true that if the kids come in the door and don't connect with an adult they will connect with a kid - and will look to their friend on how to behave and what to do, instead of looking to the adults.

In reading the book I felt it was MORE about older kids than younger ones, although it applied to younger kids too. I guess that is because the peer orientation I think of in my own life was more of an issue in my teens.

Tjej


----------



## contactmaya (Feb 21, 2006)

Is anyone who has read the book able to address the issue of an intraverted versus extravertive personality when it comes to peer orientation? My son is an extravert, and i believe, maybe falsely, that this makes him more vulnerable to peer orientation, no matter what i do.

2ndly, whilst on the surface, i understand the distinction between attachment (forming bonds) versus orientation (the emotional compass point), im still not exactly convinced that the distinction is so cut and dry. The reason for this, is that a person's moral compass may be influenced by their family of origin, it might even be influenced by a peer group, in fact, one's moral compass is influenced by many factors. Some might even argue that we are born with a moral compass. Personally, i hope that my parents raised me to find my moral compass from within. In other words, i am my own moral compass. I recall being that as a child and a youth. I didnt consult my parents much, i thought about things.

It sounds like the argument is that that orientation can only be to one thing. I believe that Neufeld is saying this, certainly by the quotes Elisheva provided. I am not trying to pull the book apart, because i liked it very much. But i need to understand it better to apply to my own situation. Also, i remember a section in the book, where very well meaning parents, maybe even having practised attachment parenting (he didnt specify) parents that believed themselves to respectful to their children,...those parents at a loss when their 8 yo started to be rude to them, and to orient to her peers. So i guess my 2nd question is, how do you differentiate 'influence', 'internal moral compass', 'parental/familial orientation' and 'peer orientation'. Where does one influence begin and end? And, how does one decide whether orientation to one's own family guarantees moral behavior?

( i believe also that there is a much bigger philosophical question underlying the whole book, about the origins of good and evil)


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *contactmaya*
> 
> And, how does one decide whether orientation to one's own family guarantees moral behavior?


IMO, nothing guarantees moral behaviour. The rest of your questions I'll have to think about. I have opinions on them, but they're hard for me to articulate. So far, things have worked well for us. My oldest son is highly extraverted (which has been interesting for us, as dh and I are both introverted), very social, and places very high importance on peer relationships. He eats dinner with us only about 2-3 times a week now, due to his various activities, social engagements (hanging out at his best friend's house, spending time with his girlfriend, and just generally spending time with his friends), and work. I woudl still say that his orientation has been to his parents, not his peers. I'm just not sure how to descibe the "vibe" in words.


----------



## GuildJenn (Jan 10, 2007)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *elisheva*
> 
> The book isn't fear based. People are taking their own ideas and projecting them onto the book. If people want their kid to be peer-oriented according to their own definition, that's fine. Just don't misread or misstate what Neufeld is saying. His definition of peer-orientation is where the children CEASE TO VIEW THEIR PARENTS AS COMPASS POINTS and instead use their peers. He likens it to the cliche the "blind leading the blind" - how can your child learn what he/she needs to thrive if they are only looking to another immature being for advice on how to grow and thrive? Again, if this is ok for you personally, that's absolutely your right as a parent. I sincerely doubt that most of us want that, though.
> 
> People in this thread and elsewhere are mixing up the ideas of orientation and attachment. I find it frustrating because Neufeld is getting needlessly slammed and his ideas ARE very important. Linda, I can totally understand why you are trying to foster positive peer ATTACHMENTS for your SN child. Orientation is a whole different matter.


I'm glad you like the book so much but IMO it really is fear-based.

Just look at chapter one (any quotes I put in here are from that): "parents intuitively know that something is amiss." Oh no! Something out there is Horribly Wrong! Personally, I don't see it. I see lovely adolescents today doing all kinds of wonderful things.

Also, he posits that kids today are less attached to their parents and this is causing all kinds of social ills. ("The gap opening up between children and parents can seem unbridgeable at times.") Well, I'm older than a number of people here and I just have to laugh at the idea that in the 70s kids were so attached to their parents. The child and parent spheres were often WAY more separate with parents WAY less plugged in than the boomers have been. If you want to go further back, it was was the boomers themselves who rejected their parents and ran off to be hippies/march in civil rights movements/etc.

It's fine with me if people enjoyed this book but I didn't. Sure there are some helpful and good points but I think other books make those same ones without the doom and gloom, and without risking pathologizing a perfectly legitimate separation process that adolescents do go through. The idea that his views are 100% psychological reality (as a pp said) is definitely up for debate.


----------



## journeymom (Apr 2, 2002)

OP, could you explain what the negative consequence of peer orientation is as Neufeld defines it? What bad things happen when kids are peer oriented, and not parent oriented?

Books that sound a clarion call to arms in response to a social ill - I think that if it doesn't ring true to you it might be because it doesn't apply to you. That's my expience, anyway. My children are 16 and 11 years old.

That's one alternative to the idea that if you don't agree with Neufeld it's because you're satisfied with your children being peer oriented.


----------



## Linda on the move (Jun 15, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Storm Bride*
> IMO, nothing guarantees moral behaviour.


Agreed. I think that this book (and many other parenting books) assume that if a parent does X, the child will turn out Y. It just ain't so. Every body gets free will. Our children have free will. What we do *may* impact how they turn out, but ultimately they make the real choices about what sort of people they become. Any parent who really believes otherwise is just living in denial.

I parent the way I do because I am following my own moral compass. I'm not under a delusion that raising a human being is like baking a batch of cookie -- if you start with a good recipe and follow all the directions just right, they turn out fine.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GuildJenn*
> 
> Well, I'm older than a number of people here and I just have to laugh at the idea that in the 70s kids were so attached to their parents. The child and parent spheres were often WAY more separate with parents WAY less plugged in than the boomers have been. If you want to go further back, it was was the boomers themselves who rejected their parents and ran off to be hippies/march in civil rights movements/etc.


I'm 45 and agree with you. I think there is a VERY strong trend of being more connected to kids now, and staying connected as they move into the teen years. I see it all over the place.

I also think that there are HUGE variances in how different families do things, so anytime I read something like "The gap opening up between children and parents can seem unbridgeable at times" I immediately start thinking of all the exceptions I know.

I just got back from a gardening work day at my kids' school -- parents and teens working together on what really is a community garden. I'm sure that what the book says is true about some families, but it just isn't what I see around me.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Linda on the move*
> 
> Agreed. I think that this book (and many other parenting books) assume that if a parent does X, the child will turn out Y. It just ain't so. Every body gets free will. Our children have free will. What we do *may* impact how they turn out, but ultimately they make the real choices about what sort of people they become. Any parent who really believes otherwise is just living in denial.
> 
> ...


----------



## raksmama (Feb 20, 2005)

I must confess I also read the book about 7 years ago, so I don't remember everything. I guess it was only the south of France that was the other culture mentioned. At the time I found it strange since the majority of French (meaning in France NOT French Canadian) are not definitely not into attachment parenting.

I do believe in the idea of the book, that attachment parenting is the right thing.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *elisheva*
> 
> Re: Europe - the only example he give, AFAIK, is of families in a village in Provence where he observed older generations picking the schoolchildren up at the school gate in the afternoon...he says that most Western industrialized nations have the problem of peer orientation but it seems less in some smaller villages.


----------



## contactmaya (Feb 21, 2006)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Storm Bride*
> 
> IMO, nothing guarantees moral behaviour. The rest of your questions I'll have to think about. I have opinions on them, but they're hard for me to articulate. So far, things have worked well for us. My oldest son is highly extraverted (which has been interesting for us, as dh and I are both introverted), very social, and places very high importance on peer relationships. He eats dinner with us only about 2-3 times a week now, due to his various activities, social engagements (hanging out at his best friend's house, spending time with his girlfriend, and just generally spending time with his friends), and work. I woudl still say that his orientation has been to his parents, not his peers. I'm just not sure how to descibe the "vibe" in words.


Thanks. This answers my question. Sounds like it doesnt have to be an issue, which is why Neufeld probably didnt address it.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Linda on the move*
> 
> I parent the way I do because I am following my own moral compass. I'm not under a delusion that raising a human being is like baking a batch of cookie -- if you start with a good recipe and follow all the directions just right, they turn out fine.


 I agree with this too. I do attachment parenting because its seems the ethical thing to do. Im following my internal moral compass. Im not doing it because i want my kids to turn out a certain way. Im just doing the best i can. I think the book goes deeper than this though. Its not advocating a type of parenting so much, as providing an explanation for how families can come apart, even if parents, like me, are doing the best they can. Its explaining ways to circumvent this.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *journeymom*
> 
> OP, could you explain what the negative consequence of peer orientation is as Neufeld defines it? What bad things happen when kids are peer oriented, and not parent oriented?


Im not the OP, but for me the reason the book was so interesting, is that it provides a solid explanation for how and why so much can go wrong, and for me, even goes so far as to explain the root of evil itself.

Among teenagers-bullying, going as far as murder, casual sex going as far as rape and rampant exploitation of those lower in the peer group heirarchy, drug use and addiction among minors, total disregard and lack of respect for family members especially parents (the whole rebellion thing gone to an extreme). He made the astute observation that the very definition of 'cool' was to be out of touch with one's emotions, needs and vulnerabilities and its amoral consequences. Anything that goes wrong in the 'youth' category, has its roots in peer orientation.

You really have to read the book.


----------



## One_Girl (Feb 8, 2008)

I haven't read that book, but I am currently reading another with a theme that is similar called Parenting Without Power Struggles and the author does a really good job of explaining why we should be trying to keep our connection to our children strong and why we shouldn't just accept that they are going to be totally peer-oriented. She basically says that childrens' peers tend to be flighty and relying on them isn't a good idea because they aren't a solid and secure presence. She also seems to distinguish between spending time with peers, even a lot of time, and being peer-oriented. She has strategies for re-building the connection as well as other advice. I haven't finished the book, but it makes more sense now and I am planning on picking up Hold Onto Your Kids now also because I do see how total peer-orientation can be a problem. My dd has always loved her friends and spending time with them but also is mostly family oriented and I would like to keep it that way as much as possible.


----------



## karne (Jul 6, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *contactmaya*
> 
> Im not the OP, but for me the reason the book was so interesting, is that it provides a solid explanation for how and why so much can go wrong, and for me, even goes so far as to explain the root of evil itself.
> 
> ...


I think that this is an unrealistic picture of what I know of young people. It would be reductionist and simplistic to attribute the above issues to peer orientation. I'm sorry, but rape doesn't have anything to do with peer orientation, neither does murder, nor does being out of touch with emotions, or being "amoral". This is fear mongering, and frankly I think it is disrespectful to young people. If you are dealing with the above issues related to your children, there's more going on than kids relating to their peers.

Respect, consistency, empathy, understanding of developmental needs, flexibility......these are the attributes that I have found to promote and maintain solid attachment during the preteen/teen years, not fear and resistance to change.


----------



## philomom (Sep 12, 2004)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *karne*
> 
> I think that this is an unrealistic picture of what I know of young people. It would be reductionist and simplistic to attribute the above issues to peer orientation. I'm sorry, but rape doesn't have anything to do with peer orientation, neither does murder, nor does being out of touch with emotions, or being "amoral". This is fear mongering, and frankly I think it is disrespectful to young people. If you are dealing with the above issues related to your children, there's more going on than kids relating to their peers.
> 
> Respect, consistency, empathy, understanding of developmental needs, flexibility......these are the attributes that I have found to promote and maintain solid attachment during the preteen/teen years, not fear and resistance to change.


I agree with this.

Also, I believe that no peerage in your life is terrible thing. That's one thing that makes me worry about some of the more isolated homeschoolers.


----------



## Trac (Sep 4, 2004)

I loved the book...the author spoke at a seminar I attended and brought it all home even more. He made a lot of sense to me in regards to my own adolescence, and there were a lot of things that I found to be true, in my case. Looking back, I think I was a fairly "troubled" teen...I had trouble finding my space, and never felt like I truly fit in, and in an effort to do so, did some things that I wished I could undo! Nothing really crazy, just stuff I was not comfortable with, but lacked the "guts" to say "no." My own parents were fairly detached...my mother had MS, and struggled with depression, sort of was trying to deal with her own demons, and I'm almost sure (now that I have some experience with it) that my Dad has an ASD. I think I was eventually able to find my way because my best friend was part of a family where her (single) mom was very much the "compass." I looked for someone to "attach" myself to, and my best friend was there, and because she was "attached" to her mother, her mother sort of became my "other" mother, if that makes any sense? When I look back, it was there, in that house, where I can say I felt unconditionally loved. I spent the majority of my days there, and you'd think they would have gotten sick of me and told me to go home, but I was always welcome, as were other "unattached" people! My parents did the best they could, given what they were dealing with at the time, but I believe that, had my friend's family not been where I turned, I may not have come out of it relatively unscathed!

After having read the book, making sure that I am my son's "compass" is something I think about. DS is 9, and there have been times where it seems like his friends (and what his friends think) becomes the driving force in his decisions. I don't know, I just get a feeling sometimes that his peers are starting to have a little too much influence over him, and that I have somehow become secondary. When this happens, I start to think of ways to re-connect. I don't limit his time with others, which only creates resentment, but I find ways to insert myself into their group. To this point, that has included such things as inviting them all to paint pictures, or make pinatas...creating something usually works nicely...and I don't just hand out instructions and supplies, I get right in there and participate. Sometimes we'll play ball with them, or something...just play. All of a sudden, DS and his friends are looking towards me and I have become the compass for the whole group! I'm not sure what will work as DS gets older, but we'll figure it out as we go...I imagine sports will play a big part. I try hard to make this house a place where they always feel comfortable and welcome, just as my "other" mother did for me. In my mind, it's not so much about keeping the other influences out, but rather inviting the other influences in, and having them all realize that I, as a person, have value, and deserve respect, and that they will also be respected here.


----------



## Tjej (Jan 22, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *karne*
> 
> I think that this is an unrealistic picture of what I know of young people. It would be reductionist and simplistic to attribute the above issues to peer orientation. I'm sorry, but rape doesn't have anything to do with peer orientation, neither does murder, nor does being out of touch with emotions, or being "amoral". This is fear mongering, and frankly I think it is disrespectful to young people. If you are dealing with the above issues related to your children, there's more going on than kids relating to their peers.
> 
> Respect, consistency, empathy, understanding of developmental needs, flexibility......these are the attributes that I have found to promote and maintain solid attachment during the preteen/teen years, not fear and resistance to change.


Have you read the book?

It isn't a blanket "peer orientation=murder" statement. It's a general idea that pop culture (and peer orientation) doesn't foster empathy, respect, consistency, understanding of developmental needs, flexibility, etc.

I agree with your points, and the book does too, so I don't really understand why you seem to disagree with it so strongly. Maybe I am misunderstanding something.

Tjej


----------



## contactmaya (Feb 21, 2006)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *karne*
> 
> I think that this is an unrealistic picture of what I know of young people. It would be reductionist and simplistic to attribute the above issues to peer orientation. I'm sorry, but rape doesn't have anything to do with peer orientation, neither does murder, nor does being out of touch with emotions, or being "amoral". This is fear mongering, and frankly I think it is disrespectful to young people. If you are dealing with the above issues related to your children, there's more going on than kids relating to their peers.
> 
> Respect, consistency, empathy, understanding of developmental needs, flexibility......these are the attributes that I have found to promote and maintain solid attachment during the preteen/teen years, not fear and resistance to change.


As i said, you have to read the book to see the connections. People almost always criticize the book before reading it.

I agree that all of these things cannot t be reduced to one simple explanation, but i think the book does a good job of explaining how peer orientation can lead to amoral behaviour.

I dont think the book is about resisting change. I also dont think it is fear mongering. It provides a solid explanation for particular social phenonemon that begs an explanation. Bullying is a phenonmenon in all schools. How do you explain that?

As someone who has read the book, and liked it, I am not fearful of 'peers' or 'young people'. For me, Neufeld provides an explanation of something that requires it. Because my son is an extravert, i paid closer attention, but now i see that doesnt have to be a problem from Neufeld's perspective.

Providing an explanation is not fear mongering.

(I can see how someone could see this book as fear mongering, but i think its a misunderstanding.)


----------



## contactmaya (Feb 21, 2006)

Thanks for posting this. I was moved by how you attached to your friends single mother. And your explanation of how you interact with your sons peers helps me

better understand things too.
My 5yo is very easily influenced by his peers, and i figure that is a developmentally normal thing. Its knowing where to draw the line, or when his orientation has

actually moved away from me, thats the question.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Trac*
> 
> I loved the book...the author spoke at a seminar I attended and brought it all home even more. He made a lot of sense to me in regards to my own adolescence, and there were a lot of things that I found to be true, in my case. Looking back, I think I was a fairly "troubled" teen...I had trouble finding my space, and never felt like I truly fit in, and in an effort to do so, did some things that I wished I could undo! Nothing really crazy, just stuff I was not comfortable with, but lacked the "guts" to say "no." My own parents were fairly detached...my mother had MS, and struggled with depression, sort of was trying to deal with her own demons, and I'm almost sure (now that I have some experience with it) that my Dad has an ASD. I think I was eventually able to find my way because my best friend was part of a family where her (single) mom was very much the "compass." I looked for someone to "attach" myself to, and my best friend was there, and because she was "attached" to her mother, her mother sort of became my "other" mother, if that makes any sense? When I look back, it was there, in that house, where I can say I felt unconditionally loved. I spent the majority of my days there, and you'd think they would have gotten sick of me and told me to go home, but I was always welcome, as were other "unattached" people! My parents did the best they could, given what they were dealing with at the time, but I believe that, had my friend's family not been where I turned, I may not have come out of it relatively unscathed!
> 
> After having read the book, making sure that I am my son's "compass" is something I think about. DS is 9, and there have been times where it seems like his friends (and what his friends think) becomes the driving force in his decisions. I don't know, I just get a feeling sometimes that his peers are starting to have a little too much influence over him, and that I have somehow become secondary. When this happens, I start to think of ways to re-connect. I don't limit his time with others, which only creates resentment, but I find ways to insert myself into their group. To this point, that has included such things as inviting them all to paint pictures, or make pinatas...creating something usually works nicely...and I don't just hand out instructions and supplies, I get right in there and participate. Sometimes we'll play ball with them, or something...just play. All of a sudden, DS and his friends are looking towards me and I have become the compass for the whole group! I'm not sure what will work as DS gets older, but we'll figure it out as we go...I imagine sports will play a big part. I try hard to make this house a place where they always feel comfortable and welcome, just as my "other" mother did for me. In my mind, it's not so much about keeping the other influences out, but rather inviting the other influences in, and having them all realize that I, as a person, have value, and deserve respect, and that they will also be respected here.


----------



## journeymom (Apr 2, 2002)

Quote:


> -bullying, going as far as murder, casual sex going as far as rape and rampant exploitation of those lower in the peer group hierarchy, drug use and addiction among minors, total disregard and lack of respect for family members especially parents (the whole rebellion thing gone to an extreme).


Thanks, that makes sense to me, and I completely agree that those are dire consequences. And I get how this can be the result of peer orientation versus parent orientation. It all needs to be considered within context.


----------



## elisheva (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *contactmaya*
> 
> My 5yo is very easily influenced by his peers, and i figure that is a developmentally normal thing. Its knowing where to draw the line, or when his orientation has
> 
> actually moved away from me, thats the question.


I think Neufeld offers some very helpful suggestions in this regard (in the last section of the book) - "connect before you correct" is one I really try to work on with my kids. I try to connect with them first in the morning (remember his example about spending 10 min just snuggling and chatting with his kids and how much easier the morning would go?) and again throughout the day when we're transitioning or if I feel they need it. I'm not perfect and I often forget to do this then wonder why I'm having problems...but I do try to keep it in mind. I think making sure you connect with your son cements your position as his compass and it frees him to pursue his friendships.


----------



## contactmaya (Feb 21, 2006)

Bump

(this thread has been really helpful to me-so great to hear from more experienced moms/mums out there too.

I hope its been as helpful to the OP, and others)


----------



## ema-adama (Dec 3, 2007)

I have been resisting this book as the title really turned me off. However, I have overcome my disliking the title, and bought myself a copy (still to arrive). I think I will really enjoy it. I like the sound of reconnecting in the mornings, after naps or other separations. I really am not comfortable with the idea of controlling my children's friends (they are 3years and 3 months respectively







so, yeah, not a big issue yet). But I get that that is not what the book is about. The title just comes off like that.


----------



## Lisa1970 (Jan 18, 2009)

I see a lot of parents thinking they are of little value to their children, other than to give money. I can really see the damage in this these days. Parents don't know their children. They feel it is none of their business what their children are up to. They are shocked when their children end up on drugs or pregnant or sexually transmitted diseases or with drinking problems...etc. They tolerate the children being nasty to them because they figure that is just how kids are. I am unsure why people even have children when they are like this.

Kids need a good solid family foundation to carry them through life. Children should learn their values and such from their parents. That is my definite opinion.


----------



## meemee (Mar 30, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ema-adama*
> 
> I have been resisting this book as the title really turned me off. However, I have overcome my disliking the title, and bought myself a copy (still to arrive). I think I will really enjoy it. I like the sound of reconnecting in the mornings, after naps or other separations. I really am not comfortable with the idea of controlling my children's friends (they are 3years and 3 months respectively
> 
> ...


the book for me was redundant. in fact because of this thread i am reading it again right now.

and i feel it is not telling me anything new. if you follow AP then you are pretty much doing this.

i can see it being a treasure for those not invested in their children.

or a reminder to why it is important to connect with ur kids.


----------



## elisheva (May 30, 2006)

It's interesting to read that some people have really connected with the message of HOTYK and others not-so-much...I'm just curious: if you really connected with/like this book, were you disconnected from your parents in adolescence? I was definitely peer-oriented - would sneak around behind my mother's back, not listen to her advice on ANYTHING, would get REALLY upset if I was being given the cold-shoulder by my "friends" and it would feel like my world was falling apart...I know it's considered the cultural norm to think your parents are idiots when you're a teenager, but I agree with Neufeld that it hasn't always been like that historically and it's NOT desirable.


----------



## contactmaya (Feb 21, 2006)

In my case no, i never went through the parent-rebellious stage as a teenager, because i felt i could do what i wanted anyway. I was in a band with my brothers and we played in night clubs although underaged. For some reason i was never tempted by the alcohol/drugs/cigarettes that were readily available, probably because i was oriented more to my siblings, probably parents too...

The book resonated with me because i find its explanation of certain things compelling. Also because my son is such an extravert and showed signs of peer orientation from a young age. I realize now that its not really orientation per se.

I dont know why more people dont find this book compelling. Maybe i see things more from an anthropological perspective...


----------



## lach (Apr 17, 2009)

I started it, but I couldn't get very far. I found it fear mongering, and didn't think that it was all that based in reality, or history. Particularly history.

It seemed like a book written for parents with young children who themselves had poor relationships with their parents. I think it's interesting on this thread that most of the people who liked the book admit to this, and most of the people saying they didn't like the book have older kids or say that had a good relationship with their parents. I agree with whoever said it was like the Continuum Concept: nice in theory, not so realistic in practice.


----------



## bluedaisy (Sep 5, 2008)

OP here...I've really enjoyed reading all the responses.

I enjoyed the book and I had a very good relationship with my parents - my family was very close and we did a lot of family things together - vacations, game nights, going out to eat, etc. Even when I was a teenager, there were some weekend nights when I preferred to stay home and hang out with my family instead of my friends.

I have two sisters and none of us really became peer oriented or rebelled,. we all maintained a good relationship with my parents which continues today....we all went to public school and had many friends and were involved in tons of activities (probably too many!)

I think that's one reason the book struck a chord for me - my mom stayed home with us and slowly went back to work (as a nurse) as we got older, only going to back to work full time when my youngest sister was in college. She really focused on building a strong family relationship and my sisters and I avoided a lot of the typical teen age drama and r/ship breakdown with parents.

It also struck a chord because I work with college students now and i am amazed at many of their inabilities ot hold a conversation with anyone outside of their peer group. It's like they have grown up just learning how to communicate with each other and struggle to talk with anyone who is older, or even younger (I have a 2 year old and some college students are great with her but it's clear many of them have no idea what to do with a baby or a toddler)

They also see no value in asking older people for advice. They go to one another for help in solving problems and many of them don't see much value in mentorship or getting to know older adults. In my job, there is the possibility for a lot of mentorship and I was really surprised with how many students just aren't interested in getting to know myself or my colleagues. I was talking with a colleague from Hungary and one from Kenya and they both expressed the same surprise that young people don't want to get to know them, and they both commented how different it is in their countries and how young people have many relationships with older people and often value insight and wisdom from those who are older.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *elisheva*
> 
> .I'm just curious: if you really connected with/like this book, were you disconnected from your parents in adolescence?


Not at all. I think my mom was one of the few things I wasn't rebelling against.

However, my dad's an alcoholic, and was largely absent throughout my teens. Things weren't really a lot of fun at home a lot of the time. I was NOT a "good" kid, but I was also not peer oriented.


----------



## Linda on the move (Jun 15, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *elisheva*
> 
> I'm just curious: if you really connected with/like this book, were you disconnected from your parents in adolescence?


I don't really care for the book and I was very disconnected from my parents in adolescence. I was abused and neglected as a child, and eventually left home while still in my teens. My parents were VERY controlling - they saw my peers as evil and all pop culture as sin.

To me, there is a happy medium, which is what I aim for as a parent. I do feel connected to my kids. We enjoy spending time together. I don't fear their peers and I like them to have lots of positive people in their lives. For me, being open to my kids connecting with their peers and enjoying pop culture is part of being very different with them than my parents were with me.

I still read to my kids at bedtime (they are 12 and 14). It's this great time when we relax together and talk. I'm just more interested in a balanced life where they gradually have more and more independence than in trying to "hold on to them." It's all good.


----------



## karne (Jul 6, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bluedaisy*
> 
> It also struck a chord because I work with college students now and i am amazed at many of their inabilities ot hold a conversation with anyone outside of their peer group. It's like they have grown up just learning how to communicate with each other and struggle to talk with anyone who is older, or even younger (I have a 2 year old and some college students are great with her but it's clear many of them have no idea what to do with a baby or a toddler)
> 
> They also see no value in asking older people for advice. They go to one another for help in solving problems and many of them don't see much value in mentorship or getting to know older adults. In my job, there is the possibility for a lot of mentorship and I was really surprised with how many students just aren't interested in getting to know myself or my colleagues. I was talking with a colleague from Hungary and one from Kenya and they both expressed the same surprise that young people don't want to get to know them, and they both commented how different it is in their countries and how young people have many relationships with older people and often value insight and wisdom from those who are older.


I have 7 nieces and nephews of late hs/early college (one just graduated) age. I have to say that this is by and large not my experience. None of these kids were particularly raised not to be peer oriented, in fact a few of them were pretty peer oriented as teens. It's interesting what maturity brings. I don't think anyone worried overly about their kids peer relationships. I also don't think that there was a concerted effort to always hold the kids "close", or worry about the compass part of things. This tends to be a pretty healthy family, so I don't think that was ever something our siblings (their parents) had a lot of concerns about. The kids, young adults actually, are extremely interesting, and highly capable of interacting with, and appreciating older adults. I think that this is because they have been given freedom, responsibility and respect, and most of the significant adults in their lives are really interested in them. No one's perfect, of course. There have been bumps in the road, but that's part of growing up.


----------



## Linda on the move (Jun 15, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *karne*
> I have 7 nieces and nephews of late hs/early college (one just graduated) age. I have to say that this is by and large not my experience.


good point. One of my volunteer things is working in the library at my kids' school. Kids talk to me about all sorts of things, they offer to help, they act like regular humans. I'm not seeing the "teens can't speak to adults" thing. It's just not my experience. Over and over with this book, I feel like that my refrain -- that's just not my experience.

I'm sure that all this stuff is true about some kids and some families, but it just isn't what I see around me.


----------



## elisheva (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Linda on the move*
> 
> I still read to my kids at bedtime (they are 12 and 14). It's this great time when we relax together and talk. I'm just more interested in a balanced life where they gradually have more and more independence than in trying to "hold on to them." It's all good.


Neufeld actually addresses that independence IS normal and desirable when young adults are ready to consult their own conscience instead of needing guidance in so many areas. From what you described and my (now 3) readings of the book, I don't see what you're doing as being at odds with what he recommends. What a sweet family ritual to still be reading to them as adolescents!!!

ETA: a little more info


----------



## meemee (Mar 30, 2005)

Quote:



> Originally Posted by *Linda on the move*
> 
> good point. One of my volunteer things is working in the library at my kids' school. Kids talk to me about all sorts of things, they offer to help, they act like regular humans. I'm not seeing the "teens can't speak to adults" thing. It's just not my experience. Over and over with this book, I feel like that my refrain -- that's just not my experience.


i am at a community college and i see what OP refered to all over the place. i dont see what you are seeing.

and yes the proffs all have the same complaint. even as simple as well if the kids are having problems why wont they even come see the proffs.

however in this case i dont blame the kids. many of them come from really painful backgrounds. many only had their peers to go to. some come from v. close family backgrounds. if you do not have a safe connection from childhood why would you trust an adult? plus society totally throws around old people as useless, to be locked away, to be made fun of and useless. so how can one ask for any sort of respect for adults.


----------



## elisheva (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *meemee*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> however in this case i dont blame the kids. many of them come from really painful backgrounds. many only had their peers to go to. some come from v. close family backgrounds. if you do not have a safe connection from childhood why would you trust an adult? plus society totally throws around old people as useless, to be locked away, to be made fun of and useless. so how can one ask for any sort of respect for adults.


True and I think this is what Neufeld is getting at, partly. Some parents abdicate their authority to parent and this also causes kids to become peer-oriented (or, if they're lucky, to find a substitute adult).


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Linda on the move*
> 
> To me, there is a happy medium, which is what I aim for as a parent. I do feel connected to my kids. We enjoy spending time together. I don't fear their peers and I like them to have lots of positive people in their lives. For me, being open to my kids connecting with their peers and enjoying pop culture is part of being very different with them than my parents were with me.
> 
> ...


----------



## mary934 (Mar 9, 2011)

Hi,

I have read ' around the book ' . I think you can hold onto your kids if your support their autonomy , provide them opportunities to connect with positive peers and encourage interactions which are multi or cross generations. I don't like youth groups a lot because of the problem of teen or peer culture , I prefer groups and orginizations that have many different ages. Peers are a fact of life.

mary


----------



## Momalea (Dec 29, 2002)

FYI-for those of you who are interested in learning more about Gordon Neufeld's philosphy/ideas, if you go to his website you can buy DVDs of his lectures or audio downloads. The DVDs are really pricey but some library systems carry them (mine doesn't, but the library system north of mine does). I know a few families who have bought his dvds together and get together to watch them/discuss them and they sound pretty fascinating, the dvds are not just a recap of his book. I can't recommend them, as I haven't seen/heard them, but as I got a lot out of his book, it's on my list of things to watch when I can find the opportunity.


----------



## msmiranda (Apr 22, 2009)

I really connected with the book because I saw in it an explanation of what had happened to me in my childhood. Basically they (mostly my mother, my father was sort of a passive follower) destroyed any relationship they had with me by the time I was 10, and beginning in elementary school they started ignoring us and leaving us alone as much as they could. (Not alone in the house, though there was plenty of that too over the years, but as in physical separation within the house. They watched TV in their room, we watched TV in our own rooms or in the den. Or whatever. Other than at meals, we never spent any time with them.) I longed for and sought out close relationships with adults who could stand in for my parents -- teachers, friends' parents, even my orthodontist! But it wasn't the same. I needed them, and they weren't there for me. I grew up feeling completely unworthy of love. I became peer oriented not because I was an extrovert (I'm not) or really wanted that, but because it was all there was available to me. And while of course I had many positive peer relationships over the years, as well as many negative ones, the lack of parents as a compass point was devastating to my life. I made a lot of bad decisions along the way because I was so desperate and love-starved that I couldn't see when I was being taken advantage of or used, both in "friendships" and in romantic relationships. And these experiences were all the more catastrophic to me emotionally because I didn't have the foundation of my parents' unconditional love as some of my friends did -- and they weathered the storms of adolescence and young adulthood much better than I did, needless to say.

My experience does not describe all families, but I do believe this is common ... probably not among AP-type parents, though. People who grew up with parents who were there for them may not be able to relate to this book and may misinterpret it as being "against peer relationships" ... seen a lot of that in this thread. That's not what it's about at all. The book could just as easily have been called "Don't Abandon Your Kids." FWIW, from the outside my family looked absolutely normal, mainstream, middle class, we went to church every Sunday ... but on the inside everything was rotten. It has taken me many many years to see my parents' emotional and moral abandonment for what it was. If I told them how I see things they would probably be aghast -- they think that they always loved me and probably don't think they did anything wrong. They just don't know what love means or what stepping up to the plate as a parent is. I probably won't ever talk to them about it but I will be damn sure not to replicate their mistakes with my kids.

Honestly though I appreciated a point brought up by a PP, that it is media influence that is the real bugaboo here. Peers can be the method of transmission, but the origin of a lot of the toxic values out there re cruelty, reckless sexuality, excessive focus on physical appearance, and the like, come from the media. I say this as someone who watched TV incessantly and rarely if ever had any limits placed on what I watched or read, and I absorbed those toxic values like a sponge. It took me many years to unlearn them, and I am still working on it. So yeah, I worry about bad influences on my kids because I don't want them to go through what I did.


----------



## meemee (Mar 30, 2005)

unfortunately you bring up a huge point here brought up by pp.

it no longer is about peer orientation. its more about avoid media brainwashing. no wonder the ad companies spend so much on research. or tv stations on shows.


----------



## herenow2 (Jul 5, 2007)

bump

I just finished this book and found this thread and would love more conversation about it if anyone is still following.

I completely related to this book in terms of an explanation of my own adolescence as well. I have scrutinized my past for years trying to explain why I went off the rails in high school and this book provides me with many answers. My parents weren't bad parents but they were emotionally disconnected, particularly after a family crisis when I was 11 that they had much difficulty with. They encouraged me to hang out with my friends as much as possible. I went on vacation with friends, ate dinner at their houses, spent day after day with my friends and ended up being hugely insecure and falling in with the "wrong crowd" and making many bad decisions (though thankfully all reversible.) I have been petrified for my children's looming teenage years because of my experiences but this book provided me with hope and practical suggestions. It also gave me the logical extension of early childhood attachment parenting when I was searching for it (having not had that modeled for me in the past.) I wish the authors touched on the importance of a healthy attachment foundation in infancy, because I think that is an important first step.


----------



## FarmerBeth (Mar 9, 2011)

I read this book when it first came out. I think my conclusion after reading it, and seeing my oldest go from preschooler at the time, to 11 years old now, is that in young children, developing a strong parent/child attachment is paramount, and that early orientation toward peers may not be healthy. However, I think it's a natural part of development to orient toward peers as you age, and the book didn't allow for this, enough. Lots of very "natural" cultures had situations where peers nurtured each other while adults were busy (try reading Meredith Small's "Our Children Our Selves" to see where I am coming from), and England's culture in a certain socio-economic bracket had a lot of peer orientation at older ages due to boarding schools, etc, and while some did poorly in these settings, others thrived. Also, the overall community support makes a big difference (which Neuffield's book did address) and effects the health of all attachments. A better book (though a bit repetitive) was the "The We Generation" (I just read it this year) as the approach to building empathy looked at strengthening all types of positive attachments.


----------



## contactmaya (Feb 21, 2006)

Farmerbeth, i agree with you. Actually, im going to look at that book you mentioned!


----------



## contactmaya (Feb 21, 2006)

Im rereading these kinds of threads, and was struck by this dilemma i am describing of my older son(now 9, then 5) and the vulnerabilities of extraversion.
My ds2 (now 7, then 3), has none of this problem. First, he gets invited to a lot of playdates, but couldnt care less one way or another. He loves his older brother!
2nd, he is rarely misled by his peers, unlike his older brother.

Bizarre, how kids can be so different.

I vaguely worry about ds2's propensity for addiction, because of his food sesnitivities....but thats a slightoy different issue 
(or is it???)



contactmaya said:


> Thanks for posting this. I was moved by how you attached to your friends single mother. And your explanation of how you interact with your sons peers helps me
> better understand things too.
> My 5yo is very easily influenced by his peers, and i figure that is a developmentally normal thing. Its knowing where to draw the line, or when his orientation has
> actually moved away from me, thats the question.
> ...


----------

