# Continuum Concept v. Playful Parenting Philosophy



## crb (Aug 22, 2005)

I posted on general parenting thread, but thought gd-ers might have some thoughts . . .

I have read both Leidoff's CC and Lawrence Cohen's PP and just wondered if anyone else has thoughts/feelings about them - as I read each one (actually sort of did them both simultaneously) I would think "yeah! that sounds great!" Then I would read the other one and think "Oh, I need to do more of that!"
So these seem to be diametrically opposed - let your kids follow the adults and learn to join into that society or get down on your kids' level and play with them to understand what they are thinking about, etc. and ensure close connection.
So I guess that both are about fostering connection, but seem to see the process as very different. Anyone out there strong on one side or the other, or any ideas about how to combine them? Love to hear your thoughts on either/both to sort of compare philosophies. Thanks!


----------



## GiggleBirds (Oct 24, 2006)

I've been thinking about the same thing lately! Will be watching this thread.








:


----------



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

PP, to me, is a solution book. CC is a prevention book. In general, if the techniques in CC are effective you won't *need* to use the techniques in PP.

That said, elements of both PP and CC are useful at different times. CC shows how to let children know that they can rely on adults to be in charge and to demonstrate how to be adults. PP shows how to give children a chance to practice being in charge.

PP is also a better viewpoint for dealing with other children.


----------



## ShaggyDaddy (Jul 5, 2006)

Here are Cliff's notes as a short cut for my ramble:
Playful living is the way to make both work together,

I guess it depends on what kind of adult you are... My adult life is compatible with playful parenting and continuum and I would be miserable if it was not.

Our lives are about quickly doing the things that we must do so that wecan make way for the things that we want to do, and we spend the majority of my time doing things that we enjoy or "playing".

The minute we stop looking at the "how can this be fun" angle, life is over. So basically I try to involve my kids in my life strategy of getting the most fun out of life rather than the most money, power, respect, or whatever it is that makes other adults miserable -- The persuit of fun is always fun, the persuit of that other crap is not. Keeps me playful, and makes it very easy to involve them in "real" activites, because I don't do much in life that I don't enjoy and I wouldn't expect anyone else to either.

My parent's generation (and probably every generation since the renaissance ended) have been focused on doing "the responsible" thing. Maybe it is a morality thing, maybe it is a martyr thing I don't really know, but they seem to refuse to enjoy life and I can't really understand that. I wouldn't have bought in to their life if they had tried continuum (they didn't) because who wants to be "long-suffering" especially as a child.

I used to think it was because my parents were more focused on moving from the projects in east L.A. and Compton (respectivly) so they made every sacrifice to break the poverty cycle and raise their kids as middle class. They did that and I am very impressed by it, but I think they developed an insatiable need to suffer. If you aren't suffering clearly you are not working hard enough. I thought it was financial, but I have been way worse of than them, and way better off than them, and I definatly enjoy life more either way than they do.

I think there is a generational revolution that is going on right now, my friends and I still don't really think of ourselves as "adults" because in our minds adults are people incapable of having fun. Maybe I am still allowed to have just as much fun because "fun" for me rarely involved getting plastered and making an idiot of myself. Maybe it is because of our MTV Video Games and Rock And/Or Roll music. When the young get old and the old die, things can stay the same or they can change drastically and I think the latter is already happening in today's world.

Peter Pan was right. I refuse to let my life stop at age 20, 30, 40 or even 65 for that matter


----------



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)




----------



## linguistmama (Sep 25, 2006)

I agree with a pp. I loved the Continuum Concept and wish I could put it into practice more than I do. What I find dificult is that our society isn't like the one in the book. We're "broken" in many ways and so we need books like Playful Parenting to help us make it better.


----------



## Soundhunter (Dec 13, 2003)

I've been struggling with this dilemna since reading Playful Parenting, honestly.

Since our second baby was born three months ago, I've been careful to make sure Emma knows she's still my baby and been extra dedicated to playing with her, in a playful parenting way, playing the games she wants to etc. What I'm finding though is that she is becoming incredibly demanding of me, that it's never enough, and in a previous post I posted that she was even threatening to hit me if I didn't do what she wanted me to do "right now". Instead of feeling closer to her, spending more time playing with her where she's the leader seems to have created a complex where she is constantly wanting me to do as she says, and it's NEVER enough. I read this continuum concept when Emma was just an infant and it really resonated with me and influenced my approach to parenting greatly, but the combination of trying to be extra sensitive to reassuring my DD in the wake of the new baby by paying extra attention to her and doing it in a playful parenting way has really backfired and is resulting in behavior from her that is not easily tolerable to me, in fact lately I've been having many moments where I actually dislike her, a sad thing considering that she probably needs so much more from me since the birth of the baby. I'm wondering though if I need to go back to not being so child centered for most of the day, and stick to the scheduled times L Cohen suggests for very busy people, even though I'm not that busy, so that Emma stops acting in ways I'm struggling with which seems to be the result of her getting way MORE attention since the baby's been born.

sorry about any typos, carpal tunnel acting up and my hands hurt too much to edit


----------



## mommy2abigail (Aug 20, 2005)

Wow, that was a very interesting article.....Now I rally want that book!


----------



## PhoebeBeeBerBee (Oct 29, 2006)

Thanks for posting that very interesting article link. It makes so much sense. Thank you.

I'll have to do some more reading on CC before being able to participate in this conversation. I have read Cohen's PP and have found it to be very relevant and useful. I got alot of good play ideas from the book, and it put the "wild and scary side" of my two year old in perspective for me. for example where previously I would have discouraged throwing babydoll around, now I can see that this is a totally healthy outlet for his conflicted feelings about the arrival of his baby sister. It also allowed me to better observe and interpret his independent play - I am seeing alot of scenes played out by ds where two toy animals fight over the same wagon or something of the sort. Credit to PP for helping me see the learning in this.


----------



## gaialice (Jan 4, 2005)

I did read the article Soundhunter posted a while ago, and then I did not want to read the book anymore. DH and I work full time. When I am at home I do my best to involve the kids in housecleaning and fixing meals, but, that's not my job. There is nothing that she could usefully do to help with my *real* job at all. I find this concept may apply in other situations, but personally for me, it just does not really offer a useful perspective. And, because I do not spend all day with them, for me it is important to deeply connect with them by playing with them in the evening.
I think it also depends on the child. My eldest loves helping me do things. As an infant and a baby and worst as a toddler she was honestly very difficult because she is not good at playing independently. When she started drawing and writing things got better because she will sit at the kitchen table and do crafts and keep me company while I cook dinner and that's great. She is also happy to help and all that, but I do not have her on me all the time, either, and while I love her to bits, that's good also.
My youngest is quite the opposite and is content just staying in her bedroom and playing her very elaborate role-playing games for hours on end. Now if I ask her to help me fix dinner, well, she just prefers playing on her own quietly. So, for me to deeply communicate with her, I need to get down to her level and play. I think there is no perfect solution, all depends on personality and cicumstances.


----------



## crb (Aug 22, 2005)

I definitely use CC more w/infants, but I find that I have really strayed as dd gets older. And as another poster points out, kids want/thrive w/different experiences. I have tried to be more playful after reading PP but have found it really difficult. It is something I wish came more naturally, but it is hard to stay focused and playfull throughout the day when you are a SAHM (for me, anyway) and I too find dd just wants me to play - she doesn't want to be a part of my business a la CC, but just waits for me to join her in play and really balks at any "work" activity (cleaning, cooking, etc.) rather than joining in. The idea of setting aside a certain amount of time does sound like a good idea.
I guess my "problem" w/CC is that it seems to say if you do/did xyz, your kids would be properly attached and wouldn't act out, etc. Well, mine do whine and act agressively and behave uncooperatively and question my authority, etc., so I feel like I've already failed in some fundamental and "natural" way - ykwim? So I am left thinking "what now?"
So . . . how do you get a child into the CC world of working w/the parent? If it isn't "coming naturally" is there a way to encourage it?


----------



## Dal (Feb 26, 2005)

What I got out of CC is to have a deep sense of faith in my son and to know that children, every very young ones, are far more competent than they are typically taken to be in our society. Simon, who is 2.5, does not care to watch as I work at my computer for hours on end (I'm a grad student). Outings are not the same as CC outings either, since things are so much more complicated here and so much more adult-centric. My home is absolutely not a CC-type environment. It's mostly just me, ds, and dh, with either me or dh often trying to work while the other is busy with ds or cooking/cleaning (often with ds as well, though he plays on his own sometimes too).

In a CC environment, children have SOOOO much to see and do. They have SOOOOO much freedom. To me, a compliment to CC is consensual living. This gives the child so much more of the freedom they crave and need. Though Leidloff suggests what seems to be a fairly authoritarian approach to parenting, I think in our society, moving from that to a CL approach makes more sense if we want to live up to the ideals of CC (respecting the natural expectations of our children). Children in that context were obedient, but they didn't have much to be obedient to. They had so much freedom and did not protest against the rules, since the rules were so minimal and so deeply engrained in the entire culture. (Or am I wrong about that?)

The playful parenting does come naturally to me as I'm a big goof and have always been a big goof, even for the years that I suppressed this since my Dad made it clear that he found silliness to be repulsive (or at least that is what I thought he meant to convey). Playful Parenting helps to make CL work well and helps to make the play I have with ds more productive. It helps with transitions. It adds a lot of fun to my day and to ds's.


----------



## gaialice (Jan 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dal* 
Children in that context were obedient, but they didn't have much to be obedient to. They had so much freedom and did not protest against the rules, since the rules were so minimal and so deeply engrained in the entire culture. (Or am I wrong about that?) .

I am not sure that the rules could be descrived as "minimal". I mean, I cannot relate to what happens or happened in Indian tribes, but to be more concrete I could refer about the rural communities that were common when my parents were children. From what mommy and especially daddy remembers, rules were pervasive in the home environment and children were to do as told or worse (spanking very common). On the other hand for boys, especially for boys and not so much for the girls, the home environment was not a huge amount of their waking hours. My dad's mom would very throw him and his brother out of the house unless it was lunch or dinnertime or he had some homework or it was time for bed. Otherwisehe would hang around with other children his age and get into trouble but not so much as to be reported to adults. He does not recall that adults spent anytime playing with him at all, but oh, was he ever free to enjoy his childhood. This does - sadly - not very much correspond to the memories of my aunt or my mommy.


----------



## Ellien C (Aug 19, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dal* 
What I got out of CC is to have a deep sense of faith in my son and to know that children, every very young ones, are far more competent than they are typically taken to be in our society..

I answered in the other thread, but I wanted to add that another complement to CC is Jesper Juul's Your Competent Child.


----------



## AngelBee (Sep 8, 2004)

:


----------



## mcs (Apr 20, 2005)

i've not read about either style in depth, but after reading the cc article, i think that what is missing (at least in my world) is the community of other kids for my dd. and that, i guess is where the pp comes in. it is a funny thing, i guess and maybe even impossible to try to be both the parent and playmate of any one child. this has got me to thinkin'....
thanks.
mcs


----------



## Soundhunter (Dec 13, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mcs* 
i think that what is missing (at least in my world) is the community of other kids for my dd. mcs

I agree with this, if there was a pack of children running around for Emma to run wild with, she wouldn't need my focus as much either, because it wouldn't be my attention to her that was the focus of her existence, nor would she be the focus of mine. The CC's author's theory that got me is that being child centered gives them reasons to be competitive and jealous with each other over parental attention. I can see this now that Emma has a sibling, what she is threatened by is sharing MY attention and focus, because she has always had so much of it. Giving her MORE focused attention, playing with her MORE with her as the leader of the play, with her in control, has resulted in her DEMANDING it non stop, in an aggressive, controlling way that is far more intense than I would've expected from my mostly GD'd kid. I'm sure that this will result in more sibling rivalry than if most of her fun time was spent running wild in the woods with other kids of various ages. I don't think CC is possible in our home because of the lack of a pack of kids for her to run wild with, so instead, we're making the best of a scenerio that is very child centered, which I think contributes greatly to some of Emma's behavior that I'm finding so difficult.

Anyways, still learning as we go with this new sibling adjustment thing and the three year old challenges, and of course, every child is different and applying different parenting practises ill have differing results with different parent and child combos, but I will say that applying many PP practises with Emma, and playing with her much of the day with her in control resulted in some difficult behavior that was not all the wonderful stuff I expected after reading the book. And, I'd agree the two books are in conflict with each other, when put into practise, and that gleaning things from both of them can be confusing to implement.


----------



## rmzbm (Jul 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sapphire_chan* 
PP, to me, is a solution book. CC is a prevention book. In general, if the techniques in CC are effective you won't *need* to use the techniques in PP.

And BINGO was his name-o!


----------



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

I think CC is also probably more effective in a SAHP situation. An ideal sort of combination would be for the child to follow along with mom (for example) doing the household work and then when dad (for example) comes home from work the whole family interconnects with PP techniques. (







: and while I'm at it, can I also place an order for green eyes like mine?







)


----------



## ejsmama (Jun 20, 2006)

While I haven't read Playful Parenting, and have just been introduced to CC, I would say DH and I have always been "playful parents", getting down at DS level, spending a lot of our free time with him in the lead. We have steadily noticed him becoming more and more demanding of our time, so ever since we read the CC articles posted on another thread, we have been experimenting with taking the lead, involving DS in our chores, and setting some limits to play time. I have been AMAZED at how well DS has responded. BUT, I would add we have done this in a playful and fun way, and made sure that he was involved, which meant things going slowly, or not getting completely done.

I've just noticed far fewer meltdowns than when he is taking the lead. He almost seemed relieved! Not at all what I expected. And...when I was involved in a task that I had originally involved in him, and he got bored, he moved on to something new without asking me to help him or do it with him...kind of a side by side thing. He got bored with sorting tupper ware last night (who wouldn't), and moved over to his play kitchen to start making me things to eat. I actually think my playful instincts are helping to put some of the CC ideas into action in a way that feels "right" to me.

I'm planning on reading both, because they both seem so helpful to me just from what I've learned here.


----------



## Enudely (Jul 2, 2005)

:


----------



## Dal (Feb 26, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ellien C* 
I answered in the other thread, but I wanted to add that another complement to CC is Jesper Juul's Your Competent Child.

Thanks! I'll look into that. I love the title.


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

I particularly dislike that article by Liedloff. Here is an article by Scott Noelle who has a different perspective about Leidloff's query:
http://www.scottnoelle.com/parenting/child-centered.htm

Pat


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

It's funny, Pat. I read both of those articles at the same time (well, not EXACTLY the same time. lol). But on the same day. I got a lot out of them. For some reason, I can't read one without automatically thinking of the information in the other one.

Do you think there is value in the Leidloff article, if read with, and taken in the context of, Scott's article?

(I wonder if I took both articles to mean the same thing, because I entered into it KNOWING that what dc wanted was extremely important to me?)


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Deva33mommy* 
Do you think there is value in the Leidloff article, if read with, and taken in the context of, Scott's article?


I love what I gained from the book TCC. However, I do not find anything useful in Leidloff's article. The "In Control" paradigm is based upon the power matrix, which doesn't apply in our home. We address issues based on feelings and underlying needs, not who is "In Control". I believe that attunement and centeredness are more relevant than control.

Pat


----------



## Soundhunter (Dec 13, 2003)

Well, whatever your thoughts on CC and power dynamics are, PP definitely promotes giving children power in play, in order to "fill their cups" and promote confidence, and to help them work out issues like with "wonderful games" like throwing the baby down the stairs to cope with baby jealousy







(we tried this with a couple of Emma's young friends who also have baby siblings, boy did they think that was a hoot















) This is the part that I've found difficulty with, because I've seen my daughter who wasn't previously this way become REALLY power hungry since being given playful power. Now, many 3 yr olds go through bossy phases, and I'm sure much of it is related to adjusting to a new sibling, but I feel that the CC article in it's mentionings of sibling jealousy being insignificant due to no competition over parental attention to be pretty accurate, though I'm also a fan of Anthony Wolfe's ideas on sibling rivalry and the removal of the parent's favor/attention as a major source of fighting between siblings. How much of my own daughter's recent power plays are related to my trying to give her quite a bit of playful power as influenced by PP, who knows since there are other factors, but when she was threatening to hit me if I don't do her bidding RIGHT NOW or when as currently she is constantly bossily demanding that I play with her, and to do so exactly as she says (and she is speaking to me in ways I've NEVER spoken to her) I did begin to question whether giving er all of this extra playful power was having the positive results I had expected after reading the book. I thought playing this way might help her process the new sibling, but I'm not so sure the "power" part specifically has. But the power talk is certainly a part of both writings, in different ways.


----------



## crb (Aug 22, 2005)

It seems like people have had more "disconcerting" results from PP than they expected - bigger reactions from children, uncertainty about who is in control, etc. Is there a way to be playful and remain in charge as a parent?
What is the demanding behavior all about - are children "working through" some issue in a more comfortable way (are they more comfortable expressing their negative, "antisocial" feelings) or are they feeling like they are now the more powerful person "in charge" of the household?

I also struggle w/these issues, but must say I did feel like the "rough-housing" info was great for us. I used to really discourage roughness, agressive play, etc. - but now I don't try to supress those feelings (just redirect to a game, etc.).

I would love it if anyone has more links/resources that are CC in action today- I guess I see it as a philosophy based on a very different world (although I do see it as the basis for AP).


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Here is the Continuum Concept-ish Tribe in FYT: http://www.mothering.com/discussions...d.php?t=144887

Here is Scott Noelle's "Enjoy Parenting" Daily Groove: http://www.enjoyparenting.com/dailygroove He sends a little thought provoking excerpt about parenting each day. I find it inspirational and insightful.

Pat


----------



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *WuWei* 
I particularly dislike that article by Liedloff. Here is an article by Scott Noelle who has a different perspective about Leidloff's query:
http://www.scottnoelle.com/parenting/child-centered.htm

Pat

Thank you!! This article is fabulous.


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *WuWei* 
I love what I gained from the book TCC. However, I do not find anything useful in Leidloff's article. The "In Control" paradigm is based upon the power matrix, which doesn't apply in our home. We address issues based on feelings and underlying needs, not who is "In Control". I believe that attunement and centeredness are more relevant than control.

Pat

hehehe I guess what I got out of Leidloff's article was that its not a good idea to MAKE kids make decisions before they are ready. And that when they CHOOSE to make a decision, they are ready to make it. lol
Thanks for explaining Pat. I think I took her article much differently than you did. I took it as saying we should not give children more "control" than they want, and that we should just to give them exactly the "control" they ask for.

Though I do agree that Scott's article is much more clear about those points. I really do love all of his articles!


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Deva33mommy* 
hehehe I guess what I got out of Leidloff's article was that its not a good idea to MAKE kids make decisions before they are ready. And that when they CHOOSE to make a decision, they are ready to make it. lol
Thanks for explaining Pat. I think I took her article much differently than you did. I took it as saying we should not give children more "control" than they want, and that we should just to give them exactly the "control" they ask for.

Though I do agree that Scott's article is much more clear about those points. I really do love all of his articles!

I'll go read it again.









Pat


----------



## violafemme (Oct 18, 2004)

subbing.......


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Deva33mommy* 
hehehe I guess what I got out of Leidloff's article was that its not a good idea to MAKE kids make decisions before they are ready. And that when they CHOOSE to make a decision, they are ready to make it. lol
Thanks for explaining Pat. I think I took her article much differently than you did. I took it as saying we should not give children more "control" than they want, and that we should just to give them exactly the "control" they ask for.



Quote:

"This he must continue to do until at last she does *take over leadership* and he can feel that order is restored.

"An adult who stops whatever she is doing and *tries to ascertain what her child wants her to do* is short-circuiting this expectation."
"If misreading his anger, she *tries even harder to ascertain what he wants*, pleads, explains, and appears ever more desperate to placate him, the child will be impelled to make more outrageous, more unacceptable demands."

"Moreover, once the child feels he has *attained control*, he becomes confused and frightened and must go to any extreme to compel the adult to _take the leadership back where it belongs_."

When this is understood, the parents' _fear of imposing upon their child_ is allayed, and they see that there is no call for adversariality. *By maintaining control*, they are fulfilling their beloved child's needs, rather than acting in opposition to them.
These quotes don't seem to represent responsiveness to the child's choice and initiative to make decisions; the admonishment is to maintain control, in spite of the child's wishes for some autonomy. These recommendations do not even seem related to her observations stated at the beginning of the article about the actual culture. The Westernized control paradigm is *projected* upon her observations, imo. Furthermore, I do not see where there is any acknowledgement of the child's autonomy as represented and respected *in* the Yequana culture. The control and power matrix isn't observed in the Yequana from my reading of this article. "Who Is in Control?" is projected by Leidloff in her interpretation and projection about the parents, imo.

The control paradigm isn't present in our home; and neither do we have the struggles for autonomy that she misinterprets, imo, as a "lack of leadership". Autonomy of self doesn't require "take the leadership back where it belongs", unless it is being *taken* from someone.

Pat


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

Wow Pat, you're right! (but of course







). It's so funny that I never read it that way, or just read it to mean what I wanted it to mean, or something. I wonder if perhaps I read Scott's article first, and just took that the Leidloff article MEANT to mean the same thing, so I put that meaning to it regardless of what it said.
But yeah, the phrase "take over leadership" doesn't convey how I feel about my relationship with ds at all. I am sure I was reading a lot into the article that wasn't there, and missing stuff that was there.

How I understood it and applied it was to NOT make ds make choices that he isn't ready for. So I didn't ask, I told. IF he makes a choice of his own volition, I respect that, even if it is a dissent to what I just told him would happen. (obviously I'm not perfect, but I really have no problem with ds saying "no" to something that I've told him to do, or ignoring me when I ask a question, etc)

Hmmm...thanks for having this discussion with me. I guess I might not link to Leidloff's article anymore, because of how many people would take it. But I do love Scott's, it made a huge difference in how I relate to my ds, and it made so much sense in my debate on those issues (children feeling secure that their parents are strong leaders vs. a child's right to be in control of their own lives).


----------



## Hazelnut (Sep 14, 2005)

_What I got out of CC is to have a deep sense of faith in my son and to know that children, every very young ones, are far more competent than they are typically taken to be in our society. Simon, who is 2.5, does not care to watch as I work at my computer for hours on end (I'm a grad student). Outings are not the same as CC outings either, since things are so much more complicated here and so much more adult-centric. My home is absolutely not a CC-type environment. It's mostly just me, ds, and dh, with either me or dh often trying to work while the other is busy with ds or cooking/cleaning (often with ds as well, though he plays on his own sometimes too)._

I totally agree with this. I haven't read Pp yet (sitting on my shelf) but there are absolutely times when things get tough and trying to make him laugh is the only thing that "works" to help calm him down. I've never personally seen that as counter to what I took from CC. I don't have to be controlling or punishment oriented to run into plenty of times where we need some pp. I was under the impression that the book was about using well, playful ways to get cooperation and happy kids vs. authoritarian discipline. Is it really that child centered?

This reminds me that I've been meaning to start a thread to help me integrate what I've goten out of Secret of Parenting and Unconditional Parenting.


----------



## Soundhunter (Dec 13, 2003)

What I got out of the Leidloff article that greatly influenced my parenting with Emma as an infant was that I could go on with my life, and not feel guilty, about not constantly going to an extreme in attachment parenting, where everything was about following her lead. That her watching me cook, clean, visit with people, shop etc was more than adequate stimulation for her as a baby, and not just adequate, but ideal in some circles of thought. And, it worked out just so, I stopped trying to play with her all of the time, and instead brought her a long into my world, and we both seemed happier for it. It's worked for her first three years of life, but it was never about me being focused on being in control, it was about me not focusing on revolving everything we did around her as the center of the universe. I did play with her, but not for most of the day, and she was quite happy playing by herself much of the day, as well as with other children and her father many times a week. I get Scott's emails and respected his article, but Leidloff 's article still reads well to me and I appreciate the useful influence it had on me as a devoted attachment parent needing to strike some balance between being rabidly child-centered and going on with the things I need to do in a day. I never got out of it that I needed to be all powerful and all in control, just that I didn't need to be following her lead all day either, in order to be as devotedly AP as I wanted to be.

I read PP just after the birth of Emma's sibling, and figured letting Emma direct our play would help us maintain a deep connection that is changing with the new sibling in the picture, and Hazlenut, it is as you've described, but it is also pretty child centered, and it does promote letting children be completely in control of play and to follow their lead, no matter how much it bores or bothers the parent. And to do it often. I'm still going with it, but as I've mentioned repeatedly, I've seen some behavior from her that makes me think it might be the byproduct of creating a "power matrix" as it's been described that wasn't previousy there. Play used to be spontaneous and cooperative with her and I, and usually for brief periods of time, now I take at least a couple hours of the day to play with her as she wants to play, with her totally in the lead. Now, she is also very demanding and bossy and acting in a way that Leidloff's article suggests children who are "in control" and whose parents look to them for answers will behave. I'm open to is being caused by many factors, developmental stages, addition of new sibling, and some infuence from the book.

Sorry to make this all about us, but I can see where the OP was seeing some conflict between the two books, because I'm there in these very weeks. Thankfully, it sees to be getting easier these days, and having read many many parenting books, Playful Parenting has been one of my favorites to read and I'll continue to use some of the great ideas from it, while being careful not to be putting my daughter "in charge" too much and too often, if further play sessions of these kinds continue to create power hungry behavior from her that is difficult for me to deal with.


----------



## Soundhunter (Dec 13, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Hazelnut* 
This reminds me that I've been meaning to start a thread to help me integrate what I've goten out of Secret of Parenting and Unconditional Parenting.

Big fan of Secret of Parenting, and just finished Unconditional Parenting and really enjoyed it, looking forward to this thread


----------



## Hazelnut (Sep 14, 2005)

_What I got out of the Leidloff article that greatly influenced my parenting with Emma as an infant was that I could go on with my life, and not feel guilty, about not constantly going to an extreme in attachment parenting, where everything was about following her lead. That her watching me cook, clean, visit with people, shop etc was more than adequate stimulation for her as a baby, and not just adequate, but ideal in some circles of thought. And, it worked out just so, I stopped trying to play with her all of the time, and instead brought her a long into my world,_

OOoh OK I also have to really agree with this! I stopped feeling guilty if I had something "grown up" to do and couldn't sit and play with ds directly all the time. I also have more successful days when I involve him more in the cooking/cleaning/errands to the extent that he is capable and interested. So much of that book seemed incompatible with the world I live in, but it still greatly affected the way I view my role as a sahm. But I get confused too, b/c I still spend quality one-on-one time doing what he wants, and it's hard for me to imagine that this is detrimental, though he has gotten "bossy" to the extent that you describe.

I just get confused all around sometimes. I've also tried to really let him assert his autonomy and decide some things for himself when he appears to really want to, b/c he is very strong-willed -- but have still really had major resistence when I _do_ need to set a limit, and it sure seems like the former has led to more of the latter, not less. So while I don't think that cc is advocating the any type of authoritarian parenting, when I seek to avoid a controlling form of discipline (giving him a say, allowing his input), I often feel like I wind up being too child-centered, if ykwim. It's late so I'm kinda all over the place. I try to just take what I want from these books, but I do wind up getting a little confused when I agree with philosophies that seem to disagree on some level.


----------



## gwynthfair (Mar 17, 2006)

:


----------



## gaialice (Jan 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *WuWei* 
I particularly dislike that article by Liedloff. Here is an article by Scott Noelle who has a different perspective about Leidloff's query:
http://www.scottnoelle.com/parenting/child-centered.htm

Pat

Thank you so much Pat.
I read the noell article and it changed my viewpoint.
I had only read the other article and decided upfront there was nothing in it for me. But I might think again now.


----------



## nichole (Feb 9, 2004)

sound hunter

i can really identify with your situation! i'm reading pp right now. i do not think that you have to play with your dd 24/7 or let her boss you around.

what i like most about the book is that it gives me some ideas to turn battle of wills situations into a game to get ds to cooperate more. as for playing with him, sometimes it just isn't possible. i work with him to wait a few minutes or distract him. but we had a huge problem with attention getting behavior in the evenings and duh it was because he wanted us to play with him more. so instead of getting mad or punishing him for tearing the house apart, we recognize the evening time as a time that he really needs us. we always try to honor his request to play in the evenings even though we are dog tired and the behavioral problems stopped like magic.

i do agree agree it is hard to do with a newborn. i mean how are you supposed to fill their cups when you are busy having your baby and recovering? it is hard to get down and play with them at one day post pardum so naturally there will be little setbacks here and there. that's the only thing i don't like about the book. what do you do when it just isnt possible to play with them or honor their request and then they act out? don't they have to learn to be accountable for their actions when things dont go there way? maybe i will see the whole picture when i finish the book. overall it has helped though. maybe i have a hard time letting go of thinking that he should "do as i say." also i told dh about it and he was skeptical at first but i've noticed him being more playful and less punitive too without me really nagging him about it.


----------



## EnviroBecca (Jun 5, 2002)

Quote:

I don't think CC is possible in our home because of the lack of a pack of kids for her to run wild with, so instead, we're making the best of a scenerio that is very child centered








I thought one of the main points of CC was that children are not a separate kind of beings but are just people. They don't need a pack of KIDS to guide them in how to be people; they just need a group of people. I'm really puzzled that you seem to be saying that because you have only two kids in your home, your home has to be child-centered. Am I misunderstanding?


----------



## Hazelnut (Sep 14, 2005)

I thought that cc did kind of talk about kids going off on their own a lot. Actually I wasn't really fond of the idea of giving my crawling baby as much independence as she mentions (I certainly don't let him wander around fire pits). He seems to want to be near me as nearly as much as before he could crawl and walk.

Well I thought cc to some degree romanticized that culture, or at least occasional interpretations I've read of it do. I don't think everything about our modernized society is inherently negative in comparison to the society she describes. But I did take important lessons from it- it did seem revolutionary to think that I could have my child's best interest at heart and yet not have to be 100% child centered and hover and play with him on the ground 24/7. It seems like our society has become superficially child-centered in a really artificial way.

I'd actually love to hear all these authors talk in a symposium about their ideas.


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

The thing about TCC that REALLY made a huge difference to me, was that if ds needed my attention, he'd let me know. I didn't have to play with him when he was happy to play on his own. And I didn't have to feel like I was "spoiling" him by giving him attention every time he asked for him.
It was like, I don't have to think about "is this ok? am I depriving him by not playing with him more? am I stifling him by not letting him play on his own enough?" because I realized that HE would let me know what he needed.
What I got from TCC is to *trust kids.* Trust that they are innately social and want to do the socially acceptable thing, trust that they know what they need, trust that they aren't going to ask for more than they need, and they aren't being manipulative when it seems like they are asking for a lot. Trust that when he is perfectly happy playing on his own, he isn't in need of my attention.
When I could see that ds will ask for exactly what he needs, I could respond to his requests without question and without judgement (of him or of myself).


----------



## LynnS6 (Mar 30, 2005)

I don't see the two as disconnected at all. I like Scott Noelle's take on CC much better than the Liedloff article. Frankly, I think that Liedloff has a bit of a rose-colored view. It's not that there isn't harmony there, but in that there is probably a lot of subtle 'teaching' going on that she simply missed. From my linguistic work, I know there are a range of ways to socialize a child -- some equally non-industrial societies have very strict, overt teaching, others don't. I think she has also mistakenly extended it to all non-industrial socieites. I guess I just dislike the assumption that non-industrial = better.

I also am skeptical because we don't live in a CC world, and I don't think it's reasonable to expect, in a world where a child is mostly at home with a single parent, for them to react like Yequana children do. There IS going to be sibling rivalry and some whining in our kind of environmetn. The other thing about a community like the Yequana is not only is there a pack of children to run with, there is always another ADULT nearby to give comfort if needed. This is truly the case of a village raising children.

I guess the CC never really resonated with me because I never had the idea that I had to entertain my children 24/7. If my children were fussy or unhappy, certainly, I'd gather them in. But, our kids both spent a lot of time on the floor or next to dh on the couch (he does computer work from home and the couch has become his 'workstation' with his laptop).

We do a lot of Playful Parenting stuff, mostly initiated by our son. Dd is now starting to initiate some has well. Ds is his own best therapist and will often play out issues that are bothering him. So, I read "letting the child take the lead" as letting the child set the THEME of play. But we still play within bounds. It has to be fun for everyone involved, or it's not play.

Examples: This weekend, ds wanted to play a 'game' where he pretended to be our dog (we don't have a dog) and I was supposed to put him in his room for the night. He then 'escaped' and I was supposed to get angry with him, and shut him up again. I'm not sure exactly what theme he was playing out, since (a) going to bed is not an issue for him and (b) we stay in their room until they fall asleep. But, I suspect it has to do with breaking rules and having your parents get angry at you. (He's definitely testing, at other times, what happens if we ask him to do something and he simply refuses.) It also involves a bit of wrestling, which is good for him too.

We played this game for about 20 minutes before I began to tire of it. (It's not an enormous amount of fun to haul a 4 foot, 46 lb. 5 year old up stairs every 3 minutes







). I told him I didn't want to play anymore. He was upset and wanted to know why. I told him that I needed a game where I didn't have to haul him upstairs. He immediately shifted to playing "firefighter", where my only role is to randomly sound the alarm. I love this game because I can (and do) go about my own work, and then sound the alarm. He races off to put on his boots, coat and firehat, goes upstairs and drives the truck (our bed!), comes down to ask me where the fire is, and then puts it out. It can go on for a long time -- and he thinks it's hysterical to be interrupted while eating, playing etc.

I guess I've found that our combination of a bit of each really works. When dh is on the phone with a client, the kids are usually great about not bothering him. We had a colleague of mine over to dinner this weekend and the kids were great about not interrupting, interacting a bit with him, and generally going about their business. Some days my kids really NEED the connection (I'm a WOHM, and some weeks I get busy) that play provides. Other days, they don't. So, I try to adjust to their needs.


----------



## indeospero (May 23, 2005)

V. thoughtful thread!


----------



## reepicheep (Jul 19, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LynnS6* 
Frankly, I think that Liedloff has a bit of a rose-colored view. It's not that there isn't harmony there, but in that there is probably a lot of subtle 'teaching' going on that she simply missed. From my linguistic work, I know there are a range of ways to socialize a child -- some equally non-industrial societies have very strict, overt teaching, others don't. I think she has also mistakenly extended it to all non-industrial socieites. I guess I just dislike the assumption that non-industrial = better.

I also am skeptical because we don't live in a CC world, and I don't think it's reasonable to expect, in a world where a child is mostly at home with a single parent, for them to react like Yequana children do. There IS going to be sibling rivalry and some whining in our kind of environmetn. The other thing about a community like the Yequana is not only is there a pack of children to run with, there is always another ADULT nearby to give comfort if needed. This is truly the case of a village raising children.



Just what I would have said if I were as eloquent!


----------



## crb (Aug 22, 2005)

I really like the idea of CC. The overarching theory was probably pretty radical when it was developed. It is also rather dated/limited and has some elements I have trouble "getting" - like the idea that kids get hurt because parents have a preconceived notion that danger/injury will occur. That by trying to protect kids (babyproofing, etc.) parents are inviting injury (vs. natural cultures that don't limit children's experiences). I can almost see this in some philosophical way, but can't quite get it in a practical/applicable way. I would love to read more modern applications of CC - Thanks for the Scott Noel link - I have read Our Children Ourselves, which is more anthropological, but interesting.

I do want to integrate the two philosophies, but I recall PP specifically mentioning that we can't not play w/our kids. And while it is possible to be playful and CC, I know quite a few CCers who don't believe in playing with their children (although they are playful) - they don't believe in entering an imaginary game created/controlled by a child or letting kids make the rules. Now this seems to be a central element of "playtime" w/PP as well as the physical games/wrestling, etc.

Is it possible to hand over "control" in play and maintain it outside of play? Must limitations be set up, or can the child juggle these different experiences of power. Is it dangerous to give up the power position (which is some of my impression of Leidoff based on a few CCers I've spoken to) or a healthy experience for a child who needs to practice w/physical/emotional/mental power w/in a safe relationship (which is part of my take on PP)?

Pat - You are very insightful on this topic and I really value your comments! I don't think I have quite grasped all of what you are saying yet, so I'm rereading your posts, but love any additional thoughts you have or recommended readings.
Learning a lot! Thanks!


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *crb* 
I really like the idea of CC. The overarching theory was probably pretty radical when it was developed. It is also rather dated/limited and has some elements I have trouble "getting" - like the idea that kids get hurt because parents have a preconceived notion that danger/injury will occur. That by trying to protect kids (babyproofing, etc.) parents are inviting injury (vs. natural cultures that don't limit children's experiences). I can almost see this in some philosophical way, but can't quite get it in a practical/applicable way. I would love to read more modern applications of CC - Thanks for the Scott Noel link - I have read Our Children Ourselves, which is more anthropological, but interesting.

Actually, my experience regarding danger and safety issues did mirror the CC representation.

Here is a link to a post of mine in the CC tribe about safety issues: http://www.mothering.com/discussions...ul#post4327720

And here is one regarding being comfortable with our children choosing natural conseqences: http://www.mothering.com/discussions...ul#post4376358

And another post in the CC tribe about nurturing Self-trust, rather than Self-doubt: http://www.mothering.com/discussions...ul#post4488369

And another one about giving information, instead of "protecting": http://www.mothering.com/discussions...ul#post5917066

Quote:

I do want to integrate the two philosophies, but I recall PP specifically mentioning that we can't not play w/our kids. And while it is possible to be playful and CC, I know quite a few CCers who don't believe in playing with their children (although they are playful) - they don't believe in entering an imaginary game created/controlled by a child or letting kids make the rules. Now this seems to be a central element of "playtime" w/PP as well as the physical games/wrestling, etc.
Well, Playful Parenting is not one of my favorite books. It had the sense of manipulatively using play in order to get one's child to do what the parent wants. Sometimes, NVC is used that same way. So, it isn't necessarily the intent of the author; but I didn't see the playfulness as being authentic, more proscribed. I believe that children are more emotionally attuned to their parents than that gives them credit. If the playfulness feels "faked" from the parent's pov, I imagine that is experienced by the child. I do find that playfulness connects ds and me, even when he is upset or "stuck" about something that isn't possible. So, play has value to us in practical terms; but we play for fun's sake, not with an agenda.

CC seems opposed to parents engaging in child's play. I totally disagree with that. I believe that we connect by sharing our lives, and play is life for children. We certainly don't play all day. Ds has had different phases of wanting more or less play engagement. He is an introvert, which is very different than if he were an only child and an extrovert. I believe there are many ways to meet a child's needs for play engagement that don't include the parent playing. all. day. long.

Quote:

Is it possible to hand over "control" in play and maintain it outside of play? Must limitations be set up, or can the child juggle these different experiences of power. Is it dangerous to give up the power position (which is some of my impression of Leidoff based on a few CCers I've spoken to) or a healthy experience for a child who needs to practice w/physical/emotional/mental power w/in a safe relationship (which is part of my take on PP)?
If the control is "handed over", I imagine that either party might want to "take it back". CC, as I understood the representations of the Yequana, *were not* control oriented. Leidloff projected control into her Westernized _interpretation_s of the parenting relationship, from my perspective. I agree that control is not a necessary component of the parenting relationship. You kinda have to take what fits with your own philosophy and discard the rest.









Quote:

Pat - You are very insightful on this topic and I really value your comments! I don't think I have quite grasped all of what you are saying yet, so I'm rereading your posts, but love any additional thoughts you have or recommended readings.
Learning a lot! Thanks!

Connection Parenting by Pam Leo is my new favorite book recommendation. http://www.amazon.com/Connection-Par.../dp/1932279172 I love Naomi Aldort's book and Alfie Kohn too, of course. But, neither do I agree with them completely.







:

We practice Consensual Living http://www.consensual-living.com/index.htm

Pat


----------



## AngelBee (Sep 8, 2004)

:


----------



## AngelBee (Sep 8, 2004)

I read CC resently and am working on PP right now.

I think they are actually very closely related. To me, the main connection is attitude and thoughts......HOW you view and approach daily life.

I am enjoying the process of working through some of the concepts in these books.








:


----------



## guestmama9911 (May 24, 2005)

I am currently reading CC and get Scott Noelle's daily emails about parenting. After reading Liedloff's Article and then Noelle's, it seems to me that he was not contradicting her article, but helping people understand it in context of CC. He specifucally states that there can be a bad kind of attention, and that inviting children to be part of our adult activities does not involve ignoring their needs.

He says here:

Quote:

When we give the kind of attention in which we are constantly asking our children what they want or need - when they sense our feelings of uncertainty or fear of failing to meet their needs (and our own projected needs) - then naturally they will feel unsettled if not completely freaked out!

This is no different for adults. Think how you'd feel if you needed brain surgery and the surgeon seemed to lack confidence in his or her ability. Of course, you'd seek another surgeon with whom you felt secure, but self-confidence alone would not be adequate. You'd want someone who would also pay close attention to your needs throughout the process.

But why, then, does it appear to us that mothers in "continuum cultures" rarely pay attention to their children? Why do they seem to be attending only to their adult-centered activities? Well, just because we don't see it, doesn't mean it's not there.
He even suggests that it may have been the editors, not Liedloff, that chose the imposing title.

Quote:

Whether the title was chosen by Liedloff or by the editors of the magazine that originally published the article, there is no question that TCC opposes the use of coercive tactics
I also like what he says here, which to me simplifies, not disputes, what Liedloff was trying to say:

Quote:

If you realize you've been a compulsive "rescuer" - inadvertently blocking the development of your child's ability to seek and find comfort - then I suggest a gradual transition from reactivity to availability. When your child is upset, focus immediately on attuning and opening your heart to her, but wait a bit before overtly offering help. See if she will come to you on her own. Give her opportunities to rediscover and enhance her comfort-seeking abilities, but don't hesitate to offer comfort immediately when your intuition is that she needs you now. Babies especially need immediate comfort, which is one reason why they instinctively prefer to be in direct physical contact with a familiar caregiver, 24/7.


----------



## oregongirlie (Mar 14, 2006)

I've taught students who were raised in villages like in TCC and their parents' not talking to them much (which in fact was their reality) really doesn't work for them when they come here. Our literate culture, divested of the continuum or not, really requires small children to have a lot more verbal interaction with adults. But I think we're good to go if we take them with us on our business of cleaning, shopping, cooking, writing, etc. as long as we include them verbally by narrating and talking. I think literacy requires some child-centeredness.


----------



## KariM (Mar 13, 2004)

Subbing because I just finished CC and was really surprised by parts of it. I've got Playful Parenting on the bookshelf and am about to re-read it.


----------



## EnviroBecca (Jun 5, 2002)

I had forgotten about this thread from months ago! Thanks for reinvigorating it.









Hazelnut wrote:

Quote:

I thought that cc did kind of talk about kids going off on their own a lot.
Yes, it does. Were you responding to my post just above yours? The two ideas (1=kids in a group can go places without adults; 2=life should not revolve around children) are separate in my mind; neither one requires the other. A child who does not have other people in his/her life will have to stay physically closer to the parent for longer (until he can travel alone), but that doesn't make him the focus of the parent's attention. And the people who enable the child to expand his experiences away from his parents don't have to be other kids; they can be adults.

Quote:

Actually I wasn't really fond of the idea of giving my crawling baby as much independence as she mentions (I certainly don't let him wander around fire pits). He seems to want to be near me as nearly as much as before he could crawl and walk.
Independence?







When my son was crawling, he did plenty of exploring, staying near me (or another familiar person) and calling out or coming back when he wanted help or connection. Here's something I wrote about it [this was the post below one of WuWei's that she linked to] when he had just turned one year old:

Quote:

Since he began crawling, we've realized just how strongly he prefers to be near us. People keep yammering about how we "have to" childproof everything because he'll wander off and try to kill himself. In fact, it's very rare for him to leave the room where I am unless he's going to the room where EnviroDaddy (or someone else, like a guest trying to use the bathroom







: ) is. When he awakens and finds himself alone in bed, he calls and cries until someone appears, or if he's fully rested and wide awake he climbs down from the bed and goes looking for us. Usually we hear the pitter-patter of little knees and come to greet him, but if we don't he NEVER goes into the bathroom and drowns in the toilet or goes into the adult bedroom and wreaks havoc in my desk drawers; if he doesn't see us in those rooms, he goes to the top of the stairs and waits a while, and if we don't appear (for example, if EnviroDaddy's not home and I'm in the basement doing laundry) he starts down the stairs. He is really good at stairs.







Because he likes to be where we are, it's easy to supervise him. Of course, sometimes when we're moving around he wants to lead the journey in a different direction, but if we don't follow he'll stop just out of sight, complain a bit, then come back.
I guess you could see that as a gradual stretching of his boundaries and working toward independence. I saw it more as acknowledging his new abilities, casually allowing him to use them, and trusting that he would be sensible. I never thought of it as "giving him independence"--I'm not quite sure why that phrasing clashes so much with the way I see it, but it does. Anyway, I don't think that Liedloff's descriptions of babies crawling without adults hovering over them is meant to imply that crawlers SHOULD be far away and alone. I bet they were within 20 feet of another villager at all times, and the tribal lifestyle means that if a baby DID crawl into a fire, you can count on any person to pull it out, not just the baby's parents. Hovering isn't necessary when people are truly present.

crb wrote:

Quote:

I know quite a few CCers who don't believe in playing with their children (although they are playful) - they don't believe in entering an imaginary game created/controlled by a child or letting kids make the rules.
Here's my take on it: Sometimes people like to play imaginary games. As long as all players consent, any player may control any part of the game. The power structures within a game are separate from those in real life, and games can be a safe way to explore alternate power structures without threatening anything in real life. This applies regardless of the ages of the people playing.

Oregongirlie wrote:

Quote:

Our literate culture, divested of the continuum or not, really requires small children to have a lot more verbal interaction with adults.
Interesting. Do you think verbal interaction with the child is really required; the child's observations of verbal interaction among adults aren't sufficient? John Holt in _How Children Learn_ writes about watching a young infant in a room with adults following the conversation, turning to look at each speaker, and says this is how children learn the "rules" of conversation. But he also talks about children talking with adults as a way of learning to talk. Personally, I think both are important!


----------



## asdf4321 (Jan 19, 2007)

Everyone's thoughts are so interesting to me. I haven't read PP yet, but my curiosity has been peaked. I would like to add a couple things to the conversation--

We need to understand the cultural context of what was being written, for what type of audience and at what time. In addition, as its been noted in previous posts, each of us has a cultural lens that we view the world through that can distort our view of another's reality.

We raise our children to live the majority of their lives as adults. Our main purpose in caring for our children is for them to reach adulthood. It only seems logical that they should start learning what it means to be an adult human from the get-go, while understanding their physical, emotion, and mental limitations of age, (for example, we shouldn't expect a 6mo to walk and discuss politics...)

And-- to bring both the previous points into consideration: it seems that a book that recommends parents 'play' with their children is only necessary for a society whose adults don't know how to play. In many societies adults play games, sports, have celebrations, sing songs, laugh and joke in their daily lives with other adults, children and family members. It seems in our society (speaking as an American) most adults believe that those activities are for children only.

-- Yeah.... thats all for now! I'm off to sew a mei tai!


----------



## gaialice (Jan 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *WuWei* 
Well, Playful Parenting is not one of my favorite books. It had the sense of manipulatively using play in order to get one's child to do what the parent wants.

Well, it may also be that through play, daily tasks that are necessary can be accomplished as fun activities, rather then resented as chores. Like it is my agenda to wash dc teeth. I can develop a ritual of finding bugs and laughing and making it pleasant, and yes, it is playing with an agenda in a way, but if everyone's having fun this way, what's wrong with that? Of course, if you are only playing with DC when you want to accomplish something, it will be faked and it will not work. But then, if you have a deep connection with DC through play, and say, you're playing that he is a crocodile, than it is OK for example to insert something in the game that you are a bird that eats the crocodile's leftover food in his mouth and one thing leads to another and you start washing teeth. Why would it be better to say: "We need to stop playing crocodile now, you need to wash your teeth to get ready for bed" with the child unhappy?

It totally depends on the relationship and the child of course. My 6 yo is very grounded in reality and she washes teeth for the sake of that. She is not into roleplaying and never was. But my 4 yo is in a world of fantasy throughout the day, and she likes me joining her there, with or without purpose.

On the other hand, I do not know much of CC perhaps but from the little I read it feels judgemental of a parent who spends too much time playing with his/her kids. Like pp said, (and in "Raising our kids, raising ourselves" I found the same idea) we live in a nuclear family and we need to be accepting of our reality as different from that of a village where kids enjoy their peers company without adults' supervision. In a nuclear family, parents are a kid's natural choice for play. And that's fine... Again, it depends on the child. For my 6 yo, one of the things she likes the most is helping me cook or clean. That is fun for her. Good! But the 4 yo does not like that. She likes playing barbies and dolls and legos. So, to connect with her, I need to play with her, there is no other way to reach deep into her, and really listen to her...


----------

