# Coddling Children Leads to Depression and Anxiety... a discussion



## newmainer (Dec 30, 2003)

My daughter's Waldorf school sent home a Tuesday newsletter today with a copy of this article from Psychology Today. It's a long article, but worth the read.

here are some main points:

- Parents today are too attentive to their children's every need, removing the need for children to feel uncomfortable, or deal with feelings that things might not work out.

- Because of this, many children are not learning vital coping skills, and instead constantly look to their parents to bail them out of everything from academics to relationships.

-College is the first time most kids have ever had to deal wtih anything on their own, and this is leading to a rise in such alarming behaviors such as binge drinking- which requires no social skills and allows for instant acceptance- and self mutilation which the author says is basically self medicating for anxiety.

- The use of cell phones that allow for instant contact removes the need/development of planning skills (ie, plannign ahead to meet somewhere, instead of just calling your friend to say, "I"m here... meet me in 5 minutes). They argue that not developing these skills leads to deficiencies in an area of the brain that is related to depression.

There's much, much more, but these are some points that stood out to me. I found the article fascinating. It made me reflect on how we are parenting our daughter (granted, only 19 months now) and whether we might be beginning to "rescue" already. While the article says nothing about AP parenting and seems to focus mostly on older kids, like elementary school and above, I was wondering what others might think about this in relation to AP parenting.

I dont' think that AP means coddling at all. In fact, I often think that being AP is perhaps even more "strict" in someways than mainstream parenting practices. But, I can see how someone could argue the opposite as well.

anyone want to discuss?


----------



## AngelBee (Sep 8, 2004)

Interesting...I want to see the article...

I have away thought that this was the case in certain situations.


----------



## charmarty (Jan 27, 2002)

thank you for sharing


----------



## Britishmum (Dec 25, 2001)

Interesting how this links in with the other threads about controlling children:

""There is a ritual every university administrator has come to fear," reports John Portmann, professor of religious studies at the University of Virginia. "Every fall, parents drop off their well-groomed freshmen and within two or three days many have consumed a dangerous amount of alcohol and placed themselves in harm's way. These kids have been controlled for so long, they just go crazy.""

It seems to me that many parents want to control their children from day 1. This is the foundation of many non-ap practices - eg, the child must eat every 4 hrs from the moment of birth, must sleep at set times, must self-soothe, must 'obey' parents under the threat of a spanking if they dont.........

But then, many ap folks ime want to control their child's environment to avoid him/her getting hurt - maybe too much.

I think the answer is balance. I try to see every situation that we encounter as one that the children can learn from emotionally. So, if a kid snatches their sand toys at the park, even if the mother handles it badly imo, I will try to help my girls learn from it. I try to avoid protecting them from having their toys snatched, if that makes sense. Although I do have limits - I protect them from something I don't think they can handle (eg dd is afraid of one particular 'big boy' because he is somewhat loud and clumsy with the little ones. I purposely avoid being where he is, but I don't let dd know that's what I"m doing. But this is because I know she's not ready to deal with him. In time, she will be, and then we will do so.

Interesting article.







A lot of food for thought.


----------



## frand (May 8, 2004)

WOW. I think there is major food for thought here no matter what your approach to parenting, AP or not. I see some of myself in here







: and I think of myself as laid back! I have commented to my husband that I think between the two of us we make our daughter (7) overly self-aware sometimes with the sheer loving attention we give. We have a code between us now, a look that says, "she only needs one of us for this." And the other leaves the room.

I do think many parents raise their children as products these days. I have said many times I have no memory from my childhood of it mattering to my parents when I began reading, or whether my team came in first, second or last when I played sports. So I had that benign neglect that enabled me to develop my own passions and mistakes (huge). I don't think a lot of our children have that freedom, to be weird, to struggle, to figure out their mistakes on their own. I think, in fact, as I sit here, that part of the problem is that we all parent competitively in some way or another. Many APers believe they are giving their children a 'better' childhood through AP, just as many disciplinarians feel they are doing the same through crying it out and academic rigor. Maybe that's a big part of the issue -- that we all want our children to 'prove' that our way of parenting is better...? I have seen, for example, many posts in Mothering where AP is defended by a phrase like, "...maybe your MIL will understand AP better as your child grows up and she sees what a happy, secure and loving child he is."

To all this I would add that yesterday a co-worker's 18 year old son was admitted to the emergency room for taking an overdose of his antidepressant medication. The boy has been depressed over his looks and getting dumped by his girlfriend. I know teenagers have suffered anguish about their looks and broken hearts going way back but what's new is the incredibly easy access to sanctioned medicine and liquor.

I just find it all very hard to navigate between being sensitive/attentive and letting her work things out on her own when there are so many more ways for children to get hurt these days.

Thanks for this article. I'm going to share it with dh this weekend.


----------



## Oh the Irony (Dec 14, 2003)

Thanks. Am going to print out to read more in depth.

I agree with many things in the article. I don't think it takes individaul personalities into consideration though. Will try to elaborate when I have more time.


----------



## mamawanabe (Nov 12, 2002)

Yes, there was something freeing about knowing that my parents were not that wrapped up in my success or failure. My life was truly my own. They were goodish parents, but thier focus was always themselves - where we went to school or what we did or didn't do was never the center of thier emotional world.

I do worry that I will not be able to maintain the distence and separation necessary for my child to own his/her own life. The 70's and 80's was a different parenting world . . . now, too many kids are validations for the parents, for our parenting decisions (I'm leaving a career I will not be able to return to etc).

Let us be savy enough not to make them the center of our world - that is such a heavy burden for a child.


----------



## mamawanabe (Nov 12, 2002)

Ok, I actually read the article. The cell phone stuff was silly. And "wimp" (which has sexist connotations - used often to refer to guys acting "like girls") in the title doesn't endear me to the article.

It does remind me of all the 1950s articles about the danger of mothers smothering thier boys (and turning them into "wimps" who won't be able to stand up to the Russians).

I teach college freshmen and sophmores at a big state university, and while they do seem closer to their parents than I was at their age, and while I have very rarely had a worried parent call me, I've never expereinced what the professors they talk to have. Perhaps because I'm not at an Ivy League school? There IS a pretty high level of anxiety about grades - more than what I experienced in undergrad but equal to what I experienced in graduate school.

I just don't see it as a large phenomea yet - maybe among the upper-middle class (Harvard students etc) but not with the students I deal with.

Also, I re-read my freshmen journals a while back and was amazed at how depressed I was my freshman year (late 80s). So some of this "trend" is better diagnosis. I never went to the student health, whereas today I might just because it is better publisized and better accpeted. I had a sub-clinical eating disorder too. Oh and all my friends binge drank like crazy desite engaging in risky behavior in high school and despite most of our parents not being of the hothouse variety. I don't think I or my friends were unusual. At the time our refusal to grow up was blamed of latch-key parenting and/or selfish boomer parents who had created a generation of slackers out of benign neglect.

More I think about the article, more wary I am. Still some good points.


----------



## Linda KS (Oct 30, 2004)

<<But in 1996, anxiety overtook relationship concerns and has remained the major problem.>>

I feel this article is blaming a lot of stuff on parents that has multiple causes. Kids starting college now are dealing with a host of complex issues that can't be blamed on their parents -- from a lack of good jobs when they finish school to fear of sexual assult. I'm so old that AIDS wasn't a hetrosexual issue when I started college.

Also mental health really wasn't considered as important 20 years ago as it is now. We drank heavily -- all night. One of my friends used to do coke so she could stay awake so she could keep drinking. By the time I was 21 half my friends where in 12 step programs. None of us ended up in any stats from our university though. It was just considered normal behavoir. (Drinking and driving was considered a problem, but drinking until passing out wasn't.)

I have seen other parents doing some of the other stuff it talks about -- overprotecting, over scheduling, no free play etc. We don't live like that and we know lots of other families that don't. I really have no idea how common it is. There are so many nice families where the kids are not over scheduled and the families do things like go for ice cream, go camping, etc. May be it is because of the ways we spend our time -- we see lots of families that seem like they are doing a nice job raising their kids.


----------



## hypatia (Apr 29, 2002)

Something about that article made me feel kind of jittery. I would have been more on board if it had limited its thesis to "overprotecting is bad," instead of asserting all of that stuff about there being an epidemic. I have my doubts that overprotecting is such a new phenomenon, or that there's been such a dramatic revolution in parenting style.

The article also played fast and loose with causation. For example, it implies that cultivated immaturity prevents twenty-somethings from reaching benchmarks of adulthood like "finishing school, landing a job with benefits, marrying and parenting." But school takes much longer than it used to, that there a few good jobs with benefits available to young people, and that many people find it responsible to defer responsibilities like parenting until they've finished their education and developed financial autonomy.

But all of my criticisms aside, I do believe that basic thesis of the article, that it's good to let your kids develop coping strategies.


----------



## newmainer (Dec 30, 2003)

I knew I could count on you mamas for some critical thoughts on this









I agree that the article is only looking at one factor: parents, and is also fairly classist, in terms of looking at Ivy League colleges and whatnot. I think that is an issue for only one segment of the population. This is probably also the segment of the population that has very accomplished parents who not only expect the same of their children, but hold them to a standard in their own social circles. maybe i'm reading into that a bit, but it seems likely.

I also think that, as ususal, nutrition and environmental factors are not considered. When I was working in the schools, i was constantly appalled at what my students ate. Junk, junk, and more junk. Not only that, but their parents sent them to school with it. I think nutritional deficiencies play a huge role in emotional/psychological issues.

I agree with frand that competiton in parenting can create a lot of issues too...and that relates to how we react to our own childhoods. My father was a pretty strict disciplinarian, and he strongly believed in me figuring things out for myself. It took me a long time, but I am finally at peace and grateful for this approach, but I can't duplicate that for my own daughter- at least not his method, tho i value the outcome. The flip side is that I have become so self reliant, that I have a hard time asking for help and admitting vulnerability. I also struggle to empathize with others at times becuase i think they need to suck it up and deal with it.

I definitley don't think the article's points are a panacea, but I think they raise important issues to discuss... as we are


----------



## mamawanabe (Nov 12, 2002)

The more I think about it the more I remember the same hysteria surrounding my generation (graduated high school in the late 80s and early 90s). Remember the whole generation of slackers thing - we used drugs, binge drank, refused to grow up and get jobs and marry. That time it was caused by the neglect of latch-key parenting (i.e. working mothers) and the selish me-me-me of boomer parents.

Now we have a generation of overanxious kids who use drugs, binge drink, refuse to grow up or get jobs or marry. This time it is caused by overinvested parenting.

I'm thinking maybe kids, whether they are unambitious or anxious, use drugs, binge drink, and balk at growing up, getting jobs, and marrying. Perhaps we need to think about whys that are not connected to current cultural stereoypes of parenting (and usually of mothering).

Pschology can pretend that it is no longer relying on the whole "it is all bad mommy's fault" thesis by replacing the word "mothering" with the word "parenting," but me thinks it is just the same old argument.

Think of the parents you know (not those on TV or in movies). How many really fit the profile offered in the article? Just like in the 80s, how many parents really fit the profile of a selfish boomer more concerned with his/her own yuppie emotional traumas than what thier kids were up to?


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

OK I didn't read the article







: but just wanted to respond to things from the OP:

Quote:

- Parents today are too attentive to their children's every need, removing the need for children to feel uncomfortable, or deal with feelings that things might not work out.
My children do not "need" to feel uncomfortable. Discomfort is unavoidable, but because it is unavoidable I'm not going to worry that they aren't getting enough, you know? I want to focus on making them as comfortable as possible. And I want to be attentive to their every need. Quick responding isn't something that should end when the baby is a year old. A three-year-old's cry is just as important as an infant's.

Quote:

- Because of this, many children are not learning vital coping skills, and instead constantly look to their parents to bail them out of everything from academics to relationships.
I want to bail my children out. I want them to come to me when they are in trouble and not worry about what I will think. As a parent, I'm supposed to be there for my children whenever they need me, no matter how old they are. If they are at a party and have no sober ride home, I want them to call me in the middle of the night. If they are being bullied at school, I want them to tell me immediately and not have to keep it to themselves.

Quote:

-College is the first time most kids have ever had to deal wtih anything on their own, and this is leading to a rise in such alarming behaviors such as binge drinking- which requires no social skills and allows for instant acceptance- and self mutilation which the author says is basically self medicating for anxiety.
My parenting does not end when and if the kids go to college. If they need me while they are legal adults, I want to be there. I don't believe they are going to binge drink and cut themselves all because I was an attentive parent.

Quote:

- The use of cell phones that allow for instant contact removes the need/development of planning skills (ie, plannign ahead to meet somewhere, instead of just calling your friend to say, "I"m here... meet me in 5 minutes). They argue that not developing these skills leads to deficiencies in an area of the brain that is related to depression.
I want my children to have cell phones as soon as they are at that age when they want unsupervised time with their friends. That way, instead of saying "You have to tell me where you are going and when you are coming back in case there's an emergency" I can just call them on their cell if I have to know where they are or if they don't come home in time. I believe it will give them more freedom. Of course, misuse of the phone or lying about where they are will result in loss of privileges.

When I decided to be a parent, I didn't decide to take on a full-time job until my kids were 18; I took it on for the rest of my life.

Children are supposed to depend on their parents, not on themselves. I think this is just another example of a culture that pushes independence (mainly for adult convenience) at eariler and earlier ages.


----------



## Linda KS (Oct 30, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamawanabe*
Think of the parents you know (not those on TV or in movies). How many really fit the profile offered in the article?

I know one! She's a real piece of work and I pity her kids. Most moms I know, though, even the ones that aren't at all AP or GD, are mellower about their kids.


----------



## Linda KS (Oct 30, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Greaseball*
And I want to be attentive to their every need. Quick responding isn't something that should end when the baby is a year old. A three-year-old's cry is just as important as an infant's.

Not me. I feel that as my kids get older they can and should learn to meet some of their own needs and find other coping skills besides crying. I feel that rather than fixing things for my kids it is my job to help them learn how to fix things for themselves. It's not that their crying isn't important, it's just that instead of just comforting them and fixing what ever the problem is, I feel my role is to help them learn to talk about their feelings and take positive action to fix whatever the problem is.

Quote:

I want to bail my children out. I want them to come to me when they are in trouble and not worry about what I will think.
yes and no. I will always be here for my kids, no matter how old they are, but my goal is to raise mature people who can manage their own lives. I would want my kids to call me if they needed a ride home from a party or whatever. I wouldn't want them to feel that had to keep anything to themselves out of fear of being judged. At the same time, I want to raise them to to brainstorm their own solutions.

Quote:

Children are supposed to depend on their parents, not on themselves. I think this is just another example of a culture that pushes independence (mainly for adult convenience) at eariler and earlier ages.
I totally disagree. I feel my job is to raise my kids so they can depend on themselves. I'm not pushing early independence, but it is the end goal.


----------



## aprons_and_acorns (Sep 28, 2004)

: Fascinating!


----------



## ~Quse~ (Aug 8, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamawanabe*
I'm thinking maybe kids, whether they are ambitious or anxious, use drugs, binge drink, and balk at growing up, getting jobs, and marrying. Perhaps we need to think about whys that are not connected to current cultural stereoypes of parenting (and usually of mothering).


I would love to have a serious discussion about "the whys"...why kids do use drugs, binge drink, balk at growing up, getting jobs, marrying and supporting families.

Hmmm...this will take a little time to think of my own opinion...


----------



## mamawanabe (Nov 12, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Vivianna*
I would love to have a serious discussion about "the whys"...why kids do use drugs, binge drink, balk at growing up, getting jobs, marrying and supporting families.

Hmmm...this will take a little time to think of my own opinion...

Maybe with the idea/invention of youth culture? When did the idea of youth culture start - in the 1920s? 1950s with a vengence?

Of course, the idea of youth culture is is directly related to the middle class (without a middle class you don't have youth culture).

Not sure this gets us anywhere though. . . .


----------



## musingmama (Oct 31, 2004)

I read the article and found it interesting , but somewhat annoying , too for its stereotyping already described here.... It assumes that the parent reading the article is wealthy and has "connections" they will use to cheat for their kid or whatever....I dont think what it desribes is an epidemic but I do not see what goes on at Ivy league schools!








I did think it raised some good points.
But I agree that kids have always drank, took drugs........ I def. was not coddled and had to deal with alot on my own in high school, lots of bullying, separation from Mom into a cold and distant home away from her,emotional stuff I had gone through... didnt really have a parent to confide in (I had moved in with my dad ans stepmom and Mom moved 1000 miles away... long story...) and I drank and used drugs in highschool and then when i got to art school, early 90s - did the same, even to more excess- there were ALOT of nights when the majority of our dorm were all tripping on acid....... other nights just drinking, pot , or whatever... it wasnt about social acceptance or the new lack of control- Idid the same kinds of things back at home, ttoo
I do not "blame " my parents. I agree the article is kinda saying in a more politically correct way, '" blame that overprotective mommy".... when a lot of it is part of our larger culture, still forming my thoughts about this.... something to do with that disposable, materialistic, media saturated marketing society.....
SO, what is it?
Its some good food for thought!
My first thoughts are that our society and culture deprives us of real rituals and expereinces that offer change of consciousness. I think when we look back in history there is much proof that humans have alwasy enjoyed reaching different levels of consciouness. this could be done through many means... chanting, dancing, physical exertion, etc.... using psyliciban (sp?!) mushrooms is very old, as well as pot, opium, etc....
I think there is a lack of nondrug ways to reach altered states of consciousness in our present culture. there are some empty rituals around, but not enough real ritual. Self conscious rituals are no rituals at all. We need to lose our grip sometimes to distance ourselves so we may see what we hadnt beffore.....
we need to dance with chaos sometimes.


----------



## Mindy70 (Nov 1, 2004)

I am hoping that if you just don't forbid things, but raise your kids to be critical thinkers, they will make good choices when they are on their own.
Just shielding them from the bad stuff- too much TV, media, video games, junk food will likely not be enough. Helping them to choose wisely will teach them to make their own wise choices.

As far as the dependence, I can totally see where they are coming from. We don't want our kids to feel dissapointed, or lose, or be bullied, or have their toys taken away, but I guess we have to let them experience these things and find a solution instead of just removing them from the bad situation or solving the problem for them.

Natural consequences are one way- lost your school book? You'll have to pay for it with your allowance. Left your favorite doll out in the rain? Sorry, we have to learn to take care of our toys, and dolly won't be replaced until the next birthday.

I guess we really have to do our kids a favor and not run to fight the bullies, replace the lost toys, do their homework for them. Although I admit when another toddler takes away dd's toy, my first impulse is to grab it back, if the toddler is older than she is.


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

Quote:

Maybe it's the cyclist in the park, trim under his sleek metallic blue helmet, cruising along the dirt path...at three miles an hour. On his tricycle.
Is she suggesting that children should not wear trike helmets? I wear a bike helmet. I think it's building good habits - children learn that every time they get on a trike or bike, they put on a helmet. What's wrong with that?

And yes, I am one of those mothers at the playground who follows her child everywhere, ready to catch a fall, and not one of the mothers who views her child's playtime as a chance for her to catch up on her novel. Falling does not build character. It just hurts. My child is not going to be shortchanged because she did not fall as often as other children.

And as for the issues relating to standardized testing and schools, I don't see parenting as the problem. The problem is people think standardized testing actually can measure a child's intelligence and future potential, and they act accordingly to get a good score. What kids need to hear is that their SAT score does not say anything at all about who they are, and many colleges do not even require the SAT.

The author looks at examples of children calling their parents several times a day as part of the problem. How do we know this is a problem? If the child and parent enjoy frequent interaction, who cares how often they talk on the phone?

I think it's sad that children are told to work it out for themselves when they are being bullied at school. When adults are bullied - for example, in an abusive relationship, or repeated harrassment/stalking - there are people to help them. Children are told to handle everything on their own. I think children's need for safety should be given as much priority as adults' needs.


----------



## MsMoMpls (Oct 22, 2002)

I do think the article made some good points. I also agree that blaming moms is just too easy. Here is what I have really seen.

I see Moms answer their cell phones during a session with me to answer questions from their kids. It seems like Moms are way too available at times. Mom never gets a real break and kids never get a chance to think for themselves. When I was 12, if I couldn't find my shoes, I just had to figure it out.

I see a great deal of anxiety in moms and kids. I don't think its about wearing helmets but about knowing that there is really no place you are safe. We can't trust anyone.

I see a great number of teenagers who don't know how to emotionally settle themselves. It is as if they have never worked through feelings without their parents. I had one kid, when we talked to her about "Radical Exceptance" she said she had never even considered that there were just some things she couldn't change. I can't figure out what lesson they didn't learn, their parents seem attentive and caring, they feel loved but when something bad happens, they crash.

I think the article was very slanted to upper class but I have seen clients from all economic backgrounds rescue their kids. When a kid gets into legal trouble (like smoking, drugs, stealing), often the first couple of times, no one even tells the parents, then the parent gets them out of it a couple of times before it gets really serious, and it lands in front of a judge, who also lets them get away with it for a few times before doing anything. By the time a kid gets a consequence that might work, they have often been given so many "last chances" it is impossible to really help them.

I guess I believe that society is not surving kids well and blaming moms for it (and we take on so much of it ourself) just keeps people from focusing on what the real issues are.


----------



## musingmama (Oct 31, 2004)

ITA MsMoMpls








where do you think it all started?
it seems we've found ourselves in a predicamint (AWFUL SP.!!*!)
I mean I just dont see black and white answers, and a lot of those I see that think they do, really are just kidding themselves to make life more manageable
it all seems to be symptoms of something larger.........


----------



## ellemoon (Mar 19, 2003)

Wow - I read the article and a lot of it really resonated with me. My aunt who is on the school board in a very wealthy suburban district once told me that a lot of the parents were trying to get IEP (individual education plans) - known as academic accommodations from the article. She said that they wanted to have their children labeled with a disability so that they could get extra help and have different grading standards. At the time I thought it was crazy, but now I guess I see their motivation. I know a lot of those hyper parents. One person I know has her 4 year old in a ton of activities - if you ask her why she says "Because I want her to be special" - YIKES - the pressure.

I think the drinking issue is the weak link of the article. That has been going on for a long time. Ever read a This Side of Paradise by Fitzgerald? It's all in there published in 1920.

Don't you think all those early enrichment, baby brain building things just fan the flames. Not to mention the culture of American society that we are all in danger every moment (see Bowling for Columbine).


----------



## musingmama (Oct 31, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ellemoon*

Don't you think all those early enrichment, baby brain building things just fan the flames. Not to mention the culture of American society that we are all in danger every moment (see Bowling for Columbine).

yeah, especially the last four and counting years here in america... (also see Fahrenheit 9/11) we are sent so many mixed messages of fear and that we are never safe anywhere, the terrorists have become the new communists..... but we are also supposed to shop shop shop, consume more than we can handle and get totally stressed out trying to keep up with the treadmill of it all. The anixiety mentioned in the article is very real. I just dont think its completely the parents fault.
I do not know that many wealthy parents described, but I can see it! thanks for all the great thoughts on this!
I'm wondering what the unschoolers think about it?
IMO maybe it is better to have what kids learn be more geared to their individual abilities and interests (I am not saying that they should be dianosed with a imagined fake "disablity"- I cant imagine that being a good thing to deal with) .... but of course this is hard to do in schools that barely have enough money to provide heat and supplies......


----------



## newmainer (Dec 30, 2003)

musingmama, i think you are right on about the lack of rituals and experiences for change of consciousness, and I would add to that any real meaningful rights of passage. I think most traditional cultures had a way to recognize the passage from child to adult. And while many of them seem cruel or even abusive by our standards, I wouldn't pass that judgement and its not my point either.

I was a middle school teacher and have worked with young adults and adolescents for years. In my experience, most of them were so desperate for some direction- for an adult to take real interest in them and their lives and how they can become successful adults. Unfortunately in today's culture, that is sadly lacking. I know it may happen to some kids if they are lucky enough ot have a very caring teacher or mentor, but it needs to happen on a bigger, community wide level, and it needs to be more meaningful than getting your driver's license, or getting drunk for hte first time. I see kids striving to be adults and understand what their lives are going to mean as adults and getting absolutely no direction beyond, " make money, be good looking, drink, and consume the best of everything." I know there are a lot of individual families out there seeking to change this in their own families, especially on this board. It gives me hope.

also, if anyone is interested, I am involved in an outdoor school called Headwaters Outdoor School that does boys rights of passage that are truly phenomenal. They have great classes for all ages, but Tim, the teacher, does amazing work with young men. I've worked with a lot of them and it remains a big point of hope for me.

well, that's my rant! thanks for all your thoughts on this.


----------



## heldt123 (Aug 5, 2004)

Haven't read the responses yet. It sounds like from what you posted that they are meaning things dealing with older children and not letting them deal with natural consequenses. I guess I see a difference between meeting children's needs and coddling. Personally, I think children need to learn how to make choices and live with the consequenses of those choices. For instance, if she carelessly leaves her bike unlocked in the city and it gets stolen, I would not buy a new bike.

Really, not letting a child fall will not teach them the skills of getting back up. That doesn't mean that you can't comfort the child when they fall, but picking them up every time will not teach them how overcome the situation, a necessary lifelong skill.

Note: I don't mean literally fall, like off a wall. I would always try to prevent physical falling!


----------



## ShadowMom (Jun 25, 2004)

My husband calls Psychology Today a pop psychology journal and now I see why. I didn't care for the article at all.

First, it graphically oversimplified and made huge causal leaps that are really unjustified.

Second, all the article seemed to do was create anxiety without producing any useful recommendations for changing things. If I bought into everything it said, I would just end up being a worried mess of a mother, which isn't going to benefit anyone. What exactly is it that the author suggests, and how they do think parents should respond to today's pressures and culture?

Anyway, I didn't care for it. It was interesting, though, thanks for posting it, I always like to read the latest articles and stuff. I'm surprised that your school would send it home, considering the title.


----------



## Jish (Dec 12, 2001)

ITA with this statement...

Quote:

I feel my job is to raise my kids so they can depend on themselves. I'm not pushing early independence, but it is the end goal.
I don't see this as being an attachment parenting issue. I think that if our children are attached to us at an early age, they will grow up to be more self reliant and _need_ us less to deal with the everyday issues/problems that arise in their lives. We are teaching our children to trust themselves to deal with the things that life throws at us.

What I see to be a problem is parents who can't seem to see the big picture when it comes to their children. I have neighbors (though I know many more parents with kids of all ages who do this) who seem to be in total denial about their children. If their child gets in trouble in class, for example constantly disrupting the class by talking and goofing around, they go after the teacher with a "how dare you treat my child like that!" attitude. It's almost like any shortcoming or misbehavior in their child is somehow a criticism or reflection on them personally. This same parent went round and round with one teacher about the amount of homework that her ds was given. She would badmouth the teacher and would go over her head to complain. I guess it was just easier to do this than to try to get her child (4th grade at the time) to simply sit down and do his homework. He was such a complainer and was having difficulties with reading and threw tantrums at having to do even a single worksheet. Rather than trying to get help for her child, she went after the teacher, cause the problem certainly couldn't have anything to do with her child -- it must be the teacher.

I have another friend with highschool and college age children who still supports them as if they were 5. The kids all live at home, paying nothing whatsoever or contributing anything. One child even has a college education and a well paying job and could easily move out and live comfortably on her own, but why should she when she can live at home and have her laundry done for her, all the cleaning done for her, all her expenses paid, her meals cooked (by her parents who both work full time and have part time jobs to be able to continue to support their grown children.) IMHO, this is a problem. They even bought this child a car, and paid the insurance as well (she is in her mid 20's.) She treated the car like crap, after all, she didn't pay for it, and wrecked it soon after getting it. Rather than making her pay for the repairs, they were going to fix it for her. That wasn't good enough. She didn't want a wrecked car so she whined and whined until they bought her another new one.

There comes a time when children need to be responsible for their actions. This should begin slowly as they are young and gradually build. That is our job. We are responsible for loving our children, but we are also responsible for ensuring that they have the experiences and lessons needed to one day be able to face life on their own. After all, one day they will have children of their own to raise. We can always be their to love and support, but as they get older, I feel we are doing them a disservice if we do too much for them. When I was working I had several employees who were like the girl I mentioned above. They had no work ethic, and thought that things should just be handed to them. They didn't realize that it takes years to get to the point where your parents are at. You don't just graduate from college, make six figures and have everything you ever want. That seems to be the attitude that often prevails -- I live in a college town and see it all the time. They have totally unrealistic expectations of what real life is like. If this is the case, then I think that we as parents have failed somewhere in preparing our children to be on their own in the real world.

Life is full of disappointment and unhappiness. If we try to shield our children from the emotions, then we keep them from knowing happiness and fulfillment. After all you can't know joy until you've felt sorrow.


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

Quote:

This same parent went round and round with one teacher about the amount of homework that her ds was given. She would badmouth the teacher and would go over her head to complain. I guess it was just easier to do this than to try to get her child (4th grade at the time) to simply sit down and do his homework. He was such a complainer and was having difficulties with reading and threw tantrums at having to do even a single worksheet. Rather than trying to get help for her child, she went after the teacher, cause the problem certainly couldn't have anything to do with her child -- it must be the teacher.
What if the problem really was the teacher or the amount of homework? Why do we assume the kid should just buckle under and do what the adult wants? It sounds like the teacher was not listening to the parent. Maybe the parent and child knew the child didn't need help; he just needed less homework.

A lot of the issues the article raised seemed to be more about problem schools than problem families...


----------



## captain optimism (Jan 2, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *KristiMetz*

First, it graphically oversimplified and made huge causal leaps that are really unjustified.

Second, all the article seemed to do was create anxiety without producing any useful recommendations for changing things.

Yes, it is an oversimplified article, but I think part of the point was to bolster uninvolved parents in thinking that their way is better.

I have seen parents overprotecting teens, and it is not pretty! I remember my father's cousin and her husband brought their daughter to visit colleges. She had to stop to buy some hair conditioner at a store. Her mom said, "Who is going to go into the store with A.?" I said, "Wait a minute, she's visiting colleges. I think she can get out of the car and buy conditioner by herself!" A. said, "Sure I can."

This was the same girl who hadn't ever cut up fruit with a knife when she was 15 years old. Her mom didn't let her handle knives. She came to my parents' house to prepare for Passover and I handed her a knife and said "Cut up these apples" and she said, "I don't know how." So I showed her. Today I assume she doesn't have this problem, as she is a professional chef.

It didn't ruin her though. It was a struggle for her to establish her own separate identity as a young adult. She did not succeed in her first year of college, and had a long process of finding herself, which included moving to another continent. She is a fully differentiated adult, married, and has a great and close relationship with her parents. It's not an optimal way to grow up.

My own growing up was kind of mixed in this regard. My parents weren't THAT protective, but they were pretty involved. I think some of this is a cultural thing. As a young adult, when I suggested to my mom that she didn't need to call me so often, she was just flabbergasted. She called her parents once or twice a week as long as they were alive. My dad worked with his parents every day of his adult life in a family business. It's just normal to them for children and parents to have close relationships.

Anyway I think there is a lot more to explore on this topic. Since my child is not yet 2 years old, it's not all that germane to me right now!


----------



## DebraBaker (Jan 9, 2002)

I generally agree with the article....well...sort of.

I'm all about ap parenting for babies but ap is to fill a need and the child can move on to the next stage because their needs have been met.

I don't get the cultural micromanaging of children.

I, too, know teenagers who are coddled and babied.

I know yuppie parents who have college-aged children who don't work, don't do chores, don't pick up their own things, just sit around usless as tits on boars.

I'm generally against bailing kids out. Keep bailing and eventually they may be held without bail because they were never allowed to meet the consequences of their actions.

Children need to start feeling discomfort, the natural discomfort of life. That which tests the will and sees whether you will stick with it, find a creative solution, or assume the fetal position.

I am working myself out of a job, I want to have competent adult children. I actually *do* have three competent adult children. My adult children can take care of themselves and are net gains for society.

Debra Baker


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

I think it's interesting that this culture supports independence at the youngest age possible, yet once those forced-independent babies reach the teen years, we want to take it all back. So we do all we can to make babies grow up early - CIO, formula feeding, self-feeder bibs and all the assorted infant chairs and swings teach them that mom isn't truly necessary; babies can manage most of their own needs. We tell other moms that babies have to learn how to comfort themselves and not rely on mom to comfort them.

Then they become teenagers and when they want to go to the movies with friends or get an after-school job or quit school or go on a summer backpacking trip in another country, the answer is "No! You're still just a child! You can't handle being unsupervised!"

I think a role-reversal is necessary: treat babies like babies. Treat teens like adults.


----------



## kchoffmann (Aug 16, 2004)

Interesting discussion!

I am a therapist, and that influences my opinion in a great way, though before I was a therapist I thought this way too. I believe completely that the parents' relationship with their kids matters more than anything, more than some of the parenting details we're talking about. And this, too, is usually the root of kids' drinking, doing drugs, early promiscuity, not being able to have their own relationships, etc. One can be the queen of AP, but if she is unconsciously putting her "stuff" on her kids and then not taking responsibility for it, little else will matter.


----------



## mamawanabe (Nov 12, 2002)

Didn't Psychology Today (or was it Newsweek") publish a long article that basically said after elementary school peers have more of an impact on kids than parents?

It is articles like these that give psychology a bad name. Simplified nuggets of hal-truths and generalizations . . .


----------



## azyre (Oct 10, 2003)

I defintely lean to be one of those mums that catch up on their novel at the playground - and I do believe that falling is important, small falls prevent big ones







She comes and gets me when she wants me and that work best for both of us.

While I think many inferences of this article are kind of broad I think it is important to remember to let our kids live their own lives. There's a difference in being available, being present and being a PITA! I need to be invested in the details of my life, not hers, and perhaps the best thing I can do for our ongoing adult relationship is be interesting and fulfilled myself.


----------



## newmainer (Dec 30, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Greaseball*
What if the problem really was the teacher or the amount of homework? Why do we assume the kid should just buckle under and do what the adult wants? It sounds like the teacher was not listening to the parent. Maybe the parent and child knew the child didn't need help; he just needed less homework.

A lot of the issues the article raised seemed to be more about problem schools than problem families...

this is interesting. In reading her description, I definitley think there are issues going on- with the child. They may be not related to school at all, but that's how its manifesting. i think this is a perfect example of how issues with children are handled. The "blame" is looked for elsewhere, and who is talking to the kid? Who is sitting down with the child and saying, "how are you? what's going on?" etc... and trying to get to know the child. I think many of the examples in the article point to this as well- looking for quick fixes and instant gratification, rather than real growth, maturity, and change.

yes, the expectation that kids be independent asap when they are younger, but then not supporting their independence as teens is pretty whacked. And on the flip side, there are those families that expect teens to be adults before they are ready and don't allow them to regress a little bit when needed.


----------



## Jish (Dec 12, 2001)

Quote:

What if the problem really was the teacher or the amount of homework? Why do we assume the kid should just buckle under and do what the adult wants? It sounds like the teacher was not listening to the parent. Maybe the parent and child knew the child didn't need help; he just needed less homework.
With all due respect, I know every party involved, and many who weren't mentioned. I know the parents well, I know the teacher, and I know the several other students in this teachers class, as well as their parents, and they all were perfectly happy with her, didn't feel that the homework was excessive. Perhaps I should have mentioned that the teacher did work with the parents to make homework as easy as possible for him. He had a tutor at school. He was placed in Resource to help him with areas he might be deficient in. The teacher didn't receive thanks for the help that she gave. She was just continually badmouthed. it seems to me that if only one child out of the class is having a problem with the homework difficulty or amount, the problem doesn't lie with the teacher and her methods, but rather with that student and his attitude or abilities. She shouldn't be required to change her lessons to accomodate the one complainer in the class. If he has learning disabilities, he should be helped, which he was. He was allowed to keep a set of textbooks for every subject at home (most kids are only allowed to bring a textbook home on the night he needs it for homework or to study.)

The next year he had a different teacher. He still had an entire set of texts at home. He was given extra time for many assignments, and if he didn't feel he was ready for a test, he didn't have to take it. I have a real problem with this because in the days before the test, he didn't study, he played soccer outside, rode his bike around, played nintendo. He had time for these things, but not to study. If his parents tried to make him study, he threw a tantrum (not pretty in a 10 year old) and he didn't have to do it. It used to drive my next door neighbor nuts because he was in the same class and the boy would come to his house and bug him to come outside to play, but he had to study. Every half an hour the boy who got the extra allowances would show up ringing the door bell, and calling every 15 minutes inbetween asking when he would be done studying. Poor Adam (my next door neighbor) couldn't study with all the disruptions and had to listen to the boy brag about how he didn't have to take the test until he wanted to, and then he didn't have to take it in class and could have as much time as he wanted to get it done.

How is that helping the child? He gets to goof around rather than studying because all the special allowance were made for him. This child isn't a brain, but he is far from abnormal. If he were to study as the other kids do, get help to get his reading up to speed (years of excuses for why he didn't want to do it have put him behind) he would be fine. But instead of the parents looking at their child with clear eyes, and helping him work up to his potential, they keep trying to get the school to make things easier for him.

His grades didn't improve with the teacher who made it "easier" for him. In fact, he has now developed such anxiety that he has all sorts of physical symptoms of anxiety that they keep looking for a cause for. The are unable to see what the rest of us around him see so clearly. They are the nicest people in the world, but they are just blind to many things when it comes to their children. I could give hundreds of examples from this family, but I choose this one.

I printed out the article and read it last night. Having taken half a dozen different psychology classes way back when, I tend to enjoy articles like that, though I don't always agree with every example given. When articles like this one are written they are written broadly simply because it is impossible to say "children with parents in this socio-economic status, of this age, in this part of the country, in families this size," etc, etc, etc. It is written with a broad overview of what is being observed in society today that perhaps wasn't so prevalent in the past. Because one of the people listed happens to be affiliated with Harvard, doesn't mean that any studies done by him or others were done at that specific University or on any given group of people.

If none of the examples cited look familiar to you (not personal) that's great! It doesn't, however, mean that the article isn't relavant. My children are younger than those that they are speaking of in the article. I AP. I don't feel that the article is speaking to me. I don't think it is downing AP. I think it is speaking much more about parents who perhaps aren't as "attached" to their children, and thus they are unable to be able to trust that they have raised their children to make their own "good" decisions. They feel they have to stay involved so that their children don't make mistakes.

Funny thing, though -- we learn much more from our mistakes that we do our successes. If I am trying to do a difficult math problem, I don't learn anything if I am able to do it right the first time. I must have gotten lucky, or already known how to do it. I learn from trial and error on a problem. From trying one theory and learning how and why that theory didn't work, then I try another until I am able to solve the problem. I don't want my children's life to always be "easy" or "happy." How would he know he was happy if he had never been sad. How fun would things be if they were always easy. Some of the best and most rewarding things in life are the things that challenge us the most.


----------



## DebraBaker (Jan 9, 2002)

Oh, I agree with you, Beth.

The teachers must deal with the mess so many parents have created by the time the child is school aged.

If my children get anything lower than a B they are grounded from tv and video games. Tv and video games are a *privledge* not a right. If their entertainment is interfering with their school work they don't get to enjoy the privledge of playing their games or watching tv.

I don't get mollycoddling a child. Do the parents really want a stunted child for life or are they trying to rear someone who will become a competent adult? I'm working myself out of a job. My children generally earn good grades, are good workers when they have jobs, they are good drivers because they pay for their own auto insurance, and they're competent pleasent human beings long before anyone expects jack squat out of their peers.

Debra Baker


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

Why is an IEP seen as a way to make school easier for the child?

Wouldn't we all learn best if we were taught according to our individual needs and ways we learn? I think it's a shame that children are expected to learn just like everyone else unless they have a disability. It really seems more like the problem lies in the school.

And, of course, school is not the best option for all children.


----------



## Jish (Dec 12, 2001)

I love you, DB!







You are the parent I want to be when my kids get older.

I was definitely not raised in an AP way. My family had a lot of issues with my mother's depression and eating disorder and my father's drinking. I was often much more of a parent than a child. However, they didn't coddle me or assume that I couldn't handle things. I had curfews, rules and responsibilities. I can't thank my parents enough for making me fumble through things at times. *I* did my homework, no one helped me or even checked it for me unless I was stuck on something. It was my responsibility. I was a A/B student my entire way through school. Could I have done better if they had helped me? Sure, I would have likely been a straight A student, but I wouldn't have learned as much as I did from screwing up and learning from it. I was expected to earn my own money for fun once I hit highschool. From the time I got my first job, my parents never bought me another article of clothing unless it was Christmas or my birthday. They never told me that they wouldn't, I just took it on myself. My mother later told me that she always wondered why I never asked them to buy me clothing anymore, that they gladly would have, but she was so proud that I was taking responsibility for earning the money to take care of that aspect of my life that she let me take that upon myself.

While I wish that they had known about AP and not been in the era of "spoiling" when I was young so my young childhood could have been more loving, I can't thank them enough for setting the rules and expectations as I got older and letting me make my decisions and sink or swim accordingly. I am stronger because they loved me enough to let me fail sometimes.


----------



## frand (May 8, 2004)

I know a lot of parents like the ones in the article. I live in a very affluent suburb of Chicago. Kids are very scheduled and parents are very involved with their activities, including organized play dates. My older neighbors have commented that until my family moved on our block, there was no spontaneous play among the children.

There is a big focus on appearances. Parents are very invested in their childrens' performance. My sister lives in a less expensive town (where I am thinking of moving) and she said there is little of this there-- a handful of dads very intense about sports, but none of the scheduling and academic pressure. So I do believe the article is reflecting a certain segment of the society, but an influential one.

The reason I am so drawn to the article is because I find that when my daughter has a bad day, when her feelings are hurt, it can really bother me, and I have wondered if I'm investing too much of my happiness in the day to day ups and downs of her life. I try not to show it. Truly, my mother never cared if I had a good day or bad day. Until I had my daughter, really no one could hurt me, I had grown so tough and resilient, but I do suspect I overidentify with her feelings. That's why this article fascinates me.


----------



## frand (May 8, 2004)

PS- my own boss' running joke is the amount of time (2 hours) he spends with his two sons each night doing their homework. He lives in one the most academically competitive suburbs in the Chicago area. Every night he leaves work with a comment like, "Time to study." He firmly believes if he doesn't do this, his sons will fall behind and that they are too fragile psychologically to endure the added pressure of catching up if that happens.


----------



## frand (May 8, 2004)

I can't believe I'm posting a third note on this, but DebraBaker you brought up a great point. I am reading a book called Deep Survival and it's a fascinating exploration of why some people surivive life and death situations and others don't. One of the points I came across yesterday was that most people don't know how to deal with pain. Our culture is all about avoiding it. That certainly resonated with what I remember reading about natural childbirth. But as a pure survival skill, the ability to rise above pain (literally and metaphorically) -- is one of the bright lines that separates those who survive and those who don't.


----------



## captain optimism (Jan 2, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Greaseball*
Why is an IEP seen as a way to make school easier for the child?

Wouldn't we all learn best if we were taught according to our individual needs and ways we learn? I think it's a shame that children are expected to learn just like everyone else unless they have a disability. It really seems more like the problem lies in the school.

And, of course, school is not the best option for all children.

There is a very big gap between what an IEP is supposed to do and what some school systems do with it. In the case that Jish describes, I wonder whether the student really does have a disability. If he does, then whether he is bragging about getting away with something or not, he needs education that accomodates his disability. Even if he's a totally jerky kid and his parents are fools. You know?

Sometimes school systems use learning disabilities and special education as ways to get children out of the mainstream classroom. They warehouse them. the IEP is meant to emerge from meetings between the teacher, the parents, and specialists, and to reflect what a student needs each year. But in some states, parents aren't involved properly. Some schools test a child once and then never retest him. (Usually him







) Some teachers refuse to read the IEP! (This happened to friends of mine who have their low-functioning autistic son doing recess and music at the local kindergarten--the teacher is scared of him and she won't read the IEP!)

I believe that disabled children are one of the most discriminated against groups in our society.

I had a lot of LD students in my big intro classes when I taught college. I found most of them to be very good students. The process of getting into college when you are working around a learning disability can require a lot of self-discipline. These students were also very good about seeking appropriate help from me during office hours.

See, one piece of this that we aren't getting right in this thread, I think: it's important to be able to ask for help in an appropriate way. It's not coddling to provide help, or to supervise homework. It's teaching! People need that one on one help, and parents can provide that.

I think there is a way that we can be helpful without being overprotective, and that is to stay mindful of our children's essential resiliency and ability to cope. It's easier to guide and help if we think they are capable people, growing into independence. We can extend a hand in a way that makes sense instead of in a way that infantilizes. (anyway that is my hope!)


----------



## Kavita (Dec 7, 2004)

Well put Captain Optimism!

My professional life informs my opinion about this, because I work as a juvenile probation officer, and right now I work with two high schools, one of which is for high academic achievers.

First of all, some of this is apples and oranges because we're talking about a wide range of ages here, and what's appropriate for a 2 year old is not appropriate for a teenager.

I think that kids need help and support and involvement and a strong attachment to their parents. Sometimes they need to be protected and bailed out to a certain degree. However, they also need to deal with the consequences of their own behavior and decisions at a certain point, and parents need to have certain expectations and rules for their children. Being in denial about what's going on with your kids doesn't help them or anyone else. For instance, I see lots teenagers who are involved in lot of destructive and illegal behavior, and they lie to their parents, and their parents believe them. I know one girl who is an excellent student and active in school activities, who is also exceedingly promiscuous, uses drugs and drinks, is actually kind of mean to other people, and also stole over $400 in merchandise from her afterschool job, which is a felony level offense. Her mom was not very cooperative with the juvenile court process, made a lot of excuses for her, and acted like it was everyone else's fault (the police, the courts, the store) and they were persecuting her daughter. Well, I hate to say it, but this girl is almost 18 and she's going to have a hard adulthood if she thinks it's just okay to steal whatever she wants, and that she doesn't have to take responsibility for that. And it's not her mom who's going to have the felony on her record, it's the girl, and that will potentially affect her for the rest of her adult life--it could affect her with colleges, jobs, becoming a foster parent, entering the military--a whole host of doors could be closed off to her. So it's really not serving the girl for her mother to be coddling and enabling her. You may think this is an extreme example, but I see it all the time.

Also, there is a tendency I see for loving, concerned parents to get overinvested in the outcomes with their kids--it's good for kids to have experiences and achievements, but to enrich their own lives, not so the parents can have bragging rights. It's like sometimes parents are too concerned with the kids' "resume" and not the whole child.


----------



## cmb123 (Dec 30, 2004)

This article definately is food for thought. I didn't see it as against AP at all. I didn't see ( I did read fast though) anything discouraging parents from responding to their small childrens needs, mostly I noticed NOT treating their college age kids like infants. I'm all for that.

There are things about it I really agree with what they did say about the little kids. I think they should be able to explore, get dirty, fall down, and use their imaginations without their parents being right up thier butt all of the time. It makes me nuts when kids can't take two steps with out thier parents freaking out that they might fall down, constantly uttering "be careful, be careful". TCC talks about this kind of stuff. I'm right with that.
I think toys that don't allow kids to play stink! Who needs a plastic farm that "Moo's" when you open the door. Let the kids "moo" maybe they want to "quack" instead! Books that read themselves to you...blech

A happy medium would be nice...Parent's willing to be avialble to thier kids, while allowing them to grow into adults by experiencing the world for themselves.


----------



## Foobar (Dec 15, 2002)

I only have a minute, gotta go to bed, but I found parts of the article good and others, like the cell phone stuff, awful.

I teach my daughter independence. I do a mix of AP and mainstream. I let her fall at the playground. I give her hugs and we try again. On the tougher stuff, I am there to spot her until she can do it well. Then I back away. Eventually, I plan on catching up on my novel while Goo and Moo play.

We are already teaching Goo how to think. When she says "I can't do it" we say "yes you can. Let's break this problem down" The next time, she looks at a problem, she does learn to break it down to easy steps.

My Dh's parents rarely went to his sporting events. I don't think mine came to more than 1 or 2 of mine. It didn't matter too much because they wanted to hear about it later.

I hope that my children can learn to be critical thinkers. I hope that I can teach that.

We are still in the early stages of life here, but my goal is to raise children who DON'T need me to bail them out when ever there is a problem, but DO come to me for advice and support when they need it. And if a problem is too big, we can work together to solve it.


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

In what situations is it best to step in, and in what situations should the child have to figure things out for herself? (Obviously, in situations involving risks to health or safety we would step in, so I'm not really talking about that.)

For example, if a 6-year-old were about to fall down the stairs, would it be better to warn him or stay out of it and let him learn? What if a teenager forgot she had an exam and wasn't going to study - is it best to remind her? What if a child asks for help with homework or with learning a new skill?


----------



## cmb123 (Dec 30, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Greaseball*
For example, if a 6-year-old were about to fall down the stairs, would it be better to warn him or stay out of it and let him learn? What if a teenager forgot she had an exam and wasn't going to study - is it best to remind her? What if a child asks for help with homework or with learning a new skill?

I personal would step in, in the situations you mentioned above. I have a problem with the parents who keep their kids from everything for fear of them getting hurt, or experiencing failure or disappointment EVER.
I would rather let my kid climb a tree and fall than never let her climb a tree because she might fall someday. I work at a school and often have kids that don't do recess because their parents don't want them to get hurt ( or dirty heaven forbid), and too often hear parents at the park screaming at thier kids to be careful every second they are there ( not to mention giving me the evil eye 'cause my kids are playing in the mud, and their kid wants to follow







)
At this same school...I'm thinking of one parent of a middle schooler inparticular, who drives here mulitple times per week because her kid forgot her homework, or forgot her violin, etc..etc... I see her coming and I just think...let the kid get some heat for forgeting her stuff. Why should she ever have to remember her own responsibilitys when she KNOWS you are just gonna come running to save her every time (funny enough, she is also one of those parent who has misused the IEP system).
I think certain pockets of the population ( like where I am) seem to have an overabundance of the kind of people spoken of in the article. It's an area that has a large "white collar" population, who seems to thing that they can buy thier childrens success in the world with out the kids ever having to do anything for themselves academically, then they also have their whole lives scheduled with lessons (sports, music, dance, forien language, religion, scouting, dramatics etc...you never know, if they get them in young enough they might be a prodigy) that they don't ever have time to be kids, learn how to interact socially, or be a part of a family- because the family time is spent shuffling kids to and from lessons, eating in the car, and going home and going to bed, only to start over again the next day.
It's sad, and I can see how those kids may end up binge drinking in college etc..as the article mentioned.


----------



## Foobar (Dec 15, 2002)

Quote:

In what situations is it best to step in, and in what situations should the child have to figure things out for herself? (Obviously, in situations involving risks to health or safety we would step in, so I'm not really talking about that.)

For example, if a 6-year-old were about to fall down the stairs, would it be better to warn him or stay out of it and let him learn? What if a teenager forgot she had an exam and wasn't going to study - is it best to remind her? What if a child asks for help with homework or with learning a new skill?
To answer for myself:
1) If my 6 year old would be about to fall down the stairs, I would mention it. (warn her). If she ignored me and fell, well, that's her own fault.
2) If the teen forgot she had an exam, I would remind her if I knew about it. If she forgot and I didn't know about and she failed, I would let her complain to me about it, but also remind her that it is her responsibility to remember. I can remind her, but I can't force her to study
3) If Goo or Moo wanted help, I would lead the help, but I wouldn't do it for them. That's the trick. Some parents will DO the homework, others will help by leading questions like the teacher would. Same with a new skill. I will often show Goo how to do something and help her, but back away to let her learn on her own.

Here's another example, Greaseball. Goo got a keyboard for Hanukah. She started walking on it. Some people who were visiting yelled at her for that. I simply stated "Goo, if you walk on it, you will break it. If you break it, you will not get a new one. Who's fault will it be" She replied "Mine." and then she got off of it and said " I don't want to break it"
This is a way to teach her that she is responisible and that I am not going to bail her out (replace her toy) if she breaks it.

Make sense?


----------



## ShadowMom (Jun 25, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Greaseball*
In what situations is it best to step in, and in what situations should the child have to figure things out for herself? (Obviously, in situations involving risks to health or safety we would step in, so I'm not really talking about that.)

For example, if a 6-year-old were about to fall down the stairs, would it be better to warn him or stay out of it and let him learn? What if a teenager forgot she had an exam and wasn't going to study - is it best to remind her? What if a child asks for help with homework or with learning a new skill?

Here are my thoughts, keeping in mind I only have a 1 year old and am a less experienced mom.









On the stair thing, I think it's more likely that instead of KNOWING your kid will fall, they start doing something that is dangerous and they MIGHT fall. For me, it depends on the severity of the situation, but I would not necessarily stop them from doing the dangerous thing, other than warning them.

My DS, when learning motor skills, would many times do things that would cause him to fall - for instance, try to stand up using a swivel chair for balance - and I didn't stop him. To me, that's the best way for him to learn what's safe and isn't, and what's a stable surface. Now, I don't let him climb on the end tables, because that is just crazy and he needs to learn that normal people don't climb on end tables.









Also, I let him bonk his head on the table when trying to stand up, instead of shielding it (even though I really wanted to!) because I figured, how else is he going to learn not to stand up underneath stuff that's too short?

On the homework example, I think it's fine to help a child but without doing things FOR them. I know a lot of parents who do most of the homework for their kids.

A pp mentioned a mom who is always bringing her kid stuff at school. In that situation, I think if my DC called me at school and asked me to bring something they forgot, I would do it unless they became habitual about it. If they became habitual, I would try to help them develop systems for remembering their stuff - for instance, when you're done playing the violin, go right then and put it by the door. Stuff like that.

This is an interesting thread, with interesting questions. It is really hard to let your child fall, fail, or be hurt in any way. It's hard to know when you should let them do it and be hurt and learn from it, or when you should step in.


----------



## DebraBaker (Jan 9, 2002)

By the time my child is six she wouldn't put herself in a situation which finds her dangerously at the top of a stairway.

My teenager wouldn't be irresponsible enough to "forget" to study for a test or do an assignment.

Sooner or later they need to fly solo and gradually going from dependent infants to competent adults seems to be important.

Debra Baker


----------



## charmarty (Jan 27, 2002)

this seems to be hand and hand with the control thread going on.
http://www.mothering.com/discussions...7&page=1&pp=20


----------



## candiland (Jan 27, 2002)

I agree with a lot of what the article says.

Like Greaseball said, "treat babies like babies" is the first step. Don't try to force them into feeding schedules and CIO and the like. Secure attachment is of utmost importance.

As they grow older, a lot depends on their own personality. You can't say "by the age of three, they need to do the following alone..." Part of good parenting is following your kid's cues. Example: my 5 yo. sat on the floor the other night having a "temper tantrum" because she couldn't find a doll shoe. She never moved from where she was sitting... she just expected us to get up and look for it and find it FOR her so she wouldn't have to do it herself. We kept telling her that if she looked under her toys and blankets and she couldn't find it, we would gladly help, but she had to at least TRY. It was under the first thing she moved









I think many parents are quick to give in to any situation because they don't want to deal with a child's strong emotions. Why are we so quick to disallow these strong emotions in our kids? No one ever died from a temper tantrum or from screaming too loud. I most definitely confused my first child's wants with her needs when she was out of babyhood, and now we are trying to climb out of the hole we dug for ourselves.

It's a good thing we caught it now instead of when she's 18, or we'd really really be in for it.


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

Quote:

Here's another example, Greaseball. Goo got a keyboard for Hanukah. She started walking on it. Some people who were visiting yelled at her for that. I simply stated "Goo, if you walk on it, you will break it. If you break it, you will not get a new one. Who's fault will it be" She replied "Mine." and then she got off of it and said " I don't want to break it"
We got Linda a wooden xylophone for christmas and she also walked on it, but I don't want to let her break it. I think it would be wasteful. This is something that is supposed to last for a long time and that can later be for the baby when she gets old enough. I'd rather just take it away and save it for a later date than let her break it. It cost money, after all.

What about things like trike helmets, knee pads, and other safety gear? It seemed the author of the article thought they were too much. Do others see it as a way to build good habits, or just another way that parents go overboard?


----------



## Foobar (Dec 15, 2002)

I make Goo wear a helmet on a bike (it's the law) and knee pads and her helmet on the scooter. When she wipes out, she isn't afraid to try again.

on the keyboard:
I understand the wastefulness, but I also feel that if she breaks it, it will teach her a life lesson of responsibility. KWIM? I would rather her do things for the right reasons instead of taking things away or yelling at her.
Maybe I'm a little weird on this.


----------



## cmb123 (Dec 30, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Greaseball*
What about things like trike helmets, knee pads, and other safety gear? It seemed the author of the article thought they were too much. Do others see it as a way to build good habits, or just another way that parents go overboard?

I have really mixed feelings about this stuff. I definately thing that helmets are a good idea ( I was hit by a car head on as a teen, long before helmets, I wish I had one ). But I think to see a kid in full gear at the age of 2 to go ride a tricycle, with a parent handle on it no less, is toooo much. KWIM.
For me I just get stuck longing for the days when i was a kid and there wasn't so much "stuff' and "gear" KWIM? Things like "water wings" make me nuts. If your kid can't swim, get in the water with them. Poofy things on their arms are not going to help them learn how to swim, nor keep them safe. Feeling what their body feels like in the water will.

Just curious for "Greaseball"...why would you choose to take the xylophone away instead of asking her not to step on it?


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

Quote:

Just curious for "Greaseball"...why would you choose to take the xylophone away instead of asking her not to step on it?
I tell her that if she doesn't stop walking on it I'm going to take it away for the rest of the day. Same thing when she mistreats other toys. Some of them I just don't want getting ruined.

I wear a helmet when I ride a bike, but I don't wear knee and elbow pads. So I think it's reasonable to ask my dds to wear helmets on a trike. I want them to build the habit of putting on a helmet every time they get on a trike or bike. I didn't start wearing a helmet until recently, and I didn't even regularly wear a seatbelt as an adult until I was pregnant.







:

I don't really know how to swim, but I like to hang out in the water, so I think water wings can be good for that. (Except I'd rather just wear a real life jacket.)


----------



## DebraBaker (Jan 9, 2002)

Helmets, yes.

Knee and elbow pads. Only Julianna has them and its her choice whether to wear them.

I think kids are overly insulated nowadays.

Waterwings drive me nuts as well.

We put our kids in life vests but we also watch them like hawks. Julianna can swim but she's not a strong swimmer. I'd take the life vest off for her to practice (this past summer) but would put it back on the rest of the time.

When we went to the lake we still made her wear it past the pagoda. (just a landmark the water was quite a distance from the pagoda but it provided a safe landmark) I make anyone younger than a teenager wear a life vest in the boat.

DB


----------



## newmainer (Dec 30, 2003)

it seems like a lot of this can come down to splicing hairs. So much depends on the child. there might be some things that one 6 year old is ready for that another is not. As my dd's mother, i think part of my parenting is to identify when she truly needs help, and when she needs to struggle and figure it out on her own. there is no formula. and i will not get it right everytime- but certainly my intention is to raise a confident, independent minded young woman who also has compassion and empathy. A mentor once told me that if you have hard time receiving help, you might have a hard time giving it. I have found this to be true for me at times in my life.

A piece i feel like is being left out is the follow through, or in organizational speak- debrief. If my high school student failed to "remember" that she had a test and was surprised and failed, my reaction might be, "well, you need to be responsible and remember those things" followed with, "why do you think you forgot? what are some things you might do next time to help you remember." I dont think that's rescuing, and its not leaving her out ot the wolves either. Its teaching.

When I was teaching in public schools, I noticed the pendulum swing the other way than what the article is saying. Many teachers or parents would assumed the kids could do things that were beyond them _without guidance._ Once they were shown how to do something then they could achieve it. But telling a new middle school student to do xy and z when previously they have only done x is setting them up for failure. Failure w/o adequate guidance is where self doubt, anxiety, etc... can creep in and build up. many of the new standards and benchmarks required of students is pushed at a level that is ridiculous- it's ridiculous to expect that teachers can teach that material adequately *and* as Greaseball mentioned, to different learning styles, as well as what is appropriate for a kid to learn. Like, 3 different essay styles in one semester? come on. teachers are forced to rush through it all to meet the standards, and 1/2 the kids are still on style #1. This is a bigger issue, but I think its relevant.


----------



## Foobar (Dec 15, 2002)

Just to clarify, the knee pads and elbow pads are for her scooter (she got a cool 3 wheel scooter, like a Razor, but more stable for a 2 year old). On a bike/trike, only a helmet is required...


----------



## Bearsmama (Aug 10, 2002)

I like what was said by I think Greaseball, treat babies like babies.

Doesn't some of this go back to the Continuum Concept? Like if we attend to our babies primal need for closeness, etc. in the early months/years, then they will come to us when they need us. Obviously I'm over generalizing here.

Personally, I have sometimes felt like the outcast in groups of women with children my older son's age. Even when he was learning to walk, I let him explore. I tried to make it a safe environment, but he did fall. And he did get hurt on occasion. And even as he grew (and still now) I will let him do his thing, and come to me when he needs something. I am not constantly following him around the house. I say NO to my son. And if he's upset, well, he's upset. I don't think of it as my job to keep him happy all the time.

I am rambling a bit here...


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

How does CIO fit into all this? Some say when you respond to a baby's cries you are not letting them learn to self-soothe. Of course, that's not what I think, but someone may come to that conclusion from articles like this.


----------



## ShadowMom (Jun 25, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Greaseball*
How does CIO fit into all this? Some say when you respond to a baby's cries you are not letting them learn to self-soothe. Of course, that's not what I think, but someone may come to that conclusion from articles like this.

I think the key is age-appropriate. A baby is far too young to understand "independence" and has emotional and physical needs that supercede that concept. Whereas a 5 year old you should treat completely differently.

As a pp somewhere in this thread mentioned, it's like we have it backwards - instead of pushing little tiny babies to be independent beings, and totally regressing with older kids, we should do the opposite.







Then A will naturally lead to B (the dependent infant will have their needs met and will turn into an independent, more mature person) without us fighting biology.

JMHO


----------



## Foobar (Dec 15, 2002)

Greaseball-

I think this article really is pointing to older children. Of course, I am odd here in that I DON'T consider my 2.5 year old a baby. She is a toddler and a young kid who is learning how to transistion from totally dependant to independent person.

My Moo, well, like your little one, she is a baby!









I think CIO is an overused phrase. My Goo will sometimes cry when I leave for the night. We have learned to distinguish when it is a "I really need you" to a "I don't want to sleep and this will let me stay up longer"

You really need to think about CIO as not a simple thing, but a complex spectrum, just like everything else in life


----------

