# Tell me about not being "child centered"



## bluedaisy (Sep 5, 2008)

I've heard the concept that American culture is too child centered, so that children grow up believing they are the center of the world and always want to get their way.

I lived in another culture for several years, and since returning to the US, I've realized even more how much my extended family is child centered.

So if you're trying intentionally to not be child centered, what are some things that you do?

ETA: I clarified what I mean by "child centered" in post 17


----------



## North_Of_60 (May 30, 2006)

Hmm.. I hope I answer this the right way, but the way I see it is like this. I don't think we're intentionally trying _not_ to be child centered. But children don't get free passes just for being children in some circumstances. If that makes sense.

For instance, if the whole family is at the dinner table and my daughter tries to interrupt and speak, she has to wait her turn and politely say "excuse me" just like anyone else would. I know many families who will stop speaking and allow the child to talk because "they're just a child". Our conundrum is at what age do you stop "treating them like a child" and start expecting manners of someone older and more mature? So in our house, she is learning at an early age how to interact in socially acceptable ways.

That is not to say that we're not accepting of age appropriate behavior, because we certainly are! But we're also not forgoing the teachings of what she will eventually be expected to do as a respectful adult "because she's just a child".

I think in many ways this makes us not child centered, and certainly not consentual, because we understand that children are not adults, won't behave like adults, won't have the reasoning, comprehension, and decision making skills that adults have, and that guiding them through the lack of these skills means they won't be center of the universe all of the time. Like the dinner table example.


----------



## mommariffic (Mar 18, 2009)

When I think of child centered, I think of all the posts [myself included in this, I've made some] where the mum is feeling guilty because she wants some free time, or wants a babysitter, or doesn't want to be attached to her child 100% of the time.

To me, that's child centered.

My husband and I were here first, and DD is an addition to our family. We are completely devoted to raising her in a natural, whimsical environment but we also need to follow our own passions and interests. Parents can go out to dinner alone, take vacations, and have child care help because it takes a village.

And I think that kids are kids, but that doesn't mean we get a free pass.

I was in a store the other day and DD was running around playing hide and seek in the clothes. Adorable? Sure, but not for the workers who are trying to keep things neat. So I was like "lady! We don't play hide and seek here, we play in the woods!" and someone came up to me to compliment me for telling her to stop because apparently other parents let their kids run wild. So that, can be child centered too. A kid is a kid is a good, but that doesn't mean they can hang from the rafters because it's just so creative that Timmy Joe thinks the Amazon jungle can be reproduced in Gap Kids.

Does that make sense? I need more coffee


----------



## nextcommercial (Nov 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *North_Of_60* 
Hmm.. I hope I answer this the right way, but the way I see it is like this. I don't think we're intentionally trying _not_ to be child centered. But children don't get free passes just for being children in some circumstances. If that makes sense.

For instance, if the whole family is at the dinner table and my daughter tries to interrupt and speak, she has to wait her turn and politely say "excuse me" just like anyone else would. I know many families who will stop speaking and allow the child to talk because "they're just a child". Our conundrum is at what age do you stop "treating them like a child" and start expecting manners of someone older and more mature? So in our house, she is learning at an early age how to interact in socially acceptable ways.

That is not to say that we're not accepting of age appropriate behavior, because we certainly are! But we're also not forgoing the teachings of what she will eventually be expected to do as a respectful adult "because she's just a child".

I think in many ways this makes us not child centered, and certainly not consentual, because we understand that children are not adults, won't behave like adults, won't have the reasoning, comprehension, and decision making skills that adults have, and that guiding them through the lack of these skills means they won't be center of the universe all of the time. Like the dinner table example.

This is exactly what I would say too.

I had a friend who was a single mom. She was very child centered, and since she only had one child, it was just natural for her to be that way.

BUT, in social situations, her son was very hard to want to be around. He felt like he should have anything an adult would have. If we went anywhere in their car, HE sat in the front seat and took over the radio. (loud enough that nobody else could talk) and the adults had to sit in the back seat.

At five, he was parking the car in the garage. (seriously at FIVE) because he wanted to, so she taught him to park the car. He'd back it out, pull it in, back it out, pull it in.

He made almost ALL of the decisions in the family. From where they ate for dinner, to where they went on vacation. It was never up for discussion. What he wanted was what they did.

He was allowed to hit, push or do whatever it took to get to the top. He was kicked off the school bus (forever) he was kicked out of two daycare centers and the after school care for agression. HE COULD have controlled himself. But, it was not only acceptable to her, it was almost encouraged. She always said "what did Bobby to to make my son angry?". It was always justified.

Now he's 17. He's a pretty good young man. He's a good decision maker, he's big and strong, and still always gets his way. He will be very successful in whatever career he chooses. But, his mom is still alone, and wishes she wasn't. She wanted to get married, or even have some great friends. But, nobody wants to be around her son, so she's alone..... he's out with his friends every night or busy at school.


----------



## Llyra (Jan 16, 2005)

You've seen this?

http://www.continuum-concept.org/rea...InControl.html


----------



## cappuccinosmom (Dec 28, 2003)

Quote:

That is not to say that we're not accepting of age appropriate behavior, because we certainly are! But we're also not forgoing the teachings of what she will eventually be expected to do as a respectful adult "because she's just a child".

I think in many ways this makes us not child centered, and certainly not consentual, because we understand that children are not adults, won't behave like adults, won't have the reasoning, comprehension, and decision making skills that adults have, and that guiding them through the lack of these skills means they won't be center of the universe all of the time. Like the dinner table example.
This is us, too.

We are not "child centered". Family-centered maybe. God-centered, definitely. Other-centered, working on it.









In a way, the way we do things is for the benefit of our children and their good is central to our family style, but it is a long-term benefit. We don't believe that meeting their every want and desire, making them the center of our universe, dropping everything to please their momentary "I want", is good for them. We don't feel that we need to entertain and delight them 24/7.


----------



## AFWife (Aug 30, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nextcommercial* 
This is exactly what I would say too.

I had a friend who was a single mom. She was very child centered, and since she only had one child, it was just natural for her to be that way.

BUT, in social situations, her son was very hard to want to be around. He felt like he should have anything an adult would have. If we went anywhere in their car, HE sat in the front seat and took over the radio. (loud enough that nobody else could talk) and the adults had to sit in the back seat.

At five, he was parking the car in the garage. (seriously at FIVE) because he wanted to, so she taught him to park the car. He'd back it out, pull it in, back it out, pull it in.

He made almost ALL of the decisions in the family. From where they ate for dinner, to where they went on vacation. It was never up for discussion. What he wanted was what they did.

He was allowed to hit, push or do whatever it took to get to the top. He was kicked off the school bus (forever) he was kicked out of two daycare centers and the after school care for agression. HE COULD have controlled himself. But, it was not only acceptable to her, it was almost encouraged. She always said "what did Bobby to to make my son angry?". It was always justified.

Now he's 17. He's a pretty good young man. He's a good decision maker, he's big and strong, and still always gets his way. He will be very successful in whatever career he chooses. But, his mom is still alone, and wishes she wasn't. She wanted to get married, or even have some great friends. But, nobody wants to be around her son, so she's alone..... he's out with his friends every night or busy at school.

I knew a family like this. The kids got EVERYTHING they wanted, even when their parents couldn't afford it. The family was in horrible debt but the kids had 4-wheelers, dirt bikes, a huge house, a huge TV, etc... The kids ran that house. They made all the choices and ran all over their parents.
The daughter (the oldest) still hasn't gotten past that...and she's 24 or so now. She's still living with family without helping that family, has no job and isnt' looking, and has a child of her own...The boys (3 of them) are apparently really good kids now.


----------



## dantesmama (May 14, 2006)

Interesting thread.









We are not a child-centered family. DP and I are the backbone of our family; we are the authority figures, we set the limits; we provide for our children, teach them, and model responsible behavior. Ultimately we have the final say in decisions, although our kids' wants are absolutely taken into consideration. I don't believe it's my job to make or keep my kids happy - I give them the tools and a safe, secure, loving environment. But you will never see me doing that "dance" around my children, offering them this, bribing them with that, begging, pleading, reasoning til I'm blue in the face, trying anything just to make them happy. I don't need to ensure my kids' happiness 24/7. I see parents doing that all the time, and it's ugly.

I also don't wait on my kids. They're only 2 and 4, but I teach them age-appropriate responsibility. They are responsible for keeping their room clean, picking up after themselves (toys, clothes, clearing the table), and helping with some housework (mostly the 4yo there).

The biggie - being polite and respectful of other people. I have a friend who will drop everything when one of her kids wants something, and I *hate* talking to her on the phone because half of the time she's stopping in mid-sentence (or cutting me off) to talk to one of her kids or to get them something, and it's just incredibly rude. They do that when we get together, too. If I'm on the phone, I give my kids a heads-up and they know to keep quiet unless something's wrong. In stores or other public places, I expect them to walk and keep the noise to a reasonable level. They need to say "please" and "thank you". They're children, and I don't expect them to behave like adults, of course; but I do expect them to behave as well as they're capable of. Just being kids doesn't give them the excuse to run wild whenever and wherever they want. You don't learn things like patience and not-throwing-tantrums-in-the-grocery-store-just-because-you're-tired by being catered to and having excuses made for your behavior. I do not believe that expecting my kids to conform to societal standards of acceptable, considerate behavior will quash their self-esteem, curiosity, or individuality. They are very happy kids despite not being permitted to play cave beneath restaurant tables!


----------



## dantesmama (May 14, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *cappuccinosmom* 
This is us, too.

We are not "child centered". Family-centered maybe. God-centered, definitely. Other-centered, working on it.









In a way, the way we do things is for the benefit of our children and their good is central to our family style, but it is a long-term benefit. We don't believe that meeting their every want and desire, making them the center of our universe, dropping everything to please their momentary "I want", is good for them. We don't feel that we need to entertain and delight them 24/7.

Yes, this.


----------



## North_Of_60 (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dantesmama* 
I do not believe that expecting my kids to conform to societal standards of acceptable, considerate behavior will quash their self-esteem, curiosity, or individuality. They are very happy kids despite not being permitted to play cave beneath restaurant tables!

Yes!!









And as for the poster above who talked about adults and parents following their own passions and interest, I agree 100% with that as well. It makes me very sad for parents, mothers especially, who feel so bound by their children that they can't even go grocery shopping alone without being riddled with guilt. More so, I worry about how the children in situations like that will learn the importance of relationships - both creating them and maintaining them - if a mother feels so guilty for leaving her children for an hour with a non-parental family member or friend. If the parent is not capable of fostering a trusting relationship, how will the children be capable of fostering trusting relationships?

Plus there's the issue of children watching their caregivers act in selfless ways so much so that they either expect it, or end up completely devoted to _other_ people themselves. I want my daughter to learn to say no, when to say no, and how to say no, and the only way I can do that is to model it myself and allow her to experience what it's like to be said no _to_. By the very definition of that we are not child centered.


----------



## loraxc (Aug 14, 2003)

I have one challenging child and one easy one. It's been harder not to be child-centered with the challenging one! But for me, anyway, a big part of this is allowing children to learn to play by themselves. This is not to say I never sit down and play with my kids (although this is less common now that I have two), but I do try to "fade out" a lot. If they aren't asking for me, I will certainly happily ignore them for a while.







We spend a ton of time in the yard, and usually I am working on the garden or something and the two kids are just wandering around doing their own thing. I have noticed that other moms hang much closer to their kids, even in their own houses/yards, and spend more time asking them if they need things, starting activities for them, etc.

I also am not shy about saying no when they ask me for something (nonessential) but I'm in the middle of something else. They learn to wait. They don't always like it. They also come with us on outings even when they don't particularly feel like it. We talk a lot about the family's needs as a whole and the family team.


----------



## mamadebug (Dec 28, 2006)

Interesting thread. I must have a very different definition of "child centered", I think! The families described in some of the posts above don't sound "child centered" to me, they sound more like families without boundaries. Letting a child run around wild in a store or letting a 5 year old park the car (!) or letting a child interrupt a conversation isn't "child centered" at all in my opinion - it's families letting kids behave in a way that is without boundaries. It doesn't meet the needs of anyone - child included - nor does it help them learn to get along in the world.

My understanding of "child centered" has more to do with meeting the needs of the child (real needs - not the "need" to be destructive or rude), recognizing the child's individuality, recognizing that a child is not a miniature adult and responding to that appropriately. In practical terms, it means meeting a child's need for sleep (and not dragging around a kid who clearly needs a nap or to go to bed), making sure a child has plenty of opportunity for movement and exercise, respecting their emotional needs and not putting them in situations that are overwhelming or inappropriate for their age (like taking a 5 year old to a movie intended for adults in a movie theater at 8:00 PM and then getting mad when they start getting restless), etc.


----------



## Krystal323 (May 14, 2004)

this is an interesting thread, and a constant struggle for me









I grew up exactly like every worst description of "child-centered" in this thread! My parents were older, and I'm the only child. I *did* play cave under restaurant tables, interrupt adult conversations, pitch horrible fits if we didn't do whatever i wanted, the whole nine yards.

I think, at age 28, I'm mostly over the ill effects







but this colors my parenting in ways, and sometimes I'm not even aware of it. DH points out that I let the kids disrespect me and each other, or that I'm trying too hard or going out of my way to please them, and we both logicaly recognize that that's not good. However, it's like I get stressed out or distracted, and revert to parenting in the way that I was parented









I also never helped out in the least, and so when the kids complain about doing chores or helping out, I am all too easily convinced that I'm too hard on them, mean, demanding, or whatever.


----------



## Krystal323 (May 14, 2004)

Quote:

I have one challenging child and one easy one. It's been harder not to be child-centered with the challenging one!
YES! My 2nd child is the "spirited" one, and she certainly ran all over me and everyone else when she was smaller, for lack of my ability to deal w/the ensuing tantrums if I didn't let her







:

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamadebug* 
Interesting thread. I must have a very different definition of "child centered", I think! The families described in some of the posts above ... [are] letting kids behave in a way that is without boundaries. It doesn't meet the needs of anyone - child included - nor does it help them learn to get along in the world.

My understanding of "child centered" has more to do with meeting the needs of the child ... In practical terms, it means meeting a child's need for sleep (and not *dragging around a kid who clearly needs a nap or to go to bed*), making sure a child has plenty of opportunity for movement and exercise, respecting their emotional needs and not putting them in situations that are overwhelming or inappropriate for their age (like *taking a 5 year old to a movie intended for adults in a movie theater at 8:00 PM and then getting mad when they start getting restless*), etc.

You make a good point--needs of the family/everyone being met v. "needs" of the child to do whatever they please...that's a good way to think about it.

I know people who do things like what I bolded above, only they consider it "respecting the child as an adult" or something. To me that is going to the other extreme of disregarding the legit needs of the child, and that's not teaching them how to behave or cope in the world either..


----------



## paxye (Mar 31, 2005)

I seem to have a different view of it too...

For me "Child Centered" is about the family working around the child instead of working as a whole. Parents that spend their day playing on the floor and neglecting themselves, bringing their kids to swim class and soccer and ballet and gym and always needing to entertain the kids.... It is when kids are not able to entertain themselves because they are have never needed to. It is having nap times and quiet times and play dates and bedtimes and separating the children from the parents and family unit.

We follow a lot of the ideals in the Continuum Concept. In our home, parents are the guides, we are not dictators, kids don't always get what they want but we don't say no all the time either. Though there are times that I sit down and play, it is rare, but they are always invited to join in the things that I am doing. My kids don't have chores, or a chore list but they do help around the house because they know it is part of family life. They learn to cook and prep food (yes even cutting food) early on... they come and watch me sew, we search for things together on the Internet, they play by themselves etc...

With an infant, to many it might seem "child centred" to breastfeed, co-sleep, babywear pretty much all the time etc... But for me it is just a way to go about my normal routine and take care of the baby without taking care of the baby... I don't need to entertain or having something to occupy the baby to get things done, I don't need any of the gear etc because baby just becomes an extension of me...

I also see in these posts that many people think that the opposite of child-centred needs to be parent-centred and I don't agree with that either...


----------



## North_Of_60 (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamadebug* 
My understanding of "child centered" has more to do with meeting the needs of the child (real needs - not the "need" to be destructive or rude), recognizing the child's individuality, recognizing that a child is not a miniature adult and responding to that appropriately. In practical terms, it means meeting a child's need for sleep (and not dragging around a kid who clearly needs a nap or to go to bed), making sure a child has plenty of opportunity for movement and exercise, respecting their emotional needs and not putting them in situations that are overwhelming or inappropriate for their age (like taking a 5 year old to a movie intended for adults in a movie theater at 8:00 PM and then getting mad when they start getting restless), etc.

If I'm understanding this right, your basic definition of child centered would be to meet basic needs, like the need to sleep as opposed to staying out late with parents who aren't ready to go home? If this is correct, what's your opinion on being NOT child centered?


----------



## bluedaisy (Sep 5, 2008)

Thanks for all the great responses!

I can clarify a little what i mean about being "child centered".

In the other culture I lived in that was NOT child centered, kids would normally amuse themselves with very few toys, not interrupt adult conversations, were not demanding or sassy, and I never saw a tantrum there (not saying there were never any tantrums, but definitely fewer than here, and a public tantrum would have been very out of place). the children were also very respectful.

I realize some of these things might be more cultural, but when I observe my extended family some of the "child centered" behavior I saw was:

- asking a 3 year old where she wanted to sit for thanksgiving, and then taking 15 minutes to try and figure out how to arrange all the kids and adults so that she could sit where she wanted.

- asking a toddler what they want for lunch instead of having them eat what everyone else is eating

- kids who pick the music every time they are in the car - so it's always children's cds playing and never adult music

- adults not being able to have any kind of meaningful conversation when the kids are awake because the kids are the center of attention and always interrupting

- when my mom comes to babysit my one year old daughter she feels like she has to play with her and entertain her constantly, and hovers so that she doesn't do things like walk with the cordless phone in case she trips and the antennae pokes her eye out

to me, this kind of behavior would encourage kids that they should always be the center of attention and always get what they want - which is not messages i want my dd to get.

i'm asking for examples because i realized my own family is so child centered and i really want to do things differently with my dd, but i'm not really sure what to do practically

ETA: I don't think the opposite of child centered is being parent centered, but maybe being family centered - where there is a balance of everyone's needs and children learn that other people's desires and opinions matter so they won't always get their way

i don't think the parent's needs should always trump those of the kids, just as the kids needs should not always trump those of the parents or siblings


----------



## loraxc (Aug 14, 2003)

Quote:

Parents that spend their day playing on the floor and neglecting themselves, bringing their kids to swim class and soccer and ballet and gym and always needing to entertain the kids.... It is when kids are not able to entertain themselves because they are have never needed to.
See, I'm with you here.

Quote:

It is having nap times and quiet times and play dates and bedtimes and separating the children from the parents and family unit.
And I am totally not with you here!







For me, my kids having nap times and bedtimes and quiet times is alllll about not being overly child-centered/child-indulgent.

Quote:

I realize some of these things might be more cultural, but when I observe my extended family some of the "child centered" behavior I saw was:

- asking a 3 year old where she wanted to sit for thanksgiving, and then taking 15 minutes to try and figure out how to arrange all the kids and adults so that she could sit where she wanted.

- asking a toddler what they want for lunch instead of having them eat what everyone else is eating

- kids who pick the music every time they are in the car - so it's always children's cds playing and never adult music

- adults not being able to have any kind of meaningful conversation when the kids are awake because the kids are the center of attention and always interrupting

- when my mom comes to babysit my one year old daughter she feels like she has to play with her and entertain her constantly, and hovers so that she doesn't do things like walk with the cordless phone in case she trips and the antennae pokes her eye out
I agree with you--to me, these are examples of being overly child-centered.


----------



## griffin2004 (Sep 25, 2003)

I'm a solo mom with 1 child, so our dynamic is a little different. We are not child-centered but more family-centered.

To me, family-centered means recognizing the needs, desires, responsibilities, and abilities of every family member. Fulfilling each member to the extent possible. Supporting each other in age/role appropriate ways.

It means recognizing the validity of adult time and adult space. I've read it here so often that someone "wouldn't go where kids weren't welcome" or that they haven't spent 1 minute apart from their children in 15 years. To each her own, but adult interaction without children does not devalue children. It's not a zero-sum game.

It means guiding children in their learning how to live in the world, be friends, make friends, recognizing that there are million of people and things happening outside their little sphere, exploring the great big wonderful world, and to have a humility about their place in the "grand scheme."

I don't think that a myopic child-centeredness does the child, the parents, or the family unit any good.


----------



## Holiztic (Oct 10, 2005)

We are working through this everyday!

I think it was a lot easier to be NOT child-centered when most people lived in multi-family homes (Grandparents, aunts, uncles, etc) AND when there was house-work going on all day (cooking, cleaning, mending, wood-working, farming/gardening, etc).

I notice when I am my most busy with housework, my DS is best at entertaining himself and not demanding this and that. But when I am tired or sick (like now) and need to rest, he becomes very whiny and demanding. I imagine in a multi-generational house even when some were sick others were still busy and the kids didn't feel the "change" in energy so much.


----------



## paxye (Mar 31, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bluedaisy* 
Thanks for all the great responses!

I can clarify a little what i mean about being "child centered".


I think that all those examples are child-centred and I avoid those also...

_- asking a toddler what they want for lunch instead of having them eat what everyone else is eating_

I will often ask my kids what they feel like eating for lunch but before I make it and they also help make the meal plan every week... I don't force anyone to eat anything though, so if they don't want to eat what we are eating then they are usually old enough and capable enough to make an alternative for themselves.

_- kids who pick the music every time they are in the car - so it's always children's cds playing and never adult music
_

My kids don't know many kids songs unless they are on my playlist... they like the music they have been exposed to which is the music we like.

_
- adults not being able to have any kind of meaningful conversation when the kids are awake because the kids are the center of attention and always interrupting
_

I think there needs to be a balance. Sometimes what kids interrupt for is meaningful to them. So if I am having a conversation and one of my kids really wants to tell me something, I will ask them to wait a second for a natural pause in my conversation, take a minute to listen and then I will explain that I would like to finish this conversation now.

_
- when my mom comes to babysit my one year old daughter she feels like she has to play with her and entertain her constantly, and hovers so that she doesn't do things like walk with the cordless phone in case she trips and the antennae pokes her eye out
_

yeah... situations like that drive me crazy, my MIL is the same... Her reaction to things makes situations so much worse also (like screaming out and running to them when one of the kids falls... they were completely fine cry solely because her reaction makes them cry or be scared...


----------



## paxye (Mar 31, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *loraxc* 
And I am totally not with you here!







For me, my kids having nap times and bedtimes and quiet times is alllll about not being overly child-centered/child-indulgent.

What I meant is that some parents put their whole life on hold because of nap-time, or bedtime etc... they can't go out, they can't make plans at a certain hour, they can't have the phone ring, they can't do things around the house etc...

Life stops because of a sleep schedule...


----------



## North_Of_60 (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *paxye* 
We follow a lot of the ideals in the Continuum Concept. In our home, parents are the guides, we are not dictators, kids don't always get what they want but we don't say no all the time either. Though there are times that I sit down and play, it is rare, but they are always invited to join in the things that I am doing. My kids don't have chores, or a chore list but they do help around the house because they know it is part of family life. They learn to cook and prep food (yes even cutting food) early on... they come and watch me sew, we search for things together on the Internet, they play by themselves etc...

I think the CC has a lot of useful insights, such as the attributes you described. But I also think it's a slippery slope for older children who aren't living in a primitive society, as compared to in the book. The general idea that being child centered is by in fact placing your child in the center of your daily orbit, for example by not holding your baby and having to _entertain_ the baby instead of wearing them while continuing to do dishes, I agree with.

By expecting young children and babies to be "independent" through our fear of spoiling them, we've become very child centered by virtue of having to meet needs spawned of premature independence. I agree.

However, we're not a primitive society that has the luxury of existing off the mutual respect that a small close knit community can. It basically implies that we should, and can, live a peaceful existence based on the honor system. And while I WISH that were true, it's an unrealistic expectation at the very least. Comparing us, a "village" of 300 million, to a jungle tribe is overly simplistic to say the least. I think children need more structure in order to participate in what our society already is.

I do apply CC insights to our home life. And I think it has some worthy ideas that are needlessly lacking from our society regardless of size, like mutual respect etc, but taking it further than anecdotal observations of a primitive tribe, which is all it really is, and trying to apply it to something that is vastly different (like a "village of 300 million), is a recipe for disaster. (I think.)


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

I'm more child-centred in some ways than I'd like to be, however, this:

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bluedaisy* 
- adults not being able to have any kind of meaningful conversation when the kids are awake because the kids are the center of attention and always interrupting

kind of made me laugh.

DH and I teach our kids not to interrupt, and not to bother people while they're on the phone, etc. We still can't have a meaningful conversation while the kids are awake. It's not because they're "allowed" to interrupt. It's because they _do_ interrupt. If we put them off, with "I'm talking to daddy - you'll have to wait" or whatever, they just come back. DD1 is bad. DS2 is worse.

For various reasons, I was more likely to immediately accommodate ds1 than my later children, and more inclined to let him do whatever he wanted. Except in one or two specific areas (he was constantly hiding from us in stores, and did "play cave" in restaurants...although I have absolutely no problem with that, anyway - it makes me smile when I see other kids doing it), he was _light years_ easier to cope with than dd1 and ds2. He didn't interrupt. He waited his turn. He accepted what was on the table, etc. These two? Whooooole other ballgame. I'm not all that child-centred, but I am all that tired.


----------



## Kelly1101 (Oct 9, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *North_Of_60* 
Hmm.. I hope I answer this the right way, but the way I see it is like this. I don't think we're intentionally trying _not_ to be child centered. But children don't get free passes just for being children in some circumstances. If that makes sense.

For instance, if the whole family is at the dinner table and my daughter tries to interrupt and speak, she has to wait her turn and politely say "excuse me" just like anyone else would. I know many families who will stop speaking and allow the child to talk because "they're just a child". Our conundrum is at what age do you stop "treating them like a child" and start expecting manners of someone older and more mature? So in our house, she is learning at an early age how to interact in socially acceptable ways.

That is not to say that we're not accepting of age appropriate behavior, because we certainly are! But we're also not forgoing the teachings of what she will eventually be expected to do as a respectful adult "because she's just a child".

I think in many ways this makes us not child centered, and certainly not consentual, because we understand that children are not adults, won't behave like adults, won't have the reasoning, comprehension, and decision making skills that adults have, and that guiding them through the lack of these skills means they won't be center of the universe all of the time. Like the dinner table example.

Great post, well put.

Our only child is still just a baby (7 months), but I plan to be pretty much like this post. It's how I was raised, with lots of love but also lots of expectation to behave myself. I think my mom summed it up best with "you have to give respect to get respect." And that was how she always acted HERSELF, too, which was the really effective part-- she never let us run all over her or "rule the house," ("this is not a democracy, honey"), but she always treated us with respect as human beings (never dismissing our feelings out of hand, never humiliating us in front of others, and ALSO holding us responsible for our behavior-- not excusing for being "just a kid").

I think in these types of situations, as in most things, it's finding a middle ground. You don't IGNORE the kids and make them secondary in your life. But you also don't let them rule the house.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bluedaisy* 
ETA: I don't think the opposite of child centered is being parent centered, but maybe being family centered - where there is a balance of everyone's needs and children learn that other people's desires and opinions matter so they won't always get their way

I think the opposite of child-centred is parent-centred. I think the middle point is family-centred, and that's what I strive (fairly unsuccessfully) for.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Holiztic* 
I notice when I am my most busy with housework, my DS is best at entertaining himself and not demanding this and that.

OMG...how did you do that? I'd _love_ to have them back off when I'm doing housework. As soon as I put my hands in dish water, one of the kids is in my face, asking for something - not every time, but easily 9 times out of 10. If I get out the vacuum, ds2 will entertain himself - but it usually involves painting the counter (or carpet - ugh!) with toothpaste or something similar. If I'm clearing the table, they're asking for stuff. The _only_ household task I can usually get done without being harassed is laundry, and only because they're happy to help me transfer stuff to the dryer.

I've completely given up on trying to rest when I'm tired or sick (like now). I just end up _more_ frustrated, stressed and exhausted, because as soon as I get settled, ds2 is in my face. I can't wait until I can shoo him outside to play, without having to worry about him running in front of the garbage truck, breaking someone's toys or hitting/kicking other kids.


----------



## zippy_francis (Jan 9, 2008)

I agree, our family dynamic is probably not considered 'child-centered'. But I don't honestly think we have to try very hard to do that. We look at ours as a family centered environment. Our DD's will learn manners and respect. It is just a fact of life, that was the way we were raised and that is how I want to raise my kids. DD1 is 2 and she says 'please', 'thank you', 'excuse me' and 'bless you' (when someone sneezes). Not necesarily because we force these upon her but she models how we act and of course if she wants something she needs to say please. We just won't tolerate anyone including a 2 year old demanding something. I believe that having children change your life and you have to make obvious adjustments to suit children. If you want to go to your favorite car show (we are car people in my family) you take stuff for the kiddos and you make sure that their is nothing inappropriate for children. You go and have fun, the kids experience something and the adults get to do something they enjoy. Parents can still have a life but in needs a little modification for the kiddos. Of course we believe in date night too. Kids go to babysitter (usually grandparents) and we get a night out for fun, adult conversation and a peacefull meal or something. My DH and I belive that we came first and we need to maintain our relationship and our individuality in order to be better people and parents. Because at the end of the day our children will be out living their own life and we still need something to talk about and do when the house is empty.

The examples I have seen where people are 'child-centered' are letting them run amuck because 'their kids'. In restaurants or stores literally acting like maniacs.

Disrespect and no manners

People who cannot let their kids just be. Helicopter parents is what I have heard them called. Where if there is a little bump or fall they RUSH over like they have broken a bone.

Parents who let their kids just trash their house, car or room. I have seen some disasters where kids just destroy their things or others things. I realize a 2 year old is going to try and break stuff, draw on the wall or throw things. I reprimand and try to prevent that from happening in the first place at my house. (like we dont just give her crayons and say go for it! we sit a designated spot pull out a few colors at a time and I usually color with her) My house and car are things that I plan on having for a long time and I dont want them destroyed because my 2 yr old who thought it would be fun to drink apple juice in the living room and ruin my furniture by dumping it. (sippy cups are NOT spill proof!)

It is ok to let kids be kids but when they can do or say or get anything they want at anytime, in my opinion that leads to disaster.


----------



## sisteeesmama (Oct 24, 2008)

I was hoping to get more from this thread, but for some reason none of the explanations have hit the nail on the head for me.

I am more recently considering these issues as dd is just now 2 and up until now I was more in the "mothering-a-baby-mode". Now that she is much more able to understand me and also to listen to me when I tell no I have been trying to figure out the balance.

I don't want to let her run the house but one of my best parent/coping mechanisms is ignoring behavior I don't like. Of course that would never include ignoring hitting or coloring on the carpet or yelling at people or the list could go on.....

I am easy going about schedules but we do maintain a loose day to day schedule because dd thrives with that kind of order. Is that child-centered?

I do not make seperate meals for dd, we all the same meal, but in the morning I do ask for her input on breakfast and usually cook what she requests for the both of us. I also will make her a snack well after dinner if she didn't like what we had and there fore didn't get enough to eat. Is that child-centered?

I could go on and on, but I will stop for now!


----------



## loraxc (Aug 14, 2003)

Quote:

Our DD's will learn manners and respect. It is just a fact of life, that was the way we were raised and that is how I want to raise my kids. DD1 is 2 and she says 'please', 'thank you', 'excuse me' and 'bless you' (when someone sneezes). Not necesarily because we force these upon her but she models how we act and of course if she wants something she needs to say please.
OT, but:

I have two kids. One of them (she has always been quirky) did not pick up social graces till at least 4 1/2 (and even now she is shaky) and had to be reminded and reminded over and over again. The other is not even 2 and has picked up all of your examples effortlessly.

Kids vary. Just reminding folks that a child who doesn't immediately pipe up with "thank you" does not have good manners modeled at home.


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

I don't consider myself to be child centered, however I think being 2 is a perfectly good excuse for behaving like a 2-year-old. I don't, however, take my 2-year-old where it is inappropriate to behave like a 2-year-old. So my dd didn't go to movies at that age. She couldn't sit still and going to movies means sitting still.

My dd did have tantrums at 2, serious tantrums, and I didn't expect her not to have tantrums because they're normal for 2-year-olds, but I would move her so she wouldn't disturb "innocent bystanders".

As for your examples:

I would probably just tell a 3-year-old where to sit, but I would assume she wanted to sit by me, so I would take her needs into consideration ahead of time. If she wanted to sit elsewhere, I'd try to work with her, but I wouldn't make everyone else wait 15 minutes for dinner over it. We'd have to be able to find a solution faster. I can't imagine how it could take 15 minutes, honestly. "Do you want to sit by me, or by your cousin Annabelle?"

I generally just put food in front of my dd when she was 2 and she'd eat it, but again I took her likes/dislikes into account. I don't recall serving her something different generally, but there are a few things she didn't like, and if were were having one of those things I'd automatically get something else for her.

We take turns in the car, or try to find music we both like.

I've asked dd not to interrupt when I'm talking to other people. Kids have a hard time not interrupting, and they can't be expected to just know that. It takes time and patience. It isn't something to get upset or think the kids are bad if they are having trouble with that.

I do not feel it is my job to entertain my children. I have never felt that is my job. I make sure we have fun things around for them to do, and I let them have fun. I do interact with them, but generally it's with them helping me rather than me playing with them. I do read to them a lot.

I think kids' needs should be considered, just as I'd consider the needs of other adults and myself. And they have more needs, depending on how young and helpless they are. But there is a bigger world out there than them.


----------



## EnviroBecca (Jun 5, 2002)

I follow my parents' basic attitude: "We are all people together. We are the same in some ways and different in other ways. Experienced people help newer people learn how to do things." Nobody's the center.

About schedules, naps, etc.: Part of respecting a PERSON is respecting her needs and helping her fill them when she cannot fill them herself. Every member of the family deserves this respect. My partner needs more sleep than I do and is more sensitive to disruptions in sleep, so I do most of the middle-of-the-night and early-morning parenting to help him get the sleep he needs. That doesn't mean our family is Daddy-centered. I am prone to sudden hunger that makes me light-headed and panicky, so my partner has dinner on the table when I come home from work







and the kid has to accept that I sit down to eat immediately even if he wants me to play with him now. That doesn't mean our family is Mama-centered. Similarly, understanding that your child needs a certain amount of sleep or needs to nap at a certain time doesn't make you child-centered; you're just respecting her individual needs.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *loraxc* 
OT, but:

I have two kids. One of them (she has always been quirky) did not pick up social graces till at least 4 1/2 (and even now she is shaky) and had to be reminded and reminded over and over again. The other is not even 2 and has picked up all of your examples effortlessly.

Kids vary. Just reminding folks that a child who doesn't immediately pipe up with "thank you" does not have good manners modeled at home.

This. Oh, man...this. DD1 is 6.5. She's only _just_ starting to say "please" and "thank you". I have no idea why, but she treated those phrases like poison. Any hint that one of them might be in order could provoke sulking, withdrawal, anger, etc. It was wild. DS2? He picked up "please", "thank you", etc., just from modeling, by age 2. It's odd, because in other ways, dd1 is _far_ more respectful and considerate of others than ds2 is. She just has a real problem with the phrases and stuff. (Mind you, I don't put as much importance on the words as many people do, either. DH does, though.)


----------



## journeymom (Apr 2, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride* 
I'm more child-centred in some ways than I'd like to be, however, this:

kind of made me laugh.

DH and I teach our kids not to interrupt, and not to bother people while they're on the phone, etc. We still can't have a meaningful conversation while the kids are awake. *It's not because they're "allowed" to interrupt. It's because they do interrupt.* If we put them off, with "I'm talking to daddy - you'll have to wait" or whatever, they just come back. DD1 is bad. DS2 is worse.

For various reasons, I was more likely to immediately accommodate ds1 than my later children, and more inclined to let him do whatever he wanted. Except in one or two specific areas (he was constantly hiding from us in stores, and did "play cave" in restaurants...although I have absolutely no problem with that, anyway - it makes me smile when I see other kids doing it), he was _light years_ easier to cope with than dd1 and ds2. He didn't interrupt. He waited his turn. He accepted what was on the table, etc. These two? Whooooole other ballgame. *I'm not all that child-centred, but I am all that tired.*


----------



## Straggletag (Dec 4, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Holiztic* 
I think it was a lot easier to be NOT child-centered when most people lived in multi-family homes (Grandparents, aunts, uncles, etc) AND when there was house-work going on all day (cooking, cleaning, mending, wood-working, farming/gardening, etc).

This. We're always happiest when we're the most active with apparent housework. The downside is that our work involves a lot of time on the computer, and the little ones don't view computer work the same as housework. We try setting boundaries, and when we're consistent, it works.

As far as being family-centered versus child-centered, I think we are, but we do do most everything as a unit because that's how life sorted itself out. I haven't been away from my firstborn in three years. There hasn't been a call to.


----------



## journeymom (Apr 2, 2002)

I just hope that the 'child centered' parents can be a little understanding and forgiving if not every one else wants to live a child centered life, with their own child at the center.


----------



## funkymamajoy (May 25, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *paxye* 
What I meant is that some parents put their whole life on hold because of nap-time, or bedtime etc... they can't go out, they can't make plans at a certain hour, they can't have the phone ring, they can't do things around the house etc...

Life stops because of a sleep schedule...

With my high-needs child, that's just the way it had to be. It greatly benefited the family if he got his nap and bedtimes on time. He is growing out of it now, at 4.

We're working on the interupting and tantrums.


----------



## One_Girl (Feb 8, 2008)

I agree that parents need to be careful I about not meeting their own needs and desires, but I think that there needs to be a balance. I think that it is wonderful for a grandparent to want to spend their time interacting in meaningful ways with their grandchild and hovering so an infant with almost no impulse control stays out of danger. I don't think it is child-centered to respect a child's wish to sit in a certain place or eat a certain type of food. I think that is respecting their wish to not eat disgusting food and be around annoying people. I don't invite friends over and not ask them about their food preferences because that is rude and I wouldn't treat my own child worse than I would my friends. My dd's feelings, wants, and needs are much more important to me than someone else's because she is younger and I love her more than I love anyone else. As for interupting, it is important to look at it from the child's point of view to. If you are constantly talking and shutting them out of the conversation or ignoring them then they have to find a way to get the attention they need and that way tends to be interupting. Would you enjoy living with people who ignored you and considered your right to talk and contribute to a conversation to be in their power, I certainly wouldn't and I know my talkative/social dd couldn't thrive in that kind of situation.

I also think that it is important to think about what the discipline practices are like in countries where no child would dare to voice their disappointment. There is a danger of being to adult centered, shutting your child out of your life too much, shutting your child down to much, and being too selfish. I think there needs to be a balance and going to the extreme of thinking that interacting with a child and keeping them safe is going to make them selfish is not anywhere near the balancing point in our family.

When your child is young there are many things you think your family will never do and you are sure that you are totally, 101% correct. I encourage you to be careful about not connecting enough with your daughter though. If your daughter feels respected and sees respect she will learn to be a respectful and considerate person. If your daughter feels shut out and experiences disrespect she will model that right back to you by interupting you if she thinks you interupt her and ignoring your needs and desires just as you ignore hers. Kids model what they see and I believe that many kids in our society actually don't see the child-centered things that some people believe they see. They see their parents shutting them out and shutting them down, they have to wait and wait for a turn to talk, and parents laugh about how they hurt their kids and force them to eat disgusting food. That isn't child centered.


----------



## waiting2bemommy (Dec 2, 2007)

this is really interesting thread, because I think most people would *say* they are child centered, but in practice that means a lot of different things.

While I'm certainly aware of ds' needs and don't expect him to act like an adult, I also do not plan his life to include only child-centered activities. Ds goes everywhere with me and is pretty much expected to act right. I take him shopping, to the hair shop, to mixed-age gatherings/events; he has been to an open air concert, a couple pretty nice restaurants, on cleaning jobs, to job interviews and so forth. Most of the time he doesn't let me down.

My bf when we lived together would get down on the floor and actively play with ds for half an hour or so, and then get up to do something "adult" be that watching TV or cooking dinner or whatver and at that point he expected ds to entertain himself without pitching a fit, grabbing onto his legs, whining and crying. He felt like it was ridiculous that I could not even take a shower or close the bedroom door for 5 minutes to change clothes without an avalanche of tears and screaming. That would NEVER have flown in his house.

It's a cultural thing because in the culture he was raised in, the parents did not sit and do the quality time thing. The children just simply got carried along on whatever the parents were doing. For example, he grew up helping his mom sell tacos on the street, and I grew up cleaning houses along with my mother. While I am more likely to give in to ds' demands, I agree that it's better for children to be raised in the adult world.

A carefully constructed pseudo-world where everywhere the child is taken is geared towards chidlren (gymboree, playdates, preschool, mommy and me class, kids' music in the car, only super child friendly restaurants) is limiting, IMO. I think other cultures have it right when they toss their babies on their backs, grab their older children by the hand, and march them off along with them to work. Interacting in the real world is a much richer experience anyway.

I also think that the whole helicopter parenting thing (which is "child-centered" at its worst, most extreme form) takes away a child's ability to grow. Even tonight, I had to bite my tongue because my mother would not let my two year old feed himself chicken nuggets. He wasn't going to choke in any case with two capable adults sitting right next to him, but she still felt the need to cut each nugget into tiny pieces and pre-dip each piece in the sauce for him, then hand feed it to him. all he had to do was open his mouth. If he is walking and we have to be somewhere and he is taking his time, she feels that is unkind to tell him to hurry up. Everyone else on the sidewalk should adjust to his pace. I'm not talking about making him run to keep up, but just asking him to please WALK rather than meander. To me, that is child centered in a way that is not reaosnable or healthy for anyone.

sorry, this turned out to be a way long post, but it is something that see so many extremes of, working in childcare, and I think it is really interesting to see all the different opinions.


----------



## spottiew (Jan 24, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bluedaisy* 
I realize some of these things might be more cultural, but when I observe my extended family some of the "child centered" behavior I saw was:

- asking a toddler what they want for lunch instead of having them eat what everyone else is eating


i would ask an adult that too, tho... i would always give a choice for what people have to eat.

i actually think our culture is really NOT child centered... so many people that i see do put adults first, kids get what they get. i don't see so much revolving around kids, other than working around baby naps... i don't see the 'let's do what the kid says' at all, i see 'this is what we are doing now, period, you have to do what i say'.... which is just someting i don't do, i guess! (either example now that i think about- we try to be mutual)
i really try to give my kid what he needs- and that may be a class here and theere and some real play time with me. he is not happy playing on his own day in and out, that is just not him... i don't think it's anything that i have done, i think that's just what he needs right now (age 4) to be himself.


----------



## spottiew (Jan 24, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Holiztic* 
We are working through this everyday!

I think it was a lot easier to be NOT child-centered when most people lived in multi-family homes (Grandparents, aunts, uncles, etc) AND when there was house-work going on all day (cooking, cleaning, mending, wood-working, farming/gardening, etc).

I notice when I am my most busy with housework, my DS is best at entertaining himself and not demanding this and that. But when I am tired or sick (like now) and need to rest, he becomes very whiny and demanding. I imagine in a multi-generational house even when some were sick others were still busy and the kids didn't feel the "change" in energy so much.

see, im always stumped by the idea of just including my child in my 'daily routine'.. i don't HAVE a day of stuff to do at home EVERY day! so i can't imagine NOT doing some things for him- walk, park, etc. usually, if i take care of him first, he will settle down and let me have time. if i try to be first, he wll be upset until he gets the time that he needs. i really do see it as his NEED. he doesn't get what he needs (acitvity, attention) if he just lets me run the show, he has to be involved too. i guess some people think that can go too far, so it's all about balance.


----------



## Litcrit (Feb 23, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *paxye* 
I seem to have a different view of it too...

For me "Child Centered" is about the family working around the child instead of working as a whole. Parents that spend their day playing on the floor and neglecting themselves, bringing their kids to swim class and soccer and ballet and gym and always needing to entertain the kids.... It is when kids are not able to entertain themselves because they are have never needed to. It is having nap times and quiet times and play dates and bedtimes and separating the children from the parents and family unit.


I agree with everything you said.

In my view, the ideal is to have parents as guides working together towards the good of the family (going shopping, preparing lunch, cleaning, etc.) and kids getting included and helping out as much as possible - for them, it's fun. Kids following what adults do and find meaningful (including me reading and writing) instead of the other way around - parents constantly leading games and activities for kids and keeping them entertained while they quickly get something done.


----------



## flapjack (Mar 15, 2005)

I'm shocked by this thread because society as a whole is (or can be) so actively hostile towards children. The norm in most families is NOT to have a parent at home with the child every day, and when it is, there's sacrifices involved. Most families lives consist, still, of one or more parental jobs to pay the bills and finding someone to nurture the children in their absence, with a varying degree of formal experience, supervision and qualification. Our employers have a range of attitudes towards offering the flexibility needed to deal with family life, some STILL (despite everything) expecting their employees to do unpaid overtime and working 60-70 hours a week. We send them to school, which is chronically underfunded, to libraries to support their education which are frequently underfunded, and community facilities struggling to cope. We keep them in for fear of harm from traffic and strangers, and then when our children are old enough to leave the house by themselves they're treated with fear and suspicion by the other adults around them and judged harshly, because everyone knows that teenagers are criminals waiting to happen. Society is polarised into Disney crap and sophisticated adult life, especially for those on smaller incomes (look at the debate about children in restaurants), and now on top of all that parents get criticised for focussing time and attention on their children in their own homes?







: It's ridiculous. Not enough time is spent moulding our society to benefit ALL members of it, including children and the elderly, and the world would be a better place if it was.


----------



## Hoopin' Mama (Sep 9, 2004)

As a culture, no I don't think we are too child centered. There is a great Barbara Kingsolver essay about that, but I can't remember the name of it.

The situations the OP described, though, are too child-centered, but I think those are the exception, not the rule.


----------



## Hoopin' Mama (Sep 9, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *flapjack* 
I'm shocked by this thread because society as a whole is (or can be) so actively hostile towards children. The norm in most families is NOT to have a parent at home with the child every day, and when it is, there's sacrifices involved. Most families lives consist, still, of one or more parental jobs to pay the bills and finding someone to nurture the children in their absence, with a varying degree of formal experience, supervision and qualification. Our employers have a range of attitudes towards offering the flexibility needed to deal with family life, some STILL (despite everything) expecting their employees to do unpaid overtime and working 60-70 hours a week. We send them to school, which is chronically underfunded, to libraries to support their education which are frequently underfunded, and community facilities struggling to cope. We keep them in for fear of harm from traffic and strangers, and then when our children are old enough to leave the house by themselves they're treated with fear and suspicion by the other adults around them and judged harshly, because everyone knows that teenagers are criminals waiting to happen. Society is polarised into Disney crap and sophisticated adult life, especially for those on smaller incomes (look at the debate about children in restaurants), and now on top of all that parents get criticised for focussing time and attention on their children in their own homes?







: It's ridiculous. Not enough time is spent moulding our society to benefit ALL members of it, including children and the elderly, and the world would be a better place if it was.











Exactly. The essay I read, long before I became a parent, dealth with this. Basically, she talked about how different her young child was treated while living in another country. People didn't care if there was a child at a restaurant at 10pm. And how many countries have better policies in place to support raising children.

I believe that was the essay that ended with one of my fave quotes: Be careful what you give children, someday you are going to get it back.


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

There's an age where it just seems pointless to bring kids to restaurants. Like 18 months to 2-1/2 years or so. They just want to run around, and they see food all over and don't understand that they have to wait for theirs. I find it too stressful and would rather have take-out.


----------



## Kelly1101 (Oct 9, 2008)

I don't think it's so much a case of not focusing on your children, as it is about not giving them any guidance/discipline and letting them control the entire family without regard to other family members.

And no, I don't think it's an "epidemic" or anything like that, but I DO know people like that.

However, I don't think it quite counts with very young children-- an infant kind of NEEDS for things to be centered around her for a while, because she is too young to learn manners. I mean, obviously if your baby is sleeping, you're not going to wake her up to go to the store, you wait until she's up and THEN go to the store.


----------



## The4OfUs (May 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *loraxc* 
I have two kids. One of them (she has always been quirky) did not pick up social graces till at least 4 1/2 (and even now she is shaky) and had to be reminded and reminded over and over again. The other is not even 2 and has picked up all of your examples effortlessly.

Kids vary. Just reminding folks that a child who doesn't immediately pipe up with "thank you" does not have good manners modeled at home.

Yep - DS1, picked all that up by 2 with modeling. DD is 3-1/2 and still needs reminded at least 50% of the time, even though it's modeled the same way for her as it was for him.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *paxye* 
What I meant is that some parents put their whole life on hold because of nap-time, or bedtime etc... they can't go out, they can't make plans at a certain hour, they can't have the phone ring, they can't do things around the house etc...

Life stops because of a sleep schedule...

I have to disagree with this, in and of itself, being a negative thing. Depending on the child, sometimes they don't just adapt and sleep wherever, and it's nothing the parent did or didn't do. It's just the way they are, and the kindest thing for everyone involved (including the people out in public who won't have to deal with a sleep deprived, melting down toddler or preschooler) was to be home for naptime and bedtime, and make sure it happened every time. Sure it was a drag for a while, but naps last what, a few years? Seems like a small price to pay for an overall improved quality of life. If you have a kid who can drop off and sleep wherever they are, great, have at it and go out as much as you want...but if you have a kid who needs a specific, familiar environment to get the sleep their body *needs*, I don't find that to be any more "child centered" (in a negative way) than feeding them when they're hungry.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *flapjack* 
I'm shocked by this thread because society as a whole is (or can be) so actively hostile towards children. The norm in most families is NOT to have a parent at home with the child every day, and when it is, there's sacrifices involved. Most families lives consist, still, of one or more parental jobs to pay the bills and finding someone to nurture the children in their absence, with a varying degree of formal experience, supervision and qualification. Our employers have a range of attitudes towards offering the flexibility needed to deal with family life, some STILL (despite everything) expecting their employees to do unpaid overtime and working 60-70 hours a week. We send them to school, which is chronically underfunded, to libraries to support their education which are frequently underfunded, and community facilities struggling to cope. We keep them in for fear of harm from traffic and strangers, and then when our children are old enough to leave the house by themselves they're treated with fear and suspicion by the other adults around them and judged harshly, because everyone knows that teenagers are criminals waiting to happen. Society is polarised into Disney crap and sophisticated adult life, especially for those on smaller incomes (look at the debate about children in restaurants), and now on top of all that parents get criticised for focussing time and attention on their children in their own homes?







: It's ridiculous. Not enough time is spent moulding our society to benefit ALL members of it, including children and the elderly, and the world would be a better place if it was.

I have to kind of agree with this. There is a "kid world" (movies, music, food, activities), and an "adult world", which occasionally come together on "family game night" - instead of there being a *family world* with offshoots of interest designed for kids and adults based on their developmental stages. This is not to say that I don't believe that both kids and adults shouldn't have things that they just do on their own, because I think they should - I just don't think that there should be so much of a divide between the two worlds.

I think one place where our society misses the mark is in developmental appropriateness and expectations in the first couple years of life - but then, it seems there is a bizarre backwards swing and expectations after preschool drop. Mainstream society goes from expecting infants to be "independent" and "self soothe" to expecting young toddlers to control their impulses, to expecting (or at least applaud the pushing towards) preschoolers to read and spell....and yet, I often see very little in the way of expectations (at least in personal responsibility) of children from 5-10 yrs old, in the way of helping around the house, being responsible for their actions, and gaining independence outside of the home. It seems like mainstream society pushes away babies when they need closeness most, and then freaks out when those babies do the expected pulling away after being pushed for years, and tries to pull them back in, instead of nuturing them when they're tiny and letting them spread their wings as they get older. I see a lot of making excuses for why kids act in negative ways, but not a lot of taking responsibility for it (by the parents or kid themselves) or doing anything about it (like getting to the core reasons). I'm not suggesting harsh punishments, or for kids acting like robots or being seen and not heard, I'm just for people admitting when they did something they shouldn't have, and trying to make amends instead of blaming something or someone else.

Another observation of an (IMO) negative aspect of "child centered" society is the 'preshus angel snowflake' syndrome. There is a significant portion of the population that believes that everything their child does is precious and precocious and deserving of attention and praise, and that striving to set yourself apart as the best at something/everything is a goal. It's a sense of entitlement that seems to be increasing, and it bugs the crap out of me. That's the part of child centered society that bothers me - pushing, driving, focusing so much on kids "doing something" that entire industries are built out of it, be it athletic, artistic, or academic. Traveling sports teams for young children, toddler beauty pageants, small kids training for dance competition groups, "your baby can read" - it's insanity IMO...Doing classes because they are a fun way to get out during the day, and your kid enjoys them, that's great - doing classes to get your kid ready for the next step in being the awesomest X ever? Meh. I think THAT kind of child centeredness can be problematic. There's nothing wrong with striving and wanting to achieve YOUR personal best, and doing activities that you enjoy - that's an admirable goal and will lead to a lot of long term life satisfaction, IMO...but always wanting to be THE best, well, that's a setup for disappointment for the actual, real world that most of us live in IMO (reality show dance/singing auditions, anyone?). I don't think people should be complacent, or settle, but the focus on everything being super special and awesome is just a little wearing on me sometimes. I don't remember where I heard it originally, but I love the saying: Sometimes "good enough" is good enough.

So those are some negative "child centered" aspects of society I see. I'd love to see society become more *people* centered, and less _stuff_ centered....I think a *lot* of the adult/child dichotomy would go away if that started to happen.

I don't yearn for the good old days because they really weren't so good in many ways....but we seem to have dropped some pretty good things about those days while moving forward in other important
ways.


----------



## Straggletag (Dec 4, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *flapjack* 
I'm shocked by this thread because society as a whole is (or can be) so actively hostile towards children.

Agreed again, actually. Society is hostile to children, but even in its hostility towards them, it's a bit obsessed with childhood. EVERYONE has an opinion about every nuance of childrearing, and they all seem to think the world is ending if it isn't made global policy. That seems child centered, or at least mother centered, just not in a positive fashion.


----------



## bluedaisy (Sep 5, 2008)

OP here...this is a really interesting discussion! I want to clarify a few things:

When I talked about not being able to have a meaningful discussion, I did NOT mean to be able to talk without interruption. Of course kids are going to interrupt.

I've had meaningful discussions with kids around, both in the US and in other cultures. In my family, all conversation is focused on the children - what new things they are doing, etc or the time is spent cooing and interacting with the children instead of the adults.

As for the food issue, we usually cook a hot lunch - I expect my dd to eat what we are eating. I don't cook a separate meal for my DH just because he would prefer something else. If my dd really hated something, I would give her something else.

As a parent, it's my job to make sure my dd is getting good nutrition. a toddler knows nothing about nutrition. this toddler in my extended family always asks for hot dogs. so he has hot dogs almost every day. that's just not healthy.

I don't think child centered is the right phrase to use for what i am trying to get at

i think it's more of the pseudo - kids world that a pp described

for example, with the food issue, why it is assumed that kids can't eat "adult foods" and have to be given unhealthy "kid" foods like hot dogs, chicken nuggest, mac n cheese, etc. my dd's favorite foods are beans and hummus - not something you would find on a kids menu but she loves them. my sister never thought to offer her kids beans but they tried them once and they both loved them

with music, my dh and i love gospel music - nothing there that is inappropriate for children. why can't she learn to enjoy "adult" gospel music? Why does she need a children's CD of the exact same songs being sung by children?

By not being child centered I do NOT mean ignoring or neglecting kids - I agree there is too much of this in the US and I fully believe in AP and being WITH your kids, etc.

I guess it's more of the indulgent child pseudo culture which is driven by consumerism - there's a big market out there to create a "kid's world" instead of meaningfully incorporating kids into the real world.

And this is what I mean by not being child centered - allowing your child to interact in the real world - to take their needs and desires seriously but to teach them from a young age that they can't always get what they want. My child might WANT to eat ice cream for every meal, but my job as a parent is to make sure she is eating properly which means I cannot satisfy her every desire. My child might WANT my undivided attention 24/7 but there are other things I need to do and other important relationships in my life so while I will give her undivided attention every day, she is going to have to learn that I can't do that 24/7. And I think it's important for her to be there WITH me while i cook dinner, do laundry, go shopping, talk to my DH or visit with friends - so she can observe how to interact in the real world - she just won't be the center of attention, kwim?

Quote:

Another observation of an (IMO) negative aspect of "child centered" society is the 'preshus angel snowflake' syndrome. There is a significant portion of the population that believes that everything their child does is precious and precocious and deserving of attention and praise, and that striving to set yourself apart as the best at something/everything is a goal. It's a sense of entitlement that seems to be increasing, and it bugs the crap out of me. That's the part of child centered society that bothers me - pushing, driving, focusing so much on kids "doing something" that entire industries are built out of it, be it athletic, artistic, or academic. Traveling sports teams for young children, toddler beauty pageants, small kids training for dance competition groups, "your baby can read" - it's insanity IMO...Doing classes because they are a fun way to get out during the day, and your kid enjoys them, that's great - doing classes to get your kid ready for the next step in being the awesomest X ever? Meh. I think THAT kind of child centeredness can be problematic.
This is also the kind of child centeredness I was trying to get at with the OP


----------



## NellieKatz (Jun 19, 2009)

Woo hoo, Flapjack, that NEEDED to be said!


----------



## cappuccinosmom (Dec 28, 2003)

Quote:

Agreed again, actually. Society is hostile to children, but even in its hostility towards them, it's a bit obsessed with childhood. EVERYONE has an opinion about every nuance of childrearing, and they all seem to think the world is ending if it isn't made global policy. That seems child centered, or at least mother centered, just not in a positive fashion.
I agree.

Maybe it's a conundrum. Society being hostile to children and so many parents being obsessed with the minutia of childhood.

I am definitely one who bemoans the anti-child attitudes in society as a whole. OTOH, in individual parents, and in parent-culture, I do see some problems with being wholly child-centered. Not child-centered as in taking care to meet a child's _needs_, but child-centered as in the child comes first, gets what they want, gets the newest and the best, must be entertained, every time, all the time.

Our children's welfare is central to how we live our lives and the decisions we make. But we want to take the long view, and not focus on filling moment-to-moment desires or worrying about keeping them feeling 100% emotionally happy every second of the day. That is why our family doesn't function as "child centered" with the children being the center of the family universe.


----------



## North_Of_60 (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *flapjack* 
I'm shocked by this thread because society as a whole is (or can be) so actively hostile towards children. The norm in most families is NOT to have a parent at home with the child every day, and when it is, there's sacrifices involved. Most families lives consist, still, of one or more parental jobs to pay the bills and finding someone to nurture the children in their absence, with a varying degree of formal experience, supervision and qualification. Our employers have a range of attitudes towards offering the flexibility needed to deal with family life, some STILL (despite everything) expecting their employees to do unpaid overtime and working 60-70 hours a week. We send them to school, which is chronically underfunded, to libraries to support their education which are frequently underfunded, and community facilities struggling to cope. We keep them in for fear of harm from traffic and strangers, and then when our children are old enough to leave the house by themselves they're treated with fear and suspicion by the other adults around them and judged harshly, because everyone knows that teenagers are criminals waiting to happen. Society is polarised into Disney crap and sophisticated adult life, especially for those on smaller incomes (look at the debate about children in restaurants), and now on top of all that parents get criticised for focussing time and attention on their children in their own homes?







: It's ridiculous. Not enough time is spent moulding our society to benefit ALL members of it, including children and the elderly, and the world would be a better place if it was.

I agree with this. So much of our society is inhospitable toward kids and being a parent. I remember when a local cafe with an indoor playground opened locally and someone from my LLL meeting said it was so nice that they could go get a coffee with their kids and breastfeed the baby at the same time and not feel bad about it. What does that say for us when a "special" facility has to open up just so a mother with kids can go out and get a coffee and feel comfortable doing so?

However (







), I think the areas where people have latched onto childhood, for instance with the Disney thing like you mentioned, and have taken it in a totally wrong direction. The importance of childhood and the place of children in our society is so misplaced that I think it gets over compensated for or over corrected in ways that manifest like the examples in the original post. But I don't think the way to correct my child not being welcome in a restaurant at 10pm is to treat her like an adult at home, OR, turn my house into a playground for her. You know? I guess because I do neither of those things we're not very child-centered.

I was raised in a home where at every family gathering there was a "kids table" and then after the kids got shunned to the basement to play games or keep themselves occupied while the adults socialized. We got the "you can be seen but not heard" speech on the way to anyone's house, and while we got compliments for being such nice polite kids, I have terrible memories of sitting in the basement with my cousins and friends BORED TO TEARS because I wasn't allowed to be around the rest of my family.

I'm not doing that with my kid. She sits at the table WITH the family. She socializes and hangs out WITH the family. Etc. There is no "kids this or that" or an "adult this or that". But I think what some people are getting at, and after reading the OP's latest post I think I might be right, is that when integrating kids into an adult dominated world you don't have to go overboard and over accommodate kids. Just because my kid sits at the table with us doesn't mean we talk about my little ponies for an hour while nobody else gets a word in edge wise. I, as her parent, guide her through the social graces of sitting at a table with a group of people. To some, that's very unchild-centered.

And in fact, that is sort of the down fall with our society now, is that everything has to be geared toward kids otherwise it's absurd that kids would be there or want to participate. It's fine to keep young kids out till midnight at Disney World. You see parents pushing sleeping kids in strollers all over the park. Totally fine. But OMG, don't a take a kid to walmart at 10pm.

There's a preconceived "kids" world, where everything from what they eat at restaurants, to what they play with and what they wear, to where they can hang out is all determined and when kids fall outside of that people don't really know how to respond (and sometimes not so much because they don't think a kid should be there, but just because there IS a kid there).

I remember taking my daughter to an open air concert in the park this past summer at 9pm. She LOVED it. It was big band type music, and I sat in a lawn chair and she twirled around in the grass like a maniac for 2 hours while all the adults sat and chatted. But she was the ONLY kid there. I guess kids only like concerts in the park when it's a kids band or someone playing kids music? She was a total hit and the lady sitting next to me told me she was going to bring her grand kids next weekend. She had never THOUGHT to bring them! But because I didn't rush her home at bedtime and insist she go to bed at a decent hour, and instead chose to socialize with adults while my kid entertained herself at an otherwise "adult" event, I wasn't being very child-centered.

I think allowing kids to be part of the real world without squishing them into the predetermined "kids world box" is the very nature of not being child-centered. And I think if more people steered toward not being child centered, our society would be more accepting of children.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bluedaisy* 
By not being child centered I do NOT mean ignoring or neglecting kids - I agree there is too much of this in the US and I fully believe in AP and being WITH your kids, etc.

I guess it's more of the indulgent child pseudo culture which is driven by consumerism - there's a big market out there to create a "kid's world" instead of meaningfully incorporating kids into the real world.

And this is what I mean by not being child centered - allowing your child to interact in the real world - to take their needs and desires seriously but to teach them from a young age that they can't always get what they want. My child might WANT to eat ice cream for every meal, but my job as a parent is to make sure she is eating properly which means I cannot satisfy her every desire. My child might WANT my undivided attention 24/7 but there are other things I need to do and other important relationships in my life so while I will give her undivided attention every day, she is going to have to learn that I can't do that 24/7. And I think it's important for her to be there WITH me while i cook dinner, do laundry, go shopping, talk to my DH or visit with friends - so she can observe how to interact in the real world - she just won't be the center of attention, kwim?

I agree!! As much as it's important for us to have our daughter with us and a part of our lives without having to always do "kid stuff", we also recognize that not everyone wants to hear a kid "being a kid" at 10pm. I think the respect goes both ways. She can come anywhere we go (within reason) but there are certain times she will not be permitted to act like the hooligan 3 year old that she is. The trade off for her being welcome at our regular hang outs is that we've taken the steps to make sure we're not disrupting the rest of the world just because we have a kid with us. Also not very child-centered. Unfortunately, some people view that as a bad thing, and think children should be welcome anywhere and ALSO be allowed to "act like kids". I disagree. And with that philosophy, it's no wonder people grit their teeth when a kid walks into a restaurant at 10pm. My kid is not the center of the universe.


----------



## TopHat (Sep 21, 2007)

Gosh this thread makes me sound awfully child-centered.

I definitely work around my daughter's naps. I go at her pace when we run errands. Yesterday we had to walk 5 blocks to go to a store. I went at her pace. Yes, it took like 20 minutes, but she needed the exercise and I didn't NEED to be at the store in 5 minutes. We slowed down so she could practice walking backwards, walking along the edge of the sidewalk and the grass, to see the store that had big balloons in front. We got out of the way when people passed us and when we crossed streets, I carried her so we could cross before the light turned red, but other than that, I let her set the pace. Maybe I'm too indulgent and ignoring my own needs (I feel great after brisk walks and I need them for exercise since I don't any other way to get exercise), but I feel it's important to let them explore at their own pace. That's a real need of being a child, and I've found that slowing down and going at her pace fulfills a hidden need I didn't realize I had until I had her: the need to slow down and think of others besides myself.

And then at the store the other day, she was in the cart, but after a while, she wanted out, so I let her down and she "helped" me push the cart. Maybe that's indulgent too, but she's small and maybe her legs were falling asleep and she didn't have the words to say that, so she fussed. And it would have created a fruitless power struggle. I feel that if I had insisted, "You have to stay in the cart," I would have just created conflict that didn't need to be there. Having been a child in a "because I said so" house, I'm careful that I don't get stuck in a power struggle with my daughter just to prove I'm the bigger, older, in charge adult.

So I'm fairly lenient. I don't say no to her often (usually just for safety reasons) because many times, she's right: It IS more fun to stop and look at that bug, it IS more fun to "help" out even if it means we're going at a slower pace (she likes to "help" me carry my purse by holding one of the handles).


----------



## The4OfUs (May 23, 2005)

I appreciate your post TopHat, but I don't think that's really what most of us are talking about. I do a lot of what you're talking about too; it's not indulgent, it's nuturing and helping your kid grow. Indulgent, to me would be if:

In walking down the sidewalk you didn't move her when blocking people, and you made the car traffic stop or slow down to accommodate you on purpose.

I don't think anyone here is saying kids shouldn't be allowed to be kids. That's what these discussions always seem to turn into - but I'm just about positive that's not what any of us are talking about.


----------



## The4OfUs (May 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *North_Of_60* 
But because I didn't rush her home at bedtime and insist she go to bed at a decent hour, and instead chose to socialize with adults while my kid entertained herself at an otherwise "adult" event, I wasn't being very child-centered.


I agree with a lot of what you posted in your most recent post....but again, I would posit that this bedtime thing really has to do with the individual child, and not being "child centered" - I would love to bring my kids to evening events...but seriously, if they're out past 7:30 it turns into a disaster - in fact, just last night I pushed the envelope going to a tree-lighting ceremony with a friend set for 7pm. The tree lit, we milled aroudn for a few minutes, and then there was a concert at a nearby church and we tried to go to the concert, but my 3yo started whining loudly and refusing to sit still; I went out in the hallway with her for a minute to see if I could get her calmed, but when we went back in she was starting to make it difficult for people to hear the kids singing, so I hoisted her on my hip and we beat feet at 7:33 (I looked at the clock when I got in the car) - so I will continue to decline evening events, and rush home when we're out for dinnertime events. It's not because I feel like my kids don't "belong" out past 7:30, it's because they can't handle it.

Lots of interesting discussion going on here! I think there are a few different areas: Kids out in public at non-specifically-kid-oriented places/events, the increasing divide between "kid" food/entertainment and "adult" food/entertainment, and the increase in more intense/driven kid-focused activities and academics.


----------



## North_Of_60 (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *The4OfUs* 
I agree with a lot of what you posted in your most recent post....but again, I would posit that this bedtime thing really has to do with the individual child

Oh absolutely. It was just one example where some people might think parents SHOULD rush home to cater to the child's schedule, even though the child might not necessarily need it, simply _because they're a child_. Especially at an adult event where there are no other children. The horrors of a kid playing by herself. And being happy about it. While the adults essentially ignored her. NOT very child-centered at all.


----------



## The4OfUs (May 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *North_Of_60* 
The horrors of a kid playing by herself. And being happy about it. While the adults essentially ignored her. NOT very child-centered at all.



































OK, I see your point. It is a shame when kids are cringed at being places they normally aren't simply _because_ they're kids.


----------



## Harmony08 (Feb 4, 2009)

A wise person on these boards once said or quoted from somewhere,

"Children get spoiled when they get too much of what they want and not enough of what they need"

I just thought I'd toss that idea into the discussion because I feel like what is lurking behind the negative aspects of "child-centered" is "spoiled". I interpret the above quote to mean that it is when parents give in to a child's wants all the time even when inappropriate because they are afraid of the child's negative emotions AND neglect (for whatever reason, many could apply) to instill basic virtues and to meet a child's most pressing needs (unconditional positive regard, respect, understanding, loving boundaries etc) you end up with a person who expects everything to go his way, for people to do what pleases him, who is afraid of his negative feelings, who is ill mannered and impolite and who is starving to have his real needs met. On the surface this person has everything but in reality he is a person who has always gotten everything he wanted but nothing he needed. He is rich in things and empty in spirit.

Sorry for the run ons!


----------



## The4OfUs (May 23, 2005)

Nice post, Harmony08 - spot on.


----------



## choli (Jun 20, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *North_Of_60* 
I was raised in a home where at every family gathering there was a "kids table" and then after the kids got shunned to the basement to play games or keep themselves occupied while the adults socialized. We got the "you can be seen but not heard" speech on the way to anyone's house, and while we got compliments for being such nice polite kids, I have terrible memories of sitting in the basement with my cousins and friends BORED TO TEARS because I wasn't allowed to be around the rest of my family.

Interesting. I have the polar opposite memory. There was absolutely NOTHING as much fun as being in the basement or wherever with cousins/similar age children of my parents friends with no adults around. Sitting at the kids table was the highlight of large dinners.

Different strokes I guess.


----------



## sewchris2642 (Feb 28, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bluedaisy* 

I realize some of these things might be more cultural, but when I observe my extended family some of the "child centered" behavior I saw was:

- asking a 3 year old where she wanted to sit for thanksgiving, and then taking 15 minutes to try and figure out how to arrange all the kids and adults so that she could sit where she wanted.

- asking a toddler what they want for lunch instead of having them eat what everyone else is eating

- kids who pick the music every time they are in the car - so it's always children's cds playing and never adult music

- adults not being able to have any kind of meaningful conversation when the kids are awake because the kids are the center of attention and always interrupting

- when my mom comes to babysit my one year old daughter she feels like she has to play with her and entertain her constantly, and hovers so that she doesn't do things like walk with the cordless phone in case she trips and the antennae pokes her eye out

to me, this kind of behavior would encourage kids that they should always be the center of attention and always get what they want - which is not messages i want my dd to get.


Your examples aren't necessarily examples of child-centeredness. We don't have a child's table at Thanksgiving. Other than small children sitting next to a parent and the left-handers who sit at an end, there is no assigned sitting. Lunch is almost a free-for-all at our house. The kids get a reasonable choice and those adults who eat at home usually eat left-overs. We don't cook a separate noon meal. Since I don't listen to music in the car, the kids get to chose the music. I don't care. Kids interrupt adults talking; that's just the nature of kids. It an take 4-5 years (or more) to train them out of it. And grandmas spoiling their grandkids is a time honored tradition. However, instead of hovering over the kid playing with the phone; I'd take it away from her. But then that's the kind of grandma I am.

What can be child-centered in one family is survival tactics in another.


----------



## sewchris2642 (Feb 28, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *paxye* 
What I meant is that some parents put their whole life on hold because of nap-time, or bedtime etc... they can't go out, they can't make plans at a certain hour, they can't have the phone ring, they can't do things around the house etc...

Life stops because of a sleep schedule...

That was us when Erica was little and is Joy now with Alex. It's not an example of child centeredness but meeting a real need of a high needs, spirited child. And it benefits the entire family.


----------



## St. Margaret (May 19, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Holiztic* 
We are working through this everyday!

I think it was a lot easier to be NOT child-centered when most people lived in multi-family homes (Grandparents, aunts, uncles, etc) AND when there was house-work going on all day (cooking, cleaning, mending, wood-working, farming/gardening, etc).

I notice when I am my most busy with housework, my DS is best at entertaining himself and not demanding this and that. But when I am tired or sick (like now) and need to rest, he becomes very whiny and demanding. I imagine in a multi-generational house even when some were sick others were still busy and the kids didn't feel the "change" in energy so much.

This is totally what I was thinking. When we are really active, DD is observing us, wanting to "help," copying us, or playing on her own. When we loaf on the couch is when things get screwy. I think kids need to see that WE are life-centered and then they feel right and follow along.


----------



## North_Of_60 (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *choli* 
Interesting. I have the polar opposite memory. There was absolutely NOTHING as much fun as being in the basement or wherever with cousins/similar age children of my parents friends with no adults around. Sitting at the kids table was the highlight of large dinners.

Different strokes I guess.

I think it was more the extremity it was taken to. I was the oldest of my siblings, and all my first cousins were already married will little children, so I was at times in my early teens sitting with 3 and 4 year olds. In hind sight I was most likely being used as a babysitter, but it pissed me off so much that I was being lumped in with toddlers and young children. There was no middle ground. I was not allowed to socialize with the adults. Period. And I HATED that feeling. If all the kids WANT to go to another room to play or whatever, that's fine. But forcing them all into a room because that's the "children's room" conjures up bad memories.


----------



## Kelly1101 (Oct 9, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bluedaisy* 
And this is what I mean by not being child centered - allowing your child to interact in the real world - to take their needs and desires seriously but to teach them from a young age that they can't always get what they want. My child might WANT to eat ice cream for every meal, but my job as a parent is to make sure she is eating properly which means I cannot satisfy her every desire. My child might WANT my undivided attention 24/7 but there are other things I need to do and other important relationships in my life so while I will give her undivided attention every day, she is going to have to learn that I can't do that 24/7. And I think it's important for her to be there WITH me while i cook dinner, do laundry, go shopping, talk to my DH or visit with friends - so she can observe how to interact in the real world - she just won't be the center of attention, kwim?

Absolutely. The difference between want and need.


----------



## meemee (Mar 30, 2005)

see things are different when children are babies and when they are a little bit older even toddlers.

i do agree we are a v. unhealthy child centered society and i am trying to do my best not to be one either.

my dd is 7. it is easy to NOT be child centered with her because that is what she demands.

we dont involve our child in our lives too much.

i was raised in a true 'healthy' child centered culture. what that meant was everyone had their place in the family and was expected to take part but not insist upon it. that subtle difference was huge. we didnt have to do the chore. we wanted to do it. for instance it fit in v. well to have a chore at 2 when kids sooo love chores.

i am a single mom and my dd grew up mostly around adults. she did have play dates and she did go to daycare but she did not have much time just hanging around kids - like spending a day with a family with kids. playdates are different. its all child centered.

so dd never really got a chance to just hang out with friends and help them with their daily work. yet at 3 when i went to visit my mom my dd would go spend HOURS at our nieghbours just hanging out and helping them with chores. she wasnt watching tv. she wasnt being entertained. she was just joining in what they were doing. when their kids came home after school dd played with them.

however dd was a high needs baby and is still 'high needs'. she also has anxiety. so right now i might do something that looks 'unhealthy' child centered, but at that moment that is what she needs.


----------



## lach (Apr 17, 2009)

I've been reading this conversation all day, because it was a really interesting one. I wasn't going to post, because I'm not quite sure what I think. But I do want to weigh in on one thing.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *paxye* 
What I meant is that some parents put their whole life on hold because of nap-time, or bedtime etc... they can't go out, they can't make plans at a certain hour, they can't have the phone ring, they can't do things around the house etc...

Life stops because of a sleep schedule...

This is also in re: to the people who disagreed with this, mentioning their high needs child.

I have two kids who are definitely not high needs, and I contribute that in part to the fact that they get 15 or so hours of sleep a day. And that's not saying that lots of sleep immediately makes angels of all children in all situations (and TRUST ME I'm not not saying my kids are total angels all the time!): but it's an easy way to work towards that direction. Kids need a lot of sleep, and our society really doesn't allow for that. For most of humanity, women and children didn't much leave the house so babies could sleep when needed (and were encouraged to sleep as much as possible).

I don't think that having a strict nap schedule and sticking to it whenever reasonable practical is some sort of child-centered extreme: it's just taking the health and mental well-being of everyone in your household into account.


----------



## mamadebug (Dec 28, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *North_Of_60* 
If I'm understanding this right, your basic definition of child centered would be to meet basic needs, like the need to sleep as opposed to staying out late with parents who aren't ready to go home? If this is correct, what's your opinion on being NOT child centered?

That is what I am saying. That meeting the real needs of a child is being "child centered", which I do think is healthy, and that the behaviors being described in some of these posts - like assuming kids can't eat "adult food" and so automatically making them a different meal or letting a child take 15 minutes to decide where to sit - are actually not "child centered". They are just without boundaries. Recognizing the difference between being "child centered" and parenting without boundaries are two very different things in my opinion. Recognizing the difference between the two (which, admittedly can become blurry sometimes in a difficult parenting moment) can really help define what is healthy, helpful and realistic. I guess, bluntly, many of these behaviors being described are things I would find really annoying and don't serve anyone's best interest. But, it seems like they are being confused by some as being "child centered" when really, I don't think they are at all.


----------



## lindberg99 (Apr 23, 2003)

OK, I have to ask about the Thanksgiving dinner seating arrangement thing. Was the food on the table and this little girl was making everyone wait 15 min while she decided where they could sit? Or was she just deciding where people should sit during the wait for dinner to be ready?

The first scenario would annoy me. But I wouldn't care about the second if I was the hostess. In fact, I remember my mom telling me and my cousins to figure out where everyone should sit at Thanksgiving with some guidelines (ie, Grandma and Grandpa had their certain seats). We loved doing that.


----------



## holyhelianthus (Jul 15, 2006)

I've only read the first page and so far I love it!







:

We are like this (or strive to be). I like to call it life-led. I see it as we live our lives and just happen to have children under our wings so we help them to live life not try and change life to suit them. Did that make any sense?


----------



## holyhelianthus (Jul 15, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Straggletag* 
Agreed again, actually. Society is hostile to children, but even in its hostility towards them, it's a bit obsessed with childhood. EVERYONE has an opinion about every nuance of childrearing, and they all seem to think the world is ending if it isn't made global policy. That seems child centered, or at least mother centered, just not in a positive fashion.









:

I can't stand how anti-child society is but I also can't stand how it all seems bent on keeping us children well into our 30s.







: I know I am going to be alone on this but I just think it does such a disservice to stretch out childhood for so long.


----------



## ann_of_loxley (Sep 21, 2007)

I am not exactly sure how I would describe being 'child-centred'.... A lot of 'mainstream' parenting to me is very child-centred though...but its hard to describe it. It just feels like so much effort is put into the speration of child from mother/father/family that it becomes a bit ...well...rather...child-centred! lol

But I am sure a mainstream family might consider us child-centred! After all, I have never left my son to cry and he sleeps in our bed! Maybe they think thats a lot of effort and self sacrifice on my part - involving the child as the centre! lol

For me - I would describe us as 'Family-Centred'. First, I take into account my childs real needs - developmentally and psycologically. So yes, we co sleep and don't CIO and CLW, and home educate, etc. This to me is important for the family. And yes, whilst I don't consider my son a 'mini adult' - he is a person with real needs and desires and I too take these into acount. If its no big deal to me, then its not a problem. For example, we all eat different things for lunch time - its not a big deal. If I had four or more children, this might be a problem and we might have to work on that and come up with a better solution. This for me is where trying to live consensually comes in. I never feel like I am self sacrificing and I never feel that my 'needs' are put on hold either. All our needs are met as a family.


----------



## cdmommie (Aug 7, 2007)

I do see how child-centered America has become and my family for one is definitely trying not to fall into an intensely child centered routine. That said though, we do recognize the fact that we have children. We don't completely ignore them and expect that they should act like adults. We do recognize that their heath and well-being is our sole responsibility and naps and feedings do require our attention. I have a 2 year old who really truly needs her nap each day just to function well and keep from getting too sick. We accommodate this, but I don't believe that makes us entirely child-centered, it just means we are parents who care about our child's health. Our 8 month old couldn't care less when or how long she sleeps, or where for that matter. She's pretty happy and healthy no matter what. However, she really has to nurse every two hours and yes I do accommodate that because I feel like her nutrition as a growing baby should take priority.

Now, I do not give in to demands of what we are going to do for the day, what I cook for dinner, ect. As a responsible parent, I will make sure they are fed, have adequate sleep and exercise but the rest is going to be a mutually beneficial family agreement. We don't leave the kids behind to go and do something all day just because we don't want to deal with them because that would make us mommy and daddy centered. But we also don't go to chucky cheese every weekend because that would make us child-centered. We might go to something Daddy likes, but we all go and we all participate, even if it means we drag the kids around an electronics store.

What I'm trying to say is our kids do not expect that our every move will be for them and about them. They just go with the flow. To be honest we do about the same stuff we did before we had kids, we just include them too. At the same time we recognize that our kids are not centered around us either. My 2 year old likes to do her own thing for a couple hours a day and that's cool too. I LOVE that she has her own personality and she can make rational decisions for herself. I can trust that she is in her room playing and is not acting like a wild monkey.

We need to be individuals and remember that we have our own identities, but we can't be mommy-centered, daddy-centered, child-centered or anything else because that would screw with the delicate balance that makes a family just that... a FAMILY.


----------



## thehighernest (Aug 11, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *The4OfUs* 

Another observation of an (IMO) negative aspect of "child centered" society is the 'preshus angel snowflake' syndrome. There is a significant portion of the population that believes that everything their child does is precious and precocious and deserving of attention and praise, and that striving to set yourself apart as the best at something/everything is a goal. It's a sense of entitlement that seems to be increasing, and it bugs the crap out of me. That's the part of child centered society that bothers me - pushing, driving, focusing so much on kids "doing something" that entire industries are built out of it, be it athletic, artistic, or academic. Traveling sports teams for young children, toddler beauty pageants, small kids training for dance competition groups, "your baby can read" - it's insanity IMO...Doing classes because they are a fun way to get out during the day, and your kid enjoys them, that's great - doing classes to get your kid ready for the next step in being the awesomest X ever? Meh. *I think THAT kind of child centeredness can be problematic*. There's nothing wrong with striving and wanting to achieve YOUR personal best, and doing activities that you enjoy - that's an admirable goal and will lead to a lot of long term life satisfaction, IMO...but always wanting to be THE best, well, that's a setup for disappointment for the actual, real world that most of us live in IMO (reality show dance/singing auditions, anyone?). I don't think people should be complacent, or settle, but the focus on everything being super special and awesome is just a little wearing on me sometimes. I don't remember where I heard it originally, but I love the saying: Sometimes "good enough" is good enough.

I've been reading a lot about this lately, and though my child is not old enough for me to say I have actual experience (other than having stopped myself from saying "good job" at everything), it strikes me that the reason these statements above are true is because the "my child is special/must read by 2/be the best at ______" situations are not, in fact, child centered in all truth. I think it's possible that many parents do these things to feel better _about themselves_, about how good a job they are doing as parents, to not have other parents judge them, etc.

Altogether, I'm always wary of either/or scenarios. It doesn't have to be all for the child/all for the parent.


----------



## bluedaisy (Sep 5, 2008)

Quote:

OK, I have to ask about the Thanksgiving dinner seating arrangement thing. Was the food on the table and this little girl was making everyone wait 15 min while she decided where they could sit? Or was she just deciding where people should sit during the wait for dinner to be ready?
Lindberg99 - I guess I didn't explain this very well. My sister and I were setting the table and were trying to figure out where to put everyone. My mom said we needed to ask the 3 year old first where she wanted to sit so she wouldn't be upset. so she wanted to sit next to the 1 year old.

so we spent 15 min trying to figure out a scenario that would work for the 3 year old and 1 year old to be next to each other. we had 3 kids under 3, 2 high chairs and a booster seat, 9 adults, and a small room where the table and high chairs just barely fit. we had two big men that had to sit at the ends of the table so they would have enough room, each kid had to be next to a parent or someone who could help them with their food, and my mom had to be closest to the kitchen since she was hosting and had to get up to go back and forth to the kitchen. It was nuts to me that the 3 year old's WANT to sit next to the one year old was the most important factor in seating everyone, when it seemed to me that the other factors were more important.


----------



## gcgirl (Apr 3, 2007)

I keep seeing posts that suggest American society is either child-centered or child-hostile. The way I see it, our society is not FAMILY-friendly. It's very sergregated - adult things are for adults, and kid things are for kids. And that's pretty much it. I hate that about our culture.

Apropos of nothing, but because it kinda relates, I've been thinking that our next BIG family vacation will be a cruise on Costa lines. Why? Because it's an ITALIAN line, and that means kids are welcome virtually everywhere, anytime, with their families. That's the kind of family I was raised in (lucky me), and it just makes the most sense. Why do the kids have to be in "kid care" while the adults are off doing other things? That, and the lack of close extended families, is what I'd like to change about our culture.


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bluedaisy* 
so we spent 15 min trying to figure out a scenario that would work for the 3 year old and 1 year old to be next to each other. we had 3 kids under 3, 2 high chairs and a booster seat, 9 adults, and a small room where the table and high chairs just barely fit. we had two big men that had to sit at the ends of the table so they would have enough room, each kid had to be next to a parent or someone who could help them with their food, and my mom had to be closest to the kitchen since she was hosting and had to get up to go back and forth to the kitchen. It was nuts to me that the 3 year old's WANT to sit next to the one year old was the most important factor in seating everyone, when it seemed to me that the other factors were more important.

So you were unable to find a solution that worked for the 3-year-old and everyone else? Because the only way her want would be the most important factor would be if the end seating arrangement worked only for her but not for everyone else. Otherwise, her want was only as important as everyone else's, not more important.

Or is the problem that it took 15 minutes? If no one was sitting there waiting to eat, I guess I don't see why this is a big deal? 15 minutes when food is getting cold and everyone is hungry is a long time, but otherwise, what's the issue?

Also, it's usually a bother working out holiday seating arrangements no matter the particulars. It might have taken 12 or 13 minutes if her want wasn't taken into consideration anyway. The whole 15 minutes was figuring out something that would work for everyone, so the whole time wasn't just about her.


----------



## funkymamajoy (May 25, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamazee* 
So you were unable to find a solution that worked for the 3-year-old and everyone else? Because the only way her want would be the most important factor would be if the end seating arrangement worked only for her but not for everyone else. Otherwise, her want was only as important as everyone else's, not more important.

Or is the problem that it took 15 minutes? If no one was sitting there waiting to eat, I guess I don't see why this is a big deal? 15 minutes when food is getting cold and everyone is hungry is a long time, but otherwise, what's the issue?

Also, it's usually a bother working out holiday seating arrangements no matter the particulars. It might have taken 12 or 13 minutes if her want wasn't taken into consideration anyway. The whole 15 minutes was figuring out something that would work for everyone, so the whole time wasn't just about her.











Maybe I'm still not understanding, but what's wrong with working out a solution that works for everyone (children included)?
OP, can you tell us how your examples would've worked out in a non-child centered culture?


----------



## sewchris2642 (Feb 28, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *magstphil* 







:

I can't stand how anti-child society is but I also can't stand how it all seems bent on keeping us children well into our 30s.







: I know I am going to be alone on this but I just think it does such a disservice to stretch out childhood for so long.

I don't think that we are so much an anti-child society as a me-first society. So I see both--children as fashion accessories and no child allowed--as symptoms of "everything revolves around me". "MY children can go everywhere". It's everyone else's children that should be seen and not heard or kept at home.


----------



## choli (Jun 20, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sewchris2642* 
I don't think that we are so much an anti-child society as a me-first society. So I see both--children as fashion accessories and no child allowed--as symptoms of "everything revolves around me". "MY children can go everywhere". It's everyone else's children that should be seen and not heard or kept at home.

This. I have no problem with your child being the center of your world, but stop expecting your child to be the center of everyone's world.


----------



## The4OfUs (May 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sewchris2642* 
I don't think that we are so much an anti-child society as a me-first society. So I see both--children as fashion accessories and no child allowed--as symptoms of "everything revolves around me". "MY children can go everywhere". It's everyone else's children that should be seen and not heard or kept at home.

Ooooh, I like this too.

Well, I mean, I don't like it, but I agree with it.


----------



## sewchris2642 (Feb 28, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bluedaisy* 
Lindberg99 - I guess I didn't explain this very well. My sister and I were setting the table and were trying to figure out where to put everyone. My mom said we needed to ask the 3 year old first where she wanted to sit so she wouldn't be upset. so she wanted to sit next to the 1 year old.

so we spent 15 min trying to figure out a scenario that would work for the 3 year old and 1 year old to be next to each other. we had 3 kids under 3, 2 high chairs and a booster seat, 9 adults, and a small room where the table and high chairs just barely fit. we had two big men that had to sit at the ends of the table so they would have enough room, each kid had to be next to a parent or someone who could help them with their food, and my mom had to be closest to the kitchen since she was hosting and had to get up to go back and forth to the kitchen. It was nuts to me that the 3 year old's WANT to sit next to the one year old was the most important factor in seating everyone, when it seemed to me that the other factors were more important.

Was this your first Thanksgiving with your extended family? I can see if you saw it as nuts if it was all new to you. But if you had grown up with it, it wouldn't have taken you 15 minutes to figure it all out and you wouldn't have gone nuts. We have set the table for Thanksgiving as if for all adults as long as I remember (for reference, I'm 57). The glass water goblets and adult chairs are removed for more child friendly plastic cups and chairs when they sit down. The wine glasses are set out next to the wine choices; poured and carried to the table by each person. We eat buffet style as there is no way that all the food will actually fit on the table. Kids and great grandma (she's 83) are given their food first. Everyone else lines up no particular order unless they are in a sport. My brother and later, my nephews, were last in line so everyone else could have a chance at food before they took it all. Going surfing before Thanksgiving dinner made for some very hungry boys/men.


----------



## bluedaisy (Sep 5, 2008)

Ok, I don't think the thanksgiving example is really central to the conversation...

I think that children's desires should be given the same amount of respect as adult desires, but not more just because they are children. that is what i see as being too child centered - always doing what the kids want to do. this is the point i was trying to make with this example, maybe it's not a good example, it was in my mind because it was so recent.

we didn't ask anyone else where they want to sit - we always just assign seats and it's almost always the same arrangement, then we tell everyone where they are sitting. the family isn't that big and it's never an issue. it usually takes 2 minutes.

my issue was that this 3 year old's want was being viewed as the most important element in trying to decide where to seat everyone so that other elements of preparing dinner were being held up because we couldn't come up with an arrangement to please the 3 year old - she was the only one who was asked where she wanted to sit.

in a situation that was not child centered, we would have assigned her a seat like we did for everyone else and she would have just sat there without all the fuss. (FWIW, we couldn't come up with an arrangement to please her because of limited space so we had to take more time to convince her to sit somewhere else anyway - so in the end the whole thing was a waste of time)

In my family, it seems that the children's wants and desires are always placed first and they are the ones calling the shots, which is the point i was trying to make. (BTW, I don't think the adults should always call the shots either, it has to be a balance)


----------



## RiverTam (May 29, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bluedaisy* 

- asking a 3 year old where she wanted to sit for thanksgiving, and then taking 15 minutes to try and figure out how to arrange all the kids and adults so that she could sit where she wanted.

- asking a toddler what they want for lunch instead of having them eat what everyone else is eating

- kids who pick the music every time they are in the car - so it's always children's cds playing and never adult music

- adults not being able to have any kind of meaningful conversation when the kids are awake because the kids are the center of attention and always interrupting

- when my mom comes to babysit my one year old daughter she feels like she has to play with her and entertain her constantly, and hovers so that she doesn't do things like walk with the cordless phone in case she trips and the antennae pokes her eye out

to me, this kind of behavior would encourage kids that they should always be the center of attention and always get what they want - which is not messages i want my dd to get.


You know, I don't agree with you at all. With the exception of the baby-sitting example, we did all of this with my sons, and yet they're not spoiled brats. There are things that we bend on to keep the peace and things that we don't. All of those examples are things that we bend on.

We would take the time to find a seating arrangement for Thanksgiving that made the kid happy.

I let my kids eat what they like for lunch. I make a family meal. If they don't like it, they're allowed to chose from a few standards (peanut butter and jelly sandwich, yogurt, cheese and fruit) I'm not a short order cook, but I don't believe in forcing anyone to eat food that they don't like. It just sets up a power struggle that the kid is going to win. You can't force feed them.

My kids pick the music in the car. I let them. It keeps them happy and quiet. That makes me happy.

We save adult conversations for adult times. My kids go to bed at 8 pm. (Moved up from 7 pm). They're at Montessori school on every week day. They go to the playground or the Y nearly every Saturday and Sunday. They play video games and watch the occasional video. Serious adult conversations can wait until they're otherwise occupied.

Despite all that, my kids get plenty of messages that they are not the center of the universe. They don't get to run amok. I have no problem telling them "No" to candy or a new toy or to breaking things or climbing on things or fighting with their brother. They have to brush their teeth, keep their rooms clean, put away their laundry, do their "homework," pick up their toys, eat something for breakfast, carry in groceries, help with the weeding, and be quiet when their dad is sleeping (He's a nurse who works night shifts.). I don't have a meltdown if we run out of chocolate milk. They hear "You get what you get and no whining." often enough that they say it to each other.

The things you point out seem to me are for me minor concessions for some pretty good kids.


----------



## EnviroBecca (Jun 5, 2002)

Kelly 1101 wrote:

Quote:

I mean, obviously if your baby is sleeping, you're not going to wake her up to go to the store, you wait until she's up and THEN go to the store.








It's not obvious to me! If my baby was sleeping and I needed to go to the store, I put him into the sling and went to the store. He'd wake when he was ready. If he was awake when we went somewhere but got sleepy, he'd fall asleep. I figured this was the default operation of a baby and I'd support it until it didn't work anymore. Sometime around 18 months, as he got bigger and heavier and harder to maneuver, he stopped being able to stay asleep while I got him into the sling, so I had to plan around him more. I understand that there are babies who from birth are unable to tolerate being moved after they've fallen asleep on an unmoving surface, but I don't see anything to be gained from assuming that will be true of every baby.

The4ofUs wrote:

Quote:

There is a "kid world" (movies, music, food, activities), and an "adult world", which occasionally come together on "family game night" - instead of there being a *family world* with offshoots of interest designed for kids and adults based on their developmental stages. This is not to say that I don't believe that both kids and adults shouldn't have things that they just do on their own, because I think they should - I just don't think that there should be so much of a divide between the two worlds.








_The Way We Never Were_ by Stephanie Coontz includes a fascinating analysis of how niche marketing has divided American families. I see so many examples of parents assuming their child has to have separate everything and couldn't possibly use adult dishes, chairs, pencils, bedding, hand soap, laundry detergent, bandages, whatever--they always have to buy the product that's specifically for kids.


----------



## Kelly1101 (Oct 9, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *EnviroBecca* 
It's not obvious to me! If my baby was sleeping and I needed to go to the store, I put him into the sling and went to the store. He'd wake when he was ready. If he was awake when we went somewhere but got sleepy, he'd fall asleep. I figured this was the default operation of a baby and I'd support it until it didn't work anymore.

I don't know if it's the "default," I guess you just had an extremely heavy sleeper. There's no way, with my baby or any others I've known, that they would take being picked up, put in a sling, walked out to the car, strapped in a car-seat, go to the store, get out of the car-seat, back in the sling, without waking up.

I mean, congrats if ya'll could do that, I imagine it made things a lot easier.

But, mine would wake up before you could get her in the sling in the first place, not to mention wrangling with the car-seat, and then she's sleepy and fussy for HOURS, all out of sorts. It's not like she's manipulating me to have things all her way-- she's only 7 months old, and she needs more sleep than adults to be able to function. Caring for a child's NEEDS is not "child-centered" to an extreme degree. It's just treating them with basic human courtesy.


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

I've had one of each type of napper. One I could take anywhere and she'd sleep anywhere, at any time, and I could move her when she slept and everything. And one who will only sleep at home, and always at set times, and WILL NOT be disturbed.

I think it's just an innate personality thing. One of the many things parents can't control, but just have to work with.


----------



## funkymamajoy (May 25, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bluedaisy* 
in a situation that was not child centered, we would have assigned her a seat like we did for everyone else and she would have just sat there without all the fuss. (FWIW, we couldn't come up with an arrangement to please her because of limited space so we had to take more time to convince her to sit somewhere else anyway - so in the end the whole thing was a waste of time)


I just see this as changing what you usually do because the family has changed. If a family member brought a new partner, I'm sure the seating arrangement would've been arranged so they could sit together. Its the same thing. Trying to accomadate a request doesn't mean the child, or whoever, is the center of everything.

I've had friends who thought that they didn't have to change their lives just because they had kids. They thought they could just bring the kids with them everywhere and the kids will just be seen and not heard. But that's just not true. Their days often end with melt downs from tired kids who have hushed all day.

I try to find middle ground. If my kids feel that their needs and requests will be considered and fulfilled when possible, then they can be pretty agreeable to my needs and requests. If they're not, then I determine whose needs are most important.


----------



## Comtessa (Sep 16, 2008)

This is a great thread!

Here's the challenge: how do we respect our child and listen to her or him _without_ allowing them to become a tyrant? I used to care for a child who was accustomed to being heard and respected - a parenting style I really appreciated on the part of his parents - but the parents were so concerned with respecting their child's needs, IMO, they forgot to establish any boundaries for themselves. I once watched his mother make him four separate things for breakfast in a row. Here's how it went:

MOM: "What do you want for breakfast?"
CHILD: "Cereal."
MOM: "Okay, honey, here's your cereal."
CHILD: _Takes a bite, then whines,_ "I don't _like_ this cereal."
MOM: "Okay, honey, you don't have to eat it if you don't like it. What would you like instead?"
CHILD: "Eggs."
MOM: "Okay," _takes out frying pan and makes eggs._ "Here are your eggs, honey."
CHILD: _yells and throws plate on floor._ "I don't WANT eggs!!!"
MOM: "Well, what would you like, then?"
CHILD: "Yogurt."
MOM: "All right," _looking frazzled but hiding her impatience_ "Here's your yogurt."
CHILD: _takes a few bites. Then whines, again,_ "I'm hungry. Can I have a cookie?"

You guessed it; the kid got a cookie. For breakfast.

Now it seems obvious to me that this is absolutely unacceptable behavior for any three-year-old. But where would you draw the line? I think it's unfair to force a child to eat something that they find really awful, but at the same time, should they be forced to follow through and eat what they originally requested, even if it seems awful to them by the time it arrives on the table? Or do you let the child go hungry? At what point here would you draw the line and say "no"?


----------



## Holiztic (Oct 10, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Comtessa* 
This is a great thread!

Here's the challenge: how do we respect our child and listen to her or him _without_ allowing them to become a tyrant? I used to care for a child who was accustomed to being heard and respected - a parenting style I really appreciated on the part of his parents - but the parents were so concerned with respecting their child's needs, IMO, they forgot to establish any boundaries for themselves. I once watched his mother make him four separate things for breakfast in a row. Here's how it went:

MOM: "What do you want for breakfast?"
CHILD: "Cereal."
MOM: "Okay, honey, here's your cereal."
CHILD: _Takes a bite, then whines,_ "I don't _like_ this cereal."
MOM: "Okay, honey, you don't have to eat it if you don't like it. What would you like instead?"
CHILD: "Eggs."
MOM: "Okay," _takes out frying pan and makes eggs._ "Here are your eggs, honey."
CHILD: _yells and throws plate on floor._ "I don't WANT eggs!!!"
MOM: "Well, what would you like, then?"
CHILD: "Yogurt."
MOM: "All right," _looking frazzled but hiding her impatience_ "Here's your yogurt."
CHILD: _takes a few bites. Then whines, again,_ "I'm hungry. Can I have a cookie?"

You guessed it; the kid got a cookie. For breakfast.

Now it seems obvious to me that this is absolutely unacceptable behavior for any three-year-old. But where would you draw the line? I think it's unfair to force a child to eat something that they find really awful, but at the same time, should they be forced to follow through and eat what they originally requested, even if it seems awful to them by the time it arrives on the table? Or do you let the child go hungry? At what point here would you draw the line and say "no"?

Oh, I have such a problem with that kind of scene. First of all, in most parts of the world and through most of history, this would have been nearly impossible (to have so many options available and on such short notice). Secondly, I seriously doubt all those foods were "awful" to the child once it got there. No way. My nephew does this--we were all together at the beach this past summer. At meals, DS (2) sat down and ate his food until he was full (usually eating a small adult-sized portion). The end. Nephew took a look and maybe (maybe) a bite, then whined what he wanted instead. His mom would them microwave something or make a sandwich or cut cheese and grapes, whatever. Luckily, it didn't usually go past one second request, but still he rarely ate what he was first given, even if it was really reasonable food for a preschooler. Think of it this way: if you go to your friends house and they make X for dinner--you eat it and like it. Yay. But if you were at a restaurant with a 20 item menu, would you have chosen that exact dish? Odds say no. If the kid thinks he can have something even a little better, then why not ask for it. This is VERY child centered and it opens the door to so many food (and non-food) issues for years to come (in my little ol' opinion!)


----------



## funkymamajoy (May 25, 2008)

I say "you chose cereal so that's what you got." The child gets a choice but I'm not creating a buffet.


----------



## holyhelianthus (Jul 15, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sewchris2642* 
I don't think that we are so much an anti-child society as a me-first society. So I see both--children as fashion accessories and no child allowed--as symptoms of "everything revolves around me". "MY children can go everywhere". It's everyone else's children that should be seen and not heard or kept at home.

Very true.


----------



## lindberg99 (Apr 23, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *RiverTam* 
You know, I don't agree with you at all. With the exception of the baby-sitting example, we did all of this with my sons, and yet they're not spoiled brats. There are things that we bend on to keep the peace and things that we don't. All of those examples are things that we bend on.

Yes. And with the babysitting, I would much prefer my MIL to feel like she has to play with and entertain my kids constantly rather than do what she does, which is sit on the couch ignoring them until she falls asleep. Or do what my FIL does, which is ignore them until they touch something he doesn't want them to touch, at which point he yells at them.

And with the food thing, my oldest is very picky. I will not force her to eat things so she will just make a PB & J if she wants. I know this used to drive my SIL crazy when we would vacation together and I'm sure she thought I was way too child centered. But I have to do what works best for my family, not hers.


----------



## mamadebug (Dec 28, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Comtessa* 
This is a great thread!

Here's the challenge: how do we respect our child and listen to her or him _without_ allowing them to become a tyrant? I used to care for a child who was accustomed to being heard and respected - a parenting style I really appreciated on the part of his parents - but the parents were so concerned with respecting their child's needs, IMO, they forgot to establish any boundaries for themselves. I once watched his mother make him four separate things for breakfast in a row. Here's how it went:

MOM: "What do you want for breakfast?"
CHILD: "Cereal."
MOM: "Okay, honey, here's your cereal."
CHILD: _Takes a bite, then whines,_ "I don't _like_ this cereal."
MOM: "Okay, honey, you don't have to eat it if you don't like it. What would you like instead?"
CHILD: "Eggs."
MOM: "Okay," _takes out frying pan and makes eggs._ "Here are your eggs, honey."
CHILD: _yells and throws plate on floor._ "I don't WANT eggs!!!"
MOM: "Well, what would you like, then?"
CHILD: "Yogurt."
MOM: "All right," _looking frazzled but hiding her impatience_ "Here's your yogurt."
CHILD: _takes a few bites. Then whines, again,_ "I'm hungry. Can I have a cookie?"

You guessed it; the kid got a cookie. For breakfast.

Now it seems obvious to me that this is absolutely unacceptable behavior for any three-year-old. But where would you draw the line? I think it's unfair to force a child to eat something that they find really awful, but at the same time, should they be forced to follow through and eat what they originally requested, even if it seems awful to them by the time it arrives on the table? Or do you let the child go hungry? At what point here would you draw the line and say "no"?

It can be hard to know where to draw the line. But, in this instance, if I knew it was a cereal that he normally found at least acceptable to eat, then that would be what he got. If I had gone out on a limb and offered some new cereal that he had never tried before, I would be willing to offer a second option. Everyone had likes and dislikes, and I sometimes try a new food and don't like it - that's reasonable for a kiddo, too. But then, whatever was the second choice would be it. Going through 4 different breakfasts, whining and a plate of food on the floor sounds like a power struggle to me. It's is a miserable way to start the morning for all parties involved.


----------



## sewchris2642 (Feb 28, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kelly1101* 
I don't know if it's the "default," I guess you just had an extremely heavy sleeper. There's no way, with my baby or any others I've known, that they would take being picked up, put in a sling, walked out to the car, strapped in a car-seat, go to the store, get out of the car-seat, back in the sling, without waking up.

I mean, congrats if ya'll could do that, I imagine it made things a lot easier.

But, mine would wake up before you could get her in the sling in the first place, not to mention wrangling with the car-seat, and then she's sleepy and fussy for HOURS, all out of sorts. It's not like she's manipulating me to have things all her way-- she's only 7 months old, and she needs more sleep than adults to be able to function. Caring for a child's NEEDS is not "child-centered" to an extreme degree. It's just treating them with basic human courtesy.

I have one that I could disturb and take anywhere, including her well baby checks. Even as a teen, she could fall asleep in the car or bus. In her eyes, it never took more than 5 minutes to get anywhere. The second one, not so much. Not only didn't she sleep in the car, she screamed the entire time she was in the car. We planned trips very carefully. While the last two were ok with being disturbed during a nap, they never went back to sleep and were sleep deprived for the rest of the day. And were over tired at bedtime.


----------



## Kelly1101 (Oct 9, 2008)

Hopefully my next will be like your first









But yeah-- if the kid isn't one that could go back to sleep / not wake up, it's detrimental to their health and happiness to keep disrupting their sleep schedule to run errands, AND it's just not very nice or respectful.

To put it in perspective, it would be like if your husband woke you up in the middle of the night wanting you to go out to the store to get some trivial thing. You'd be like wth?

I just believe in treating the baby/child with the same respect you'd expect. If it's emergency or you REALLY have to go somewhere, well, that's what you have to do (to parallel the above analogy: like being woken up in the middle of the night for a sick child-- it's not fun, but it's necessary). But if it's something that can wait until after the nap, it's just common courtesy to wait.


----------



## mbm (Jun 14, 2006)

I definitely respect DD's naptimes! I think of it as me being selfish -- it's so much easier on me to have a visit with friends or run my errands when baby is well rested, well fed and happy.


----------



## North_Of_60 (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Comtessa* 
This is a great thread!

Here's the challenge: how do we respect our child and listen to her or him _without_ allowing them to become a tyrant? I used to care for a child who was accustomed to being heard and respected - a parenting style I really appreciated on the part of his parents - but the parents were so concerned with respecting their child's needs, IMO, they forgot to establish any boundaries for themselves. I once watched his mother make him four separate things for breakfast in a row. Here's how it went:

MOM: "What do you want for breakfast?"
CHILD: "Cereal."
MOM: "Okay, honey, here's your cereal."
CHILD: _Takes a bite, then whines,_ "I don't _like_ this cereal."
MOM: "Okay, honey, you don't have to eat it if you don't like it. What would you like instead?"
CHILD: "Eggs."
MOM: "Okay," _takes out frying pan and makes eggs._ "Here are your eggs, honey."
CHILD: _yells and throws plate on floor._ "I don't WANT eggs!!!"
MOM: "Well, what would you like, then?"
CHILD: "Yogurt."
MOM: "All right," _looking frazzled but hiding her impatience_ "Here's your yogurt."
CHILD: _takes a few bites. Then whines, again,_ "I'm hungry. Can I have a cookie?"

You guessed it; the kid got a cookie. For breakfast.

Now it seems obvious to me that this is absolutely unacceptable behavior for any three-year-old. But where would you draw the line? *I think it's unfair to force a child to eat something that they find really awfu*l, but at the same time, should they be forced to follow through and eat what they originally requested, even if it seems awful to them by the time it arrives on the table? Or do you let the child go hungry? At what point here would you draw the line and say "no"?

For me this wouldn't be about the food at all, but about making decisions, and how those decisions affect us, and the people around us. In our house, I would give her the cereal, and that's it. If she has the choice to CHOOSE what she wants, than she needs to learn to think about that decision and then be Ok with it. I understand that kids can be wishy-washy, so in our house I might give her options when choosing. But at the end of the day, I want my daughter to not only have options, to learn to pick what she wants out of those options, and then to be satisfied with what she chose.

And if she can't be satisfied with what she chose, she has to learn the skills to cope with that disappointment. That will NEVER happen if she never gets to experience what it's like to make the wrong choice, even if it's just about breakfast. Depriving her of that experience would be doing her a big disservice, in my opinion.


----------



## philomom (Sep 12, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Comtessa* 
This is a great thread!

Here's the challenge: how do we respect our child and listen to her or him _without_ allowing them to become a tyrant? I used to care for a child who was accustomed to being heard and respected - a parenting style I really appreciated on the part of his parents - but the parents were so concerned with respecting their child's needs, IMO, they forgot to establish any boundaries for themselves. I once watched his mother make him four separate things for breakfast in a row. Here's how it went:

MOM: "What do you want for breakfast?"
CHILD: "Cereal."
MOM: "Okay, honey, here's your cereal."
CHILD: _Takes a bite, then whines,_ "I don't _like_ this cereal."
MOM: "Okay, honey, you don't have to eat it if you don't like it. What would you like instead?"
CHILD: "Eggs."
MOM: "Okay," _takes out frying pan and makes eggs._ "Here are your eggs, honey."
CHILD: _yells and throws plate on floor._ "I don't WANT eggs!!!"
MOM: "Well, what would you like, then?"
CHILD: "Yogurt."
MOM: "All right," _looking frazzled but hiding her impatience_ "Here's your yogurt."
CHILD: _takes a few bites. Then whines, again,_ "I'm hungry. Can I have a cookie?"

You guessed it; the kid got a cookie. For breakfast.

Now it seems obvious to me that this is absolutely unacceptable behavior for any three-year-old. But where would you draw the line? I think it's unfair to force a child to eat something that they find really awful, but at the same time, should they be forced to follow through and eat what they originally requested, even if it seems awful to them by the time it arrives on the table? Or do you let the child go hungry? At what point here would you draw the line and say "no"?

Omgosh... do we have the same friend?

I might allow one second choice... sometimes I change my mind , too. But to continue to cater after you've provided two breakfasts? Insane!







Just sit quietly at the table and eat your meal. Ignore the child whimpering with two good breakfasts in front of them. And if they disrupt the family too much... send them from the table. Maybe they weren't that hungry.


----------



## MayBaby2007 (Feb 22, 2007)

Ummmmmmmm..... I need some help!!!

My 2.5 yr old constantly interupts my phone calls.

I wait on her and give different food if she whines about her first CHOICE.

Ok (to heck with the bullets of examples).......I pretty much do all the examples on this thread of being child-centered.

Help me! I thought my kid was too young to enforce phone call ettiquette. Is she? What can I do when she interupts me?

If she tells me she wants an apple, then whines and says "I don't want an apple" (after I've peeled and sliced it)....do I just let her go hungry?

She despises veggies. If I serve a cassarole with veggies mixed in and she refuses to eat it for dinner.....do I let her go hungry then? (Her refusal to eat veggies makes steam come out of my ears!!!!!).

My kid is a very good kid. She's very polite in stores, says "excuse me" or "sorry" if she bumps into someone. She'll say it to me and the dog around the house as well. She always asks before she does something...and follows directions based on my answer. In general, she's a really good kid! But reading these posts, it has occurred to me that she has got me tied around her finger. I'm one of those parents who argue with the child about breakfast.....and the child wins the argument 5 times out of 10.


----------



## Theoretica (Feb 2, 2008)

Haven't read all the replies but I just wanted to say there's a HUGE difference between child centered and child OBSESSED, at the expense of everyone ELSE'S sanity.

I'm child centered because I really do strive to do what is best for them whenever I can. Sometimes, what is best for them is that *I* do what is best for ME. Sometimes that means saying yes, sometimes that means saying no.


----------



## Holiztic (Oct 10, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MayBaby2007* 
Ummmmmmmm..... I need some help!!!

My 2.5 yr old constantly interupts my phone calls.

I wait on her and give different food if she whines about her first CHOICE.

Ok (to heck with the bullets of examples).......I pretty much do all the examples on this thread of being child-centered.

Help me! I thought my kid was too young to enforce phone call ettiquette. Is she? What can I do when she interupts me?

If she tells me she wants an apple, then whines and says "I don't want an apple" (after I've peeled and sliced it)....do I just let her go hungry?

She despises veggies. If I serve a cassarole with veggies mixed in and she refuses to eat it for dinner.....do I let her go hungry then? (Her refusal to eat veggies makes steam come out of my ears!!!!!).

My kid is a very good kid. She's very polite in stores, says "excuse me" or "sorry" if she bumps into someone. She'll say it to me and the dog around the house as well. She always asks before she does something...and follows directions based on my answer. In general, she's a really good kid! But reading these posts, it has occurred to me that she has got me tied around her finger. I'm one of those parents who argue with the child about breakfast.....and the child wins the argument 5 times out of 10.










You see, the thing is _they really won't go hungry!_ At least not for long. When DS wants a snack, I say "okay, I've got almonds and do you want grapes or apple?" If he says "no, something else" I say "I have almonds, do you want grapes or apple with them?" And if this goes on for more than a minute, I say "okay, I'm going to fold the laundry." The end. Usually he says "grapes" and sometimes he just 'goes hungry'. He still ends up eating the same amount of food for the day, he's not really going hungry! Sometimes I give him the almonds and grapes and he barely touches them. He doesn't ask for something else because by now he knows there's no point, but back when he did, I said "you can have almonds and grapes now or wait for you supper." I don't think I am just "lucky" to have a 2.5 year old that eats almost anything. Last night I was exhausted and not even hungry. For DH and DS I heated some veggie burgers (they're potato pancakes really with tons of big chunks of veggies and indian spices) and an artichoke and tomato salad. Twice he got out of his seat and said he was all done. DH said (gently, no pressure) "okay, but that's it for the night, no snacks if you don't finish" and he got right back up and ate it all. He likes those foods, but probably didn't love it--would have preferred holding out for something better before bed. But he knows its not gonna happen, so he eats. If he really doesn't like something he just gets down and says again "I'm all done". The few things I know he truly doesn't like I just don't make for any of us or I make sure there's plenty of other food in the meal that he'll eat. In our house there's never an issue of forcing him to eat something he doesn't like, it just isn't necessary. I know DS' great eating habits are a result of us being really serious about never catering to him from the beginning.


----------



## sewchris2642 (Feb 28, 2009)

North_Of_60 said:


> For me this wouldn't be about the food at all, but about making decisions, and how those decisions affect us, and the people around us. In our house, I would give her the cereal, and that's it. If she has the choice to CHOOSE what she wants, than she needs to learn to think about that decision and then be Ok with it. I understand that kids can be wishy-washy, so in our house I might give her options when choosing. But at the end of the day, I want my daughter to not only have options, to learn to pick what she wants out of those options, and then to be satisfied with what she chose.
> 
> And if she can't be satisfied with what she chose, she has to learn the skills to cope with that disappointment. That will NEVER happen if she never gets to experience what it's like to make the wrong choice, even if it's just about breakfast. Depriving her of that experience would be doing her a big disservice, in my opinion.[/QUOTE


----------



## sewchris2642 (Feb 28, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MayBaby2007* 
Ummmmmmmm..... I need some help!!!

My 2.5 yr old constantly interupts my phone calls.

I wait on her and give different food if she whines about her first CHOICE.

Ok (to heck with the bullets of examples).......I pretty much do all the examples on this thread of being child-centered.

Help me! I thought my kid was too young to enforce phone call ettiquette. Is she? What can I do when she interupts me?

If she tells me she wants an apple, then whines and says "I don't want an apple" (after I've peeled and sliced it)....do I just let her go hungry?

She despises veggies. If I serve a cassarole with veggies mixed in and she refuses to eat it for dinner.....do I let her go hungry then? (Her refusal to eat veggies makes steam come out of my ears!!!!!).

My kid is a very good kid. She's very polite in stores, says "excuse me" or "sorry" if she bumps into someone. She'll say it to me and the dog around the house as well. She always asks before she does something...and follows directions based on my answer. In general, she's a really good kid! But reading these posts, it has occurred to me that she has got me tied around her finger. I'm one of those parents who argue with the child about breakfast.....and the child wins the argument 5 times out of 10.










The thing is it's not about the phone or food. It's about independence, making choices and learning to live with them. When you're on the phone, your attention isn't on her. If you think about, she probably does the same thing when you're cooking or on the computer. It's just that those activities can be interrupted or include her. She's learning about choices and their consequences. Let her pick out breakfast and lunch. At dinner, she can start serving herself the foods she wants to eat. We have the rule that they can take what they want but they have to eat what they take. Or in the case of a new food, they have to give it an honest try. When she's done, let her get down, with the warning that the next meal is breakfast. It might seem far fetched but not liking what she chose for dinner and having to go hungry until breakfast will give her the skills she needs as an adult when picking a job or a husband.


----------



## cappuccinosmom (Dec 28, 2003)

Quote:

If she tells me she wants an apple, then whines and says "I don't want an apple" (after I've peeled and sliced it)....do I just let her go hungry?
Well, yes. Only she won't go hungry.









My youngest did this at exactly 2.5 yo to. "I want...NOOO, I don't want..I WANT!!!!" Drove me up a wall. Even if I were inclined to cater to him, which I'm not, there would be no way possible to make him happy or content, because his "want" switched from one thing to another and back again in milliseconds.

If he says "I want an apple" and then rejects it, I just say "OK. You eat it or don't, whatever you like".







I'll leave the apple on the table where he can get it, but I'm won't cajole or feed into his game. Same for a drink, etc. When we go on a walk, he's tried a few times, to do that, and I take him by the hand and we walk in whatever direction he originally wanted to go when I asked him. It's not a game we can play when we're that close to a street and cars. Most of the time, though, I don't ask him which direction he wants to go anymore.









Great advice from the other posters on the rest of the stuff. I responded to this issue mainly because I just went through it and I know how crazy-making it is!


----------



## MayBaby2007 (Feb 22, 2007)

sewchris2642 said:


> The thing is it's not about the phone or food. It's about independence, making choices and learning to live with them. When you're on the phone, your attention isn't on her. If you think about, she probably does the same thing when you're cooking or on the computer. It's just that those activities can be interrupted or include her. She's learning about choices and their consequences. Let her pick out breakfast and lunch. At dinner, she can start serving herself the foods she wants to eat. We have the rule that they can take what they want but they have to eat what they take. Or in the case of a new food, they have to give it an honest try. *When she's done, let her get down, with the warning that the next meal is breakfast. It might seem far fetched but not liking what she chose for dinner and having to go hungry until breakfast will give her the skills she needs as an adult when picking a job or a husband.[/*QUOTE]
> 
> Can I really do that? That seems so wrong. She's a horrible picky eater which I hate. I want her to eat veggies and other main courses besides chicken or spaghetti. Usually when she won't eat dinner, I'll tell her she can have an apple and water only (no special treats she wants) if she doesn't eat dinner. (Honestly, okay...I usually budge and make her a pbj or something). But no food other than dinner? I've thought about trying that....but it reminds me of that scene from Mommy Dearest. I figured if I did do "no dinner, no other food until breakfast", then I would save her uneaten dinner in the fridge. If she was hungry, I would offer dinner again....until breakfast food. Again though, that reminds me of Mommy Dearest.
> 
> She used to love greenbeans (the only veggie she would eat). Now she won't try them. I made fresh corn on the cob with sweet cream butter and salt--it was like candy SOOOO good! She tasted one piece and spit it out. I've tried bribing her with candy. I have candy in a glass vase on top of the fridge. I told her, "If you eat ONE pea. Just ONE pea, you can have a piece of candy!" No deal. Her eating habits are driving me nutty. But I'm highjacking this thread. So sorry.


----------



## Kelly1101 (Oct 9, 2008)

To offer a bit of perspective... I was an INSANELY picky eater as a child. I still kind of am, although I've expanded a lot since then.

Both of my siblings will eat just about anything and everything. My mom treated us all the same.

So I doubt that it's parenting that makes picky eaters / adventurous eaters. I think people are just born that way.

The way my mom did, is that she knew everything that I would eat. She made sure to include things that I would eat in every meal. If I decided that I wanted to throw a fit and didn't want what I was given, too bad then, I didn't eat it. She didn't offer choices again and again.

I never "went hungry" as in starved.

I think it's a case of balance-- by all means, give the child things suited to their taste, don't insist that they eat things they hate. But you're not a waitress and they can't send it back after they have it.

The best compromise, I think, is to keep the originally offered food, in case they truly are hungry.

But if you cater to whims, it's just setting up a bad situation.


----------



## waiflywaif (Oct 17, 2005)

Quote:

I told her, "If you eat ONE pea. Just ONE pea, you can have a piece of candy!" No deal.
No. Just no. It's HER choice to eat peas or not, and peas have nothing to do with candy.

Keep them separate. Peas or no peas, but no candy. Unless you decide to give her candy, but that's your choice and it's not about what she eats or doesn't eat.

Making "yummy" foods contingent on eating "yucky" foods is a really, really bad idea.


----------



## Holiztic (Oct 10, 2005)

I always hate to say this kind of thing in these threads, because it's basically too late for this approach, but for anyone lurking with a baby not yet on solids, I'll go ahead. I don't mean to make anyone feel bad about what they have or haven't done, I am sure there are categories like this for me (like sleep--which I did all wrong!)

I believe it is VITAL to totally shelter our babies, toddler, and preschoolers when it comes to food. We simply cannot expect a tiny child to taste modern, industrial foods that have been formulated (literally) to taste good beyond anything nature has provided, and then continue to enjoy real food. When a toddler eats candy, cookies, flavored anything, really most store-bought snack or treat food (even organic crackers!), they are going to internalize this flavor,t exture, etc. as being superior to whole foods or homemade foods. There are obviously some exceptions to this for most kids, but on whole I believe this to be a huge problem.

My DS is 2.5 and he eats sugar maybe 1-2 times a month--almost never at home. He eats fruit leather as a treat, again, never at home. We have no convenience food here--no juice except aloe vera juice which he loves







, he has learned (and knows no other way) that what I home cook for a meal is all there is--short of fruit and nuts. Even if I make homemade crackers or barely sweet cookies I only let on that there is 1 serving's worth and the rest hide for late-night mommy daddy snacks or go to work with daddy.

Is this dishonest? Wrong? Mean? So sheltering that he'll go off the deep end when he discovers candy, cookies, soda, etc.? Well, if I kept this up with this level of purity until his teen years, then yes, I think so. But babies and toddlers are NOT teens. They need us to give them a framework from which they can use their independent judgment when they do get older. My DS LOVES real food and I believe I have done him this service in not letting junk food (which I consider to be most food at grocery stores!) distort his tastes.

ETA: Oh, and this obviously only works with a child that is home most of the time, and in "trusted" food places the rest of the time. If we had no choice but to have DS in care, I know this would not be so easy, and I do not pretend that it is for those of you in such a situation!


----------



## Galatea (Jun 28, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bluedaisy* 
Thanks for all the great responses!

I can clarify a little what i mean about being "child centered".

In the other culture I lived in that was NOT child centered, kids would normally amuse themselves with very few toys, not interrupt adult conversations, were not demanding or sassy, and I never saw a tantrum there (not saying there were never any tantrums, but definitely fewer than here, and a public tantrum would have been very out of place). the children were also very respectful.

I realize some of these things might be more cultural, but when I observe my extended family some of the "child centered" behavior I saw was:

- asking a 3 year old where she wanted to sit for thanksgiving, and then taking 15 minutes to try and figure out how to arrange all the kids and adults so that she could sit where she wanted.

- asking a toddler what they want for lunch instead of having them eat what everyone else is eating

- kids who pick the music every time they are in the car - so it's always children's cds playing and never adult music

- adults not being able to have any kind of meaningful conversation when the kids are awake because the kids are the center of attention and always interrupting

- when my mom comes to babysit my one year old daughter she feels like she has to play with her and entertain her constantly, and hovers so that she doesn't do things like walk with the cordless phone in case she trips and the antennae pokes her eye out

to me, this kind of behavior would encourage kids that they should always be the center of attention and always get what they want - which is not messages i want my dd to get.

i'm asking for examples because i realized my own family is so child centered and i really want to do things differently with my dd, but i'm not really sure what to do practically

ETA: I don't think the opposite of child centered is being parent centered, but maybe being family centered - where there is a balance of everyone's needs and children learn that other people's desires and opinions matter so they won't always get their way

i don't think the parent's needs should always trump those of the kids, just as the kids needs should not always trump those of the parents or siblings

I agree with everything you said here. I feel that this way of child-rearing is unlikely to end well. It has been easier for us since we have 3 kids, so doing this for each kid is impractical, but also because it does not equip children for the real world. Adults are not asked or given what they want most of the time, and to give kids the impression that everything will be to their liking does them no favors. Practically, this is what we do (and we are often told that we have such "good" kids so maybe it works):

1. Number one rule: you get what you get and you don't get upset.

2. Mom and Dad's word is law. Period.

3. When things don't go your way, you get an appropriate period of crying, and then you are done. (Ex: last night I asked them if they wanted to go to a diner or McDs. They split evenly, so I cast the deciding vote for McDs b/c I love the grilled southwest salad. The loser cried and wailed and worked himself to almost vomiting, saying he wouldn't eat anything. In this situation, my very child-centered mother would have gone on and on trying to comfort him, and the result would have been more wailing. I just said, "I understand you are disappointed. We will go to the diner next time. You have 5 minutes until we get to McDs to calm down and decide what you want to eat. If you decide not to eat, then there will be no food later, period." Result? He stopped crying and chose nuggets and everything was fine.)

4. When Mom and Dad are talking, there are no interruptions.

5. Politeness is of highest importance and there are no excuses. Ds1 got in trouble for not obeying the bus driver. He was put in time out, denied tv time, and had to write a note and apologize verbally. Once past a certain age (usually 4), there are no excuses for rudeness (no, "Oh, he's a sensitive child.")

6. Everybody works. I only pick up toys on rare occasions. Kids have chores appropriate to their ages. I also don't take any guilt trips. B/c I work at home, there are times in which it looks like I am here but I am working. They have to respect that and I am careful to show them that I like my job and am proud of contributing to the family.

7. I don't get involved in their disputes except to tell them to work it out or I will take the toy away.

8. Dh and I leave them often with grandma so we can have dates by ourselves. This is key.

9. They do not get toys whenever we are at a store, nor happy meals whenever we eat fast food. Those are treats, not expectations.

10. You eat the same food at meal time with everyone else. No one gets special food or a second meal b/c the first was not eaten. You can choose not to eat, but you will be hungry.

11. And b/c you mentioned it, we almost never listen to kids' music. We listen to what we want to listen to and they like that, too.


----------



## Cherry Alive (Mar 11, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *waiflywaif* 
No. Just no. It's HER choice to eat peas or not, and peas have nothing to do with candy.

Keep them separate. Peas or no peas, but no candy. Unless you decide to give her candy, but that's your choice and it's not about what she eats or doesn't eat.

Making "yummy" foods contingent on eating "yucky" foods is a really, really bad idea.

But what about the concept of not giving children dessert unless they finish their dinner? And what if they've decided their (once loved) dinner has suddenly all become too "yucky"?


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

We don't do dessert. If we decide to have something sweet, it has no relationship to the meal. The concept of dessert is fraught with problems.


----------



## Cherry Alive (Mar 11, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamazee* 
We don't do dessert. If we decide to have something sweet, it has no relationship to the meal. The concept of dessert is fraught with problems.

Really? I'm very curious about this as it seems to be a big concept in a number of different cultures (at least Western ones). What exactly is wrong with dessert?


----------



## sewchris2642 (Feb 28, 2009)

MayBaby2007 said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *sewchris2642*
> ...


----------



## cappuccinosmom (Dec 28, 2003)

Quote:

Really? I'm very curious about this as it seems to be a big concept in a number of different cultures (at least Western ones). What exactly is wrong with dessert?
I grew up with dessert every night, and promises of ice cream if I ate my supper, etc.

Dh and I decided that we do not want to use sweets as a reward, nor do we want "dessert" to be an expectation or entitlement. We want to be able to eat a healthy dinner without "needing" sweets afterwards. We have something special after dinner once in a while, but it is occasional rather than regular.


----------



## waiflywaif (Oct 17, 2005)

Quote:

But what about the concept of not giving children dessert unless they finish their dinner? And what if they've decided their (once loved) dinner has suddenly all become too "yucky"?
Because you're setting up a bizarre food dynamic when you do this. Make dessert healthy enough or small enough that it doesn't matter. One small cookie, three jellybeans, fruit, frozen yogurt, whatever. Talk about how your body needs different kinds of foods to grow. And don't sweat amounts of dinner.

If you say "you have to eat your dinner to get dessert," aren't YOU implicitly saying, "Dinner is yucky, dessert is yummy"?


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Cherry Alive* 
Really? I'm very curious about this as it seems to be a big concept in a number of different cultures (at least Western ones). What exactly is wrong with dessert?

You said it perfectly:

Quote:

But what about the concept of not giving children dessert unless they finish their dinner? And what if they've decided their (once loved) dinner has suddenly all become too "yucky"?
I have never IRL seen or heard of a situation where families regularly had dessert where it didn't become a bribe to eat other food.


----------



## paxye (Mar 31, 2005)

I didn't have dessert growing up... we ate sweets when we had them but they were not there as a reward for finishing a meal or an everyday thing.

I love to bake and I love Ice cream, so it it not like we avoid sweets... but we don't do "dessert"... most often we have something sweet mid afternoon, when the cookies come out of the oven or we want a little snack...

Sometimes we have something in the evening, but it isn't an expectation so the kids eat what they have without thinking about what may come after... sweets after supper are often just a good surprise for them...


----------



## lovebug (Nov 2, 2004)

what a great thread to learn from!


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kelly1101* 
To offer a bit of perspective... I was an INSANELY picky eater as a child. I still kind of am, although I've expanded a lot since then.

Both of my siblings will eat just about anything and everything. My mom treated us all the same.

So I doubt that it's parenting that makes picky eaters / adventurous eaters. I think people are just born that way.

I agree. My brother would eat most things as a kid. My sister would, too. I was _very_ picky. I've really worked at it in the last 5-10 years and am much less picky now (whereas my brother and sister have both...crystallized their tastes - they don't try new things much, anymore). There are still a few things I won't touch, with mushrooms being at the top of the list, but I'll eat a _ton_ of things I wouldn't touch for about 20 years...tomato sauces (I wouldn't even eat pizza or spaghetti as a teen), spicy foods (went from not eating tacos or even mild chili as a young adult to cooking butter chicken and spicy Thai dishes), sour cream, etc. etc. But, I wouldn't touch a lot of things as a kid. My kids are the same. DS1 and ds2 would/will eat just about anything. DD1? OMG - she even drives _me_ crazy!

MayBaby. Keep offering things. Take the corn on the cob. Don't make it a fight. Just keep putting it on the table and encouraging her to try it. Just because she hated it once doesn't mean she'll hate it forever. Even dd1 will occasionally decide to give something she formerly hated another try. I don't remember what it was at the moment, but I know she tried something again recently. She hasn't touched whatever it was in at least a year, and has probably had some on her plate 30-40 times. She ate it up and said, "this is good". DH and I were kind of surprised, but it happens like that sometimes.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamazee* 
We don't do dessert. If we decide to have something sweet, it has no relationship to the meal. The concept of dessert is fraught with problems.

We do dessert on occasion, but it's just a finish to the meal, yk? It's never an "eat your dinner or you don't get dessert" thing. Plus, my kids frequently see me polish off the rest of the salad (whatever's in the bowl) _after_ dessert, because I looooove salad. They seem to be doing okay on the food front, despite dd1's pickiness.

The one thing I'm cast-iron about is asking for something. If you actually ask for it - or even choose it from options provided - then you eat it. I don't mind if we put a bit of something on your plate that you've either never had or don't like, and you don't eat it. I _do_ mind being asked for something specific and then being told, "but now I don't want it - I want such-and-such". Not happening.


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *paxye* 
I didn't have dessert growing up... we ate sweets when we had them but they were not there as a reward for finishing a meal or an everyday thing.

I love to bake and I love Ice cream, so it it not like we avoid sweets... but we don't do "dessert"... most often we have something sweet mid afternoon, when the cookies come out of the oven or we want a little snack...

Sometimes we have something in the evening, but it isn't an expectation so the kids eat what they have without thinking about what may come after... sweets after supper are often just a good surprise for them...

This is what we do, too. It isn't related to dinner. If it happens immediately after dinner, which is pretty rare as we're usually not hungry then, it's a surprise.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Comtessa* 
This is a great thread!

Here's the challenge: how do we respect our child and listen to her or him _without_ allowing them to become a tyrant? I used to care for a child who was accustomed to being heard and respected - a parenting style I really appreciated on the part of his parents - but the parents were so concerned with respecting their child's needs, IMO, they forgot to establish any boundaries for themselves. I once watched his mother make him four separate things for breakfast in a row. Here's how it went:

MOM: "What do you want for breakfast?"
CHILD: "Cereal."
MOM: "Okay, honey, here's your cereal."
CHILD: _Takes a bite, then whines,_ "I don't _like_ this cereal."
MOM: "Okay, honey, you don't have to eat it if you don't like it. What would you like instead?"
CHILD: "Eggs."
MOM: "Okay," _takes out frying pan and makes eggs._ "Here are your eggs, honey."
CHILD: _yells and throws plate on floor._ "I don't WANT eggs!!!"
MOM: "Well, what would you like, then?"
CHILD: "Yogurt."
MOM: "All right," _looking frazzled but hiding her impatience_ "Here's your yogurt."
CHILD: _takes a few bites. Then whines, again,_ "I'm hungry. Can I have a cookie?"

You guessed it; the kid got a cookie. For breakfast.

Now it seems obvious to me that this is absolutely unacceptable behavior for any three-year-old. But where would you draw the line? I think it's unfair to force a child to eat something that they find really awful, but at the same time, should they be forced to follow through and eat what they originally requested, even if it seems awful to them by the time it arrives on the table? Or do you let the child go hungry? At what point here would you draw the line and say "no"?


Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamadebug* 
It can be hard to know where to draw the line. But, in this instance, if I knew it was a cereal that he normally found at least acceptable to eat, then that would be what he got. If I had gone out on a limb and offered some new cereal that he had never tried before, I would be willing to offer a second option. Everyone had likes and dislikes, and I sometimes try a new food and don't like it - that's reasonable for a kiddo, too. But then, whatever was the second choice would be it. Going through 4 different breakfasts, whining and a plate of food on the floor sounds like a power struggle to me. It's is a miserable way to start the morning for all parties involved.

That's about where I'd be at, too. I'd probably offer a second choice if it was a new cereal. If it was something he was already familiar with, then he gets what he asked for. I wouldn't give him a second choice that he was unfamiliar with, even if he asked for it. He'd get one of the "old standbys".


----------



## Jugs (Mar 18, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *gcgirl* 
I keep seeing posts that suggest American society is either child-centered or child-hostile. The way I see it, our society is not FAMILY-friendly. It's very sergregated - adult things are for adults, and kid things are for kids. And that's pretty much it. I hate that about our culture.

Apropos of nothing, but because it kinda relates, I've been thinking that our next BIG family vacation will be a cruise on Costa lines. Why? Because it's an ITALIAN line, and that means kids are welcome virtually everywhere, anytime, with their families. That's the kind of family I was raised in (lucky me), and it just makes the most sense. *Why do the kids have to be in "kid care" while the adults are off doing other things?* That, and the lack of close extended families, is what I'd like to change about our culture.

I do believe their is a balance to this as well. We recently took our first family vacation in many many years and we did _indeed_ take advantage of the child care. It was a family vacation, which we feel entitles us all to have some fun; we spend all year long being family-centered and it was a refreshing break to be able to have our children well cared for and doing activities that were on their level, while we did things that we normally wouldn't be able to do with a toddler and a special-needs child in tow, and then met up in the late afternoon to spend the rest of the evening as a family. Yes, children do need to experience adventures as a family, but that does not overshadow my and dh's need for time as couple; I don't believe that being parents means back-burnering our marriage until the children need us less, particularly since our oldest will most likely never live independantly.


----------



## bluedaisy (Sep 5, 2008)

I had a conversation yesterday that made me think of this thread...

I was talking with some American and kenyan friends about boarding school...in Kenya, it's very common to send kids to boarding school, especially in high school.

the americans mentioned that in the US, it's seen as a negative thing to send your kids to boarding school, like you don't want to be bothered by them.

the kenyan responded by saying that parents see boarding school as a very positive thing - life is "rough" in boarding school in that kids have to take care of themselves, hand wash their own clothes and sheets, eat what is provided, take studies seriously, obey the teachers, etc. Parents see this "hardship" as instrumental in building character and preparing kids for the world.

In the US, we tend to see any pain, hardship, or discomfort as a bad thing. We try really hard to shield our kids from any discomfort at all (i.e. in the examples of worrying that they might be hungry if they don't finish their dinner or if they refuse a snack).

FWIW, I am NOT a fan of boarding school and I think the Kenyan example is on the other end of the spectrum, whereas I fall somewhere in the middle of that spectrum.

I can understand the attitude that some hardship and challenges build character and can teach our children valuable lessons. I think we do children a disservice by trying to shield them completely from any pain, disappointment, etc.


----------



## Kelly1101 (Oct 9, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bluedaisy* 
I can understand the attitude that some hardship and challenges build character and can teach our children valuable lessons. I think we do children a disservice by trying to shield them completely from any pain, disappointment, etc.

I agree. I think the only trick is being age-appropriate. I mean, there's a lot of difference between, as we were talking about earlier with food, teaching a child about sticking to decisions, and leaving an infant to CIO to "toughen them up."

Dealing with hardship and disappointment SHOULD be part of life lessons, but at an age where the child has the resources to deal with it, with as little or as much help as is appropriate.


----------



## cappuccinosmom (Dec 28, 2003)

Quote:

I can understand the attitude that some hardship and challenges build character and can teach our children valuable lessons. I think we do children a disservice by trying to shield them completely from any pain, disappointment, etc.
I agree.

Though, that would not induce me to send my kids to boarding school. There are other ways.


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

I would not create hardship or adversity or be unfeeling when my child is dealing with it because I hope it will make them more mature. Those things are inevitable in this world. And I don't think it's right to expect very young children to handle adversity on their own. I'll be on their side. The older they get, the less I'll be able to help them, and the more they'll have to deal with things on their own. But I won't make a toddler or young child, or even my 7-year-old, go hungry to teach her a lesson.

This is a good article about this: http://www.naturalchild.org/jan_hunt/getit.html


----------



## North_Of_60 (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bluedaisy* 
In the US, we tend to see any pain, hardship, or discomfort as a bad thing. We try really hard to shield our kids from any discomfort at all (i.e. in the examples of worrying that they might be hungry if they don't finish their dinner or if they refuse a snack).

Even though I too recognize that the Kenyan boarding school is definitely on the other end of the spectrum, this totally resonates with me anyway. This is one reason why I don't identify with "gentle discipline". I mean, we don't spank, we don't yell, we don't shame, we try to be as age appropriate as the situation warrants, but at the same time, some things are NOT up for discussion, I don't think too hard about how I say things (or what I say, like "no" and "good job"), we are not consentual all, and I have no issues at all with imposing unnatural consequences (like taking toys away for not taking taking proper care of them, etc).

My reason for all this? I want to do better than my parents by not spanking and shaming and yelling, but at the same time, life is REALLY unfair and rough, and I feel like I'd be doing her a huuuuuuuuuge disservice if I cut the word "no" from my vocabulary and tried to make every decision mutual. I do not believe that children are equal peers to adults, and while I am very mindful of her age when applying that, I think part of raising a good kid is not alluding to the fact they are equal to everyone around them. They're not. From things like landlords, banks, bosses, to heck, even insurance companies, giving her the false impression that everyone is going to work with her and come to a mutually agreeable solution is painting the world with a deceptive brush.

Anyway, long story longer (







), I don't think it's character building to be mutually agreeable and gentle to your kids 100% of the time. What I think is character building is when you take disappointment, mistakes, and even authority, and _learn_ from it. I don't try to avoid those things. They're a part of life. I'm not going to take 15 minutes to figure out a seating arrangement, or make 3 different breakfasts, or go out of my way to negotiate with a 3 year old. I guess I'm big old coercive, punitive meanie. But hey, so is life!









Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kelly1101* 
Dealing with hardship and disappointment SHOULD be part of life lessons, but at an age where the child has the resources to deal with it, with as little or as much help as is appropriate.

Yep.


----------



## sewchris2642 (Feb 28, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Holiztic* 
I always hate to say this kind of thing in these threads, because it's basically too late for this approach, but for anyone lurking with a baby not yet on solids, I'll go ahead. I don't mean to make anyone feel bad about what they have or haven't done, I am sure there are categories like this for me (like sleep--which I did all wrong!)

I believe it is VITAL to totally shelter our babies, toddler, and preschoolers when it comes to food. We simply cannot expect a tiny child to taste modern, industrial foods that have been formulated (literally) to taste good beyond anything nature has provided, and then continue to enjoy real food. When a toddler eats candy, cookies, flavored anything, really most store-bought snack or treat food (even organic crackers!), they are going to internalize this flavor,t exture, etc. as being superior to whole foods or homemade foods. There are obviously some exceptions to this for most kids, but on whole I believe this to be a huge problem.

My DS is 2.5 and he eats sugar maybe 1-2 times a month--almost never at home. He eats fruit leather as a treat, again, never at home. We have no convenience food here--no juice except aloe vera juice which he loves







, he has learned (and knows no other way) that what I home cook for a meal is all there is--short of fruit and nuts. Even if I make homemade crackers or barely sweet cookies I only let on that there is 1 serving's worth and the rest hide for late-night mommy daddy snacks or go to work with daddy.

Is this dishonest? Wrong? Mean? So sheltering that he'll go off the deep end when he discovers candy, cookies, soda, etc.? Well, if I kept this up with this level of purity until his teen years, then yes, I think so. But babies and toddlers are NOT teens. They need us to give them a framework from which they can use their independent judgment when they do get older. My DS LOVES real food and I believe I have done him this service in not letting junk food (which I consider to be most food at grocery stores!) distort his tastes.

ETA: Oh, and this obviously only works with a child that is home most of the time, and in "trusted" food places the rest of the time. If we had no choice but to have DS in care, I know this would not be so easy, and I do not pretend that it is for those of you in such a situation!

The results won't be known until your son moves out on his own as an adult. Right now at 2.5, he is eating what you decide. The proof of your method will be when he chooses as an adult. Not that your method is wrong but that it's unproven yet. No parenting decision can be said to work until the child is an adult and still following what the parent had laid down when they were children. That's why kids in general have a tendency to "go wild" when they move out. It's not a rebellion but trying out things that were not part of their childhood.


----------



## sewchris2642 (Feb 28, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Cherry Alive* 
But what about the concept of not giving children dessert unless they finish their dinner? And what if they've decided their (once loved) dinner has suddenly all become too "yucky"?

Remove dessert from dinner. If dessert is always offered/served right after dinner, it's part of dinner and should be served to everyone regardless of how much or how little they eat of the other foods. Otherwise, the dessert attains way too much importance in relationship to the other foods. If, as a parent, you decide that your children must eat more of the dinner portion of the meal, then serve dessert later in the evening. Growing up, we never had dessert as part of dinner. Dinner was served at 6pm and dessert was offered after 8pm. Dh and I continued that when we had kids. The kids who had a bedtime before 8pm didn't get dessert (we called it evening snack to further remove it from part of a meal and to make the connection with snack time clearer). As they grew older and went to bed later, they were asked if they wanted a snack before bedtime. For those rare times (like birthdays or holidays) when we do have desserts, they are brought out as the last part of the meal and eaten at the table.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bluedaisy* 
In the US, we tend to see any pain, hardship, or discomfort as a bad thing. We try really hard to shield our kids from any discomfort at all (i.e. in the examples of worrying that they might be hungry if they don't finish their dinner or if they refuse a snack).

I honestly don't get the "he/she might be hungry" thing. The only time I really think about that is in the evening. I try to avoid sending kids to bed hungry, because if they're hungry, they don't sleep well, and then I end up dealing with cranky kids the next day. That's also why I bring a snack when we grocery shop.


----------



## Super Pickle (Apr 29, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sewchris2642* 
The results won't be known until your son moves out on his own as an adult. Right now at 2.5, he is eating what you decide. The proof of your method will be when he chooses as an adult. Not that your method is wrong but that it's unproven yet. No parenting decision can be said to work until the child is an adult and still following what the parent had laid down when they were children. That's why kids in general have a tendency to "go wild" when they move out. It's not a rebellion but trying out things that were not part of their childhood.

Actually, while it is true that Holiztic cannot predict how her son will respond to junk food temptation in the future, it IS well established that how a child eats in the first 10 years of life have a huge impact on his lifelong health. A child who is breastfed and fed a diet of mostly plant-based whole foods will have a lower risk of various diseases, cancer in particular, as an adult, than a child who is formula fed and given a diet heavy in animal foods or processed foods. What you eat as an adult is not as important to disease prevention as what you were fed as a child; therefore, it is best to be grateful for the years during which we control what our children eat, and to take advantage of them without worrying that we are going to cause diet rebellion 15 years down the road.


----------



## Holiztic (Oct 10, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super Pickle* 
Actually, while it is true that Holiztic cannot predict how her son will respond to junk food temptation in the future, it IS well established that how a child eats in the first 10 years of life have a huge impact on his lifelong health. A child who is breastfed and fed a diet of mostly plant-based whole foods will have a lower risk of various diseases, cancer in particular, as an adult, than a child who is formula fed and given a diet heavy in animal foods or processed foods. What you eat as an adult is not as important to disease prevention as what you were fed as a child; therefore, it is best to be grateful for the years during which we control what our children eat, and to take advantage of them without worrying that we are going to cause diet rebellion 15 years down the road.

Since my name was lumped in on that post, I want to just speak up that I am with you as long as we include animal foods raised on pasture as "plant-based", because I very much include it in how you are using the idea of healthful vs unhealthful. Our diet is full of pasture-based meat, eggs, diary, etc. Of course its also full of fruits and veggies, too! When you remove processed foods it leaves room for animal foods without replacing a bounty of plant foods!


----------



## srs (Nov 8, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride* 
I honestly don't get the "he/she might be hungry" thing. The only time I really think about that is in the evening. I try to avoid sending kids to bed hungry, because if they're hungry, they don't sleep well, and then I end up dealing with cranky kids the next day. That's also why I bring a snack when we grocery shop.

Totally agree on the nighttime thing. I have no desire to deal with a screaming hungry kid at 4am.


----------



## Jugs (Mar 18, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sewchris2642* 
The results won't be known until your son moves out on his own as an adult. Right now at 2.5, he is eating what you decide. The proof of your method will be when he chooses as an adult. Not that your method is wrong but that it's unproven yet. No parenting decision can be said to work until the child is an adult and still following what the parent had laid down when they were children. That's why kids in general have a tendency to "go wild" when they move out. It's not a rebellion but trying out things that were not part of their childhood.









Once they get to age 3-4, they begin to question the boundaries we have set, to see how much control they have over their own selves. They start to see what the other kids are eating and what's on the market shelves (in all its technicolor glory), and want to know why they've never tried that before. That's when move into the stage of presenting acceptable substitutes until they can understand the difference between wholesome food and junk food; a 4 year old may not care that's he's drinking cloudy natural apple juice while his pals are drinking apple-flavored high fructose corn syrup, but he _will_ likely care if he's limited to water while his friends have juice.


----------



## One_Girl (Feb 8, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Cherry Alive* 
But what about the concept of not giving children dessert unless they finish their dinner? And what if they've decided their (once loved) dinner has suddenly all become too "yucky"?

I think that it is perfectly fine to offer other healthy choices that kids may also like. Sometimes people get sick of food they have always liked because they need variety. I hate to see the extreme assumptions that many people seem to be making on discussions like this. If you offer your kids meal choices that doesn't mean you are offering the choice to only eat junk food or that you are offering the choice to neglect a food group, it means you are offering you child the chance to decide on a choice that is agreeable to both of you. Offering children the choice of acceptable outings, weather appropriate clothing, and acceptable home activities also doesn't lead to chaos. The whole hysteria about offering choices leading to mass chaos and bad eating habits seems so silly to me. Offering healthy choices and choices that you are happy with helps children feel respected and helps them feel less like they have to push against overly restrictive boundaries.

I also don't see how someone can believe that only parents who aren't child centered have reasonable expectations for children helping out around the house to the best of their ability. Child centered to me is knowing my child's abilities and meeting her with expectations and choices that I know she can handle, it is not a free for all where I let her walk on me. I think it is very offensive for people to make blanket statements about people who care about their children's needs and desires.


----------



## peaceful_mama (May 27, 2005)

I am trying to figure out how to go from being "child-centered" (which is perfectly appropriate for a preschool classroom and I worked in preschools before I was a parent) to being "family-centered" or "not so child-centered' at least.

DH is from Sudan and we interact a lot with other Sudanese families. Their families/children are much like the OP mentioned, the kids amuse themselves in another room. They don't interrupt adult conversations. They're not *Forbidden* from coming in the room and interacting with the adults, this happens quite a bit too--BUT--they don't interrupt. It occurs at natural places.
The children also are somewhat like I was raised--partially by my grandmother--from a young age, you will see the girls in the kitchen helping Mom, passing cookies/candy to guests, things like that. 2 weeks ago I saw a teenager prep dinner for the family while Mom was at the library studying--she's going to grad school.

I want kids like that, not entitled, spoiled brats who would assume, if I was going to grad school, that I would come home and make the dinner, or that I would call for pizza or something. (I might sometimes, but that is beside the point.)

At first, I thought DH's *insistence* that they go play in their room was over-the-top, didn't see a reason for it.

Now that i'm starting to get a little frustrated with not being able to converse with DH, we are more people in a small place, all that, I am starting to see his point and I want them to learn to entertain themselves sometimes. In their room. Absolutely NOTHING wrong with that!

I have to respectfully disagree with a sleep schedule being too child-centered. I keep to one for the most part, we do break it for special occasions.

The reason I like it? It makes for happier kids when we all want to go out and do something. It gives me definite time that is *MINE* in the day.

So has anyone else gone from more child-centered to less child-centered?? what have you done that works??


----------



## mommy777 (Nov 12, 2007)

I am way to child centered. My children run over top of me.


----------



## zippy_francis (Jan 9, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mommy777* 
I am way to child centered. My children run over top of me.









So just out of curiosity how do you think your kids run over you? Just wondering your thoughts of what you might think led that to happen. I am enjoying this post and it is always good to hear things that people think help kids and what they think hurts kids. In the sense that they can over run you or become 'the one who runs things'.

In my life I see many scenarios where for me personally the kids 'run the show'. Mom buys them what they want and is their 'buddy' instead of being their parent. Let them do what they want, have no rules, structure or morals. So now they are disrespectful, materialistic, rude and truthfully dont care whom they offend or hurt because 'it is all about them'. It is quite frightening to me.


----------



## cdmommie (Aug 7, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *zippy_francis* 
So now they are disrespectful, materialistic, rude and truthfully dont care whom they offend or hurt because 'it is all about them'. It is quite frightening to me.

Hi Jenn










It is frightening because the kids that continually get what they want and run the show do not end up as responsible adults. They just cannot handle the real world because they never learned basic respect and responsibility as children. And truthfully, it's not that they don't _care_ who they hurt, it is just they they don't even realize that they are hurting anyone because they are sooo focused on themselves.

My sister was the ruler of our family growing up and now she and her baby are living with my mom leaching off of her and expecting my mother to not only pay for EVERYTHING but also care for the baby. She has always been the center and will continue to be until my mother steps up and stops being her "friend" and starts being her mother.
My sister continually hurts the people she loves too, not on purpose, but because she is just so self-centered.


----------



## VisionaryMom (Feb 20, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *peaceful_mama* 
DH is from Sudan and we interact a lot with other Sudanese families. Their families/children are much like the OP mentioned, the kids amuse themselves in another room. They don't interrupt adult conversations.

This drives me nuts with some of my friends. Their children interrupt constantly when adults are talking. It isn't even about age for me. It's simply rude to cut into someone else mid-sentence and start sharing your own story. My son in particular (DD is a bit young for much conversation) is a part of our conversations, but I have no problem saying, "let me finish what I was saying" before turning to him. It's the same thing I'd do to an adult. We actually had a friend's child over last week. DH and I were talking, and he said, "hey, you 2 stop talking. I want something." I just turned around and said, "we're having a conversation. Hold on a second." I was floored, but I've seen the same with his own parents. They stop in the middle of everything for whatever he wants. A lot of our friends do that, and I find it really problematic.

As for other things, I know we probably could be better. I'm struggling right now with thinking that, like you, maybe we've been too child-centered on some things. In particular the kids are allowed to choose where they sleep (our room or theirs) and alternate a good bit. It's starting to become a problem for DH (he was never 100% on-board with co-sleeping from the beginning), and I am struggling with how to change the way we do things to make everyone comfortable/secure/happy.

I had an abusive childhood. It was horribly traumatic and covered the gamut as far as types of abuse. Although I'd dealt with a good bit of the abuse-related issues before kids, I wasn't prepared for how much I didn't know what a good parent *looks* like and also how much I'd want to shield my children from every hurt. I felt so alone and vulnerable as a child from the earliest I can remember, and the fear of my children ever feeling that was has become paralyzing. At the same time, I know it's not a good thing for them never to face disappointment, and it is tough to know where to draw that line.


----------



## EnviroBecca (Jun 5, 2002)

*About food:* In my family, we all have fast and sensitive metabolisms. While it is true that we will not die of starvation if allowed no food for 12 hours, the low blood sugar makes us feel panicked and furious. While it is true that eating the "wrong" food when we have strong feelings about what is the "right" food will not kill us, it can cause us a day or so of headache, acid stomach, constipation, or other problems. Everything goes more smoothly for ALL of us if ALL of us are able to eat when we're hungry and fulfill any strong food cravings.

We have tried being the strong parents who won't let their child "control" them by letting him have a different food or an unscheduled meal, and we have found that we cannot do it. It's not just because his behavior is so horrible as a result. It's because of empathy: "How would I feel if I couldn't make oatmeal myself and I was looking at the oatmeal up there and being told that if I won't eat chili I can't have anything, when I KNOW that my body needs oatmeal now and beans would be VERY BAD for me?" And it's because we want our child to be aware of his body's needs and make intelligent choices about foods, instead of being like most Americans.

That said, when we have cooked a full meal for the family (that is, we're not having leftovers or breakfast) and it's ready to eat, EnviroDaddy and I sit down and eat, and our response to requests for something different is, "This is ready now, and we are eating. If you won't eat this, you'll have to wait until one of us is available to make oatmeal." And we won't make him a separate food that requires elaborate preparation, only things like leftovers, sandwich, fruit, yogurt, cereal, etc.

We had an interesting time on Saturday when EnviroKid woke from a late nap just as I was about to start dinner. I told him we were going to make beans and guacamole, a meal he normally loves to eat and loves to help make, but he got very anxious: "I can't, I can't eat that, it's too--watery? spicy? I don't know how to say it, but I just can't eat that; it will make my tummy hurt." I said that was fine, but the avocados were perfect and this was what I was making and he could have a sandwich. "But no! If you guys are eating that, I'm going to eat it. Because I like it. Except today I should NOT eat it. But if I see you eating it, I will have to eat it." We talked about how sometimes you have to be around other people who are eating things you can't eat, and we know he can cope with that because he's routinely not allowed to eat the meat at school. (But I was thinking, sometimes you HAVE to be in that situation, but sometimes you're at home with your loved ones who could wait one day for guacamole out of consideration for you!) He said, "If we make Honey Baked Lentils and sweet potatoes and put it all in the oven, then we can play Parcheesi while it's baking, and in one hour we will have a nice dinner we all can eat." Hard to argue with that! We had all the ingredients on hand, it would be easier than making the other meal plus something for him, and I could still make the beans and guac the next day. So we did that, and it worked out fine.







Now, is that child-centered, or is that being flexible in order to meet the needs of all family members?

*About interrupting:* It takes years for kids to learn etiquette, but it's never too early to start! We say, "You're interrupting. Please let me finish." and insist on it, but then we give him an opportunity to speak ASAP so it's clear that waiting pays off and he WILL get his turn. (It took me a while to realize how important that is. I was trying to finish the whole conversation with another adult before giving him a turn. That's too frustrating for a young child. The only kids I've known who've accepted it are those who have a very compliant, patient temperament and those who are spanked every time they interrupt.)

To make that work, it's crucial that his dad and I respond appropriately when he points out to us that we've interrupted him! We actually do it WAY too often! Now that he's calling us on it, we're realizing that we had not been giving him the conversational respect we expect from him. Now we are using these opportunities to model the way we want him to respond when we tell him he's interrupting: "Oh! I'm sorry. Go ahead."


----------



## Mama_Meme (Apr 18, 2007)

wow! what a thread!

About food:
We allow some choice for breakfast and it usually ends up being eggs. If I don't feel like eggs, I eat something different. that's OK with me. For lunch and dinner there is no negotiations, and she never tries. if she doesn't want something, she can refuse it and when's she's hungry later, she can always come back to it. If she refuses then, we won't send her to bed hungry, but will find something easy to give her so she sleeps. It rarely comes to this.
As far as dessert/snacks. We have a rule in our house: growing foods come before snack foods. if she's eaten enough growing foods in the day, then sometime (rarely near meals) she can have a "snack food" which is usually a couple tablespoons of organic juice, or a little honey, or some popcorn/molasses licorice treats. She gets no sugar, and never has. she knows that sugar is for adults, because adults are better able to deal with sugar. because she's never tried it, it's never been an issue. We eat little sugar anyways, so it rarely comes up.

About interupting:
I could work on this a lot. I am used to allowing her to interrupt and now am working at stopping that. i just got so excited that she actually started speaking that I forgot the basics of communication.









about necessary unpleasantness:
I remember one of the things that struck me in the continuum concept was that they didn't have a different word for work and play in their tribe. IN our culture "work" is bad and "play" is good. We try not to differentiate in our house, or place judgement on tasks. Scrubbing the toilet seems just as much "fun" to DD as shoveling the driveway, playing with toys or reading a book. they are all things that happen in the day, some more than others. I sometimes think because of this, my DD helps with everything, sometimes more than I even want (she'd vacuum for an hour if I let her, and washes dishes three times over!).
She also knows that she doesn't always get what she wants, when she wants it. I just try to be assertive and let her know what the option is ("no walk mommy, me up!" and I respond "you are walking, let's go!). sometimes this results in a little scream, and if it does, it doesn't change my decision. I rarely change my mind because of a screaming fit. But of course, there are exceptions.

I think that one of the reasons "not being child centred" works so well in the tribe from the continuum concept is because they are a TRIBE. there are always many adults and children of many ages about. There are many people for a child to learn from, many children that will take other children under their wing. It is hard to maintain non-child centredness while living isolated in a little box, with nothing but your nuclear family. I think that the move away from tribal living (aka, how humans evolved for a million years) is a big issue in our society. Intergenerational homes are way more like tribes, and hence have children who are better able to engage in an appropriate manner - so I think anyways.

I WHOLEY feel that


----------



## Holiztic (Oct 10, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mama_Meme* 

I think that one of the reasons "not being child centred" works so well in the tribe from the continuum concept is because they are a TRIBE. there are always many adults and children of many ages about. There are many people for a child to learn from, many children that will take other children under their wing. It is hard to maintain non-child centredness while living isolated in a little box, with nothing but your nuclear family. I think that the move away from tribal living (aka, how humans evolved for a million years) is a big issue in our society. Intergenerational homes are way more like tribes, and hence have children who are better able to engage in an appropriate manner - so I think anyways.

I WHOLEY feel that


This has been just about the only thing on my mind all week! It is eating me up! DH is away on his third business trip of DS' life (he's 2.5) but the first one that DS and I have stayed home. So DS has been sick the whole week and we have stayed home so as not to get others sick for Christmas. The whole week has been DS, me, the cat. Period. DS is screen-free, so not even the artificial community of TV/videos. DS has become a fussy, clingy, demanding mess. Some of this is being sick, some of it is missing Daddy, but a lot of it is being so isolated. It made me really see (though I already thought about this) how really unnaturally isolated our post-modern lives have become. With other kids around (of all different ages) DS would just mix in and become a part of the whole. With other adults around he'd have more expectations put on him (or rather expectations from more people), and I believe children, for the most part, live up to expectations (well, expectations that are a given, just part of the lifestyle/family/tribe).

So if my DS is not getting what he needs (evolutionarily speaking) in terms of community, what do I do? DH says more play dates, and I say that's not even close to the same thing. Playdates are a _break_ from our life, not a natural part of it--meaning we drive somewhere, have greetings, feel like guests, mommies sit and talk while kids play, then we intervene when there are problems, and there are two age groups usually--30s and under 6. It feels nothing like holidays with the extended family when DS disappears with the various-aged kids (4-15) and the adults cook, talk, etc. Living with extended family is not a reasonable option for us. I've even considered TV (and we're really anti-TV for littles) for something even artificially like community, but that's even worse than playdates in terms of approximating community/tribe. So do I start "workdates" where we all get together to clean each others' houses together and cook a weeks' meals, alternating houses, AND do it several times a week!?!?! Is anyone really going to go for that? And are there going to be kids of all ages and grandparents? Not likely.

I see no answer short of leaving it all behind and finding a commune/intentional community/tribe, which DH would never go for. Having a lot of kids would do something, but its still not multi-generational with non-nuclear family, AND it only helps once you're on kid # 4 or so (I would venture), AND personally a large family is just not in the cards for me.

So don't you all think that while CC ideas are great and we should try to fit them to our modern lives as best we can, that perhaps its like trying to sell new siding to a homeless person? Was that analogy clear? If not, I mean that we take away the framework for CC (tribal/communal living) and then try to add all the individual elements of such a lifestyle to a post-modern isolated life? Should we be adapting CC to this lifestyle? Should I play with my son more than I have been (trying to be so CC) because if not me, who?

I'm going mad with these thoughts!

Anyone? Perspective, please


----------



## berry987 (Apr 23, 2008)

Great thread!

I do not think we are too child-centered...and we often stand out as the strict parents because of it.

I think it is incredibly important to teach kids that they are not the center of the world, that their needs sometimes need to wait, that they need to share, cooperate, be good citizens, etc. Even if it seems harsh at times, once they are adults, they will need to have those skills to be contributing members of society.

Our kids are very loved and smile and laugh all the time. In fact, we've had so many people comment that our kids just seem happy. I think it's because they know the rules, know "their place" (as awful as that sounds....it's not like their place is in the gutter!) and tend to go with the flow.

We give them a lot of love, a lot of attention. But when we finish dinner and they are running around, asking to sit in our laps, eat off our plates, etc. we firmly say "No, this is Mommy and Daddy's time to talk. You go play by yourselves." We demand adult time, space to talk with each other, time alone. I think those boundaries make kids feel safe...and loved.

I have a friend who gets down on one knee to talk to her son (4 yo) every time he asks a question or has a need. Even if we are in the middle of a conversation. And I've noticed her son is rather rude and demanding (he is buddies with my 4 yo son). When he is at our house, he thinks he can yell "I want juice!!!" and I will oblige.


----------



## madskye (Feb 20, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Holiztic* 
...
I see no answer short of leaving it all behind and finding a commune/intentional community/tribe, which DH would never go for. Having a lot of kids would do something, but its still not multi-generational with non-nuclear family, AND it only helps once you're on kid # 4 or so (I would venture), AND personally a large family is just not in the cards for me.

...

I'm going mad with these thoughts!

Anyone? Perspective, please









Honestly--you are going to want to stick a fork in my eye, but what you need is just ONE REAL FRIEND. One friend with like values whom you trust enough to just hang out with and spend time together, and maybe sometimes leave your own child with, and they leave theirs with you some times...where you can all learn to "socialize" and get along and teach each other...we became close with neighbors across the way a few years ago and it has change my life and given me that village that you're talking about. Friends that are close enough that you don't have to call before you go over their house, kwim?

I know it's hard to make that one friend, but don't give up trying.


----------



## *bejeweled* (Jul 16, 2003)




----------



## Aeress (Jan 25, 2005)

I think we are child centered when the kids are younger, and move towards being family centered as we move out of the toddler years. We have an 8 yr old, 5, yr old and 2 yr old and I see us as more family oriented. We try to meet the individuals needs and the needs of the family- the adults and children.
I would say we are child lead in some ways- we homeschool and the children plan most of their own day/learning but not to exclusion of my needs or their sibs.


----------

