# Curious about 'control' as it relates to parenting



## starlein26 (Apr 28, 2004)

So I've recently thought about this and noticed that both AP/NFL and mainstream parents do their fair share of controlling their children. What are some thoughts as to why 'our way' of controlling is better than 'their way'. Doesn't it just boil down to controlling your kids, or contolling their lifestyle as a means of squelching your own anxiety about parenting?


----------



## 93085 (Oct 11, 2007)

Can you give some hypotheticals? Do you mean like, telling her she can't wear striped tights with a flowered dress? Or do you mean like, telling her she has to wipe after she poops? I believe in total freedom in the first instance, blind submission in the latter. Most other things fall somewhere in between. I don't think it's so much about squelching my own anxieties as it is about wanting her to be a healthy and happy member of society.


----------



## MtBikeLover (Jun 30, 2005)

Well, I am never really good at these types of threads but I was thinking today that isn't playful parenting just another means of trying to control our kids? We are trying to get our kids to do something they would rather not do, but we do it in a playful, fun way. So yes, I do think that all parenting will involve control.

In our society, we are all controlled in some way or another. I am controlled by my boss, by the government, etc. But it is all in the way someone chooses to control me that affects how I react. For example, my boss could say "It is my way or the highway, like it or leave". My feelings would turn to rage and uncooperation. But she could say "What do you think?", listen to my thoughts, maybe choose to use some of them or not, explain why she doesn't think it is a good idea, and make the final decision herself. In this instance, I would have felt heard, appreciated, and better able to understand her position. I may still not agree, but I will still have respect for her.

I think it is the same with my kids. They may not have any choice to get in the car becuase I have to go somewhere. But if I can make it fun or explain why I need them to get in the car, give them some choices to make them feel part of the decision, then they will feel a lot more respected than if I just said "Get in the car now or I am going to punish you."


----------



## secretresistance (Dec 2, 2005)

My daughter is only 14 months old. So far what I've done is to try and keep a running evaluation of my motivations when I'm finding myself in a position of "needing" to control what she's doing.

My overarching parental philosophy is "don't box her in." Basically, unless someone, or something important is in danger, I try and let her be. There have been many times when I have had to force myself to just take a deep breath and step back. It's work for me to realize that I can be seriously bugged/stressed out by something, yet it's still okay for DD to do it.

On the other hand, we do have some "family rules" that might seem controlling to others, especially those with mainstream ideas. We try to eat pretty healthy, and will most always decline a super junky treat if it's offered to DD. While it's not shouted from the rooftops, we do strictly limit battery/"junk" toys, super-genderized toys/clothes and licensed characters. Typed out, it even strikes me as a little controlling, but much thought went into these decisions, and I believe it will be good for our family. Of course these policies will be continually evolving.

DD is entering quite a tantrum-y stage, so my main goal at the moment is to go for the zen when she starts freaking out in public. I see so many parents being overly harsh (controlling) with their children, and it oftentimes seems motivated by shame at being judged by their children's "bad" behavior. I rarely care what others think about my parenting, but it's hard not to feel that pressure when we've got screaming in aisle three!


----------



## MtBikeLover (Jun 30, 2005)

And to add one more point, I think that mainstream parents have a different opinion on how much a child should be able to choose. For example, I was talking with a mom the other day and she said at her house, children are not to question authority, whatever the parents say is what happens. So she told her son to take a bath. When he refused, she spanked him. She spanked him simply for saying no to her.

At our house, I would have told my son it was bath night and given him some options as to when, how, where, etc. If he had said no, I would have tried to understand why he didn't want to take a bath and invited him to help problem solve a way that we could both get what we wanted.


----------



## secretresistance (Dec 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MtBikeLover* 
And to add one more point, I think that mainstream parents have a different opinion on how much a child should be able to choose. For example, I was talking with a mom the other day and she said at her house, children are not to question authority, whatever the parents say is what happens. So she told her son to take a bath. When he refused, she spanked him. She spanked him simply for saying no to her.

Is that sort of thing currently considered mainstream? It strikes me as a completely horrifying and powerless way to grow up. I would really hope that most parents would feel that such authoritarianism is harmful.


----------



## queenjane (May 17, 2004)

Quote:

What are some thoughts as to why 'our way' of controlling is better than 'their way'.
Its not.

I totally agree with you, OP. Parents, in general, are pretty into "control"...it amazes me. I dont know if its out of fear, or if they think its expected, or they like it or what. I actually think there is LESS "control" in mainstream parenting than there is in AP/NFL circles.

I was really suprised at how much control i saw when i first came to these boards, but it did help me understand one of my friends a little better. Some parents want to control food, sleep, tv, computers, videogames, what toys the child plays with (whether they are wood or plastic, whether they were made here or in China, whether they contribute to gender stereotypes, i could go on and on), the clothes a child may wear (see list under "toys"), how a child plays (is it too violent? etc), the particular shows or games or websites the child may view if s/he is able to even use the tv/game system/computer (screentime, ack!) While mainstream parents tend to control in the broad sense (say, limiting tv to an hour a day, or making a kid eat his veggies, or whatever), i see those broad areas broken down into the tiniest minutae here.

I have a friend, and when she visited with her boys she was just so....controlling. And i know she was actually controlling HERSELF the most, to seem flexible and to not totally kill any sense of fun her kids were having here. We totally avoided discussing our parenting differences, but i could see that she was just so tightly wound.

Sometimes there will be posts here, where a parent has seen a child get swatted in a store, or scolded meanly, or they know of a child who has to CIO...and the poster is so sad, and everyone (rightly)posts how terrible for that child, what is the parent thinking, how could they treat their child so badly, but for me, respecting your child doesnt stop at just the family bed, or breastfeeding.....i feel just as sad for the kids i read about here, who's mother may totally denigrate their love for Bratz dolls, or forbid them to watch their favorite kids program because its (insert whatever negative word here), or who can't eat a freakin' hamburger because their parent simply won't allow it. Kids who's parents make the global issue more important than the needs and desires of their own child right in front of them.

*I am not saying this is all parents here, or that one can't share important values with their children.*

Maybe its because we're radical unschoolers, i dont know....but i just don't feel like the boogeyman will come steal my child and ruin him forever if i dont control his every action. Or guilt him into choosing what i think is best.

I absolutely think that a parent should share information with their child, give them a wide range of choices, provide guidance and support, etc. Thats imperative. But when i read how someone takes a toy away from a child because it doesnt fit into the parent's political or personal philosophy....that makes me wanna cry every bit as much as a child treated disrespectfully in any more "maintream" way.

Katherine


----------



## queenjane (May 17, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MtBikeLover* 
For example, my boss could say "It is my way or the highway, like it or leave". My feelings would turn to rage and uncooperation. But she could say "What do you think?", listen to my thoughts, maybe choose to use some of them or not, explain why she doesn't think it is a good idea, and make the final decision herself. In this instance, I would have felt heard, appreciated, and better able to understand her position. I may still not agree, but I will still have respect for her.

I think it is the same with my kids.

But its NOT the same as with your kids. Your kids don't have a choice. And you do. You can CHOOSE to stay at the job with the mean boss, you can choose to lodge a complaint, you can choose to try to change the boss' behavior, you can choose to find a different job. Same with the govt, you can choose to try to change laws you don't like, you can choose to ignore laws (and suffer any possible consequences), you can (usually)choose to move to a different country, even. Any many laws are for issues of safety, and not arbitrary things that affect what you do in your own home (what if the govt said that you couldnt have green paint on the walls of your living room, just because? That wouldnt make you feel so respected would it?)

Yes, you can absolutely get your kids to comply by making it fun....but if its truly not their choice, then you are controlling them. There may be certain few instances where this is required. But even in situations that people bring up ("He HAS to get in the carseat, its nonnegotiable!") there ARE often options so the child and the parent have their needs met. For example, if a parent is vegan, is totally opposed to meat and simply can't deal with having a dead animal in their home, fair enough....they can help their child explore other ways of eating meat if the child truly wants that. That doesnt mean that vegans should feed their toddlers meat if they dont want to. If one is "tv free" (gag...i hate those kind of terms, tv free, screentime, grrrr), thats fine...i wouldnt expect them to out and get a tv for their baby or toddler. But if, as time passes, their child expresses the desire to have one, i think that should be respected. I think a child's needs being ignored or suppressed or turned into a control issue does FAR more "damage" than a tv program. Or as someone wrote on a board "A twinkie eaten in joy better nourishes the body and soul than an organic sprouted muffin choked down with guilt and sadness and disrespect." or something like that.

I know this is a whole can of worms, here, and i certainly dont expect anyone to agree with me. Its such a paradigm shift to go from "who controls" to there being no *control*, but people living in a family sharing information, values, respect, help etc. Its hard to see how it could possibly work, but it does.

Katherine


----------



## starlein26 (Apr 28, 2004)

Katherine....you're totally getting my point.

I wonder though, how as a population of women here, we decided that these AP/NFL values would be things that we would control as opposed to the more 'mainstream' things?


----------



## chinaKat (Aug 6, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *secretresistance* 
Is that sort of thing currently considered mainstream? It strikes me as a completely horrifying and powerless way to grow up. I would really hope that most parents would feel that such authoritarianism is harmful.

I don't know how "mainstream" it is but that's how I was brought up. I would never EVER have dared to just say "NO!" to a parental demand, I would have been spanked immediately.


----------



## Rivka5 (Jul 13, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MtBikeLover* 
And to add one more point, I think that mainstream parents have a different opinion on how much a child should be able to choose. For example, I was talking with a mom the other day and she said at her house, children are not to question authority, whatever the parents say is what happens. So she told her son to take a bath. When he refused, she spanked him. She spanked him simply for saying no to her.

I know there's a tendency here to label everything we don't like as "mainstream," but I *really* don't think that qualifies as "mainstream." I mean, try to imagine an article in _Parents_ magazine advocating that kind of treatment. Try to imagine the American Academy of Pediatrics coming out with a statement recommending immediate spankings for the slightest disobedience.


----------



## hippymomma69 (Feb 28, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *queenjane* 
I know this is a whole can of worms, here, and i certainly dont expect anyone to agree with me. Its such a paradigm shift to go from "who controls" to there being no *control*, but people living in a family sharing information, values, respect, help etc. Its hard to see how it could possibly work, but it does.










:
what an interesting discussion.....
peace,
robyn


----------



## medicmama (May 5, 2006)

:







:

Wow, deep thouts.


----------



## marybethorama (Jun 9, 2005)

probably because I grew up with them 

I see plenty of controlling "crunchy" parents and TBH I don't think they are necessarily good parents even though they do all the "right" things wrt to lifestyle issues.

I also see good parents who do non-crunchy stuff and I think they are great even though they are not doing all the "right" things.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

I really like the term "mindful parenting" -- because I think it's when we shift to "automatic pilot" that we run the risk of not listening to our kids, and of running roughshod over what's important to them. Like the parents mentioned by the pp, who denigrate their children's love of Bratz dolls; I've also heard parents denigrate their children's love of TV by calling it "mindless entertainment."

In my own life, I'm finding tremendous inner healing by letting go of the idea that parents have to be "in control" in order to be "good parents." I like what Alfie Kohn said in _Unconditional Parenting_ about having our automatic pilot/default response (if we have to have one) be set on "yes" instead of "no."

So, if we have to have an "automatic pilot" approach -- it should be that of helping our kids to get and do the things they want. When it comes to situations where we feel a need to redirect our children or get them to modify their goals, that's where we should switch out of "automatic pilot" and move into "mindful parenting."

Then we should honestly ask ourselves why (and if) redirection/modification is really necessary.

Makes sense to me -- and also makes some important people in my life think I'm







:. If my mom thinks my child needs to dress warmer, and I say I suggested it, but this was what she wanted to wear (and of course, if we're going out in cold weather, I'll bring warmer stuff in case of the likely event that it's needed), she's like, "You don't let THEM make these decisions!"

I'm thinking, who better to know if she's hot or cold than the actual person in question?







:


----------



## The4OfUs (May 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *starlein26* 
Katherine....you're totally getting my point.

I wonder though, how as a population of women here, we decided that these AP/NFL values would be things that we would control as opposed to the more 'mainstream' things?


Quote:


Originally Posted by *Rivka5* 
I know there's a tendency here to label everything we don't like as "mainstream," but I *really* don't think that qualifies as "mainstream." I mean, try to imagine an article in _Parents_ magazine advocating that kind of treatment. Try to imagine the American Academy of Pediatrics coming out with a statement recommending immediate spankings for the slightest disobedience.


Word. Control is control, no matter how you slice it. And I have plenty of mainstream friends who spanking for saying no would horrify.

Having said that, I am a parent who does compel her children to do things sometimes, but I also try to make it as fun as possible if it's something I know they don't really want to do (I'm talking hygiene, basic safety issues, getting to appointments). But I don't outright forbid them from doing many things, other than ones that could potentially seriously harm them or someone else, or destroy property....and not forbidding includes sometimes having plastic toys, sometimes eating fast food, sometimes watching TV, and sometiems wearing shorts when it's chilly out. There is absolutely something to be said for living more healthfully and more naturally, and we do that; but, there's also something to be said for havign minimal exposure to the wide variety of experiences that life has to offer. Barring medical conditions that limit food intake and other medical issues like that, I can only think of a few things that in moderation would harm a child...and the potential long term ramifications of living a rigid lifestyle (even if it's rigidly "natural") are not ones I want to expose my kids to. More is not always better. Even in AP/NFL.







:


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *The4OfUs* 
...and not forbidding includes sometimes having plastic toys, sometimes eating fast food, sometimes watching TV, and sometiems wearing shorts when it's chilly out...

The thing is, some parents here will actually accuse us of progressively, irretrievably destroying our children's health every time we buy them a McDonald's happy meal, or every time they get to suck on a plastic toy. Some of these issues truly are life and death to some parents.

Sometimes, when I get in a hurry cleaning the kitchen, and throw the old plastic mayo container into the trash bin, rather than washing it out and putting it in the recycling bin -- I picture some MDC mama cringing at what I'm doing to the environment

(and of course, some would cringe about me buying mayo in a plastic container and supporting the plastics industry ... and some would cringe about the recycling bin being plastic.







).

Quote:

...I can only think of a few things that in moderation would harm a child...and the potential long term ramifications of living a rigid lifestyle (even if it's rigidly "natural") are not ones I want to expose my kids to. More is not always better. Even in AP/NFL.







:
Yes! You hit the nail on the head.


----------



## The4OfUs (May 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 
(and of course, some would cringe about me buying mayo in a plastic container and supporting the plastics industry ... and some would cringe about the recycling bin being plastic.







).

True, I see your point - and now that I've goen and posted what I did above, I need to backpedal a little bit...







: I haven't participated in a thread like this in a while - but I remember a thread a while ago where people were confessing their non-crunchy stuff, and then other people were blasting. And honestly, I see their point. I don't usually talk about my non-AP/NFL stuff here because I figure it's not the place for that, and certainly not the place to extol those things. This is the place for me to discuss my passions for breastfeeding, genital integrity, gentle discipline, family beds, and babywearing. This is also a place for me to learn new things about AP and NFL and incorporate them into my life as much as I think is appropriate for us.

I understand that this board is a haven and needs to be somewhat protected as such. And while sometimes the stuff I read here makes me shrug and say, "whatever", a lot of it is useful and has led me to *become* a more thoughtful parent. I do 'get' that middle of the road parents like me can be seen as half assed or _poser_ by the most zealous of AP/NFL parents, but that's OK. This is a very valuable community for me, whether or not I think that the mom who old gives her kid organic sugar free everything is a little strict or not. Cause while I can kind of fit in and mix with the more 'mainstream' crowd, she probably can't (and probably doesn't want to) - she needs a safe place, too. Sooo, I keep my comments about french fries and cartoons to myself, for the most part.

Would that we could all be as gentle (which still leaves room for challenging and questioning) with each other as we are with our children...and as willing to learn from each other (both mainstream to AP _and_ AP to mainstream) as we are to learn from our children.







:

[/end backpedal







:] Just didn't want to see this turn totally into a bashing thread based on my post.


----------



## Meg Murry. (Sep 3, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *starlein26* 
So I've recently thought about this and noticed that both AP/NFL and mainstream parents do their fair share of controlling their children. What are some thoughts as to why 'our way' of controlling is better than 'their way'. Doesn't it just boil down to controlling your kids, or contolling their lifestyle as a means of squelching your own anxiety about parenting?

You say "control" like it's a bad thing.

No, I mean it.

It's not.

I have not only earned the right to make major decisions because of my forty years' worth of life on this planet and the experiences that go with it, but I have earned the _obligation_ to make those decisions by my choice to be a parent.

Decisions are best made by people who have a sense of what is involved in the decision. To give a reasonably decent example, if someone asked me whether or not I should get 1 or 2 gigabytes' worth of memory in a portable laptop, I'd basically have no clue until someone told me, "Well, if you want it to run Windows Vista, you'll need at least one -- but if you want it to run _decently_, you'll need two."

Similarly, a child has limited information. OBVIOUSLY it is the parents' task to provide information so that the child may make a decision; however, there are many decisions a child may be faced with which essentially require life experience in order to evaluate appropriately. To use my example again, I might not know what "decently" means for me when running Windows Vista -- and I might not know that until I played around with a laptop with one gig versus two.

I do believe in giving children the power to make decisions that are appropriate to make given their age and knowledge. I also believe that one should constantly evaluate how important that decision happens to be. Is it a "hill you want to die on," or is it something of less importance?

I also believe in seeking compromise and consensus as often as possible because that is the way I would want to be treated. I believe in persuasion over force, and I believe in trying to make decisions fair and fun. However, I do not forget that ultimately, the responsibility -- and yes, the control -- resides primarily with me and my DH. _The fact that we are even discussing this at all demonstrates the control we ultimately possess, whether or not we wish to acknowledge it._


----------



## MtBikeLover (Jun 30, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Rivka5* 
I know there's a tendency here to label everything we don't like as "mainstream," but I *really* don't think that qualifies as "mainstream." I mean, try to imagine an article in _Parents_ magazine advocating that kind of treatment. Try to imagine the American Academy of Pediatrics coming out with a statement recommending immediate spankings for the slightest disobedience.

Sorry - I used the term "mainstream" because I know lots and lots of parents that truly feel that children are not to question authority and who use spanking. In my mind, I consider them "mainstream" so I used that term.


----------



## transformed (Jan 26, 2007)

I have control issues.

In my head I *think* I wouldlike a utopian existance with my kids where we each respect eachothers individual needs and wants

but

When I am activley parenting I tend to think things like:

"When I say JUMP, you say HOW HIGH!"

Seriously. control is a huge issue for me. Because I dont practice what I preach! (And honetly cant find a practical way to do so.)

Can you say "internal struggle all the time?"


----------



## nextcommercial (Nov 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *secretresistance* 
Is that sort of thing currently considered mainstream? It strikes me as a completely horrifying and powerless way to grow up. I would really hope that most parents would feel that such authoritarianism is harmful.


No. That makes mainstream sound like it equals bad parentling. It isn't mainstream to spank. All of my freinds are mainstream, and I am 60 % mainstream and 40% AP and I have never spanked, or used punishment. My friends parent the way I do. I think most parents just do what comes naturally to them unless they make a consious decision to change how they were raised.


----------



## nextcommercial (Nov 8, 2005)

Sorry, redundant post.


----------



## chicagomom (Dec 24, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *queenjane* 
Its not.

I think it is better, and here's why.

We live in an *intensely* consumerist culture that has an absolutely grotesque view of what is meaningful and beautiful in the human person. And this culture is unprecedented in its intrusiveness, the way it targets children and saturates every part of their day from the time they put on their undies and eat breakfast to the time they read bedtime stories. Consumer culture and the building of brand loyalty from cradle to grave are very difficult to combat in children, whose consciences and abilities to discern truth from fantasy are not fully developed.

I am my child's first line of defense. If my child is to stand a chance of growing into a loving and peaceful person, and into a discriminating and critical consumer I must protect her from the effects of our culture while she is still young.

Call it controlling to refuse to allow lead-painted toys into our house, I don't care. This is my kin we're talking about. And I won't be guilted into being a more "laid-back" or "mainstream" mom who surrenders her children early on to the god of consumerism.

In my view "mainstream" consumerist parents control their kids in order to encourage the traits of efficient consumerism or to help them become more successful consumers. That's not my goal. As an attachment parent, I want my children to run to people, not things when the chips are down. But to get there in this particular cultural context at this moment in time, I have to help them run the gauntlet, every day, of an aggressive child-focused marketing that tells them every day that attachment is less valuable than consumption.

Let-them-eat-twinkies-with-love only works if the child is mature enough to understand the messages she is receiving, or if there isn't someone there giving those messages. It's not the twinkie to which I object, it's the message that goes with the twinkie.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chicagomom* 
Let-them-eat-twinkies-with-love only works if the child is mature enough to understand the messages she is receiving, or if there isn't someone there giving those messages. It's not the twinkie to which I object, it's the message that goes with the twinkie.

So the twinkie's fine, as long as the child isn't exposed to any untrue messages about it? Am I understanding you right?


----------



## nextcommercial (Nov 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chicagomom* 
Iit targets children and saturates every part of their day from the time they put on their undies and eat breakfast to the time they read bedtime stories. Consumer culture and the building of brand loyalty from cradle to grave are very difficult to combat in children, whose consciences and abilities to discern truth from fantasy are not fully developed.

*
*THREAD DRIFT** Sorry.

The other day I saw that the movie Jungle Book came out when I was a small child. I don't remember it coming out. My Mother never took me to see it. She never took me, because they didn't sell three isles of "jungle Book" themed toys in K-Mart. It wasn't marketed like movies are now.

The only TV marketed items we had were lunch boxes, and Peanuts Sweatshirts. (oh, and Mrs Beasley) <--Loved that doll!

They did market cereal, P-nut butter, Tennis shoes and other food items. Then we had the Sears Catolog and Commercials at Christmas.

But, how else would I have KNOWN I wanted a Baby Tender Love if I hadn't seen it on TV between Rudolf The Red Nosed Reindeer, and Frosty the Snowman?

I don't even remember when commercialism started to get out of control. Maybe Star Wars? That's the first I remember.


----------



## chicagomom (Dec 24, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 
So the twinkie's fine, as long as the child isn't exposed to any untrue messages about it? Am I understanding you right?

Obviously good nutrition is important. To the extent that it would interfere with getting what my kid needs to function decently and grow (and no, she doesn't yet know enough about fats, carbs, and proteins to make that decision on her own) I would restrict them. But my kids do have snacks, including sugary "bad for you" ones.

Worse to me than the sugar or food colorings themselves though is the ad messages designed to create brand loyalty and shape my kids' views of themselves, their food, and their world, ie "you need this to feel good", "this is 'fun' and brussel sprouts are 'icky'", "eat these to fit in!", etc.

I mean it's become so pervasive we now have medical "specialists" warning parents not to avoid feeding their kids garbage because their kids will feel "different."

Quote:

"Even if it shows some increase in hyperactivity, is it clinically significant and does it impact the child's life?" said Dr. Thomas Spencer, a specialist in Pediatric Psychopharmacology at Massachusetts General Hospital.

"Is it powerful enough that you want to ostracize your kid? It is very socially impacting if children can't eat the things that their friends do."
Something is wrong with that.


----------



## transformed (Jan 26, 2007)

Where do I sign up to get a robot child that falls in line and does whatever is socially acceptable so that he doesnt get made fun of?










Why are parents signing up for this?

(My dh would be VERY concerned about his son getting made fun of....while I feel like its a good thing to be exposed to as long as you are given the tools to be self confident.)


----------



## marybethorama (Jun 9, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chicagomom* 
And I won't be guilted into being a more "laid-back" or "mainstream" mom who surrenders her children early on to the god of consumerism.

Well IMO sometimes a Twinkie is just a Twinkie







That's okay, I can agree to disagree. Actually we don't eat Twinkies and I really never did. Homemade chocolate chip cookies, yes. My husband grew up on Tastykakes (yum) and I grew up on Drake's FWIW.

But my point is that I'm not guilting anyone. I respect other people's choices. I don't think controlling people are good to live with but that doesn't mean that everyone should eat Twinkies. Everyone has to find their own way.


----------



## The4OfUs (May 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chicagomom* 
Let-them-eat-twinkies-with-love only works if the child is mature enough to understand the messages she is receiving, or if there isn't someone there giving those messages. It's not the twinkie to which I object, it's the message that goes with the twinkie.

I guess I just don't see why you can't have both - why you can't be a moderate, thoughtful consumer of a little bit of everything, and give your kids the message that *some* consumption is OK, it's *excess* consumption that's the problem. Kids are pretty savvy. For instance, I never tell my kids that McDonalds food is great for your body. In fact, I tell them that fast food isn't so hot for your body, but as long as you eat healthy most of the time that sometimes eating junky food is OK. But I'm also the mom that requests they take the toys out of happy meals - yeah, I always get the stink eye from the cashier when I request that.







Heck, my 3-yo has been known to say when we do have a cookie or whatever that, "cookies are only OK as a treat" because I've taught him the difference between the food that's good for us and that we eat every day, and the treats and fast food we get. I don't think that you have to completely reject the whole thing to teach your kid to be a critically thinking consumer. Teaching moderation in consumption has very little to do with your attachment to your child, IMO.

I mean, don't get me wrong - reject mainstream consumerism completely if you want, totally your choice - but please don't imply that anyone that sometimes in 'the machine' is a slave to it and unattached to their kids. I'm plenty critical of a lot that goes on, and I make sure I inform my kids in age-appropriate terms. We're a very securely attached family who happens to sometimes enjoy indulging in the trappings of mainstream consumerism while not beign completely sucked in.

I see your point when parents *aren't* guiding their children to be thoughtful consumers, but then the problem lies in the family dynamic and not in the consumption itself.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Lest anyone think I'm making fun of parents who are crunchier than me -- I want to say I never meant to come across that way, or to hurt anyone.

My comments on crunchiness have been more directed toward the idea I've sometimes heard expressed, that ANYone who isn't crunchy in the same way as the poster, is doing Bad Things to her children --

such as a poster on a message board who wondered, "What's the point of breastfeeding your kids, if you're going to turn around and give them french fries? Why bother with natural parenting at all, if you're not doing it 100%?"


----------



## transformed (Jan 26, 2007)

Crunchyness should be on a spectrum.









Wow, I might make that my sig.


----------



## JenniferH (Feb 24, 2005)

A controlling parent is a controlling parent whether it's wearing a Bratz T-shirt made in China or an organic cotton, fair trade T-shirt. Kids need guidance in order to learn how to function in life. A little control is a good thing. Excessive control is damaging, no matter how crunchy or mainstream you are.

If your children are afraid to walk out the front door, or be "different" because they might be made fun of, or feel guilty about eating a french fry, or just being human, it's not your LIFESTYLE or VALUES that's the problem. It's your method of delivery. (You being general you.)

So yes, I agree. Controlling another person just because it's your way or the highway, is controlling a person, no matter what shirt you're wearing.

I particularly liked this quote:

Quote:

Kids who's parents make the global issue more important than the needs and desires of their own child right in front of them.
That's my biggest issue.

Just my two dollars.


----------



## EnviroBecca (Jun 5, 2002)

Meg Murry wrote:

Quote:

I have not only earned the right to make major decisions because of my forty years' worth of life on this planet and the experiences that go with it, but I have earned the obligation to make those decisions by my choice to be a parent.








There is a difference between authoritaTIVE parenting and authoritaRIAN parenting. It's a distinction commonly made by developmental psychologists. Authoritative parenting is using your wisdom and experience to lovingly guide your child, confidently expecting that your child will follow your guidance most of the time because you know you are worthy of his trust. Authoritarian parenting is demanding that your child comply immediately and unquestioningly with your every instruction, relying on that obedience for your sense of control. See the difference? (Why they couldn't have found two less-similar terms for these two very different styles is beyond me!)

Having been raised by authoritative parents, I think that that style tends to produce children who have a comfortable sense of their own authority. A person who is confident that she deserves respect has no problem respecting others and taking their opinions into account when making decisions. Her sense of control is not dependent on being 100% in charge of every detail.


----------



## cmoma (Aug 3, 2006)

:







:

what an interesting thread


----------



## To-Fu (May 23, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chinaKat* 
I don't know how "mainstream" it is but that's how I was brought up. I would never EVER have dared to just say "NO!" to a parental demand, I would have been spanked immediately.









As was I. Slapped across the mouth or spanked, whatever. Of course, I'm in my 30s now, so maybe there is a shift in parenting styles now and that sort of thing doesn't happen as much anymore?


----------



## secretresistance (Dec 2, 2005)

Great post, Meg Murry.

I'm comfortable with controlling some parts of my daughter's life, as long as it's about what's best for her, or all of us as a family. She's just entering into toddler-dom, you know?

What I don't like about what we might call more "mainstream" control, is that it usually seems to be mostly about the parent, or obedience for obediences' sake. Not into that.


----------



## Unagidon (Aug 20, 2004)

Quote:

I guess I just don't see why you can't have both - why you can't be a moderate, thoughtful consumer of a little bit of everything, and give your kids the message that *some* consumption is OK, it's *excess* consumption that's the problem. Kids are pretty savvy. For instance, I never tell my kids that McDonalds food is great for your body. In fact, I tell them that fast food isn't so hot for your body, but as long as you eat healthy most of the time that sometimes eating junky food is OK. But I'm also the mom that requests they take the toys out of happy meals - yeah, I always get the stink eye from the cashier when I request that.
There's a difference between "consuming" and "consumerism". Consumerism presents itself as the satisfaction of needs but in fact it exists to create needs. For example, if you buy a car to take the kids to school, you are consuming. If you buy a car in order to "feed your soul", you are engaging in consumerism. Getting a happy meal toy to play with is consuming. Getting a happy meal toy because you have two and there are six in the series in consumerism.

If someone were to ask me to look back over the last five years and tell them what were the biggest money wasters, a small number of things would be things that I brought that turned out to be bad quality but that I couldn't return. The vast majority of things would be things that I thought I wanted (and therefore needed) and it turned out that I didn't.

Children have enough judgement to be able to consume, which is to say that they have strong opinions about what they like. But they are weak when it comes to judgeing needs or answering the question "what do I want". This is because it takes a lot of experience to ask oneself the question "why do I want this?" Presumably, the parent, having years of experiences learned (frequently) the hard way, can look into the future better than a child can and see the outcome of the purchase better. This is why children need parents to guide them.

It's really hard enough for adults to tell the difference between consumption and consumerism. If it wasn't hard, the only thing you would find at a garage sale would be children's clothes.


----------



## Meg Murry. (Sep 3, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chicagomom* 
I think it is better, and here's why.

We live in an *intensely* consumerist culture that has an absolutely grotesque view of what is meaningful and beautiful in the human person. And this culture is unprecedented in its intrusiveness, the way it targets children and saturates every part of their day from the time they put on their undies and eat breakfast to the time they read bedtime stories. Consumer culture and the building of brand loyalty from cradle to grave are very difficult to combat in children, *whose consciences and abilities to discern truth from fantasy are not fully developed.*

*I am my child's first line of defense*. If my child is to stand a chance of growing into a loving and peaceful person, and into a discriminating and critical consumer I must protect her from the effects of our culture while she is still young.

Call it controlling to refuse to allow lead-painted toys into our house, I don't care. This is my kin we're talking about. And I won't be guilted into being a more "laid-back" or "mainstream" mom who surrenders her children early on to the god of consumerism.

In my view "mainstream" consumerist parents control their kids in order to encourage the traits of efficient consumerism or to help them become more successful consumers. That's not my goal. As an attachment parent, I want my children to run to people, not things when the chips are down. But to get there in this particular cultural context at this moment in time, I have to help them run the gauntlet, every day, of an aggressive child-focused marketing that tells them every day that attachment is less valuable than consumption.

Let-them-eat-twinkies-with-love *only works if the child is mature enough to understand the messages she is receiving, or if there isn't someone there giving those messages. It's not the twinkie to which I object, it's the message that goes with the twinkie*.









:
Um, is it okay if I also object to the Twinkie?


----------



## transformed (Jan 26, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Meg Murry.* 







:
Um, is it okay if I also object to the Twinkie?









I'll take it if you dont want it.







:


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Unagidon* 
There's a difference between "consuming" and "consumerism". Consumerism presents itself as the satisfaction of needs but in fact it exists to create needs. For example, if you buy a car to take the kids to school, you are consuming. If you buy a car in order to "feed your soul", you are engaging in consumerism. Getting a happy meal toy to play with is consuming. Getting a happy meal toy because you have two and there are six in the series in consumerism.

Okay ... and what if my child collects stamps: is that also consumerism? Or handcarved wooden toys?

What if the child wants the entire set of six happy meal toys in the series, for the purpose of playing with them?


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *transformed* 
I'll take it if you dont want it.







:

Good one -- but I'm not too crazy about Twinkies.

Anyone want to object to a Hershey's bar with almonds?


----------



## Tigerchild (Dec 2, 2001)

I think I've met far more controlling AP folks than mainstream ones. But it could be because AP culture almost encourages that, and it's a byproduct of feeling like you're swimming upstream from everyone else.

Same reason why I've met far more preachy AP people than non. If you constantly feel like you have to prove the validity of your choices (not because you secretly don't believe them, but because you perceive that everyone wants to fight against them so you need to be proactive), then you're going to come across as controlling and/or permanently attached to your soapbox.

But really, what does it matter as long as the kids are safe and happy?


----------



## transformed (Jan 26, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 
Okay ... and what if my child collects stamps: is that also consumerism? Or handcarved wooden toys?

What if the child wants the entire set of six happy meal toys in the series, for the purpose of playing with them?

Awwww man, now you are making me think.









I dont know where the line is with "consumerism"

Personally mine is really blurry, or it seems to move around at diffrent times in my life.

I am on a buying spree now, but I dont know that it has been frivilous OR caused by media consumption....

Media Consumption triggers buying, thus consumerism?














:


----------



## The4OfUs (May 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Unagidon* 
There's a difference between "consuming" and "consumerism". Consumerism presents itself as the satisfaction of needs but in fact it exists to create needs. For example, if you buy a car to take the kids to school, you are consuming. If you buy a car in order to "feed your soul", you are engaging in consumerism. Getting a happy meal toy to play with is consuming. Getting a happy meal toy because you have two and there are six in the series in consumerism.

<snip> This is why children need parents to guide them.

It's really hard enough for adults to tell the difference between consumption and consumerism. If it wasn't hard, the only thing you would find at a garage sale would be children's clothes.

I think we're actually saying the same thing, here....I just happen to believe that there's a variety of middle grounds between only allowing wooden handcrafted toys and 'I NEED all 6 happy meal toys to have a complete set!!!' AND, that with a minimal amount of effort and age-appropriate discussion, you can turn a child into a critical consumer. Since he was about 2-1/2, I've talked with DS about marketing and advertising in stores, using pretty colors or cool pictures to get you to buy something, and that it's usually not nearly as cool as the picture shows. I have to think that because I'm consuming (or consumering) that way - taking from all different levels of products but never feeling that I *HAVE* to have something because someone else told me I needed it for whatever reason - that my kids will wind up that way too - initially, because I'm the one with the money...but eventually, becasue they'll understand the same things I do. Most kids get that it's not cool to be a sucker - and that's essentially what falling for advertising is - so I think if you approach it from that angle (in age appropriate terms, of course) it's pretty easy to avoid the gimmies...my parents did it with me and it worked pretty well. Besides, remember? I'm the mom who gets the happy meals WITHOUT the toy.







:

The teaching of the difference between reality and fantasy (marketing) is an ongoing thing for me; I don't think that by overtly (and over-ly) controlling my kids consumerism that I'm doing them any favors towards getting them to think for themselves. "OMGZ I have to have that cuz they say I do!" to me is equally as sheeple-ish as "OMGZ, *stuff* is teh evil!!"


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Heather, would you let your kids have happy meal toys if they wanted them?


----------



## The4OfUs (May 23, 2005)

OK, now for the initial reason I came back to the thread..

I think one thing that bothers me about "Extreme AP/NFL" (or extreme consumerism; really, extreme anything) is the implication that it is "The Best", and therefore implies that everything else (and anyone else that doesn't do it) is subpar. Which many would say, 'of course! I want my child to have only the best!' but to which I say, 'eh, good enough is sometimes good enough.' Sometimes, too much BEST-ing can create an elitist attitude, and create anxiety about perfection.

I'm not saying , "Yay formula and CIO!" because that is NOT what I believe *at all*...but I do think that not always having to have the best or most X of everything takes a little pressure off, and leads to a more relaxed (and perhaps less judgmental) lifestyle. Not because you need ot fit in with anyone else, but from a human harmony standpoint. Now...obviously in matters of physical and emotional safety I am not tolerant of chidlren being harmed or mistreated, and will be right up there judging people who disconnect from their babies and toddlers. My standards are MUCH higher for the under 3 set. But preschoolers and up? Meh - a Cheeto there and a "tickle me Elmo" here (shudder) isn't going to ruin them...sure, it might not be the BEST thing for them, but growing up thinking that you only deserve the BEST is a good way to grow up to be a disappointed adult when you find that you can't always get it. Sometimes "OK" is really, well, okay. Entitlement is an ugly thing, no matter how it's expressed.

So, that all made sense to me when I thought it out while nursing DD to sleep, but I have no idea if it came out right on the post. Fingers crossed! Edits may follow shortly!!


----------



## The4OfUs (May 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 
Heather, would you let your kids have happy meal toys if they wanted them?

I guess if they ever asked for them I would, but it's never come up.

I have to say that even when I was a teenager, the concept of meal=toy bugged me - it just doesn't make sense. Why would you need to get a toy when you eat a meal?


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *The4OfUs* 
I guess if they ever asked for them I would, but it's never come up.

Cool! Of course, I guess with a one and a three-year-old, they might not even be aware of them yet?


----------



## secretresistance (Dec 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *The4OfUs* 
...sure, it might not be the BEST thing for them, but growing up thinking that you only deserve the BEST is a good way to grow up to be a disappointed adult when you find that you can't always get it. Sometimes "OK" is really, well, okay. Entitlement is an ugly thing, no matter how it's expressed.

I got to thinking about this, and I think I can see what you mean. On the other hand, I don't think it's going to be poor "deprived" DD with her wooden and cloth toys who is going to grow up thinking she is entitled to only the best. Have you seen some of these things? Those are the "bests" that would lead me to expect an entitlement complex, you know?

And while I think we are making the "best" choices we can for her nutritionally speaking, I doubt that she'll be feeling all high and mighty about her organic whole-foods if her peers are all enjoying something more technicolor.

All this being in the future when she might care about these things, that is.


----------



## queenjane (May 17, 2004)

I guess i have a hard time reconciling this idea that our poor kids are at the mercy of this huge corporate consumerist culture and that parents are the "first line of defense" (too lazy to go back and quote the actual post)....because that just isnt our reality. Not.At.All.

And i guess THAT is what i see sooooo much hear at MDC...Fear. I'm not afraid. I'm not afraid that tv will rot my kid's brain out, that sugar will rot his teeth out, that an orange toy laser gun will turn him into a violent adult. I'm just not. You know why? Because i look at my child, really LOOK at him, and see that the BEST innoculation you can give your child against violence, against consumerism, against gender stereotyping, against all of that, is a combo of love, respect, and open communication. Kids arent stupid. They are actually really smart. My son and I talk all the time about infomercials, commercials, products that look cool but might just break. We look up product reviews online. In the end, he might still want to buy that thing that i think is a waste of money. And it may bring him an hour's joy and then break. Thats ok, its a learning experience. He remembers the next time.

To me, this isnt about what *I* as a parent am willing to "settle" for, for my own self (the mayo container example above), but about whether i'm willing to decide for my child what the right path is. I'm specifically talking about issues of toys, food, clothing, media. I read in a thread here once a post by a mom that was willing to make the "dealbreaker" of whether her kid ever saw the grandparent, be whether the gp would give the child a sugary treat. No acknowledgement that maybe not having grandma in a child's life would be more damaging than a cookie, yknow? (And i know there are other issues sometimes involved re:boundaries and such...but it seemed that sugar was the hill this mom was willing to die on.)

I get so frustrated and sad when i read threads here about Barbie, or Bratz, or toy guns. When a parent wants to know how to explain to the little child that the toy soldier he adores *must* be thrown away, because killing is bad.







: Because i simply can't reconcile it with my reality. I was at an unschooling conference recently, and here were all these little girls (and a couple moms!) onstage, dancing to a song from the Bratz movie (i think?? It definitely had something to do with bratz!), so FULL of absolute joy, kids who enjoy such freedom and don't seem to be the victim of anything. They didnt need their moms to tell them how horrible bratz were, they were just so full of life. And they were dancing around that stage in memory of hannah jenner (the daughter of hahamommy...i think that's diana's MDC name??)who had died. And who loved Bratz. Its like sometimes parents are looking at the Forest, and forgetting to see the Trees, individual children.

Maybe i'm not expressing any of this well. I know alot of parents here have very small kids (like under 3)and its easy to think you'll always be able to control everything (and when they are young like that, you mostly can)...someone mentioned the difference between authoritative parenting and authoritarian parenting. And yes, in the mainstream world, the first is much preferable to the second. But there is a better option than either of those, and thats to move toward Mindful Parenting, to saying "Yes" rather than "No", to not be so arbitrary in your limits and control. Its been such a blessing for us.

Katherine


----------



## secretresistance (Dec 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *queenjane* 
I get so frustrated and sad when i read threads here about Barbie, or Bratz, or *toy guns.* When a parent wants to know how to explain to the little child that *the toy soldier he adores *must* be thrown away, because killing is bad.*







: Because i simply can't reconcile it with my reality.

I don't want my kid to think killing is fun times so I'm going to filter toys that might encourage that kind of play for as long as is reasonable. I wonder if that's very far outside of the mainstream, I can't imagine that it would be.


----------



## wannabe (Jul 4, 2005)

I think you need to make the distinction between controlling the child and controlling the environment.

mainstream parents are very into controlling the child, making them eat, sleep, behave in ways that are perfectly convenient to the parent.

NFL parents control the environment - food, bad social or cultural influences in ways that they hope will protect their kids.

I don't think that AP is about control at all, it's the NFL or certain educational philosophies that try to control what kids do or see.


----------



## The4OfUs (May 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *secretresistance* 
I got to thinking about this, and I think I can see what you mean. On the other hand, I don't think it's going to be poor "deprived" DD with her wooden and cloth toys who is going to grow up thinking she is entitled to only the best. Have you seen some of these things? Those are the "bests" that would lead me to expect an entitlement complex, you know?

And while I think we are making the "best" choices we can for her nutritionally speaking, I doubt that she'll be feeling all high and mighty about her organic whole-foods if her peers are all enjoying something more technicolor.

All this being in the future when she might care about these things, that is.









Honestly, I really think it's all about the *presentation* to the child that creates the entitlement. If you approach it as "We buy this food because it's good for our bodies and good for the earth. Different families buy different foods and that's OK", more power to ya. But if it's the, "We ONLY buy Organic because it's the BEST, and we won't hang around with families who don't" then yes, I thik that can be as bad as "You deserve this junior racing car becasue it's the BEST and anyone who can't afford it is not worth hanging out with" (as oppposed to, "We bought you this car because we know how much you like racing around; we're fortunate to be able to get things like this sometimes, aren't we?") = in each case, one example leads to the child having a more well rounded understanding, and the other to the child feeling they are better than other people because of the consumption choices.

I agree with queenjane that kids are savvy, and they pick up on the very subtle (and not so subtle) ways we express our opinions about why we do the things we do. I agree with most of what queenjane had to say (but I'm with you on the gun thing secretresistance), and wannabe, you make an interesting point, but you really are controlling the child when you control the environment, just in a more subtle way. If they don't have the choices available to them, it's still control.

I'd say on a spectrum, I'm a minimally to moderately controlling parent, because of my children's ages...I'm not completel into consensual living, that's for sure...but I also let a lot of things go that seem to matter more to my more 'mainstream' friends. My hills to die on revolve around respect for other people and respect for their property. And I have pretty high standards for what consists of respect for others when we're out and about. If it isn't going to impact that, we try to find a way to make whatever it is hapen (barring time or financial constraints).Stuff like food, clothes, toys - consumption - for me, are not usually my hills to die on. I do have *some* guidelines, but am willing to give on many issues that others here are not, if my kids ask for something I normally wouldn't buy for them.

Soooo - maybe I gues it does really all come down to:
-What's important to you AND
-How you present it to your child

Cause you can do that either in a gentle, tolerance building way, or in a rigid, elitist way. Hmmm.......


----------



## chicagomom (Dec 24, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *The4OfUs*
I think one thing that bothers me about "Extreme AP/NFL" (or extreme consumerism; really, extreme anything) is the implication that it is "The Best", and therefore implies that everything else (and anyone else that doesn't do it) is subpar. Which many would say, 'of course! I want my child to have only the best!' but to which I say, 'eh, good enough is sometimes good enough.' Sometimes, too much BEST-ing can create an elitist attitude, and create anxiety about perfection.

Yes I agree, and not only anxiety. It can also create the consumerist snobbery/elitism that prevents people from interacting with those who are different from them. So much of the Bratz vs. Magic Cabin is about fitting in - I have a Bratz because my child's friends have Bratz (or Waldorf dolls). This is why we left the local Waldorf preschool - the people there were still obsessively consuming stuff, it was just wooden/silk stuff. And they were using their beliefs about the superiority of their consumption (the kinds of food they ate, the kinds of toys they consumed) to judge and dismiss other families who did not consume the correct stuff.

Whether you're consumerism is focused on wool dollies or plastic, it's still consumerism if you think that you must have this to feel/be 'ok'.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *queenjane*
I guess i have a hard time reconciling this idea that our poor kids are at the mercy of this huge corporate consumerist culture and that parents are the "first line of defense" (too lazy to go back and quote the actual post)....because that just isnt our reality. Not.At.All.

And i guess THAT is what i see sooooo much hear at MDC...Fear. I'm not afraid. I'm not afraid that tv will rot my kid's brain out, that sugar will rot his teeth out, that an orange toy laser gun will turn him into a violent adult. I'm just not. You know why? Because i look at my child, really LOOK at him, and see that the BEST innoculation you can give your child against violence, against consumerism, against gender stereotyping, against all of that, is a combo of love, respect, and open communication.

I have no idea about your personal circumstances but out here in suburbia my kids are surrounded by advertising including their peers' clothing/lunchboxes/backpacks, kids "magazines" they get at school, Channel One (and they really wanted "Bus Radio", which forces kids to listen to advertisements while they ride the bus to school). Book fairs are no longer about books - they're about collecting Sponge Bob candy, toys, and computer games. The teachers slap advertisement stickers for Chuck E Cheese on the kids' shirts to remind their parents that tonight is Chuck E Cheese night. Assemblies (again, compulsory) include advertisements and sponsorships. Sports programs include the same, and kids *must* wear logo-laden jerseys to be on the team. It. never. stops.

When I talked about being my child's first line of defense I wasn't speaking out of fear. It's anger, more of a Gandalfian "You shall not pass!" to the Belroc that constantly tells them they are not pretty enough, good enough, popular enough, or fun enough without this one special thing they must consume. Or tells me I *must* formula feed, be induced, have a c-section, circumcise my son, or serve them french fries because otherwise I'm not liberated/a bad mommy and my kids will feel "different".

You're right that kids aren't stupid; neither are adults. But *plenty* of non-stupid adults out there think things will solve the problem of their loneliness, sadness, or anger. How much consumer debt do we have in this country? Plenty of non-stupid adults spiral into addiction. Talking about infomercials, what ads are really selling, where things come from, and creating critical consumers is part of the moral education of our children and part of "attaching"; I assume everyone here is doing that and understands its value. But it's not enough. In many other industrialized countries marketing to children is prohibited; here it's not. So I have to do some of that myself.

Regarding buying the crappy breakable toy that will give him joy for five minutes, how many of these do you buy before you say "you know honey we aren't made out of money"? And of course the consumer decisions they make have more serious consequences as they get older. A crappy scooter can cause injuries. Because resources are finite (natural, monetary, time, and other) I think part of my job as a parent is to sometimes say no while I am busy educating them to be prudent stewards of their own and our world's resources. Joy comes from many places; the least of these is "stuff".

Many childrens' products (and the advertising that surrounds them) perpetuate stereotypes - Scantily clad Bratz babies in fishnet stockings perpetuate a stereotype of women I don't want my children around. Are you really saying I'm living in fear if I don't let my dd have hooker-dollies? And yes, in this case even just.one.hooker.dolly *does* make a difference in my girl's perception of what is beautiful and valued in our society. *Especially* if all her friends have them and advertising for them is *everywhere*.

You mentioned orange squirt guns, but what about video games where kids get to rape the hooker for extra points? Is that part of their learning experience? Is taking them to the hospital to be treated for lead poisoning part of their learning experience? Some things I'd rather just avoid - they will have plenty of opportunities to experience life's rougher lessons when they are adults.

But at the bottom of all this is the underlying problem to me that remains - commercialism doesn't just promote specific products. It promotes consumption as a way of life. Every celebration is turned into a consumption-fest, and it implies that consuming is the solution to every problem.

Children are smart, but they are *not* adults. They simply don't have the same skills and abilities to discriminate that we have. That's why sex with adults, liquor, tobacco, and certain games, movies and activities are restricted for them. Sometimes you have to say no. And that doesn't make you coercive, controlling, or fearful. It makes you a parent.


----------



## maya44 (Aug 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *secretresistance* 
Have you seen some of things? Those are the "bests" that would lead me to expect an entitlement complex, you know?


Hmm, we do have/had some (fairy bed and playhouse) of these (or similiar) things.







: which I have to admit I am sometims embarrssed about around certain people.

Will this give my kids an "entitlement complex." Are their grandparent's lavious gifts going to make them horrible people.

I don't know for sure how they will end up (nor does anyone of course), but I don't think so. They have a lot of expectations placed on them for their interactions with others, hard word etc... They have so far shown themselves to be kind loving children who in fact jokingly refer to their grandparents gifts as "over the top" (though they haven't refused them).

As for control, I agree with Meg Murray. I do control things for my kids. I place demands and expectations on them. I don't back that up though with any sort of punishment or reward. I simply let it be known what my expectations are.


----------



## transformed (Jan 26, 2007)

Thanks for that Katherine. I am scared to death that my kids are going to turn into slutty, overweight, killing machines. Everyday. And it sucks.

But I dont understand how letting them do/have whatever they want works the opposite of encouraging them to do these things?

My parents didnt censor anything from me, and I grew up feeling neglected.

I think moderation is the key. Such a hard note to strike also. (for me, anyways)

I do not belive in militant parenting and controlling everything that comes in and out of your childs life. I think it hinders the childs ability to make decisions on their own.


----------



## transformed (Jan 26, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chicagomom* 
I have no idea about your personal circumstances but out here in suburbia my kids are surrounded by advertising including their peers' clothing/lunchboxes/backpacks, kids "magazines" they get at school, Channel One (and they really wanted "Bus Radio", which forces kids to listen to advertisements while they ride the bus to school). Book fairs are no longer about books - they're about collecting Sponge Bob candy, toys, and computer games. The teachers slap advertisement stickers for Chuck E Cheese on the kids' shirts to remind their parents that tonight is Chuck E Cheese night. Assemblies (again, compulsory) include advertisements and sponsorships. Sports programs include the same, and kids *must* wear logo-laden jerseys to be on the team. It. never. stops.

.

That is reality. You *cant* protect your kids from reality. You can try, but you'll die trying.

I havent found a good answer to consumerism, I guess because I struggle with it so much myself. (Its not just my kids that aare inandated by "stuff")


----------



## honeybee (Mar 12, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Meg Murry.* 
You say "control" like it's a bad thing.

No, I mean it.

It's not.

I have not only earned the right to make major decisions because of my forty years' worth of life on this planet and the experiences that go with it, but I have earned the _obligation_ to make those decisions by my choice to be a parent.

Decisions are best made by people who have a sense of what is involved in the decision. To give a reasonably decent example, if someone asked me whether or not I should get 1 or 2 gigabytes' worth of memory in a portable laptop, I'd basically have no clue until someone told me, "Well, if you want it to run Windows Vista, you'll need at least one -- but if you want it to run _decently_, you'll need two."

Similarly, a child has limited information. OBVIOUSLY it is the parents' task to provide information so that the child may make a decision; however, there are many decisions a child may be faced with which essentially require life experience in order to evaluate appropriately. To use my example again, I might not know what "decently" means for me when running Windows Vista -- and I might not know that until I played around with a laptop with one gig versus two.

I do believe in giving children the power to make decisions that are appropriate to make given their age and knowledge. I also believe that one should constantly evaluate how important that decision happens to be. Is it a "hill you want to die on," or is it something of less importance?

I also believe in seeking compromise and consensus as often as possible because that is the way I would want to be treated. I believe in persuasion over force, and I believe in trying to make decisions fair and fun. However, I do not forget that ultimately, the responsibility -- and yes, the control -- resides primarily with me and my DH. _The fact that we are even discussing this at all demonstrates the control we ultimately possess, whether or not we wish to acknowledge it._











I've read _Unconditional Parenting_ and _Playful Parenting_, etc. One thing really stood out to me; these authors only have one child or children spaced really far apart.









I don't apologize for setting and enforcing limits on my kids. Call it controlling if you want. I'm fine with that. I try to be flexible and empathetic and take my childrens' views and feelings into consideration. I try to let them has as much freedom of choice as I deem prudent (I don't think giving a 3 year old the option of deciding how much television and other media to experience is prudent.) But, the bottom line is the final decisions are mine and dh's.


----------



## dubfam (Nov 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chicagomom* 
Children are smart, but they are *not* adults. They simply don't have the same skills and abilities to discriminate that we have. That's why sex with adults, liquor, tobacco, and certain games, movies and activities are restricted for them. Sometimes you have to say no. And that doesn't make you coercive, controlling, or fearful. It makes you a parent.









:

If they were capable of making all these decisions on their own then what exactly is our job as parents? To have our wallets out to buy whatever they ask for?? Seriously...most the things I am hearing being described on this thread as "Control" is really just parenting.

Am I being controlling because I wont let my 4 yo walk to the store alone?

Am I being controlling because I wont let him use the F word?

Am I being controlling by not letting him start target shooting with real guns (he is really wanting to do this, but is still way to young, IMO)?

Am I being controlling by not letting him have pop tarts and kool-aid for breakfast?

He would like to drive the car, but I say no...is that controlling?

Is it controlling to tell him not to hurt animals and people?

I would say that all the things I mentioned are controlling...so am I wrong for controlling my son so much?

I get the OP's point, but as a parent it is our responsibility to make sure that our children are safe, and to teach them good values. And that requires some degree of control. I try to say yes as much as possible, but some things are out of the question. There are things that we refuse to buy no matter how much Owen may want them. We are extremely picky about where and how we will spend our money. If Owen wanted to eat at McDonald's it certainly wouldn't be on my dime, and that is because McDonald's is causing a lot of destruction, not to mention they treat their employees like Sh*t.
That may be controlling, but I see it as teaching my son about our values as a family. We don't buy Owen new MIC or Plastic toys toys. We shop thrift stores, and he can buy that junk there, but I don;t want to give support to the companies that are manufacturing those toys. I will not buy him some crappy toy that was made in a sweat shop just so I can say that I let him make his own choices. What about the poor kid who made that toy in the sweatshop?

We are all "Controlled" by laws and general expectations for how we should behave in our society. How would I be doing my kids any favors by just letting them do whatever they want? How would that even be parenting?

How can you parent with NO control????


----------



## transformed (Jan 26, 2007)

this sounds like a consensual living argument to me. ???


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *secretresistance* 
I don't want my kid to think killing is fun times so I'm going to filter toys that might encourage that kind of play for as long as is reasonable. I wonder if that's very far outside of the mainstream, I can't imagine that it would be.

You know what? One time dh and our oldest (who was about 3 at the time) went to the dollar store, and came home with a cowboys and Indians toyset. I was excited about the canoes, tee pees, and horses: then I looked at the little cowboy and Indian figures, and gasped.

Every. single. one. of them was in fighting position: the cowboys with rifles, the Indians with spears. Dh was like, "Oh, I'm sorry: I didn't even notice -- but look how excited she is about playing with them. We CAN'T take it away from her NOW!"

So we didn't. And guess what? She's done tons of imaginary play with this set over the years (the parts have now been dispersed into various toybins around the house, but we do still have some) -- and I'm not sure, but I don't think I've ever seen her having them fight.

Seeing them poised with their guns and rifles seems to have absolutely no affect on her, or her baby sister.

I'm not saying I'd deliberately choose "fighting" toys for my child, whether son or daughter -- but if my child asks for such a toy, I don't see any danger in letting him/her try it out.

My kids enjoy shooting plastic water-guns, and I don't see this as a breeding-ground for developing violent tendencies.

I'm not saying any parent _should_ go out and buy water-guns, or any other thing that parent objects to -- and of course if you keep the objectionable stuff out of your home early on, small children aren't likely to be aware of it or ask for it.

But at some point, when they become aware -- if they have an interest in trying out some things, or some concepts, that you were hoping to keep out of your home: at what point does your "keeping stuff out" cross the line from protecting your child from the stuff "out there," to repressing certain interests/curiosities within your child?

In other words, at what point could your control actually become unwelcoming _to your child_?


----------



## dubfam (Nov 4, 2005)

Yeah, but even with CL there is SOME degree of control. I think it is silly too imply that there is a way to raise socially responsible people while letting them do whatever they decide they want to from birth.

I wish that I never had to say no to anything that Owen asks for, but that is just not reality.

There are times when the parents have to take control. We try our hardest to make those times as few and far between as possible, but there are times when I have to step up as the parent and take control of the situation, even if it does feel better to just give Owen what he wants.


----------



## dubfam (Nov 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 
I'm not saying any parent _should_ go out and buy water-guns, or any other thing that parent objects to -- and of course if you keep the objectionable stuff out of your home early on, small children aren't likely to be aware of it or ask for it.

But at some point, when they become aware -- if they have an interest in trying out some things, or some concepts, that you were hoping to keep out of your home: at what point does your "keeping stuff out" cross the line from protecting your child from the stuff "out there," to repressing certain interests/curiosities within your child?

In other words, at what point could your control actually become unwelcoming _to your child_?

ITA with this

It is a fine line for sure, and I find it to be one of the hardest parts about parenting.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *transformed* 
My parents didnt censor anything from me, and I grew up feeling neglected.

From my understanding, philosophies like Consensual Living and Taking Children Seriously are the complete OPPOSITE of neglect. Non-Coercive Parenting isn't hands-off parenting.

As an example (and I'm not claiming we practice Non-Coercive Parenting 100%; but it's something I'm striving for and trying to incorporate into our lives) -- dh enjoys watching some movies that are very violent and sometimes scary. So when he gets one, he'll usually watch it by himself while our children are asleep or otherwise occupied.

But occasionally, our oldest will say, "I want to watch this with you, Daddy," so he'll explain why he doesn't think she'll like it ... but if she still really wants to give it a try, they'll put the movie in with the agreement that if, at any moment, she finds it disturbing, it goes off and they do something else they both enjoy.

I think that when a "hands-off" parent does "no censoring," they're not necessarily staying right with the child to help her process whatever it is she's looking into. Also, some of these parents don't censor because they like their rated R horror movies or what-have-you, and don't want to wait 'til the kids are asleep to enjoy them. That's not CL or TCS.

If the parents, as in one family I know, are saying, "We're going to watch 'The Exorcist,' and you can watch it with us if you want -- or you can do something by yourself in another room, or even watch another movie on the other TV if you'd rather" --

Well, if the child is hungry for time with his parents, and the only way to be with them is to steel himself and learn to enjoy (or at least to not be so bugged by) their movie choices, this "non-censoring" attitude could actually evolve into a situation where the child HAS to endure graphic, violent, scary images in order to connect with his parents.

With CL and TCS, parents sensitize themselves to their children's feelings, and are willing to postpone the pursuit of any parental interests that might be difficult for their children to process, and enjoy this stuff while their children are asleep or otherwise occupied.

Additionally, these parents are involved and attentive, and continuously available as a support and a sounding-board as their children branch out and try new things. If you felt neglected as a child, transformed, I have a feeling your parents were doing something very different from Consensual Living or Taking Children Seriously.


----------



## secretresistance (Dec 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *maya44* 
Hmm, we do have/had some (fairy bed and playhouse) of these (or similiar) things.







: which I have to admit I am sometims embarrssed about around certain people.

Sorry if my choosing of that particular link was offensive to you at all! I was just trying to get across the idea that if we're going to worry about elitism in our children because of what we buy them, that I'd worry more about $20,000 playhouses than scraps of cloth and wood, or even the pricey Waldorf toys.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dubfam*
Am I being controlling because I wont let my 4 yo walk to the store alone?

Am I being controlling because I wont let him use the F word?

Am I being controlling by not letting him start target shooting with real guns (he is really wanting to do this, but is still way to young, IMO)?

Am I being controlling by not letting him have pop tarts and kool-aid for breakfast?

He would like to drive the car, but I say no...is that controlling?

Is it controlling to tell him not to hurt animals and people?

I would say that all the things I mentioned are controlling...so am I wrong for controlling my son so much?

Of course you're being controlling. The thing is, that that's not necessarily bad. I would also be controlling in all but the f*** issue myself. The way it's handled is what's important.

-----

So, is it possible to believe in the superiority of your personal choices without becoming elitist or negative about it?

Obviously we make most of the choices we make for our kids and family because we think they are the best choices. I don't think it would ever come naturally to phrase things with DD as "best," so I'm not too worried about it.


----------



## secretresistance (Dec 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 
You know what? One time dh and our oldest (who was about 3 at the time) went to the dollar store, and came home with a cowboys and Indians toyset. I was excited about the canoes, tee pees, and horses: then I looked at the little cowboy and Indian figures, and gasped.

Every. single. one. of them was in fighting position: the cowboys with rifles, the Indians with spears. Dh was like, "Oh, I'm sorry: I didn't even notice -- but look how excited she is about playing with them. We CAN'T take it away from her NOW!"

So we didn't. And guess what? She's done tons of imaginary play with this set over the years (the parts have now been dispersed into various toybins around the house, but we do still have some) -- and I'm not sure, but I don't think I've ever seen her having them fight.

Seeing them poised with their guns and rifles seems to have absolutely no affect on her, or her baby sister.

I'm not saying I'd deliberately choose "fighting" toys for my child, whether son or daughter -- but if my child asks for such a toy, I don't see any danger in letting him/her try it out.

My kids enjoy shooting plastic water-guns, and I don't see this as a breeding-ground for developing violent tendencies.

I'm not saying any parent _should_ go out and buy water-guns, or any other thing that parent objects to -- and of course if you keep the objectionable stuff out of your home early on, small children aren't likely to be aware of it or ask for it.

But at some point, when they become aware -- if they have an interest in trying out some things, or some concepts, that you were hoping to keep out of your home: at what point does your "keeping stuff out" cross the line from protecting your child from the stuff "out there," to repressing certain interests/curiosities within your child?

In other words, at what point could your control actually become unwelcoming _to your child_?

It sounds like it worked out pretty well for your family, cool. The whole cowboys/indians thing wouldn't have been something I felt comfortable with buying in the first place. Aside from that, at this point if I had seen the weapons after buying it, I probably would remove it from DD's playthings when the time seemed right. But like I've been saying, my daughter is only 14 months old, and her dad and I will be continually reevaluating stuff like this as she matures. We feel pretty good about it, so I'm satisfied.

Oh yeah, and I don't know what your status is in this area but, I'm also hoping that being a TV free household will be a big help in preventing DD from thinking violence is fun or a game.


----------



## transformed (Jan 26, 2007)

Yep, my parents did not have parenting philosophys....When I ask my mom "What parenting books did you read?" She says "We didnt HAVE books!"







Iwas born in 1981.










Hands off parenting, thats what I had....it IS very different.


----------



## maya44 (Aug 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *secretresistance* 
Sorry if my choosing of that particular link was offensive to you at all! I was just trying to get across the idea that if we're going to worry about elitism in our children because of what we buy them, that I'd worry more about $20,000 playhouses than scraps of cloth and wood, or even the pricey Waldorf toys.


I wasn't offended at all. I know that sometimes people (ahem my Crunchy Sister in Law) is always amazed when my kids show that they don't have a big entitlement attitude despite these over the top gifts.


----------



## sithlordswife (Jan 16, 2007)

dubfam said:


> :
> 
> I will not buy him some crappy toy that was made in a sweat shop just so I can say that I let him make his own choices. What about the poor kid who made that toy in the sweatshop?
> 
> ...


----------



## lemurmommies (Jan 15, 2007)

Wow. This is totally the most interesting thread that I have ever read on MDC. And sadly, I can't think of anything interesting to add to it right now.

I am







:


----------



## starlein26 (Apr 28, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *queenjane* 
And i guess THAT is what i see sooooo much hear at MDC...Fear.

Well said!

But this is true of both the mainstream and us. Why we chose this path interests me as well as why most mothers here don't see themselves to be as controlling as mainstream moms.


----------



## treqi (Dec 31, 2006)

I don't see how these(bold) are controlling

Quote:

*Am I being controlling because I wont let my 4 yo walk to the store alone?*

Am I being controlling because I wont let him use the F word?

*Am I being controlling by not letting him start target shooting with real guns (he is really wanting to do this, but is still way to young, IMO)?*

Am I being controlling by not letting him have pop tarts and kool-aid for breakfast?

*He would like to drive the car, but I say no...is that controlling?*

*Is it controlling to tell him not to hurt animals and people?*

I would say that all the things I mentioned are controlling...so am I wrong for controlling my son so much?

because its not like you'll never let him walk to the store alone, drive a car or shoot a gun he just needs the proper training first. Its not controlling to not let your child hurt themself or others thats... well I'm not sure exactly what it is but I don't see it as "controlling".....

Now if you never allow him to do those(walk to store, drive, shoot) things that would be pretty controlling. Also I feel not allowing your dc to use the "F word" or eat Pop Tarts and Kool-Aide(especially if you have them in your home) would be considered controlling. I don't understand why you wouldn't allow your child to use the "f word" but thats because I'm 20 and am pretty uncouth myself.....

Someone linked really expensive toy houses and stuff was said how toys like that create an elite attitude in children but I also think cloth dolls and only wooden toys can also create an elite attitude as well kinda like how people interpreted the OP in the "Hallmark Christmas Ornament" thread as a I'm better than others because I live without consumerism.

I guess I don't see Safety as controlling and in the long run we are all controlled by our circumstance and some level of controll will never be avoided.


----------



## siobhang (Oct 23, 2005)

well, I am controlling - but with a purpose. The purpose is twofold; first and foremost, keep my kids safe and secondly, to teach my kids how to become responsible grownups.

I control their environment - it is part of the definition of parenthood, since dh and I decide where we live, who lives in our household, where they go to school/play, etc. I recognize this control will decrease - rightly so - as they get older, of course. And we need to prepare for that eventuality to give them the skills they need to negotiate the world.

When controlling the environment, one can have a light touch or create an all immersive experience - in fact the latter approach is the source for religious and utopian sanctuaries, intentional communities, suburban expansion and pioneer exploration - to create a world for our children where we can exclude portions we dislike and provide the experiences we do like. The goal is two fold - to protect our children AND to help them become the type of adults we wish them to become.

We all also control behavior - part of the definition of parenthood. My children eat at the table, sitting on chairs, using forks and napkins. They say please and thank you, and a myriad of other social nicities that dh and I want to be second nature to them. They don't hit or hurt other people (often- ; ) ).

Again, parents use a light touch or a more all encompassing approach to controling behavior. The goal is the same - to keep them from hurting themselves (and others) and to teach them to be good people.

The difference is WHAT precisely we control - as a PP said, what hill do we die on - and HOW MUCH we control. Many groups do intentionally remove themselves from the world to gain the level of control they wish to exert over their environment/their kids environment. Other folks feel comfortable living in the world but focus more on teaching responsible behavior/how to interact with that world.

My approach is that control does not, in and of itself, teach - control of environment (setting every day expectations of how the world IS), with control of behavior (setting every day expecations of how individuals behave), COMBINED with modelling behavior, demonstrating how the parents try to incorporate their values into day to day life, and giving kids (at appropriate ages) chances to make their own value jugements and decisions to do the same - this is how we teach our children.

My 2 cents.


----------



## Inci (Apr 22, 2005)

My views have already been perfectly expressed, by chicagomom in posts #24 and #55. Thank you, chicagomom!!

All I will add is the following quote, which illustrates the need for parents to be the "first line of defense" against a corporate-controlled/consumerist culture. (I've already posted it in other MDC threads when it was appropriate to the topic; apologies if it's repetitive to some of you!)

When accused of over-reacting by telling her 5-yr-old dd that Barbies don't represent real women, actress Kathy Najimy responded with:

"Every second of the rest of the 90 years of her life, the world is going to bombard her with how perfect being thin is. My objection to it, my little drop in the thousands of drops she is going to be flooded with, is nothing. I have to be heavey-handed because I am not the world; I am just my one little voice to her. So I am going to be biased. I am. 'Cause the world is not going to be fair, If the world were objective and fair, I wouldn't have to work so hard. But I have to be really, really aware and sometimes intense just to have a chance in hell of something seeping in." (Ms. Magazine)

Yep. I'll stop being "controlling" by putting restrictions on harmful toys and media, _when *corporations* stop trying to control children._


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Is it also controlling to simply be available to our children, to help them process all the information and experiences that are out there?

I suppose that to some extent, it's controlling when dh and I tell our 7yo, "That movie has some scary scenes that are likely to be very upsetting to you" -- because on hearing that, she'll usually decide to watch something else, since she doesn't like having scary images stuck in her head, giving her bad dreams and so on.

I simply see providing this kind of information and guidance as part of our parental responsibility. That's why I wouldn't just pop in some scary movie, without talking with dd first.


----------



## Justmee (Jun 6, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *transformed* 
Yep, my parents did not have parenting philosophys....When I ask my mom "What parenting books did you read?" She says "We didnt HAVE books!"







Iwas born in 1981.










Hands off parenting, thats what I had....it IS very different.









Very interesting thread!

I was born in 75 and my parents had a copy of Dr Spock's Baby & Child Care. I have that copy now


----------



## The4OfUs (May 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *siobhang* 
well, I am controlling - but with a purpose. The purpose is twofold; first and foremost, keep my kids safe and secondly, to teach my kids how to become responsible grownups.

I control their environment - it is part of the definition of parenthood, since dh and I decide where we live, who lives in our household, where they go to school/play, etc. I recognize this control will decrease - rightly so - as they get older, of course. And we need to prepare for that eventuality to give them the skills they need to negotiate the world.

When controlling the environment, one can have a light touch or create an all immersive experience - in fact the latter approach is the source for religious and utopian sanctuaries, intentional communities, suburban expansion and pioneer exploration - to create a world for our children where we can exclude portions we dislike and provide the experiences we do like. The goal is two fold - to protect our children AND to help them become the type of adults we wish them to become.

We all also control behavior - part of the definition of parenthood. My children eat at the table, sitting on chairs, using forks and napkins. They say please and thank you, and a myriad of other social nicities that dh and I want to be second nature to them. They don't hit or hurt other people (often- ; ) ).

Again, parents use a light touch or a more all encompassing approach to controling behavior. The goal is the same - to keep them from hurting themselves (and others) and to teach them to be good people.

The difference is WHAT precisely we control - as a PP said, what hill do we die on - and HOW MUCH we control. Many groups do intentionally remove themselves from the world to gain the level of control they wish to exert over their environment/their kids environment. Other folks feel comfortable living in the world but focus more on teaching responsible behavior/how to interact with that world.

My approach is that control does not, in and of itself, teach - control of environment (setting every day expectations of how the world IS), with control of behavior (setting every day expecations of how individuals behave), COMBINED with modelling behavior, demonstrating how the parents try to incorporate their values into day to day life, and giving kids (at appropriate ages) chances to make their own value jugements and decisions to do the same - this is how we teach our children.

My 2 cents.

ITA. I think there are a few different topics within this discussion that are starting to get jumbled: the mainstream vs crunchy (and is crunchy control 'better' than minstream control), and authoritarian total control parenting vs parental direction and guidance.

I thought the PP who mentioned that typical mainstream parenting was controlling the *child*, while typical AP/NFL parenting was controlling the environment was very insightful. I also think that there are a wide range of options between the two extremes that can produce conscientious, critically thinking and critically consuming children...which is one goal I think, at least all of us here on MDC, have in common.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *The4OfUs* 
I thought the PP who mentioned that typical mainstream parenting was controlling the *child*, while typical AP/NFL parenting was controlling the environment was very insightful. I also think that there are a wide range of options between the two extremes that can produce conscientious, critically thinking and critically consuming children...which is one goal I think, at least all of us here on MDC, have in common.

Also, there's a wide range of options that don't exactly fall between the two extremes of controlling the child and controlling the environment. Some of us strive to dialog with our children and provide gentle guidance, as they explore an increasingly uncontrolled environment.

I say "_increasingly_ uncontrolled" because I realize that I'm controlling my toddler's environment (and somewhat controlling her) by locking our gate when we play outdoors, to keep her safely inside our fenced-in yard. To some extent, I do it so I won't have to be as directly controlling (or run as ragged), following her around and keeping her within safe boundaries.

So I guess as well as the two extremes of controlling the child and controlling the environment, there are also the two extremes of authoritarian parenting and gentle guidance.

I realize all parents control the environment to some degree: and my discussions with my 7yo about why I want her to stay outside where I can keep an eye on her while she plays in the neighborhood, rather than going in houses, is on some level an attempt to control my child by helping her stay within what I perceive to be safe boundaries.


----------



## marybethorama (Jun 9, 2005)

This is from controllingparents.com (a site I know well)

*Ten Signs You May Have Had Controlling Parents

When you were growing up, your parents...

1. Overscrutinized your eating, appearance, hobbies, or social life

2. Pressured you with perfectionistic expectations or unattainable standards

3. Forbade you from questioning or disagreeing with them

4. Discouraged you from expressing anger, fear or sadness around them

5. Violated your privacy

6. Intimidated, manipulated or overpowered you

7. Discouraged your efforts to experiment and think for yourself

8. Gave you no say in household rules and responsibilities

9. Seemed unaware of the pain they caused you or others

10. Seemed unwilling to admit they were wrong

*

FTR I don't for a minute think that restricting a toddler's sugar consumption is controlling. BUT telling a preteen that he is going to be a heroin addict someday because he likes sweet things is. [I know it doens't make sense]

The latter is a real life example. The parent in question keeps tons of junk food in the house but then berates her child for eating it. That is controlling behavior.


----------



## GuildJenn (Jan 10, 2007)

This is such a neat thread.

For me modelling is the piece that hasn't appeared in this. I try to control what my son learns from me by modelling good choices wherever possible. The idea of controlling the environment that way - through what he sees me doing - and some physical control over things, and not trying to control the child resonates with me.

I have strong memories of being told that my love for the Cherry Ames books and wanting to be a nurse was "beneath me" and that they were sexist and a lot of things. While looking back I don't disagree about the sexism, I really resented being told my _taste_ was wrong. I was 7! Of course my taste was undeveloped!

My parents did set a good example in their own reading material though. And that "good stuff" was always around. I grew into it.

So for me, it's fine to say something like "I'd rather not buy that" or "do you think you might want it because of this ad?"

But it's not fine to say something like "you shouldn't want that." While I agree that sweatshops are a huge problem, I am not always sure I want to make it the "work" of my child to solve this world issue. _My_ work, yes. His work, no. So I control what I buy; I don't try to control everything he gets from all sources.

I'm also a big believer in a kind of 80/20 rule. My goal is not perfection.

I try to be sure that we _generally_ eat food that is food and not packaging/marketing (I have a kind of rule of thumb that the less sexy the packaging, the better for us the food will probably be). I try to be sure that _generally_ our toys are high quality play value toys, and that our purchases are _generally_ in line with our values. But the remaining 20 percent or so - I just let go. If someone gives my son plastic toys out of love, and they aren't lead-ridden or unsafe, I let it go. If he gets juice and cookies at school, that's fine (their meals are healthy; that would bother me).

As he gets older I expect that there will be a constant back and forth about spending and things like that, and I hope to give him the chance to experiment and develop his own values.

My husband and I half-joke that we are cable tv free and limit screentime right now, but as soon as our son turns 12 we are going to pack our house with the latest and greatest audio-visual equipment (or whatever it is by then) so that he and his friends will hang out at our house and we can have a chance of finding out what they are really actually into.









But really that kind of summarizes where I am going. If my son grows up to be a marketing executive living in McMansion and buying the latest gas guzzling car every 6 months, well, at least I will be able to say that I raised him to make his own choices, and secure in my love and support. But I'd also like to be able to say he didn't get it from me!

But if he builds sweatshops, we are going to have words, I tell you.


----------



## siobhang (Oct 23, 2005)

I have a close friend whose mother was extremely controlling as a direct result of her untreated (and still unacknowledged) anxiety. She was very scared her kids would be hurt, physically and spiritually (she is very religious), and so kept her kids on almost permanent lock down their entire lives.

My friend and her siblings were basically told the world was a scary place, people out there were trying to harm them, that her own instincts and beliefs were wrong, bad, and probably immoral, oh, and that if she didn't do everything the way her mother wanted her to do it, she would be hurting God.

Privacy was non-existent. My friend would find her mother searching her room every day, hunting for "evidence" of her wrongdoing. Once, for a school project, my friend kept a journal, and her mother found it (of course), read it, and then informed my friend that her thoughts were bad, wrong, and scary. And that she should pray to God for forgiveness for being such a bad person.

Her mother didn't say these things spitefully - she truly loves her kids. But, due to her ever present anxiety, she really believes that her kids (the oldest is now 40, btw) are one bad thought away from eternal damnation and that SHE failed as a mother if this happens.

Yeah, this screwed my friend up. In fact, it is impressive that she nor her siblings aren't more screwed up.

Her family is not "mainstream" - in fact, they are rather reclusive. No TV other than the occasional PBS special. Classical music or religious music on the entire waking day. The kids never ate junk food - all meals other than school day lunches were at home. Few friends allowed over and very few playdates, except with very well trusted friends. Vacations were by car or bike to wilderness areas or visits to family. If there hadn't been religious schools nearby, and if the times had been different, I am quite sure my friend would have been homeschooled.

My point is that in this case, the control stems from extreme fear and anxiety. There is no trust, no acceptance of the children as distinct individuals with their own needs and preferences. And it doesn't help that her own religious views are not in step with that of the world around her - her kids get caught in the middle feeling like they cannot win at home nor outside of it.

Just another perspective.

Siobhan


----------



## 93085 (Oct 11, 2007)

I posted early on this thread, but I think I understand a bit better what the OP's question was.

I think anytime parents adhere to a strict "philosophy," they run the risk of being overly controlling, at least in that one aspect of parenting if not all aspects. I think you're just as much at risk of this being on the left as you are if you're on the right.

My personal example is that I was not allowed to have Barbies when I was a kid. My mom was a feminist and she didn't like how sexualized and stereotyped they were. I certainly see her point--and they were arguably worse (less diverse, at least, and the body style even more exaggerated) then than they are now. BUT...all my friends had suitcases full, and it was all they ever wanted to play, all the time. And I wanted to play too! But I got the castoffs with the butchered hair and chewed-up feet and torn dresses. Poor me, right? LOL. It's not so much about having to play with sucky Barbies as it is about my defining social development experience being the one who couldn't participate fully, who couldn't bring anything to the table. My mom meant to empower me by keeping this sexual stereotype away from me, but the result is that the experience just disempowered me. I do believe vestiges of that "beggar at the feast" feeling linger with me today in my social interactions.

And I have never stopped being fascinated with Barbies and all things fashiony and princessy. It's like brain and eye candy for me; I head for the Barbie section like a homing pigeon whenever I go into a toy store. Is this backlash, because I was denied such things when I was a kid? Or is it just a natural interest that I developed, for whatever reason, that my mom tried to suppress? Either way, IMHO, it would have been better for my mom to allow me to follow my bliss a bit more than she did. For this reason, I don't restrict this stuff at all with my daughters, except to set financial limits (and space limits, LOL; we live in a small house).


----------



## pia (Jul 28, 2003)

This is such an interesting thread!

QueenJane and mammal_mama say a lot of what I think.

But want to add some thoughts.

When I think back to when ds was a baby/toddler the idea of "controlling" the environment was much more important to me. In fact it started way younger than that - when I made the choice to breastfeed, to co-sleep, to let him decide when he would eat, to listen to his needs.
Kind of the very basics.
But I bought the food, I decided which food to be introduced the first time, I decided which foods that were in our fridge. And as he grew older his freedom lay in what and when he should eat from that fridge.

The same really goes for most things - the underlying values were set up early on. Whether it´s about food or toys or clothes or really anything

Control.
It´s a hard thing to let go.

Sometimes I think it´s easier to let the baby be free rather than the 9 year old. I don´t mean letting them run into the street, but as in letting them be. Letting them feel, letting them explore etc.etc.

When the get older there is more control. School, bedtimes, meal times etc.
But what happened?
The freedom that we (as ap-parents) gave them as babies/toddlers is suddenly gone.

Doesn´t make sense to me.
I actually don´t think control is a good thing. Ever. Cooperation. Yes. Guidance and explanation. Yes.
But at the end of the day - I don´t think we can control without some sort of "harm". I say harm cautiously. But I don´t think control can ever be without some guilt, shame, manipulation...

When my ds who is 9 does something dh doesn´t like, dh sometimes says to me (desperately







):
You have to make him stop.

But we cannot _make_ anyone stop - unless we use some sort of force. Control is a form of force in my mind. We are all inherently free people. We can talk, explain, tell them how we feel, what the repercussions might be, we can block, redirect (++ not sure if I missed anything).

But all of this said. Children are smart. They don´t self-destruct. I actually think that if they are free - we don´t have to use control.

Another point I wanted to make is that - just because we have the means to control (our strength for instance), doesn´t mean we automatically have the right to use it.

Lol, I think I am thinking more about older kids than younger kids, babies and toddlers. Just fyi.
Hope this makes sense...I might be rambling a bit!














:


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jescafa* 
My personal example is that I was not allowed to have Barbies when I was a kid. My mom was a feminist and she didn't like how sexualized and stereotyped they were (snip) BUT...all my friends had suitcases full, and it was all they ever wanted to play, all the time. And I wanted to play too! But I got the castoffs with the butchered hair and chewed-up feet and torn dresses. Poor me, right? LOL. It's not so much about having to play with sucky Barbies as it is about my defining social development experience being the one who couldn't participate fully, who couldn't bring anything to the table. My mom meant to empower me by keeping this sexual stereotype away from me, but the result is that the experience just disempowered me. I do believe vestiges of that "beggar at the feast" feeling linger with me today in my social interactions.

Some friends of ours disallow Barbies because of the revealing dress -- but they allow their girls to play with Ken since Ken dolls don't come with short skirts or low-cut blouses. It's kind of funny seeing the effeminate-looking Ken-dolls with pony-tails and the like!


----------



## 93085 (Oct 11, 2007)

Yeah, I was allowed a Skipper doll one year, because she had no boobs and flat feet. I appreciated, and appreciate, the gesture, but it was like an eyedropper to put out a raging fire.


----------



## Quinalla (May 23, 2005)

I think most parents control what their children are exposed to and I don't think that control itself is a bad thing. I think control just because "I am the parent, you are the child." is a bad thing and I also think turning a child loose with no guidance and control of exposure to age/maturity-appropriate things is a bad thing too. The trick is to find the balance and to be ready to adjust as needed. I do think most would agree that there are some things that are not appropriate for X age, though we probably won't agree on all those things and the age. There are also safety concerns too which again we don't all agree on the exact dangers or danger levels, but they are there.

And I do think there are better and worse ways to control, but I do think that it is important to recognize when you are controlling and analyze why you are doing it. For example, do I limit TV time because my child can't self-limit and really does need my help or just because I don't like TV or I don't want to take the time to pre-screen what he/she wants to watch and so on.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pia* 
Sometimes I think it´s easier to let the baby be free rather than the 9 year old. I don´t mean letting them run into the street, but as in letting them be. Letting them feel, letting them explore etc.etc.

When the get older there is more control. School, bedtimes, meal times etc.
But what happened?
The freedom that we (as ap-parents) gave them as babies/toddlers is suddenly gone.

I notice in your siggy that you're an unschooling mama like me (and also like QueenJane, I believe). So when you're talking about there being more control as our children get older -- are you mainly thinking about the children who go to school, or who do more structured homeschooling?

'Cause I'm finding that with unschooling, my 7yo is deciding when she's sleepy at night, when she wants to get up in the morning, what she wants to wear, when she wants to shower and do personal hygiene, when she's hungry and what she wants to eat ... I do dialog with her, and express concerns and make suggestions when I think a particular choice might be one she'll later wish she hadn't made.

As an unschooler, dd also decides what she wants to do throughout the day, what interests she wants to pursue. Our main challenge is that for our older child, "exploring the world" now usually entails more than just digging in the dirt in our own yard (though dd still enjoys plenty of that







). She now has a strong interest in getting to know other people and pets in the neighborhood -- so we're having lots of discussions about safety issues.

I currently am only comfortable with her playing on our own block where I can see her -- but am hopeful that as we get to know more families in our neighborhood (kind of hard because there's always some turnover, and the public-school families I know tend to already have busy social lives, and not have as much need for coffee-klatches with the neighbors), we'll maybe have some safe-places where I'll feel comfortable with dd going into those particular homes without me being with her.

We do have a few friends like this in the community, and dd visits in their homes sometimes -- but none of them are in our immediate block.

But basically, I'm seeing that as my oldest gets more aware of safety issues, I'm able to trust her to handle more and more things for herself. She now looks both ways and crosses the (small, one-way) street in front of our house, and goes off on her own to knock on her friends' doors. Of course, it's all under my watchful eye as I'm out in our yard with my toddler.

Even with my toddler, I'm realizing she's gradually getting a better understanding about street safety. She's started asking me to take her for more walks outside the gate, and doesn't want to hold my hand but is doing pretty well (lately) about not running out into the street. So I'd say we're in the process of releasing more and more control, rather than tightening it up, as our girls get older.


----------



## pia (Jul 28, 2003)

When I say "more control" I don´t mean us. I mean what see around me.

It seems as if the idea of letting children be free, free of (too much) control is easier when they are younger. They are "allowed" to be angry, to show their emotions strongly, to have strong opinions, to refuse to go to bed, to eat when they want....etc etc.

Then when they reach a certain age, they are expected to behave in a certain way.

I am not talking about anyone specific - just an observation.

But people I know who practice ap - who let their child lead when they were babies/toddlers - seem to have more difficulty in doing so when they are older.
And yes, school comes into the picture.

Just the general expectations I guess.

Personally I strive to not control - at all. And my ds tells me if he thinks I am. I sometimes fall back into "a track" that I have brought with me from my own childhood.







:

All the things you mention about unschooling - that´s also us. If I were to use a category, I would say we fall into the radical unschooling-category. Ds is free. He goes to bed at the same time as us, gets up with us - ie when he wants. Eats what he wants, when he wants, reads what he wants, sees what he wants....

But, I also see so clearly that what I model is what he brings with him on his journey. He looks to me and dh for guidance - he asks questions, discusses everything.

I admit...I love to overhear ds say "mummy told me...."

Anyway - we had a little issue the other day. Dh wanted to go to the pub to watch rugby. Ds wanted to go with him. But wearing his tyrol hat. Me, I am fin with that. I don´t see it as anyone´s business what he wants to wear.
Well, dh got really upset. He basically didn´t want to go with ds wearing that hat because he was worried about what other people might think.

Ds told him that he had no right to tell him what to wear. So, dh agrees and says no I don´t but I won´t go to the pub with you with that hat.

Pissed me off big-time. Because he is trying to control ds.
And what made me sad too was that when ds asked what he would do if someone teased him, he said nothing, because he shouldn´t go to the pub with a tyrol hat.

In my mind he should support ds regardless of what he wants to wear.

So - we didn´t go to the pub. Dh finally went on his own.

But we differ in matters like this.
I don´t think it´s ok to control like this. Dh can voice his opinion, tell him what he thinks, but the final decision should be for ds to make.

Oh - I am feeling quite angry thinking about this....







:

But, that said, ds has a strong opinion of what he thinks is fair and will stand up for his right to choose. And if he had really wanted to go, we would have followed dh (with the hat).


----------



## sunnmama (Jul 3, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sithlordswife* 
I know its easy to satisfy your childs desires and not remember the suffering, poverty and deforestation that certain companies cause. I would like to not think of it myself, but since I have the knowledge, this gives me the responsibility to act, as well as to teach. I owe it to my kids ecspecially.

Yeah, this is where I very often get stuck. I really want to reduce the money we spend on irresponsibly produced merchandise. Dd really wants lots of junk made in China. How to reconcile that?

Here is my input on this very interesting topic







:

I think that families can function healthfully in a lot of different ways. I think children can be raised successfully and happily in families where parents strive not to control them. And I think children can be raised successfully and happily in families where parents confidently choose to control some choices for their children. I don't think that one is right and one is wrong....or that one is ideal and one is less than ideal. I think there are different ways for different folks and that is ok. And I think that most children are resiliant enough to thrive even if our parenting is less than perfect or ideal. And thank goodness, because there has never in all of time been a perfect parent


----------



## hippymomma69 (Feb 28, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pia* 
Then when they reach a certain age, they are expected to behave in a certain way.

I am not talking about anyone specific - just an observation.

But people I know who practice ap - who let their child lead when they were babies/toddlers - seem to have more difficulty in doing so when they are older.
And yes, school comes into the picture.

Just the general expectations I guess.











This is SOOOO me! (not in a good way) Especially since my DD (4) is SN and is in a SN preschool - behaviors that never bothered me (well sometimes) have become a "problem" to be solved...and it is all about controlling her body, mind, etc. I feel the pressure of expectations from everyone now that she is older (she STILL jumps on the couch?!) to make her "behave"....

I'm so conflicted because I love CL/unschooling but all I'm told over and over is that DD needs to learn to "behave" so she will have a hope of a "normal" social life...sigh.

Now that I have a younger child, I can see how much more I'm trying to control DD than I do the baby. I will let the baby do whatever exploring he wants - but if DD does something that she should "know better" I get irritated...

And it's all because of the way I was raised...I am very DUTY oriented - even love is a DUTY in my family - not a spontaneous feeling....

It's so hard to deprogram yourself.....

love this discussion....
peace,
robyn


----------



## lemurmommies (Jan 15, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pia* 
When I say "more control" I don´t mean us. I mean what see around me.

It seems as if the idea of letting children be free, free of (too much) control is easier when they are younger. They are "allowed" to be angry, to show their emotions strongly, to have strong opinions, to refuse to go to bed, to eat when they want....etc etc.

Then when they reach a certain age, they are expected to behave in a certain way.

This is definitely the way I was raised, and I am striving ever so hard NOT to repeat this type of parenting with my son.

As long as I can remember (which means at least from the time I was 4 or so), I heard "stop crying" over and over again. "Stop crying," "you have nothing to cry about," and "just be quiet" were a large part of my childhood. And it has had a permanent effect on me. I still beat myself up over the littlest things, have a hard time expressing how I really feel, and become irate when I misplace things. All holdovers of the way I was parented.

I am really trying my very hardest to let my son explore his world and his emotions without the weight of my emotional baggage. I am really proud of how I have done so far, but am finding that I have to defend my style of parenting to my parents a lot (not a big surprise, I suppose.)

I think that the homeschooling/unschooling point is a very interesting one too. As my DP and I have discussed many times, we feel the need to homeschool our son and any future children because we feel that we do not want our child controlled by adults that we basically know little/nothing about. We want him to be free to explore what he wants and needs to at any given point, with our loving guidance.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

pia, I totally see your point. Unschooling helps a lot with letting our children exercise their own freedom -- but then, we still have to deal with all those other people (and sometimes ourselves) regarding those age-related expectations that tend to increase as our children get older.

Just the other day, my mom was lecturing me about how I needed to be sterner with my 2 1/2yo because she's "old enough to understand" my instructions. Sure, she understands some instructions -- but she often has her own agenda she's following, which is perfectly normal, IMO.

But with some people, it seems like even babyhood is cut drastically short. Anything past 6months, 9months, or a year, is a "big kid" to some of these people.


----------



## EnviroBecca (Jun 5, 2002)

Chicagomom and others feeling overwhelmed by consumer culture: I see what you mean, and I know it was a big concern for my parents when I was growing up, so I want to reassure you that it is entirely possible for a kid to be surrounded by that culture and still emerge with good values!







I grew up in a company town with miles of similar houses occupied by middle-class families whose fathers all worked for the company. Having the "right" things from the TV commercials was very important at all ages. But my parents told me and showed me that it's okay to be different from the natives--we didn't have to hold the same values as the people around us. They encouraged critical thinking about purchases and valued quality, uniqueness, homemade things, and social responsibility. Sometimes they refused to spend THEIR money on things I wanted but didn't need. However, I was allowed to ride my bike to the U-Totem and spend my allowance on horrifying candy and stupid comics. My parents rarely belittled my choices (sometimes they just couldn't help it!) but they continued to express their own feelings: "No thanks, I don't want a bite; I don't like my mouth to turn green" or "Please choose a different story. I don't want to read She-Hulk again."

This comes back to the distinction I made earlier: Authoritative parents say, "These are the reasons I think this item is not worth the money. I will not spend our family's money on that. You have 50c a week to spend on whatever YOU think is worth buying." Authoritarian parents say, "You can't have that. No matter how it comes to you, I will take it away, because that is not allowed in our home." AP parents can be in either category.

The result of my parents' holding firmly to their own values while letting me dabble in the waves of consumer swill was that I tried on various aspects of mainstream culture, found most of them lacking, and cast them back. Some things I did for years (for example, wearing a lot of make-up whenever I left the house) but ultimately renounced. At my most conformist and materialistic, in high school, every one of my purchasing decisions was thought through, and I continued to reject many of the trends of the times. My family and I enjoyed critiquing other people's thoughtless consumerism, and their opinion of me was important enough to keep me from doing those "silly" things except where I could see some value to them...and when I explained the value, generally my family was understanding of my moderate indulgence in, say, acid-washed jeans. Once I got away from living in that town, I quickly discovered that many of the things I'd thought I needed were in fact unnecessary, and within a few years I was living by values very similar to my parents'.

My point is: Hold firm, be who you are, explain your values to your children, live your values in your family life...but don't try to shield your children from every product that might be less than ideal. Let them make some of these decisions for themselves, more and more as they grow, and probably they'll find that you're right after all.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *EnviroBecca* 
My family and I enjoyed critiquing other people's thoughtless consumerism

Is this a value or habit you want to pass on to your children? I can understand that sometimes it feels fun (and superior) to critique other people (and yes, those of us who are less crunchy are just as capable of criticizing the "crunchies," as the crunchies are of criticizing us ... ) --

But gosh, I hope someday my girls aren't fondly reminiscing about how much fun we had bashing people who "don't drink tap water."








No, there's nothing wrong with bottled or filtered water: I just get peeved when kids come to our house and complain about being thirsty, because they won't drink our water and we're not willing to give up our week's supply of milk and juice in one day.









Of course, there's nothing wrong with raising your kids on "special" water ... just, they're gonna be awful thirsty unless you strap 'em up each morning with their own supply in a hip flask or something ... of course, the truly deep crunchies prob'ly aren't sending their kids to our house anyway.









Quote:

and their opinion of me was important enough to keep me from doing those "silly" things except where I could see some value to them...
So, do you feel you would've lost your parents' approval if you'd done some "silly" things without being able to "explain the value?"

Should children always have to "explain the value" of every choice they make, in order to ensure their parents' support and approval? Or should support and approval be freely given?

Quote:

and when I explained the value, generally my family was understanding of my moderate indulgence in, say, acid-washed jeans.
And what if you hadn't explained the value, in a way that was satisfactory to them? What if your enjoyment of it was something you couldn't put into words?

What if your indulgence had been more than "moderate?"


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

On the critiquing issue, I'm realizing that it really can cut both ways.

For those of us who are somewhat un-cruncy, when our kids start noticing that some people are more crunchy (i.e. never eat fast food, or never get plastic at the supermarket), and they ask us about it, we can choose to respond in a way that makes the crunchier people sound rather petty and anal --

Or we can open up a dialog about the various environmental and health-related concerns that some people are addressing by avoiding plastics and refusing to eat fast food. We can describe the things we actually are doing to nurture our own health and the health of the environment, and explain our reasons for not doing more at this time.

It may very well be that our kids will want to do more crunchy stuff, or will think we're giving lame excuses for still having plastics in the house, or for still getting pop and fast food sometimes -- and if that's the case, we can all put our heads together and figure out a way towards a more satisfactory way of life for everyone in our home.

And by showing as much respect for those who live very differently than we do, as we do for ourselves, hopefully we'll be showing our children that they can rest secure in our love and approval _whichever_ way they soar in pursuit of their own unique dreams and ideals.


----------



## AllisonR (May 5, 2006)

: Thank you. Each and every one of you for such clear insights, ideas and opinions.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jescafa* 
I think anytime parents adhere to a strict "philosophy," they run the risk of being overly controlling, at least in that one aspect of parenting if not all aspects. I think you're just as much at risk of this being on the left as you are if you're on the right.

I am dead center then, right?


----------



## happyhippiemama (Apr 1, 2004)

subbbbbbing. this is a great thread.


----------



## RachelSerena (Aug 4, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Meg Murry.* 
You say "control" like it's a bad thing.

No, I mean it.

It's not.

I have not only earned the right to make major decisions because of my forty years' worth of life on this planet and the experiences that go with it, but I have earned the _obligation_ to make those decisions by my choice to be a parent.

Decisions are best made by people who have a sense of what is involved in the decision. To give a reasonably decent example, if someone asked me whether or not I should get 1 or 2 gigabytes' worth of memory in a portable laptop, I'd basically have no clue until someone told me, "Well, if you want it to run Windows Vista, you'll need at least one -- but if you want it to run _decently_, you'll need two."

Similarly, a child has limited information. OBVIOUSLY it is the parents' task to provide information so that the child may make a decision; however, there are many decisions a child may be faced with which essentially require life experience in order to evaluate appropriately. To use my example again, I might not know what "decently" means for me when running Windows Vista -- and I might not know that until I played around with a laptop with one gig versus two.

I do believe in giving children the power to make decisions that are appropriate to make given their age and knowledge. I also believe that one should constantly evaluate how important that decision happens to be. Is it a "hill you want to die on," or is it something of less importance?

I also believe in seeking compromise and consensus as often as possible because that is the way I would want to be treated. I believe in persuasion over force, and I believe in trying to make decisions fair and fun. However, I do not forget that ultimately, the responsibility -- and yes, the control -- resides primarily with me and my DH. _The fact that we are even discussing this at all demonstrates the control we ultimately possess, whether or not we wish to acknowledge it._

I was going to say all this. But she beat me.









Spanking is not "control". It is simply training the kid into obedience.

I for one do not want an "obedient" child. Obedience is for dogs, IMO.
I want a child who can look at all the information given her and make a sane decision based on the facts she is presented with.

But at 2 1/2 she does not yet understand the world enough to be able to make her own decisions all the time.

As parents it is our job to guide our children so they became responsible, caring, productive adults. To do this, involves control.


----------



## Bonne_Maman (Sep 30, 2007)

I become worried when parents adopt an ideology...at all costs. I think parents have the job of teaching their children to make appropriate decisions for themselves, not dictating. And yes I believe that in many ways a tv-free household, or vegetarian household is a form of dictating.


----------



## EnviroBecca (Jun 5, 2002)

Mammal Mama wrote:

Quote:

Is this a value or habit you want to pass on to your children? I can understand that sometimes it feels fun (and superior) to critique other people
Criticism does not have to be destructive. It's possible to say that a person is wrong and spell out why, without saying she is a total idiot or a bad person.

Now, the fact is that in my family (both growing up and now), criticism of other people's "errors" often IS snarky and insulting. Part of this is because we're very exacting, detail-oriented people who think through all our decisions (and this may be because we have brain power to spare; it's not fair to expect that all this thinking is equally easy for everyone), and part of it is because we spent so many years living under the pressure of a dominant culture with values different from ours. Sharing clever criticism of others is a bonding experience for us. That doesn't mean it's a nice thing to do. We should find better ways to manage our stresses and reinforce our values. You know your position is weak when you try to elevate it by knocking down the alternatives.

So, in the interest of being more positive people ourselves as well as setting a good example for our child, my partner and I try to turn our critiques as quickly as possible from "what's wrong" to "how to do it right," discussing the advantages of our value system rather than the disadvantages of others.

Quote:

So, do you feel you would've lost your parents' approval if you'd done some "silly" things without being able to "explain the value?"
After a point, yes. Not that they would have cut off contact with me or stopped loving me, just that they would have had less respect for my lifestyle. I don't see a problem with that. We have relatives whom we believe have made some poor choices about what to value. We love them dearly, we enjoy spending time with them, and we respect their right to live as they choose. But we don't APPROVE.

I have made three major choices in my adult life that conflict with my parents' values. (I'm not so much talking about "consumer" things here but other lifestyle decisions; only one of them has any direct relationship to consuming.) Fearing loss of their approval, I avoided discussing any of these things for years. Eventually I decided to tell them about one thing. They were very upset, and we had many lengthy discussions in which I tried to explain its value to me, and after about a year they accepted it and began to treat it like the value differences with other relatives. They found out about another of the things accidentally, with the same result. The third one remains a secret as far as I can tell. This is a choice/value/practice that I am very happy with myself, but the fact that my parents disapprove of it (whenever the topic of anyone else doing it comes up) is painful to me. I want them to be proud of me and think everything I do is wonderful.

Quote:

Should children always have to "explain the value" of every choice they make, in order to ensure their parents' support and approval? Or should support and approval be freely given?
Support is different from approval, and I'm not sure whether you mean emotional support or financial or what, so let's just set that aside. LOVE should be unconditional. I know that my parents love me even if I totally screw up. Dreading their disapproval is not the same as believing that they wouldn't love me if they knew. They will always love me. I'd like them to approve of everything I do and agree with me about everything, too, but what's really important is that we love each other and respect each other's right to live by our own values.

Should I have to explain those values? If I refuse to explain, they're not going to understand as well as if I do explain, and therefore their disapproval is likely to be stronger because of their interpretation of why a person would do such a "wrong" thing. Certainly this was true of the two important choices mentioned above: When I explained, and they quelled their objections long enough to listen, they learned that these choices that seemed so revolting and pathological to them were based on my reasoning from the same values they had taught me and reaching different conclusions because of my different experiences in life. They still didn't agree or really approve, but they understood much better. I don't OWE them explanations. But giving explanations is likely to work in my favor.

Quote:

And what if you hadn't explained the value, in a way that was satisfactory to them? What if your enjoyment of it was something you couldn't put into words? What if your indulgence had been more than "moderate?"
Then they wouldn't have approved, and I would have had to live with that. It's happened. It hurt. It made me re-evaluate whether the thing was really important. That was good for me. Much better than if they'd said, "You are forbidden to buy or wear acid-washed jeans ever again!" Much better than if they'd said, "Gee, acid-washing is environmentally irresponsible and creates damaged clothing that's hardly worth the money, but since you like it, honey, we'll buy it for you!"

Here's what happened with the acid-washed denim, by the way: The trend hit town when I was 13, and my parents were scathing in their scorn. I knew they had good points, but I liked the look of the stuff, and after a while I felt like the only kid in school who didn't have any. When I was 15, I bought one pair of acid-washed jeans. My parents said, "$20 for ruined clothes?! Well, if that's how you want to spend your money...







" Within 3 months, the jeans had big holes in the knees. I began to hand-wash them. No comment from my parents. When the jeans ripped across the thighs, I wore them over hot-pink tights. My parents complimented me on this practical way to get more wear out of the jeans. A teacher sent me to the office to determine whether this was a violation of dress code; the principal decided it was not, and within a week I saw other girls wearing disintegrating jeans over tights. I reported this at the dinner table; my mom said, "You are a trend-setter!" The jeans were unwearable after 9 months. I came home from the mall and showed my parents my new jeans that were pale blue to start with and would be much more durable. They didn't rub it in.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

I just think it's hard for most of us to feel loved and accepted by someone who disapproves of much of what we're doing. For instance, I know on some level that my mom loves me, but her continual criticism of everything I do differently from her, makes me feel kind of unloved and unaccepted.

As Alfie Kohn says in _Unconditional Parenting_, when children hear, "We love _you_, honey: we just hate your _behavior_" -- if this happens enough, the child's likely to start wondering, "Who's this elusive "me" you love, when you hate practically everything I do?"

While I appreciate the value of encouraging children to carefully think about what they're doing (though I do think they should have freedom to be spontaneous, and not to feel _everything_ requires a great degree of thought), I'd rather they do this so _they'll_ feel good about their choices -- NOT because they feel they have to justify everything to me, or I'll be hurt or disappointed.

And some choices can be the right thing at the time, even if they're not something you'd want for the long-term. The $20 for the acid-washed jeans wasn't $200,000, $20,000, or even $2,000. It didn't really make a dent in the lifestyle you're able to have now -- such as by burying you in a debt-pit you're still trying to dig your way out of.

I must say, I like the way your parents refrained from rubbing it in when your jeans fell apart so quickly, even if the "$20 for ruined clothes?" seems rather insulting. With my mom, anything she saw as an unwise purchase on my part, she treated as an unmitigated tragedy and she applied tremendous pressure for me to take it back.

To my mom, I think large sums of money are all made with pennies -- and this is true, but so burdensome to a young person to always have Mom standing by to critique every purchase, and (as it seemed to me at the time) to rain on every parade!


----------



## lemurmommies (Jan 15, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 
As Alfie Kohn says in _Unconditional Parenting_, when children hear, "We love _you_, honey: we just hate your _behavior_" -- if this happens enough, the child's likely to start wondering, "Who's this elusive "me" you love, when you hate practically everything I do?"

That is so interesting! I really must get my hands on _Unconditional Parenting._

My mother always used (and still uses, and I'm nearly 28) the same formulaic question when asking me to do something: "Could you (insert chore/request here ) like a good girl?" Implying that the way I would have done it was not like a good girl would do it. And thereby implying that I myself am not a good girl, and have to do some thing _like_ a good girl, and not like the girl that I am.

Now that I am older I call her on it each and every time. And she apologizes, but still does it. Old habits seem hard to break on her part.


----------



## EnviroBecca (Jun 5, 2002)

Quote:

As Alfie Kohn says in Unconditional Parenting, when children hear, "We love you, honey: we just hate your behavior" -- if this happens enough, the child's likely to start wondering, "Who's this elusive "me" you love, when you hate practically everything I do?"
Sure, if it happens a lot. I didn't have these clashes with my parents very often. Most differences of opinion are not important enough to pursue, and most don't reach the level of HATING. "That behavior is not what we would do." is very different from, "We hate your behavior." The latter is something I've rarely heard from my parents, and when I have it's been a behavior I at least partially agreed was wrong and a big deal, like staying out too late at night without calling them.

Also, there is a difference between criticizing things other people do (even if they are things that your child might like to do) and criticizing what your child is actually doing. It sounds like your mom is very critical of what you are doing, uncomfortable with the idea that you may make different choices than she would, and unable to drop it. She's passed the point where you can learn something from hearing her reasoning and is into (at least, as it sounds to you) criticizing you just for being different.

Quote:

I'd rather they do this so they'll feel good about their choices -- NOT because they feel they have to justify everything to me, or I'll be hurt or disappointed.
Sure. One doesn't rule out the other, unless the child's value system is fundamentally opposed to the parents'.

Quote:

And some choices can be the right thing at the time, even if they're not something you'd want for the long-term. The $20 for the acid-washed jeans wasn't $200,000, $20,000, or even $2,000. It didn't really make a dent in the lifestyle you're able to have now
No, but it made a dent in my lifestyle at the time. $20 jeans=10 single records=5 movies=40 cans of soda=1 year of magazine subscription=1 month of dance class=2 nights of babysitting to earn that much money again. Was it worth it? Ultimately I decided it wasn't, but if I'd never tried acid-washed jeans I wouldn't have known.

Quote:

With my mom, anything she saw as an unwise purchase on my part, she treated as an unmitigated tragedy and she applied tremendous pressure for me to take it back.
I recall several times when my parents bought something for themselves or the family and then regretted it and stewed over it and finally took it back. I recall several times when I bought something for myself and then regretted it and my parents talked me through the process of deciding whether to take it back or make it do. But I can't think of a single time when they pressured me to return something I'd chosen for myself and was happy with. They might tell me bluntly that they disliked it or thought it was a poor value, but it was MY opinion that determined whether I got to keep it.

Lemurmommies wrote:

Quote:

My mother always used (and still uses, and I'm nearly 28) the same formulaic question when asking me to do something: "Could you (insert chore/request here ) like a good girl?" Implying that the way I would have done it was not like a good girl would do it. And thereby implying that I myself am not a good girl, and have to do some thing like a good girl, and not like the girl that I am.















for her and







for you!


----------



## 93085 (Oct 11, 2007)

EnviroBecca, my family--parents and siblings--is a lot like yours, and the older I get, the more it grates on me. Fine, maybe in the grand scheme of things, they are smarter and/or more cultured than most people in America. It's just the constant self-congratulation--and criticism of everyone else--that gets under my skin. They do it in the same way--to amuse each other and to bond. I just feel more and more distant from it the more my world expands beyond the narrow world of my upbringing.

Now that I am married, my family includes a lot of people whose values and lifestyle are radically different from my parents', and I simply wouldn't be able to function in that aspect of my life if I was constantly telling myself how much better all my choices are/were than theirs.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *EnviroBecca* 
Part of this is because we're very exacting, detail-oriented people who think through all our decisions (and this may be because we have brain power to spare; it's not fair to expect that all this thinking is equally easy for everyone),

Another idea I'd like to throw out there is that some people who are equally intelligent, may choose to live more spontaneously and go with their feelings, and do some things that don't necessarily make sense analytically. Sometimes intelligent people realize they miss a lot when they only do what "makes sense."

For example, I once heard a story of a young woman who got pregnant out of wedlock, during a time (1950's or 1960's, I believe) when it was common for girls in this situation to put their babies up for adoption. She thought this was the right thing to do -- but when she held her newborn baby, she fell in love with her, and knew she couldn't give her up.

She was warned that "no man would ever marry her," and that she was ruining her life and the life of her child, but she went with her heart, anyway. And soon after met a good man who loved both her and her child.

I'm not saying it would have been the "wrong" decision if she'd ended up being single all her life -- just that the "experts" didn't really have all the information, they were obviously wrong in their prophecies about this young woman.

That's why I think it's so important to sometimes be willing to abandon rationality, especially when our heart is telling us something different. We're always growing and gaining new information, and we may very well find (as this mother did) that that new information (combined with more mature reasoning abilities) will show us we made the most analytically sound choice, after all.

Quote:

Support is different from approval, and I'm not sure whether you mean emotional support or financial or what, so let's just set that aside.
I was mainly referring to emotional support -- but during the time when children are dependent on parents for material needs, it's kind of hard to separate the two.

Quote:

LOVE should be unconditional. I know that my parents love me even if I totally screw up. Dreading their disapproval is not the same as believing that they wouldn't love me if they knew. They will always love me. I'd like them to approve of everything I do and agree with me about everything, too, but what's really important is that we love each other and respect each other's right to live by our own values.
Would you also say that love makes us open to learning from (and even allowing ourselves to be transformed by) the other individual?

Through getting to know my kids, I've gained an appreciation for some things I used to devalue -- such as computer games and Happy Meal toys -- after seeing the pleasure these things bring my children (and no, the toys don't all break: our laughing hyena from a few years ago still laughs







).


----------



## 93085 (Oct 11, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 
Would you also say that love makes us open to learning from (and even allowing ourselves to be transformed by) the other individual?

Through getting to know my kids, I've gained an appreciation for some things I used to devalue -- such as computer games and Happy Meal toys -- after seeing the pleasure these things bring my children (and no, the toys don't all break: our laughing hyena from a few years ago still laughs







).

I agree with this. Groovy Girls are my example. I mean, honestly, some of them are dressed like strippers; white go-go boots and lace minis, for heaven's sake. And all that psychadelic decor just makes me think of an acid trip. I wasn't about to ban them from the house, but I did raise an eyebrow. But my daughter doesn't have the same cultural associations that I do, and I think it's important to realize that. To her they are just dolls, and the clothes etc. are just fun, and different, and interesting, and creative, and come to think of it, that's actually pretty cool.


----------



## EnviroBecca (Jun 5, 2002)

Good points about the need for humility and respecting of intuition. These are both things that can get lost when patting each other on the back for being so clever!







They're important tools and can work together with thinking. IME, using intuition is not a matter of "abandoning rationality" but of allowing information from all parts of your brain to reach you.

Quote:

Would you also say that love makes us open to learning from (and even allowing ourselves to be transformed by) the other individual?
Of course. Parents learn from and are changed by children, as well as the other way around. All of us are always learning and growing.


----------



## AllisonR (May 5, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jescafa* 
EnviroBecca, my family--parents and siblings--is a lot like yours, and the older I get, the more it grates on me. Fine, maybe in the grand scheme of things, they are smarter and/or more cultured than most people in America.

Well, so glad to here your views about most of us on this forum. Anyone care to pass the tea and scones?

This thread is getting way off topic. The first 4-5 pages were so enjoyable to read. It is supposed to be about control in relationship to various parenting styles. Now

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jescafa* 
It's just the constant self-congratulation--and criticism of everyone else--that gets under my skin.

Allison


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *EnviroBecca* 
IME, using intuition is not a matter of "abandoning rationality" but of allowing information from all parts of your brain to reach you.

So true! Especially since I think sometimes our intuition is leading us into areas where -- say, ten or twenty years from now -- we'd automatically go and perceive our behavior as rationally quite sound. Because of new information that wasn't available at the time. And possibly better reasoning abilities.

I'm reminded of an old _Mothering_ editorial, where Peggy O'mara says parents don't always have time to wait 'til all the studies are in. Just think of all the concerns that were raised decades ago about vaccines, many of which are just now being acknowledged as true by the scientific community.

Sometimes we just have to go along with those parental hunches, even if everyone else thinks we're crazy. And listening to our kids will open us up to lots of important hunches we'd otherwise miss!


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *AllisonR* 
This thread is getting way off topic. The first 4-5 pages were so enjoyable to read. It is supposed to be about control in relationship to various parenting styles.

And in what ways do you see it as now being off-topic? I perceive the recent posts as being totally about control in relationship to various parenting styles. Is it because some of us have been sharing about our relationships with our own parents, and talking about our own childhoods?

Honestly, I think the parents who use self-congratulation, and criticism of others, to have fun and to bond with their kids, are being very controlling even if they don't know it. Of course, I can't say I've been raising my kids totally free of that; I'm glad it's been mentioned because it makes me more aware that I need to look out for it in my own family interactions.

I think when children grow up in that kind of environment, their whole sense of belonging hinges on being like their parents -- not like those other stupid people who their parents may, on some level, even love and care about, but are never going to be "our kind of people" because of those different choices the parents just can't understand and therefore label as "stupid." Or, more nicely, as "not well thought-out."

A child who hears that kind of stuff enough times, is bound to feel somewhat constricted in her ability to explore a wide variety of ideas and possibilities, and come to her own conclusions. Of course, I don't know how to totally escape from it (being constrictive), myself. Maybe as our children see the areas where dh and I've changed our minds through listening to them, they'll realize we're just people, too -- very fallible and always learning.


----------



## 93085 (Oct 11, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *AllisonR* 
Well, so glad to here your views about most of us on this forum. Anyone care to pass the tea and scones?

This thread is getting way off topic. The first 4-5 pages were so enjoyable to read. It is supposed to be about control in relationship to various parenting styles. Now

Allison

Huh?







:

I think maybe you didn't understand what I was trying to say in my post. I was just conceding that there's some truth to my parents' and siblings' high opinion of themselves; I didn't intend to say anything at all about anyone on this forum specifically or generally.

And if I got off-topic, I apologize. I just meant to give the example of how my own parents exerted "control." Sorry if I offended anyone.


----------



## EnviroBecca (Jun 5, 2002)

Mammal Mama wrote:

Quote:

I think when children grow up in that kind of environment, their whole sense of belonging hinges on being like their parents -- not like those other stupid people who their parents may, on some level, even love and care about, but are never going to be "our kind of people" because of those different choices the parents just can't understand and therefore label as "stupid." Or, more nicely, as "not well thought-out."
A child who hears that kind of stuff enough times, is bound to feel somewhat constricted in her ability to explore a wide variety of ideas and possibilities, and come to her own conclusions.
You have a point here! It's only in my 30s that I've realized how firmly I closed off certain possibilities to myself because of my parents' teaching that "we" don't do that; the reason I wasn't aware of these sooner is that I personally happened not to want to take those directions in life. For example, in our family a person who has finished high school goes directly to college, or possibly to some type of work or service for a few years before college, but at any rate leaves her parents' home and generally moves to another state. My parents and all of their siblings did this, as did 3 of 4 grandparents and most of the cousins, and everyone spoke of this as a positive experience. I did it myself and loved it and feel that it was a very important step in creating the satisfying life I have today. But if I had wanted to marry my high school boyfriend right after graduation and immediately become a SAHM living down the street from my parents, that would have been surprising and somewhat disappointing to my family. It would have advantages (more time with the grandkids, etc.) that would be appreciated, but my family would always feel that I had missed something important in life, and I would sense that even if they didn't say it.

So, yes, having expectations and talking up the merits of one's own choices IS a form of control. But can you really avoid doing that? And if you do, doesn't that mean your children know you less well (because they don't know what you value or why) and that they are not only unable to disappoint you but also unable to please you?


----------



## WildCanaryCait (Aug 9, 2006)

i think worms are nutritious in a soulfood kinda way and Katherine I appreciate your articulate abilities in sorting through this one. i agree.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *EnviroBecca* 
So, yes, having expectations and talking up the merits of one's own choices IS a form of control. But can you really avoid doing that? And if you do, doesn't that mean your children know you less well (because they don't know what you value or why) and that they are not only unable to disappoint you but also unable to please you?

Maybe the best approach is to follow Katherine's suggestion of choosing which of our values are really "hills to die on." I agree that each of us is going to have some values that are so near and dear to our hearts, it's going to be impossible (and even undesirable and dishonest) to present it to our kids as "this was right for me but might not be for you."

But there's a ton of other stuff that's truly not a "hill to die on." For instance, because of my childhood issues, I've actually found it helpful that I didn't meet the right guy and marry 'til age 35. I was so immature as a young adult, it took me that many years to catch up.

I don't necessarily think my own children are going to be any better off marrying later in life, though. Actually, being an older mom myself, I (secretly) think it'd be way cool if they married young so we'll still be able-bodied enough to be an active Grandma and Grandpa, and even, God willing, live to be a part of our great-grandchildren's lives.

But this certainly isn't anything I want to burden my children with, just my own little idea of bliss!

Also, it worked well for me to live with Mom and Dad for all but one year of college, to cut down on costs, and to move back home for a while when I was older. This may work for one or more of my children, or they may choose other educational/career routes; dh and I want them to feel welcome to stay home as long as they like -- but free to move on when they're ready.

There are so many issues where there's no one right answer.


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *EnviroBecca* 
You have a point here! It's only in my 30s that I've realized how firmly I closed off certain possibilities to myself because of my parents' teaching that "we" don't do that; the reason I wasn't aware of these sooner is that I personally happened not to want to take those directions in life. For example, in our family a person who has finished high school goes directly to college, or possibly to some type of work or service for a few years before college, but at any rate leaves her parents' home and generally moves to another state. My parents and all of their siblings did this, as did 3 of 4 grandparents and most of the cousins, and everyone spoke of this as a positive experience. I did it myself and loved it and feel that it was a very important step in creating the satisfying life I have today. But if I had wanted to marry my high school boyfriend right after graduation and immediately become a SAHM living down the street from my parents, that would have been surprising and somewhat disappointing to my family. It would have advantages (more time with the grandkids, etc.) that would be appreciated, but my family would always feel that I had missed something important in life, and I would sense that even if they didn't say it.

Haven't read the whole thread, but I didn't do "what I was supposed to" regarding "going away to college, before getting married". And yes, it was considered "a far from best choice" in so many verbalized, scorned and shaming ways, beyond the understood "expectation". I married my high school sweetheart, immediately after high school, after living with him; and we'll have been married 25 years this year!









Quote:

So, yes, having expectations and talking up the merits of one's own choices IS a form of control. But can you really avoid doing that? And if you do, doesn't that mean your children know you less well (because they don't know what you value or why) and that they are not only unable to disappoint you but also unable to please you?
This seems to limit the possibilities to _*EITHER*_ "have expectations and talk up the merits of one's own choices" _*OR*_ "children know you less well". My goal is unconditional love, without the burden of "disappoint me" or "please me". Neither of which are my child's responsibility, imo. I am responsible to meet my own values, expectations, integrity, and desires for happiness, without our child carrying that burden. And my parents were/are disappointed because their expectations were/are placed on us kids, and we choose not to regard their values over our own. I am comfortable with our son choosing his own values FOR HIMSELF, not in order to please me, even over my own values. He does this already by eating mammals, for instance.

By choosing to _model_ my value of unconditional acceptance and regard, ds knows me and my values, most clearly. And yet, that doesn't connote control over him.

Pat


----------



## marybethorama (Jun 9, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 
Also, it worked well for me to live with Mom and Dad for all but one year of college, to cut down on costs, and to move back home for a while when I was older. This may work for one or more of my children, or they may choose other educational/career routes; dh and I want them to feel welcome to stay home as long as they like -- but free to move on when they're ready.

That's exactly how I feel.


----------

