There was an article in the Times by a woman who has two children who appears to regret it rather bitterly. There's a nice fisking at: http://seeingwithneweyes.homeschooljournal.net/2007/08/22/20-reasons-not-to-have-children-by-a-mother-of-two/#comment-28
I think I know why this woman is so bitter. It is because she thinks that motherhood entails sacrificing all sorts of important aspects of ones autonomy - physical (childbirth, breastfeeding, children climbing all over one), intellectual (as expressed in having a career, and childless-adult-dinner-party kind of conversation), and emotional (tension in the new nexus of relationships between the two couples and their children).
I think people - both men and women - should embark on parenting with as much seriousness as they would embark on any other creative project. I don't mean that children are a project (urgh), I mean that being the best parent one can be, and having the most possible fun in the process, is the way to approach it. A woman wants intellectual stimulation beyond the interests and needs of her 6 year old? Fine. Find a way to get that stimulation, don't blame the 6 year old for existing, or for their supposed limiting of opportunity. It boils down to optimism. Er... and TCS, I guess.
The self-sacrifice memes are at the root of that woman's book and article. She does not know that one can have, or at least approach, an autonomy-respecting relationship with one's children. I'm not surprised - self-sacrifice is deeply engrained in most women - we learned it at our own mothers' knees - and I think that learning to express what one actually wants oneself is one of the biggest hurdles to happy motherhood (it's certainly my biggest hurdle).
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Why I don't share details about members of my family
My own personal details shouldn't bother people. If I want to tell you all about my two heads, or my ingrown toenail surgery, then you might think "oh gawd there goes that boring me me me person again" because actually my personal details are not quite as thrilling as I think they are, but I'm just a bore, I'm not doing something morally wrong.
But once I start sharing with you all the details of my aunt's hysterectomy and the dreadful mess the surgeon made of it and the infections she had Down There, and exactly what impact it had on her failing sex life, you might start thinking "wtf? Does this aunt mind having these revolting details shared with complete strangers? What if I am one day introduced to her? However am I going to treat her with the respect and courtesy this poor woman deserves instead of going into howls of laughter any time someone mentions having Something Else Removed?" [by the way, I don't know whether any of my real aunts have had hysterectomies, this was a completely invented story]
It's EXACTLY the same when we talk about our children in public, but on a less extreme level. If I have told my parents all about my (fictional) 10 year old son's intense interest in airplanes, then the chances are that they will act on that. When we next visit, they'll strike up a conversation about airplanes. They'll already have arranged to take him to an airshow. Dad will have got out all his (fictional) aviation magazines.
No harm done?
- My fictional son had no chance to tell grandpa himself about his interest, to watch the delight in a shared theme blossom on grandpa's face, to go to the attic together to find the aviation magazines.
- My fictional son had no chance to see posters for the airshow and ask the grandparents themselves if they'd like to go.
- My fictional son also had no chance for this interest actually to fill only one wet Thursday afternoon. Because my telling stories about him concretised a personality trait, it will take quite some doing (and some considerable disappointment for grandpa) for him to move from airplanes on to car engines. Perhaps he'd really prefer not to go to the airshow, but to visit a car showroom, but that'll really disappoint the grandparents.
That's why it bothers me - because our children become essentialised outside the home or online - oh - her child is the one who wets the bed; her child is the one who had the huge tantum in Asda. People become defined by anecdotes told about them, rather than by being themselves.
This post was written for a public messageboard. I think that there has to be a place for an adult to say "we went to the swimming pool today" because their own story is intertwined with that of their child. Rather than a public forum, perhaps one is best to use a private messageboard, an email, a PM, a passworded blog. Or telephone or AIM for conversations which are not recorded (or in person of course).
There are limits to the kind of information one should share in any context - I am still working out what I think those limits ought to be - perhaps they vary somewhat from person to person.
But once I start sharing with you all the details of my aunt's hysterectomy and the dreadful mess the surgeon made of it and the infections she had Down There, and exactly what impact it had on her failing sex life, you might start thinking "wtf? Does this aunt mind having these revolting details shared with complete strangers? What if I am one day introduced to her? However am I going to treat her with the respect and courtesy this poor woman deserves instead of going into howls of laughter any time someone mentions having Something Else Removed?" [by the way, I don't know whether any of my real aunts have had hysterectomies, this was a completely invented story]
It's EXACTLY the same when we talk about our children in public, but on a less extreme level. If I have told my parents all about my (fictional) 10 year old son's intense interest in airplanes, then the chances are that they will act on that. When we next visit, they'll strike up a conversation about airplanes. They'll already have arranged to take him to an airshow. Dad will have got out all his (fictional) aviation magazines.
No harm done?
- My fictional son had no chance to tell grandpa himself about his interest, to watch the delight in a shared theme blossom on grandpa's face, to go to the attic together to find the aviation magazines.
- My fictional son had no chance to see posters for the airshow and ask the grandparents themselves if they'd like to go.
- My fictional son also had no chance for this interest actually to fill only one wet Thursday afternoon. Because my telling stories about him concretised a personality trait, it will take quite some doing (and some considerable disappointment for grandpa) for him to move from airplanes on to car engines. Perhaps he'd really prefer not to go to the airshow, but to visit a car showroom, but that'll really disappoint the grandparents.
That's why it bothers me - because our children become essentialised outside the home or online - oh - her child is the one who wets the bed; her child is the one who had the huge tantum in Asda. People become defined by anecdotes told about them, rather than by being themselves.
This post was written for a public messageboard. I think that there has to be a place for an adult to say "we went to the swimming pool today" because their own story is intertwined with that of their child. Rather than a public forum, perhaps one is best to use a private messageboard, an email, a PM, a passworded blog. Or telephone or AIM for conversations which are not recorded (or in person of course).
There are limits to the kind of information one should share in any context - I am still working out what I think those limits ought to be - perhaps they vary somewhat from person to person.
Monday, June 25, 2007
Third way parenting
Heh. Here's a way of articulating it:
1) try to discipline our children so they do what we want and they don't always get their own way. This requires naughty steps, hitting the children, telling them off, praising the good and ignoring the bad - whatever discipline steps the mum takes, it's basically behaviourism a la Skinner - we are trying to alter who our children are and what they want by the provision or withdrawal of affection. And that's the standard kind of parenting.
2) let our children do whatever they want. disaster. Ends up with burnt out mums having breakdowns, years and years of self-sacrifice with more and more resentment under the surface, mum getting to the stage where she doesn't even really know what she'd prefer herself, she's got so used to servicing the desires of her children. Also very likely to end up with children who find it almost impossible to interact with other children or adults because they don't comply with every request. Likely to be called "spoiled brats".
3) consentual parenting. Unconditional parenting. Natural parenting. Taking children seriously. All sorts of trendy words for closely related philosophies which suggest finding common preferences. there's a battle where child wants a and parent wants b. In standard parenting a happens with a tantrum, or with mum getting hit and bit. In bratty parenting b happens with mum feeling angry underneath. In the third type of parenting, parent and child work together to find either a way of a or b happening which both are happy with, or discover c, which actually both are happier about than either was about a or b. It can happen with pre-verbal children, you just have to get good at reading their cues and offering possibilities in ways they understand. the parent is responsible for helping their child interact with society in constructive ways (ie not becoming a brat), but through reason instead of discipline.
1) try to discipline our children so they do what we want and they don't always get their own way. This requires naughty steps, hitting the children, telling them off, praising the good and ignoring the bad - whatever discipline steps the mum takes, it's basically behaviourism a la Skinner - we are trying to alter who our children are and what they want by the provision or withdrawal of affection. And that's the standard kind of parenting.
2) let our children do whatever they want. disaster. Ends up with burnt out mums having breakdowns, years and years of self-sacrifice with more and more resentment under the surface, mum getting to the stage where she doesn't even really know what she'd prefer herself, she's got so used to servicing the desires of her children. Also very likely to end up with children who find it almost impossible to interact with other children or adults because they don't comply with every request. Likely to be called "spoiled brats".
3) consentual parenting. Unconditional parenting. Natural parenting. Taking children seriously. All sorts of trendy words for closely related philosophies which suggest finding common preferences. there's a battle where child wants a and parent wants b. In standard parenting a happens with a tantrum, or with mum getting hit and bit. In bratty parenting b happens with mum feeling angry underneath. In the third type of parenting, parent and child work together to find either a way of a or b happening which both are happy with, or discover c, which actually both are happier about than either was about a or b. It can happen with pre-verbal children, you just have to get good at reading their cues and offering possibilities in ways they understand. the parent is responsible for helping their child interact with society in constructive ways (ie not becoming a brat), but through reason instead of discipline.
Sunday, June 24, 2007
Sunday, June 10, 2007
Politicians get it wrong
So.. the teachers are saying that testing school children every five minutes is worse than pointless, but both the DfES and the opposition say that they think it's an important way of ensuring standards
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=LW5ZPXF1YA22NQFIQMGCFFWAVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2007/06/10/nexam110.xml
Hint: teachers - you should all simply refuse to administer the SATS.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=LW5ZPXF1YA22NQFIQMGCFFWAVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2007/06/10/nexam110.xml
Hint: teachers - you should all simply refuse to administer the SATS.
Children playing in fridges
Mother of a toddler says
I think it's a really normal phase for a child to be interested in emptying things out of the fridge.
In this situation, I would get to the fridge quickly, and quietly remove eggs, anything liquid in an open container, and put them somewhere cool (sink of cold water for open milk cartons maybe?) and then I would turn the fridge off and give the child a LARGE tupperware container or washing up bowl to put the food in.
At first, you may well have to help with putting them into the bowl rather than having them strewn across the floor. Encourage child to experiment with tasting butter/cheese/vegetables/fruit (some children like eating raw onion, garlic, brussel sprouts, cabbage at this age...).
When all the food is out of the fridge, help them put it all back. Rinse and repeat.Honestly, if it wasn't for these sorts of passing interests in our children, we'd all have fridges full of archeological specimens we'd forgotten all about... (or maybe that's just me)
(and think in your mind that this exploration is not likely to last more than a month. It might be significantly less time. Anything really perishable can go in the freezer for a couple of hours)
Why are there forbidden zones which a child should not be helped to explore safely?
...those no go areas vary from person to person. For some people it's going in the fridge at all. For some people going in the fridge is ok, as long as it's with the parent controlling what they do in it (and I'm in that camp to an extent, since I'd quietly remove open yoghurt pots before the child noticed), but for some mothers the whole kitchen is a forbidden area and the child is left crying outside a stairgate.
... which means that the "need to leave alone" is not that the child needs to leave it alone for some rational universal reason.
Speeding lorry advancing at 40 miles an hour - every parent would see the middle of the road as a no go for their child at that moment - the child needs to leave the middle of the road alone in order to stay alive, and parent would be right to force their child back on the pavement in the heat of that moment. But the fridge scenario is not black and white at all.
If a child is really keen to get in the fridge and play with the objects in it, I think it is better to find a way for that to happen which makes both parent and child happy rather than to make child very distressed over what is actually parent's arbitrary limitation.
There are all sorts of ways of keeping the food cool while playing in and around the fridge. I'd slip meat into the freezer as soon as it came out of the fridge. I'd probably grab a bag of Tesco economy frozen peas out of the freezer (like about 60p worth of peas) and use them to form a cool cushion at the bottom of the container the food was going into. If this game looked likely to be played tomorrow as well, I'd make a HEAP of ice cubes that night so I could keep the stuff cool for no money at all. The child might even get more interested in the ice cubes than the food, at which point the fridge could be filled and shut and turned on again.
That's just in a 2 minute brainstorm. If this was a real situation in my house, I'd be putting a lot of creative energy into making a good solution for everyone because a) tantrums are exhausting for everyone, children and parents and b) what an opportunity for a child to learn all sorts of things about colours and shapes and textures and tastes and counting and stacking and... so many things our children do can be embraced as learning opportunities rather than things we have to stop them doing and c) it'll be a passing phase. The more the parent helps their child explore whatever the phase is safely and fully, the less likely the child is to want to go back to it again and again and again, when parent's back is turned, eventually finding a way past the fridge lock and destroying a week's worth of groceries.
And no, road safety has NOTHING to do with fridge locks or household safety - that was exactly my point! There's a black and white "children must not be left in the path of speeding lorries". There is no clear right and wrong here - there's no obvious "children mustn't play in fridges because they'll die" - there are only the limitations of their parents' willingness to make it possible for them to explore in this particular environment.
And as for toy/not toy - that's an arbitrary distinction too, as every child (along with any adult who has ever put a 1 year old on a kitchen floor with a metal saucepan and two wooden spoons) knows.
"what do I do? My child keeps playing in the fridge"
I think it's a really normal phase for a child to be interested in emptying things out of the fridge.
In this situation, I would get to the fridge quickly, and quietly remove eggs, anything liquid in an open container, and put them somewhere cool (sink of cold water for open milk cartons maybe?) and then I would turn the fridge off and give the child a LARGE tupperware container or washing up bowl to put the food in.
At first, you may well have to help with putting them into the bowl rather than having them strewn across the floor. Encourage child to experiment with tasting butter/cheese/vegetables/fruit (some children like eating raw onion, garlic, brussel sprouts, cabbage at this age...).
When all the food is out of the fridge, help them put it all back. Rinse and repeat.Honestly, if it wasn't for these sorts of passing interests in our children, we'd all have fridges full of archeological specimens we'd forgotten all about... (or maybe that's just me)
(and think in your mind that this exploration is not likely to last more than a month. It might be significantly less time. Anything really perishable can go in the freezer for a couple of hours)
"no, this is a terrible idea. Children should not explore in fridges"
Why are there forbidden zones which a child should not be helped to explore safely?
...those no go areas vary from person to person. For some people it's going in the fridge at all. For some people going in the fridge is ok, as long as it's with the parent controlling what they do in it (and I'm in that camp to an extent, since I'd quietly remove open yoghurt pots before the child noticed), but for some mothers the whole kitchen is a forbidden area and the child is left crying outside a stairgate.
... which means that the "need to leave alone" is not that the child needs to leave it alone for some rational universal reason.
Speeding lorry advancing at 40 miles an hour - every parent would see the middle of the road as a no go for their child at that moment - the child needs to leave the middle of the road alone in order to stay alive, and parent would be right to force their child back on the pavement in the heat of that moment. But the fridge scenario is not black and white at all.
It's a fridge not a toy. I can't see any rational person entertaining their
child by letting them into the fridge. And it has nothing to do with road safety.
If a child is really keen to get in the fridge and play with the objects in it, I think it is better to find a way for that to happen which makes both parent and child happy rather than to make child very distressed over what is actually parent's arbitrary limitation.
There are all sorts of ways of keeping the food cool while playing in and around the fridge. I'd slip meat into the freezer as soon as it came out of the fridge. I'd probably grab a bag of Tesco economy frozen peas out of the freezer (like about 60p worth of peas) and use them to form a cool cushion at the bottom of the container the food was going into. If this game looked likely to be played tomorrow as well, I'd make a HEAP of ice cubes that night so I could keep the stuff cool for no money at all. The child might even get more interested in the ice cubes than the food, at which point the fridge could be filled and shut and turned on again.
That's just in a 2 minute brainstorm. If this was a real situation in my house, I'd be putting a lot of creative energy into making a good solution for everyone because a) tantrums are exhausting for everyone, children and parents and b) what an opportunity for a child to learn all sorts of things about colours and shapes and textures and tastes and counting and stacking and... so many things our children do can be embraced as learning opportunities rather than things we have to stop them doing and c) it'll be a passing phase. The more the parent helps their child explore whatever the phase is safely and fully, the less likely the child is to want to go back to it again and again and again, when parent's back is turned, eventually finding a way past the fridge lock and destroying a week's worth of groceries.
And no, road safety has NOTHING to do with fridge locks or household safety - that was exactly my point! There's a black and white "children must not be left in the path of speeding lorries". There is no clear right and wrong here - there's no obvious "children mustn't play in fridges because they'll die" - there are only the limitations of their parents' willingness to make it possible for them to explore in this particular environment.
And as for toy/not toy - that's an arbitrary distinction too, as every child (along with any adult who has ever put a 1 year old on a kitchen floor with a metal saucepan and two wooden spoons) knows.
Quote of the month
"I think Montessori isn’t considered proper education - it’s a bit faddy. Nowhere near as faddy as the national curriculum and sats if you ask me. "
http://liveotherwise.co.uk/makingitup/2007/06/09/sunny-saturday/#comments
http://liveotherwise.co.uk/makingitup/2007/06/09/sunny-saturday/#comments
Friday, June 08, 2007
exams are not important
"But how will your home educated child get proper qualifications?"
...rather begs the question of whether those qualifications are worth getting. GCSE Physics has become political and, according to one physics teacher, isn't actually about physics at all: http://www.wellingtongrey.net/articles/archive/2007-06-07--open-letter-aqa.html
Not a GCSE I'd want to touch with a bargepole... rather like the recent incarnation of New Scientist (which should berenamed New Environmentalist)
...rather begs the question of whether those qualifications are worth getting. GCSE Physics has become political and, according to one physics teacher, isn't actually about physics at all: http://www.wellingtongrey.net/articles/archive/2007-06-07--open-letter-aqa.html
Not a GCSE I'd want to touch with a bargepole... rather like the recent incarnation of New Scientist (which should berenamed New Environmentalist)
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
John Bowlby
I've occasionally heard John Bowlby mentioned in "Nurseries are all evil" conversations, so I thought I'd read for myself.
I recently finished "Childcare and the Growth of Love" which was first published in1953. It came out of the context of the end of the second world war, and was the easy-reading version of a UN report on homeless children. There were many children displaced or orphaned during WWII in Europe, and Bowlby was one of the people who studied the effects of different kinds of upheaval.
Not surprisingly, the studies of the time all showed that children are happier at home than in an institution, even if their parents are pretty unsatisfactory, and they are better off with continuity of care in a foster home or orphanage than having lots of different careworkers. So "families" in orphanages were seen as one partial solution. This was all pretty shocking at the time - less than 10 years earlier than Bowlby's studies, children were regularly being evacuated from London and other major cities without their parents. Their physical safety was the main concern, but the emotional damage of such enforced separation had not really been taken into account. Nowadays, of course, it's taken as read that the babies in Rumanian orphanages who were only looked at when it was feeding or nappy changing time would be emotionally, physically and intellectually stunted.
Bowlby quite reasonably concludes that the best place for a child to be is with its parents, and that the state is better placed putting its welfare resources into supporting families rather than whisking children away into institutions, and my understanding is that that is now well entrenched in welfare provision, certainly in the UK.
But he then makes this extraordinary non sequiteur. Children are best brought up in their homes (agreed) so, says Bowlby, mothers shouldn't be going out to work, but should be staying at home with their children. He was, of course, writing at just the moment when thousands of men were being demobbed and needed employment, and I think that must have been the motivation behind the judgement, because his evidence was quite clear that living in an institution is bad for children, and that foster homes are a poor second to the real family home, but his evidence didn't actually show that day nurseries or child minders are a bad thing.
Don't get me wrong. I think day nurseries and child minders may well be a bad thing for small children, but Bowlby doesn't show it, at least, not in this book. Suggestions for further reading in the comments please...
I recently finished "Childcare and the Growth of Love" which was first published in1953. It came out of the context of the end of the second world war, and was the easy-reading version of a UN report on homeless children. There were many children displaced or orphaned during WWII in Europe, and Bowlby was one of the people who studied the effects of different kinds of upheaval.
Not surprisingly, the studies of the time all showed that children are happier at home than in an institution, even if their parents are pretty unsatisfactory, and they are better off with continuity of care in a foster home or orphanage than having lots of different careworkers. So "families" in orphanages were seen as one partial solution. This was all pretty shocking at the time - less than 10 years earlier than Bowlby's studies, children were regularly being evacuated from London and other major cities without their parents. Their physical safety was the main concern, but the emotional damage of such enforced separation had not really been taken into account. Nowadays, of course, it's taken as read that the babies in Rumanian orphanages who were only looked at when it was feeding or nappy changing time would be emotionally, physically and intellectually stunted.
Bowlby quite reasonably concludes that the best place for a child to be is with its parents, and that the state is better placed putting its welfare resources into supporting families rather than whisking children away into institutions, and my understanding is that that is now well entrenched in welfare provision, certainly in the UK.
But he then makes this extraordinary non sequiteur. Children are best brought up in their homes (agreed) so, says Bowlby, mothers shouldn't be going out to work, but should be staying at home with their children. He was, of course, writing at just the moment when thousands of men were being demobbed and needed employment, and I think that must have been the motivation behind the judgement, because his evidence was quite clear that living in an institution is bad for children, and that foster homes are a poor second to the real family home, but his evidence didn't actually show that day nurseries or child minders are a bad thing.
Don't get me wrong. I think day nurseries and child minders may well be a bad thing for small children, but Bowlby doesn't show it, at least, not in this book. Suggestions for further reading in the comments please...
Children mirroring parents
"he kicks, he nips, he shouts, he bites, has the worst tantrums I have ever seen and doesnt listen to a word I say!!!"
He sounds really really angry. Here's what I'd be doing:
1. concentrate on what is making him so furious, and do whatever you can to a) help him do the thing he is struggling with, if it's safe or b) offer something he'll enjoy even better. It's much easier to persuade a toddler into a car seat if you've found out why they don't want to go in it and solved that problem (you want to hold Thomas the Tank Engine all the time while you're getting in??? Oh - ok then! Smiles all round). Someone is more likely not to have any problem leaving the playground if you're suggesting a minimilk from the icecream van on the way home...
2. be very very careful about your responses. Children mirror what their parents do, a lot. I'm not suggesting you're hitting him for a moment, but when you write
"I try and give him trouble"
"I shouted for him to come here several times"
... he might be learning to shout back because that's what people around him seem to do when they are in a situation they don't like. (but maybe I'm reading your words wrong - that was just the interpretation that jumped out at me.
3. You seem to be telling him a lot that things are "naughty". Naughty is just a word, and your child isn't even 2 yet, so he isn't exactly fluent in English yet, let alone being well practised at abstract reasoning. Use as few words as you possibly can to explain what the actual problem is, and to show him without punishing. Punishment is completely meaningless to a child of this age - all they'll see is an arbitrary withdrawal of mummy's love until they do something magic like say "sorry" (whatever that means - just another word). That's why putting him in his room isn't making him penitent - it's just inexplicable, from a child's point of view. If he's reaching for the hot oven, you could say "NO!! That's naughty! Come here at once and listen!" Or you could say "LOOK OUT! Hot!" and then go with him and put your hand near the oven so you can feel the heat without burning and encourage him to do the same, and do safe experiments with the hot water tap and lit candles and things so he really understands the concept of hot. There isn't actually anything "naughty" about exploring the world. Our children just need our help to do it in a civilised and safe manner.
4. Playdates just aren't a time for mums to relax at this age. You need to be down on the floor with the children at all times, helping them interact in a friendly way with each other, making sure both of them have access to toys they want (here's a car for billy and here's one for Jake, look that one's green and this one I've got is red - do you want the red one?). Avoiding toddler conflict requires running pretty constant interference, and I think we are much better helping our children to learn to interact in a civilised manner by being there helping them on the spot than by telling them off afterwards for getting it wrong.
He sounds really really angry. Here's what I'd be doing:
1. concentrate on what is making him so furious, and do whatever you can to a) help him do the thing he is struggling with, if it's safe or b) offer something he'll enjoy even better. It's much easier to persuade a toddler into a car seat if you've found out why they don't want to go in it and solved that problem (you want to hold Thomas the Tank Engine all the time while you're getting in??? Oh - ok then! Smiles all round). Someone is more likely not to have any problem leaving the playground if you're suggesting a minimilk from the icecream van on the way home...
2. be very very careful about your responses. Children mirror what their parents do, a lot. I'm not suggesting you're hitting him for a moment, but when you write
"I try and give him trouble"
"I shouted for him to come here several times"
... he might be learning to shout back because that's what people around him seem to do when they are in a situation they don't like. (but maybe I'm reading your words wrong - that was just the interpretation that jumped out at me.
3. You seem to be telling him a lot that things are "naughty". Naughty is just a word, and your child isn't even 2 yet, so he isn't exactly fluent in English yet, let alone being well practised at abstract reasoning. Use as few words as you possibly can to explain what the actual problem is, and to show him without punishing. Punishment is completely meaningless to a child of this age - all they'll see is an arbitrary withdrawal of mummy's love until they do something magic like say "sorry" (whatever that means - just another word). That's why putting him in his room isn't making him penitent - it's just inexplicable, from a child's point of view. If he's reaching for the hot oven, you could say "NO!! That's naughty! Come here at once and listen!" Or you could say "LOOK OUT! Hot!" and then go with him and put your hand near the oven so you can feel the heat without burning and encourage him to do the same, and do safe experiments with the hot water tap and lit candles and things so he really understands the concept of hot. There isn't actually anything "naughty" about exploring the world. Our children just need our help to do it in a civilised and safe manner.
4. Playdates just aren't a time for mums to relax at this age. You need to be down on the floor with the children at all times, helping them interact in a friendly way with each other, making sure both of them have access to toys they want (here's a car for billy and here's one for Jake, look that one's green and this one I've got is red - do you want the red one?). Avoiding toddler conflict requires running pretty constant interference, and I think we are much better helping our children to learn to interact in a civilised manner by being there helping them on the spot than by telling them off afterwards for getting it wrong.
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
Almost enough to make one turn to religion
... clear instructions for making a paper boat, with optional bible study...
http://www.dltk-bible.com/crafts/mboat.htm
http://www.dltk-bible.com/crafts/mboat.htm
Children as prisoners
I used to go off on enormously long bike rides as a child. The only rules were that one had to give an estimated time of return and one was not permitted to go on one stretch of very busy road with very blind corners. No bike helmets, no molbile phones (they were the size and weight of bricks in those days, anyway, if they'd even been invented)
By the age of 14, I was travelling 100 miles to London every Saturday for the professional training of my choice. Train, 2 tubes and a walk, or train and bus, or train and bus and walk - I got pretty confident at getting to my destination in different ways. Alone.
That sort of thing happens less and less in the UK. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6720661.stm
I wonder how parents can now maximise the chances of their children having such freedom? Immediately springing to mind are:
Becoming properly informed about the risks of various activities, the risks of car accidents, bicycle accidents, random abductors etc.
Buying child a mobile phone as soon as they are able to operate one. (maybe - I see problems with parent being a virtual presence there, actually)
Become accustomed to taking their children seriously, so that requests for independent adventures can be rationally approached.
It's all just an extension of parents who don't help their children learn to walk on 6" high walls when they first show an interest aged 1 or 2 because it's "dangerous"
This is somewhat half baked but I have other things I want to do now, so I'll use the old "I should edit this but the baby just jumped off the top of the kitchen cabinets" privacy-violating get-out clause...
By the age of 14, I was travelling 100 miles to London every Saturday for the professional training of my choice. Train, 2 tubes and a walk, or train and bus, or train and bus and walk - I got pretty confident at getting to my destination in different ways. Alone.
That sort of thing happens less and less in the UK. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6720661.stm
I wonder how parents can now maximise the chances of their children having such freedom? Immediately springing to mind are:
Becoming properly informed about the risks of various activities, the risks of car accidents, bicycle accidents, random abductors etc.
Buying child a mobile phone as soon as they are able to operate one. (maybe - I see problems with parent being a virtual presence there, actually)
Become accustomed to taking their children seriously, so that requests for independent adventures can be rationally approached.
It's all just an extension of parents who don't help their children learn to walk on 6" high walls when they first show an interest aged 1 or 2 because it's "dangerous"
This is somewhat half baked but I have other things I want to do now, so I'll use the old "I should edit this but the baby just jumped off the top of the kitchen cabinets" privacy-violating get-out clause...
Saturday, June 02, 2007
Ideas for helping a very physical child
Boisterously physical - as in, climbs all over his mother and kicks and has cracked her two front teeth. By accident, presumably.
I suggested:
Find LOTS of opportunities for climbing - trees? playgrounds? softplay? walls? Round the living room without touching the floor? (I used to love that game) If in doubt, scatter more cushions. And a good pair of reins can function like a climbing harness.
Sounds like he needs rough and tumble. How about swinging him round and round by the arms/feet/one arm and one foot? (hint: keep your gaze fixed on one spot and then whip your head round fast to get to that place again, like a dancer - then you won't get as dizzy as him)
Buy a cheap old mattress for bouncing on. Those child's trampolines are good too.
Pillow fights.
Are there any uncles or other relatives who might enjoy a good old rough and tumble?
In all your hours and hours of free time (*chortle - oh no, that's just in the parallel universe where you have a time machine*) might it be worth learning some kind of judo or wrestling or tumbling or something? Then you would know how to fall well and also how to help your child land safely
I think that Lawrence Cohen book called Playful Parenting has stuff about safe physical play, but I can't actually remember if it gave clear guidelines for wrestling. Might be helpful an
I suggested:
Find LOTS of opportunities for climbing - trees? playgrounds? softplay? walls? Round the living room without touching the floor? (I used to love that game) If in doubt, scatter more cushions. And a good pair of reins can function like a climbing harness.
Sounds like he needs rough and tumble. How about swinging him round and round by the arms/feet/one arm and one foot? (hint: keep your gaze fixed on one spot and then whip your head round fast to get to that place again, like a dancer - then you won't get as dizzy as him)
Buy a cheap old mattress for bouncing on. Those child's trampolines are good too.
Pillow fights.
Are there any uncles or other relatives who might enjoy a good old rough and tumble?
In all your hours and hours of free time (*chortle - oh no, that's just in the parallel universe where you have a time machine*) might it be worth learning some kind of judo or wrestling or tumbling or something? Then you would know how to fall well and also how to help your child land safely
I think that Lawrence Cohen book called Playful Parenting has stuff about safe physical play, but I can't actually remember if it gave clear guidelines for wrestling. Might be helpful an
Monday, May 28, 2007
fussy eater
So a child won't eat a huge selection of foods, and the mother has decided that she's not prepared to cook the same thing every night. She will offer the child whatever the family is eating, and if they won't eat it, they'll go hungry.
Relevant anecdote
I have a vivid memory of a school dinner which came around on the menu once a month. It was fish with a white sauce and tomato ketchup. The rule was that you had to finish your meal before you could go out to play. There was no choice of meal.
Even bringing the memory of that food back to mind is setting off my gag reflex. I have not eaten tomato ketchup since I left that school. So if their plan was to force me to eat certain foods because it would make me like them, their plan completely misfired.
Oh God, I've just remembered the custard tart thing which had what we described as pepper on top but I guess was cinnamon. That WAS possible to swallow, but only if you held your nose. Strangely enough, not a dish I have sought out in adulthood.
Ihad a friend who was fine with the fish and the custard tart, but his bugbear was the cheesecake. Generally he'd just sit in the dining room for the whole lunch time, but one time he was so desperate to go out and play that he took a mouthful and WAS SICK ALL OVER THE PLATE. His mum came in and tore the headteacher off a strip, and after that the rule changed and you no longer had to eat the food you didn't like (there still wasn't any choice though; just the one meal)
My approach
I'd be taking a completely different tack - rejoice at the veg and pasta and fruit and fishfingers - that's a balanced diet before you even start - and just offer other things on the plate or on a separate plate at the same meal time.
If there are things a child will often eat, but not if there's a bowl of pasta available, give them the other things five minutes before you produce the pasta, so they maybe have a bit of whatever else it was.
I'd be offering a selection of things which my child might want to eat in that meal, and the rejected ones I'd eat myself or pop in the fridge or freezer for another occasion.
I'd be aiming at a balanced diet over a week or month rather than every day. And of course my values would reflect in the kinds of things I offered - whether it was all organic tofu or there was a big concentration of chips, or whatever it might be. In that way, I'd be inexplicitly sharing my understanding of what good things and bad things are to eat. [nb I've never tasted tofu in my life but I had chips for lunch today...]
The theory bit
Why would you be punishing someone for not wanting to eat certain foods???? What precisely are you hoping to achieve by that? I just don't get it as a strategy for developing a balanced diet and adventurous palate. It certainly didn't work for me and my friends at primary school.
Worth thinking also about food as control and as battleground. If a person doesn't have control over food - they are forced to eat things they don't want and when they don't want to eat, in circumstances which they don't want to eat in, that can become a really really serious battleground later on. And in their teens, the way a person might well be taking control over that part of their lives if it's been a battleground through early childhood is through anorexia and bulimia and other eating disorders and binge/slim stuff. Maybe these hypothetical unintended consequences are too extreme and unrealistic, but I'd definitely be wanting to watch out carefully for whatever knock on effects this kind of battle might have both on my child's psyche and on our relationship.
Relevant anecdote
I have a vivid memory of a school dinner which came around on the menu once a month. It was fish with a white sauce and tomato ketchup. The rule was that you had to finish your meal before you could go out to play. There was no choice of meal.
Even bringing the memory of that food back to mind is setting off my gag reflex. I have not eaten tomato ketchup since I left that school. So if their plan was to force me to eat certain foods because it would make me like them, their plan completely misfired.
Oh God, I've just remembered the custard tart thing which had what we described as pepper on top but I guess was cinnamon. That WAS possible to swallow, but only if you held your nose. Strangely enough, not a dish I have sought out in adulthood.
Ihad a friend who was fine with the fish and the custard tart, but his bugbear was the cheesecake. Generally he'd just sit in the dining room for the whole lunch time, but one time he was so desperate to go out and play that he took a mouthful and WAS SICK ALL OVER THE PLATE. His mum came in and tore the headteacher off a strip, and after that the rule changed and you no longer had to eat the food you didn't like (there still wasn't any choice though; just the one meal)
My approach
I'd be taking a completely different tack - rejoice at the veg and pasta and fruit and fishfingers - that's a balanced diet before you even start - and just offer other things on the plate or on a separate plate at the same meal time.
If there are things a child will often eat, but not if there's a bowl of pasta available, give them the other things five minutes before you produce the pasta, so they maybe have a bit of whatever else it was.
I'd be offering a selection of things which my child might want to eat in that meal, and the rejected ones I'd eat myself or pop in the fridge or freezer for another occasion.
I'd be aiming at a balanced diet over a week or month rather than every day. And of course my values would reflect in the kinds of things I offered - whether it was all organic tofu or there was a big concentration of chips, or whatever it might be. In that way, I'd be inexplicitly sharing my understanding of what good things and bad things are to eat. [nb I've never tasted tofu in my life but I had chips for lunch today...]
The theory bit
Why would you be punishing someone for not wanting to eat certain foods???? What precisely are you hoping to achieve by that? I just don't get it as a strategy for developing a balanced diet and adventurous palate. It certainly didn't work for me and my friends at primary school.
Worth thinking also about food as control and as battleground. If a person doesn't have control over food - they are forced to eat things they don't want and when they don't want to eat, in circumstances which they don't want to eat in, that can become a really really serious battleground later on. And in their teens, the way a person might well be taking control over that part of their lives if it's been a battleground through early childhood is through anorexia and bulimia and other eating disorders and binge/slim stuff. Maybe these hypothetical unintended consequences are too extreme and unrealistic, but I'd definitely be wanting to watch out carefully for whatever knock on effects this kind of battle might have both on my child's psyche and on our relationship.
No shoes or socks thanks
I'm sure I've visited that challenge before. Here are some possibilities:
Sandals with no socks?
Those jelly shoe things?
Bare feet?
Wellies?
Some of those little leather baby shoes? (like http://www.bambinosbox.co.uk/soft-sole-leather-baby-shoes.html - that's not me spamming, it was just the first google hit)
Some children go through a stage where they HATE putting on shoes and socks before going out, but once they are outside smelling a flower or something, you can slip them on without the child even noticing or minding. Or leave them off till you get to a piece of rough ground and then offer the shoes.
Are you sure the shoes are comfortable? That'd lead me towards the baby shoes because they are just so soft.
I spent most of my childhood running around with bare feet, except when I was in a nettle patch or among too much chicken s**t :-)
Sandals with no socks?
Those jelly shoe things?
Bare feet?
Wellies?
Some of those little leather baby shoes? (like http://www.bambinosbox.co.uk/soft-sole-leather-baby-shoes.html - that's not me spamming, it was just the first google hit)
Some children go through a stage where they HATE putting on shoes and socks before going out, but once they are outside smelling a flower or something, you can slip them on without the child even noticing or minding. Or leave them off till you get to a piece of rough ground and then offer the shoes.
Are you sure the shoes are comfortable? That'd lead me towards the baby shoes because they are just so soft.
I spent most of my childhood running around with bare feet, except when I was in a nettle patch or among too much chicken s**t :-)
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Argument against controlled crying
If considering controlled crying, I'd be asking myself some very honest questions about what I was hoping to achieve, what my perception of the process was, and then what my child's perception of the process was likely to be, and finally what unintended consequences the action might have on top of the grand plan of my child learning to sleep alone.
I personally believe the distress of a crying child left alone for 5 minutes, 10 minutes, an hour, is immensely psychologically damaging to them, both in the short and long term.
I also believe the unintended consequences include: long term damage to child's trust in parent and decreasing likelihood of child being able to communicate their needs successfully; blunting of maternal instinct and increasing inability to respond to child's distress and other wants.
Controlled crying may be training your child to sleep alone, but it is also arguably training you to dismiss their cries as "not serious" or "attention seeking" until they are absolutely frantic.
Maybe I'm wrong. But I'd be really interested to see a correlation study comparing parents who leave their children to cry alone and parents who complain that their children tantrum regularly. There seem to be clear links of relationship dynamic to me.
I'd also be interested to see a correlation studying comparing the controlled crying parents with those who complain later that their teens don't communicate with them at all.
And I also think it is worth noting that Richard Ferber, who invented the technique, has since distanced himself from many of the ways people apply it, saying that while it works for some children to be left alone for a couple of minutes and they drop off, he NEVER intended for it to cause hours of distress for anyone.
I personally believe the distress of a crying child left alone for 5 minutes, 10 minutes, an hour, is immensely psychologically damaging to them, both in the short and long term.
I also believe the unintended consequences include: long term damage to child's trust in parent and decreasing likelihood of child being able to communicate their needs successfully; blunting of maternal instinct and increasing inability to respond to child's distress and other wants.
Controlled crying may be training your child to sleep alone, but it is also arguably training you to dismiss their cries as "not serious" or "attention seeking" until they are absolutely frantic.
Maybe I'm wrong. But I'd be really interested to see a correlation study comparing parents who leave their children to cry alone and parents who complain that their children tantrum regularly. There seem to be clear links of relationship dynamic to me.
I'd also be interested to see a correlation studying comparing the controlled crying parents with those who complain later that their teens don't communicate with them at all.
And I also think it is worth noting that Richard Ferber, who invented the technique, has since distanced himself from many of the ways people apply it, saying that while it works for some children to be left alone for a couple of minutes and they drop off, he NEVER intended for it to cause hours of distress for anyone.
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
My child hits other people's children
Not my child; this is the question someone asked advice about at a mainstream board.
Stay with your child in such situations, and get between them and any other children if there's any sign of them hitting. Model the kind of behaviour with other children that you want your child to pick up on. Be really verbal "little girl down the slide and then it'll be your turn. There she goes 1, 2, 3 weee and now it's your go!". "That boy is playing with that ball. Shall we find a ball for you?"
Make sure you always have a soft toy or a book or something in your bag - acts as collatoral in potential toy conflicts. I know some groups of mamas whose children regularly go home with each other's soft toys, because that was the thing each child was happy holding as they parted. Charity shop toys are good for this sort of thing - I'd always be prepared to just give a 60p toy away to some other person's child rather than having a fight start.
Just in case you weren't anyway... you need to be right there with your child, helping them to learn about interacting with the world in a way that will make people love them. It's not a question of telling off, it's just that they've learned to walk and they've learned to talk a bit, and now they are in the process of learning to interact with strange children - they need your loving guidance in getting that right.
Stay with your child in such situations, and get between them and any other children if there's any sign of them hitting. Model the kind of behaviour with other children that you want your child to pick up on. Be really verbal "little girl down the slide and then it'll be your turn. There she goes 1, 2, 3 weee and now it's your go!". "That boy is playing with that ball. Shall we find a ball for you?"
Make sure you always have a soft toy or a book or something in your bag - acts as collatoral in potential toy conflicts. I know some groups of mamas whose children regularly go home with each other's soft toys, because that was the thing each child was happy holding as they parted. Charity shop toys are good for this sort of thing - I'd always be prepared to just give a 60p toy away to some other person's child rather than having a fight start.
Just in case you weren't anyway... you need to be right there with your child, helping them to learn about interacting with the world in a way that will make people love them. It's not a question of telling off, it's just that they've learned to walk and they've learned to talk a bit, and now they are in the process of learning to interact with strange children - they need your loving guidance in getting that right.
Sunday, May 20, 2007
not allowed in the kitchen
And little boy stands on the other side of the stairgate and cries...
I'm trying to think what they could be. Sharp knives? Give child one of those ancient blunt little kitchen knives we somehow all have one or two of, which hardly cut anything, and have him help you chop the veggies?
Dangerous objects in low cupboards? Either move them higher and safe things lower, or get those cupboard fasteners from mothercare
Kettle lead? Attach it to the wall so child can't pull boiling water on their head
Hot pans? I learned at my mother's knee to keep the pan handles tucked inwards so you can't pull them off the cooker
I don't think it's ever too soon to teach your child about hot rings and hot water in safe ways - putting a ring on and holding them far enough away to be safe but close enough to feel the heat, and explaining "hot", or whatever. candles are very good for learning about heat.
In your situation I'd be finding ways of making it possible for my child to come in the kitchen safely - because there's going to come a time when no part of the house is a no-go area, so why not work out how to make that possible as soon as you can? - and I'd be finding really cool things to amuse them safely while they are in there. Some salt and flour and food colouring and water? (make his own playdough) or a basin of water and some plastic mugs for pouring at the sink (And when itgoes on the floor, you just mop it up and feel smug because you mopped your kitchen unlike the rest of us)
He might be right.
"i don't like sam in there when i am cooking for safety reasons."
I'm trying to think what they could be. Sharp knives? Give child one of those ancient blunt little kitchen knives we somehow all have one or two of, which hardly cut anything, and have him help you chop the veggies?
Dangerous objects in low cupboards? Either move them higher and safe things lower, or get those cupboard fasteners from mothercare
Kettle lead? Attach it to the wall so child can't pull boiling water on their head
Hot pans? I learned at my mother's knee to keep the pan handles tucked inwards so you can't pull them off the cooker
I don't think it's ever too soon to teach your child about hot rings and hot water in safe ways - putting a ring on and holding them far enough away to be safe but close enough to feel the heat, and explaining "hot", or whatever. candles are very good for learning about heat.
In your situation I'd be finding ways of making it possible for my child to come in the kitchen safely - because there's going to come a time when no part of the house is a no-go area, so why not work out how to make that possible as soon as you can? - and I'd be finding really cool things to amuse them safely while they are in there. Some salt and flour and food colouring and water? (make his own playdough) or a basin of water and some plastic mugs for pouring at the sink (And when itgoes on the floor, you just mop it up and feel smug because you mopped your kitchen unlike the rest of us)
"i don't want sam wandering or playing the kitchen period, so he has to learnHe thinks you're wrong about that. That's why he cries.
this, it is a boundary or rule i am setting him. i am happy for him to have his
own way on lots of things but not the kitchen. this is just my choice to keep
him out of harms way"
He might be right.
Toddler screaming
"Anytime he cant do what he wants or get what he wants sets him off"
Toddlers are discovering so much about the universe - about what is possible and what isn't possible and what is allowed and what isn't allowed. It must be incredibly frustrating because to them so many rules seem totally arbitrary.
So... I'd be trying to work out really carefully what the child is really after, and then, if possible a) work out a way to make that safe and ok to do right now (e.g. by wheeling the buggy between them and the busy road so they can walk safely without holding hands)
b) work out a way to make it safe and ok to do next time (e.g. by buying toddler reins so they can walk by a busy road without holding hands whether or not the buggy is on the traffic side of them)
c) if you can't think of a b) yet, work out a way to avoid the problem until you do (child doesn't want to hold hands or wear reins, so walk on the back streets for a week or two, maybe)
And remember that it may well be the child who comes up with a), b), or c), even if they are preverbal.
Children are going to get incredibly frustrated at the universe sometimes - it just isn't possible for them to go on the roller coaster because they aren't tall enough, say - but I would save my "no, you can't do that" for the really impossible situations, otherwise working with the child to find a solution that both you and they are happy with.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
