“I really wanted a boy/girl”
“Girls are just awful as teenagers”
“Potty training a boy is incredibly hard”
OK. The boyness of a boy, or the girlness of a girl is a very small part of what is interesting about them. In fact, it is an absolutely zero part to begin with (slightly different nappy changing techniques required. Period).
Don’t go into an interaction with someone with a bunch of expectations based on some arbitrary categorisation, like sex. Such expectations have a way of being self-fulfilling. Expectations – even apparently positive ones - put limits on what a child feels free to explore and learn.
Wishing for a child of the opposite sex because one or both parents imagines that they would feel a greater kinship with them and share more interests is a rejection of both children’s individuality – the hypothetical child as well as the real one. Maybe the parent needs to think more creatively about finding ways of every one exploring their interests, and valuing what each other does rather than looking for a mini-me through whom they can fulfil all of their own unmet childhood desires
Sunday, April 24, 2005
Saturday, April 09, 2005
recipe
Cooking is not as hard as some people think.
Here is an example:
1. Chop an onion into centimetre-ish pieces. Chop a single clove of garlic as small as you can be bothered.
2. Heat up a big pan and put in some oil. Gently fry onion and add garlic after 4 minutes. When the onion starts to go translucent, put in 1 cup red lentils and stir well for a minute or two (so the oil goes all over).
3. Add a pint or so of stock. Domestic goddesses will of course have made this from a chicken roast leftovers the night before. Mere mortals can use a stock cube and boiling water.
4. Add a 14 oz tin of chopped tomatoes and a couple of teaspoons of tomato puree. Add at least a table spoon of fresh thyme leaves if you have a thyme bush. Otherwise, add half a tablespoon of dried thyme leaves.
5. Bring to the boil and turn the heat right down. Simmer with lid on for 15-20 minutes.
6. Add some lemon juice (I did about 1/4 lemon) and salt and pepper to taste.
Yummee.
All done in less than 1/2 hour. If you make enough, you can put some in the freezer for a week or so when you've forgotten how nice it was last time and fancy an easy lunch.
Why doesn't everyone do this? It's so much nicer than shop soup, even though there are no fresh ingredients except the onion.
Here is an example:
1. Chop an onion into centimetre-ish pieces. Chop a single clove of garlic as small as you can be bothered.
2. Heat up a big pan and put in some oil. Gently fry onion and add garlic after 4 minutes. When the onion starts to go translucent, put in 1 cup red lentils and stir well for a minute or two (so the oil goes all over).
3. Add a pint or so of stock. Domestic goddesses will of course have made this from a chicken roast leftovers the night before. Mere mortals can use a stock cube and boiling water.
4. Add a 14 oz tin of chopped tomatoes and a couple of teaspoons of tomato puree. Add at least a table spoon of fresh thyme leaves if you have a thyme bush. Otherwise, add half a tablespoon of dried thyme leaves.
5. Bring to the boil and turn the heat right down. Simmer with lid on for 15-20 minutes.
6. Add some lemon juice (I did about 1/4 lemon) and salt and pepper to taste.
Yummee.
All done in less than 1/2 hour. If you make enough, you can put some in the freezer for a week or so when you've forgotten how nice it was last time and fancy an easy lunch.
Why doesn't everyone do this? It's so much nicer than shop soup, even though there are no fresh ingredients except the onion.
Book meme
From Gil.
You're stuck inside Fahrenheit 451, which book do you want to be?
I don’t want to be a book at all. I am a person.
Have you ever had a crush on a fictional character?
No. It would never go anywhere.
The last book you bought is:
The Five People you Meet in Heaven by Mitch Albom, for an on line book study group I’m in.
The last book you read:
Summer Camp at Trebizon, by Anne Digby. I never owned this when I went through my Trebizon craze aged about 10, and I found it in a charity shop recently. Amazing how happy all the characters seem to be to be at boarding school.
What are you currently reading?
'Perishable Goods' by Dornford Yates – I haven’t read it for a while
'The self-respecting child' by Alison Stallibrass – wonderful account of how children learn through play when they are just left to GET ON WITH IT. And I’m learning about Piaget, a bit, which is cool because he seems to be cropping up everywhere.
Five books you would take to a deserted island:
Extreme Survival Almanac: Everything You Need to Know to Live Through a Shipwreck, Plane Crash, or Any Outdoor Crisis Imaginable by Reid Kincaid. Gil’s suggestion.
The Liber Usualis. I could use the singing practice. I could even live like a nun and celebrate the divine office, pretty much, if equipped with the LU. That’d take my mind off being shipwrecked. And it would take my mind off the ridiculous 5-book limitation.
LoTR. I usually re-read this in Lent, and I missed it this year because of reading Robert Jordan’s Wheel of Time (again). It’s only because I don’t think the Wheel of Time would count as one book that I’m leaving it off the list.
Something by Popper. Enough secondary literature already.
Playful parenting. Risky one this, but it’s been recommended by a friend and I haven’t got it yet.
Who are you going to pass this stick to (3 persons)? And Why?
If I was the stick-passing type, it would be Dawn and Dan. They don’t post often enough. And I know that's only two.
You're stuck inside Fahrenheit 451, which book do you want to be?
I don’t want to be a book at all. I am a person.
Have you ever had a crush on a fictional character?
No. It would never go anywhere.
The last book you bought is:
The Five People you Meet in Heaven by Mitch Albom, for an on line book study group I’m in.
The last book you read:
Summer Camp at Trebizon, by Anne Digby. I never owned this when I went through my Trebizon craze aged about 10, and I found it in a charity shop recently. Amazing how happy all the characters seem to be to be at boarding school.
What are you currently reading?
'Perishable Goods' by Dornford Yates – I haven’t read it for a while
'The self-respecting child' by Alison Stallibrass – wonderful account of how children learn through play when they are just left to GET ON WITH IT. And I’m learning about Piaget, a bit, which is cool because he seems to be cropping up everywhere.
Five books you would take to a deserted island:
Extreme Survival Almanac: Everything You Need to Know to Live Through a Shipwreck, Plane Crash, or Any Outdoor Crisis Imaginable by Reid Kincaid. Gil’s suggestion.
The Liber Usualis. I could use the singing practice. I could even live like a nun and celebrate the divine office, pretty much, if equipped with the LU. That’d take my mind off being shipwrecked. And it would take my mind off the ridiculous 5-book limitation.
LoTR. I usually re-read this in Lent, and I missed it this year because of reading Robert Jordan’s Wheel of Time (again). It’s only because I don’t think the Wheel of Time would count as one book that I’m leaving it off the list.
Something by Popper. Enough secondary literature already.
Playful parenting. Risky one this, but it’s been recommended by a friend and I haven’t got it yet.
Who are you going to pass this stick to (3 persons)? And Why?
If I was the stick-passing type, it would be Dawn and Dan. They don’t post often enough. And I know that's only two.
Saturday, March 26, 2005
School dinners
Well, it's probably old news by now, but I only recently heard about Jamie Oliver's School Dinners campaign.
UK schools feed JUNK to the children. More than 200,000 people have signed his petition to do something about it but I don't think demanding more government money is the answer.
I think of all the mothers carefully spooning expensive organic baby food into their 6-month olds. How is it that less than 5 yers later they have so completely abdicated responsibility for what their children eat? Because they think that the State knows best.
A good outcome of all this would be if children were not fed garbage at schools. An even better outcome would be if parents did not trust other people to nurture their children for them, intellectually or physically.
UK schools feed JUNK to the children. More than 200,000 people have signed his petition to do something about it but I don't think demanding more government money is the answer.
I think of all the mothers carefully spooning expensive organic baby food into their 6-month olds. How is it that less than 5 yers later they have so completely abdicated responsibility for what their children eat? Because they think that the State knows best.
A good outcome of all this would be if children were not fed garbage at schools. An even better outcome would be if parents did not trust other people to nurture their children for them, intellectually or physically.
The Hurried Child #3
Conventional Western parenting is a funny old mixture.
On the one hand, many couples have persuaded themselves that both people need to work outside the home full time in order to fulfill themselves/ keep themselves in the style to which they have become accustomed. The inevitable result is that they do not care for their children properly. Many mothers whizz their children through weaning in order to make child care arrangements easier. Many parents talk sentimentally about "all Ronnie's little friends at nursery" when anyone who spends time with their children knows full well that children don't engage in cooperative play at 9 months old; the other children and the nursery staff may be familiar faces, but they are no substitute for family. At the beginning of childhood, many parents are trying to push theit children into independence BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT SUITS THE PARENTS. It doesn't suit children, but it doesn't suit society to say so. Our governments therefore constantly bring out new initiatives to subsidise nursery care and enable parents to abdicate responsibility for parenting.
Fast forward 16 years. Those same neglectful parents are by now interfering in their children's lives. They ring up universities to book their children onto open days for courses the parents want the children to do. They still wish to control their offspring's social calendars well into their 20s. They put pressure on their children not to smoke, to wear clothes the parents approve of, to take up socially acceptable hobbies.
It's odd that in the early years so many parents are so keen for their children to be conveniently independent, and then later they want to rein in their children's independence.
I think Elkind is in a muddle too. He writes that "we infantilize [children] by permitting them to have messy rooms... to get up at odd hours". Apart from disliking the derogatory use of 'infantilize', I think he is picking some odd battles here. Parents interfere unasked in arbitrarily chosen parts of their children's lives - rooms and sleep patterns, here. Actually not so arbitrary - often parents interfere to try to increase their chance of reflected glory, or to minimise the social damage done to them by having visible offspring.
On the one hand, many couples have persuaded themselves that both people need to work outside the home full time in order to fulfill themselves/ keep themselves in the style to which they have become accustomed. The inevitable result is that they do not care for their children properly. Many mothers whizz their children through weaning in order to make child care arrangements easier. Many parents talk sentimentally about "all Ronnie's little friends at nursery" when anyone who spends time with their children knows full well that children don't engage in cooperative play at 9 months old; the other children and the nursery staff may be familiar faces, but they are no substitute for family. At the beginning of childhood, many parents are trying to push theit children into independence BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT SUITS THE PARENTS. It doesn't suit children, but it doesn't suit society to say so. Our governments therefore constantly bring out new initiatives to subsidise nursery care and enable parents to abdicate responsibility for parenting.
Fast forward 16 years. Those same neglectful parents are by now interfering in their children's lives. They ring up universities to book their children onto open days for courses the parents want the children to do. They still wish to control their offspring's social calendars well into their 20s. They put pressure on their children not to smoke, to wear clothes the parents approve of, to take up socially acceptable hobbies.
It's odd that in the early years so many parents are so keen for their children to be conveniently independent, and then later they want to rein in their children's independence.
I think Elkind is in a muddle too. He writes that "we infantilize [children] by permitting them to have messy rooms... to get up at odd hours". Apart from disliking the derogatory use of 'infantilize', I think he is picking some odd battles here. Parents interfere unasked in arbitrarily chosen parts of their children's lives - rooms and sleep patterns, here. Actually not so arbitrary - often parents interfere to try to increase their chance of reflected glory, or to minimise the social damage done to them by having visible offspring.
Friday, March 25, 2005
Racist violence in high schools
I was recently told an anecdote about some high school gangs in California whose aggression towards each other finally resulted in them all being given anti-racist counselling by their teachers. It might be apocryphal, but in any case...
School pupils are denied the right to freedom of association. They are forced to spend time in close quarters with an artificial cross section of the population (ie other people the same age). It is a completely understandable response in such a situation to protect oneself from intimidation by forming cliques or gangs. Frankly, I doubt whether the colour of the skin is really such a big deal. If it was an all-white area, the gangs would have been preppies vs goths. Or mods vs punks, just to choose a random example from 1970s Britain.
I don't excuse gang violence. But responding to it with anti-racist training? puhlease.
If you are engaged in something constructive, you evaluate the people around you in terms of their value to the project, not the colour of their skin.
The best solution would be to stop locking children up in schools all day. Help them find constructive things to do rather than spending years trying to make them docilely accept being bored by "education".
School pupils are denied the right to freedom of association. They are forced to spend time in close quarters with an artificial cross section of the population (ie other people the same age). It is a completely understandable response in such a situation to protect oneself from intimidation by forming cliques or gangs. Frankly, I doubt whether the colour of the skin is really such a big deal. If it was an all-white area, the gangs would have been preppies vs goths. Or mods vs punks, just to choose a random example from 1970s Britain.
I don't excuse gang violence. But responding to it with anti-racist training? puhlease.
If you are engaged in something constructive, you evaluate the people around you in terms of their value to the project, not the colour of their skin.
The best solution would be to stop locking children up in schools all day. Help them find constructive things to do rather than spending years trying to make them docilely accept being bored by "education".
Thursday, March 24, 2005
I love google
"Spoiling the dignity and repose of the tea party" has been a familiar expression in my family for counter-cultural behaviour for as long as I can remember.
And now I know where it comes from.
;-)
And now I know where it comes from.
;-)
Tuesday, March 22, 2005
flying rather than A levels
This story is very exciting because travelling from Oxford to Cambridge will no longer entail a train journey via London (including changing railway stations in London) or sitting on a travel-sickness inducing coach for three hours. There are about 50 roundabouts on the route (no exaggeration - the route goes through Milton Keynes). I don't travel from Oxford to Cambridge very often, but whenever I have it's been horrible. So w00t.
But the most excellent thing about the story is that the person who has made this happen is still only 18 years old, and gave up his A'levels to pursue the dream. So much for Keeping One's Options Open. And so much for Teenagers Should Be In School Getting Educated. I hope he gets very rich indeed.
I will be making sure everyone I know who ever travels between Oxford and Cambridge knows about the new flying option. Brilliant.
But the most excellent thing about the story is that the person who has made this happen is still only 18 years old, and gave up his A'levels to pursue the dream. So much for Keeping One's Options Open. And so much for Teenagers Should Be In School Getting Educated. I hope he gets very rich indeed.
I will be making sure everyone I know who ever travels between Oxford and Cambridge knows about the new flying option. Brilliant.
Wednesday, March 16, 2005
The hurried child #2: the competent child
Elkind attacks the idea of the Superkid, competent to cope with anything that life, and particularly his parents, throw at him. He writes that by assuming our children are competent, we abdicate responsibility for nurturing them properly, putting them through early and prolonged separations, for example, or pushing them to learn to read or write at the age of 4.
Assuming that one's children are made of rubber and will always bounce back is a cheap excuse for not doing one's best as a parent. It is a cheap excuse for seeing one's children as reflections of one's own social status rather than helping them achieve their own goals.
The ideal, I think, is to 'spot' one's child. Assume they are competent to do what they are trying to do rather than hovering nervously, band aid at the ready, but be ready to offer help when wanted. And don't push them to join a football team so you can vicariously rekindle your boyhood dream of playing for Manchester United.
I think I'd be better off reading this, probably
Assuming that one's children are made of rubber and will always bounce back is a cheap excuse for not doing one's best as a parent. It is a cheap excuse for seeing one's children as reflections of one's own social status rather than helping them achieve their own goals.
The ideal, I think, is to 'spot' one's child. Assume they are competent to do what they are trying to do rather than hovering nervously, band aid at the ready, but be ready to offer help when wanted. And don't push them to join a football team so you can vicariously rekindle your boyhood dream of playing for Manchester United.
I think I'd be better off reading this, probably
The hurried child #1: independence
I am reading David Elkind's "The Hurried Child". It is certainly thought provoking.
Elkind writes too much about what parents should or should not let their children do, rather than thinking about why children develop certain preferences. The authoritarian undertow of the book is pretty wearing.
But he made me think once again about independence. Many parents are keen to encourage their children to become independent, by sending them off to nursery at less than a year old, say. Over-protection is not the only alternative. From the moment when a child first wriggles out of hir mother's arms to roll on the floor to the moment when the chils starts offering hir parents a loan for a new car, children will embrace independence at their own pace, given the freedom to do so. Knowledge of parental support whenever needed (being rescued from the sleep-over party that the child wanted to attend but became homesick at, for example) gives a child the inner security and confidence to experiment and push the boundaries of their independence.
I believe that children whose parents withdraw their time and assistance in the name of 'promoting independence' become less confident, and less able to navigate the challenges of life without help.
Note: independence is not the same thing as autonomy, which we have, and which should be respected, from the start.
Elkind writes too much about what parents should or should not let their children do, rather than thinking about why children develop certain preferences. The authoritarian undertow of the book is pretty wearing.
But he made me think once again about independence. Many parents are keen to encourage their children to become independent, by sending them off to nursery at less than a year old, say. Over-protection is not the only alternative. From the moment when a child first wriggles out of hir mother's arms to roll on the floor to the moment when the chils starts offering hir parents a loan for a new car, children will embrace independence at their own pace, given the freedom to do so. Knowledge of parental support whenever needed (being rescued from the sleep-over party that the child wanted to attend but became homesick at, for example) gives a child the inner security and confidence to experiment and push the boundaries of their independence.
I believe that children whose parents withdraw their time and assistance in the name of 'promoting independence' become less confident, and less able to navigate the challenges of life without help.
Note: independence is not the same thing as autonomy, which we have, and which should be respected, from the start.
Friday, March 11, 2005
hitting children ps
Now I've looked at what the school was proposing the mother should hit her child for. Talking too much in class, chewing gum, and bringing toys to school.
Gum chewing makes my jaws ache, personally, and I hate the way it stops tasting of anything after about 10 minutes, but if someone else wants to chew it, then that's their lookout.
But it is very clear why gum chewing and the other things have riled the school so much. It means the boy was not paying enough attention and trying to entertain himself in other ways - by having a conversation and playing with toys. Instead of addressing honestly why toys and friends might be of more interest than whatever activities the teacher was forcing the children to participate in (could it be just possible that the school might be at fault for so blatantly not meeting the needs of its pupils?), a SIX year old is branded as naughty - a label which can follow a child through their entire school career - and the school deems that he should be hit for not being interested in what they have offered him educationally.
Thank G-d homeschooling is an option in that state.
Gum chewing makes my jaws ache, personally, and I hate the way it stops tasting of anything after about 10 minutes, but if someone else wants to chew it, then that's their lookout.
But it is very clear why gum chewing and the other things have riled the school so much. It means the boy was not paying enough attention and trying to entertain himself in other ways - by having a conversation and playing with toys. Instead of addressing honestly why toys and friends might be of more interest than whatever activities the teacher was forcing the children to participate in (could it be just possible that the school might be at fault for so blatantly not meeting the needs of its pupils?), a SIX year old is branded as naughty - a label which can follow a child through their entire school career - and the school deems that he should be hit for not being interested in what they have offered him educationally.
Thank G-d homeschooling is an option in that state.
School demands parents hit children
I'm horrified that a school would require a parent to hit their child as part of the school's disciplinary procedures. How on earth can a parent advocate for their child if they are pulled into being part of the authoritarian machinery?
Hats off to the mother for taking her child out of the school and planning to home school him for the rest of the school year.
Almost the most ghastly thing is that in the survey on the same page, only 13% of respondants never spank their child. That's an awful lot of people resorting to violence rather than reason. :-(
Hats off to the mother for taking her child out of the school and planning to home school him for the rest of the school year.
Almost the most ghastly thing is that in the survey on the same page, only 13% of respondants never spank their child. That's an awful lot of people resorting to violence rather than reason. :-(
Tuesday, March 08, 2005
A homily on teaching and guidance.
Thank you to JSB for his comment below; I’m sorry it took me so long to respond.
I think it is important that any guidance of a child starts from an acknowledgement of that child’s autonomy. We can offer our best theories; if we fail to convince our children, then it is time to reassess our theories, look for the theories’ flaws, and help our children to achieve what they are aiming at in ways that do not harm them.
If a child acts in certain ways which contravene society’s social codes, se will find it hard to realise hir goals. As a parent, why would I not share my best theories about the effects which my child’s behaviour might have, and give advice, when sought, as to more profitable ways of interacting with the world? The only difference between my view and that of JSB in his comment below is that where he thinks
I think the trick is not to make one’s child do anything against their will. Authority is a poor basis for persuasion (“Eppur si muove” said Galileo, allegedly, under his breath).
I do not subscribe to the bucket theory of knowledge, where we pour our wisdom into the heads of children and they emerge as knowledgeable adults. The acquisition of knowledge and understanding requires one to crave that understanding oneself. No amount of well meaning advice or instruction will permeate the mind of someone who does not want to know. If my ideas are any good, and the child is interested, then bingo.
As parents, if we are brave enough to trust our children, to trust their intellects, to be their advocates and advisors, and to be prepared, with our children, to contravene the basic rules if we cannot rationally justify them, then there is no reason why we should “all have to do things that we don’t like to do”.
We only do things against our wills because we haven’t yet been creative enough.
I think it is important that any guidance of a child starts from an acknowledgement of that child’s autonomy. We can offer our best theories; if we fail to convince our children, then it is time to reassess our theories, look for the theories’ flaws, and help our children to achieve what they are aiming at in ways that do not harm them.
If a child acts in certain ways which contravene society’s social codes, se will find it hard to realise hir goals. As a parent, why would I not share my best theories about the effects which my child’s behaviour might have, and give advice, when sought, as to more profitable ways of interacting with the world? The only difference between my view and that of JSB in his comment below is that where he thinks
“The trick is finding the line between making your child do something that is generally appropriate and not making your child do something that is your own personal preference”
I think the trick is not to make one’s child do anything against their will. Authority is a poor basis for persuasion (“Eppur si muove” said Galileo, allegedly, under his breath).
I do not subscribe to the bucket theory of knowledge, where we pour our wisdom into the heads of children and they emerge as knowledgeable adults. The acquisition of knowledge and understanding requires one to crave that understanding oneself. No amount of well meaning advice or instruction will permeate the mind of someone who does not want to know. If my ideas are any good, and the child is interested, then bingo.
As parents, if we are brave enough to trust our children, to trust their intellects, to be their advocates and advisors, and to be prepared, with our children, to contravene the basic rules if we cannot rationally justify them, then there is no reason why we should “all have to do things that we don’t like to do”.
We only do things against our wills because we haven’t yet been creative enough.
silly quiz
Amazing what you find when browsing...
You are 'programming in QBASIC'. This programming
language (of which the acronym stands for
'Quick Beginners' All-purpose Symbolic
Instruction Code'), which is so primitive that
it cannot easily be used for any purpose
involving the Internet nor even sound, was
current more than a decade ago.
You are independent, in a good way. When something
which you need cannot be found, you make it
yourself. In writing and in talking with
people, you value clarity and precision; your
friends may not realize how important that is.
When necessary, you are prepared to be a
mediator in conflicts between your friends.
You are very rational, and you think of things
in terms of logic and common sense.
Unfortunately, your emotionally unstable
friends may be put off by your devotion to
logic; they may even accuse you of pedantry and
insensitivity. Your problem is that
programming in QBASIC has been obsolete for a
long time.
What obsolete skill are you?
brought to you by Quizilla
You are 'programming in QBASIC'. This programming
language (of which the acronym stands for
'Quick Beginners' All-purpose Symbolic
Instruction Code'), which is so primitive that
it cannot easily be used for any purpose
involving the Internet nor even sound, was
current more than a decade ago.
You are independent, in a good way. When something
which you need cannot be found, you make it
yourself. In writing and in talking with
people, you value clarity and precision; your
friends may not realize how important that is.
When necessary, you are prepared to be a
mediator in conflicts between your friends.
You are very rational, and you think of things
in terms of logic and common sense.
Unfortunately, your emotionally unstable
friends may be put off by your devotion to
logic; they may even accuse you of pedantry and
insensitivity. Your problem is that
programming in QBASIC has been obsolete for a
long time.
What obsolete skill are you?
brought to you by Quizilla
Tuesday, March 01, 2005
Friday, February 25, 2005
chores again
I wrote about chores a couple of months ago here
I agree entirely with JSB (in comments below) that giving children an allowance in exchange for chores "is a way to get the kids to help out around the house". But I think there are much better ways of having a clean house than treating one's children as cheap labour.
If cleaning is important to a parent, they should do the cleaning. If the child sees it is something interesting/fun/energetic/worthwhile, then the child will be interested in joining in.
If the parent cannot persuade their family rationally of the need for a certain level of cleanliness, and of the need for a certain level of filial assistance to maintain that level, then they should either rethink their desired level of cleanliness or ask for help in solving what is - after all - the parent's problem. To link such assistance to an allowance is an abuse of power.It does not give the child a say in how their living space looks or how their time is spent - and why? - because the parents control the family finances.
'Nothing is more demoralizing than being forced to work for nothing' except possibly being forced to do something the value of which you do not appreciate in order to meet your side of a hopelessly lop-sided bargain that your parents have coerced you into.
Sharing rented accommodation as a student can provide better models for dividing household chores in autonomy respecting ways. The humble rota causes many a falling out. The best situation I've encountered is one where one person who really enjoyed laundry did all the laundry, another who enjoyed getting her rubber gloves on regularly cleaned the bathroom and kitchen surfaces, and a third who hated cleaning but loved cooking did most of the catering and had no idea where the washing powder was kept... everyone contributed according to their values and priorities.
I have known quite small children take on major chores (like looking after the poultry, involving getting up 20 minutes before everyone else to feed them before school) not because anyone forced them to, or paid them to, but because they WANTED to.
I agree entirely with JSB (in comments below) that giving children an allowance in exchange for chores "is a way to get the kids to help out around the house". But I think there are much better ways of having a clean house than treating one's children as cheap labour.
If cleaning is important to a parent, they should do the cleaning. If the child sees it is something interesting/fun/energetic/worthwhile, then the child will be interested in joining in.
If the parent cannot persuade their family rationally of the need for a certain level of cleanliness, and of the need for a certain level of filial assistance to maintain that level, then they should either rethink their desired level of cleanliness or ask for help in solving what is - after all - the parent's problem. To link such assistance to an allowance is an abuse of power.It does not give the child a say in how their living space looks or how their time is spent - and why? - because the parents control the family finances.
'Nothing is more demoralizing than being forced to work for nothing' except possibly being forced to do something the value of which you do not appreciate in order to meet your side of a hopelessly lop-sided bargain that your parents have coerced you into.
Sharing rented accommodation as a student can provide better models for dividing household chores in autonomy respecting ways. The humble rota causes many a falling out. The best situation I've encountered is one where one person who really enjoyed laundry did all the laundry, another who enjoyed getting her rubber gloves on regularly cleaned the bathroom and kitchen surfaces, and a third who hated cleaning but loved cooking did most of the catering and had no idea where the washing powder was kept... everyone contributed according to their values and priorities.
I have known quite small children take on major chores (like looking after the poultry, involving getting up 20 minutes before everyone else to feed them before school) not because anyone forced them to, or paid them to, but because they WANTED to.
Monday, February 21, 2005
allowances
An allegory:
Husband has a job; wife works at home, being a homemaker and bringing up the children. Wife wants to buy a book.
Husband says "well, I have the money in my account, but you don't get your allowance until Thursday, and by the way, you have to wash my car and change three fuses before you can have it. And you can only buy the book if I think it is appropriate"
It all depends on one’s attitude to property and resources within the family. I do not think those doing the earning should dictate what happens to all the money; other members of the family contribute to family life in other ways but do not end up with $$$.
In favour of an allowance system: if family works out how much spending money is left after rent, bills, food etc., and works out what sorts of money-spending activities each is likely to want, then sharing out the money saves the child(ren) having to ask for permission or approval. It respects their autonomy, and means that they themselves can learn (with advice where asked for) about managing their finances, and about choosing the resources they want around them.If child blows a week’s allowance on something they immediately regret, then parent can help them minimise the frustration (selling item on Ebay? What is the shop’s returns policy? Does a friend want to do a swop?)
In favour of not having an allowance: as long as everyone has a sense of how much money is available, and everyone is prepared to put a rational case for their spending plans, and everyone’s desire for a share of the family resources is met, then handing the money around can be done in an ad hoc way. This requires everyone involved to be happy to justify their expenditure – it might be rather collectivist for some. “Mum can I have £30 for some DVDs?” “no, we have no spare money” “why not?” *blush* *stonewall* *hedge* *equivocate* “your hair cut looks lovely, mum; what did it cost?…”
At the moment, I would advocate an allowance for what used to be called “pin money”, so that every child, from when se expresses an interest in having money, can buy a magazine, some sweets, some Star Wars stickers, a small lego set, without having to ask anyone. Instant larger purchases have implications for the finances of the whole family, and therefore should be open to discussion.
I would never advocate forcing a child to perform tasks for a share of the family money, especially since it is not easy for children to earn money in the West. If what the family can spare is insufficient for the child’s needs, then helping them to make money legally should be a priority for the parent – paper round; computer programmer; making cakes for the Women’s Institute; whatever.But forcing someone to vacuum in order to be allowed a share of the family resources implies that only those actually earning $$$ should have a say in how they are spent.
Husband has a job; wife works at home, being a homemaker and bringing up the children. Wife wants to buy a book.
Husband says "well, I have the money in my account, but you don't get your allowance until Thursday, and by the way, you have to wash my car and change three fuses before you can have it. And you can only buy the book if I think it is appropriate"
It all depends on one’s attitude to property and resources within the family. I do not think those doing the earning should dictate what happens to all the money; other members of the family contribute to family life in other ways but do not end up with $$$.
In favour of an allowance system: if family works out how much spending money is left after rent, bills, food etc., and works out what sorts of money-spending activities each is likely to want, then sharing out the money saves the child(ren) having to ask for permission or approval. It respects their autonomy, and means that they themselves can learn (with advice where asked for) about managing their finances, and about choosing the resources they want around them.If child blows a week’s allowance on something they immediately regret, then parent can help them minimise the frustration (selling item on Ebay? What is the shop’s returns policy? Does a friend want to do a swop?)
In favour of not having an allowance: as long as everyone has a sense of how much money is available, and everyone is prepared to put a rational case for their spending plans, and everyone’s desire for a share of the family resources is met, then handing the money around can be done in an ad hoc way. This requires everyone involved to be happy to justify their expenditure – it might be rather collectivist for some. “Mum can I have £30 for some DVDs?” “no, we have no spare money” “why not?” *blush* *stonewall* *hedge* *equivocate* “your hair cut looks lovely, mum; what did it cost?…”
At the moment, I would advocate an allowance for what used to be called “pin money”, so that every child, from when se expresses an interest in having money, can buy a magazine, some sweets, some Star Wars stickers, a small lego set, without having to ask anyone. Instant larger purchases have implications for the finances of the whole family, and therefore should be open to discussion.
I would never advocate forcing a child to perform tasks for a share of the family money, especially since it is not easy for children to earn money in the West. If what the family can spare is insufficient for the child’s needs, then helping them to make money legally should be a priority for the parent – paper round; computer programmer; making cakes for the Women’s Institute; whatever.But forcing someone to vacuum in order to be allowed a share of the family resources implies that only those actually earning $$$ should have a say in how they are spent.
Sunday, February 20, 2005
linkage
I just came across this site:
http://maggidawn.typepad.com/maggidawn/
I haven't read much of what is on it yet, but it struck me as a FANTASTIC
way for a vicar to broaden the audiences for her sermons. Buh-bye hard pews. Buh-bye attention wandering for 30 seconds and losing the rest of the audience.
Woo hoo.
http://maggidawn.typepad.com/maggidawn/
I haven't read much of what is on it yet, but it struck me as a FANTASTIC
way for a vicar to broaden the audiences for her sermons. Buh-bye hard pews. Buh-bye attention wandering for 30 seconds and losing the rest of the audience.
Woo hoo.
fussing #2
So fussing is making an unnecessary bother about something which really isn’t important: “Have you got enough layers on, dear?” “Oh, don’t FUSS mother”
It concerns me that the US parlance for a crying baby is that se is “fussy” or “fussing”. If a child is hungry, uncomfortable, tired, frightened, thirsty, cold, bored, or any of the other challenges which a baby does not have the physical resources to overcome alone, what is se supposed to do to avoid having hir emotions branded with the same brush-off as a suburban lady with too many antimacassars? Wait patiently for someone to notice se needs help?
Is it silly to concern oneself with definitions, or do the words we use to talk about children reveal what we really think of them?
It concerns me that the US parlance for a crying baby is that se is “fussy” or “fussing”. If a child is hungry, uncomfortable, tired, frightened, thirsty, cold, bored, or any of the other challenges which a baby does not have the physical resources to overcome alone, what is se supposed to do to avoid having hir emotions branded with the same brush-off as a suburban lady with too many antimacassars? Wait patiently for someone to notice se needs help?
Is it silly to concern oneself with definitions, or do the words we use to talk about children reveal what we really think of them?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
