This is topic Great OSC article on parenting... in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=034439

---

Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
 
I really like this week's OSC essay !

[ May 03, 2005, 02:48 AM: Message edited by: Telperion the Silver ]
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
Too bad the one by John Hanson wasn't as balanced, or thought provoking.
 

---

Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
 
Yeah I liked it too. As a high school teacher I see the kids of the kind of parents OSC's talking about every day: kids who've never had to learn that their actions have consequences because they've been shielded from them throughout their lives by parents who think their little darlings can do no wrong, who've learned to blame everything/one but themselves for their problems, and who have no idea what behaviour is appropriate in variety of situations.
They're (the kids and their parents) a pain.
 

---

Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
 
Cashew, I hear your pain. And I found this article terrific.
 

---

Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
 
I think he's giving certain types of parents way too much credit. I don't think most lax parents even consider whether their children are being oppressed or aren't allowed to express themselves. I think most lax parents are just too lazy and/or busy to get involved in their kids lives early enough to make a difference. By the time they see that there are problems, they've already lost most of the influence they should have maintained throughout the child's younger years.
 

---

Posted by Papa Sopwith (Member # 7524) on :
 
I thought it was an excellent column.
 

---

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
It's a mixture, KarlEd. There are parents just like OSC is describing - I've met them, and there are some like you're describing.

Good article, some excellent points made. I guess I was just fortunate to have a mother who was determined that I'd be able to take care of myself, so I was never coddled or given everything my heart desired.

As for me as a parent, I'm inordinately strict. I've talked before how I don't approve of some things that people consider normal freedoms, like spending the night at friend's houses. My daughter does not attend the Jr. High dances and has neither phone nor email account, nor TV or computer in her room.

She is considered strange by the kids she goes to school with because we don't allow those freedoms, but for the most part she handles it well. Not that I don't occasionally get "But everyone else's Mom is letting them go!" Which is countered quickly by "I'm not everyone's mom."
 

---

Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
 

quote:

---

Their idea of a party was to stand around a piano and sing the latest hit songs together.

---

This is my idea of the perfect party.

I think I was born a couple of generations too late.
 

---

Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
 
blacwolve , me too. Do you want to imagine a time machine, so we can go where we belong ?
 

---

Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
 
Belle- None of those seem unreasonably strict to me. The sleepover thing, possibly, although I completely understand your reasons behind it. Looking back, none of my friends had older brothers and my mom was good friends with all of their parents. I'm not sure if she would have allowed me to sleep over with them if those hadn't been the case.

Natalie's 11, right? I'm sort of surprised that most of her peers are allowed to do those things.
 

---

Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
 
Belle, I'm sure you're right. And you probably see a lot more parents than I do. It's just that the sub-standard parents I'm exposed to seem to see their kids as a burden and don't have their welfare in mind enough to consider whether they are being unduely repressed.
 

---

Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
 

quote:

---

My daughter does not attend the Jr. High dances and has neither phone

---

I still can't understand why any 11 or 12-year old would ever need a cell phone. It's amazing that not giving your child one makes you the exception.
 

---

Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
 
*high fives Belle*

I grew up with strict, reasonable parenting, and I refuse to cripple my children emotionally by letting them do whatever so-and-so does. We like to see our household as a benevolent dictatorship. We care about what you want, but you don't get to vote on bedtime (or whatever).
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
No doubt. If Natalie were 17 I might think you were being a little strict (although I don't think anyone needs a TV in their bedroom). But 11? If what you're doing is uncommon for parents of 11 year olds, I'm worried.
 

---

Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
 
I'm going to run my house based on early American principles. Only landowners get to vote.
 

---

Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
 

 

---

Posted by no. 6 (Member # 7753) on :
 
*institutes a policy of enslaving my offspring for my own purposes*

It's nice to be guilt free! Hey, kid! Go get the remote! And some chips.
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 

quote:

---

I still can't understand why any 11 or 12-year old would ever need a cell phone. It's amazing that not giving your child one makes you the exception.

---

quote:

---

I still can't understand why any 11 or 12-year old would ever need a cell phone.

---

quote:

---

I sincerely doubt that the parents of the kids who got them did so solely to facilitate their children's social lives. It's like putting a homing beacon on them, and if they get in trouble, instead of teaching them to go to a house with a hand in the window, they can pull the phone out and call their parents instantly.

---

quote:

---

What's an even better idea is a cell phone with a GPS locator on it.

*schemes*

---

quote:

---

Of course, it often works the other way -- the children who whine and nag and lie and cheat often get away with it because their parents are too unconcerned, too intimidated, or too guilt-ridden to draw a line and make it stick. While the obedient children are easy to overlook; it's easy to find fault with them for the small things they do wrong instead of realizing, Wait, this child is really great about most things, so I'm going to cut him a little slack.

In other words, the kids who most need to be kept on a tight rein are the ones most likely to have way too much slack cut for them, while the kids who barely need reins at all are the ones most likely to be kept from access to the freedom they actually have earned.

---

quote:

---

Sleepovers? Soccer practice? Summer camp? Kids' College summer programs? I did all of those at age eleven.

---

quote:

---

kat, why is an 11-year child in a location where you have to keep track of them by calling them?

---

quote:

---

Protecting your kids from the experiences also protects them from growing up. Limits, sure, but also the opportunity to push the limits, screw something up, panic, and then fix it.

---

It's a fine line and difficult one to walk. Yes, they should learn that screwing up has consequences and they should have to fix things themselves. I'm not one to rush in and rescue if something is wrong.

You forget your homework, you get a zero on it. I'm not bringing it to you. You don't want to go to school because your best friend is mad at you and you forgot to study for a science test? Sorry, you have to face life not hide from it and the longer you whine the less time you have to get ready before the bus is here.

But when it comes to allowing romantic relationships - I've yet to be convinced allowing them at 12 is better for a chid than not allowing them. I've yet to see any positive benefits from encouraging romantic involvements in the early teens, and I've seen lots of drawbacks. There is plenty of time to learn how to get your heartbroken, let's not do it at 12. I want my daughters (and my son) to know and understand themselves, which is difficult enough in adolescence, without the pressure of trying to conform to someone else's ideal. Nothing makes me more frustrated than to hear some of Nata's friends say things like "I was going to get my hair cut, but Brian doesn't like short hair and if I ever want him to ask me out, I better keep it long." Or "I think I'm getting fat." Or "I can't believe the dress code won't let us wear skirts above the knee, I got the sexiest little denim skirt last week but I can't wear it to school."

On the contrary, Natalie wears her hair like SHE likes it and wears clothes SHE likes and doesn't worry about impressing any boys. And she's made friends with several kids who either feel the same way or have parents like me, and they enjoy themselves and focus on their schoolwork and don't let what the cute guy in school thinks determine how they act and dress.

I personally think it's better for her, and I stand by my decisions not to allow any romantic relationships or dating of any kind. And for those that think it will only lead to rebellion and resentment in my child, you should probably know that she appreciates it. We speak honestly and openly about all kinds of things, and we have talked about the pressures at school to date and be involved and yes, even talk among her peers about sex. She's relieved that she can not worry about any of it, and when someone teases her about a certain boy liking her, she can dismiss it with "It doesn't matter my parents don't allow me to date or take calls from boys." She said she endured a little teasing at first, but now she's basically out of the vicious cycle of rumors and teasing that goes on, and she's glad of it. Almost every day she tells me of some girl who got upset and was crying over either a boy or teasing about a boy and she endures none of it.
 

---

Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
 
Will you let her buy and pay for her own cell phone, though, if she were to take on that responsibility?

Trust me, my sister abuses the cell phone privileges all the time, and i know why my mother wishes she had never gotten them -- for my sister. But I pay for my own and have since I moved out, and never abused the privilege when I was still living at home. If Natalie wants a phone, and agrees to pay for it herself, will you still forbid it?
 

---

Posted by Cow-Eating Man (Member # 4491) on :
 
Is she allowed to have friends who happen to be male?
 

---

Posted by TheTick (Member # 2883) on :
 
How much allowance/whatever would an 11 year old have to pay for a cell phone?
 

---

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
If she is working and can afford her own phone, then sure. That's part of growing up - if you've a job and can be responsible enough to meet the payments, then why not? But I won't make the payments for her if she were to get behind.

She does have male friends, particularly one that is in her gifted class at school. He is a Lord of the Rings fan so they talk about the books and movies together a lot. They do not, however, talk on the phone, unless it's a quick phone call to verify homework or something.
 

---

Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
 
Man, I don't mean now. What does an 11-year old need with a cell phone? But when she's older, old enough to work so she could afford it, or old enough to drive, and she wanted and agreed to pay for it all herself, I don't see any reason not to let her buy and pay for her own.
 

---

Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
 
OSC has some of the sanest parenting ideas I've ever come across.
 

---

Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
 
My little brother (15) has a cell phone because he does a lot of after-school sports and stuff and needs to get a hold of my parents for rides and such. When I was in Jr. high/high school a cell phone would have been infinetely more useful than trying to wangle a calling card like I did.

edit: neither of us were 11 when we started doing after-school activities, but if someone's kid was, I'd understand a cell phone for them.

[ May 03, 2005, 01:27 PM: Message edited by: sarcasticmuppet ]
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 

quote:

---

Or not engaging in potentially child-producing activities until you're actually old enough and committed enough to guarantee such a child a two-parent family for its entire life.

---

Unfortunately, no matter how old or committed you are, this is something that no one can guarantee.

[ May 03, 2005, 01:20 PM: Message edited by: dkw ]
 

---

Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
 

 

---

Posted by TheTick (Member # 2883) on :
 

quote:

---

And yes, I agree it's sad that today it is unusual for a kid her age not to have her own computer, cell phone, and tv. Once when Natalie was home sick, she got three phone calls from worried friends - all during school hours. They called her from school with their cell phones. I was touched at their caring, and appalled they were calling her when they were supposed to be at school.

---

quote:

---

and I don't care about being labeled a "mean mom."

---

Now we know what the "M" stands for.
 

---

Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
 
Shrug. Even with however much junk food I ate as a kid, I'm a very healthy almost-25 year old woman. I'm not saying you shouldn't do what you want with regard to your kid, but no single vice (or combination of) will ensure a child's downfall.

I certainly didn't have a TV or computer in my bedroom as a kid (though maybe briefly a 12" TV when I was sick), we had a common computer for the family which is probably the right way to go (assuming the parent can be trusted to keep their eyes away from the private files of their child. I feel very strongly about that one. I'd even let the child password-protect their own folder if they'd like).

We had TVs in our house (three, in fact), though I actually never watched much TV when I hit high school. By my senior year I was watching less than two hours a week.

I wasn't allowed out on social events during weekdays, and I wasn't allowed to sleep over at anyone's houses after the age of 13 or so. I think this was probably unnecessary but didn't harm me at all. My weekend curfew was 10 pm unless extraordinary circumstances made me request a later time. Heck, in college and visiting home I still had a midnight curfew. Now, I bet my mom would still be happier if I came home by midnight when I visited and I'd probably do it.

I ate junk food. I think in elementary school I used to have margarine sandwiches for lunch because I didn't like peanut butter and jelly. In middle and high school I bought the fast food lunches that activity clubs sold during lunch. And I didn't get fat. And now I eat fairly healthy foods (primarily because of Mike #55, who I dated for a while then made meals with my senior year of college. His family eats super healthy foods).

So the summary?
They let me eat a bunch of junk food, and I eat much better now. Was never overweight or suffered from nutrition problems (except cavities).

They were very strict when it came to social situations, and now I have "more liberal sex values" than my parents by FAR.

They encouraged very studious behavior which, well, I try to continue to emulate.

I don't own a TV in my apartment even though my mother actually urges me to get one (to stay connected to the news). I spend way too much time on a computer these days, but don't we all?

Oh, and I never did chores when I grew up except for occasionally making the bed, and my apartment stays reasonably clean with the dishes done (no dishwasher), the bathroom cleaned, the floor swept and vacuumed, the laundry done, and a bed that never gets made.
 

---

Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
 
Interesting article, and well-balanced for sure. As you might expect, I don't think the issue is as cut-and-dried as he paints it to be.

From what I can tell from his other writings (someone should correct me if I'm wrong), OSC thinks we have rights to autonomy and self-determination in order to serve some purpose -- because it's the best/most efficient way to run a society. I don't agree with either that position or the spirit behind it. I think we just do have these rights, it's a fact, and they should be protected not because they bring about some good but because they are the good.

As a consequence I think the ethics of parenting and raising children is one of the most difficult areas of moral philosophy. The view on which children "earn their freedom by proving they can be trusted" seems mistaken to me. Freedom isn't something we earn, it's something that we have a right to (other things being equal). You might say that criminals etc. have shown they don't "deserve" freedom, but I think that's the wrong model as well. Rather, I think we remove their freedom to protect that of others.

But it becomes difficult with children, because it is a psychological fact about kids that they typically don't turn out right unless they have a bunch of rules laid down for them. And further, they don't even have some of the faculties of choice that adults do -- for example, they can't critically reflect on what they're taught. So any moral education of children amounts to indoctrination, in a way.

I honestly don't know what to do about this problem. If I had to guess, I would say that some of our current practices are probably mistaken, but I don't know what could possibly replace them. Suffice it to say that, while I like the article, I think OSC reaches his conclusions too quickly.
 

---

Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
 
We'll form a support group when you have kids, Anna.

zgator

I also believe in the saying, "Active toys make passive children." I don't plan to get my kids many toys that require batteries. In fact, some of my favorite childhood toys weren't toys at all. My uncle got us a rope and a pulley and we thought it was the greatest thing ever - we would climb trees and send stuff up to each other or we would string it between trees and send things that way.

Plus, I'm a big arts and crafts person, so my children will never lack for activities.
 

---

Posted by amira tharani (Member # 182) on :
 
Belle, I am with you on the dating thing! My after school meeting today was prolonged for some time as the teacher I was meeting with just had the lesson from hell. Two kids, aged 12 (maybe even still 11) had been "dating" and then she "dumped" him - cue tears, heartbreak and all manner of havoc in lessons. If only they'd had parents who were remotely of your persuasion, the 20-odd other students in the room would actually have learnt something last lesson of the afternoon!

I have to say I was the "sad" kid at school who would have looked down my nose in disdain at the whole thing. But then I chose not to date till I left school. My parents would probably have had an age limit of 16, but I really wasn't interested even after that.
 

---

Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
 
Here's a thing:

quote:

---

The other word for repression is self-control. And here's how it's learned. First, your terrible mean awful horrible parents keep you from doing what you want.

Then, as you get older, you begin to realize that your friends whose parents didn't stop them from doing those things are now having horribly messy lives. You're glad your parents kept you from doing it.

---

This happens to a lot of people (it happened to me, in some ways), but I think it's just as common for someone to be glad he had parents who were lenient in comparison with his friends'. It's also not uncommon for someone to grow up and decide that he has been unfairly limited by some of the choices his parents made for him, and to come to resent them for it. This is what OSC described with the example of the baby-boomers. So the experience of being glad that your parents laid down the law doesn't seem like very reliable evidence that they were right to do so. Seems like it's natural to prefer the way you were raised, whatever that might be.
 

---

Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
 
Although I think zobiefied tv/game kids are very sad, I don't think that the only way to prevent this is to remove the tv or the computer.

My family has always had a tv but we rarely use it for tv other than after seven o'clock or on special occaisions- the olympics, royal weddings etc. When I was a child I watched 1.5 hours of tv a week of an educational show (MWF). The attitude towards the tv was one of destain but never restricted. As a result, we (all four children) learnt not to rely on the tv.

The computer was another issue. We introduced the first machine into the house in Christmas 1994 and my brother took to it immediately, teaching himself programming languages and playing games like Keen. We now have seven computers, not counting the original 286 and the 486 that followed it. My brother still uses it. Clearly, I use it a lot. But throughout my childhood there was always the insistance to "get off the computer and do something useful". That is ingrained in me and my brother. Both of us spontaneously leave the computer. Neither of us are gaming zombies.

The same idea was taken my parents with anything. Nothing was ever outwardly banned but their views were effectively communicated and we just picked them up. A good example .

Long story short, I think removal is, although one option, not the only option to bring up non-zombie children.
 

---

Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
 
Mrs. M, from observing the parenting styles that myself and Mark experienced, and how we turned out, I'd like to offer a word of un-asked-for advice.... (you are pregnant, after all! Isn't that an invitation for nosy strangers? )

Mark and I were both pretty easy kids to raise, you know, sympathetic to small animals, sensitive, somewhat responsible. My childhood was filled with things that were forbidden: soda, candy, The Simpsons, most movies, certain types of friends, any kind of unsupervised anything. Very heavy-handed forbidding. Mark, on the other hand, wasn't encouraged to eat candy or watch crappy TV shows, but very little was forbidden. He was allowed to try almost anything, though he never really thought about it that way.

We're both in our mid-20s now, and Mark is probably much, much closer to the kind of adult you'd want to raise. He's completely uninterested in candy and soda, shops only at the natural-food co-op, could care less about video games and makes friends easily, exercises regularly, and the only TV show he cares about watching is Meet the Press. I, on the other hand, have been addicted to caffeine since I was 16, have a hard time avoiding vending machines, never exercise, forget bills to the point that they show up on my credit history, and love reality TV shows.

So. Might I recommend making sure that, when you do set a boundary, you use a light touch? If the kid is aware that you've forbidden something, and thinks the rule is stupid, you may find yourself not only with a resentful, angry kid, but later an adult who finds whatever you forbid incredibly appealing. While if, on the other hand, you deal with video games by simply not making them available, rather than taking them away or making a big deal out of it, you may well end up with a kid and later adult who doesn't see what the big deal is.

[/bitterrant]



[ May 03, 2005, 03:13 PM: Message edited by: Zeugma ]
 

---

Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
 
Mrs. M, you know Geoff Card was raised on video games and he turned out alright.

Here is a study that shows one of the benefits of video games.

quote:

---

If they go over to a friend's house and play video games there, fine, but never at my house.

---

quote:

---

Whereas with the TV, well, they call it the boob tube for a reason.

---

Oh my stars, I just got that. I NEVER got that before! It just seemed like a funny name.

Now the mental image in my mind of that phrase is disgusting.
 

---

Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
 
There's probably a huge range of creativity-sapping versus creativity-inducing video games out there.

Some RPGs are very rewarding in plot content and exploration. Some just waste your time with repetitive tasks. There are incredible puzzle games out there (Fool's Errand is a very old one, though it's available still). My mother played Sokoban and Myst with me.

So yeah, with some amount of voodoo magic, you can get your kid to play the really good ones, and very few of the bad ones.

And I agree with Zeug that lots of the choices I make that my parents would disapprove of (my dating life), happen to be in direct contrast to strict control in that area when I was a kid. I happen to approve of my own choices, but I know they wouldn't. And some of the ways I turned out best (organization, cleaning, cooking) I had no experience with at home.
 

---

Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
 

quote:

---

Another major issue for me is nutrition. I don't think I'll ever allow my children to buy cafeteria food and I'll fight tooth and nail if there are vending machines in their schools.
When I tell people this, they look at me like I'm crazy and tell me that it'll never work. If you have rules from the beginning that you never waver from, your children will know what to expect and accept it.

---

quote:

---

We have never fed our kids fast food. This shocks and amazes ( and even upsets) many of my friends. They cannot concieve of parenting without McD's. My kids have never eaten it though, and when they were offered McNuggets a few months ago, they each took a bite and spit it out.

---

My parents took the opposite approach. We drove across the country almost every year, and naturally on 3 or 4 day drives we had a lot of fast food. By the time I was 8 I refused to eat any fast food. Other kids begged their parents to take them to McDonald's, I begged mine to take me anywhere else. If I have to eat fast food I'll get a baked potato from Wendy's or one of Arby's Market Fresh sandwiches. Anything else makes me sick to think about.
 

---

Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
 
Personally, I'm betting that it has a lot to do with HOW the parent presents the rules, and how they follow up on them. Do they sit the child down one day and say, "Sally, I want you to know that you're never going to be allowed to eat at McDonald's, ever, no matter how much your friends are allowed to, period", is it only brought up when Sally asks to go to McDonalds, or is the issue avoided altogether by treating McDonalds food like food found in garbage cans... something that "we" would never even consider eating? If Sally is forbidden from eating at McDonald's, does she find McBurger wrappers in the car? Get handed a whole-wheat sandwich while her parents drive-thru? Or do her parents prefer whole-wheat sandwiches anyhow, and wouldn't dream of eating anything with partially hydrogenated oils?


 

---

Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
 
Heh. I ate a ton of fast food as a kid. Now?

While I've been to Boston Market maybe twice in the last year, and Popeyes at the mall twice... I haven't eaten food from any of the major chains (McD, Wendy's, Taco Bell, etc) since high school really.

Obviously I do have friends who ate fast food in high school and eat fast food now. Really the most important thing is to teach them to cook at least a bit for themselves. Eating most of your dinners in restaurants is more unhealthy in my opinion than fast food spots (in terms of quantity and fat).
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
blacwolve the new mcdonalds salads are really good.

AJ
 

---

Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
 
Zeugma, we do treat fast food as "garbage". Since I amone of those people who actually prefers whole wheat and avoids trans fats like the plague, it works.

We are teaching them to cook, too. The eight year old makes risotto, bread, home made meatballs,cookies and tortes on a regular basis.
 

---

Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
 
Pardon me, guys, but I think there are more important questions here than "video games or no video games." The article raises the very important question of whether children have any right to self-determination. To me, this is one of the great unsolved moral puzzles.
 

---

Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
 
romanylass: Yum!
 

---

Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
 
Destineer: and while I believe the child should have a great deal of self-determination... I'm not 100% certain I know how to raise a child or will ever know how to raise a child effectively.

Which is part of why I don't want children.
 

---

Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
 
romanylass, that sounds awesome! I plan on having our future kids in the kitchen as soon as they have the motor skills to hold a butter knife. As I learned from babysitting, there's nothing like hours together creating something in the kitchen to keep kids occupied, learning, and having fun all at the same time.

Plus, when they're a little older, we'll be able to make them our little chefs and demand elaborate 7-course meals waiting for us when we get home.
 

---

Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
 
I agree that lots of rigid, inflexible restrictions can make the kids really fly off in the wrong direction when they wriggle free of their parents. I'm not a big believer in a long list of rules. Kids should learn how to govern themselves and how to make wise choices on their own initiative. However, I firmly believe that it is the parents' right and responsibility to teach their children what is right and wrong and how to conduct themselves. And parents do this most effectively by example, setting clear standards and boundaries, and then helping and encouraging their kids to use their time in positive and constructive ways.
 

---

Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
 
Kids in the kitchen...*sigh*

We have two little "helpers" right now who love to get into everything on the counter and in the fridge while dinner is being made. It's tough and frustrating. But our 4-year-old daughter is picking up some cooking skills.

Patience, patience, patience.
 

---

Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
 
Advice, all that seems true enough. The moral puzzle, though, is this: why is it OK to treat kids this way (forcing them to do what's in their best interest when they don't want to). It's not OK to treat adults this way. And it's not always OK to control your kids either -- we don't think it's permissible to brainwash them, for example. In other contexts, we think kids have the same moral rights as others. They have the same right to life, for example. Why not the same right to liberty?

(This is an especially big problem if you believe, as I do, that the right to life arises from the right to liberty, rather than being a separate right.)
 

---

Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
 

quote:

---

The article raises the very important question of whether children have any right to self-determination.

---

quote:

---

The moral puzzle, though, is this: why is it OK to treat kids this way (forcing them to do what's in their best interest when they don't want to). It's not OK to treat adults this way.

---

Sometimes it is OK to treat adults like this. Adults who aren't mentally capable of taking care of themselves might have someone who tells them what they can and cannot do.

[ May 03, 2005, 04:22 PM: Message edited by: zgator ]
 

---

Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
 
I really love the phrase "reproductively inert."
 

---

Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
 
We did not have video games or TV in our home when my children were growing up. They occasionally played video games at other kids' homes, and our dentist had Nintendo games in his waiting room - that was a big treat - so they played video games for maybe half an hour every 6 months at least.

I didn't have any problem with my children spending all their time at other kids' houses to play video games. They never asked, and if they had, I would have said no. I'm a little amazed at parents who allow their children to be in control like that. Until my children were in high school and could drive themselves, I had *absolute* control over where they went, who they were with and when they came home.

I've been accused (by people who really should know better) of being a control freak. But I feel like it was my responsibility as a parent to know where my children were and who they were with (and to an extent, what they were doing). With the two daughters that are still at home, I still do keep very close tabs on them... not to be IN CONTROL, but because I'm their mother, and it's my JOB to know what's happening with them.
 

---

Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
 

quote:

---

Advice, all that seems true enough. The moral puzzle, though, is this: why is it OK to treat kids this way (forcing them to do what's in their best interest when they don't want to). It's not OK to treat adults this way. And it's not always OK to control your kids either -- we don't think it's permissible to brainwash them, for example. In other contexts, we think kids have the same moral rights as others. They have the same right to life, for example. Why not the same right to liberty?

(This is an especially big problem if you believe, as I do, that the right to life arises from the right to liberty, rather than being a separate right.)

---

I'm a strong believer in free agency. Of course parents shouldn't force their kids to do things and therefore take away the kid's power to choose for him/herself. That's why teaching and affirming good principles is so important. Then the kids develop a clearer picture of the choices they have, and are able to make wiser ones.

As far as liberty goes: I always come back to this example. Set your kid at the piano and tell her she is free to play whatever she wants. If she doesn't know anything about the piano, her freedom to play it won't mean much. But if she's already practiced diligently and incorporated the rules of good piano playing, she really will be free to play whatever she wants.

Kids need to be taught good principles and responsibility. That's what parents and homes are for. Kids have a right to freedom, but they need to learn how to make it useful and beneficial. They are free to choose, but they need to learn how to make good choices.
 

---

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
Oh I'm with you on cafeteria food - my kids take their own lunch. It's a hassle and extra work but worth it.

We have video games and computers and a tv - I just don't allow the kids to spend all day on them.
 

---

Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
 
Even if you are a Mean Mom, Mrs M, you'll still be the most stylish Mean Mom around.


 

---

Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
 
Thanks, imogen.

quote:

---

So. Might I recommend making sure that, when you do set a boundary, you use a light touch? If the kid is aware that you've forbidden something, and thinks the rule is stupid, you may find yourself not only with a resentful, angry kid, but later an adult who finds whatever you forbid incredibly appealing. While if, on the other hand, you deal with video games by simply not making them available, rather than taking them away or making a big deal out of it, you may well end up with a kid and later adult who doesn't see what the big deal is.

---

quote:

---

And parents do this most effectively by example, setting clear standards and boundaries, and then helping and encouraging their kids to use their time in positive and constructive ways.

---