posted
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.
Posts: 867 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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." Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
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).
Posts: 1664 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
Because that way parents can always call to check up on them, even when they aren't at home.
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. It's not a bad idea.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
kat, why is an 11-year child in a location where you have to keep track of them by calling them?
For an older kid, I can understand better, but it would be on the minimum plan because the cell phone is for emergencies. If you want more minutes, you better come up with some money.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
I know that, and I'm honestly not sure I like it.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sleepovers? Soccer practice? Summer camp? Kids' College summer programs? I did all of those at age eleven.
Twinky: Oh, I wouldn't have appreciated it at all. If I had a cell phone then, I would have done what I do now - lose it on a regular basis. I hate it when someone is keeping tabs on me. That's probably why the solution occurred to me - much of my childhood consisted of me taking off to explore and my parents coming after to make sure I didn't fall off a cliff. They would have loved the idea of giving me a cell phone. Instead spending hours driving around looking for Katie, they'd just call the phone. If I was attached to it because friends called, even better - that way I wouldn't leave it behind, and if I didn't answer, they'd take it away.
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.
posted
I'm pretty sure I know Belle's reasons behind the sleepover thing, as there was a thread about that very topic a while back -- but the dances? Cause, i mean, those things are chaperoned. And at my school, pretty fiercely. What is the danger there?
Posts: 3516 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
At my school they were just like the high school dances, only with shorter people. Complete with grinding and alcohol.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sure everyone has their rules, and that's fine. I couldn't go to dances until I was fourteen. My mother's reasoning was that I'd spend the rest of my life worrying about the opposite sex in one way or another - no need to start the pressure to be pretty and wanted any earlier than necessary.
I'm just saying that the rules we don't approve of in other people may be there for good reasons of which we do not know.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Sleepovers? Soccer practice? Summer camp? Kids' College summer programs? I did all of those at age eleven.
I did them too. If my parents need to talk with me, there was someone else they called - parents, camp staff, etc.
For an older kid that I would let do things on their own, I think it's a good idea. I just don't see anytime when an 11-year old would be somewhere without a responsible adult in charge.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was not given everything my heart desired, but I was given a LOT of freedom. If I got into trouble, it was my own problem. If I got bad grades, it was my job to negotiate how to improve them or to figure out how to deal with having bad grades. If I got into trouble, it was my job to figure out how to deal. If I really wanted to, I could go to my mother and get some help and have to hear about how stupid I was, but mostly, I just figured it out for myself.
I don't really think that being mostly self-raised did me much harm.
I did some severely unwise stuff, but I always knew that if I got in too deep it was my job and my job only to sort it out. So I always went out with a contingency plan, and I walked carefully.
I don't see why protecting your kids from the fact that they're the ones who are going to have to bear the brunt of the consequences for stupidity is a bad thing. Let them bear a few non-arbitrary consequences and see how fast they grow up.
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.
Posts: 1751 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why not dances? Because 12 is too young to be dating and going to dances with boys is too much like dating for my comfort. They may be chaperoned, but in a day and age when "chaperoned" parties can also include drugs and alcohol, no thanks, she'll stay home.
The last jr. high dance we made popcorn and watched Fellowship of the Ring. She didn't complain.
quote:kat, why is an 11-year child in a location where you have to keep track of them by calling them?
That's it exactly. My daughter is never where I need a cell phone to keep track of her. She's either at school, at dance (where a phone call to the studio office can get me in touch with her) at church, or possibly at a friend's house though that is rare. I have no need to have a cell phone with her to keep in touch with her, I know where she is at all times. If she is somewhere else, then she is with a responsible adult who has a cell phone. For example, she went to a bonfire/cookout with the church youth group and I could check on her through the youth director's cell phone if need be.
When she is old enough to drive herself somewhere, then we'll give her a two way radio that has the ability to dial 911 in an emergency, but no other phone call capabilities. She can get in touch with us through the radio if she has car trouble or gets stuck somewhere, and she can call 911 if there's a serious emergency, but she can't use it to talk all night with her friends.
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.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
There isn't one perfect style of parenting even within a family, because it has to be adapted for each kid. I agree with OSC's contention that careful parenting is required, but I absolutely do not believe that we can look at the outward appearance (kid has cell phone) and assume we know both the parents' motivations and the results it will have for that particular child.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 3516 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3516 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
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.
Figured the cell phone line of discussion was in response to this sentiment, Leonide.
Posts: 5422 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I also enjoyed OSC's article. I'm very lucky to have worked with hundreds of school-age kids and their parents, so I have a much better idea of what works and what doesn't than most first-time parents.
There are some issues where I feel like I'm completely alone, though. For example, video games. I think that they're extremely detrimental to cognitive and social development (and there's a lot of research to back that up). Not only will my children never receive a video game system from me, but they will not be allowed to receive one as a gift or buy one with their own money. If they go over to a friend's house and play video games there, fine, but never at my house. Also, my children will have very limited access to television. We plan to have a t.v. in our family room, but it will not be hooked up to cable and will mostly be used for family movies. Andrew and I will probably have a t.v. with cable in our bedroom because we're addicts, but our children don't have to be. They will not be allowed to have a t.v. in their bedrooms. Although, I'll probably be more flexible about this when they're older and I might be willing to let they buy their own television. Andrew and I both feel very strongly about this - our children won't even hear the t.v. on in the background before they're three (we read a study that presented convincing evidence that even having a t.v. on in the background can have a negative effect on the cognitive development of infants and toddlers).
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. I substituted in the Y kindergarten for a few months and it was appalling what these kids ate for lunch - baloney sandwiches (high in fat and salt), cheetos (high in every kind of garbage imaginable) and fruit roll-ups (sugars, empty carbs, and preservatives). Not to mention the ever-present juice boxes (sugars and empty carbs). My kids will get only milk and water for the first 5 years at least. They can get vitamins from eating fruit and from supplements.
When I tell people this, they look at me like I'm crazy and tell me that it'll never work. I usually just smile and make some vague comment and change the subject. I know that it will work because I am going to do it from the start and do it right. If you have rules from the beginning that you never waver from, your children will know what to expect and accept it. Also, I don't care what other parents do and I don't care about being labeled a "mean mom."
Posts: 3037 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
