posted
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.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3037 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1550 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Then you might find your children spending a lot of time over at someone else's house.
I totally agree with you. Well, except for allowing TV over video games. I think that TV is much more imagination/creativity sapping than video games. I mean, at least with video games, they have to have some type of thinking involved. Whereas with the TV, well, they call it the boob tube for a reason.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Ahhhh, I have seen the menus for our school district, and when our kids do go to school, they will always pack lunch. The breakfasts, especially, make me shudder.
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.
I have way too many friends who give their kids complete freedom. They call it "Taking Children Seriously", which chaps my hide, because it implies that "coercive" parents ( these folks bend over backwards to avoid coercing their kids) do not take their children seriously.
(LOL< right now my 8 year old is doing the dishes, and my 6 year old is sweeping. I love indentured servants)
Posts: 2711 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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
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).
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2711 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 1681 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.)
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: The article raises the very important question of whether children have any right to self-determination.
In my opinion, the question is at what age do children have the right to self-determination. My 19-month old obviously doesn't have that right because he isn't mentally capable of that right. I think that age varies from child to child.
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 2069 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Zeugma, that's actually exactly how we plan to do it.
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.
afr, I think that's a very good point about leading by example and it's one that parents may not even consider. Andrew and I are planning on changing our lifestyle when the babies arrive because we don't believe that we can maintain moral authority if we're hypocrites. For example, we're not going to serve the children salads and grilled chicken breasts while we chow down on fried chicken and biscuits and gravy. They're not going to see us watching t.v. when they're not allowed to. I remember once we had a discussion about Andrew's cousins and his concern that they hardly ever read. I asked Andrew if his aunt and uncle ever read and he said that they do not. They have very few books in their house (they do have 3 t.v., 2 video game systems, and a portable DVD player). My mother read constantly and so did I - children really do learn a lot by example.
And as to the Hatrackers who were raised on video games, television, and junk food - they're not good examples. Hatrackers are extraordinary, outstanding people and not at all representative of the general population.
Posts: 3037 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think that a child has the same right to liberty as an adult does, not by a long shot. I think that they have a right to have some say in their lives, and that the amount of control they have should rise as they get older and prove themselves capable of handling the responsibilities that come with that freedom.
There are a reason why we are called parents once we have kids..they very word means (at least to me) that we have a responsibility to provide teh best chance for them to grow up, in every sense of the phrase.
Complete freedom is a farce anyway...we all have things that limit our choices, things we have to live with or learn to work around. It is our jobs to guide our shildren to the path we think is best for them...although eventually they get to choose if that path is the right one for them to continue with in life.
If we never show them where that path begins, though....they would never know it was there for them as a choice.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
.![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
)![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
