Years ago, I visited a friend’s house and watched his wife take a poll: “What do you want for breakfast?” The survey sample was quite small: Their 3-year-old son, who wasted about 45 seconds of his mother’s time before deciding which flavor of sugary cereal he wanted.
...
Sane adults do not make themselves slaves to the whims of a child.
Children are ignorant. They don’t know what kind of cereal they want for breakfast. A child is not a fit judge of what to wear to school.
A child, if left unsupervised to pursue his pleasure, is likely to spend all his time watching cartoons or playing video games, and to eat nothing but junk food. Not only is this bad for the child’s health and intellectual development, but if he is permitted to acquire such habits, he also acquires the idea that it is his right to live exactly as his chooses, without any obligation to society to make himself useful or productive.
Your home cannot be a democracy; children are naturally tyrants.Read the whole thing: http://theothermccain.com/2013/05/28/a-definition-of-insanity/
Dad was, on first blush, inclined to agree. But additional thought lead him to another conclusion.
At one time in Dad's life, around 19, he was standing in line of, coincidentally, McDonald's at a very busy lunch time. All of the registers were open and the lines were six to eight people deep. In front of Dad was a mother of a tot around four years old. She asked him which Happy Meal he wanted, the burger or the nuggets. The boy hemmed and hawed and vacillated for a good long while. Customers behind Dad began to grumble. Dad checked his own watch to see if he would have to abandon the line to return to work. Finally he tersely interjected, "He wants the nuggets." The mother shot a dirty look toward Dad, and was about to, perhaps, tell him to mind his own business in a less than polite way. Her face changed and she self censored when she saw more than a few pair of impatient, angry eyes staring back at her. "And a hamburger Happy Meal," she added to the clerk thus completing her order.
Point: Dad thinks the blog author quoted above was wrong to think that offering a child a choice is a waste of time. Indeed, children are ignorant, and they do press their wants and needs which can be inconvenient. But they have to learn. That was an opportunity for that mother to teach her child that he sometimes has options for breakfast and to consider that he might have a preference. Asking him his opinion opens up the possibility for the boy to think. Further, it introduces him to an area where, under certain conditions, he can exert power and influence.
To be sure, there are contextual constraints. The young mother with her four year old at McDonald's holding up the line should not have consulted her son, or should have time limited his deliberations. But children are not tyrants as the blog author claims. A tyrant acts deliberately subjugating other people for his own self interest while fully aware of his actions. A child, on the other hand, places demands on parents in its own self interest out of ignorance. Dad strives to not impute a motive to child where one does not exist.
The blog author's friend's mother indulged her son. No one was harmed, no one's time was wasted.The boy was exposed to power. Couple that with responsibility, that is a good thing, "Johnny, you chose your cereal, you have to finish it."
That is Dad's want for his Twins, that they seek out areas of empowerment and exercise that power while being accountable for their decisions.
Yes, the Twins will probably want to exercise their power while evading responsibility for their decisions. Every president, er I mean, person does. And they may do it 1,000 times, but it is too valuable of a lesson not to teach it.
Besides, Dad never thought parenting to be an easy endeavor.
In any case, criticism aside, the blog is normally a good read.
No comments:
Post a Comment