Thread: Parenting: a new religion? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029184
Posted by Banner Lady (# 10505) on
:
This article sparked an interesting discussion at Chez Banner. It states that while most men and women in America marry for love, as soon as children come along. the offspring become the primary focus of that love - especially for the woman. So much so that empty nester divorce rates are climbing and women who put their husband first in their affections are assumed to be 'bad" mothers.
TP was raised by parents who made it quite clear that the children were NOT the primary object of their love - this was reserved for their spouse. All six children of the relationship have had long and happy marriages. Not so for our daughters - who do treat their children as the centre of their universe.
My husband thinks that a more feminised society, and the rise in oestrogen in men has to have consequences to family life. I think it is more likely to be the secularisation of society - where if there is no other God than "I" then once "I" have children all the energy of spirit that went into worshiping at the throne of self becomes focussed on the mini-me's "I" have a duty of care to raise.
So is parenting now a religion?
Have you observed this phenomenon around you?
Is there a difference between the generations in your family regarding the primary focus of love?
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
The article sounds like an overstatement to me. Or at least an overgeneralization.
There are plenty of things people in America (or elsewhere) prioritize above their marriages. A common one is work. I don't think those who are prioritizing children are doing anything vastly different from the workaholics, or the sports maniacs, or ...
As for the "heresy" idea, I think that's overstated too. Parents here bitch about their children all the time (and their spouses, and their own parents, ...) Just look on Twitter or any of the "bad Mommy" blogs.
I do think that some people freak out when someone baldly states that a spouse has priority because they are reading this usually out of any original context and instead supplying their own concerns about child abuse. It is common for abusive or negligent parents, particularly mothers, to claim that they were forced to do whatever because their husbands/boyfriends came first, and they had to please them. Naturally that's a loathesome excuse for child abuse or neglect. But if that's the only context you ever hear such statements in, it's really easy to hear a normal, non-abusive mother say that her husband has higher priority, and immediately all the child abuse cases leap to mind.
My son knows very well that Dad comes before him--except in the cases in which any family member gets top priority, i.e. being in danger, in need, sick, and so forth. The priority only operates when all else is equal. Thus, if we are discussing where to go to dinner, or what time to visit the park, or whether or not to practice piano that day, Dad's decision (assuming he has one) gets priority. Which is a "duh" thing for me. Dad is an adult, has adult responsibilities (like work) and adult understanding (like money issues) and of course he gets more of a say on such things than any child, however beloved. One day the child will be an adult and will have a similar seniority. Right now, it's a case of "No, honey, we are not going to go to the pool and risk getting zapped by the lightning that your father rightly suspects is on its way within the next hour. We are going to stay home and practice piano. And why are you even appealing this decision to me, anyway? He's your father. Suck it up and deal."
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
Surely it's quite natural for parents to put the children first? I can't see what it has to do with 'feminised society' or idolatry. You may not always be married but your children are always your children.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
The idea that you could get divorced next year but your children will always be your children strikes me as a good example of what the OP is talking about. It suggests that spousal love can never really be counted on, so all your efforts need to go towards the children. It's hard to see how marriages can be maintained that way.
Children are probably better served by parents who put their marriage first, because then they'll be less likely to split up. Except in cases of abuse and intense hostility children don't seem terribly keen on divorce, even if it means they'll get a lot more of their mother's undivided attention.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The idea that you could get divorced next year but your children will always be your children strikes me as a good example of what the OP is talking about. It suggests that spousal love can never really be counted on, so all your efforts need to go towards the children. It's hard to see how marriages can be maintained that way.
Children are probably better served by parents who put their marriage first, because then they'll be less likely to split up. Except in cases of abuse and intense hostility children don't seem terribly keen on divorce, even if it means they'll get a lot more of their mother's undivided attention.
But I don't see how putting children first equals putting 100% of energy towards childrearing. It seems like the natural thing for a parent to put the child first - anything else seems unnatural and not very parental. But that doesn't mean the marriage is unimportant.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
Love isn't pie.
Posted by Banner Lady (# 10505) on
:
My eldest daughter (single working mother) suggested that there could be other causes to 'parenting as a religion'.
1. That it is more likely to be prevalent among stay-at-home moms who are seeking validation for their lives.
2. That as women become more empowered, fiscally independent etc they take more control and have more oversight over all aspects of their lives - including parenting. This equates to women being more the 'drivers' in the family and men wondering why the hell they ended up in the passenger seat or the trailer. Basically a majority of women having more of a clue on how to live well, and many men less or no idea.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
I would also bet that the writer of the original article was a woman with youngish children. If she were a mother of older kids, she would have moved beyond that stage. I assure you that teenagers do not appreciate a helicopter mom, and your adult kids are unlikely to enjoy micromanagement. To every thing there is a season. There is a season for the little ones to be the total focus of the marriage. But it is not a permanent state.
Posted by Zoey (# 11152) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
You may not always be married but your children are always your children.
Yeah, but your children might hate you and never talk to you. Or might only talk to you from a very ambivalent place of not being at all impressed with the parent-child relationship between you, but not wanting to point out the screwed-up bits of it to you for various reasons.
I'm not sure I'd go as far as Banner Lady in her OP. However, I remember discussing this kind of issue with a friend's parents* and his mum saying that she felt her marriage was a very key part of her identity which would be ongoing for the remainder of her life, more so than direct day-to-day parenting would be. I don't have any doubt at all about her love for her three (now adult) children and I don't think they do either.
* Interestingly, I now recall that I think the reason we were discussing it was because I was telling them about a woman I met in psychiatric hospital, whom I was also thinking about when I wrote the first paragraph of this post. This woman clearly lived completely for and through her only child. She spoke of having felt purpose-less and identity-less when he left for university. All I could think of was what enormous pity I had for him. He wasn't allowed to be his own person. He was his mother's son, first and foremost, and she needed him to be that. A very screwy parent-child dynamic, if you ask me.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Banner Lady:
2. That as women become more empowered, fiscally independent etc they take more control and have more oversight over all aspects of their lives - including parenting. This equates to women being more the 'drivers' in the family and men wondering why the hell they ended up in the passenger seat or the trailer. Basically a majority of women having more of a clue on how to live well, and many men less or no idea.
I have a theory that, if you want to be the one your kids come to with problems, etc., later in life, you have to put in the time doing the boring, crappy jobs earlier in life. That means changing the diapers, doing the transportation, saying for the millionth time "Stop hitting your brother" and etc. If you show up mainly for playtime, you will reap your reward in being left out of the serious discussions--or at least having your opinion valued below that of whoever actually showed up for the crap.
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
Lord help me if anyone asks me if I love my wife or daughter more- I’d probably tell them the dog, just to annoy them (although she is pretty sweet...).
I’m rather new to the dad gig (seven months in), but I think that what you really need to watch out for is the temptation to put your own non-basic needs ahead of the needs of your family, which includes your spouse and kids. Sure, as they say, put your air mask on before helping those around you. But sometime the best thing I can do for my wife is skip a choir rehearsal and come home to take care of the child while she goes to bed early. Down the line, the best thing we will be able to do for the family is send the girl to sleep away camp so that Mom and Dad can have some together time. You can’t be the person who never changes a diaper, and you can’t be the person whose own self worth is derived from being a parent, which I would say is a form of putting your own needs ahead of the needs of the family. You have to be flexible.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Banner Lady:
So is parenting now a religion?
Have you observed this phenomenon around you?
Is there a difference between the generations in your family regarding the primary focus of love?
No, no and no.
Having read the article, I would say that the meaning of the word "religion" is one of many things the authors are playing loose with. Overstatement and over generalization indeed. Seemed to me that the main point of the article was to promote their book.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
[Checks for horsemen of the Apocalypse]
I agree with Beeswax Altar.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
I also agree with Beeswax Altar.
I'm one of those mothers who puts their kids before their husband; and my husband puts the kids before me.
Having said that, if Dad said "no" I'd always back that up and vice versa; we both agreed that it wasn't in our kids' interests to be able to play us off against each other. So we were united in putting the kids first!
The empty nest last year hit both of us hard; I started a thread on it in All Saints. I can't imagine us ever divorcing, though, I'm fairly confident that only death will stop us from growing old and cranky together.
Possibly, the fact that we had a stillborn son, plus miscarriages, and that we (very briefly) faced the possibility of losing one child to meningitis, made us aware of just how amazingly lucky we both were to have our kids. I'm sure that that skewed our perceptions of family life, that we were a parenting team more than a husband-and-wife.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
You can’t be the person who never changes a diaper, and you can’t be the person whose own self worth is derived from being a parent, which I would say is a form of putting your own needs ahead of the needs of the family. You have to be flexible.
Wise words from a newbie to parenthood.
One thing we can't be is perfect parents and striving for that can spoil the time you do have with your children. But, it's not long before their friends are far more important to them than you are - so having your own life is vital too.
The time before they leave home also flies by!
I think this Internet age probably feeds obsessive parenting. I'm glad we didn't have it when mine were small. I am forever looking up things about the dogs - it's a huge temptation. I think the way I behave now with the dogs would have been stifling for the kids, if you see what I mean (every move analysed and googled) I was really easy going with my two boys and I love the way they have turned out.
[ 03. June 2015, 07:58: Message edited by: Boogie ]
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Brenda said: quote:
I would also bet that the writer of the original article was a woman with youngish children. If she were a mother of older kids, she would have moved beyond that stage. I assure you that teenagers do not appreciate a helicopter mom, and your adult kids are unlikely to enjoy micromanagement. To every thing there is a season. There is a season for the little ones to be the total focus of the marriage. But it is not a permanent state.
Yes, this. Also what Beeswax Altar said [checks out of window for further signs of Apocalypse]. We are going through a transition phase at the moment, from micromanagement to allowing Daughter some independence. In a year or so she probably won't want to give us the time of day and we will have more time as a couple again.
But if the house was on fire and I had to choose between saving her and saving my Other Half, I'd save her first. If he had to choose between her and me, I'd expect him to choose her as well. That's what 'putting your children first' means. Not making them the centre of your universe, but keeping them safe and helping them to grow up into adults. Helicopter parenting doesn't do that.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
quote:
But if the house was on fire and I had to choose between saving her and saving my Other Half, I'd save her first. If he had to choose between her and me, I'd expect him to choose her as well. That's what 'putting your children first' means. Not making them the centre of your universe, but keeping them safe and helping them to grow up into adults. Helicopter parenting doesn't do that.
This is what I was trying to say, but Jane R has said it better.
My husband once remarked that he'd rather watch me in childbirth, than watch our four year old have a tic removed. And I understood what he meant. The article in the OP refers to "parents" and "mothers" but is curiously silent about fathers.
I suspect that this is another Mothers Are Always Wrong article, lightly disguised.
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Surely it's quite natural for parents to put the children first? I can't see what it has to do with 'feminised society' or idolatry. You may not always be married but your children are always your children.
I think I see this almost exactly the opposite way round. In a successful marriage, your spouse is the one who is still going to be there after your children have grown up and become independent of you. I don’t think many people, if anyone, go into marriage with the intention that they might not stay with the person.
AIUI, one of the most stressful periods in the average marriage is the birth of the first child, when men, especially, often feel that they have become less important to their wife. It is a major cause of marital conflict for many couples. Negotiating this well is very important to building a stable and lasting marriage, which is in everyone’s interests, including the children’s.
I actually don’t think it’s a coincidence that the article doesn’t talk about men. A couple need to work out together how to negotiate the change in their relationship which happens with the birth of a child, but it is most commonly men who feel excluded and confused in this scenario.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
My husband once remarked that he'd rather watch me in childbirth, than watch our four year old have a tic removed.
My husband can deal with things perfectly competently if I cut myself and am bleeding. If it was either of our sons he passed out, so badly did it affect him.
It's a visceral, biological feeling - I don't think we have a lot of control over it.
Posted by Paul. (# 37) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Love isn't pie.
Could you clarify what you mean?
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
I actually don’t think it’s a coincidence that the article doesn’t talk about men.
I had the same thought. I can't help feeling that there's an agenda behind the article (and the book the authors wrote the article to promote). I'm not sure what that agenda is, but it wouldn't surprise me if "the deterioration of the family and proper family roles wrought by feminism" is lurking in there somewhere.
FWIW, I think talking in terms of who is the "primary focus of love" or who is more important, spouse or child, is missing the mark. The conversation should, I think, focus on relationship. The relationship between spouses, ideally at least, is the foundational or central relationship for the family. Other relationships in the family quite literally have their source in that foundational relationship.
The practical implications of what it means to consider the parents' relationship with each other as foundational will, of course, vary from situation to situation, day to day, and stage of life to stage of life. Giving priority to the needs of the children when appropriate doesn't necessarily contradict maintaining the relationship between the parents as foundational. Indeed, there may be times when doing so is a natural consequence of the centrality of the parents' relationship with each other.
In my experience, it seems that most couples with children I know appear to get this and try—sometimes with more success and sometimes with less—to live it out. (And in those cases where this is not the case, the issue typically is one or both parents putting something outside the family, such as work, ahead of the family.) My issue with the article is that I think they're hawking a cure when they appear to have done a very poor job of diagnosing the condition to be cured.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I have a theory that, if you want to be the one your kids come to with problems, etc., later in life, you have to put in the time doing the boring, crappy jobs earlier in life. That means changing the diapers, doing the transportation, saying for the millionth time "Stop hitting your brother" and etc. If you show up mainly for playtime, you will reap your reward in being left out of the serious discussions--or at least having your opinion valued below that of whoever actually showed up for the crap.
It's especially important to listen to what your small children want to tell you. The appearance and behavior of a bug in the back yard is not all that interesting, but your kid sees that you are willing to listen to him.
Moo
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Paul, I think this is what Beeswax Altar means when he says love isn't pie?
Love is like a magic penny [song]
Posted by Paul. (# 37) on
:
Right. I though that but wasn't sure given the context.
Because love may not be a zero-sum game, but where you spend you money, time etc is.
Posted by Banner Lady (# 10505) on
:
Perhaps best summed up in scripture by
Where your treasure
There your heart.
This is hard for me, because my treasure is not first and foremost my kids. But if the house was burning down I would certainly be most concerned about them and probably in order from youngest grandchild to eldest daughter. That is simply common sense and a primordial kind of need to see those with most of their life ahead of them survive.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
I'm definitely not suggesting helicopter parenting or being an overinvolved parent. But my understanding of the mother-child bond is that putting your child first is part of that?
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
I suspect this is the place where that description truly applies: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." The youngest get more care, not because of some dark motivation, but because they can't make it without. But a husband (or wife) is a grown-ass adult and ought to be able to function without quite so much maintenance.
The trouble comes in when people (such as spouses!) start equating time with "you love x more."
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
I would assume your order of priority in event of a fire might also reflect the ability of each child or grandchild to get out of the house unassisted. If youngest were 14 and some middle child had special needs, you might go for the room of the special needs child first, right?
Once again, I think priorities should not be so set in stone that you can't shift based on need at any given time.
Back to the article, I was just pointed to a blog called "Asshole Parents," in which parents send pictures of their kids in meltdown mode, explaining why they, the parent, are to blame. For instance, "I'm an asshole because he wanted milk and I gave him milk in the wrong cup." So I don't think that the bit about not saying anything negative about your kids rings entirely true.
And I always get a little weary whenever people use the term "special snowflake" in reference to kids. Is it really such a bad thing to tell your kid that they are special and important? It could probably rise to a problematic level, but I think you could probably do a whole lot more damage by focusing on all the ways your child is not special or important.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
I like the phrase "You are a special snowflake, and so is everyone else."
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
I actually don’t think it’s a coincidence that the article doesn’t talk about men.
I had the same thought. I can't help feeling that there's an agenda behind the article (and the book the authors wrote the article to promote). I'm not sure what that agenda is, but it wouldn't surprise me if "the deterioration of the family and proper family roles wrought by feminism" is lurking in there somewhere.
FWIW, I think talking in terms of who is the "primary focus of love" or who is more important, spouse or child, is missing the mark. The conversation should, I think, focus on relationship. The relationship between spouses, ideally at least, is the foundational or central relationship for the family. Other relationships in the family quite literally have their source in that foundational relationship.
The practical implications of what it means to consider the parents' relationship with each other as foundational will, of course, vary from situation to situation, day to day, and stage of life to stage of life. Giving priority to the needs of the children when appropriate doesn't necessarily contradict maintaining the relationship between the parents as foundational. Indeed, there may be times when doing so is a natural consequence of the centrality of the parents' relationship with each other.
In my experience, it seems that most couples with children I know appear to get this and try—sometimes with more success and sometimes with less—to live it out. (And in those cases where this is not the case, the issue typically is one or both parents putting something outside the family, such as work, ahead of the family.) My issue with the article is that I think they're hawking a cure when they appear to have done a very poor job of diagnosing the condition to be cured.
Last year our plans for a romantic celebration of our 25th wedding anniversary were scuttled by our youngest ending up in the ER. Hubby driving and staying with him there until 3 am while I stayed home with the other kids (and got a wee bit of sleep) was the most romantic gift I could have rec'd. The next day as we ruefully discussed our misadventures I remarked, "that's how you get to 25-- by hanging in and doing what you gotta do to get thru". For us anyway, putting the kids first seems to have drawn us closer, not further.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Lamb Chopped: quote:
I like the phrase "You are a special snowflake, and so is everyone else."
I think the way I feel about my daughter sometimes gives me a glimpse of how God feels about everyone *all the time*.
The love I have for my husband is different, because I can love him as an equal.
Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on
:
Telling kids that they are special and important to their parents is a good idea. Telling kids that they are just special and important isn't. Particularly when parents back that up by undermining the authority of teachers etc.
I look at parenthood with some bewilderment as I have no kind of pull towards it myself. I do feel vaguely creeped out when friends of mine (always women in my personal experience) disappear completely into their identity as mothers. When they don't want to talk about anything else, when their kid comes not just first but second third fourth and fifth and everything else in their lives is squashed somewhere down the bottom of the page as an afterthought. When she starts seeing herself not as "Sue" but as "Jamie's mum". I don't think that's good for Sue, or her spouse, or Jamie, or the world. But I'm probably a bad judge of these things - I feel like a Martian or something when it comes to understanding the human parenting instinct.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
Heh. This will so pass. In a very few years little Susie will roll her eyes, dramatically, when Mom introduces herself as Susie's mom. Muttered moans of "Ohhh MOM!" optional.
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
Telling kids that they are special and important to their parents is a good idea. Telling kids that they are just special and important isn't. Particularly when parents back that up by undermining the authority of teachers etc.
I'm still figuring this out, but I think there is a difference between telling someone that they are special, unique, and important in general, and telling someone that their specialness and importance trumps all others. I don't want my kid walking all over other people because she thinks she is more important than they are, but I want her to have enough self confidence to speak up when she has something important to say, or if she is being dismissed for unfair reasons.
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
I look at parenthood with some bewilderment as I have no kind of pull towards it myself. I do feel vaguely creeped out when friends of mine (always women in my personal experience) disappear completely into their identity as mothers. When they don't want to talk about anything else, when their kid comes not just first but second third fourth and fifth and everything else in their lives is squashed somewhere down the bottom of the page as an afterthought. When she starts seeing herself not as "Sue" but as "Jamie's mum". I don't think that's good for Sue, or her spouse, or Jamie, or the world. But I'm probably a bad judge of these things - I feel like a Martian or something when it comes to understanding the human parenting instinct.
That is a balancing act for the parents. The physiological and psychological change that you go through when you become a parent is real and huge. We adopted, and only had 9 days from the time that we got a call that we had been matched with a birth mom until the time that we were at the hospital being handed a newborn. And even then, our bodies physically changed in response to the child. So you have a lot of things telling you "this is your job now," and remembering that there are other things in the world can be kind of tricky. On top of that, it is a real logistical challenge. We try to be low maintenance, but you really cannot leave the house without considering what happens if the kid gets hungry, needs a change, falls asleep, gets cranky, etc. Trust me, we want to be part of the non-parent world as well. It's just tricky. I agree that it is not healthy to make the child your entire world, but sometimes it takes concerted effort to avoid that.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
Empty nester here. Children are grown, one is close, one is far away.
It probably sounds hopelessly romantic or drippy, but having kids increased the bond and expanded the connection, love and everything else within our marriage. Drippy but true. Parenting was and is not a preoccupation, it is part of a balanced life. Though I will say that I had no blazing idea what being busy really was until children. None. Nil. Being busy isn't a religion either.
Now, working - that seems more like a religion. As employers succeed in over-connecting their employers with gadgets and other tracking, encourage workers to live the brand and other such.
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on
:
quote:
On top of that, it is a real logistical challenge. We try to be low maintenance, but you really cannot leave the house without considering what happens if the kid gets hungry, needs a change, falls asleep, gets cranky, etc.
No, really? ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
If you don't put that thought in, you sure end up thinking 'why the f*** did I bother' about whatever it was you thought you were going out to enjoy, because you sure as hell won't be enjoying it!
Our family works 'backwards' according to gender stereotypes. I have a 'little job' and take kids to school / pick them up / play games with them / clean the house (if it happens) / moan at wife for working long hours / complain at her for having wrong priorities. Owning a penis does not seem to rule out this old role, though so far I have avoided shagging my tennis instructor or becoming a lesbian. (ducks)
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
Owning a penis does not seem to rule out this old role, though so far I have avoided shagging my tennis instructor or becoming a lesbian. (ducks)
Damn right.
I'm rubbish at tennis, too.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
I think some parents confuse unconditional love with uncritical love and so produce children who not only think they are the centre of the universe but that they can do no wrong.
Perhaps because my own parents were fairly arms-length, I was determined my own offspring should know they were loved but also that loving someone doesn't necessarily mean you like or approve of all their actions. I also made it quite clear to them that there were no favourites - sometimes one child might get more attention because they needed it but it didn't mean the other wasn't equally valued.
Having a partner who was an only child proved to be more of a challenge.
I do think that smaller families can mean there is more attention paid to each child: when there are four or more parental interest is spread more thinly and the possibility of micro-managing isn't there.
Posted by St Deird (# 7631) on
:
The situations in which I put my son ahead of my husband are ones where his status as "teeny human" take precedence over my husband as "adult human". For instance:
- The house is on fire. Husband can rescue himself from fire; kidlet cannot. Kidlet takes precedence.
- It is dinner time. Husband is capable of getting food himself; kidlet is not. Kidlet takes precedence.
- Both have hurt fingers. Husband is a big boy; kidlet doesn't understand yet and needs comfort and cuddles. Kidlet takes precedence.
These are all situations in which any teeny person would need the same assistance from the nearest available adult. The point is not my son being more important than my husband, but that in certain circumstances taking care of a child is more important than taking care of an adult. In other situations, my husband ranks above my son for me - as, I think, he should.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
St Deird: - The house is on fire. Husband can rescue himself from fire; kidlet cannot. Kidlet takes precedence.
Usually in these examples it is assumed that neither can help themselves. E.g. they're both trapped / unconscious ...
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Banner Lady: TP was raised by parents who made it quite clear that the children were NOT the primary object of their love - this was reserved for their spouse.
Really? This seems fucked up to me. Even if you could measure your love for someone and compare it to that for someone else (I don't think you can; I think this is what "love isn't pie" means), why would you tell them?
Posted by Banner Lady (# 10505) on
:
In an age where birth control was not an option, they were passionately in love with each other until one of them passed away. The kids of that relationship knew that they were the product of that love, and that they were loved and wanted, but that they were somewhat incidental to the main (and very stable) relationship.
I, on the other hand, was brought up by parents who neither wanted each other, nor the children who came along. Now THAT is fucked up.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Banner Lady: In an age where birth control was not an option, they were passionately in love with each other until one of them passed away. The kids of that relationship knew that they were the product of that love, and that they were loved and wanted, but that they were somewhat incidental to the main (and very stable) relationship.
Wow. Consider my mind boggled.
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
St Deird: - The house is on fire. Husband can rescue himself from fire; kidlet cannot. Kidlet takes precedence.
Usually in these examples it is assumed that neither can help themselves. E.g. they're both trapped / unconscious ...
And that's where I answer "the dog." Ask an obnoxious hypothetical, get an obnoxious answer.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Og, King of Bashan: And that's where I answer "the dog." Ask an obnoxious hypothetical, get an obnoxious answer.
Yes I got that. It's a good one.
I guess what it comes down to, is that I don't accept "who would you rescue in case of a fire?" as a proxy for "who do you love most?" However, it seems to me that if you do, assuming that one of them can help themselves seems as wriggling out of the moral question a bit.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
... but not if that wasn't what the poster was getting at in the first place. I took it to mean "I show more attention in a particular situation to the family member who requires it most due to age and inability." I don't think there was an attempt to make it about absolutes, i.e. what if they were both equally out of it. That's a pretty rare situation anyway.
Though for what it's worth, you'd have yet another issue confounding the result--which is, the theoretically helpless spouse would almost certainly urge the conscious one to save the child first. If I had to choose between saving husband or child, you can bet I'd go for the child, just as Mr. Lamb would. It's been clear since birth that either of us would sacrifice ourselves for him--and would expect the other spouse to uphold that choice.
So no, whom you have is not a decent proxy for whom you love most. If that last is even a sensible question.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
Yes, if I survived a calamity because my husband chose to save me at the expense of one of our children, I would be distraught. But I know he'd save the kids first.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
If I had to choose between saving husband or child, you can bet I'd go for the child, just as Mr. Lamb would. It's been clear since birth that either of us would sacrifice ourselves for him--and would expect the other spouse to uphold that choice.
So no, whom you have is not a decent proxy for whom you love most. If that last is even a sensible question.
Agreed on both counts.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I'd postulate that parents who care more for each other (and their own needs) than those of their children is an extremely common and destructive tendency. So rather than "parenting" being the new religion, it is the rather messed up idea that children are an unwelcome appendage to their otherwise glorious relationship which is the real problem.
No, not all relationships have children and no nobody is inferior because they choose not to. A totally valid choice.
But if you have them, put them rather than the relationship first.
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on
:
Maybe having smaller families nowadays influences how children are viewed?
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Lamb Chopped: quote:
Though for what it's worth, you'd have yet another issue confounding the result--which is, the theoretically helpless spouse would almost certainly urge the conscious one to save the child first. If I had to choose between saving husband or child, you can bet I'd go for the child, just as Mr. Lamb would. It's been clear since birth that either of us would sacrifice ourselves for him--and would expect the other spouse to uphold that choice.
So no, whom you save is not a decent proxy for whom you love most. If that last is even a sensible question.
Yes, this is what I was trying to explain with the 'who would you save in a fire' example.
We don't have a dog, but if we did I'd put the dog fairly high on the list of priorities. It would need two of us to rescue the gerbils, because the simplest way of rescuing them would be to pick up their gerbilarium and carry it out of the house and it's too heavy for one person to lift. So if the house really did catch fire, it's not likely we'd be able to rescue them even if there was time to get to them before they were overcome by smoke.
Posted by Paul. (# 37) on
:
Never mind the "who do you love most?" question - which I agree is fairly pointless, love not being pie etc - "who would you save first?" isn't even a very good guide to how you act in every day life is it?
Non-parent here but I'd think that the kind of mundane decisions you have to make are much more a case-by-case basis. Your spouse wants to chat about their day and your child wants help with their homework - who do you spend your time with? Probably the child. Unless the child is perfectly capable of doing the homework and is using the request as a form of procrastination/attention seeking, whilst the spouse has just returned to work after a period of stress-related leave.
I dunno I'm just trying to make up plausible examples but I'm sure there's lots of times where the spouse comes first but has no bearing on the fact you'd still pull the kid out of the flames first.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
If there's a fire in my house, I'm counting on my dog to save me.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Paul.:
Never mind the "who do you love most?" question - which I agree is fairly pointless, love not being pie etc - "who would you save first?" isn't even a very good guide to how you act in every day life is it?
Non-parent here but I'd think that the kind of mundane decisions you have to make are much more a case-by-case basis. Your spouse wants to chat about their day and your child wants help with their homework - who do you spend your time with? Probably the child. Unless the child is perfectly capable of doing the homework and is using the request as a form of procrastination/attention seeking, whilst the spouse has just returned to work after a period of stress-related leave.
I dunno I'm just trying to make up plausible examples but I'm sure there's lots of times where the spouse comes first but has no bearing on the fact you'd still pull the kid out of the flames first.
Non-parent or not, you're spot on. Life is full of these sorts of dilemmas, and framing it in black-and-white terms where you have to consistently choose the same way isn't realistic. Even the work/family balance doesn't always fall the same way, depending on the circumstances, the degree of urgency, the needs of the people involved. One needs to pay attention to the overall skew of it-- if you are always choosing work over family, always choosing kids over spouse-- or even vice versa on either of those-- you may have a problem you need to address. But generally, you will make imperfect decisions in the moment, based on limited information, to choose where you are most needed at that particular time.
Posted by Banner Lady (# 10505) on
:
For me, parenting is like a dance. Sometimes a lot of contact time is involved, and sometimes I get to sit out. We do what is necessary for the better good of everyone - which is why we have gone from a retired couple back to a household of five as our eldest daughter and her two sons attempt to regroup their lives.
This was also the case for my parents-in-law, who had one week's notice to emigrate from one country to another with five children under the age of 7. They did this for the greater good of them all as a family - and it turned out to be a wise move. Their children have had opportunities they would never have had otherwise.
My children are not the centre of my universe, but they can certainly count on parental support if it is possible for us to help. Sometimes it is not possible to do what they ask of us. Sometimes I feel guilty about having to refuse them - but it also gives opportunity for them to have to sort out their own "burning" home issues.
There has never been in our household a policy of "whatever is best for our child we will provide" = rather it is "we will do the best we can with what we have". It is a practical rather than indulgent view, but does not mean we do not care.
I had not realised until this thread that this is a strange philosophy of parenting to many.
[ 05. June 2015, 22:34: Message edited by: Banner Lady ]
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
I don't think it's a religion, more of a superstition - "If you do everything right, your child will grow up happy, healthy and successful" and conversely "If your child is badly behaved/not doing well at school/kidnapped and murdered it's BECAUSE YOU DID SOMETHING WRONG." It takes a very strong-minded person to resist this kind of pressure and avoid buying into the myth.
The trouble is, if you tried to do absolutely everything that the "experts" advise you to do your head would explode. Let them play outside - but keep them safe from paedophiles. Breast-feed them until they're two - but not in public, you shameless hussy. Don't feed them peanuts, they might collapse and die - no, wait, do feed them peanuts, it stops them developing the allergy. Stay at home to look after them! Go out to work! Force them to do their homework! Don't put too much pressure on them!
I could go on, but you get the picture.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I think we're talking about different things here if we are specifically talking about caring for healthy adult children. In my view, the responsibilities of parents to adult children is in no way the same as to minors.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I think we're talking about different things here if we are specifically talking about caring for healthy adult children. In my view, the responsibilities of parents to adult children is in no way the same as to minors.
Responsibilities, yes. Emotional pull/commitment, no. Which only complicates things as your adult child is (perhaps) out of the house, definitely out of your control/supervision, but no less out of your heart-- so the anxiety, prayer, temptation to meddle, only amplify. So, while the time demands are much less (finally done with the diaper changing/carpooling treadmill) in terms of the OP, it doesn't really change anything.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
I think it is also important to go with your own parenting style. If it is not in you to brush your children's teeth for them until they are 15 (I had an aunt who did this to my cousins) then don't.
I am not a helicopter parent. I don't have time. (The great Jerry Pournelle said it: Ye flipping gods, I have books to write.) I know parents who phone their kids daily when they are away at college. I mentioned this to my son the other day (he is now 26, long graduated). He said he was really glad I didn't do that.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
mr cheesy: quote:
I think we're talking about different things here if we are specifically talking about caring for healthy adult children. In my view, the responsibilities of parents to adult children is in no way the same as to minors.
I don't think anyone would disagree with that, but most of the "advice" about parenting is directed at parents of minors.
Oh, and what cliffdweller said. Your child is still your child, however old s/he may be. My mother says the first fifty years are the worst ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on
:
I've been quite upfront with friends and relatives that parenting is not for me. At least one friend has responded with "Oh thank God! So many people seem to just have kids because it's what you do, even though they don't really want them, and the kids are a mess and I have to spend all day trying to teach them."
Here's where I think parenting has parallels with religion. Not so much that we worship our children as gods (although some parents probably do) but that parenting involves intense emotions and work and sacrifice. Sometimes the emotion is enough to carry you through, and sometimes it isn't, but crucially, you have to keep at it. I think there's quite a lot of pressure on mothers in particular, to find raising children endlessly fulfilling and amazing, and a lot of pressure not to admit it if they don't. (In much the same way that many churches want to hear all about how Jesus has transformed your life, but not about the "I'm having a terrible time, can't find God and am thinking of quitting this whole thing" times.)
Time and time again you'll hear "nobody ever regrets having children" and I always think "nobody ever admits it" because if they did they'd be seen as a monster. Not enjoying your children, not being bowled over by their smiles, seems to make you a bad person, even if you get up every day and make their breakfast, wash their clothes, take them to school, help with homework etc. You don't just have to put the work in. You have to love the fact that you have to do it. You don't have to love the work - in fact you can complain endlessly about how exhausted you are and how you have no time, as long as you finish up with "but then my toddler smiles at me and it's all worth it!" It comes down to the maternal bond, which is largely out of your control, and that seems unfair somehow. Someone who says "I feel no bond with my kids" but nonetheless does all the parental work at an exemplary level is likely to be lampooned more than someone who adores her children but is rubbish at looking after them.
And in a way that's what settled things for Mr Liopleurodon and myself. We realised that we'd probably be pretty good parents but we wouldn't enjoy it.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
posted by Liopleurodon quote:
Time and time again you'll hear "nobody ever regrets having children" and I always think "nobody ever admits it" because if they did they'd be seen as a monster.
That may well be true now but wasn't the case when I was growing up.
My own mother's approach to child-rearing could be summed up as preferably at arms-length and she was not unique: a cousin was referred to by both of his parents as 'our odd one' and 'our mistake' and another mate can recall being informed in no uncertain terms that they were a child too many.
Perhaps because the possibility of limiting family size was not such a sure-fire thing, but certainly plenty of my generation (late 1940s- 1950s) grew up knowing that our mother was less than thrilled with the arrival of at least one of her children.
As for parenting becoming a modern-day religion with the child's needs being put first at all times, it varies with the age of the child.
For the past 3 years I've been providing a home during the university vacations for one of my children's friends because their own parent refused to give him any sort of roof (not even the shed) after he finished his A levels and he has no other relatives who are prepared to help.
I also provide shelter for another of the children's friends whose parents won't house him during the long summer vacations if he can't pay rent of £15 a day, payable up-front. His grandparents and other relatives won't get involved because they say it is between him and his parents. So, he applies for work here and, if he can afford it, and if his parents find it convenient, he goes home for a week towards the end of the holidays. What happens when he is due to graduate next year God only knows.
I've now had a request from my sons to see if we can shoehorn in another of their mates because mother and her boyfriend have informed them that once they turn 21 (birthday is 14th July) they can either pay £90 a week to live at home or get out. The problem for me this time is the friend is female and so can't share a room with any of the other waifs-and-strays, so it looks like I'm going to lose my living room.
I'm not unique: a riding friend has an 18 year old friend of her daughter's camping out because her mother has thrown her out - parents are pillars of their local church and farming community - and a male friend of the other daughter living in a converted hay-loft because of similar problems to my first 'lodger'.
All of this doesn't come cheap at any level, but my friend and I are giving these children a base because someone has to and yet the obvious people - their parents - seem unwilling to do so. My growing band of 21 year old lodgers are lovely but at 60 I wasn't expecting to be running a de facto hostel for homeless twenty-somethings.
Yes, there are some parents out there for whom the arrival of a child means all other priorities and responsibilities end, but there are also parents who, to my mind, behave with breathtaking selfishness.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
Yes. Thank you, l'organist, for being that place of refuge. If I could, I would send you a bundle of clean sheets and assorted snack foods to help outfit your ragtag extended family.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
Kind thought, Cliffdweller.
My friends now refer to my waifs as my 'lost boys' - which I think is a pretty good description (although we'll have to change it as/when Cordelia joins us).
As for the practicalities: I've tons of bedding and other bits and pieces and for the rest - having been brought up in a parsonage I can do thrifty living.
Now my own two are about to graduate it will be slightly easier because I won't be spending out on two lots of university house shares as well as the roof here.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
I have definitely noticed a change in parenting style over 3 generations. And I say that as a granddaughter, daughter, mother and grandmother; and also as a teacher over many years. Parents are much more closely involved in the details of their children's lives now - not least because of perceived child safety issues. This can lead to hothousing and lack of trust in adults in general.
I'm rather glad I grew up as a free range child, able to explore gradually further and further away from home, on my own, as I don't think I could have coped with anyone breathing down my neck.
When I first started teaching, parents let their children walk to school on their own and never set foot inside the classroom except on Parents' Day. Perhaps this was too little interest - it's difficult to know where a healthy balance might be between trusting professionals to get on with the job, and being overanxious that your child can't manage without you.
There is sometimes a tendency now to treat children as little princesses, which to me seems to be as extreme a response as that from a few generations ago where children were treated more as servants - the older ones staying home from school to help mother bring up the younger ones, and to keep the house clean.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Well, I recently got into trouble over this. It's time for university open days, so I'm tasked to do all the booking online (it's too stressful for Miss Tor do it herself because exams).
So I do. I line up all the ducks, three universities, three consecutive days, it's a stretch, but if one of us drives her from A to B to C, we can do it.
And inexplicably, I'm in the dog house for not booking "and guest" places. "Hang on," I say to Mrs Tor, "when we went to university open days, we went by train to all over the UK, by ourselves, had a look around, and came home, all without the aid of the internet and mobile phones. If I'm going with Miss Tor, then I'm kicking her out at the right place at the right time, then buggering off to find a decent museum or two. She can text me when she's done, and we'll drive to the next city."
But no. Both Mrs and Miss Tor look at me as if I'd suggested an afternoon's bear-baiting. When the hell did going to universities with your nearly-adult children become a 'thing'? And why didn't I get the memo?
Posted by Ann (# 94) on
:
My youngest is at uni and his elder sisters went to uni before. They were lucky that I slowed the car for them to get out before I went and did something else. The only time I went round with one of them was because they'd applied to my old uni and I wanted to see how much it had changed. (It had expanded quite a bit - where did that canal come from?)
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
I showed my daughter how to use public transport the summer holiday before* and paid for the fares for her to go to the open days, alone. She was one of a handful of students who turned up independently, two or three each open day. She also found she took other students under her wing as she knew how to buy the local street maps and navigate herself across unknown cities.
Mostly it made her look good, but for the open day at one university, one of your more local ones, Doc Tor, she was furious because the useful information was there for parents only: she wasn't allowed in to the financial and practical talk and was expected to go to the talk about drinking places and clubbing, which as alcohol makes her really ill (another allergy) interested her not at all. She refused their offer.
* we went on a couple of walking holidays using public transport, moving between hostels that were closing down
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
But no. Both Mrs and Miss Tor look at me as if I'd suggested an afternoon's bear-baiting. When the hell did going to universities with your nearly-adult children become a 'thing'? And why didn't I get the memo?
Search me. I'd have been mortified if I had shown up at a university open day trying to look all adult and capable (yeah, right!) with my parents in tow.
There appears to be a general insistence by "authority" - whether that be school, police, social services or whoever - that you should treat your children like the least capable children of their age (cf. numerous prosecutions, threats of same etc. for leaving perfectly happy children in the car for five minutes on a mild day, because "anything might happen to them"). If you're designing a children's programme at a museum, for example, it's not unreasonable to plan for the case that all the children you get are maximally irresponsible, but that seems like a poor idea when dealing with your own children, who you presumably know.
Eldest Cnihtlet is pretty sensible and responsible, and I have trusted her to be able to do all kinds of things by herself. There are one or two of her friends in whom I'd place similar trust, but only one or two. By comparison, Cnihtlet #2 is rather more, shall we say, impulse-led. He needs rather more specific instructions. He's the one who is likely to be found standing in a pile of broken something looking all surprised that gravity exists. It'll take a little longer before he's ready for quite the same degree of freedom.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
I went round the University Open Days with elder child, but not with younger child, because she'd tagged along to a couple of her brother's visits and knew the ropes. A surprising amount of teens were there with both parents, flanking them protectively, one on each side.
Also, younger child had planned her University applications on the time-honoured method of getting good exam results at school, whilst elder child was hoping that a passionate commitment to his chosen subject and a winning smile might get him in. University visits aren't straightforward when you're trying to get in via self-belief and magic beans.
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on
:
'But will you love me tomorrow...?'
Unless things have changed in the two years since I bade HE teaching adieu, then in a few months' time should those same open-day parents want to talk to a lecturer about their offspring's academic performance, they'll quite properly be told to feck off. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
And not admitting an applicant to a talk on finance etc is bizarre.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
In 1987, my older daughter went alone to the University of Texas in Austin for freshman orientation. We were living in New Hampshire at the time.
We got her plane tickets and motel reservations. We told her that while she was on the campus she could talk to anyone she wanted to. Off campus, she should talk only to taxi drivers, restaurant waiters, and desk clerks at the motel. We told her to go straight to supper after checking into the motel. After supper she was to go to her motel room and make sure the door and windows were locked. She was to stay there until morning.
This worked out fine. She was probably nervous, but she managed everything just fine. The experience was good for her.
Moo
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Well, I recently got into trouble over this. It's time for university open days, so I'm tasked to do all the booking online (it's too stressful for Miss Tor do it herself because exams).
So I do. I line up all the ducks, three universities, three consecutive days, it's a stretch, but if one of us drives her from A to B to C, we can do it.
And inexplicably, I'm in the dog house for not booking "and guest" places. "Hang on," I say to Mrs Tor, "when we went to university open days, we went by train to all over the UK, by ourselves, had a look around, and came home, all without the aid of the internet and mobile phones. If I'm going with Miss Tor, then I'm kicking her out at the right place at the right time, then buggering off to find a decent museum or two. She can text me when she's done, and we'll drive to the next city."
But no. Both Mrs and Miss Tor look at me as if I'd suggested an afternoon's bear-baiting. When the hell did going to universities with your nearly-adult children become a 'thing'? And why didn't I get the memo?
Sadly I think it a) things have changed over the last 20 years and b) there is a difference for young men and ladies.
From about 15/16, I used to travel every year more than 5 hours to go to camp on the train. Nothing bad happened.
But then, I'm not sure whether I'd want my daughter to do that. Even university campuses can be dangerous places, when we studied a girl was murdered on the campus..
I think the combination of unfamiliar places, not knowing anyone and silly behaviour by students makes this a worry. My teen is fairly sensible but she is quite small, and gets worried easily. Hopefully we'll be able to help he gently integrate into university..
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
Maybe because of my inability to be in two places at once, but it never occurred to me to do the uni open-day thing with my children.
Sure, took them to the location, then had time for me. So looking at a 2 unis back home in Wales meant a chance to visit elderly relatives on one day, a day at the beach on the other. With two children looking at universities at the same time, the down-side was I seemed to spend a lot of time on motorways; but the plus side was being able to catch up with friends/godchildren I hadn't seen for ages.
Public transport wasn't an option because, IME, unless you live near a railway 'hub' (which we don't) you need a full day just to get to some places.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
I went to Uni. when I was 17, so - assuming the Open Days were in the previous autumn - I was still 16 went to them by myself. Admittedly two of the places were pretty local (gettable-to by Underground), but I would never have thought of asking a parent to take me to any of them.
Nor, when I got to Uni., was I ever fetched and carried - except once or twice when one of my parents came to a choral concert at the end of term and then stayed the night in a hotel. Normally I went by train and luggage was collected and delivered by British Road Services.
Admittedly there was a "freshers' special train" from London at the beginning of my first year.
[ 18. June 2015, 12:31: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Admittedly there was a "freshers' special train" from London at the beginning of my first year.
Did it leave from Platform 9¾ ?
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
I certainly went to college alone thousands of miles away and my parents never came with me or anything. To be fair though I think I was one of the only freshman who did arrive alone. (Was fine with me once I got my luggage to my dorm. That was pretty horrible since the shuttle dropped me off in the wrong place, but otherwise I was on my own and liked it like that.) Still if everyone else arrives with their parents probably some people would feel weird being the only one alone.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Admittedly there was a "freshers' special train" from London at the beginning of my first year.
Did it leave from Platform 9¾ ?
Wrong station, I'm afraid: it was Waterloo, not King's Cross. And instead of being a lovely steam train like this, it was a much more prosaic one, chartered by the University Students' Union.
[ 18. June 2015, 14:51: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I showed my daughter how to use public transport the summer holiday before ...
This is very good, but I'm slightly puzzled that by the time she got into the sixth form she didn't know how to use public transport anyway. Or were you way out in the sticks where there really wasn't anything available?
[ 18. June 2015, 14:59: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I showed my daughter how to use public transport the summer holiday before
I used to use a bus that went via the university of the West of England and was amazed to wirtness the following exchange between the drivfer a and new student:
What's this?
It's a bus ticket.
What do I do with it?
You hold it until you finish your journey and then you throw it away.
I suppose she had been ferried arounds in her parents' car to all those ballet lessons.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
You're almost certainly right.
But, if she came from London, she might not have been familiar with bus tickets as people have to use Oyster cards and the like.
And there used to be places where you just put your money in a fare box and no tickets were issued ... here in East of Greenwich, we have fare boxes with tickets.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I showed my daughter how to use public transport the summer holiday before ...
This is very good, but I'm slightly puzzled that by the time she got into the sixth form she didn't know how to use public transport anyway. Or were you way out in the sticks where there really wasn't anything available?
Well, not that it's any of your business, but there were a couple of complications. She was very ill for her GCSE and lower Sixth Form years, so although we'd been building independence from her arrival in secondary school, being ill meant she couldn't walk let alone travel independently for some years.
Secondly, we have buses and we just have London Underground locally. She was used to bussing herself to and from college independently, but she became ill before I felt she was old enough and sensible enough to travel independently on the tube, so she wasn't used to getting across London, finding a mainline station, the right platform and train to travel across country, nor changing mid-country onto branch lines.
This one wasn't helped by her applications being for distant universities as there was no way, no how she was applying for London universities and being expected to live at home (with several hours of commuting each day in the rush hour).
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
My father showed me how to use public transport when I was 12.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
Son no. 1 started using public transport quite independently when he was 11, the second one took longer (age 14), when I said he really had to. I didn't get involved in university visits because I knew they'd have different ideas to me (have you seen what Cardiff streets look like on bin day?!).
Son no. 1 was told by his interviewing tutor that he was impressed that he'd travelled there alone (do parents normally even accompany their offspring to interviews?!) - and he received a very good offer.
I think what frightens me more is when parents never let their offspring out of their sight until they are 18, at which point they suddenly release them to backpack around obscure, isolated parts of the world. Woah!
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
You can't get judgemental about the public transport thing with any logic. I first took a bus at age nineteen or so (had no clue what I was doing, but figured it out) because public transport just wasn't a Thing where I was. And I didn't learn to work an elevator until roughly the same age. I was in Los Angeles County, for gosh sakes. Nothing out here had an elevator, nothing out here was more than a story or two (three if you're pushing it). Earthquakes.
On the other hand, I was damn good at lifeguarding.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
What's this?
It's a bus ticket.
What do I do with it?
You hold it until you finish your journey and then you throw it away.
This would be my husband! He never uses buses. He has just returned from cycling from Amsterdam to Saltzburg, but would never dream of catching a bus.
We all have different 'skills' - many need to be learned as adults. We can't prepare our children for every eventuality. The thing is to be sure they are independent and can think on their feet.
We live in a high crime area and my sons have both been threatened with knives, more than once. Luckily they can both run like the wind and extracted themselves that way. My youngest has taken up a self-defence martial art since (he says) he's slowed down sinnce he turned 25. Mind you, he has more bruises since he took it up than every before!
<edited becos aye cant speel>
[ 27. June 2015, 11:51: Message edited by: Boogie ]
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
You can't get judgemental about the public transport thing with any logic.
I don't think anyone is being judgmental, only discussing by what age it is sensible to have introduced a son or daughter to a particular aspect of independent living. Which is not the same thing at all. For one family, being able to cook would take precedence over being able to navigate the bus system. But ultimately it's rather helpful to be able to do both by the time one leaves home.
Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on
:
One of the most liberating things I ever did was during the first day of freshman orientation, before my parents had even left campus. They gave me a form to sign asking me if I wanted to waive my rights under FERPA to keep my university records private from my parents.
Checked every "I do not waive my rights" box I could find and signed it with a flourish. Not that I don't like my parents, but after nineteen years of living with parents who, working for the school system, knew every little detail about my day before I'd gotten home, it was good to know that I could control, with the law on my side, what they knew about my time at school.
Not that I didn't blather about it anyway, me and my honest mouth.
And for those of you who think knowing how to navigate public transit is something every adult should Just Know: the first time I ever had to pay for a bus ride was while traveling in Wales during my junior year abroad—I was 21 at the time. Grew up in a culture where everyone drove, got cars at 16, and only had to take public transit (mostly subways, which were pretty novel and a bit of a tourist attraction in their own right) when visiting other cities like DC or Boston. Frankly, up until the moment I was standing in Harlech trying to make a connection, my knowledge of the aorist in Attic Greek had been much more useful than how to navigate any kind of bus system.
Posted by M. (# 3291) on
:
I was just thinking that I grew up using London buses and used them by myself for school from the age of 11, but I wouldn't know how to use a London bus now.
M.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
For one family, being able to cook would take precedence over being able to navigate the bus system. But ultimately it's rather helpful to be able to do both by the time one leaves home.
My no:1 priority was to teach them both to iron, aged twelve. After that I ironed nothing but my own essential work stuff. If they wanted their school uniforms ironed they did it themselves - if not they went to school in creased uniforms.
There are many lessons in this exercise it turns out.
They learned that Mum doesn't = servant.
They learned to iron.
They learned to choose if they wanted to look smart or not.
I learned to let go. As in not letting what they look like bother me.
I learned to let them make their own choices and mistakes. We don't learn by having stuff done for us. I meet too many children who can't do buttons and laces aged 10, never mind 5!
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
I was wiped out by chickenpox when my two were aged 7 and just-turned-5. My parents took the 5 year old away, but I had a couple of days when my 7 year old (off school with chickenpox) was fending for himself because I couldn't stand up.
I taught them both to cook a bit (beans on toast, scrambled egg on toast) very soon after that. They could draw up a shopping list, produce a three course meal, plus coffee, and wash up afterwards between them by the time they were 10 and 8.
OTOH, my son was 17 before he could tie his shoelaces. For so long as he could get away with velcro straps on his shoes, he just didn't see the point. Also, why bother learning to tie a tie when someone at the school bus stop will tie it for you?
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
My no:1 priority was to teach them both to iron, aged twelve. After that I ironed nothing but my own essential work stuff.
What is this "iron" of which you speak?
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0