Frannie and EJ have been asking non stop what happened on 9/11. I have explained that some bad people killed a lot of people. I have not told them about the airplanes flying into the buildings. I do not want them to have a fear of flying as all my family lives1500 miles away. I know this isn't enough for my fact finding son. I did not know anyone that lost a life but I do know one of the air traffic controllers that lost a plane
What have you told your kids?
Thanks
Sheila
As usual, we erred on the side of full disclosure for DD-then6. She has flown several times, and we explained to her that all those annoying security checks (she became a real pro at the security line, to the amusement of those around her) were put in place after 9/11 to prevent that sort of thing from happening again.
Naturally, we kept our lack of faith in the process to ourselves, so I guess this is a different value for "full" in full disclosure.
In our case, we probably needn't have worried, because DD didn't identify with the situation... to her, this was something that happened long, long ago, to people she'd never heard of, in places she'd never been.
At the time it happened, youngest DS was 3 and not paying much attention. Eldest DS though was 8 and plenty aware. It's never easy as a parent to know how much to explain and what is wise to hold back on until a later time.
I think at this point truth might be the best policy...oh, not necessarily all the details mind you, however, the truth of the matter is pretty simple at this point and doesn't need to be related in a complex manner. Keep it simple and truthful, something like....
"There was a group of people over seas that decided it wanted to make a point in a very heartless and violent way. They tricked people, stole planes while in the air, and crashed them into some very important buildings. A lot of people died that day. Our country was very sad, shocked, and it changed the way we as a country view our responsibility to protect ourselves from such a threat. Since that time the government has put a lot of security measures in place to help ensure such an event doesn't happen again."
If you kids inquire further, explain about airport security, Air Marshals, hunting down such people no matter where in the world they are, etc.
It's okay for kids to know that not everyone in the world is safe, it's important in fact. It's also important to let them know that many things are being done to help ensure such an event doesn't happen again.
It hasn't come up with DS3. I think the first time I had an in-depth discussion on the events of 9/11 with DS7 was when he was four, and he came in the room when a documentary was on. I let him watch with me, and he saw quite a bit, including the planes hitting the buildings, people falling from the World Trade Center, etc. We discussed what had happened, who had caused the events and why, and the nature of terrorism in general.
In my experience, children are usually as curious about topics related to death as they are about all things. I don't see a reason to shy away from a discussion of terrorism with a child who's interested, as long as it doesn't seem to be doing harm.
Here in the United States we seem to have a general aversion to discussing death, but in my personal opinion that's unhealthy. It's better for a child to have a natural introduction to thinking about death and dying, so that it's not such a shocking, terrible event when it occurs.
We talked about it with DS maybe 2 years ago? I think they had discussed it in his Kinder classroom. We told him basically what happened, and explained that soldiers went to war to make sure it didn't happen again (his uncle was in Iraq at that time) and that we setup more security at the airport, yada yada yada. I kept my personal opinions out of it, basically, and assured him that we were safe now.
We started discussing 9/11 this spring because of Memorial Day and a parade we attended to welcome home troops from mid-east conflicts. DS does not have serious anxiety issues, so he digested the information pretty well.
We have had to deal with violence and death on a firsthand basis. The pastor of our church was murdered in the middle of service by a mentally ill gunman (we were not present). We lost my ds' baby brother when ds was 3, and our best friends lost their 6 year-old several years ago. He talks about death so easily, I always have to warn his teachers.
I clearly remember my mom discussing a shooting at McDonalds when I was pretty young ,and how some kids survived by playing dead. She also really impressed upon me what it was like when Kennedy was assassinated. I suppose it's a balance - I was a very anxious kid who maybe saw too much (Tv, movies, real life) too early. But I appreciate the sense of history I learned from her reflections on important events of our past.
How to explain it to a child depends a bit on the child, but for the most part I've found that with my kids the things I'm think will be scary to them are usually not the things that truly worry them. Another important thing to keep in mind is that your children may be talking about it at school - in detail, if not in class they may hear about it from friends. If my children were asking for more info, I'd give it to them - I'd for sure tell them about the airplanes flying into the buildings because they *are* going to hear about that.
FWIW mine have known about the airplanes etc from the time they were in first grade, possibly earlier. They've all happily climbed on airplanes many many times since then and don't have second thoughts about it - the act of terrorists several years ago is far removed in their minds from flying to see cousins or on a fun trip.
Best wishes,
polarbear
I am finding again and again that it's worth getting out in front of the world on this stuff. If I've briefed my kids, they have facts and a way of coping. If they hear something at school or camp, they have whatever their peers or teachers gave them, and possibly not enough information to devise their own coping strategies without my help.
We found that discussion of 9/11 started in kindergarten in our elementary school. Didn't leave me much time to get out in front, but I have since learned to.
DeeDee
ETA: And I do try to give enough facts that what others say can be slotted into my story. I do tell about the airplanes, much in the manner of OldDad above in this thread.
Frannie and EJ have been asking non stop what happened on 9/11. I have explained that some bad people killed a lot of people.
True as far as it goes, but at some point children should learn that 9/11 was part of a jihad, and what the word "jihad" means.
Our politically correct schools are unlikely to do so.
When I was growing up an event I remember was the Soviet Union invading Afghanistan in 1979. "Bad people invading" is not a false description of that event, but a parent would need to talk about the Cold War to put the invasion in context. 9/11 also needs to be put in context.
I had not discussed this with my very sensitive DD because I knew it would be the cause of much sadness and anxiety. They then did quite a lot about it in school last year (grade 2). I wished I had "gotten out ahead," as said above. It was a long time before she went to sleep that night.
Mr. Rogers talks about "looking for the helpers." This has been great advice for us. Look for the heroes, and draw your children's attention to them, when dealing with such a dark and sad subject.
Interestingly, DD brings up 9/11 when we are around tall buildings and skyscrapers, not when we are in airplanes.
I let him watch with me, and he saw quite a bit, including the planes hitting the buildings, people falling from the World Trade Center, etc.
This is such a YMMV thing. I would never allow DD to see this in a million years. She would be incredibly distraught by it. I am sure you know your child, but I would not recommend that most children see such footage. Images are hard to erase once seen. (I myself have been careful to avoid the "bodies falling" images. I know it happened. I don't need to see it.)
I agree with you Dude that simple and straightforward is best. I find that the more vague and evasive I am, the more interested DD and DS become and the more info they want.
I also heartily agree lucounu that we are a death-averse society, preferring to pretend that we can all stay young forever. I had a consuming fear of death as a child and have tried very intentionally to teach my kids that death is a natural part of life.
It's particularly important in our family because DH and I both work in the criminal justice system where death is a regular part of our professional lives. DH defended a death penalty case for 3 months this year and we had lots of family discussion about that issue at the dinner table. My approach for all these issues has been to give basic, kid-edited information. Sometimes really bad things happen to kids in my world and that's much harder to explain and gets more heavily edited. Neither DD nor DS has an anxiety problem which would complicate these matters much more.
My professional life still has much less death and mayhem than say, "The Avengers" movie. Our society often glamorizes violence as entertainment. I also want my kids to understand that real violence is not at all entertaining and results in tragedy and loss to real people.
Mr. Rogers talks about "looking for the helpers." This has been great advice for us. Look for the heroes, and draw your children's attention to them, when dealing with such a dark and sad subject.
Yes, excellent language!
When talking danger, we also talk safety or protection strategies. This really helps anxious people feel less anxious, and is generally good training so that the kids will know what to do in the world if bad things happen.
DeeDee
My professional life still has much less death and mayhem than say, "The Avengers" movie. Our society often glamorizes violence as entertainment. I also want my kids to understand that real violence is not at all entertaining and results in tragedy and loss to real people.
Sometimes violence is needed to stop bad people, both domestic and foreign. If my children raised the topic of 9/11 I may mention that the Osama bin Laden, leader of al Qaeda, was recently killed by our Navy Seals.
I had not discussed this with my very sensitive DD because I knew it would be the cause of much sadness and anxiety. They then did quite a lot about it in school last year (grade 2). I wished I had "gotten out ahead," as said above. It was a long time before she went to sleep that night.
Mr. Rogers talks about "looking for the helpers." This has been great advice for us. Look for the heroes, and draw your children's attention to them, when dealing with such a dark and sad subject.
Interestingly, DD brings up 9/11 when we are around tall buildings and skyscrapers, not when we are in airplanes.I let him watch with me, and he saw quite a bit, including the planes hitting the buildings, people falling from the World Trade Center, etc.
This is such a YMMV thing. I would never allow DD to see this in a million years. She would be incredibly distraught by it. I am sure you know your child, but I would not recommend that most children see such footage. Images are hard to erase once seen. (I myself have been careful to avoid the "bodies falling" images. I know it happened. I don't need to see it.)
Interestingly, this was also what brought out DD's awareness months later when she was a toddler. We had to 'talk her down' while she was a hysterical mess as a not-quite-3yo, and this was elicited by passing a very tall pulp mill stack on the freeway. So completely out of the blue-- if she hadn't been babbling about airplanes and "the building could fall down" I would never have put it together.
The upshot was that I will
never forget the look of dawning horror as we-- trucks whizzing past us at 75mph-- explained that she didn't need to be worried about ALL airplanes, or tall buildings; that the events in question were
not an accident. That look will haunt me forever, because that is when my sweet little girl learned that people really are capable of incomprehensible evil. I could see her put it together. She looked puzzled at first, and then insisted that I answer the direct question; "Someone crashed the airplane ON PURPOSE??" I explained it as mental illness of a sort. I have not regretted that.
I agree WHOLEHEARTEDLY about full disclosure to the greatest extent that our kids can handle it. The reason is that PG kids in particular are
likely to absorb more information about the events than we think that they've been exposed to. Something this awful is so vastly age-inappropriate for them to try to manage alone.
I had a consuming fear of death as a child
Me too.
Sometimes really bad things happen to kids in my world and that's much harder to explain and gets more heavily edited.
Same here.
I... want my kids to understand that real violence is not at all entertaining and results in tragedy and loss to real people.
Yes, I think that's very important. I let my sons watch some cartoonish violence such as in superhero movies, but even DS3 is learning that it's different in real life.
This is such a YMMV thing. I would never allow DD to see this in a million years. She would be incredibly distraught by it. I am sure you know your child, but I would not recommend that most children see such footage. Images are hard to erase once seen.
I would recommend that children with extreme sensitivity to such things not be shown such footage. But I also feel that a lot of children could be intellectually prepared to deal with such things at a young age, and that some seeming sensitivity is caused by unnecessary sheltering (not in your case). If a child has been taught that life is full of unicorns and fairy princesses who dispense light and magic wherever they go, of course it's going to be a bit shocking to see people plummeting to their deaths. A certain intellectual progression has to happen, and I'd expect an adult sheltered from reality to be easily distraught as well without having been properly taught.
But for a child with the proper basis for understanding the significance of what she sees, it should be fine; my son didn't bat an eye at that particular footage, though he was very interested and appropriately sad for the people that died. Many children aren't provided with that basis at a young age, at least in the US, but it doesn't have to be that way. There's nothing biological which prevents it. Being emotionally ready depends much more on intellectual preparedness than physical maturity.
I agree WHOLEHEARTEDLY about full disclosure to the greatest extent that our kids can handle it. The reason is that PG kids in particular are likely to absorb more information about the events than we think that they've been exposed to. Something this awful is so vastly age-inappropriate for them to try to manage alone.
That's a good point, and a thought that has influenced the way I'm raising our sons. Complete readiness for a concept is one thing, and a need to put it into the proper light another. Our kids wouldn't find a diet of "age appropriate" fluff satisfying on an intellectual level anyway. They're like many kids in my experience, with a healthy appetite for the interesting, bizarre, and macabre. And, perhaps due to their giftedness, they have a tendency to ask big moral questions early and often, and to be unsatisfied with vague answers.
ETA: I think there's an oversimplified understanding of the emotional needs of children, and it's furthered regarding gifted children by an oversimplified set of beliefs about asynchronized development. A five year old student studying high school concepts is probably emotionally ready for those concepts if presented on a solid foundation, though she may show some normal five-year-old emotional lability.
I agree.
My daughter is not over-sensitive that way, but we haven't really sheltered her from much. Part of that is because it was necessary (in our opinion) for her to NOT be sheltered from her (occasionally unpleasant/harsh) reality in a personal sense, and partly because it was frankly impossible in a child that reads young.
I mean, when they can read Newsweek and Time at the checkstand, the cat is out of the bag.
This prepared my daughter to have the emotional foundation to understand some of the most difficult topics taught in middle and high school. After all, genocide is a lesson in pretty much every history class. How else to place Anne Frank in context?
I'm of the belief that feeling horrible when one reads those things is normal. Translating that feeling into a resolve to make the world a BETTER place is no bad thing, I think.
I do have a child with some anxiety issues, so there's that. I could be accused of sheltering, I suppose. We do not watch the news or listen to NPR with DD around. I always answer questions honestly and pretty completely. DD is certainly aware of some basic ugly facts of history. However, to me there is a big difference between "Here are the facts of what happened" and "Here, let's watch a documentary with graphic footage of deaths." Similarly, there are books I'm not giving her at this time. She may come across them but I hope not yet. Her teacher gave her Anne Frank last year and I very earnestly asked her not to read it yet (she actually chose not to, to my surprise). She isn't ready. Some kids are walking live nerves with a raw heart very close to the surface. DD was crying about a dying dragonfly in the garden the other day. She cries about plastic in the ocean killing sea turtles. BTW, she has lost family members, so it's not that she's a child with no experience of true loss.
I do have a child with some anxiety issues, so there's that. I could be accused of sheltering, I suppose. We do not watch the news or listen to NPR with DD around.
I wouldn't accuse you of anything.
I think every parent has some idea of what their particular child is capable of understanding and coping with at a given time.
It also seems to me that good parenting has long-term goals, knowing that eventually the child has to be exposed to the world and understand and cope with all that's out there. But that doesn't change the fact that some kids have to get to that full-coping-readiness on a slower curve than others do.
DeeDee
Yes. What a particular child can manage is completely individual.
ultramarina, I agree with DeeDee and HowlerKarma. It sounds like you're doing what you should do for your daughter. In addition I tend to agree with you that many young (U.S.) children wouldn't be ready for 9/11 footage-- we may only differ on the extent to which they could be.
DD#1 who is 9 learned about 9/11 for the first time last year in school. She knows the gist of it but what she doesn't really know is that they were passenger planes with passengers on them. This is not something I'm going to tell her about either seeing how dh travels extensively for work (globally) and I don't need to create any more anxiety for her than she already has.
I do have a child with some anxiety issues, so there's that. I could be accused of sheltering, I suppose. We do not watch the news or listen to NPR with DD around. I always answer questions honestly and pretty completely. DD is certainly aware of some basic ugly facts of history. However, to me there is a big difference between "Here are the facts of what happened" and "Here, let's watch a documentary with graphic footage of deaths." Similarly, there are books I'm not giving her at this time. She may come across them but I hope not yet. Her teacher gave her Anne Frank last year and I very earnestly asked her not to read it yet (she actually chose not to, to my surprise). She isn't ready. Some kids are walking live nerves with a raw heart very close to the surface. DD was crying about a dying dragonfly in the garden the other day. She cries about plastic in the ocean killing sea turtles. BTW, she has lost family members, so it's not that she's a child with no experience of true loss.
She sounds so much like my oldest dd. She is extremely sensitive and it is difficult when she wants to know everything about the world and yet gets so upset about the truths of it all.
This is such a YMMV thing. I would never allow DD to see this in a million years. She would be incredibly distraught by it. I am sure you know your child, but I would not recommend that most children see such footage. Images are hard to erase once seen. (I myself have been careful to avoid the "bodies falling" images. I know it happened. I don't need to see it.)
I'm with you there. I'd never let my two watch this.
They're starting to watch scarier/less innocent movies, but we talk about how it's fake (stunts, make up, computer editing, etc etc). Discussing what happened on 9/11 is a far cry from letting my kids watch someone fall out of a building and not be able to tell them it's just a stunt man. It's just too... graphic and haunting. And so sad.
If a child has been taught that life is full of unicorns and fairy princesses who dispense light and magic wherever they go, of course it's going to be a bit shocking to see people plummeting to their deaths. A certain intellectual progression has to happen, and I'd expect an adult sheltered from reality to be easily distraught as well without having been properly taught.
I keep coming back to this. It doesn't make sense to me. I have never hidden the reality of death from my children or taught them to believe that life is a happy unicorn merry-go-round. Regardless, seeing innocent people plummet to their deaths as the result of a heinous, cowardly surprise attack would certainly be more than a bit shocking to them.
I see no way to "properly teach them" not to be shocked by it. I hope not to teach them this, in fact.
If a child has been taught that life is full of unicorns and fairy princesses who dispense light and magic wherever they go, of course it's going to be a bit shocking to see people plummeting to their deaths. A certain intellectual progression has to happen, and I'd expect an adult sheltered from reality to be easily distraught as well without having been properly taught.
I keep coming back to this. It doesn't make sense to me. I have never hidden the reality of death from my children or taught them to believe that life is a happy unicorn merry-go-round. Regardless, seeing innocent people plummet to their deaths as the result of a heinous, cowardly surprise attack would certainly be more than a bit shocking to them.
I see no way to "properly teach them" not to be shocked by it. I hope not to teach them this, in fact.
I think it's about balance. Part of our job is to prepare them for life later on and sheltering them is not going to do that. At our house we watch the news, and we talk about unfortunate things that sometimes happen in the world.
We can each only make choices that are right for the ages and sensitivity levels of our kids (some sensitivities are inherent and not developed through excessive sheltering).
My personal feeling is that watching the 9/11 footage is not going to benefit them. Watching news coverage of a death due to drunk driving, on the other hand, can by teaching them a life lesson. They can choose whether or not they travel with a drunk driver, but they can't choose what actions terrorists take.
When Mr W asked, I gave him the truth in highlight form.
He knows he comes from a military family and his GF is a cop. And he has several great uncles who died in war or who came back changed. He also has relative who farm and hears those discussions.
If a child has been taught that life is full of unicorns and fairy princesses who dispense light and magic wherever they go, of course it's going to be a bit too shocking to see people plummeting to their deaths. A certain intellectual progression has to happen, and I'd expect an adult sheltered from reality to be easily distraught as well without having been properly taught.
I keep coming back to this. It doesn't make sense to me. I have never hidden the reality of death from my children or taught them to believe that life is a happy unicorn merry-go-round. Regardless, seeing innocent people plummet to their deaths as the result of a heinous, cowardly surprise attack would certainly be more than a bit shocking to them.
I see no way to "properly teach them" not to be shocked by it. I hope not to teach them this, in fact.
Okay. Fixed. You're right that it's inherently somewhat shocking or at least surprising to see people fall from a skyscraper during an unprecedented terrorist attack-- but in context the point was, of course, that people can learn to tolerate such things so that they're not incapacitated by them, not that we should be blase about sudden catastrophes. We can zero in on a single word typed in a post and ignore the rest of the post, or we can move on and discuss the actual ideas we're presenting to each other.
Thanks to the way my son has been introduced to the topic of 9/11 and many others, I can have a healthy discussion with him about world political events without whitewashing or hiding anything. He would have arrived at his current level of understanding at some point anyway, unless he lived in a locked room without access to media; he has just arrived at it earlier than many people do, but this fits with his accelerated intellectual development. I see no more reason to shield him from truths he's ready to learn than I do to lie to him about Santa Claus when he's figured out the fake.
I think it's about balance.
I agree, and a constantly shifting one at that with a rapidly developing intellect.
We can each only make choices that are right for the ages and sensitivity levels of our kids (some sensitivities are inherent and not developed through excessive sheltering).
This is a tricky statement. Some sheltering is inherent in your idea of balance, but people obviously can assign different meanings to "excessive". And while I'm not a psychologist, it's obvious to me that though one might have a genetic predisposition to neuroses, anxiety disorders and the like, a large component of almost all human behavior is learned as well. Just as one may learn to lessen anxiety in therapy, anxiety can be caused or heightened with the wrong approach too.
As an example, when my son briefly showed a beginning tendency to be afraid of the dark, instead of leaving the lights on at night and giving him a big flashlight, which would have avoided expressions of fear but actually validated and strengthened the fear itself, I worked to help him dispel it. It seems to me that unhealthy anxiety can be completely avoided with the right approach, at least with some people, and I think my son's proof of that; he has no anxiety over discussions of 9/11 at all.
I would say that whatever criteria one would normally use for exposing a person under one's care to a new idea should apply to a HG+ child, but notions tied somehow to age should be discarded. Just like with math or any other subject, someone's ready to understand a new concept when the proper foundation's been laid, and that can happen at an earlier age for a gifted person than normal.
My personal feeling is that watching the 9/11 footage is not going to benefit them.
I think the footage benefits my son in the same ways it benefits me. The factual detail is interesting and good to know from a historical perspective. It also helps to highlight the enormity of the 9/11 attacks; a terse mention that nearly 3,000 people died in an attack just doesn't do the topic justice, in my opinion. And knowing more about the 9/11 attacks and their aftermath means my son understands more about other world events too.
It seems to me that unhealthy anxiety can be completely avoided with the right approach, at least with some people, and I think my son's proof of that; he has no anxiety over discussions of 9/11 at all.
Iucounu, with all due respect, I think maybe you don't know how it is to live inside the body of a really sensitive person. You seem to be a very analytical person who can easily put some intellectual distance between yourself and these events, and perhaps your son is too. I am actually not nearly as sensitive as my daughter; I'm somewhere in the middle, so I have some sense of what it's like on both ends. Anyway, sometimes people who are not sensitive mistake sensitivity for weakness or some sort of personality flaw. I'd remind you to keep in mind that sometimes very sensitive people are incredibly brave and are, in fact, the people who do the most in the world to change things. You haven't met my daughter, but let me assure you that while she cries over a dead dragonfly, she is, at the same time, the kind of person who would stand up to the tanks in Tiananmen square. I am not kidding in the least.
And fwiw, anxiety and sensitivity, while often linked, are not the same thing.
It seems to me that unhealthy anxiety can be completely avoided with the right approach, at least with some people, and I think my son's proof of that; he has no anxiety over discussions of 9/11 at all.
The key words there are "at least with some people." It is great that your DS is not a chronically anxious person.
It is very important, and also a kindness to parents, to recognize that not all anxiety in children is caused by parenting. Many anxious children are wired that way. Good parenting mitigates the anxiety by teaching coping skills, but different people start with different baselines.
DeeDee
Age appropriate and all that, but if you let your child watch YouTube, browse news channels or access to to TV without vigilant monitoring, then there is a large likelihood that they'll be exposed to footage. If we, as parents, don't provide a narrative for what they see, then they'll fill in the gaps of their understanding with their own imagination, what they hear from friends or with whatever slant is being projected in what they're watching.
My two oldest were already in school, so they have their own narrative of events. The youngest was too young to remember, so when he became old enough to be aware of the world beyond our own cocoon, we began telling him about the events of that day. Our kids view so much simulated violence through animated films, movies, video games, etc., that it was important for us that our kids understood that this wasn't a game-over moment but real tragedy and sorrow for families and real consequences to entire groups of people because of the agenda and actions of a few.
Kids are self-centered. That isn't bad, just that they don't have a lot of control over their own lives and, thus, filter everything in their environment by how it affects them or will affect them. We keep this is mind when we discuss world events so that while they are taught the "bigger picture", they're also allowed to process whether this will affect their own security, safety and way of life.
The key words there are "at least with some people." It is great that your DS is not a chronically anxious person.
It is very important, and also a kindness to parents, to recognize that not all anxiety in children is caused by parenting. Many anxious children are wired that way. Good parenting mitigates the anxiety by teaching coping skills, but different people start with different baselines.
DeeDee
Yes... exactly. Thank you.
LOL I just wrote a multi-paragraph response citing examples of my daughter's sensitivities (won't let me trap fruit flies, became frantic when I was trimming a plant until I told her it was just like hair cut, still cried 6 months after my sister's cat died, etc etc, many many more examples) ...and it somehow got deleted. Good grief (I meant to press the back space key and now it's gone).
Anyway, DeeDee, you're absolutely right. My daughter was born highly sensitive and she's making progress (because we're trying not to shelter her too much), but she really needs a different yardstick than a typical kid in this regard.
It is very important, and also a kindness to parents, to recognize that not all anxiety in children is caused by parenting. Many anxious children are wired that way. Good parenting mitigates the anxiety by teaching coping skills, but different people start with different baselines.
I've tried to be careful to show that there are exceptions in my thinking, that any child should only be exposed to an advanced topic when she's ready, and that I am not speaking about anyone's situation in particular. This is the sort of valuable discussion that would be much more enjoyable and less stressful to have in person; I think we're dealing with some issues of nuance and restricted bandwidth. I'm not making veiled statements about ultramarina's parenting or anyone else's, but I do have a difference of opinion with her on children's general capacity to handle what's sometimes considered to be harmful information.
The problem seems to be that in discussing what's appropriate to do in general, we each disclose our own value judgments. This can imply a belief that the other is using a wrong parenting approach, no matter how much we disclaim it. All I can say is that I'm as open on this as I can be; I'm not thinking those thoughts.
Anyway, sometimes people who are not sensitive mistake sensitivity for weakness or some sort of personality flaw. I'd remind you to keep in mind that sometimes very sensitive people are incredibly brave and are, in fact, the people who do the most in the world to change things. You haven't met my daughter, but let me assure you that while she cries over a dead dragonfly, she is, at the same time, the kind of person who would stand up to the tanks in Tiananmen square. I am not kidding in the least.
Thank you
This is my DD as well. I've also spent my whole life being misjudged as weak because I'm sensitive. It's a lesson I'm trying to pass on to my DD - I'm trying to teach her to manage her emotions better because they don't always accurately reflect what she's capable of, and society has a skewed perception of this: "impassivity = strength" (sigh)
I've tried to be careful to show that there are exceptions in my thinking, that any child should only be exposed to an advanced topic when she's ready, and that I am not speaking about anyone's situation in particular. This is the sort of valuable discussion that would be much more enjoyable and less stressful to have in person; I think we're dealing with some issues of nuance and restricted bandwidth. I'm not making veiled statements about ultramarina's parenting or anyone else's, but I do have a difference of opinion with her on children's general capacity to handle what's sometimes considered to be harmful information.
The problem seems to be that in discussing what's appropriate to do in general, we each disclose our own value judgments. This can imply a belief that the other is using a wrong parenting approach, no matter how much we disclaim it. All I can say is that I'm as open on this as I can be; I'm not thinking those thoughts.
And you know what, everything you've said makes sense. In theory, I'm right with you. But if they handed you my daughter in the delivery room... and you took her home and raised her... You'd see what I mean. Let's just say our kids our different.
Worth noting is that my husband has tried purposefully to toughen up our kids, and it's helped, but in spite of that I'm still dealing with a daughter who won't let me kill fruit flies and insists that I catch and release them.
Iucounu, with all due respect, I think maybe you don't know how it is to live inside the body of a really sensitive person. You seem to be a very analytical person who can easily put some intellectual distance between yourself and these events, and perhaps your son is too.
I am a really sensitive person; that's not to say I'm not analytical. Note that I discuss events like 9/11 openly with my son so that he understands the full human impact of those events, which he can't do without the information.
Anyway, sometimes people who are not sensitive mistake sensitivity for weakness or some sort of personality flaw. I'd remind you to keep in mind that sometimes very sensitive people are incredibly brave and are, in fact, the people who do the most in the world to change things. You haven't met my daughter, but let me assure you that while she cries over a dead dragonfly, she is, at the same time, the kind of person who would stand up to the tanks in Tiananmen square.
I would be tempted to take (really minor) offense at your tone, but I know it's only used because you feel insulted. I'm not going to apologize for my beliefs or parenting style, but I wholeheartedly want you to understand that I wouldn't snipe or cast veiled aspersions about something like this.
I don't want to descend into minutiae here, but while I'd agree that emotional sensitivity is a good thing to have, it's not been a necessity for many people who have changed the world in vastly important ways. I also don't think that the self-sacrifice of people like the Tiananmen Square tank suicide, self-immolating monks, etc. tend to cause large-scale political change, though they may serve as symbols for a movement at a useful time. Either the critical mass for change is there, or it's not.
I await the first Wikipedia link on Thich Quang Duc.ETA: I want to explain a prior sentence of mine a little further:
If a child has been taught that life is full of unicorns and fairy princesses who dispense light and magic wherever they go, of course it's going to be a bit shocking to see people plummeting to their deaths.
This is meant to refer to shielding children from reality in general, often with heaping doses of cloyingly sweet pop culture and media aimed at keeping children babyfied. In my opinion too many children are fed a steady intellectual diet of low-quality fare dealing with fairies, princesses, Care Bears, My Little Pony, Barney, etc. when they could just as easily be exposed in easy small doses to the way life really is, along with much higher quality stories. If pop culture for kids in the U.S. weren't so unnecessarily babyfied, children would begin their learning trajectory on real life much earlier, and I'm certain that no harm would be done. The learning curve should be gradual enough to avoid any harm, but there's no reason for it to be unnecessarily delayed.
The shape of the optimal curve will be different for each child based on sensitivity, sure, but the curve is unnecessarily depressed for almost all children, at least in the U.S. That's my belief, and unfortunately it's tough to get across without causing offense.
I would say that whatever criteria one would normally use for exposing a person under one's care to a new idea should apply to a HG+ child, but notions tied somehow to age should be discarded.
That's a good point. I should have said "mental age" or "emotional intelligence level" or something like that. That's sort of what I was thinking rather than chronological age but I wasn't clear.
I am a really sensitive person; that's not to say I'm not analytical.
I'm both as well. I bounce back and forth between emotional reactions and hyper-detailed analyses of random things. My poor husband...
I think it's the "volume turned up" aspect that comes with G&T. Nothing is lukewarm or bland.
Actually, no one knows what happened to the Tiananmen square "Tank Man":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_Man(Minor point, but I was not meaning to hold up suicide as an act of courage. I never believed him to have been killed.)
In my opinion too many children are fed a steady intellectual diet of low-quality fare dealing with fairies, princesses, Care Bears, My Little Pony, Barney, etc. when they could just as easily be exposed in easy small doses to the way life really is, along with much higher quality stories.
I notice you use primarily girl-oriented media examples here. What about superheroes, etc? Plenty of bash, kill, die media models for boys. I don't really think kids' culture is cloyingly sweet as a whole. I would argue that none of it is very realistic, however. I don't know if I care THAT much. Childhood stories are not supposed to about realism. Fantasy is extremely important.
I will note again that I don't advocate lying to children. I have always answered my children's questions honestly. I have no patience for anyone who lies about death or where babies come from. But I don't think my 4yo needs to see step by step explicit photos of adults having sex to know how reproduction works and I don't think my 7o needs to see bodies falling out the sky to understand 9/11.
I appreciate the civil conversation.
This summer has been very difficult. DH took a sudden and steep decline with his cancer and now is expected to die anytime.
Struggling throughout, what do you tell a child, I tried to be as honest as possible since she obviously sensed from me and the urgency of activities that this was serious.
Nothing is harder for any child than to deal with death of a parent but it also makes clearer for me, when dealing with all these spiritual counselors, that you have to deal with your own gifted child in a unique way. Not only do you have to talk about science and medicine, but you have to deal with your own spiritual beliefs and make sense for your child.
Even little things. As we said a final goodbye, and I was holding her in my arms crying, it was too much to go back, as he has his final decline, she asked, "does he want to go?" My SIL stepped in and said yes, but I intervened, because I knew what she needed to hear. I said no, he wants more than anything to stay and be your father, but his body won't let him.
This is one of the toughest things I have had to deal with, for myself, but mostly with a child who is wise beyond her years, but is still a child.
But being on the forum has helped me understand my child so much better and I thank you for everything this has given me to help her.
Ren
This summer has been very difficult. DH took a sudden and steep decline with his cancer and now is expected to die anytime.
I am sorry to hear that. Best wishes to you and you daughter.
Ren, you are so wise to understand that your child is still very much a child in spite of her wisdom and intellect. What a loving, honest, and sensitive explanation for her.
I'm so sorry for your impending loss.
This summer has been very difficult. DH took a sudden and steep decline with his cancer and now is expected to die anytime.
Ren,
Sorry to hear of your loss. Prayers for you and your daughter.
Ren, I'm so sorry to hear this. HowlerKarma is right - what a loving, honest, and sensitive explanation for her. I am so sad for you both, in fact, for all three of you. I do know that you and your daughter will be a great comfort to each other, even in a situation that seems comfortless.
Ren, so sorry to hear of what your family is going through.
DeeDee
Ren
It is such a testimony to you as a mother, that in the midst of your own grief you recognized exactly what your daughter needed, as you have done so often. My thoughts and prayers go out to you both.
((hugs))
DeHe
What amazing strength on your part to be so sensitive to what your child needs to hear. I am so very sorry you all are facing this.
Ren, having lost a father in similar conditions albeit at a much older age than your daughter is now, this is exactly what she needed to hear.
Wishing you and your family strength, courage and peace for the days to come.
Ren, I am so sorry that your family has to go through this. Thank goodness your daughter has such a mother. I hope you can find space to take care of yourself as well.
Ren,
That was so absolutely beautifully said. You said the perfect thing for your wonderful daughter. She is so very lucky to have you. May you find the strength, peace and courage that you need in the days/months/years ahead. May you find the time to mourn and find your peace in this.
Best wishes to you and your daughter, Ren. I think you said the right thing. Even a young child who might not be able to fully deal with the suffering of a parent shouldn't hear that the parent wants to go on, leaving them behind. The question was probably prompted by some well-intentioned attempts at counseling by others.
Best wishes to you and your daughter, Ren. I think you said the right thing. Even a young child who might not be able to fully deal with the suffering of a parent shouldn't hear that the parent wants to go on, leaving them behind. The question was probably prompted by some attempts at counseling by others.
Lucounu
I wasn't there obviously but what struck me from Ren's account was that it was her SIL who said DH wanted to go - to me that wasn't a counseling thing, but what adults, particularly religious ones want to hear - the person wants to go where there is no suffering and they will be happy and at piece. Some adults will find that comforting, and not see that children might not see it that way. Most likely the SIL was offering what comforted her.
DeHe
Most likely the SIL was offering what comforted her.
I guess the three options are that Ren's daughter asked the question because it just occurred to her without any input, someone had suggested the idea to her directly, or she had overheard it. I think it's most likely that someone spoke to her beforehand in an attempt to comfort her, but it doesn't matter in the end. I continue to think that Ren did the right thing, and a child shouldn't hear that a parent wants to go on and leave her behind. Even a religious person focused on self-comfort during such a difficult time should realize that a child is part of the picture, and also that it's almost certain to be untrue that a dying parent
wants to go to eternal rest while leaving a small child behind. Such statements where children are involved are at best false and cliched, and may be inconsiderate and hurtful.
I'm so terribly sorry, Ren. I agree that you said the right thing. I have a close friend who lost her mother at a young age and I know that people said some things to her about her mother being in a better place, etc., that were hurtful and bewildering to her. No child wants to hear that, and you were right to correct the statement.
Wren, so very sorry to hear of this. We lost a son in 2010 when ds was 3.5, and it is still a challenge to discuss his brother's death with ds. Death makes no sense (or at least has no order) - and yet we don't want our kids to live in fear. Lately, my ds has been bringing up his brother a lot. Even when it hurts and we don't want to "go there", we let him him talk and affirm his feelings. We never want our kids (my dd doesn't understand yet) to feel they have yo keep these things in. It's hard because my ds wants to discuss the same things over and over. I think our kids help us face grief when it would be do tempting to run and hide.
Ultrmarina...those "feel betterisms" are awful. No one feels that losing their loved one is "for the best" or "part of God's plan" or "ending their suffering". I really wanted yo punch people in the face most days when I heard those things. "I'm sorry " is more genuine.
Yesterday, We were stuck in a traffic jam caused by a very serious accident in the east-bound lanes (we were west-bound). There were three semi trucks involved and two cars (one completely pinned under a semi). Life-flight landed right in front of us as multiple emergency workers used jaws of life to retrieve people from the mashed car. Not everyone made it. It was awful and gruesome - and I was relieved that my kids were engrossed in their Dvd. Some things kids don't ever need to see firsthand.
Ren, I am so sorry to hear about your husband. My thoughts are with you. You know your daughter best and you said the right thing. Your daughter is lucky to have such a strong, intelligent mom who will do the very best for her always.
You know your daughter best and you said the right thing.
Yes. If you speak from the heart, it's never a mistake. So sorry to hear, Ren. Time will heal.