|
0 members (),
193
guests, and
40
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,691 Likes: 1
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,691 Likes: 1 |
So unless you schedule things, or plan playdates, it is hard to let them just go out and play. Which means you have to be out and about with them. I think finding that compromise without the activities to fill their time, because my kid will watch Disney reruns, is hard. She cannot just go out and play.
Attitude is a different story but I don't have a kid with an IQ of 121. I have a kid that is fully capable of being on Harvard's screen and has legacy. So where does that leave me in terms of being a Tiger Mom?
Shades of grey or gray? Why can't she have free play? Your backyard. A playground with you sitting on the bench. Your house without the TV on? But, Wren, haven't we had this discussion before and you proudly describe yourself as one of these high pressure parents? Your priorities are for structured activity and a lot of academics from a young age, aren't they? Ouch. We go for 2 hour walks with the dog along the lake and find mink etc. And we are in an apt, no backyard. And playdates are structured activities. They are not, running out the back door like I did and into the woods with friends or alone and finding something to occupy myself. And DD is an extrovert. TV off, she goes into her room and sometimes plays with Barbies but sometimes the technology goes on. She is not great without friends. Either was I. I was always looking for someone in the neighborhood to play with. And in a neighborhood full of kids, you could find someone. That is hard today. Your kid wanders around alone, a parent will call you, like are you crazy? And being on the park bench is time consuming. Perhaps you have hours of time to sit on a bench while your child explores the park, how many can do that everyday. Because a kid is like a dog, it needs that play/social interaction everyday, not once a week. So if not structured, what is your solution, you with the political sense and judgement of a --- fill in the blank. But don't you have to sit on a bench outside the piano lesson or swimming lesson or whatever? No different from sitting at the park. Yes, lots of kids are in school/afterschool until 6, but afterschool doesn't take them around to various lessons. In terms of time, and the specific reasons you gave for why your child can't have play time, if you're taking her somewhere, why not the park? I disagree that a playdate is structured. Yes, it's scheduled, but once the other child arrives, don't they just play? I'm not trying to attack you or anything, but you said unstructured play was important to you, and I'd like to help troubleshoot to figure out how you can make it happen. No, I was quoting Madeline Levine, which I wrote a few posts ago. She says it should be scheduled playdates. My kid has had playdates, at other people's houses the last couple days, which did give me time off. And she had a great time, but as Madeline Levine talked about, it doesn't do all the stuff that going out into the hood, finding mates and then creating activities out of nothing. And I do not think you could provide me with solutions. So thank you, no.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,363
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,363 |
My kid has had playdates, at other people's houses the last couple days, which did give me time off. And she had a great time, but as Madeline Levine talked about, it doesn't do all the stuff that going out into the hood, finding mates and then creating activities out of nothing. I am not familiar with Madeline Levine - but I agree, having to make pre-arranged playdates isn't the same thing. I suppose we are in an atypical situation, but we don't live in a highly-populated urban area (although we do live in a city). Kids in our neighborhood free-range, especially in the warm weather. In some ways, the play probably isn't terribly different between free-ranging and arranged playdates- there are still opportunities with a set-up playdate for the kids to be creative, use their imaginations, explore etc - but there isn't the same type of give and flow of groupings of children, and there isn't the same wide range of "shall we do this or shall we do that". I think a lot of socialization happens when there are kids available from more than one family, when the kids out playing aren't just the two best friends, when there might be a kid out today who isn't always there etc. None of the parents are actively having to plan "let's make sure we have x y and z available so the kids stay entertained" - which I do see happening when my kids go on arranged playdates. I don't know that one is better than the other, but I do think there is a different *something* about the different situations. Plus it's *totally* a lot easier for me as a parent to not have to drive and drop off and pick up etc - and it's a lot easier for me to "host" other kids at my house when they are coming and going rather than coming for a set amount of time. I'm probably spending more time paying attention but it's all just somehow more natural and easier. polarbear
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,691 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,691 Likes: 1 |
I discussed this because "Price of Privilege" was brought up in the topic.
And it happens to be front and center of something I am doing. Her point is about doing for your child instead of them doing for themselves. So you arrange playdate with KidA, drop them off at 3:30 and pick up at 5. Instead of DD going out the door, finding KidA and KidB, maybe C. Then they brainstorm what to do, do their playing and DD knows she has to be home by 5:30 and has the responsibility of coming home instead of me looking for her. Not that they don't do a little brainstorming about play but the huge amount of toys in the house helps. Instead of meeting up emptying handed and figuring out next steps. Levine thinks that these simple steps help build the skills necessary to survive. And the parental arms race and blueprinting each year through to college creates a problem in college and beyond.
Since reading the book, I have taken a conscious step back and said, "figure it out," I can't always fix it, when I can.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,181
Member
|
|
OP
Member
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,181 |
She isn't the only one that embraces that message-- there is, increasingly, a lot of disquieting evidence that helicopter/Tigerish parenting that micromanages actually serves to handicap adolescents and young adults, because it sends them a message that they aren't capable of dealing with things themselves. That parents HAVE to do it, or they would "screw it up" somehow... that real problems are too much for them to manage. Bubble wrap is not good for children's development, in other words. I'll try to recall the other recent book that I read on this subject. It really gave me a moment of epiphany as I looked at my own communication/interventions as a mom. Yes, there are some things that are too big/risky for me to completely let go of... but a LOT of this stuff is little stuff. Getting a "B" because you don't do your homework is little stuff. Wrecking the car by driving irresponsibly is a big deal. Perspective, YK? If you don't let them manage the little decisions, how on earth can they assume that they are competent to do the big ones?? After I read it, I stepped back and realized that I need to do a better job of communicating to my DD that I trust her judgment. I trust HER to make decisions, and have faith in her ability to figure things out for herself. She's competent to figure out what to do when (little) things go wrong. I shouldn't make her question that by arm-chair quarterbacking continuously. I bite my tongue a lot more than I used to. It's been amazing how much more confident she is, and how much better her problem-solving skills have gotten just in the past few years, as I've started looking at her a bit skeptically if she ASKS me to do things for her that I think she should be doing for herself. It's been delightful to watch her. 
Schrödinger's cat walks into a bar. And doesn't.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,007
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,007 |
I discussed this because "Price of Privilege" was brought up in the topic.
And it happens to be front and center of something I am doing. Her point is about doing for your child instead of them doing for themselves. So you arrange playdate with KidA, drop them off at 3:30 and pick up at 5. Instead of DD going out the door, finding KidA and KidB, maybe C. Then they brainstorm what to do, do their playing and DD knows she has to be home by 5:30 and has the responsibility of coming home instead of me looking for her. Not that they don't do a little brainstorming about play but the huge amount of toys in the house helps. Instead of meeting up emptying handed and figuring out next steps. Levine thinks that these simple steps help build the skills necessary to survive. And the parental arms race and blueprinting each year through to college creates a problem in college and beyond.
Since reading the book, I have taken a conscious step back and said, "figure it out," I can't always fix it, when I can. "The Price of Privilege" is not exactly directly applicable to this board. It's relevant, in general, but the problems faced here are a bit different.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,181
Member
|
|
OP
Member
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,181 |
The Tiger thing seems to be a special case of Helicopter Parent-- the Ivy Edition, though.
It's still communicating, somehow, to the student that s/he can't possibly know what is right for him/herself, and that mummy and daddy had best make the decisions while snookums there goes along for the ride and does as instructed so that 'we' may Avoid Unfortunate Errors of Judgment.
Honestly, seen up close, this kind of thing DOES look very much like enmeshment.
Schrödinger's cat walks into a bar. And doesn't.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,007
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,007 |
Getting a "B" because you don't do your homework is little stuff. Wrecking the car by driving irresponsibly is a big deal. Perspective, YK? If you don't let them manage the little decisions, how on earth can they assume that they are competent to do the big ones?? !!!Tangential post alert!!! With the car example, I think the problem is letting teenagers drive. I stopped wrecking cars after about age 20. Lifetime total of automobiles destroyed: 4. Number of accidents involving major automotive damage: 4.
Last edited by JonLaw; 04/05/14 12:37 PM. Reason: I edit because I edit.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,007
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,007 |
It's still communicating, somehow, to the student that s/he can't possibly know what is right for him/herself, and that mummy and daddy had best make the decisions while snookums there goes along for the ride and does as instructed so that 'we' may Avoid Unfortunate Errors of Judgment. Part of the problem is that it's difficult to achieve a steady stream of protected income sufficient so that you don't end up in effective poverty. This is why medicine is popular. I also think this is Wren's point, although Harvard is not actually the solution to this problem. It's a Second Gilded Age America problem.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,691 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,691 Likes: 1 |
It's still communicating, somehow, to the student that s/he can't possibly know what is right for him/herself, and that mummy and daddy had best make the decisions while snookums there goes along for the ride and does as instructed so that 'we' may Avoid Unfortunate Errors of Judgment. Part of the problem is that it's difficult to achieve a steady stream of protected income sufficient so that you don't end up in effective poverty. This is why medicine is popular. I also think this is Wren's point, although Harvard is not actually the solution to this problem. It's a Second Gilded Age America problem. First, when you say medicine, are you referring to pharmaceuticals? Because that is a tangential solution. I know a lot of doctors who are not making a ton of money. The only ones securing wealth are surgeons, one a lung transplant guy that seems to have a lot of wealthy clients around the globe. I think you can become rich in any profession. I know an electrician who built up an amazing franchise and into some cool opportunities by being creative. You can be a lawyer who takes legal aid cases or doing investment banking deals. Still a lawyer in either case. What I want for my kid, is the ability to go after what she wants. I want her to have the tools to work for something and not be afraid of the challenges.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,007
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,007 |
I know a lot of doctors who are not making a ton of money. The only ones securing wealth are surgeons, one a lung transplant guy that seems to have a lot of wealthy clients around the globe. I'm only talking about $200,000 to $300,000 per year, standard-issue dermatology/ophthalmology/endocrinology/anesthesiologist (my immediate neighbors). I derive this information from personal knowledge, meaning looking at legal documents. You are talking about something else, well beyond even radiation oncology ($500,000), which is well into the top 1%. Median *household* income in the U.S. is estimated at $51,371. And apparently, most jobs pay under $20 per hour: http://money.cnn.com/interactive/economy/us-jobs-wages/?iid=HP_LN
|
|
|
|
|
