Tuesday, November 23, 2010Radical Parenting #1 (continued)Yesterday I put forth this crazy idea that children are people. And of course I'm being sarcastic because it seems, well, pretty obvious. But as much of a no-brainer as this notion seem, I actually think I'm going to get some pushback.Here's what I imagine the thought bubbles look like: Whaaa? What are you saying here, Kathy? If kids are people and they come out kind of mostly pre-formed, what about discipline, what about teaching them about the Things that Matter, what about being a guiding light and a parental influence? If you just let them, you know, be -- what happens to all your control? Ahhhhhhhhh. Do NOT let me forget to talk about control, because I think all this is all about control. But I'll get to that later. Here's what I'm saying and not saying: I'm not saying you just let them run wild, like little free naked hippie flower children babies. I'm not saying you don't teach them and guide them and, yes, even make sure they know when they've crossed the very fundamental rules of decency, honesty, fairness and respect. Of course we have a duty to raise children who tell the truth, who use their wise mind whenever possible, and who are emotionally healthy and whole. I'm not in any way saying we don't have a place in their emotional and behavioral upbringing. What I am saying is that children are people. And as people, we should approach them like we would any other person. Or -- here's a very radical idea -- as we would wish to be approached ourselves. When you meet a new person, you leave room for all sorts of possibilities, rather than going in with preset notions of how the whole agenda is going to go for the entire span of your relationship. So why can't we do that with our kids? Here's another thought bubble I feel popping up out there. Oh, Kathy, you're just a softy. We are NOT friends with our kids. We are their parents and if we call ourselves their friends we're somehow going to let them down and we're somehow going to lose all possibility of control over their lives. (There's that control thing again.) Well. Yes and no. I'm not saying we're their friends like their peers are their friends. We're not their peers and it's not our job or within the realm of possibility to have that type of relationship with them. On the other hand, we're not their owners, either. We're not. If we put ourselves into the position of being their owners we open ourselves up to a whole lot of confused and conflicting and, in my opinion, ultimately impossible positions. Ownership gets back to control. I own my car therefore I can determine when to change its tires (or not.) I can determine when to gas it up and whether to run it into the ground and how often it should be washed. And in exchange for all this caretaking I expect a certain level of service from this car. I expect it to go forward when I press the accelerator, and I expect it to stop when I push the brake. Seriously. Don't you see a whole lot of people approaching their kids this way? "Because I said so." "Because I said NO." "Because I'm the mom." Again, I'm not promoting anarchy. It's more of an approach. Do YOU like it when your boss says the equivalent of "Because it's your job" or "Because otherwise you can't pay for your groceries?" Nope. No one likes to be handled that way. People want to be treated as... here we go again... human beings. And since children are ... RIGHT!... human beings, maybe it's better to treat them the same way as we'd like to be treated. We are neither friends nor owners of these people. I would suggest we're something that's not either of these things. I would suggest that we're guardians, in the sense that we need to protect their physical and emotional well being. And we're guides, in the sense that we have important information that we have gleaned from years of our own life experience, and we are in a unique position to share that wisdom with these people in hopes that they can learn whatever lessons can be learned from it. When we decide to have kids, we decide to have new people in our lives. They can be people who are very similar to us in nature and attitude; or they can be extraordinarily different. I propose that we treat them, at whatever age, as fully fledged, fully viable, people. People with their own rights, their own responsibilities, and their own hearts and minds. I propose that we do not presume that we know everything about them, just because we share some of their DNA. I propose that we let them just be. Like we'd let our friends to be, if we cared about them. Or like we'd like to be treated ourselves. But this leads to Kathy's Second Radical Belief: Children are not us. Which I will discuss soon. # posted by Katherine Doughtie Nolan @ 9:00 AM  
Comments: Post a Comment << Home
|
