My parents were my friends, and I turned out fine: explanations?

ThatGuy42 wrote:
HopeChest wrote:

2) a trend has developed in these comments to the effect that parenting is not an exact science and I shouldn't be so rigorous in the way I judge it. The problem is that undercuts a lot of the other stuff people are saying about long term vs. short term. It's incoherent to argue that parenting is too complex to figure out, and then in another spot turn around and justify actions by reference to 'if I do A in the short term then B will follow in the long term'.

That trend has developed because it's true. You can't be rigorous in the way you judge parenting because parenting changes throughout both the child and the parent's life.

I'm not commenting on that trend here, I'm just saying that it's inconsistent with another trend being offered to me. I can't choose both.

*Seriously, when Momgamer talks, I listen. That V analogy is exactly the right way to describe the process of parenting, and a perfect example of how the parent-child relationship changes over time.

If you check my response to her, you'll see that I agreed with that. I feel like a lot of this thread is people fighting a strawman they think is me, but it isn't. And that's okay! That's why I made this thread. I'm willing to take one for the team here. Analogies can get silly, but maybe a simple one is warranted here.

It's like "too many cooks spoil the soup." People are saying we need less cooks. I say we need more. People are (sometimes--a lot of the responses here are valid and I don't want to give the impression that I don't recognize that) saying "too many cooks spoil the soup." I say I agree with you about that principle, but adding another cook won't be too many, it'll just be more. You're trying to argue a process to me that we are in agreement on.

HopeChest wrote:
ThatGuy42 wrote:
HopeChest wrote:

2) a trend has developed in these comments to the effect that parenting is not an exact science and I shouldn't be so rigorous in the way I judge it. The problem is that undercuts a lot of the other stuff people are saying about long term vs. short term. It's incoherent to argue that parenting is too complex to figure out, and then in another spot turn around and justify actions by reference to 'if I do A in the short term then B will follow in the long term'.

That trend has developed because it's true. You can't be rigorous in the way you judge parenting because parenting changes throughout both the child and the parent's life.

I'm not commenting on that trend here, I'm just saying that it's inconsistent with another trend being offered to me. I can't choose both.

*Seriously, when Momgamer talks, I listen. That V analogy is exactly the right way to describe the process of parenting, and a perfect example of how the parent-child relationship changes over time.

If you check my response to her, you'll see that I agreed with that. I feel like a lot of this thread is people fighting a strawman they think is me, but it isn't. And that's okay! That's why I made this thread. I'm willing to take one for the team here. Analogies can get silly, but maybe a simple one is warranted here.

It's like "too many cooks spoil the soup." People are saying we need less cooks. I say we need more. People are (sometimes--a lot of the responses here are valid and I don't want to give the impression that I don't recognize that) saying "too many cooks spoil the soup." I say I agree with you about that principle, but adding another cook won't be too many, it'll just be more. You're trying to argue a process to me that we are in agreement on.

I just need you to be honest with me - are you, or have you ever been known as, CheezePavillion.

Faster than you know, Sally actually called you out way back on page 2. What can you say, you've got a style.

HopeChest wrote:
SallyNasty wrote:

I just need you to be honest with me - are you, or have you ever been known as, CheezePavillion.

Yup. That was fast. I went away for a while after the whole Dirt/Wikileaks thing because I felt bad about that--burned my boats by typing in a gibberish, ultra-long password so I couldn't get back into the account. Took the part in the FAQ seriously about not making drama about leaving, just go if you feel that way. I realized that some of what passes for acceptable behavior among forum dwellers--which I'd been 'socialized' into you could say--makes Certis feel like reaching for the padlock icon. Lurked for a while, missed the interaction here, and thought I should come back.

Kinda wished you'd handled this through PM, but, eh: here we are. Pretty much makes it impossible for me to continue. I didn't like being the one who provoked the situation that ended with Certis having to kicking a long-time member off. Figured now that I know more of what the Powers That Be expect, it was okay to come back.

Sorry man, wasn't trying to out you in a bastardly way - I was just convinced I recognized that parsing:) I had wondered what happened to you.

SallyNasty wrote:

I just need you to be honest with me - are you, or have you ever been known as, CheezePavillion.

Yup. That was fast. I went away for a while after the whole Dirt/Wikileaks thing because I felt bad about that--burned my boats by typing in a gibberish, ultra-long password so I couldn't get back into the account. Took the part in the FAQ seriously about not making drama about leaving, just go if you feel that way. I realized that some of what passes for acceptable behavior among forum dwellers--which I'd been 'socialized' into you could say--makes Certis feel like reaching for the padlock icon. Lurked for a while, missed the interaction here, and thought I should come back.

Kinda wished you'd handled this through PM, but, eh: here we are. Pretty much makes it impossible for me to continue. I didn't like being the one who provoked the situation that ended with Certis having to kick a long-time member off. Figured now that I know more of what the Powers That Be expect, it was okay to come back.

Chumpy_McChump wrote:

Most parents don't talk about the normal days. They are largely either uninteresting or only interesting to other parents in a specific conversation. The things that get talked about are the times we strap our kids to their chairs, or they smeared poop across three rooms, or we helped build the coolest science fair volcano. Parenting-as-anecdotes is a far cry from parenting.

As to the whole parent/friend dichotomy, the language is misleading. You can have a parent-as-friend relationship while still being a parent, but that's not the same as a peer-friendship. The peer-friendship - acting as equals, encouraging questionable behaviours, allowing each other to behave as they see appropriate - that's where you fall into trouble. It's a bizarre relationship to get used to, at least from a parent's point of view.

I agree with Chumpy's differentiation between parent-as-friend and parent-as-peer-friendship.

I think you can be both a parent and friend - encourage them to trust and talk to you, be open, listen respectfully - treat your kid the way you'd like them to treat you. BUT a parent-as-friend also has to be grown-up and parent enough to know when one of their kid's stupider ideas is going to get them hurt in some way. At that point you use your greater wisdom to step in and point out the folly/stupidity/danger of whatever course they are on - even if it means an argument or tantrum. On the other hand, sometimes you just have to let them screw up too - that can be a very effective teacher when used well. And that's not to say that I'd let a kid get hit by a car to teach them that traffic is dangerous, but on a smaller scale, I think it's alright to let them fall on their face sometimes and then help them pick themselves up and figure out where it went wrong.

The type of parenting that drives me nuts and worries me is the parenting approach that treats kids like lesser beings - like objects with no thoughts or wants or needs of their own just because they're kids. I don't believe in giving in to a kid's every whim, but I do think they're people too (even if they are smaller, younger and less experienced in the world) and should be accorded some measure of respect just for being fellow human beings.

You still have to be a parent too - guide them, put the kibosh on some of their less-than-brilliant ideas, and know when to draw the line for them because they haven't accumulated the wisdom or knowledge to do it for themselves.

I'm not sure I'm making any sort of point at all, but, if I were a parent and my life were being filmed I hope it would resemble Gilmore Girls and not a Maury Povich episode.

Mimble wrote:
Chumpy_McChump wrote:

Most parents don't talk about the normal days. They are largely either uninteresting or only interesting to other parents in a specific conversation. The things that get talked about are the times we strap our kids to their chairs, or they smeared poop across three rooms, or we helped build the coolest science fair volcano. Parenting-as-anecdotes is a far cry from parenting.

As to the whole parent/friend dichotomy, the language is misleading. You can have a parent-as-friend relationship while still being a parent, but that's not the same as a peer-friendship. The peer-friendship - acting as equals, encouraging questionable behaviours, allowing each other to behave as they see appropriate - that's where you fall into trouble. It's a bizarre relationship to get used to, at least from a parent's point of view.

I agree with Chumpy's differentiation between parent-as-friend and parent-as-peer-friendship.

I think you can be both a parent and friend - encourage them to trust and talk to you, be open, listen respectfully - treat your kid the way you'd like them to treat you. BUT a parent-as-friend also has to be grown-up and parent enough to know when one of their kid's stupider ideas is going to get them hurt in some way. At that point you use your greater wisdom to step in and point out the folly/stupidity/danger of whatever course they are on - even if it means an argument or tantrum. On the other hand, sometimes you just have to let them screw up too - that can be a very effective teacher when used well. And that's not to say that I'd let a kid get hit by a car to teach them that traffic is dangerous, but on a smaller scale, I think it's alright to let them fall on their face sometimes and then help them pick themselves up and figure out where it went wrong.

The type of parenting that drives me nuts and worries me is the parenting approach that treats kids like lesser beings - like objects with no thoughts or wants or needs of their own just because they're kids. I don't believe in giving in to a kid's every whim, but I do think they're people too (even if they are smaller, younger and less experienced in the world) and should be accorded some measure of respect just for being fellow human beings.

You still have to be a parent too - guide them, put the kibosh on some of their less-than-brilliant ideas, and know when to draw the line for them because they haven't accumulated the wisdom or knowledge to do it for themselves.

I'm not sure I'm making any sort of point at all, but, if I were a parent and my life were being filmed I hope it would resemble Gilmore Girls and not a Maury Povich episode.

I can tell you that you've summed up a lot of what I feel. It may very well be an issue of tone--at the very least, I'd like to see parenting discussions conducted in this spirit as opposed to what I was seeing in the other thread. Not sure there's more for me to add beyond what you have said other than that.

Recent Atlantic bit from the "everything bad is good for you" angle. I'll just toss this on the fire and let myself out.

HopeChest wrote:

cooks and soup

I think the rest of the cooks are suggesting that one really needs to have made soup before one has solid ground to stand on when suggesting an appropriate number of cooks.

If you're worried about being outed, at least it was a relatively small Big Thread...

1. I think momgamer's philosophy of taking care of kids in the "V" mode works because as I've observed, kids also grow that way. You have a limited window of opportunity in creating the kid's base morality when they're about 3-7. You need to establish the rules by which they'll see the world going forward. Once that gets set in stone, it gets progressively harder to change the basic coding. Essentially, children are bullets. It's a lot easier to aim the bullet when it's still in the gun. Once you fire that gun, it's really hard to chase after the bullet to change its trajectory.

2. I think, HopeChest, that the basic disconnect is that you feel that many parents are overdoing it because you yourself never needed to be disciplined in the described ways. Let me ask you, do you feel that you and I would be convinced by the same arguments, or react the same way to exhortations about faith? Let's say that we both had an equally long day, we're both dead tired, and then when we get home, the heater fails. Do you think that every single poster on this forum will react the same way?

Children are people, too. They don't all react the same way to the same things. What I generally got in the other thread, is parents sharing what worked for them. Any parent who's raised multiple children (or most nannies) recognize that children are different in the way that people generally are. Parents are different from each other as well. I think it's a little easier for parents to gauge what constitutes "going too far" because they've been in that situation where they're tired, their nerves are frayed, and the children are demanding more. Loudly. And you can't say no, and you can't quit.

If you want some kind of idea of what's going on, I'd suggest doing this: sleep no more than 3 hours a day for a year. In the hours that you're not at work, carry a 10 kilo bag of rice around, and hire yourself out as a baker, but don't accept any kind of payment. In fact, pay the bakery a hefty premium for the privilege of accepting your work. After a year of that, randomly (don't allow yourself to know when or to schedule it) play a particularly annoying baby's cry, at 2 in the morning, asking you to go to the dumpster below your apartment to clean it out.

It's a really stressful gig, that demands a hell of a lot of time. For some, just the thought of having to give up a substantial amount of time and money is daunting. All parents recognize the conditions that go with it, so we generally reserve a healthy amount of respect for other parents.

mudbunny wrote:

Here is a description of parenting that just popped into my head, and I want to see how accurate it feels to all the other parents in the thread.

Running comfortably along a trail, stumbling on a root and flailing about trying to not run into the thorn bushes on either side of the trail. Oh yeah, there is also a 90 degree turn up ahead that has thorns *and* a cliff waiting if you don't make the corner.

Yea, that looks about right to me. Parenting is my neverending quest to not screw up so badly that my kids are scarred for life. I *think* I'm doing OK so far, but I'll let you know in another 10 years.

wordsmythe wrote:
mudbunny wrote:

It is not hyperbole to say that until you have been a parent, you have no concept of what being a parent is like.

Can this really be as strong a dichotomy as everyone states it? Surely, one can have, through experience with family members or as a nanny, or even through careful attention and study, some notion.

I've done a lot of things that were supposed to "totally rock my worldview" and such. Not all of them changed my perspective as much as I'd expected.

I too have done many things that rocked my worldview, like joining the military and spending 4 months in a third world country. Nothing I have ever, ever done has rocked my worldview in the manner that having children of my own did. And I say that specifically because even being a step-parent is *completely* different from when they're actually yours.

Jonman wrote:
wordsmythe wrote:
mudbunny wrote:

It is not hyperbole to say that until you have been a parent, you have no concept of what being a parent is like.

Can this really be as strong a dichotomy as everyone states it? Surely, one can have, through experience with family members or as a nanny, or even through careful attention and study, some notion.

This.

My wife's been a nanny for a decade. She's spent more time raising kids than many people our age with kids of their own have. She's had exposure to many more kids (and their various personalities and traits) than most parents have over the years.

Of course, they're not her kids, and she gets to go home at the end of the day, but nonetheless, she has a much deeper appreciation of what parenting is than I do.

Frankly, it makes me a lot less scared about having kids of our own - at least one of us is starting out with a clue.

Caring for other people's kids gives you a taste, but having spent a lot of time around my wife's kids while we were dating(and they were most emphatically *NOT* my kids then) along with much time spent teaching other people's kids at church, I at least had a very, very different mindset about other people's kids. Even with my oldest two, the two who came with my wife, there's a gulf of difference between "These kids belong to the awesome woman I'm dating" and "I'm married and the step-dad and am responsible for helping my wife to teach and raise them well" and to further muddy things, "I really do love these kids and want them to be my kids for real" adds a completely different dimension altogether.