Committed to finding ways out of the coercion/self-sacrifice mire of conventional parenting. We are variously critical rationalists, libertarians, home educators, attachment-parents, but we take our ideas where we find them.
We like your comments! (click on "Comment" under the blog posts and add your views). Rational Parenting respects children's privacy: please do not reveal personal information about identifiable individuals without their informed consent.
Email us with your comments on the blog, or suggestion for Problem of the Week!
Well, I've met plenty of very nice ones who weren't hit, so I'd say, no. Do kids need to be humiliated? Again, looking at all the kids I've met over the years, it wasn't the ones used to regular put-downs and tellings-off who stand out as the most well-balanced, sensible and kind. Do kids need to be forcibly prevented from doing bad things? Well, if your kid is constantly hurling herself at terrible danger, immorality and destruction, did you do a good job so far, probably? Hmmm. Do kids need to be stopped, by force, from doing the wrong thing, ever?
I saw a baby about to stick his hand on a hot oven ring. I removed his hand, as gently as possible, but as quickly as necessary. The baby cried. It was right to save the baby, but it would have been righter to keep the baby safe without having to upset him. It would have been better to have given a clear message about the danger of oven rings before the baby's intention to touch the oven ring got so strong that suddenly being made to change its action caused pain.
Was the mother of the baby evil, for being in another room for a moment? Of course not. How much do average people understand about caring for small people, minute-by-minute, continuously, without taking holidays, starting from birth, at which point they are generally already about as physically exhausted as any non-sick person can ever be, having grown up with the example of only their own family and those of their friends, and probably almost no practice at caring for children at anything like the level of intensity that job requires, or any similar experience of anything one fraction as demanding, draining, time and energy-consuming, not even paid but actually expensive... under these circumstances, it is just silly to point accusing fingers at parents.
In the real world, very often indeed, parents do things to their children that they think are necessary and good, and which cause hurt: I'm not talking about parents who hurt on purpose, or who want to hurt, or who think that hurting is actively a good thing for children, but the ones who do their best and whose best sometimes leads to tears and conflict nonetheless. But this doesn't make such hurting unavoidable, or necessary, or inevitable. It just means we are parenting with collateral damage. One prime aim of rational parenting is surely to chip away at the damage. We can start by rejecting any idea that such things are beneficial or good, and admitting that all our family lives would be better were we able to get on peacefully and productively instead of fighting. Where coercive actions lead to resolutions, it's despite the fighting, not because of it. Peaceful solutions would surely be best.
Sometimes peaceful solutions aren't possible. Evil fascist dictators tend not to listen to reason. But our own small children learn their reasonableness from us. Kids don't need to be hit, or humiliated or hurt, at all. They just need to be loved and provided for.
I went to the Victoria and Albert museum at the weekend, and was bowled over by how beautiful some of the exhibits are. Old stuff, whether it be Chinese robes or Moroccan tiles, still has lots of beauty and meaning. At the other end of the scale, there is the new Spongebob Barbie (from Instapundit). Those without cable TV may not even have heard of Spongebob Squarepants, the bizarre little cartoon character on Nickleodeon. And when I floated the idea of Spongebob Barbie among some Barbie fans I know, there were mixed reactions. It’s not exactly long-haired fairytale mermaid jewel princess Barbie, after all. “I thought he was a piece of cheese to start with,” one kid said. “He’s just a sponge with square pants, that’s all he is,” said another. (Personally, I love him).
However, there’s another bit of Barbie design I was looking at this evening, called the Barbie Studio. This is a fantastic piece of creative equipment, whereby one can create the prettiest little glittery jewelled body-stickers, quantities of them, by using various efficient little tools and procedures all included in the pretty plasticky kit.
Now: those of you who hate pretty plastic will be vomiting as I write. However, the point is, the Barbie Studio is not supposed to be for parents. It’s supposed to be for little girls. And little girls adore it (also some little boys, I’m very sure). And when I was a little girl I would have adored it too. I would have thought it was the most amazingly beautiful thing in the entire world. And making friendship bracelets out of old wool would NOT have been as good. And carving dolls’ house furniture out of wood would NOT have been as good, either.
What’s my argument? Old stuff is good and beautiful. New stuff is good and beautiful. Kids like both. Let them have what they want. The Barbie Studio may not be for every child, but those who love it will get enormous pleasure out of it, and this is a wholly beneficial thing which they thoroughly deserve. Don’t kid yourself that tradition is good enough to make up for being denied the best of the mass-produced plastic stuff. Even if you are prepared to throw out your dishwasher, washing machine, computer, disposable nappies and CDs, it’s still not fair to force all that on your children against their will.
The Barbie Studio. Lots of little girls will love it. Which is exactly why it would be good for them.
1. For picture-making: get old cardboard boxes from shops, dismantle them and paint one side with emulsion paint (white is very cheap, or for more interest use pale coloured matchpots from the DIY store, about a pound each). When dry, these are very satisfying to paint or draw on and don't need framing.
2. For learning maths or reading: ten minutes or less once a day of new words or number games can be lots of fun, while any longer can be a drag. (And ten minutes is the avergae amount of daily contact-time between teachers and pupils in school once you divide up the lessons and take breaks etc into account. Shocking.)
3. While defrosting the fridge-freezer: use the ice chunks (in a washing-up bowl maybe) to make ice sculptures.
4. While using the washing-machine, make sure the door is shut properly; this way you can avoid the cycle seizing up halfway through and causing a flood when you try to sort it out too late. Ahem.
The eternal campaign against wonderful new technology goes on. Now that mobile phones don't fry your brains, they undermine your education.
Samizdata.net has this interesting post about Educationalists blaming their failure to teach English on the rise of the text message. My word on this is, it makes no difference what educationalists think: text messaging is massive, and will continue to be massive, and no amount of whining about its massiveness is going to do a thing to reduce its massiveness. It's just that educationalists would like to be more important. Important enough to stamp out large spheres of modern popular culture and technology.
Not surprising really. A hundred and fifty years ago, I suppose children would have been very grateful to learn to read the Bible. There was nothing else much around to read. But banning libraries isn't going to bring back religion, and even if it did, would be a perfectly vile and evil act of repression. Some people won't be surprised that educationalists have these kinds of aspirations, and I'm one of them.
