Super nanny article in local paper

[PapayaMom]

So at 9months, there isn't so much disciplining i need to do, but I am reading up on it and I know what I DON'T like.

I was reading the paper this morning and there was a huge article on SuperNanny. So, although I have read posts on MOthering to stay away from that show I read the article.

In her 8 tips on raising children (of which she has none) The last one is

"One of the most important things you can do for children is carve out quality time AWAY from them to focus on being a couple"

I am not at all attacking going out without your children, DH and I had a wonderful dinner last night, but I don't consider it part of child-rearing or anything that is benefiting my DD. Its hard to leave her, and we have done so only a handful of times

And while she doesn't spank or advocate yelling there is a definite vibe of parents are boss and more important than children.

I just needed to vent, maybe I have it all wrong and will be calling supernanny in two years or so.

[Seasons]

"Pne of the most important things you can do for children is carve out quality time AWAY from them to focus on being a couple"

Oh, you’ve hit on one of my biggest peeves! (I think Dr. Phil advocates this too.) Frankly, I think the so-called “experts” should be honest and say it’s a pacification measure for ADULTS, as in: "Oh, co-spouse, I know you're resentful of the attention you no longer get from me because there's a baby in the house, so how about if we plan a "date" and your frustration will ease some and then you'll help out more around the house?" (I can't comment on how necessary or realistic such a strategy is in marriage; I've always parented singly.) I'd also respect if the "experts" explained that dating was one means (of many, including solo hobbies, girlfriend chats and work outside the home) to take a break from 24/7 parenting, for folks who want/need that. (I *can* comment there; working gives me considerable pride and stress release.)

What I DESPISE is the implication that dating is good for the CHILDREN, that kids need the assurance (or illusion) of parents' romantic involvement in order to thrive. Hello, are they saying that children of single parents (including widowed parents) are necessarily deprived? Well, dudes, the studies don't say that. (1) To the extent children of single parents have negative attributes, it can be attributed to poverty or seeing conflict (before or after divorce), only. [Note that most early studies didn't even note causation, just a correlation with "single parenting" despite the huge demographics in that disparate group; a financially stable lesbian who used AI to inseminate, is very different from a struggling teenage mom living with her own parents and getting lots of hostility, is different from a widower, is different from a woman in joint custody with her ex and frequently battling with him in front of the kids.] (2) The attachment studies say that kids are, understandably, self-absorbed; they want and need a bond between themselves and one caregiver. (Just one, not two, is necessary; see Silverstein & Auerbach.) Kids don't need their parents' attachments to other people, although they may be curious about parental singleness after a while, and of course kids suffer because of *conflict* in any home, married or single. But that has nothing to do whether the parent/s date!

Thanks or giving me another reason to swear off ever watching SuperNanny, PapayaMom!

[BetsyPage]

My dh & I haven't had a date without dd since she was born. We still go out to dinner and to the bookstore which was our pre-baby date , and we're fine with that! But we actually had a member of our small group praying for us that we would get time alone by leaving our dd with one of them... ummm, thanks for a prayer we didn't need!

[ShadowMom]

I feel it's wonderful advice to make sure you spend time on the relationship which holds the family together. Children absolutely benefit in extremely direct ways by the marriage being strong. That doesn't mean you have to neglect your children to have a healthy marriage, but as mothers we tend to put our children first and forget about the DH.

[annettemarie]

There are plenty of ways to both carve out time with your spouse/SO AND not leave your children (especially babies) with other caregivers for long amounts of time. DH and I go on dates with just the baby, have movies and other treats when the little ones are in bed, we've even put the older two in the kids' club at the grocery store and had lunch in the cafe (with the baby).

I do agree that one of the most important things you can do for your children is to SHOW them how much you love, respect, and care for their father/mother, but there are lots of ways to do that besides leaving them with a sitter and going on a date.

[onlyzombiecat]

I don't think it is necessarily bad advice for couples to set aside some time to focus on each other (didn't use the word date). Maybe everyone doesn't need to do that but that doesn't mean it is bad or unimportant.
I think it is okay to say to kids that they are important and the parent-child relationship is very important and the adult relationships in the family are important too.
I don't think it is about pacification of one partner or about demonstrating romantic involvement. To me it is about keeping the adult part of the family unit stable and happy as adults which benefits the child portion of the family.

Dh and I started setting aside some time each day to be alone together and it has helped us to stay connected as a couple... as parents. I don't think it hit us to need to do this until dd was 2 or 3 years old and we had lots of other stress with dh working at night, financial trouble, dd suddenly getting very clingy, etc. We don't go anywhere on a "date"... we just set aside that time period to be together as adults. We set a timer so dd knows when our time is up and we are available again. She can get us if she really needs us. We didn't do this until our dd was 4 and I wish we had done it a little earlier.
It has helped us.
I'd say don't throw it out so quickly just because you don't need it now.

[annettemarie]

Originally Posted by CarrieBeary77

Just because t doesn't jive for you (now or at all) doesn't mean it's bad advice. t's just not rght for you. And that's ok. But it IS rght for some of us and That, too, is ok.

I could conceed that.

It just drives me nuts when people act like if you don't do it you will end up divorced, KWIM?

[ShadowMom]

Originally Posted by annettemarie

I could conceed that.

It just drives me nuts when people act like if you don't do it you will end up divorced, KWIM?

I can understand that. Our culture is not what you would call "attached" in general - the type of parenting being promoted doesn't really promote attached parenting in a lot of ways. It's all about the parents being in control and having everything THEY want. I think that's the sort of thing you're referring to, right?

I wonder how other cultures deal with this issue. There are many cultures where it's commonplace for the mother to not be separated from the infant hardly at all for the first few years. Does the marriage suffer? Or is it part of the DH's expectations that this will happen, so it's no big deal?

Just thinking about loud.

[PapayaMom]

I certainly wasn't trying to say that if you go out without kids you are a bad parent. As I mentioned we did so on Saturday and it was fun. However I don't think it has much to do with parenting, taking care of myself or DH sure, which IS super important but as others have mentioned there are many ways to spend quality time with the kids still there after bed, during naps etc...

I guess its more in the way it was worded

It just drives me nuts when people act like if you don't do it you will end up divorced, KWIM?

Exactly I think being AP comes under fire a lot.

[dharmamama]

Originally Posted by PapayaMom

However I don't think it has much to do with parenting,

I think that everything you do (collective you) when you have kids is part of parenting, and I do think that part of parenting a child is modeling for them a healthy relationship with your significant other or, if you are single, a healthy sense of self outside your role as parent. I think it directly benefits children to see a loving relationship between two people in which the children are not the primary focus, and I think it directly benefits the child of a single, partnerless parent to see that parent pursuing actvities that don't include the child. That doesn't imply non-attachment.

I believe that my relationship with my husband deserves as much attention as my relationship with my kids does, and that means finding one-on-one time for myself and my husband, just as I find it for myself and each of my kids.

Namaste!

[matts_mamamama]

dharmamama -

My thoughts exactly!

[Red]

I think the whole 'making time for your partner' thing is bull.

I've been happily married for 20 years and have 5 kids. My dh and I agree that we don't want other people to screw our kids up, we can do it ourselves. When they were little, we had time while they slept.

When they got older, we'd go away overnight every three or four years. Plenty of time for us. Of course, dh gets laid off in the winter so we get time while they're at school!

Soon they'll be moving out and we'll have years to spend alone, together.

My dh is going to miss them as much as I will, but we're looking forward to time alone, together.

[Seasons]

I think it directly benefits children to see a loving relationship between two people in which the children are not the primary focus, and I think it directly benefits the child of a single, partnerless parent to see that parent pursuing actvities that don't include the child.

I absolutely agree with you, dharmamama, about the importance of those things for a child; I just dispute that dating is the way to do it. (Again, as I wrote in my first post, dating may be nice, but it's not good *for the child*.)

My child "see[s] a loving relationship between two people in which the children are not the primary focus" every week or more, when she sees me interacting (including hugging, laughing, even arguing and making up) with my adult friends in her presence. She *couldn't* see this (and learn to model healthy behaviors and choices) if she were with a babysitter at home and I were doing that interacting in a restaurant date across town.

My child indirectly sees me "pursuing actvities that don't include the child" every weekday when I go to work, and directly -- a better lesson -- when I do things in her presence (go to the post office, take a phone call, post on MDC) that aren't *for her*.

Dating is for the adults, not the children. , Red!

[dharmamama]

Originally Posted by dharmamama

I think it directly benefits children to see a loving relationship between two people in which the children are not the primary focus

I think it's good for children to witness the fact that their parents go out together to enjoy time together alone. My husband and I enjoy going out to dinner alone, without the children. We do it a couple of times a year. This is not a date, this is my husband and I going out to dinner alone, without the children. It's good for us, and it's good for my kids to see us making time to focus exclusively on each other, doing something together that we both enjoy doing. Just like I do with my kids, and it benefits my kids to see me making time for their sibling, for us to focus exclusively on each other, doing something together that we both enjoy doing.

Now we can agree to disagree, Seasons.

Namaste!

[BusyMommy]

I hope my kids see Mom and Dad as having a strong, loving and fun relationship with each other as well as with the kids. And, the kids actually like it when we go out b/c they get excited about us dressing up, etc PLUS they get to hang out w/a really cool babysitter who plays 100% w/them; ie. no laundry or chores

[candiland]

Originally Posted by Seasons

Dating is for the adults, not the children.

Now, I find this amusing, because we are discussing a "tribe" of people who are all interdependent... so if the adults NEED time to themselves, and they don't get it, it will affect the children negatively. Just because some moms and dads are perfectly happy not having or getting much time to themselves doesn't mean *everyone* is like that. And it has nothing to do with being AP. My sister is about the most anti-AP woman I've ever met and she's never left her child with a sitter or gone on a date. One of the most AP families I know... homebirthing, extended nursing, cosleeping, cloth-diapering, anti-circ. and vaxxing parents... go out once a week for a few hours on dates.

I know it's easy to misconstrue messages as being anti-AP because AP comes under attack frequently. But the main message I've received is this: if it works for you and your family, it is fantastic. If it doesn't work and not everyone is satisfied, change it. AP isn't set in stone... it's about creating the most secure, loving families we can by respecting everyone's unique needs and differences.

[candiland]

I just wanted to add that when I had my first child, it *was* set in stone for me that adults didn't need time to themselves. Five years later, our marriage practically fell apart because there was a total lack of adult communication (who wants to hash out the intimate details of their sex life in front of their children?) and none of our needs were being met as friends and lovers.

If I wouldn't have been so strict about my "ideals" in the first place those first five years of parenting would have been a lot more loving and enjoyable for everyone... my daughter included. I feel a lot of anger - albeit totally misplaced - toward those books and people that made me feel like I'd be a failure as a mom if I detached from my child once in a while. I really internalized those messages sooo deeply that a lot of pain and trauma resulted because of it.

[Seasons]

if the adults NEED time to themselves, and they don't get it, it will affect the children negatively.

And I agree, candiland, in my post #2 above:

I'd also respect if the "experts" explained that dating was one means (of many, including solo hobbies, girlfriend chats and work outside the home) to take a break from 24/7 parenting, for folks who want/need that. (I *can* comment there; working gives me considerable pride and stress release.)

What I DESPISE is the implication that dating is good for the CHILDREN, that kids need the assurance (or illusion) of parents' romantic involvement in order to thrive.

So what's so funny? I need, and get, time for myself at work. (I just love peeing all by myself once in a while! ) I need, and get, affection and friendship from adults -- but I just happen to share that time with my child. I never said people shouldn't date (although *I* choose not to); I never said people shouldn't take time away from their child. (That time could be spent in work, scrapbooking seminars, girls' nights out, dating -- whatever works for *you*, although I think family time should be a priority and majority of the time.) I just don't think children "need" their parents to have a romance, in order for those kids to thrive. That's my very specific beef: the experts who phrase the dating bit as something kids need, and worse, Dr.Phil et al's assertion that "the very best thing you can provide for your child is a strong marriage between the child's parents." Hogwash.

(As to what makes marriages-with-children work: I can’t address that; I’ve never been in one. But I HAVE been, am, in a family with a thriving child and the parent, me, doesn’t date. So I can assure the “experts” that parental dating isn’t necessary for all kids.)

So we're cool, dharmamama and candiland?

[candiland]

I just don't think children "need" their parents to have a romance, in order for those kids to thrive. That's my very specific beef: the experts who phrase the dating bit as something kids need, and worse, Dr.Phil et al's assertion that "the very best thing you can provide for your child is a strong marriage between the child's parents." Hogwash.

But for *most* adults in a marriage, if there isn't any romance, that's bound to cause ill feelings that can and will carry that energy over to the children.

ITA that *one* of the best things I can provide for my children is a strong marriage between their parents. If you don't have a strong marriage and refuse to work at it, than get the heck outta the marriage. The kids don't want or need negative energy stemming from marital problems that aren't being addressed.

Being single is totally different. None of the marriage stuff applies to single people. I am a firm believer that single parents can raise children just as well as married parents can. But I think this advice we're discussing is related to marriage, which makes single parenting a moot point, because that's not what we're discussing.

Does that make sense?

FTR, I am always willing to agree to disagree. I don't develop "hard feelings" very easily... I just tend to be very direct with my opinion, but that opinion is always subject to change if someone is making more sense than me! :LOL

[dharmamama]

Yeah, Seasons, we're cool!

But the "experts" are not talking about single moms going out on dates. They are talking, in this context, about married couples making time to nurture their relationship and focus exclusively on their and their partner's needs as a couple so as the enhance and strengthen their relationship for the good of everyone in the family. That's a completely different thing than a single parent "dating" others. I don't like the word "date" applied to married couples because dating before marriage is not even remotely the same thing as carving out time for your relationship post-marriage and kids.

Namaste!