or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › Why can't she like Polly Pocket and other froo froo stuff?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why can't she like Polly Pocket and other froo froo stuff? - Page 9

post #161 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by velochic View Post
This is the original post (which I keep going back to). The mother is just asking the OP to discourage her dd from playing with girly things. In the course of a day, how hard can that be?

Then she asks, "why is it so bad for her to love this stuff?"... and the answer is because the family doesn't approve of it and she has no right to decide what is right and wrong for the family. It. is. not. up to her to decide what is "so bad" or not so bad for this family. Her obligation is to say, "Yes I can try to do that." or to say, "I won't and I'm telling you up-front so you can find another DCP if you feel you need to."

As I've said before... we all "control" things about our child's upbringing. It is not our right to say that one mother is more controlling because she is controlling something we don't care about/have an opinion about.

For example, if a DCP were praying a Christian prayer around my dd, I wouldn't give a flip. But I can guarantee that my in-laws in Turkey would care. If a DCP is praying in front of the kids, and you ask that they don't... is this controlling... or is it just something that matters to you?

ETA: again, for the record... my dd has never been in day care and I've never been a DCP.

This is why I would choose a provider that had smililar values to me. I would not take my family to my neighbors Wiccan daycare because she very openly practices her religion in front of the children (who are mostly from Wiccan families) It would be silly of me to assume that I could tell her "that is just not who we are... please encourage her to pray a christian prayer" Not beause she couldn't/wouldn't but because it is not what I want my daughter (or sons) exposed too (not because it is "Bad" but because it is not who we are). A DCP should be allowed to run the day care to suit their needs and beliefs (barring illegal activity of course) and as a consumer I should be able to shop around a find a daycare that meets my needs and the needs of my child.
post #162 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcee View Post
A DCP should be allowed to run the day care to suit their needs and beliefs (barring illegal activity of course) and as a consumer I should be able to shop around a find a daycare that meets my needs and the needs of my child.
Absolutely. But if you already have a great relationship with a DCP, and this is one point of contention... why is it "wrong" for the mother to say, "hey can you help me out with this...?" (whatever that "this" is)

I don't want to take this off-topic, but in my example, don't you think that you have a right as a parent to ask that if the DCP wanted to pray, that they do so in private (not in front of the kids?).

Discouraging one child from playing with certain toys doesn't affect all of the children. This is not like prayer at a meal. It is an individual situation that the DCP can easily do. She simply doesn't think she should have to because it's not something that is on her "how to raise a child" radar.

Perhaps a better analogy is giving a child a certain food. I would be livid to find out that my kid was getting cheap, processed foods. We don't eat it... ever... in our house. My choice as a mother is to ask that a DCP not give her that food and provide and alternative.

The mother in this case is doing the exact same thing... only difference is that it is a class of toys she is concerned about.
post #163 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by velochic View Post
I don't want to take this off-topic, but in my example, don't you think that you have a right as a parent to ask that if the DCP wanted to pray, that they do so in private (not in front of the kids?).
Well, if the parent put the child in care knowing the praying was going on, she could ask, but shouldn't except her wishes to be followed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by velochic View Post
Discouraging one child from playing with certain toys doesn't affect all of the children. This is not like prayer at a meal. It is an individual situation that the DCP can easily do. She simply doesn't think she should have to because it's not something that is on her "how to raise a child" radar.
.
How exactly do you expect the dcp to continuously discourage this child when all the other children can play with the toys, without feelings being hurt and problems ensuing? 3 yr olds aren't exactly known for being reasonable.
post #164 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by velochic View Post
Discouraging one child from playing with certain toys doesn't affect all of the children. This is not like prayer at a meal. It is an individual situation that the DCP can easily do. She simply doesn't think she should have to because it's not something that is on her "how to raise a child" radar.
No, she doesn't think she should have to do it because she is uncomfortable acting as the mother's proxy in her campaign to coercively manipulate her child's developing gender identity.

Looking back at the original post, the mother's concern really seems to be about gender roles, not "commercialism" as such. Especially once you throw in the additional information about the mother being just fine with her son playing with girly items. I can't believe this has repeatedly gotten passed over in favor of a tangential debate about marketing.

As a woman it really shocks me how many women on this forum are so dogmatically devoted to repressing certain gender expressions that the little girl's feelings aren't even a factor in the discussion so far!

If it were a fundamentalist Christian mother telling the DCP to not let her kid play with "boy" toys, instead to redirect her to the kitchen playset, etc., because it's against her religion to cross traditional gender roles, the responses on this thread would be radically different.

When I see little girls wanting to adorn themselves being compared to guns and violence, it makes me sick.

Now of course the mother has a right to have things as she wishes in her own home. If she wants to set her kid up for years of therapy by emotionally penalizing her every time she explores gender expressions that don't perfectly match the mother's own, hey, it's a free country, right? The OP isn't trying to buy the girl princess pink underwear and Dora shirts and send her home dressed like that in place of the clothes provided by the parents.

All the DCP is asking to do is not to have to make this little girl unnecessarily miserable. The original question was, why isn't she (THE LITTLE GIRL) allowed to like froo froo stuff??? The DCP isn't pushing gender roles. She gives no disapproval to the little girl's brother for playing with the girlie stuff. It's a very valid question - why isn't the girl allowed to like what she likes? The OP isn't really asking what she should do as far as the policy of her business. She seems to know her own mind pretty well about day care policy and has apparently handled other sensitive situations in the past. What she wants to know is why she is being asked to enforce restrictive gender norms. She wants to know, why the discriminatory policing of a young child's imaginative play?????????

I think on some level, looking at this family, the differential treatment of daughter and son, she would probably also like to know: what is so awful about being female that gender-typical female interests must be quashed, while the boy is free to define himself as he chooses?

I sure want to know, myself.

It's none of her business, you may say. But she has to take care of this child, she obviously has benevolent concern for this child, and as a child care provider she is in this family's business whether they like it or not. She has been afforded a glimpse into something very ugly, masked as a liberal ideal. It's not just that she's being asked to do something she doesn't want to do.

If I were the DCP I would find it violating to be asked to do this - to tell a little girl she can't play with certain things because she is a girl. To be asked to monitor, limit, and control a child's play experiences based on gender. As a woman, I wouldn't be able to do it. As a woman, I would find it degrading. The mother is asking the DCP to become the kind of person who puts limits on what girls can do, be, think and feel. That's not something that can be turned on and off. It's a matter of deep philosophical perspective, perhaps even spiritual in a sense. And it's just not covered by the day care fees. The OP is right to be perplexed and bothered by this situation.

But I am glad this little girl is being exposed to a woman who can model being relaxed and comfortable about female identity. Because she's sure not getting it at home.
post #165 of 186
Quote:
It is an individual situation that the DCP can easily do.
I think the issue is that that policing what toys a child plays with (of available toys) IS NOT easy to do. It is one thing for a parent to ask a DCP to do certain things consistent with their belief systems. It is completely different if those things cause SIGNIFICANTLY more work for DCP. Policing toys and taking toys away and perhaps dealing with the ensuing tantrum or discussion from the child would be A LOT more work (unless the child is unusually placid).

A similar example would be if a parent wanted a child to wear certain outfits for certain activites, and every day they sent their child with 5 different outfits and wanted them to wear one outfit for eating, another for indoor play, another for outdoor play, another for nap, another for art/crafts. I think it would be pretty unreasonable to expect a DCP to change a child's clothes 5 times a day.

Similiarly, I would think it would be unreasonable to expect a DCP to keep a child away from certain toys, or to spend lots of money and time replacing certain toys.
post #166 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by GalateaDunkel View Post
All the DCP is asking to do is not to have to make this little girl unnecessarily miserable. The original question was, why isn't she (THE LITTLE GIRL) allowed to like froo froo stuff??? The DCP isn't pushing gender roles. She gives no disapproval to the little girl's brother for playing with the girlie stuff. It's a very valid question - why isn't the girl allowed to like what she likes? The OP isn't really asking what she should do as far as the policy of her business. She seems to know her own mind pretty well about day care policy and has apparently handled other sensitive situations in the past. What she wants to know is why she is being asked to enforce restrictive gender norms. She wants to know, why the discriminatory policing of a young child's imaginative play?????????

I think on some level, looking at this family, the differential treatment of daughter and son, she would probably also like to know: what is so awful about being female that gender-typical female interests must be quashed, while the boy is free to define himself as he chooses?

I sure want to know, myself.

It's none of her business, you may say. But she has to take care of this child, she obviously has benevolent concern for this child, and as a child care provider she is in this family's business whether they like it or not. She has been afforded a glimpse into something very ugly, masked as a liberal ideal. It's not just that she's being asked to do something she doesn't want to do.

If I were the DCP I would find it violating to be asked to do this - to tell a little girl she can't play with certain things because she is a girl. To be asked to monitor, limit, and control a child's play experiences based on gender. As a woman, I wouldn't be able to do it. As a woman, I would find it degrading. The mother is asking the DCP to become the kind of person who puts limits on what girls can do, be, think and feel. That's not something that can be turned on and off. It's a matter of deep philosophical perspective, perhaps even spiritual in a sense. And it's just not covered by the day care fees. The OP is right to be perplexed and bothered by this situation.

But I am glad this little girl is being exposed to a woman who can model being relaxed and comfortable about female identity. Because she's sure not getting it at home.
Well said, GalateaDunkel.
post #167 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by GalateaDunkel View Post
No, she doesn't think she should have to do it because she is uncomfortable acting as the mother's proxy in her campaign to coercively manipulate her child's developing gender identity.

Looking back at the original post, the mother's concern really seems to be about gender roles, not "commercialism" as such. Especially once you throw in the additional information about the mother being just fine with her son playing with girly items. I can't believe this has repeatedly gotten passed over in favor of a tangential debate about marketing.

As a woman it really shocks me how many women on this forum are so dogmatically devoted to repressing certain gender expressions that the little girl's feelings aren't even a factor in the discussion so far!

If it were a fundamentalist Christian mother telling the DCP to not let her kid play with "boy" toys, instead to redirect her to the kitchen playset, etc., because it's against her religion to cross traditional gender roles, the responses on this thread would be radically different.

When I see little girls wanting to adorn themselves being compared to guns and violence, it makes me sick.

Now of course the mother has a right to have things as she wishes in her own home. If she wants to set her kid up for years of therapy by emotionally penalizing her every time she explores gender expressions that don't perfectly match the mother's own, hey, it's a free country, right? The OP isn't trying to buy the girl princess pink underwear and Dora shirts and send her home dressed like that in place of the clothes provided by the parents.

All the DCP is asking to do is not to have to make this little girl unnecessarily miserable. The original question was, why isn't she (THE LITTLE GIRL) allowed to like froo froo stuff??? The DCP isn't pushing gender roles. She gives no disapproval to the little girl's brother for playing with the girlie stuff. It's a very valid question - why isn't the girl allowed to like what she likes? The OP isn't really asking what she should do as far as the policy of her business. She seems to know her own mind pretty well about day care policy and has apparently handled other sensitive situations in the past. What she wants to know is why she is being asked to enforce restrictive gender norms. She wants to know, why the discriminatory policing of a young child's imaginative play?????????

I think on some level, looking at this family, the differential treatment of daughter and son, she would probably also like to know: what is so awful about being female that gender-typical female interests must be quashed, while the boy is free to define himself as he chooses?

I sure want to know, myself.

It's none of her business, you may say. But she has to take care of this child, she obviously has benevolent concern for this child, and as a child care provider she is in this family's business whether they like it or not. She has been afforded a glimpse into something very ugly, masked as a liberal ideal. It's not just that she's being asked to do something she doesn't want to do.

If I were the DCP I would find it violating to be asked to do this - to tell a little girl she can't play with certain things because she is a girl. To be asked to monitor, limit, and control a child's play experiences based on gender. As a woman, I wouldn't be able to do it. As a woman, I would find it degrading. The mother is asking the DCP to become the kind of person who puts limits on what girls can do, be, think and feel. That's not something that can be turned on and off. It's a matter of deep philosophical perspective, perhaps even spiritual in a sense. And it's just not covered by the day care fees. The OP is right to be perplexed and bothered by this situation.

But I am glad this little girl is being exposed to a woman who can model being relaxed and comfortable about female identity. Because she's sure not getting it at home.

Yes, all that, absoloutely.
post #168 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by GalateaDunkel View Post
It's a very valid question - why isn't the girl allowed to like what she likes?
Well, first of all, let's not get carried away with imagining the mother as some kind of cruel, controlling zealot, when there's really no evidence for that. All this stuff about policing the little girl all day long and grabbing girly toys out of her hands while she cries is just silly - the OP never said that was what the mother wanted. I imagine what she had in mind was that if the girl was looking for a new activity, the DCP shouldn't suggest dressing up in the girly clothes, and that, ideally, the DCP would try to get the girl interested in something like the doctor kit so she would forget about the dress-up clothes.

So, why shouldn't the girl just be allowed to like what she likes? The thing is, there are so many things that could be influencing what she likes, and they're not necessarily all good influences. Kids may decide they like certain things because they've seen them advertised on TV, because they see other kids playing with them, or because adults expect them to like those things . . . And even if a kid just naturally likes something with no outside influence, that doesn't automatically make it good, and it doesn't mean the parent should never try to steer the kid away from that thing. What if a kid likes Froot Loops, or Bratz dolls, or playing war, or shooting songbirds with a BB gun, or hanging out with a clique of popular kids who are mean to the unpopular kids, or looking at internet porn? (Just to list a few things that some of you are likely to be opposed to.)

If your kid loves Froot Loops and you refuse to buy them, you're not coercively manipulating your kid's identity. I really don't think expressing scorn for an obsession with dressing up and looking pretty is any worse than expressing scorn for Froot Loops.
post #169 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daffodil View Post
If your kid loves Froot Loops and you refuse to buy them, you're not coercively manipulating your kid's identity. I really don't think expressing scorn for an obsession with dressing up and looking pretty is any worse than expressing scorn for Froot Loops.
I really don't see these as equal but I'm going to quit now. I agree with what Galetea wrote.

I see a difference between refusing to buy something and refusing to let a child play with it or even eat it at someone else's house. I understand it's more problematic when the child spends a lot of time at the other place (a day care provider FE versus a once a year visit to relatives) but I still think what the OP describes is fine (it's what my family does) and I guess the parents should think about looking for a more like-minded day care provider.
post #170 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daffodil View Post
If your kid loves Froot Loops and you refuse to buy them, you're not coercively manipulating your kid's identity. I really don't think expressing scorn for an obsession with dressing up and looking pretty is any worse than expressing scorn for Froot Loops.
But if you *do* buy Froot Loops and then let one of your kids eat them but not the other, that's ... just weird.
post #171 of 186
I just don't think it's that weird that the mother doesn't care if her son wears girly stuff. No matter how much he likes it now, she can be pretty sure all the influences around him will make him lose interest in that stuff before he's much older. She knows it's a passing phase for him, so she doesn't care. I think if I were her, I'd be more likely to assume the same was true for the girl, and not care so much about her liking pretty princess things as a 3 year old. But there's a lot of pressure for girls in our society to care about dressing up and looking pretty, so I can see why the mother might worry about it and want to minimize it as much as possible.

It's not as if the mother has actually said that her boy can dress up as much as he wants, but the girl is not allowed to. She just asked the DCP if she could try to encourage the girl to get interested in other things, without making the same request about the boy. It's like if you had one kid who seemed to want to eat sugary cereal all the time, and one who didn't care about it so much, and you asked your DCP to make a special effort to help the first kid learn to like different food, but didn't feel it was necessary for the second kid.
post #172 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daffodil View Post
I just don't think it's that weird that the mother doesn't care if her son wears girly stuff. No matter how much he likes it now, she can be pretty sure all the influences around him will make him lose interest in that stuff before he's much older. She knows it's a passing phase for him, so she doesn't care. I think if I were her, I'd be more likely to assume the same was true for the girl, and not care so much about her liking pretty princess things as a 3 year old. But there's a lot of pressure for girls in our society to care about dressing up and looking pretty, so I can see why the mother might worry about it and want to minimize it as much as possible.

It's not as if the mother has actually said that her boy can dress up as much as he wants, but the girl is not allowed to. She just asked the DCP if she could try to encourage the girl to get interested in other things, without making the same request about the boy. It's like if you had one kid who seemed to want to eat sugary cereal all the time, and one who didn't care about it so much, and you asked your DCP to make a special effort to help the first kid learn to like different food, but didn't feel it was necessary for the second kid.
Once again, this isn't parallel. We might expect that both children be gently pushed away from their stereotypical gender roles, so that the girl was kept away from dress-up clothes and the boy was kept away from trucks. If the mother also said she didn't want the boy to play with trucks and trains, then your point would make sense. But the mother specifically suggested buying a train table. It sounds like the boy is allowed to try out whatever toys are available and choose what he likes, while the girl is not allowed the same choices. And, what's more, it sounds like "girly" is being labeled as "bad" and "boyish" is being labeled as "OK".
post #173 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by GalateaDunkel View Post
As a woman it really shocks me how many women on this forum are so dogmatically devoted to repressing certain gender expressions that the little girl's feelings aren't even a factor in the discussion so far!

If it were a fundamentalist Christian mother telling the DCP to not let her kid play with "boy" toys, instead to redirect her to the kitchen playset, etc., because it's against her religion to cross traditional gender roles, the responses on this thread would be radically different.

When I see little girls wanting to adorn themselves being compared to guns and violence, it makes me sick.

All the DCP is asking to do is not to have to make this little girl unnecessarily miserable. The original question was, why isn't she (THE LITTLE GIRL) allowed to like froo froo stuff??? The DCP isn't pushing gender roles. She gives no disapproval to the little girl's brother for playing with the girlie stuff. It's a very valid question - why isn't the girl allowed to like what she likes? The OP isn't really asking what she should do as far as the policy of her business. She seems to know her own mind pretty well about day care policy and has apparently handled other sensitive situations in the past. What she wants to know is why she is being asked to enforce restrictive gender norms. She wants to know, why the discriminatory policing of a young child's imaginative play?????????

I think on some level, looking at this family, the differential treatment of daughter and son, she would probably also like to know: what is so awful about being female that gender-typical female interests must be quashed, while the boy is free to define himself as he chooses?

I sure want to know, myself.


It's none of her business, you may say. But she has to take care of this child, she obviously has benevolent concern for this child, and as a child care provider she is in this family's business whether they like it or not. She has been afforded a glimpse into something very ugly, masked as a liberal ideal. It's not just that she's being asked to do something she doesn't want to do.

If I were the DCP I would find it violating to be asked to do this - to tell a little girl she can't play with certain things because she is a girl. To be asked to monitor, limit, and control a child's play experiences based on gender. As a woman, I wouldn't be able to do it. As a woman, I would find it degrading. The mother is asking the DCP to become the kind of person who puts limits on what girls can do, be, think and feel. That's not something that can be turned on and off. It's a matter of deep philosophical perspective, perhaps even spiritual in a sense. And it's just not covered by the day care fees. The OP is right to be perplexed and bothered by this situation.

But I am glad this little girl is being exposed to a woman who can model being relaxed and comfortable about female identity. Because she's sure not getting it at home.
(bolding mine) You took the words right out of my mouth. The whole situation is rotten, rotten, rotten and completely antithetical to every feminist value the mother is probably thinking she is instilling. It is exactly this kind of crap that leads to grown women declaring that they are not feminists because they chose to get married and have children or even leave the paid work force to be home with their kids. And they are convinced that these choice is something that all feminists frown upon. :
post #174 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by mamazee View Post
Once again, this isn't parallel. We might expect that both children be gently pushed away from their stereotypical gender roles, so that the girl was kept away from dress-up clothes and the boy was kept away from trucks. If the mother also said she didn't want the boy to play with trucks and trains, then your point would make sense. But the mother specifically suggested buying a train table. It sounds like the boy is allowed to try out whatever toys are available and choose what he likes, while the girl is not allowed the same choices. And, what's more, it sounds like "girly" is being labeled as "bad" and "boyish" is being labeled as "OK".
Well, no, it's not parallel. I don't know exactly what the mother is thinking, but I guess I'm assuming her ideas are similar to mine, but a bit more extreme. So I don't imagine she's trying to push both kids away from stereotypical gender roles; I imagine she's trying to push both kids away from any idea she finds silly or harmful, without regard to whether it's traditionally considered a "boy thing" or a "girl thing."

She probably thinks an obsession with looking pretty and having lots of pretty clothes is foolish and unhealthy. Not because it's a "girly" thing but just because it really IS foolish and unhealthy. We don't know whether she thinks everything "boyish" is okay. It may well be that there are "boy" things she doesn't like - violent games, for instance. Maybe she'll want to gently push her boy away from those things if he starts to get interested in them, in the same way she wants to guide her daughter away from girly dress-up stuff.
post #175 of 186
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jwebbal View Post
A variety is important here I would think, doctors, vets, police, aprons, high heels AND construction and hiking boots, hats, hats and more hats, mens clothes, womens clothes, sparkly stuff, plain stuff, etc, etc. You get the idea. .
The thing is I HAVE all that other stuff. I have the fireman, construction dress ups, I have LOADS of animal costumes, I have JUST TWO pairs of girly dress up things, and TWO pairs of beads. ALL she cares about are those purple shoes, and those purple beads.

The kid has been here for over a year now. This obsession is less than two months old, and Mom is frantic over it.

SHe only wants to wear sundresses now. MOm isn't at ALL happy about that. But, every single day, she comes over in a sun dress. If it was such a big deal to mom, why are there dresses in her closet? Why is it MY responsibilty to steer her away from these things, when MOm can't?

Besides that... It's HOT here. Those sundresses are a whole lot more comfortable than her other clothes. I think sundresses are a great idea!

Anyway.. I am pretty sure that if Mom would just stop worrying so much, that by September, this child will have a new obsession... it may still be pink, sparkly, and pretty.. but, I bet it wont be those shoes.
post #176 of 186
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daffodil View Post
Well, first of all, let's not get carried away with imagining the mother as some kind of cruel, controlling zealot,.

She is not cruel or controlling at all. SHe is very nice, and as a daycare parent, (business) She is great! Picks up on time, pays on time, remembers supplies...

She and I just think a little differently. For instance, I love to let the kids do art. She wants her daughter to be writing her name. Art is a waste of time to her. SO we compromise. I have her work on her name every day, AND she gets to participate in the craft. The little girl likes art, but doesn't love it. She likes to write, but doesn't love it.

This mom doesn't believe in celebrating birthdays. But, we always celebrate birthdays at our house. Except for their birthdays. (they don't know when it's their birthday)

It isn't a religious thing. They just have their own ideas.

The very first issue to come up was food. I REALLY had to work hard on that one. Because as I have already said, I am NOT a super healthy cook. I really had to learn.
post #177 of 186
To me, this is not about commercialism or gender roles at all. It's about asking for special treatment for your kid. This mom's sense of entitlement bugs me more than anything else. It also seems to me like she's trying to impose her values in a pretty heavy-handed way. Maybe she's not controlling, but she's definitely micro-managing.
post #178 of 186
I think this kids mother is WRONG, very wrong. There is nothing wrong with her pushing the non-gender specific toys on her child but there has to be an equal amount of things or else her child will ofcourse want what she doesn't want her to have. I have boys that played with not only boy toys but baby dolls when they were little and a little girl that plays with matchbox cars, dinosaurs and train sets almost as much as she loves her dolls. It all equals out. That's a part of being a kid.

It sounds like this little girl is making up for lost time. She doesn't have access to this stuff in the home so she is going crazy at daycare, lol! I see nothing wrong with it. She sounds normal to me and it sounds like she is doing what comes normal to a lot of females, which is playing with girlie stuff. If it's something she is doing naturally by her own choice then why would ANY parent want to discourage that? She has many years to be exposed to varoius different things. Her mother sounds very closed minded and mean. If she isn't careful her child will turn in to her worst enemy one day, how sad.
post #179 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by nextcommercial View Post
She is not cruel or controlling at all. SHe is very nice, and as a daycare parent, (business) She is great! Picks up on time, pays on time, remembers supplies...

She and I just think a little differently. For instance, I love to let the kids do art. She wants her daughter to be writing her name. Art is a waste of time to her. SO we compromise. I have her work on her name every day, AND she gets to participate in the craft. The little girl likes art, but doesn't love it. She likes to write, but doesn't love it.

This mom doesn't believe in celebrating birthdays. But, we always celebrate birthdays at our house. Except for their birthdays. (they don't know when it's their birthday)

It isn't a religious thing. They just have their own ideas.

The very first issue to come up was food. I REALLY had to work hard on that one. Because as I have already said, I am NOT a super healthy cook. I really had to learn.
You are great for going along with this mother and trying to work with her. Not many daycare providers would do that. What I don't understand is how she can be so rigid and weird about what her child is doing but yet she feels no guilt in working all day and dropping her off at a daycare to be cared for? : This woman is a real case, I tell ya. And i'm not downing daycares, I used them for all 3 of my kids at some point when they were younger. But this woman you are dealing with seems to be contradicting herself. If she wants her child to be protected from life and from the world around her then IMHO she needs to be a SAHM. That's the only way she can come close to keeping her child out of the real world.

I wonder if she is going to quit work when it's time for her child to start school so she can stay so close minded??? I hope she realizes it will get MUCH worse once the child starts school. No school teacher is going to do what you do. The child will constantly be failing school because in elementary it's not all about learning, but lots of arts, playing and being a kid!
post #180 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by nextcommercial View Post
She and I just think a little differently. For instance, I love to let the kids do art. She wants her daughter to be writing her name. Art is a waste of time to her. SO we compromise.
Okay, now that I REALLY have a problem with. Art is NOT a waste of time. It's important in so many ways. Now if the kid has no interest, fine. I have a kid who's not really into arts and crafts but we always have done SOME.

Also I think making a 3 yo practice writing her name is a bit much. UNLESS the 3yo has displayed an interest. None of my kids were interested at 3 but maybe some are?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Parenting
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › Why can't she like Polly Pocket and other froo froo stuff?