Anyone read "Hold On to your Kids?" Do you try to avoid peer-orientation? - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 75 Old 02-19-2011, 12:23 PM - Thread Starter
 
bluedaisy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 626
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)

I just read this book and it's pretty thought-provoking.  His main argument is that children are naturally programmed to attach to their parents and have their parents be their compass point for learning how to act.  However, today children are becoming peer-oriented and attaching to one another instead of attaching to their parents or other adults.

 

He says that "children today increasingly look to their peers for direction - their values, identity, and codes of behavior. This 'peer orientation' undermines family cohesion, interferes with healthy development, and fosters a hostile and sexualized youth culture.  Children end up becoming overly conformist, desensitized, and alienated, and being 'cool' matters more to them than anything else.

 

What do you think?  Do you have ways that you intentionally try to keep yourself adn your spouse more important in the lives of your children than their peers?  Do you try to limit interactions with peers?

 

My DD is only 2 so I haven't experienced much of this yet but I have heard from many people how important it is that she spend time with other children even at this age, which he argues is not as important as most people believe it is.


Loving wife to DH and buddamomimg1.pngmama to DD (11/08) and DS (2/12)

bluedaisy is online now  
#2 of 75 Old 02-19-2011, 12:31 PM
 
rightkindofme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 4,641
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)

I haven't read the book, but if you do a search you'll turn up a bunch of threads. :)


My advice may not be appropriate for you. That's ok. You are just fine how you are and I am the right kind of me.

rightkindofme is offline  
#3 of 75 Old 02-19-2011, 05:15 PM
 
meemee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Norther California
Posts: 12,783
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)

dd is 8. no i dont worry about that at all - or try to make sure we have the connection.

 

nothing seems to be broken that needs to be fixed.

 

i have given dd a good foundation to think and analyse. i do hope - probably when she is a teen that she separates from me and looks at her peers and makes up her own mind based on what she thinks is right rather than me or her friends. 

 

i take some of that book with a grain of salt. of course in my teens i was 'cool', didnt listen to my parents. i did the opposite of what they said. and we went our own ways. but it wasnt for ever. i was back after i was done with that phase. 

 

i think the book talks about too much in teh extreme. we as parents can only do so much. ultimately its our child's job to figure out which path to take. based on the critical thinking skills i have given dd she should be able to make those decisions. i can never imagine us losing connection though. even if it is a possibility. 

 

i have never limited interaction with peers. i have never chosen her friends for her. and i have never stood up to fight for her. instead i've helped and guided her to deal with the bullies (mild) in her school. in fact its been the opposite. i've tried encouraging friends and dd has asked me to stop. she wasnt interested in them. 

 

there were a couple of kids i didnt really like. they were unfortunately not taught what socially acceptable behaviour was and was getting dd into trouble too at 4. i spoke to dd and asked her to be a little more awere. if i saw her in public and could tell she was getting to the point where she was getting too excited adn would be hard to bring down i would correct her. but i still did not stop her playing with them. in fact in time soon enough she herself stopped playing with them. 


 treehugger.gif Co-parent, joy.gifcold.gifbrand new homeschooling middle schoolerjoy.gif, and an attackcat.gif 
meemee is online now  
#4 of 75 Old 02-19-2011, 05:38 PM
 
sweetpeppers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Medford, NJ
Posts: 848
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I think the problem is that parents set themselves up as the enemy (though that's too strong a word from what I mean). I would have loved to have a closer connection with my parents growing up as a teenager, but it was always us against them. We snuck around to do what we wanted because we knew it wouldn't be allowed or we would get in trouble or they would take the teacher's side or ours, etc. They weren't bad parents, and I never did anything "bad" just stuff they wouldn't approve of. To avoid the drama, we just disconnected and did our own thing without them knowing about it. That's one of the reasons why I think it's important to not try to control our children's lives.

 

Even though I can understand the importance of the book, I can see parents reading this book, and just driving their kids further away by limiting their friends, etc. I think attachment parenting shouldn't be an excuse to micromanage our children's lives to keep them from ever getting hurt.

transylvania_mom likes this.

my toy shop on etsy.com: wooden baby keys, natural bathtub toys, wooden animals, little kitchens, waldorf dolls...also check out my blog about saving money, creating things, and natural living
sweetpeppers is offline  
#5 of 75 Old 02-19-2011, 07:06 PM
 
Wild Lupine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: New England
Posts: 2,089
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26 Post(s)

I loved that book. My kids are still very young, 4 and 2, and I think the most important thing I got from the book was to respect their need for dependence and connection. I don't push them to be independent, but let them decide when they are ready to separate from me a little. There can be a lot of societal pressure to push kids to be independent too early and this book helped me resist that pressure. Before reading the book I thought kids needed to be taught how to be independent, that I needed to actively help them separate from me i.e., encourage them to sleep independently, dress themselves, etc... Now I believe that kids demand to be independent when they are ready for it, and that if I meet their needs when they present them, they'll be ready for healthy independence in their own time, in their own way.

 

I know this isn't all the book says, and that other books might say something similar, but that was the take-home message for me and it completely changed my approach to parenting.

 

ETA: About limiting interactions with peers, I don't do that now, and don't know if I will in the future. If I do it will be more about honoring family time and connections. I will make they spend time with me through special outings together, family meals, and vacations, and I'm sure some of those times they'll rather be with their friends than Mom. But I don't think I would restrict time with peers just for the sake of it.


Mom to DD 7 and DS 5.
Wild Lupine is online now  
#6 of 75 Old 02-19-2011, 07:29 PM
 
mamazee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: US midwest
Posts: 7,500
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)

I don't limit peer interaction, but I make sure there is lots of time for family interaction as well - family dinners, games after dinner, "family days" which we do regularly where we do one thing after another all together as family.  My daughter plays outside with kids for hours and hours a day in good weather.  That's great exercise, great use of imagination as they do a lot of imaginative play, great living with nature as they play out in the woods, etc.  I don't want her to do without that either as it is also valuable.  I did like the book and I value the perspective, but I've decided limiting her play with neighborhood kids isn't in her best interest.  There's room for both lots of play with kids, and lots of interaction with us.  I don't think there's an "us against them" issue in my family.

mamazee is offline  
#7 of 75 Old 02-19-2011, 07:49 PM
 
midnightwriter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: midnight
Posts: 1,303
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I love the book.

 

I don't limit my kids' interactions, but I don't "work" on creating them either--something that many mainstream parenting philosophies suggest as necessary.

 

Many would make you believe that if a 2 yo doesn't have 'friends' they are missing on something, and if you don't have your 2 yo in playdates and playgroups you're a bad parent. "OMG, they NEED to have FRIENDS!" I highly doubt that.

 

My 8 yo now has friends, my 6 yo is still not very interested. He loves playing with kids his age, but is still too self centered to understand what friendship is.

 


My kids are 8, 5 and 2!
midnightwriter is offline  
#8 of 75 Old 02-19-2011, 10:20 PM
 
Dandelionkid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,674
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

From what I recall the book doesn't advocate limiting kids relationships with other kids but rather making the parent-child connection the strongest it can be. I love that book!

Dandelionkid is offline  
#9 of 75 Old 02-19-2011, 11:33 PM
 
GuildJenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 4,776
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I didn't like the fear-based sections of that book. While I think some of his points are fine, the idea that if you don't foster the exact right attachment -- and don't limit/discourage other types of attachment -- really didn't sit well with me. I think sometimes parents take that as an excuse to micromanage, as a PP said, inappropriately. I also think peer attachments can be extremely positive; the idea that all the OTHER kids are into bad stuff is suspect to me. I know teens that really encourage each other to volunteer, get involved, study, etc.

 

I much prefer Mary Pipher, particularly Raising Ophelia if you have girls, and The Shelter of Each Other on families.


~ Mum to Emily, March 12-16 2004, Noah, born Aug 2005, Liam, born January 2011, and wife to Carl since 1994. ~
GuildJenn is offline  
#10 of 75 Old 02-19-2011, 11:43 PM
 
LynnS6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Pacific NW longing for the Midwest
Posts: 12,565
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I too interpreted "Hold on to your kids" as "keep a close relationship" with them and not "keep them away from other kids". While I found parts of the book a bit fear mongering, I think that the overall message was positive: Your kids actually do want to spend time with you when they're teens, even when they don't look like they do.

 

For me, it's about balance -- if your kids' social lives keep them from doing anything with the family, that's not good. At the same time, if your family life keeps them from having friends outside the family, that's not good either.

 

A lot of it in our family is routine: We eat dinner together as a family. Even when that means waiting until 7:15 to eat because ds has basketball practice, or 6:40 because dd has piano. When our kids are teens, it'll take some creativity. I fully expect some resistance to going to church on Sundays, but we've built the routine now. We're also building relationships with peers and families at church so that they'll be connected. We're building relationships with families at school, again so there will be relationships not only with kids, but with families. We also play together -- playful parenting ideas really do help build this connection so kids want to be with you.

 


Lynnteapot2.GIF, academicreading.gif,geek.gif wife, WOHM  to T jog.gif(4/01) and M whistling.gif (5/04)
LynnS6 is offline  
#11 of 75 Old 02-19-2011, 11:47 PM
 
elisheva's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: BC
Posts: 1,447
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I love Gordon Neufeld. I don't think he means that parents should micromanage - just that they should take a more active role in knowing who the kids are hanging out with/knowing the parents and making sure they are people your kids can look to as substitute "compass points" if they are under their care. I don't find this unreasonable at all. It's the pervasive belief in North American culture that when our kids push us away as teenagers, we should passively accept it because it's "normal". All Neufeld is saying is that this "norm" causes more problems than we realize and that it's within our power as parents to change the culture in our own families - even if this means limiting extra-curricular activities and friend-time so that the family takes priority. 


"So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we’ll change the world." - Jack Layton
 
 
 
   

elisheva is offline  
#12 of 75 Old 02-21-2011, 07:26 AM
 
contactmaya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,069
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)

I read the book over 2 years ago now, but it made an impression on me, and i still have many unanswered questions about it. It is actually one of the main books on the Attachment Parenting reading list. Despite that, there are no people irl i know who have read the book, with the exception of  the AP leader. She said  she felt it didnt apply to her (wasnt sure why), so i could never get much  of a conversation going.

 

I think the idea was, that if you lay a good  attachment foundation in the beginning, you wont get the problems of peer attachment later.

 

Im not sure this is true. My then 2yo (ds1) seemed to be a case in point.

Many parents i know, and for some reason, more of them in the ap crowd ( im not sure why this is, maybe i just spend more time with them) struggle with children who wont separate, and who act  asocial, but my son was always the opposite. He separated without a problem, and thrived on the company of his peers. For eg, on a playdate (usually spontaneous), he could not wait to share his toys. The sharing  of toys and playing together with someone else, was part of the fun for him. This from the age of 1. I always thought he was an extreme  extravert because of it.  I struggled to find friends for him, not  in order to 'socialize him' (which seemed to be the preoccupation of most other parents i met), but so he could have fun,  laugh, run around, in ways that kids do with other kids. I still havent met another parent who values this as much as i do.

 
Ds2, has always had the benefit of a sibling. He seems to get the need for laughter and goofiness from  playing with his brother. So that preoccupation of mine is a thing of the past.
 
I like the book because Neufeld seems to explain alot of things i have always wondered about, like  the apparent amorality among  some teenagers, and the lack of respect children develop for their parents. I found it a good explanation, but i still think there is more to it.
 
I was always respectful of my parents. So i never went through that stage. I also think that if parents were more respectful of their kids(in the consensual living sense), maybe this wouldnt happen? I dont think Neufeld addresses this. I could pretty much do as i pleased growing up, so  i attribute that to why i didnt  'rebel'. I used to wish i had a reason to rebel, because it seemed like fun. But i didnt. I thought my parents were cool. 
 
Jumping generations, what bothered me about the book, was the assumption that children who are extraverts must also have some kind of attachement disorder with their parents. I was with my ds1 24/7. He was just an extravert, not disorderly attached.
 
Also the notion that attachment to peers is unnatural, and a response to an attachement disorder with immedate family, seems to be a little far fetched. 
 
The solution to the dilemma of increasing  peer attachement  seemed to be that a parent  has to get to know a childs friends-always host the parties, playdates etc. While i think this is a good idea, how is it workable for every parent? I mean if one parent is always hosting, when do the others get to host?
 
In short, im still confused. Im sure my post is as clear as mud. :-)
contactmaya is offline  
#13 of 75 Old 02-21-2011, 07:52 AM
 
seashells's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 659
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I like the book very much. I agree it does not recommend limiting peer relationships, only strengthening parent relationships. It didn't lead me to do anything different with DD, just reinforced and clarified what I wanted.

 

I was raised to be oriented toward my parents (my mom, mostly) so this is kind of just natural for me.

 

I do think peer orientation is not ideal. But I think what gets people up in arms is a misunderstanding of the word "orientation" - it doesn't mean that peers are bad for kids (at all! in fact, I firmly agree that children absolutely need friends and peer relationships!). It refers to how children are oriented for their input, learning, approval, etc. Children who are oriented toward their peers are a disadvantage because their peers are no more mature or formed or able to guide than they themselves are. Children who are peer oriented are subject to rapidly changing degrees of acceptance, for example - I think we can all remember stories of kids who turned on a particular kid suddenly, or a popular girl one week who was totally on the outs the next week, or a couple in a trio of friends suddenly reject the third and so on. Children who go through this who are oriented toward their parents will be crushed (I can attest to this personally) but they can also get through it with the loving and STABLE support of their parents (I can, again, attest to this personally). Children who are peer oriented who go through this may feel they have lost the very foundation of their lives, and may have difficulty recovering. Acceptance is only one example, there are other ways that a parent orientation is far more stable, secure, caring, helpful, moral and effective than a peer orientation.

seashells is offline  
#14 of 75 Old 02-21-2011, 10:04 AM
 
heartmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: In the bat cave with Irishmommy
Posts: 6,252
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

There is really no shortage of cultural examples illustrating kids growing up financially and socially oriented to their parents and extended family, and this resulting in desirable qualities such as loyalty, respect, self discipline, etc. Many, many cultures, including many Native American cultures, as well as (and ironically) frontier European American culture, socialized children first and foremost to the work, religion, and values of the parents. Time with other children was associated with leisure time; something that came after all other responsibilities were addressed.

 

Japan is an interesting example of this issue. I just took a course on Japanese culture that focused on modern Japanese family and education systems. The Japanese socialize children to absorb both an intense loyalty to family, as well as thoroughly socializing children to have a strong peer identity. This goes deep into Japanese culture, as they have a very complex social system, in which forms of status and power are not the same thing--which is fairly unique. Hierarchy is extremely important in determining proper behavior towards a person (am I senior to you, or vice versa?). There are endless ways of determining this. Terms of address will differ depending on who is senior/junior in the exchange, even among older/younger siblings, they will have different ways of addressing each other. The only person who is truly your equal is same aged classmates, and this group identity is a critical part of Japanese socialization. Children usually move through elementary school with the same group of children and the same teacher. Children are always grouped by age. The peer identity is used to foster a non-competitive, conformist, group identity that will later transfer to identity with Japanese culture as a whole. Although teens will be introduced to the idea of competition WITH peers, up till aged 12 or so, kids are carefully shielded from competitions between classmates, and most Japanese games focus on cooperation and the necessity of the group to reach a goal. Discipline focuses on conformity. All attention and praise rests on conformity. A child who, for example, refuses to sing a song and plays with blocks will be redirected to singing, and if they still refuse, will be totally ignored by the teachers and other children, as if they don't exist. Attention can only come from conforming, and then the child is praised extensively when they return to the group. In other words, discipline issues are usually seen as conformity issues. The solution is helping the child cooperate and conform to group activities. Throughout your life, your same age class mates remain a special type of relationship, one that is important to the Japanese people.

 

In other words, for Japanese culture, socializing a child to develop a strong peer group identity is CRUCIAL. Parents might debate WHERE to send a child to school but there is no doubt they WILL start school at 6 years of age. Virtually no parent would think of homeschooling. That would rob a child of an essential part of growing up Japanese. Although Japanese value individualism, they do not value individuality in the way the West does--we tend to picture ourselves as the center of our universe with everything else radiating out like spokes on a wheel. Understanding your place in relation to others is very important to the Japanese, who place themselves in relation to others in a very complex web that is ever changing, and tremendous energy is spent by parents and teachers inculcating proper concepts of this social system into children.

 

This is all according to my teacher--if a Japanese person wants to correct anything here please do!

Mosaic likes this.

Mother is the word for God on the hearts and lips of all little children--William Makepeace Thackeray
heartmama is offline  
#15 of 75 Old 02-21-2011, 01:53 PM
 
Storm Bride's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 27,300
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by sweetpeppers View Post
Even though I can understand the importance of the book, I can see parents reading this book, and just driving their kids further away by limiting their friends, etc. I think attachment parenting shouldn't be an excuse to micromanage our children's lives to keep them from ever getting hurt.


I read and enjoyed the book and I can't see how anyone would get that from it, honestly. The whole thing was about maintaing your place as your child's compass point, not about micromanaging their friendships.

 

I don't limit peer interaction. However, I'm also homeschooling (decision made long before I read Hold Onto Your Kids), partly because I don't like the peer vibe in the schools. I'm not talking about stuff I read in papers, either. DS1 was public schooled and there's a peer "thing" there that I don't like. We consider it normal in our culture, but I don't really think it is. It makes no sense to me that children should be learning how to behave and what social expectations are from other children, instead of from adults.

 

I've certainly never tried to prevent my kids from getting hurt. I don't like it when it happens, and I do guide them and comfort them, but getting hurt is part of life. I absolutely never limited any of my children's friends, including one 2-3 year friendship of ds1's that I considered toxic (it eventually imploded on its own). I don't think it's my job to tell him who to like and hang out with...and it doesn't work, anyway.

ghannit likes this.

Lisa, lucky mama of Kelly (3/93) ribboncesarean.gif, Emma (5/03) ribboncesarean.gif, Evan (7/05) ribboncesarean.gif, & Jenna (6/09) ribboncesarean.gif
Loving my amazing dh, James & forever missing ribbonpb.gif Aaron Ambrose ribboncesarean.gif (11/07) ribbonpb.gif

Storm Bride is offline  
#16 of 75 Old 02-21-2011, 02:09 PM
 
Storm Bride's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 27,300
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by contactmaya View Post

I think the idea was, that if you lay a good  attachment foundation in the beginning, you wont get the problems of peer attachment later.

 

I don't think he ever suggested that you won't get peer attachment, or even that peer attachment is undesirable. He was talking about orientation, not attachment.

 

Im not sure this is true. My then 2yo (ds1) seemed to be a case in point.

Many parents i know, and for some reason, more of them in the ap crowd ( im not sure why this is, maybe i just spend more time with them) struggle with children who wont separate, and who act  asocial, but my son was always the opposite. He separated without a problem, and thrived on the company of his peers. For eg, on a playdate (usually spontaneous), he could not wait to share his toys. The sharing  of toys and playing together with someone else, was part of the fun for him. This from the age of 1. I always thought he was an extreme  extravert because of it.  I struggled to find friends for him, not  in order to 'socialize him' (which seemed to be the preoccupation of most other parents i met), but so he could have fun,  laugh, run around, in ways that kids do with other kids. I still havent met another parent who values this as much as i do.

 
I was always trying to find playmates for ds1 (at least until his cousin came along), for the same reason. He loved it. I never felt he needed to be "socialized" by other children. I just felt that he needed to socialize, in the "hang out with people" sense. DS1 is also very, very extraverted.
 
I like the book because Neufeld seems to explain alot of things i have always wondered about, like  the apparent amorality among  some teenagers, and the lack of respect children develop for their parents. I found it a good explanation, but i still think there is more to it.
 
I was always respectful of my parents. So i never went through that stage. I also think that if parents were more respectful of their kids(in the consensual living sense), maybe this wouldnt happen? I dont think Neufeld addresses this. I could pretty much do as i pleased growing up, so  i attribute that to why i didnt  'rebel'. I used to wish i had a reason to rebel, because it seemed like fun. But i didnt. I thought my parents were cool. 
 
I rebelled, in a big way. But, not against my parents. They didn't let me do "pretty much what I pleased"...but they did let me be who I was. I rebelled against...well, pretty much everything else - school and school authorities, rules made just to have rules, expectations that I must have the same goals for myself that others had for me, etc. Mind you, I never thought that rebelling was fun. I just couldn't stand feeling pushed down all the time.
 
Jumping generations, what bothered me about the book, was the assumption that children who are extraverts must also have some kind of attachement disorder with their parents. I was with my ds1 24/7. He was just an extravert, not disorderly attached.
 
Also the notion that attachment to peers is unnatural, and a response to an attachement disorder with immedate family, seems to be a little far fetched. 
 
I'm going to have to re-read the book, because I don't remember anything about this anywhere.
 
The solution to the dilemma of increasing  peer attachement  seemed to be that a parent  has to get to know a childs friends-always host the parties, playdates etc. While i think this is a good idea, how is it workable for every parent? I mean if one parent is always hosting, when do the others get to host?

 

I think he was talking within a context where other parents don't necessarily want to host the parties, playdates, etc. If you host things occasionally, and the kids know who you are, and you know them, then the overall purpose is served, imo.

 

DS1 is almost 18. He doesn't socialize at home much. (We live in a small townhouse, with no yard, and he has three much younger siblings. Three of his closest friends have large houses, including space of their own - a rec room with recording equipment and a small fridge, a whole basement, etc. He can go to J's house and have dance parties and stay up until 1:00, which just can't happen here with the little ones.) But, I've still met a few of the parents and most of the friends (ds1, his best friend J and I went to see Iron Maiden together a few months back!). I have a good grasp of who his closest friends are, and what they do when they hang out together. Some of them have been here a few times to go swimming or have a sleepover. He's separating - heck, he may be moving out in a few months! - but I still know what goes on in his life, in a general sense. He still knows I'm here if he needs guidance. And, his friends also have parents who are involved and are around, as well. These aren't people who have just been cut loose to figure it out on their own. As far as I can tell, the parent orientation and solid family attachments they've all been blessed with have given them a very good foundation for healthy, positive peer attachments, as well. The two aren't mutually exclusive, but I do think peer orientation makes forming healthy, positive relationships - with friends and family - much more difficult.




Lisa, lucky mama of Kelly (3/93) ribboncesarean.gif, Emma (5/03) ribboncesarean.gif, Evan (7/05) ribboncesarean.gif, & Jenna (6/09) ribboncesarean.gif
Loving my amazing dh, James & forever missing ribbonpb.gif Aaron Ambrose ribboncesarean.gif (11/07) ribbonpb.gif

Storm Bride is offline  
#17 of 75 Old 02-21-2011, 04:58 PM
 
elisheva's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: BC
Posts: 1,447
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

contactmaya - don't confuse attachment with *orientation*. Peer orientation means that a child looks to a peer or peers for guidance on how to behave/dress/etc INSTEAD of looking to his/her parent(s) who are children's natural compass points if only the relationship is maintained and nurtured. 


"So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we’ll change the world." - Jack Layton
 
 
 
   

elisheva is offline  
#18 of 75 Old 02-22-2011, 07:35 AM
 
karne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 3,623
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I'm parenting an almost teen, and I find that peer orientation is part of the package, and I would worry if it wasn't.  It doesn't really impact our family in terms of parents being the "compass".  We are.  I found the book interesting, but not really relevant, esp. as a more experienced parent.  It doesn't make sense, to me, to fear or try to keep away the normal process of separation that kids go through.  

karne is offline  
#19 of 75 Old 02-22-2011, 09:29 AM
 
elisheva's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: BC
Posts: 1,447
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by karne View Post

I'm parenting an almost teen, and I find that peer orientation is part of the package, and I would worry if it wasn't.  It doesn't really impact our family in terms of parents being the "compass".  We are.  I found the book interesting, but not really relevant, esp. as a more experienced parent.  It doesn't make sense, to me, to fear or try to keep away the normal process of separation that kids go through.  



If you are your kid's compass then they aren't peer-oriented. They may be attached and I agree this is normal. Peer orientation is the norm in our culture and definitely not desirable.


"So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we’ll change the world." - Jack Layton
 
 
 
   

elisheva is offline  
#20 of 75 Old 02-22-2011, 11:39 AM
 
karne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 3,623
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

But we are the compass, and she is peer oriented.  It's not really an either or situation, and I definitely wouldn't want to set it up as such.  By peer oriented I mean that friends/peers are becomingly increasingly important, and being part of a group of friends, and having some common bonds is important as well.  Having some ideas and experiences that are shared with peers, but aren't part of home life happens at this age too.  The compass part comes in when there are issues of judgement and trust involved.  What we've taught, and our values, are the compass.  I don't however, mean to say, that we expect, or want, our dd to think and act in lockstep with us.  At this age, she's her own person with thoughts and feelings that are her own, which we respect.  I think this is why we do have such a good relationship-and when you get to the years of parenting kids moving into their teens, this is no small thing.

karne is offline  
#21 of 75 Old 02-22-2011, 11:56 AM
 
contactmaya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,069
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by elisheva View Post

contactmaya - don't confuse attachment with *orientation*. Peer orientation means that a child looks to a peer or peers for guidance on how to behave/dress/etc INSTEAD of looking to his/her parent(s) who are children's natural compass points if only the relationship is maintained and nurtured. 

 

Well that certainly clarifies things.
But i would still like a precise definition of orientation versus attachment. It seems to me that orientation requires some sort of attachment, and attachment leads to some kind of orientation, not sure where to draw the line. (i mean, off the bat here) I dont recall this kind of distinction made in the book, but maybe i missed it. Or maybe it was assumed, but i didnt study psychology, so im not aware of the definitions.
 
(i look forward to reading posts in detail later-ds wants to play chess (with me)
 
 
 
 
contactmaya is offline  
#22 of 75 Old 02-22-2011, 12:06 PM
 
elisheva's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: BC
Posts: 1,447
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

If we're speaking about the book, the definitions are important as they are used to explain Neufeld's concepts. I'll try to sit and find his specific defs this afternoon and post more.


"So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we’ll change the world." - Jack Layton
 
 
 
   

elisheva is offline  
#23 of 75 Old 02-22-2011, 12:36 PM
 
raksmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: by the Rideau River
Posts: 1,165
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

  

I like the idea of Hold on to your Kids but also have mixed feelings. It is one of those books like Continuum Concept, that sound good in theory, but the principles are easier to apply with younger children than older ones.  In a perfect world let’s say you lived in a small community in an extended family it would be easier. I breastfed DS until he was 4, co- slept even longer, but perhaps because we live in a town where neither of us has family (DH found a job, that is why we are here) and DS (12) is an only child, he is still  more influenced by peer pressure than I would like. As others have pointed out, this is very common in our society. In the Hold On to Your Kids he often talks of the families in Europe but being different, but having lived in Europe for 15 years I can say they have the exact same issue as here. My husband actually does come from a large extended family living in a small community and he would be quick to point out that while there are advantages to this it is also not perfect. Yes the book is  thought-provoking!

raksmama is offline  
#24 of 75 Old 02-22-2011, 04:50 PM
 
Storm Bride's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 27,300
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I'm going to have to read the book again. I don't remember anything about extended family being desirable. My grandmother was the single biggest threat to our relatonship with our parents, so I'd be very doubtful about that if I read it.


Lisa, lucky mama of Kelly (3/93) ribboncesarean.gif, Emma (5/03) ribboncesarean.gif, Evan (7/05) ribboncesarean.gif, & Jenna (6/09) ribboncesarean.gif
Loving my amazing dh, James & forever missing ribbonpb.gif Aaron Ambrose ribboncesarean.gif (11/07) ribbonpb.gif

Storm Bride is offline  
#25 of 75 Old 02-22-2011, 05:36 PM
 
elisheva's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: BC
Posts: 1,447
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

He defines peer orientation over pg 6-7 in several paragraphs. In a tiny nutshell (italic emphasis mine) : "...children have an inborn need to find their bearings by turning toward a source of authority, contact, and warmth...The parent - or another adult acting as a parent substitute - is the nature-intended pole of orientation for the child....Social, economic, and cultural trends in the past five or six decades have displaced the parent from his intended position as the orienting influence on the child. The peer group has moved into this void with deplorable results...As we will show, children cannot be oriented to both adults and other children simultaneously...the child's brain must automatically choose between parental values and peer values, parental guidance and peer guidance, parental culture and peer culture whenever the two would appear to be in conflict. The problem is not that children have friends their own age or that they form connections with other children - such ties are only natural and can serve a healthy purpose. In cultures that are adult oriented, in which the guiding principles and values are those of the more mature generations, children attach to other children without losing their bearings or without having to reject parental influences. In our society, that is no longer the case. Peer bonds have come to replace relationships with adults as children's primary sources of orientation."

 

Re: Europe - the only example he give, AFAIK, is of families in a village in Provence where he observed older generations picking the schoolchildren up at the school gate in the afternoon...he says that most Western industrialized nations have the problem of peer orientation but it seems less in some smaller villages.

 

Re: relatives as adults we want our kids to orient to - AFAIK he says extended family MAY fill this role in many cases but not all. I'm SURE he would exclude toxic relatives. He also talks about match-making between your child and other adults you trust (teacher, daycare provider, parents of friends) that your child will see that adult as a substitute compass point and NOT experience an attachment void where peer orientation is likely to occur.

 

FWIW, it's worth reading this book several times to really understand what he's talking about. It's 100% psychologically sound. If you are happy with your kids orienting to peers, then this book is not for you.

 

I'll close with an example: A woman I know once remarked to me that her university-aged son was in town for the weekend for the first time in months. Though he was sleeping at home, she said she doubted she'd see him as he would spend every waking moment with his friends. This made me very sad. It's NOT natural or desirable. It's normal in our Western industrialized society but that doesn't mean that individuals have to accept it as an ideal. So much of attachment parenting is saying that we aren't going to let prevailing culture (CIO, breastfeeding, etc) dictate our parenting choices - why should the issue of peer-orientation be any different?


"So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we’ll change the world." - Jack Layton
 
 
 
   

elisheva is offline  
#26 of 75 Old 02-22-2011, 09:10 PM
 
meemee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Norther California
Posts: 12,783
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)

you can never make generalisations in this regard. both sides exist in all kinds of culture.

 

its the same thing here. i see sooo many connected adults. what stands out to me of course are mother dd relationships where they talk to each other a few times a DAY. one of my friends pulling out from work the first thing she does is call her mom. she was not raised AP perr se but she has a v. close bond with her family. the poor mom. all her kids check in with her. 

 

dunno. for me i dont find peers such a bad thing. not all peer is bad. and i find dd learns a lot about herself when she associates with peers. 

 

wouldnt it be a generation thing? also how open parents are. there is so much involved here, you cant really write down. is the parent open enough to be worthy enough to continue holding onto.

 

in one sense i feel parenting for me doesnt really start till dd is 13. anything that comes before that is easy comparatively. 

 

will i still be able to stay open and respecting dd's wishes as i do now? 

 

i do what i do for my dd - because there is no other way for me. that is what feels right to me and love for my dd makes me behave  the way i am.

 

i never once look at it as oh boy i better do this now so she connects with me when she is 13. 


 treehugger.gif Co-parent, joy.gifcold.gifbrand new homeschooling middle schoolerjoy.gif, and an attackcat.gif 
meemee is online now  
#27 of 75 Old 02-22-2011, 10:15 PM
 
elisheva's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: BC
Posts: 1,447
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by meemee View Post
 

 

dunno. for me i dont find peers such a bad thing. not all peer is bad. and i find dd learns a lot about herself when she associates with peers. 

 

 


With all due respect, have you read the book? Nowhere does he state that peers are bad. That's NOT the argument here. If you notice my pp, Neufeld explicitly states "The problem is not that children have friends their own age or that they form connections with other children - such ties are only natural and can serve a healthy purpose."

 

No one is denigrating friendships or peers. I just don't think it can be argued that what North American culture does in handing teenagers over to themselves is at all healthy or productive.


"So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we’ll change the world." - Jack Layton
 
 
 
   

elisheva is offline  
#28 of 75 Old 02-23-2011, 07:16 AM
 
Trinitty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,399
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

To answer the title:

Yes.  And, yes.  :)

I will read your post and thread now.

Trin.

Trinitty is offline  
#29 of 75 Old 02-23-2011, 07:21 AM
 
contactmaya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,069
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)

Cant get the quoting thing to work because my connection is playing up-  i hope what

wrote is intelligible.

 

 

Elisheva 
<<If we're speaking about the book, the definitions are important as they are used to explain Neufeld's concepts. I'll try to sit and find his specific defs this afternoon and post more.>>
 
Great idea, thankyou! I read the book over 2 yrs ago, so dont have a memory of precise definitions. I do recall reading most of it, rather than just skimming. I may have skipped some essential sections i guess.
 
Stormbride <<I'm going to have to read the book again. I don't remember anything about extended family being desirable. My grandmother was the single biggest threat to our relatonship with our parents, so I'd be very doubtful about that if I read it.>>
 
Yes, i remember clearly his advocating the importance of extended family, which puts alot of us without close extended family in a dilemma. (But im pretty sure he would exclude toxic relatives as Elisheva said)  
 
Elisheva  <<Neufeld<<Peer bonds have come to replace relationships with adults as children's primary sources of orientation."
The parent - or another adult acting as a parent substitute - is the nature-intended pole of orientation for the child
 Peer bonds have come to replace relationships with adults as children's primary sources of orientation>>
 
Again, although I agree in principle with the argument of the book, when I saw my own son in action, it didn’t seem to fit. Nowhere, to my knowledge/memory, does Neufeld address  the introvert/extravert issue. I do feel, that even with solid orientation to his family, my sons love and need of peer interaction makes him more vulnerable to the peer pressures talked about in the book. I mean, I don’t know, he’s only 5. But I have seen him pick on his little brother to impress his peers angry.gif
 
Karne <<But we are the compass, and she is peer oriented.>>
 
This clarifies things for me somewhat.
But still doesn’t explain to me how to deal with the vulnerabilities of an extravertive child
 
Stormbride <<He's separating - heck, he may be moving out in a few months! - but I still know what goes on in his life, in a general sense. He still knows I'm here if he needs guidance. And, his friends also have parents who are involved and are around, as well. These aren't people who have just been cut loose to figure it out on their own. As far as I can tell, the parent orientation and solid family attachments they've all been blessed with have given them a very good foundation for healthy, positive peer attachments, as well.>>
Karne <<I'm parenting an almost teen, and I find that peer orientation is part of the package, and I would worry if it wasn't.  It doesn't really impact our family in terms of parents being the "compass".  We are.  I found the book interesting, but not really relevant, esp. as a more experienced parent.  It doesn't make sense, to me, to fear or try to keep away the normal process of separation that kids go through>>
 
Its so interesting to hear  from people with older kids like this. 
contactmaya is offline  
#30 of 75 Old 02-23-2011, 08:21 AM
 
meemee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Norther California
Posts: 12,783
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)

i must be honest. its been a few years since i read it. however all i remember while reading it is this storm going thru me. i was liking bits and pieces and could not accept some parts of it. i remember talkign aloud to the book and differign with it.

 

perhaps i didnt word it right. i am not talking about friendship. i am talking about the peer thing. as karne pointed out and watching my 8 year old go thru trying to figure out what i said and what her peers say i felt it was part of growing up.

 

i mean in that sense i found just the title 'hold on to your kids' kinda negative. i know what he is talking about in general. it comes of as planning when your kids are babies and doing stuff to hold on to the kids. well first of all i think this book really isnt meant for 'us' here or parents who connect to their kids.

 

i think the book is for all the parents who are so into the parenting and the rules that they forget the kids.

 

to me a certain amount of disconnect is obvious, normal - part of life.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by elisheva View Post




With all due respect, have you read the book? Nowhere does he state that peers are bad. That's NOT the argument here. If you notice my pp, Neufeld explicitly states "The problem is not that children have friends their own age or that they form connections with other children - such ties are only natural and can serve a healthy purpose."

 

No one is denigrating friendships or peers. I just don't think it can be argued that what North American culture does in handing teenagers over to themselves is at all healthy or productive.




 treehugger.gif Co-parent, joy.gifcold.gifbrand new homeschooling middle schoolerjoy.gif, and an attackcat.gif 
meemee is online now  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off