Quote:
Originally Posted by North_Of_60
I'm sorry your childhood was stressful like that, but your sharing it sort of makes a point for me. I think there are "extremes" on both ends of the spectrum. In order to to understand what method is preferable it helps me to think of why the alternative is not desirable. In this case, it's abusing obligations, and being manipulative and coercive. And while your situation is unfortunate, it doesn't exemplify the type of obligations I'm referring to. Asking my 2.5 year old to help me pick up toys before we can go to the park is not even remotely similar to pitching her stuff out into the yard and being completely unaware of bullying.
So with that, I pose the question again - why are obligations wrong? Why is it wrong to say "please pick up your toys or we can't go to the park". Why is it wrong to forgo the reasons and explanations when phrasing questions in favor of simply stating what you want to happen?
|
I'm not sure I think "wrong" is the right word.
For me, going to the park doesn't relate -- at 3-5 years old -- to cleaning up, is all. Actually going out to play and run around is a need I would prioritize before the toys being cleaned up (the times that he doesn't... most days, he does and it's simply not an issue). That's kind of how I relate it to what my mum did with us - the not considering the play/downtime as a need.
To me it's not that helpful to make a link between the two at this age (cleaning up vs. going out), and it creates a dynamic I personally am uncomfortable with. For me
With an older child I would feel differently. Or I might. We'll see.
Picking up on another post - there's the question of "do young children need training in how to meet obligations." Well, I think they do over their entire lives, but I personally am not sure that it is so all-fired important as we parents make it into especially in the younger years.
For one thing, responsibilities are complex things. I think the example was making dinner... yes parents have a responsibility to feed their children nutritious meals. But which is more responsible on a day when things are just not clicking: to cook a traditional North American Standard hot meal, perhaps resentfully, involving pots and pans, or to say "hey today is a hard day, let's eat veggies, fruit, cheese, and bread." Or cereal and fruit. Or order in. Or delegate to the other parent.
An adult has the choice. And in fact balancing different obligations against each other (an obligation to society vs. an obligation to keep quiet for a company, for example, or to protect coworkers' jobs) is really complicated and very much NOT about blindly following the obligation.
But frequently this is the kind of choice or decision we remove from our children. Is that
really training them for actual decision making, or is this "children have to meet obligations" really a short hand for "do as you're told." It's fine to decide kids in one's family should do as they're told, but let's not pretend it's moral training of some kind other than that.
Also, delayed gratification is a complex set of skills and young kids don't necessarily have the emotional or moral development going on yet. What they are learning is "do what mum says." Which is fine, but quite naturally happens in children's moral development (and then they become rule based, and then around puberty they start to be able to negotiate more complex questions like "is it okay to steal food from a dumpster if otherwise your children would starve.")
So in brief when you say "what's wrong with obligations for our kids?" my answer is - I just don't think this particular kind is all that useful at the preschool age. I think the invitation to clean up, the routine of cleaning up, and family harmony is useful. But standing my ground the 10% of the time my son opts out to me is not that useful.