Politics and parenting styles
Bookworm on Feb 07 2010 at 7:47 pm | Filed under: Children
As you have probably guessed from my blog silence this weekend, I have been heavily engaged in various family activities, many of which seemed to involve soccer balls or (this weekend) footballs. I haven’t had lots of time to think about current events (which must, in any event, take a back seat to the Superbowl), but I have had a lot of time to think about parenting. These thoughts have let me to the conclusion that, at least in my household, our parenting styles reflect quite precisely our political beliefs.
With some glaring exceptions (most notably second hand smoke which bugs me so much I’m willing to allow the government to prohibit smoking in public places), I’m fairly libertarian. I believe in individualism, without tight government oversight. I trust that people, armed with adequate information, will make appropriate decisions regarding their own well-being. If they choose not to make appropriate decisions, I believe that they should be responsible for the consequences. I think our government should be there in the case of unforeseen disasters, that it has a responsibility to protect the nation from national security and epidemic health dangers, and that a humane nation must always care for those who cannot care for themselves (such as the mentally or physically disabled). Mostly, though, I believe that citizens thrive when left alone.
It turns out that, as the parent of pre-adolescent children, I bring precisely the same attitude towards parenting. I make sure that my children are very clear on the big rules and the big moral issues. Some of the rules tell them what they must do (go to school) and some tell them what they may not do (drink, drugs, sex, violence, etc.). The morality is predicated on both the Golden Rule (”Do unto others…”) and the Hillel Rule (”Do not do unto others…”). I hold them responsible for handling many of their own affairs.
Here are a few examples of how this parenting works: I will remind the kids to do their homework, but I will not force them to do it. Their homework is not my problem; it’s theirs. If they fail to do it, they have to deal with the teacher. Both of my kids do their homework.
I do not dictate what my children should wear. I have some moral parameters (she may not wear slut clothes; he may not wear gang clothes), but otherwise I’ll simply give them information, whether that’s about the expected temperature or the type of event we’re attending). They may make their own choices. If they’re too hot or too cold, or under-dressed or over-dressed, next time they will probably take more seriously the information I gave them.
I do not tell my kids what they should do with their friends. I may say they cannot watch TV or play computer games, and they know that they’re not allowed to engage in criminal, cruel or dangerous acts, but otherwise they’re supposed to find their own amusement. Their ability to have fun with their peers is not my responsibility.
I understand that this laissez-faire attitude won’t work under all circumstances, just as it won’t for a government vis a vis all of its citizens, at all times. When my children were little, they needed me to have a much heavier parenting hand. When they’re sick, they need my care. When they’re in danger, they need my protection. When they violate rules that don’t come with an automatic “natural consequence,” I may have to step in and provide that consequence.
But always, always, I endeavor to give my children as much freedom as they can possibly handle. I also try, at all times, to communicate as clearly as possible with them. Because I don’t bury them in a flurry of prohibitions and directives, it’s pretty easy for me to be clear about the things that matter. They know what I expect, and they can easily make choices to abide with my expectations — or to ignore them and face the consequences.
My husband is a very bright man who suspects that most people process information poorly and don’t make good decisions. He believes that certain races and cultures (cultures = Sarah Palin hicks) simply can’t function without an educated hand guiding them — preferably a hand educated at a reputable East Coast institution. He is a firm believer that government exists to provide as many services and rights (even if those rights are conflicting) as possible. Government should provide education to everyone (legal or illegal), health care to everyone (legal or illegal), and housing to everyone (again, legal or illegal). He believes firmly in anthropogenic climate change and wants the government, by hook or by crook, through incentives or punitive measures, to change our economy and way of life to protect against imminent immolation. He is a relativist, who believes that there are few absolute rights and wrongs, and that America fought her last good war between 1939 and 1945. He is, in other words, a modern liberal.
What’s interesting is how closely my husband’s parenting style mirrors his belief that government, acting for its citizen’s own benefit, must constantly micromanage their lives. While I will inform my children that it’s cold outside, he will tell them what they must wear. While I will remind them that they have to do their homework before bedtime, he will sit them down with threats of reprisals. While I will tell them to get away from their computer games, he will try to plan out their activities. He is very directive and protective. He tends not to give the children information or a big picture idea behind his rules and directives. Instead, he just says “Do this” or “Do not do that.” He and the kids run into trouble sometimes when they interpret something contrary to his meaning.
Here are two examples of the way in which children and adults miscommunicate, although neither is from my own home. The first concerns the mother who says “Don’t let me see you hit your sister.” A grown-up understands this to be a prohibition against hitting. A child, however, may quite logically read it as a prohibition against hitting his sister within Mom’s line of sight. Likewise, a parent who tells a child to “get your backpack out of the front hall” may be surprised when the child merely moves it to the living room. Children are literalists and it can make for some huge communication problems, especially with a directive parent.
My husband approaches parenting with tremendous love for the children, just as my laissez faire approach is a loving one. That is, he does not perceive himself to be a bully, nor do I believe myself to be neglectful. Each of us thinks that our approach is the best way to shape our little ones into happy and productive adults.
The kids, to their credit, are shaping up nicely. They do well in school, have normal social lives and good friends, stay out of trouble, and dress appropriately. It’s impossible to tell whether the freedom I grant them or the direction he gives them is responsible for their current well-being. Perhaps it’s an amalgam of the two — which is also a good metaphor for a healthy government being one that balances between anarchy and totalitarianism. There are circumstances where the laissez-faire approach is neglectful to the point of cruelty; and other circumstances in which a heavy hand is stifling to the point of dysfunction and despair.
(I’ll keep you posted on all this as my children approach their teen years. My husband and I may find ourselves doing some fancy footwork to adapt our parenting styles to those changing circumstances.)
Email This Post To A Friend
19 Responses to “Politics and parenting styles”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I would commend you to visit http://www.loveandlogic.com, a site from Dr. Foster Kline. If you explore there, you should find a description of different parenting models – e.g. Drill Sargent, Hellicopter, Cousultant. (http://www.loveandlogic.com/pages/threetypes.html). Sounds like your husband uses the “Drill Sargent” model while you try to use the “Consultant” model. I really encourage you to explore this site and find and explore what Dr. Kline has to offer. I think you find some EXCELLENT ideas about parenting and teaching your children about being responsible for their own decisions. Regards, Harvey
What an “interesting” situation….your kids are going to be good at ambiguity, I’m guessing!
With your daughter, it’s probably good that Dad is a bit more directive – she’ll take it better, and it will do her more good, if *he* is the one who puts his foot down about slutty clothes when she starts defying you. That day comes for most girls, and it’s incredibly important that her Daddy hold the line on this. I hope that’s one of the things he feels directive about.
My folks were much more along your line than his – which some would find odd, since we belong to a quite traditional Christian denomination (Seventh-day Adventists). Gail’s family was a bit more toward the directive side, and certainly a LOT less into any discussion of reasons and principles, but she learned how poorly that works, so we didn’t have any conflict when it came to our own kids. They’re good people that we like to be with and who both enjoy being with us, which is gratifying — it seems “normal” to me, but is a source of continuing wonder to my wife. That our daughter revels in our nearness and will come by the house to “hang out” with her mother, is just a gift that keeps on giving. Of course, we put in the effort early on to make a home that would produce kids of this sort….so what goes around comes around. Still….it’s quite lovely.
One thing that I got from my parents was a lot of mentions of why they made certain choices. I particularly remember once fixing dinner with Mom. She told me that she like big chickens for frying because you got more meat per piece but my aunt preferred small chickens because you got more crispy skin. She didn’t say one was better. As I think back on other talks, I realize that what my parents instilled in me was a habit of thinking about choices and an ability to weigh upsides and downsides. This is not to say that there were no clear rules or other areas where I was left alone. It also helped that they were discussing their own reasons for making certain choices they were making, often about very mundane things, so I was able to absorb the info without having a dog in the fight.
Book said,
> Here are two examples of the way in which children and adults miscommunicate [...]. The first concerns the mother who says “Don’t let me see you hit your sister.” [...] A child, however, may quite logically read it as a prohibition against hitting his sister within Mom’s line of sight.
That reminds me of a fellow high school teacher back in the day. While walking the classroom aisles, assisting students with exercises, he’d of course run across the student(s) not engaged in the work. His line: “You might want to start working on your homework.”
Now, since I’ve always had an internal smart-ass popinjay lurking in my brain, and always paying careful attention to word choices, I’ve always envisioned a particular response: The student looks thoughtfully into the distance for a moment, then says, “You’re right, Mr. ____, I might want to. But then again, I might not want to. You know?”
Of course they don’t say that. There’s no positive outcome. ;-) But the word choice…
Book, this post strikes a nerve as the same situation exists, or existed, in my house. The two comparisons I make are the pruner and the trimmer, or the baker and the cook.
A good Baker, using precise measurements, simply combines ingredients in the prescribed manner to produce the desired product. A good Cook, if even using a recipe, freely substitutes ingredients, varies the proportions to suit his/her taste to produce the desired product. Baking is formulaic, cooking is free form. Parent as Baker says, “Do this, Do that” expecting instructions to be followed as given. Parent Cook, says, “Here’s what we’re doing? I think you might try this to get that.”
The Pruner thins a bush, getting rid of unwanted branches, twigs and suckers which interfere with the strong and healthy growth of the bushes healthiest and most attractive features. A Pruner only gets one chance a year to make those cuts and then patiently waits to see what happens before making the next adjustment. The trimmer, decides the shape of the bush and trims all growth outside that desired shape. Trimming requires constant attention not anticipation.
Of course the best meals come from kitchens with a great cook and a great baker, just as the best gardens need both pruners and trimmers. It’s a delicate balance that’s easily disturbed, and you deserve a lot of credit for maintaining it.
Book, how do you and Mr. Book differ in how you discipline your children?
That’s an interesting question, Danny. I seldom feel the need to discipline my children. Since I’m not that directive, they don’t often run afoul of me. If they miss their homework, the teacher disciplines them, not I. The big problem is bedtime, and they’re still young enough that my refusal to kiss them good night is sufficient punishment.
My husband, because he is so rule-bound, and doesn’t always state the rules in a way that my literal kids understand, constantly feels that they ought to be disciplined. He’s big on yelling at them, taking away their electronics, sending them to their room, and making them write confessional essays and having them repeatedly explain to him what they did wrong (an exercise they hate, because they seldom feel that they did anything wrong), etc.
The problem is that there’s a random quality to all this. Sometimes he lets things pass, sometimes he doesn’t. Sometimes the punishment is harsh, sometimes it’s not. Even if they know they’re violating one of his shibboleths, the kids gamble that they’ll escape serious punishment.
I’m different in this way too. If I spell out a directive, I’ll also spell out the consequence. “If you don’t sit down and eat your dinner within the next minute, you go to bed hungry.” If I don’t spell out a directive (either on a specific occasion or as a general rule), the kids know that I may end up grumpy, but I’ll let it pass.
Some things I just don’t bother with. They won’t help out much around the house, citing their dad as an example. I hated that constant fight, so I told them, “Fine. I’m more efficient without your reluctant help, but you’re going to be screwed when you grow up and go out on your own.” Suddenly, they became more helpful, not because of an imminent punishment, but because they got scared that they were missing out on a major life skill.
As the kids know, with me, there are no surprises. It makes it easier on all of us.
I thought you might enjoy this excerpt from the book NurtureShock:
“Dr. Sarah Schoppe-Sullivan did a study of parenting styles, and how they relate to aggressiveness and acting out at school. The fathers in her study fell into three camps–the Progressive Dads, the Traditional Dads, and the Disengaged Dads…. However, Schoppe-Sullivan was surprised to discover that the Progressive Dads had poorer marital quality and rated their family functioning lower than the fathers in couples who took on traditional roles…
[The Progressive Dads'] inconsistency and permissiveness led to a surprising result in Sullivan’s study: the children of Progressive Dads were aggressive and acted out in school nearly as much as the kids with fathers who were distant and disengaged.”
You should be glad Mr. BW sounds like a traditional Dad.
I made a vow, that unlike my Father who was arbitrary and directed events “because I said so”, to always patiently explain why my children should act a certain way or do some particular thing. I would like to believe I was consistent through the years with this vow– but I will admit often, in the end, it devolved to “because I said so”.
Our best intentions can’t overcome human nature, it seems.
Well…there are limits. And it’s pretty common for kids to push them. And buttons – kids are so observant … they _know_ your buttons. And push them when it suits their needs (or wants). Children are the ultimate manipulators. Some outgrow it, some don’t.
It seems to me that the “because I said so” usually is the results of two possible situations…children having pushed the buttons to the max, or an emergency situation. There are times to discuss, and times not to discuss. Discussion can be a luxury which sometimes time doesn’t permit, or sometimes when you _know_ that the purpose of the discussion is to wear you down so that you’ll grant a permission you intend not to grant – and the kid knows it. At that point, you need to end the discussion, and the “because I said so” is to let the kid know that the end point has been reached.
“He’s big on yelling at them, taking away their electronics, sending them to their room, and making them write confessional essays and having them repeatedly explain to him what they did wrong”
Hee! Sounds a lot like the self criticism enforced on bourgeois enemies of the state during Mao’s Cultural Revolution.
Book, he sounds like a UN bureaucrat. Things get done and punishments are handed out based upon favoritism, rather than concrete and predictable systems.
This is also why Leftism is unstable in terms of creating civilization. They can’t make people feel secure enough to risk anything personal, so they start instigating warfare between the classes in order to benefit. Cause cooperation gets harder and harder the more people distrust each other or have to gamble upon whether they will or will not win.
<B>The problem is that there’s a random quality to all this. Sometimes he lets things pass, sometimes he doesn’t. Sometimes the punishment is harsh, sometimes it’s not. Even if they know they’re violating one of his shibboleths, the kids gamble that they’ll escape serious punishment.</b>
Back in the day, this was called might makes right. Meaning, nobody knew what the new ruling faction or dynasty would declare legal or illegal, right or wrong, treason or loyalty. So everybody was hedging their bets or making a gamble that the people won’t be protected, so one might as well go predator on them.
People are kept guessing and always forced to pay close attention to the rulers and the seat of power, Mr. Book’s dynamic rules for example, rather than to their own self-improvement and virtue.
<B>They won’t help out much around the house, citing their dad as an example. I hated that constant fight, so I told them</b>
So they use the lack of ethical and stable rules as an excuse for laziness, or self-appeasement of short term desires. Instead of putting their energy to learn through adversity, they know they can get success through gaming the system.
If you weren’t there, Book, they’d be learning a very bad habit that they might never deprogram themselves out of.
[...] find it amusing that, one day after my long rumination about the different parenting styles my liberal husband and I have, with both our styles accurately reflecting our politics, the blogosphere is awash in stories about [...]
>>Back in the day, this was called might makes right.>>
Working with animals, this is called “crazy making behavior”. When you are completely inconsistent with your rewards and punishments, the animal eventually “freezes”. It doesn’t know whether it’s going to get a carrot or a kick, so it refuses to do anything. From what Book is saying, the punishments sound like they’re not severe enough to result in this kind of reaction, but inconsistent results mean the kid definitely weighs the probabilities. And _never_ underestimate the ability of kids to manipulate. And as a by the way… I’d be willing to bet they can manipulate Dad better than Mom. And that they know it.
If your son likes the military, Book, then he’ll definitely want to stay away from any gaming of the system or using the excuse that others are bad, so this allows personal bad standards as well. This doesn’t really lead to a invigorating career in the military.
Consistency is important….but no human being is completely consistent, so a parent mustn’t let the kids’ accusation of inconsistency cause a freeze-up.
I always explained things to the kids when there was time….but I was also extremely clear that obedience was not dependent on the child’s understanding/agreement with my point of view and the mandate I was giving.
Having said that, I tried to be open to reasonable compromises. When my son was close to three, I fed him supper every night. His mother insisted that he have vegetables, which he resisted. I whizzed mixed vegetables into a soup, and then used it to make “mashed potatoes”, slightly green with the vegetables. Once he ate the potatoes, he had what he really loved — “banana pudding”, which was/is a banana mashed up with peanut butter (he still eats this at 33, as do I at 62 – wonderful stuff). Anyhow, I clearly remember the night I told him that when he finished his potatoes he could have his banana pudding…..”Daddy! Daddy! I have a deal — I’ll have a bite of potatoes and then a bite of banana pudding.” My initial inclination was to insist he eat his potatoes before getting banana pudding….but I stopped and thought about it, first. Since the banana pudding was at least as good for him as the vegetable/potatoes, why not? So, that’s how we did it from then on – it worked perfectly, and without conflict. One of my goals!
Sorry, I haven’t read the previous comments, so….
So, Bookie. Hubby clearly thinks your kids are of the stupid, Palin gene pool. Otherwise, if not, when, exactly, does he plan on teaching them to freakin’ THINK for THEMSELVES?!!
Sooner than he can possibly imagine they will be running circles around him, and he won’t even know it half the time. I’ll bet they are even starting to figure this out for themselves.
<B>Otherwise, if not, when, exactly, does he plan on teaching them to freakin’ THINK for THEMSELVES?!!</b>
To teach presupposes that you have already learned the material to an extent capable of transferring it to others.