Parenting 101 [HW #57]

[Part I]
What were the best parts of how you were parented (since the worst parts don't really belong in a public class blog)
I think the best parts of how I was parented was the fact that my parents treated me as an (at least, when it came to intellectual discussions- not so much about me taking care of myself and cooking for myself). They would usually want to talk to me about their ideas, but usually those talks turn into arguments, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing. We would talk about our interpretation of the people we know or people we see. And despite knowing that I know very little about artifacts and jade, my parents would always give me something and tell me what I feel about it, or determine whether or not it’s fake. I think that the gesture of starting a discussion with me about a topic that is not: what did you do in school today, allow me to develop some sort of intellect in subjects that I normally wouldn’t learn about. It also gave me the sense that I was an equal with my parents- that despite our age difference, they would still want to hear about what I thought, and that I can still teach them something.

How should kids be parented?
This question actually ties to the other question about whether children should be treated like adults or like puppies. And I think that there needs to be a balance, just like most other things in life. As a child, we all need some sort of guidance; we all need to understand what's the before we develop our own way of playing it. And rather than having a child run in circles for the first however many odd years of his/her life, trying to figure out the basics, he/she could be learning it directly from his/her parents or guardians. However, it is still important to let the child learn on their own, because if everything was spoon-fed to them, it would hold no meaning to the child. And if we were taught everything, and were guided every step of the way, there would never be any advancements. It would just be a repetition of the same generation, with 1 or more different looking people replacing the people of the previous generation.

These two opposing methods remind me of quote from Bruce Lee, which may not be directly pertinent:"I mean here is natural instinct and here is control. You are to combine the two in harmony. Not--if you have one to the extreme, you'll be very unscientific. If you have another to the extreme, you become, all of a sudden, a mechanical man- no longer a human being. So it is a successful combination of both, so therefore, it's not pure naturalness, or unnaturalness. The ideal is unnatural naturalness, or natural unnaturalness." In terms of raising a child, the "natural instinct" would be the child's own ability to learn and figure stuff out, meanwhile "control" is strictly all-parenting. But as Bruce Lee says, if we were to rely on solely on our natural instincts to interpret the world, we would be unscientific- things would become more random, and less predictable. And if we were to rely on control, we would become a "mechanical man"- just robots whose output is the same as the input. So perhaps, it would be good to have a balance, to have some structure but still have for the child's own more-random development.

[Part II]
Re: When Parenting Theories Backfire
This story is the typical case where the parents spoil the child(ren), and empower them to the point that it takes away from their authority. This type of scenario also ties back to one of the questions in part one, asking whether kids should be treated as adults or as pets. Clearly, in this case treating a child too much like an has it's flaws. By giving children choices, the parents are treating them as an equal. And all of this makes me wonder why is it that age defines superiority and sub ordinance, because it does for many cases in our culture. It's interesting how my first reaction to when the mom said "You can have the red cup or the green cup. You choose." or "You can wear blue pants or tan pants to church. You choose." I thought that she was being considerate and was being a cool parent by not bossing the child around. But when the child said "MOM! CHOOSE ONE! WATCH TV OR STAY UP LATE! YOU CHOOOOOOSE!!!" I thought that the kid was a brat. I immediately sympathized with the parents, because they had the role to say what they did. Meanwhile, the child was thought to be "out of lines." Looking at this with a parenting aspect, I would say that children are expected to subordinate to the parents, and grateful if they come anywhere close to equality. But if they get too close, they would be perceived as a spoiled brat, who was raised improperly.

I found a few of the comments to this post quite interesting. Most, if not all of the comments involved the person finding this type of situation funny and "LOL"-worthy (with the cap locks). It just seems like people see parenting as an extracurricular activity, and if a person fails at it, it's just something to find humor in. The comment that I found most interesting was: "Oh my! That just sounds like so much fun... I think I wanna try it!" Apparently, parenting is "fun" and is something to try. Not many people seem to take it seriously, and I'm not sure if that's a good thing. Another thing that I found interesting is the reason that the parent might want to publish this online for the world to read about. It may be that she wanted to share her experiences so that people won't make the same mistake, or rather follow the same path that would lead to similar results. But it seems to me that she is trying more to get sympathy for her, and have people tell her that her kids are wrong in doing what they're doing. "Jack: (quietly sneaks away without saying a , waits until I'm not looking, then gets milk whenever the heck he wants it)."- Just in this one sentence, it seems she's a victim in this relationship, being that she's portraying herself as being betrayed by her son ("waits until I'm not looking") and her son as the perpetrator ("whenever the heck he wants it"- emphasis on the heck). So one insight that I got from this is that: when the kids turn out well, the parents will glorify their kids, as it would glorify them as their parents and people playing their roles. But if the kids turn out spoiled, it is common that the parents would look for sympathy, and make themselves look like the victim of the situation- even though they're the creator (if not creator, then influence) of the situation.

Re: WHAT ATTACHMENT PARENTING IS- THE 7 B’S
It would make sense that each of these 7 B’s would promote a bond between a parent and a child. Each of these all go towards making the child seem like he/she is the most important person in the parent’s world. Many of us view a close child-parent relationship as something great or “beautiful.” But there is of course the argument that the child might get too attached, and thus unprepared for the outside world. In psychology, the liberation between a child from his/her parent is considered one of the most painful, but necessary phases in life. So although, it is good to be attached to our parents, being too attached may not be a good thing. This balance in a child-parent relationship is one example of autonomy versus fushion. Although we want to become one with our parents, as we once were with both of our parents, and connect with them, we don’t want to be dependent on them our whole lives. It is in our paths (our as in most Americans) to eventually branch away from our parents, but still remain connected.