Showing posts with label cultural contradiction. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cultural contradiction. Show all posts

Tuesday 22 May 2012

Relationships with Humans

 

sidebarFamilies

Relationships with humans are hard.

I’ve been having interesting conversations with folks about teens, rebellion and the ‘need’ (experts tell us it’s a need, so it must be, right?) for children to butt heads with their parents in order to leave the nest.

I’ve written about this before, but today I’m thinking about it from a slightly different angle… in a conversation about ‘normal teens,’ in response to this:

Some children really DO need to "butt heads to leave".

I said this:

In the same way that people who are genuinely frightened (the result of a break-in, or even a physical attack) start arguing when they don’t know what else to do with their fear, people who are leaving or on the verge of being left will often lash out, because they simply don’t know how to handle the fears or the overwhelming feelings that come with large life changes.

I’ve lived in a navy family my whole life, first as the daughter of a sailor, and later married to one (still). I am experienced in the leavings (and returns) of loved ones… and I’m familiar with the dysfunctional and the enlightened ways of handling both.

Dysfunctional is what is considered the norm: depression, lashing out, infidelity, worry, ptsd, insomnia, ocd… the list goes on and on. But however ordinary and common those responses are, they’re hardly enlightened or even helpful. They are simply what people do with overwhelmingly large emotions when they don’t know what else to do.

It’s not surprising that people don’t know what to do –culturally, we don’t know what to do, we have few models of more enlightened or mature responses, and few teachers who could pass that information on. If I had a nickel for every time someone said to me, ‘I could never cope with my partner leaving’ or ‘how do you manage?’ I’d have a room full of nickels. And, it took me a long time to stumble across healthier ways of handling it.

Children leaving home brings up the same kinds of overwhelm, for themselves and their parents –and their friends, and their siblings… and we end up with the Freshman 15 (kids who eat to displace their feelings when they’re at college the first year) and Empty Nest Syndrome (for parents who can’t sit through long-distance ads without bursting into tears), et cetera.

There are two keys, I found, to understand comings and goings:

1. worry and,

2. control

There are two primary reasons people mind so much, life transitions of this kind: they don’t know what’s going to happen, and they don’t like feeling out of control of what’s going to happen. So they worry –that’s personal and internal stress that just adds to the real issues in their world—and they seek to control what they can reach, which is generally the other people close by. [I think it’s hilarious how rarely most people think of themselves when they’re looking around for something to control.]

Now, how to avoid and minimize both of those is a completely other post for another day, but that’s the core of it: children who express an apparent need to butt heads are picking #2. Parents who become depressed, teary or insomniac are using #1. Lashing out and ocd are #2. PTSD is #1.

Handling comings and goings with equanimity is hard:

  • it’s hard to lean into the pain of separations, to know that the pain is not just okay, but perfect
  • it’s hard to open a lifestyle up when someone comes home after the heartspace they had lived in has healed

Neither are anywhere near as hard as the results of lashing out, butting heads, depression… et cetera.

Tuesday 8 February 2011

2.1 Choices --Thinking About Parenting Styles

It is with glee that I notice, once again, that I'm way over the edge over here on the coast... I wouldn't do (or recommend) doing any of the three choices given by beagreatparent.ca, as quoted in an article from St. Catharine's The Standard... click on that link if you want to read the full article, but this is the segment I'm commenting on today:
Your toddler and her friend are fighting over a doll.
When the friend pulls it away from her, your daughter punches the girl and grabs it back.
Do you:
Take the doll away and explain to the girls that they can have it back when they can share and play nicely together?
Do nothing. After all, it is your daughter's doll. Her friend can find something else to play with; kids need to sort out their own problems.
Take the doll away and tell your daughter that you're selling it in a garage sale. She can start saving her allowance if she wants it back.*
The first is 'strict' parenting, the second is 'permissive' and the third is labeled (mis-labeled, in my opinion) 'balanced.' What the third option really is, though, is just as controlling and authoritarian as the first. Different, but the same end of the spectrum. 2.1 options, not three.
 
When a child is struggling for ownership over her object --with anyone-- it just can't be a parent's job to take possession of the object. Unless what the parent really means is 'none of your stuff is actually yours.' It doesn't matter if the object is removed forever or if it can be purchased back from the thief: 

It is either the child's possession or it is not.
 
Think about this in the context of the society we actually live in: you and your neighbour have a dispute over half of a driveway that is owned by one party. Does the court step in, take it away and rent out the space to just anyone until the actual owner buys it back, with a threat to sell it if they don't pony up fast enough? 

Why are we teaching children that anyone who considers themselves an authority gets to 'own' their objects until they're satisfied that atonement has been made sufficient to the infraction?

Three things:
  1. Children do not learn to share in an environment where they own or control nothing. All the energy they might have to share something with genuine generosity is spent in fighting for, confirming and protecting their ownership.
  2. We do not live in a 'sharing' culture --it's a fun idea, but no one is allowed to come to your house and use whatever they want for however they want whenever they are there. Here is an example: I'm sending a friend over later to get your car... you can have it back when she's done with it, in whatever condition she happens to leave it. This is, of course, fine because you were taught to share, right? Is it different because it's a 5 year old, or is it only because their stuff is not valuable to anyone but them?
  3. There is a sliding scale of extremely strict to a more balanced style of authoritarian parenting. The key is whether or not someone other than the child is seeking to control what the child does, what the child thinks or what is important to the child... the question to ask is 'what if the child still doesn't do what the parent wants?' The answer to that clears up any doubt that this is about command and control, carrot and stick parenting, whether it uses the rapport-building manipulative communication styles or straight-up ordering kids around.
There is no real 'third option' in this article... just one point on the permissive end and two points on the strict/authoritarian end and one at the other end.

Which is unfortunate, because there is a third option.
__________________________
*Toddler, seriously? We're going to make a toddler 'save their allowance and buy it back'? A toddler?!
__________________________________
Photo used with permission (Creative Commons license, attributed) Sharing by PlatinumBlondeLIfe

Friday 18 April 2008

Sleep: babies and teens and changing needs


https://www.flickr.com/photos/rabble/445441900/in/photolist-Fn1mL-2LsXA-eikFCX-5S1Uun-AofiK-4qjK46-eFDjSX-6vzAue-btsBy-7oVLip-6vDz7U-btsFj-6QEw2-DD3Y4-ndmdy-btsNr-8wVri2-btsvk-3YsbC-7s5Lyh-4qjGu4-btszw-56as3-ajm4hS-56as4-6XAwd-oG3x6i-8yg4pT-M9Ae6-Nj1x1-cn31CU-4XNh23-bY1CMh-cVGheo-4qu6fZ-Nj4HS-5hiVHA-nMK7GF-Nj4pq-6A7g3G-bzmRYp-co5hMJ-Njcsc-rSrfFf-cVGhsw-dZPcVd-ctTVUd-NjhsK-c9rzbh-b5f2A6
My strange, noticing brain noticed something again. 

Parents spend a great deal of time and effort researching and experimenting and seeking advice about how to stop their babies from waking up in the night. Or, more accurately, how to stop babies from waking parents in the night.

Fast-forward 13 or 14 years. Now parents spend a great deal of time and effort researching, experimenting and seeking advice on how to stop their children sleeping so much.

First we teach children how to do things (follow orders, make choices, sleep on command, etc.) and then, in just a few years when the children really get a handle on that, we ask that they stop. Don't take orders, think for yourself. Don't make choices, do what I say. Stop sleeping all the time and get something done.

More cynical parts of my brain make comments that are uncharitable, like: parents really don't seem to like children very much, and; this seems to be about what is expedient for the parent in this moment, not what is best for the child or society. I don't know that I'd go a long way to contradict either of those sentences, but I will create a little more compassion than that:

I understand:
  • there are a squillion pressures, messages and 'experts' about childrearing, most of whom have no more idea what they're doing than the parents who are listening

  • parents never (not once) ever get up in the morning thinking 'how can I screw up my kid today?' (and children never go to bed at night thinking 'how can I piss mom off tonight?')

  • like most other egrigious mistakes, this is about a lack of knowledge and understanding, not foul motives or vile feelings ... even when the mistakes look like they have selfish motives, or the feelings that arise are vile
There seems to be a war going on: parents sleep on one side, what children need in the night on the other. Parents want to meet the child's needs 'now and forever' for the whole night before the child goes to bed. Which is a little like trying to eat 'once and for all'.

A child can't be made 'full for the night' or even 'sleepy for the night' by any means before bedtime. They cannot be made to feel secure for the night, the right temperature for the night, comfortable for the night, or adequately unlonely (what is the opposite of lonely?) for the night.
Those needs can only be met as they arise.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/simajr/5462142145/in/photolist-9jEUyz-99vzQm-f79RdZ-qmwAQ1-3urKk-QU2n-Nj3h5-cW4mnq-3eogir-3cxBa-HNZ3R-33WjKi-8woFYX-4jHWg6-xiSiZ-35fEX5-8uoh8E-9DL7R-4VNNT-78a92N-dzGbtN-4C4rrF-eQC88Z-4PmBrv-4ksmr-7E6Ghd-dBDbN7-fzvwX5-8WdcL2-8ZCJD1-HNWuw-7ZVcw6-4tLmd2-M9pvm-9nifUp-cjbLr3-dCfXk-9nmizU-p9uXz1-ixZgSb-dCfXn-aKtni-dCfXi-59SfxA-4VNNz-4C8Kyy-5AvcTS-994EVQ-5ZD8nG-dzGbCf
If the child is lonely in the night, there is nothing for it except to assure them, with a parent's presence, that she is not alone. If the child is hungry in the night, nothing will stop the hunger until he is fed. If the child is uncomfortably warm, cold, wet or sticky, leaving it until after the sun comes up will only let the child know which is more important: his needs or the location of the sun.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/chufi/3915224495/in/photolist-VFZUP-6XYxQB-fv5CMd-9x64yo-4QXoff-4QXscb-4QXudN-4QXmnh-9x64nf-4HUtoX-4QXqhY-9x34Er-91Xahp-fuRu4P-921hqQ-4YAPgs-bw4B1o-HBcmR1-nUDHcP-4qhAHG-by6sQF-J5LYxM-dvre3-s4YKiq-VGWiy-6qDYc6-dvre1-bUR2nr-4AaRRG-4urNC2-4uvR25-f95R9h-wrQ7Z-f8QARe-f95RRd-4FpEXN-dc95Xc-9LJ2Qv-5UdJEL-djFmKU-9VUJTP-9VWGpC-3qdw1n-3qdyc2-3qdvY8-3qhZqY-fY7zd-3qhZqU-3qdvZv-3qdw1a
And, in 13 years, there is nothing except sufficient sleep that will make a rapidly-growing adolescent be well-rested. And, what outside 'expert' is going to know for this child, based on how fast she's growing, how much exercise she got and what kinds of stresses there were today, how much sleep that takes?

Just meet the needs as they present themselves...