A much torn debate in the current world of parenting is the idea that we need to protect our children from harm.
The question should be "what is harm"? Well, dictionary.com states that harm is physical injury or mental damage.
So to protect our children from harm, we need to shield them from both physical and mental damage. Now often Western society likes to think they force their children to be independent from birth. To sleep on their own, to be left to play on their own and often to be taught on their own. That is, until they get a little older... the caring parent (excluding the non-caring) often will then withdraw all harm from the child's path. Won't let them feed themselves, won't let them climb a tree, won't let them play with sticks and certainly not do anything with tools! That's for adults.
Now that sounds all well and good doesn't it? Well no actually it sounds terrible. For one how is wrapping them up like that going to teach them how to do be independent? Lets think about this. If your child is left to feed themselves, surely that's independence? If your child is taught how to climb their stairs, surely that's protecting them from falling down the stairs? I could go on, but that would bore you so lets summarise.
To protect a child from harm you teach the child, not prevent their learning. Well that's easy enough right? the Hippy and the Geek both agree on this! Not a good start for a conflicting blog you say? Well that's where you're wrong. The implementation from the two sides are very different.
1. The Hippy would allow the Older Child to have a real tool set in their bedroom. The Geek would only let them use it under supervision until they think the Older Child is able.
2. The Hippy lets the Older Child have complete freedom of the house, including access to medicine, power tools and anything else. The Geek feels that realistic that's unrealistic and that some boundaries need to be set as even thought the Older Child might be knowledgeable enough to be trusted, they might forget to protect the Younger Child who is still unfortunately unable to grasp the knowledge needed to be safe.
3. The Hippy will let the children eat what and when they want. The Geek thinks that waste is sinful and thinks that the children should not be offered an alternative but instead the parents should remember the preference for the future.
You might not think these differences amount to much, but I assure you they do. Not a day goes by where the Geek removes a "toy" from the children's collection which has been used dangerously too many times. Who thinks the home carer Hippy isn't supervising the dangerous equipment enough. The Hippy fights back with "how would you like it if something you like is removed?" Which to the Geek is illogical since the thing the Geek loves isn't being used harmfully against the Younger Child. Other times the Geek resorts to "time outs" where they separate the children in different rooms or removes the toy which is causing the argument. This is "unacceptable" apparently but no alternative way of parenting is ever offered, only rules of what you can't do.
Karma tip of the day:
For the Hippies out there; you must understand the Geek needs logic, needs a foundation to work from. You may remove the Geeks parenting abilities and rebuild but don't forget to rebuild. You'll leave the Geek feeling unable to cope and you'll find the Geek will become distant from the family and I don't think you want that. Remember also that most often the Hippy isn't the working parent and if this is so for you, understand the Geek isn't there all day every day like you and misses out on a lot of the little things.
For the Geeks out there; you must not let the Hippy unjustifiably prevent you from being the parent you want to be. There must be a middle ground else you'll find your own personality crushed. This will lead to a very bad outcome and the Hippy will most likely not know they've done this.
Enough ranting for today, I'd like to hear others opinions on this matter though.
No comments:
Post a Comment