Insidious conventional parenting messages
Joyce Fetteroll
A good indicator of your brain shifting gears from a mindset of teaching kids to helping kids explore is feeling a wrongness in how conventional parenting advice is worded.
In today's New York Times is the subtitle to an article about a cooking magazine, ChopChop, for parents and kids to create more healthful dishes.
“The wisdom, and pleasure, of getting children interested in cooking early on.”
and in the article:
"... ChopChop, whose goal is to get kids to cook."
The *idea* of the magazine sounds cool. It sounds like the focus is on using recipes not as rigid formulas but as jumping off points to explore variations, so kids can discover what appeals to them and what doesn't.
But because it's so ingrained that the parents' role in raising kids is to "fix" them: stop them from doing the wrong things and get them to do the right things, even something different will get translated into conventional thinking.
How do you get kids to do something? How do you get them to stop fighting? How do you get them to brush their teeth?
"Get" for me initially conjures up ideas of force. If the goal is get the kids to do something, there isn't the option of not doing.
But if you've mentally shifted away from a goal of "getting kids to" to the goal being things like happiness, joy, fun, companionship and connection then it becomes much easier to create an atmosphere for joyful exploration for the kids to discover more about who they are and what they like and don't like. Instead of "I need to get the kids cooking," the thoughts are more along, "What kind of things involving food might my kids enjoy doing?"
Joyce
In today's New York Times is the subtitle to an article about a cooking magazine, ChopChop, for parents and kids to create more healthful dishes.
“The wisdom, and pleasure, of getting children interested in cooking early on.”
and in the article:
"... ChopChop, whose goal is to get kids to cook."
The *idea* of the magazine sounds cool. It sounds like the focus is on using recipes not as rigid formulas but as jumping off points to explore variations, so kids can discover what appeals to them and what doesn't.
But because it's so ingrained that the parents' role in raising kids is to "fix" them: stop them from doing the wrong things and get them to do the right things, even something different will get translated into conventional thinking.
How do you get kids to do something? How do you get them to stop fighting? How do you get them to brush their teeth?
"Get" for me initially conjures up ideas of force. If the goal is get the kids to do something, there isn't the option of not doing.
But if you've mentally shifted away from a goal of "getting kids to" to the goal being things like happiness, joy, fun, companionship and connection then it becomes much easier to create an atmosphere for joyful exploration for the kids to discover more about who they are and what they like and don't like. Instead of "I need to get the kids cooking," the thoughts are more along, "What kind of things involving food might my kids enjoy doing?"
Joyce
Tam
My husband and I were discussing something very similar last night. Jay, our four year old, is currently calling himself 'Chef' and is enjoying cooking meals and cakes. He wanted to watch a cooking programme so I was looking through the On Demand section on TiVo for something he'd like: something that he could replicate, with not too much straying off topic. Ben (my husband) asked why I didn't just put 'I Can Cook' on, which is a children's cooking programme where they get a group of children, and get them to cook a recipe by doing things like telling them they're 'tickling' the flour and butter (when they're actually needing to mix it).
I said the difference was that I Can Cook is made with the objective of making the process apparently childlike in order to get children to cook, whereas we have a son who wants to cook and wants to watch cooking and we can then support that in a way that he will enjoy. In the first instance, the idea of a child cooking is the priority, in the second, our child is the priority and he currently wants to cook.
Tam
Sent from my iPhone
I said the difference was that I Can Cook is made with the objective of making the process apparently childlike in order to get children to cook, whereas we have a son who wants to cook and wants to watch cooking and we can then support that in a way that he will enjoy. In the first instance, the idea of a child cooking is the priority, in the second, our child is the priority and he currently wants to cook.
Tam
Sent from my iPhone
On 8 May 2013, at 17:35, Joyce Fetteroll <jfetteroll@...> wrote:
> A good indicator of your brain shifting gears from a mindset of teaching kids to helping kids explore is feeling a wrongness in how conventional parenting advice is worded.
>
> In today's New York Times is the subtitle to an article about a cooking magazine, ChopChop, for parents and kids to create more healthful dishes.
>
> “The wisdom, and pleasure, of getting children interested in cooking early on.”
>
> and in the article:
>
> "... ChopChop, whose goal is to get kids to cook."
>
> The *idea* of the magazine sounds cool. It sounds like the focus is on using recipes not as rigid formulas but as jumping off points to explore variations, so kids can discover what appeals to them and what doesn't.
>
> But because it's so ingrained that the parents' role in raising kids is to "fix" them: stop them from doing the wrong things and get them to do the right things, even something different will get translated into conventional thinking.
>
> How do you get kids to do something? How do you get them to stop fighting? How do you get them to brush their teeth?
>
> "Get" for me initially conjures up ideas of force. If the goal is get the kids to do something, there isn't the option of not doing.
>
> But if you've mentally shifted away from a goal of "getting kids to" to the goal being things like happiness, joy, fun, companionship and connection then it becomes much easier to create an atmosphere for joyful exploration for the kids to discover more about who they are and what they like and don't like. Instead of "I need to get the kids cooking," the thoughts are more along, "What kind of things involving food might my kids enjoy doing?"
>
> Joyce
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Sandra Dodd
Joyce wrote this:
-=-How do you get kids to do something? How do you get them to stop fighting? How do you get them to brush their teeth?
-=-"Get" for me initially conjures up ideas of force. If the goal is get the kids to do something, there isn't the option of not doing.
-=-But if you've mentally shifted away from a goal of "getting kids to" to the goal being things like happiness, joy, fun, companionship and connection then it becomes much easier to create an atmosphere for joyful exploration for the kids to discover more about who they are and what they like and don't like. Instead of "I need to get the kids cooking," the thoughts are more along, "What kind of things involving food might my kids enjoy doing?"-=-
It just so happens that today's chat is on the topics of bribery and coercion. And balance. And unschooling. The chats are always about balance and unschooling. :-)
http://chatnotes-unschooling.blogspot.com/2013/05/may-8-bribery-and-coercion.html
Imminent.
Other than that, Joyce is making a point that has been dropped here and there lately, and it's that when people can't see a problem with traditional wording, about teaching or self-regulation or grade level or whatever it might be, it's an indication that the person is near the beginning of what can be a wonderful long journey. Or they might be in a place where those terms are more important to them than the thought of letting them go and finding new ways to see is.
Sometimes it helps to know.
Sandra
-=-How do you get kids to do something? How do you get them to stop fighting? How do you get them to brush their teeth?
-=-"Get" for me initially conjures up ideas of force. If the goal is get the kids to do something, there isn't the option of not doing.
-=-But if you've mentally shifted away from a goal of "getting kids to" to the goal being things like happiness, joy, fun, companionship and connection then it becomes much easier to create an atmosphere for joyful exploration for the kids to discover more about who they are and what they like and don't like. Instead of "I need to get the kids cooking," the thoughts are more along, "What kind of things involving food might my kids enjoy doing?"-=-
It just so happens that today's chat is on the topics of bribery and coercion. And balance. And unschooling. The chats are always about balance and unschooling. :-)
http://chatnotes-unschooling.blogspot.com/2013/05/may-8-bribery-and-coercion.html
Imminent.
Other than that, Joyce is making a point that has been dropped here and there lately, and it's that when people can't see a problem with traditional wording, about teaching or self-regulation or grade level or whatever it might be, it's an indication that the person is near the beginning of what can be a wonderful long journey. Or they might be in a place where those terms are more important to them than the thought of letting them go and finding new ways to see is.
Sometimes it helps to know.
Sandra