Our philosophy is a bit different. One of our goals is to optimize our children’s success in the ‘real’ world (perhaps this is yours too) and we prefer natural consequences when possible—in cases where the natural consequences are tolerable.
The real world is not terribly consistent and in their socialization, children need to learn a lot about navigating complex social rules that do vary from context to context, and which are not always explained explicitly. We are fairly attentive parents (though perhaps inconsistently so!) and we notice if a child seems to need more structure or something explained explicitly, but if they are doing fine we let them be and are more natural ourselves.
My older daughter has considered it important to follow all the rules, and has begun asking me recently about why her sister gets away with breaking them so often. So I have talked with her about concepts such as plausible deniability, etc, and explain to her the best I can what our different motivations are for the different rules. My younger daughter seems to understand all this more naturally, and has a much better handle at a younger age of which rules can be broken, in which contexts. (To give some concrete examples, if the TV can be turned on some time later without asking if we said no more TV a while ago, and if its OK to do that annoying thing when I am in a good mood.)
I feel my older daughter is currently learning the lesson that there are not that many ‘stickers’ for following all the rules, and usually the consequences for breaking a non-sacred rule are pretty light, and can be weighed in the balance of things.
I’m concerned that your parenting style might lead to children that are less flexible, and they will need to learn later how to navigate breaking rules?
Again you infer too much from my isolated remark that it be risky.
Please please don’t draw conclusions too quickly. I know we extrapolate from any single bit of information to the whole picture. There must be a link here on LW about it. On my side I promise I will not post such isolated statements again.
To get back to your point. We prefer natural consequences too. My wife is better at it then I am. She immediatly has a consequence at hand that mostly does work. But then she has the plan for the day. A long time ago I agreed that we establish the same rules and back each other on decisions made by the other. But often enough I find myself in a situation where I have to back her—but don’t know to what end. That places me into a situation where I am bound to fail.
As for the riskyness of the approach. I’d like to just point out the logical consequences:
If you establish a rule (e.g. because if all follow the rule that will have positive effects for all) and then do not perform your part in supporting this common cause and instead look away then the same will happen as in any social group where social norms are not followed: the rule will weaken and possibly fall below a level where its usefullness gets negatve. If you want to maintain the rule you should better invest sufficient continuous energy to keep the rule adherence at a level where it is useful instead of letting it slip and then invest significant energy into getting it back.
But often enough I find myself in a situation where I have to back her—but don’t know to what end. That places me into a situation where I am bound to fail.
To me that sounds like the rules that your wife sets a too complex. If you don’t understand that they make sense as an adult, they will be completely arbitary to the children.
Insightful.
The rules I am talking about are mostly about every-day routine. The grand picture of these rules is clear—but that doesn’t help for particular cases where
a) the children may know the rules or rather the pragmatics of the rules better than I and
b) I don’t know the ‘usual’ consequences with respect to rule violation.
This manifests especially if I care for the children only for a limited time and then my wife takes over again—and gets dissatisfied with the consequences of my decisions—mostly because she has to ‘clean up’ after my ‘misapplication’ of the rules.
And believe me: My children will tell me if I’m to strict but not if I’m too lax.
A corollary to this is: If you are less strict than your partner and never want to disappoint him/her, then you have to be stricter then him/him.
If you want to maintain the rule you should better invest sufficient continuous energy to keep the rule adherence at a level where it is useful instead of letting it slip and then invest significant energy into getting it back.
I agree with this.
I also agree with you about the importance of making children feel significant. Hand in hand with children expending more brain power on their parents then the parents spend on them, I have a much larger world of which they are just a part, whereas until they are older, I am a much bigger part of their reality. I try to keep this asymmetry in mind and try to be more present for them. (This is one of my biggest challenges as a parent.)
Again you infer too much from my isolated remark that it be risky.
Actually, what I was responded to was more central in your post:
If the children notice this they may assume that you either condone, accept, bear or ignore it. None of these has positive effects.
My point was that I think it has mostly positively effects, because it teaches them the truth. If the parent didn’t interfere with the undisciplined behavior (for example, if they are too tired or preoccupied or conflicted) then it is probably the case the parents condones/accepts/bears that behavior at that moment.
A long time ago I agreed that we establish the same rules and back each other on decisions made by the other. But often enough I find myself in a situation where I have to back her—but don’t know to what end.
We struggle with this also. For example, with keeping a schedule and with routines. It completely doesn’t work unless both parents maintain it, but in our case it is more important to one parent than the other.
Our philosophy is a bit different. One of our goals is to optimize our children’s success in the ‘real’ world (perhaps this is yours too) and we prefer natural consequences when possible—in cases where the natural consequences are tolerable.
The real world is not terribly consistent and in their socialization, children need to learn a lot about navigating complex social rules that do vary from context to context, and which are not always explained explicitly. We are fairly attentive parents (though perhaps inconsistently so!) and we notice if a child seems to need more structure or something explained explicitly, but if they are doing fine we let them be and are more natural ourselves.
My older daughter has considered it important to follow all the rules, and has begun asking me recently about why her sister gets away with breaking them so often. So I have talked with her about concepts such as plausible deniability, etc, and explain to her the best I can what our different motivations are for the different rules. My younger daughter seems to understand all this more naturally, and has a much better handle at a younger age of which rules can be broken, in which contexts. (To give some concrete examples, if the TV can be turned on some time later without asking if we said no more TV a while ago, and if its OK to do that annoying thing when I am in a good mood.)
I feel my older daughter is currently learning the lesson that there are not that many ‘stickers’ for following all the rules, and usually the consequences for breaking a non-sacred rule are pretty light, and can be weighed in the balance of things.
I’m concerned that your parenting style might lead to children that are less flexible, and they will need to learn later how to navigate breaking rules?
Again you infer too much from my isolated remark that it be risky.
Please please don’t draw conclusions too quickly. I know we extrapolate from any single bit of information to the whole picture. There must be a link here on LW about it. On my side I promise I will not post such isolated statements again.
To get back to your point. We prefer natural consequences too. My wife is better at it then I am. She immediatly has a consequence at hand that mostly does work. But then she has the plan for the day. A long time ago I agreed that we establish the same rules and back each other on decisions made by the other. But often enough I find myself in a situation where I have to back her—but don’t know to what end. That places me into a situation where I am bound to fail.
As for the riskyness of the approach. I’d like to just point out the logical consequences: If you establish a rule (e.g. because if all follow the rule that will have positive effects for all) and then do not perform your part in supporting this common cause and instead look away then the same will happen as in any social group where social norms are not followed: the rule will weaken and possibly fall below a level where its usefullness gets negatve. If you want to maintain the rule you should better invest sufficient continuous energy to keep the rule adherence at a level where it is useful instead of letting it slip and then invest significant energy into getting it back.
To me that sounds like the rules that your wife sets a too complex. If you don’t understand that they make sense as an adult, they will be completely arbitary to the children.
Insightful. The rules I am talking about are mostly about every-day routine. The grand picture of these rules is clear—but that doesn’t help for particular cases where
a) the children may know the rules or rather the pragmatics of the rules better than I and
b) I don’t know the ‘usual’ consequences with respect to rule violation.
This manifests especially if I care for the children only for a limited time and then my wife takes over again—and gets dissatisfied with the consequences of my decisions—mostly because she has to ‘clean up’ after my ‘misapplication’ of the rules. And believe me: My children will tell me if I’m to strict but not if I’m too lax.
A corollary to this is: If you are less strict than your partner and never want to disappoint him/her, then you have to be stricter then him/him.
That’s when the only thing your partner cares about is that you enforce a certain level of rules.
Sadly that has a true part in it.
I agree with this.
I also agree with you about the importance of making children feel significant. Hand in hand with children expending more brain power on their parents then the parents spend on them, I have a much larger world of which they are just a part, whereas until they are older, I am a much bigger part of their reality. I try to keep this asymmetry in mind and try to be more present for them. (This is one of my biggest challenges as a parent.)
Actually, what I was responded to was more central in your post:
My point was that I think it has mostly positively effects, because it teaches them the truth. If the parent didn’t interfere with the undisciplined behavior (for example, if they are too tired or preoccupied or conflicted) then it is probably the case the parents condones/accepts/bears that behavior at that moment.
We struggle with this also. For example, with keeping a schedule and with routines. It completely doesn’t work unless both parents maintain it, but in our case it is more important to one parent than the other.
In our case it is also more important to one parent than the other. Sadly.