Sunday, September 27, 2009

Things I Learned Today

We spent today at Disney's Animal Kingdom, which I'd never seen before. It was okay: basically Disney's version of a zoo. If you want a great "Disney" experience, go to Magic Kingdom. If you want a great "see live animals" experience, then go to the San Diego Wild Animal Park.

The kids enjoyed it quite a bit though. There's a really neat-o dinosaur thing where you can climb things and excavate dinosaur bones. Enjoyed by all--it was nice to let Sean out of his cage stroller every once in a while. And the whole group generally agrees that the safari ride--on small buses into the "real" savannah ala Jurassic Park sans animals who eat you--was the best thing. Very bumpy, lots of neat animals to enjoy. I don't recommend riding it if you are prone to motion sickness or have just consumed large quantities of food or if you really really have to pee.

We had a nice time though, and it was a nice way to begin our vacation--a relatively short, calm day. And like most days, I learn a few new things. I am sure you're intensely curious, so here they are:

  • Remembering to charge up the camera battery is a wonderful thing. Forgetting to put that charged-up battery back into the camera: notsomuch. A few of my cell phone pictures can be found here, but the good ones will have to come from my dad, who is the sort of person who remembers to put his battery back into his camera.
  • Florida is so humid that even when a downpour--and I mean downpour--occurs, you barely even notice it. In fact, it's somewhat of a welcome change from the usual hot stickiness.
  • The Finding Nemo Musical is actually a musical version of the entire original movie, not just some of the characters from the movie singing some songs. My kids hate that movie (because it's so sad when his Daddy can't find him, and plus with the sharks), so are probably going to have nightmares tonight, even though we left early.
  • See above for advice about the Safari tour.
  • My little girl positively beamed when Mickey Mouse blew her a kiss and gave her a thumbs up during the parade! By the way, she is even cuter than normal in Disney theme parks!
  • Be mindful of the environmental "green" themes found throughout this park. I think my kids were mostly oblivious, but nevertheless I am preparing to have a discussion soon with them about why the Earth is not going to wither away or somesuch.
  • Having Aunts and Uncles and Grandparents along is AWESOME. Extra people to watch over the little ones (especially Morgan, who tends to absentmindedly wander and doesn't seem to know her name sometimes, sigh). Very good for fun and peace of mind.

We're off to EPCOT tomorrow. And I'm off to bed now. I'm amazingly tired, since I walked about a hundred and a thousand (my kids' term for "a lot") hours today.

Friday, September 25, 2009

We're Going To Disney World!

I am SO excited! My parents, to celebrate their 40th anniversary, decided to take all of us to WDW for a week. A nice condo all to ourselves (for free) and tickets to the park, all paid for. An offer we couldn't refuse, especially since WDW is one of our favorite places ever. Isn't that nice of them?

We leave tomorrow, so today will be a flurry of packing and figuring out what's what. I suspect Brendan will not let me be in charge of packing his things, since I forgot all of his shorts when we went to the beach a month ago. That's okay--I've got enough to pack without his stuff.

It's a fairly easy drive from Atlanta, although the rain we're supposed to have tomorrow might make things interesting. The weather report for Orlando promises mostly sunny, hot days. YAY.

And also a big old YAY YAY YAY for homeschooling, since we can take our vacations any old time we like! If Ryan were in government school, this time off would be unexcused, and so would the time we'll take in just a couple of weeks for my mother-in-law's wedding. In fact, between this trip and the wedding trip, he'd probably be on probation or whatever they do to second-graders who miss too much school for family vacations, or else Brendan and I would be in trouble for his excessive absences.

One of my friends once asked me to explain why we like Disney so much. Because we DO like it. In fact, that's where Brendan and I went on our honeymoon! I've considered this question quite a bit. We're not big into Mickey Mouse or any of the other Disney characters. We like most of them just fine, but none of us here is character-obsessed. We enjoy many of the movies, and watch them with our kids--again, we're not particularly focused on Disney movies per se.

So what is the appeal? I think it's because Walt Disney World represents the Benevolent Universe Premise to us. Leonard Peikoff discussed the Benevolent Universe Premise in his lecture series "The Philosophy of Objectivism" (via the online Ayn Rand Lexicon, my emphasis):

Although accidents and failures are possible, they are not, according to Objectivism, the essence of human life. On the contrary, the achievement of values is the norm—speaking now for the moral man, moral by the Objectivist definition. Success and happiness are the metaphysically to-be-expected. In other words, Objectivism rejects the view that human fulfillment is impossible, that man is doomed to misery, that the universe is malevolent. We advocate the “benevolent universe” premise. . .

. . . You remember when Dagny asks Ragnar in the valley how his wife can live through the months he is away at sea, and he answers (I quote just part of this passage):

“We do not think that tragedy is our natural state. We do not live in chronic dread of disaster. We do not expect disaster until we have specific reason to expect it, and when we encounter it, we are free to fight it. It is not happiness, but suffering, that we consider unnatural. It is not success but calamity that we regard as the abnormal exception in human life.”

Now I understand that WDW is probably not everyone's cup of tea. But it's a kind of FUN I particularly like, and I always enjoy myself when I go. It's a place where everyone is nice and kind, where fun spur-of-the-moment things happen, where we can experience enjoyable things with our kids. There is music EVERYWHERE. People spontaneously break out into song. There are parades and fireworks, and the "Cast Members" (aka Disney World Peopleguys) walk up to you and give you free stuff (especially if you are a cute little girl). The rides are fun and interesting (but also somewhat frightening to young kids and/or people with Enormous Imaginations, so beware).

There's nothing to do all day long except walk around with the ones you love, ride on something interesting, listen to music, eat some yummy food, watch a singing or dancing or animal show, laugh and enjoy. And in EPCOT, they sell margaritas, which of course adds that little something-something to the whole experience!

And to go with small children, who ooh and ahh at every unexpected little pleasure, who get so excited to see or experience something new, who think it's thrilling to see a parade every day or Mickey Mouse "in the flesh"--well, it's just a big old ball of Amazing Cuteness.

Not every second is a thrill, of course, and I see many miserable parents walking around WDW with screaming children, and once I even heard a parent say in frustration "HAVE FUN! You're supposed be having fun, dammit!" I'd say it's important, when going to WDW with small children, to maintain a relationship with Mr. Reality, and understand that tantrums and potty accidents will happen, but not to let those things ruin the entire experience. Just my piece of unsolicited advice.

And I'd be remiss if I didn't mention how WONDERFUL Disney is about food allergies. They train their waitstaff and restaurant managers thoroughly, and while we always need to keep our peanut radar on, I have never felt so understood by an organization that deals with food. They are knowledgeable and kind, and it is a place in which I feel almost as safe as I do at home, which is saying a lot. That kind of peace of mind really adds to my WDW experience.

I'll try to write while we're out of town, but you know how that goes! I'll definitely Twitter, and post some pictures, so follow me if you don't already. Morgan is going to the Bibbidi Bobbidi Boutique for a Princess Makeover on Tuesday, which I suspect will be worth every penny (and it is a pretty penny). This is Sean's first trip--I love toddlers at Disney, and I can't wait to see what he thinks. And of course, Ryan, the only one of my kids who can actually remember a previous WDW trip, is PUMPED.

M-I-C, See you real soon!

K-E-Y, Why? Because I like you!

M-O-U-S-E!!!!

(Sorry, couldn't resist. :D )

Thursday, September 24, 2009

An Anti-Evasion Story

It's interesting that this evasion topic has come up, because I recently had an evasion-related encounter with Ryan. It was one of those parenting scenarios that seem to keep coming up now that he is getting older. The issues we are beginning to face with him aren't as clear-cut as they were in the toddler years.

Ryan recently added sparring class to his Taekwondo schedule, which is a little different from regular class. In regular class, they line up and practice their kicks and punches, learn new forms (routines), and generally try to work on personal improvement. He does this three times a week. Sparring class involves putting on protective gear and using those kicks and punches in a one-on-one (sometimes two-on-one for the higher belts!) match. He tried it out first, decided he enjoyed it, and we bought the gear.

Last week, he started FREAKING out about going to sparring. He told me he was afraid, and the more we talked, the more it became apparent that he was afraid of one particular student. This didn't come as a total surprise to me, since I've been watching this girl and her older brother and their father for some time. These kids are both really good at taekwondo, and participate in national tournaments and things. Their dad really pushes these kids, and it's fairly obvious that their doing well in this sport is something he very much wants. (I can't quite tell if it's something the children also want, having never really interacted with them.) This dad is also really hard on his kids, especially his daughter, and openly fusses at her when she messes up or he thinks she's too slow.

This girl, in part to win her dad's approval (I think), is extremely aggressive in sparring class. Sure, sure, they're there to beat each other up, but they are also expected to exhibit self-control (it's one of the TKD tenets!). She's the same rank as Ryan and about his size, although a little younger by half a year or so. Because they are well-matched in rank and size, they are often paired up together in class. The lower belts/smaller kids also practice against older kids, too, who are expected to take on a teaching role with the little ones. And they do. But this girl, for reasons I can really only guess at, is really wild in sparring. I wonder if she mistakenly views her classmates as "enemies"--something Ryan had a hard time with in team sports a couple years ago (he wanted to view the other team as Bad Guys and took defeat very hard and gloated over every win).

The last time I observed sparring class, she and Ryan were paired up three times. She came out fighting, and Ryan was sort of dumbstruck at first. But the older black belt helped him identify some tactics and he even won the last sparring match. She melted into tears, ran to her dad and immediately launched into her defense: "He's new! I had to let him win! He cheated!" Etc. Honestly, that part didn't bother me too much--six year olds are not always graceful about losing (or winning).

So last week, when Ryan expressed to me how scared he was of her, how she once (accidentally) hit him in the eye, how he was NEVER going back to sparring ever again--I wasn't all that surprised, but it took me a while to figure out what to do.

As best as I can recall, here are some of the things going through my mind during his initial wave of freak-out:

  • Does he really not like sparring, or is it this particular child?
  • It's fine for him to quit if he just doesn't like it, but I'd hate to see him quit because of this one kid.
  • Man! I just paid 90 bucks for all that gear!
  • He really seems to enjoy it when he's not against this girl.
  • How can I help him overcome his fear?
  • And the big question: Do I make him go tonight? Is it worth it?

No. Not as clear-cut as saying "No biting!" to a toddler and putting him down on the floor.

I quickly got over my slight annoyance about having paid for the sparring gear. I have learned that buying such things (or signing kids up for classes or activities) is an inherent risk, and I always make sure I'm okay with not getting my money back in such situations. And I didn't want Ryan to feel obligated to stick with something that frightened him so much, for ME, simply because I complained about the cost. The cost is certainly something worthy of consideration, but that is MY problem, not his, since I am the one who paid the money. The only consequence of his (theoretical) quitting too many things for which I've paid money should be my hesitancy or refusal to sign him up for things that cost money.

Ryan and I talked some more, and I finally became satisfied that YES, he likes sparring, but NO he doesn't like this girl. She is too mean and aggressive and he's afraid of her. Okay. Then that sounds like a problem, which is what I told him. I also told him that he shouldn't let this girl be the reason he stops going to sparring. That he can quit if HE doesn't like it, but that quitting because of her is kind of like letting her decide things about his life. And I didn't think that was right.

And then he said miserably, "Maybe she just won't come tonight. I'll just think about that."

BAM. He was trying to evade, I think. He was scared and worried and nervous and didn't know what to do. So he wanted to pretend that she wouldn't be there. Now I'm all about pretend, and even using fantasy to deal with some types of problems. "If I had a million dollars, wouldn't that be great? We could have our own swimming pool!" Stuff like that. And role-playing really helps things, too. "What could you do the next time you spar her? What about this move?" And that is something we practiced, actually.

But this was different. The way he said that set off alarm bells in my head. I think he was so emotional, and he was trying to hide. Because he's a Flight kind of guy (me, too). So I made up my mind right there and then to be blunt with him. Kind, but blunt.

"Honey. I know you wish she won't be there tonight. But you need to know this. She will be there. They never miss practices, ever. You know how they're always going to tournaments and stuff? She and her brother are always at class. And if she's there, chances are you are going to have to spar her, since you guys are the same rank and size. She's going to go tonight, so it's no use pretending she won't be there."


He really looked stricken, and I felt sad about that. But then I forged ahead with something like:

"She'll be there. But that's okay. What we have here is a problem. And I do think it's a problem that can be solved, but it's the kind of problem that Daddy and I and Mr. H. [the owner of the TKD studio] need to work on. Now that you told us how you feel, we can deal with it, and help you deal with it. You don't have to quit sparring because you are afraid, because this is something that we can handle."


I said that over and over and over again, in different ways, just sticking to the theme: This is a problem we can handle. Let me and Daddy and Mr. H. help you. Don't quit sparring unless you really don't like it.

At some point, Ryan asked me to tell Mr. H. NOW. I knew he was in a class, so I asked Ryan if I could email Mr. H. That was fine with him. So I stopped our conversation right there and then, sent Mr. H. an email, and told Ryan what it said. I told Mr. H. that Ryan was afraid of sparring this particular girl, and that I was encouraging him to go to class, but that we needed to find a solution.

Ryan was visibly relieved after that and did agree to go to class if Brendan (who was taking him that night) would talk to Mr. H. once they got there. Deal. Brendan did speak briefly with Mr. H. who really tried hard to make class enjoyable for Ryan that night, and did not have him spar this girl. Ryan had a ball and told us he was glad he went. Mr. H. told Ryan that he was proud of him for coming to sparring, for doing that even though he was scared, and reassured him that he would help Ryan improve and gain confidence.

Honestly, part of me wishes Mr. H. had had Ryan and the girl spar each other, just to get him through that part of the fear. But I guess we'll cross that bridge tonight when he goes. I know that Mr. H. realizes that this girl's aggression is a problem, because I watched him with her the other night in regular class. I'm trying to keep in mind that she is a little kid, too, and needs to learn more self-control, and that Mr. H. is helping her with that.

Unfortunately, her dad continues to be a problem, and I've decided that I'll talk to Mr. H. about him soon. I don't think it's appropriate for a parent to be in the gym and encourage his child in some of her antics. She once tried to trip another student who was running out of the gym because she was bleeding, and he laughed. He also thinks it's quite amusing when his daughter doesn't stop sparring after the ref calls "break."

It was a tough parenting moment, and I'm generally pleased with how I handled it. I'm glad I recognized his trying to evade reality and I think I helped him acknowledge the unpleasant, scary facts and deal with them in a kind way. I really, really sympathized with him. It's so tempting to pretend our problems will just go away if we wish it. But I know that he can handle his problems--with Brendan's and my help--and I don't want him to fall into this temptation. He is strong enough and brave enough to deal with reality, and I don't ever want him to doubt that.

But wow! This stuff makes Sean's little biting phase seem like NOTHING. And I know it's only going to get more interesting and challenging from here on out. I'll look at this as an easy-breezy no-brainer someday when they're teenagers, I'm sure. :o)

Wednesday, September 23, 2009

On Evasion

In one of her recent podcasts, Diana Hsieh brought up the subject evasion and children, referring to a question that I had been pondering on the internets (Twitter I think) some months ago. The original subject came about because of some discussion on HBL.

To summarize very briefly, and leaving aside some of the other issues that were being discussed, the question I was wondering about had to do with the issues of focus, the act of thinking, of turning one’s mind on, and free will, which is the choice to focus or not. My question was: why/how would a child learn to unfocus his mind, when the obvious benefits of turning one’s mind ON are so compelling?

The small children I’ve observed seem to have their minds ON all the time. They are hungry for knowledge and experience. So it is hard to envision a very young child choosing to turn his mind off. Yet I know that many people, probably beginning in childhood, learn to do just that.

Diana shared in her podcast a really interesting story about a scene she recently witnessed in which a father’s handling of a problem actually encouraged his daughters to evade reality, to turn their minds off (or at least dim them). I think she is on to something. It’s definitely worth listening to, so go listen now! (It begins at about 12 minutes into the recording.)

In this example, the dad yelled at one daughter and ordered her to stop crying. No doubt he was very conscious of how loud she was on the airplane and the fact that her crying was disturbing to other passengers (trust me—no one is more acutely aware of this stuff than the parent). He wanted her to stop. And he got what he wanted. The girl stopped crying. But at what cost?

I completely agree with Diana that this girl learned something about evasion. So did her sister. Both kids learned that Being Quiet on an airplane is more important than anyone acknowledging what happened, justice, or problem-solving. And while the dad got what he wanted, he did nothing to help himself in the future because he made no effort to help prepare the children for the next altercation by helping his children learn to handle their emotions or conflict.

The girl who was bitten might have felt ashamed of being so loud—not because of the disturbance to the crowd on the plane, but because she had done something of which her dad disapproved. The girl who bit her sister might have felt sneaky or guilty for having gotten away with that unacceptable behavior (based on their approximate ages, I’ll assume she knew that her behavior was wrong). But both probably learned: What Dad Says is more important than What Happened.

This incident underscores the danger of parenting solely by authority. And for all we know, this dad is a wonderful dad who parents more carefully as a general rule. But each time a situation is handled in this manner, there is some kind of damage done. The damage could be to the parent-child relationship, but mostly, I think the real damage is done in the lesson that is taught to the kids in those circumstances. If the parent’s default parenting technique is one of parenting by authority, when obedience IS a virtue, these repeated lessons will be hard for the child to overcome in the future.

Because as my friend Kelly put it, teaching them to substitute Dad’s Authority for Reality is teaching them to evade.

I’ve slipped into Parenting by Authority, oh, lots of times. It’s hard for me to overcome as a parent, because that’s the pre-existing recording that’s in my head. “This is what I want you to do—now do it!” However, this is not my default parenting technique, and it’s not the way I wish to parent, so when those slip-ups occur, I am able to say “Okay, that was wrong of me. Let’s try this again.” and more forward in a more positive, teaching way.

Please don’t misunderstand me—this is not to say that I don’t exercise my parental authority. I do have it—you sort of get it automatically when the kids are very small. As they are utterly dependent upon the adults in their lives, they of course learn to rely on them for the things they need, including guidance, and they do view parents as authority figures.

But what I try to do is to never ever make my authority the sole basis for discipline. I explain my reasons—sometimes those explanations need to be provided to the child after the fact (there’s that rushing out into the street example again). I try to show or tell them something about the reality of the situation and guide them through what needs to happen. And if they can’t or won’t do what they need to (like not biting a sibling), then I will exercise my authority and help them stop.

Parenting by Authority does encourage kids to evade. They can learn to squash their feelings, to pretend events didn’t happen, and to learn how to game the system. They learn that what Dad decides is more important than what actually occurred. And they lose the ability and the chance to use their minds independently.

There’s a flip side, too—eventually, a parent who uses up all of his authority early on runs a serious risk that his children will lose respect for him completely. And then that authority granted to him when the kids were small will be all gone. This happened in my family when my siblings and I were teenagers. It just got to the point that we respected almost nothing they said, and when they tried to exercise some guidance or discipline, we laughed it off. Literally. This is bad, because at this point, the kids are as big as the adults and can do things like drive cars.

I am keenly aware that my oldest is only seven years old, and I don’t profess to be an expert on the ways of teenagers. But one of my goals is to have a decent relationship with my teenaged (and adult) children. Relationships go both ways, of course. And since children are possessed of that pesky thing called free will, I know that there are no guarantees. So I choose to concentrate on the things under my control. What I can control is ME. How I respond, how I act, the things I say.

I believe that the way I generally parent is conducive to having healthy relationships with my children going forward, while also reinforcing the primacy of existence and epistemological independence. Acknowledging the reality of a situation, helping them develop independent ways of handling problems, assisting them in figuring out the relevant context in sticky situations, remaining close by to be a resource but not the Decider of All Things—these are ways in which I can help my kids turn their mental focus where it ought to be—on reality.

Monday, September 21, 2009

PD Tool Card: Letting Go


This week's Positive Discipline Tool Card is about how NOT to be a helicopter parent. One of my personal parenting goals. It's called "Letting Go."

Letting go does not mean abandoning your child. It means allowing your child to learn responsibility and to feel capable.


Kids can't be responsible or feel capable if Mom or Dad does things for them every time. Or even if they help every time.

It's difficult to know when your help is truly needed and when it's time for you to stay the heck out of things. Very difficult. Part of the difficulty for me is due to the fact that I'm so used to their dependency. They need me for lots of legitimate things. And I'm obligated to provide for those needs. So I am constantly asking myself: "Why am I doing this thing? Does he need me to do this, really? Is there a real risk that actual harm will come to him or someone else or property if he tries to do this independently?"

Just today, Sean climbed up onto the ottoman and stood up. He bounced a bit, enjoying the feel of standing on cushioned upholstery. He bounced harder, and grinned that Toddler Grin (you know the one I mean). He walked close to the edge, so I took him off. Of course, he climbed back up and I asked myself those questions above, and decided that I would sit back and let him explore. If he fell, he wouldn't get too hurt, just a foot or two off of the carpeted floor, away from sharp objects. And you know what? He didn't even fall. He played and bounced and grinned. When he got bored, he got off and wandered away. I think he felt capable and proud, as evidenced by that Toddler Grin. :o)

With the jobs I described earlier today, I have to do the same thing. Figure out if there's any rational reason I shouldn't let them do something. If not, then I will provide instructions if necessary, and then step back. Yes, I was biting my nails the whole time Morgan was pruning the tree. But she did just fine, respected the rules for using that particular tool (no dancing, for example, and yes--that was something I had to explain), and had a glorious time. She felt capable and she was indeed responsible.

The other reason I think it's difficult to let kids go is simply because you want to protect them from harm, physical or otherwise. It is HARD to watch a new climber slide down the stairs. It is HARD to watch a child screaming in frustration (yet insisting that he be independent) because the screwdriver keeps slipping out of the screw. It is HARD when they get their feelings hurt.

But such experiences are a part of life. Over-protecting children from every little bump and bruise and heartache and frustration robs them of the chance to learn how to deal with these things in a rational way. Childhood is their time to practice and prepare for being independent adults. So when bad things happen, why not look at those times as opportunities to practice coping or problem-solving skills? At the very least, you can hug them while they cry--and that's a good thing to learn, too. That the people who care about you will comfort you when you're sad.

So this week, I'll be reminding myself to Step Away from the Children, so that they can be more responsible and more capable. I think I'll have shorter nails by the end of the week, though! :o)

By the way, I LOVE #4 on the Tool Card:

Get a life so your identity doesn't depend on managing your child's life.


YES! Especially when they are really small, and your time is consumed by caring for their physical needs (feeding, sleeping, etc.), it's important to keep in mind that you, too, are a separate individual who needs to be independent from the kids. While the kids are learning to be independent and pursue their rational self-interest, it's a good idea to model that by pursuing your own. :D

Take Time for Training & Jobs Update

So this post is a wee bit overdue! But I didn’t want to forget about it, because this is such an important topic to me lately. In my previous post, I didn’t really get into specifics about the kinds of jobs and responsibilities my kids have and how we handle that.

I’ve been asked about this before. Do my kids have chores and if so, what kind of chores?


Not Chores: Responsibilities

They do have chores, but we call them responsibilities. This is a personal preference on my part, because as a kid, I hated the word chore. It’s such a drudgey, drab, mean, workhouse sort of a word. It may be merely semantics, but even now, I find myself in a much better frame of mind if I think about ‘handling responsibilities’ instead of ‘doing my chores.’ Also, the word chore is limiting—yes there’s work to be done around the house, but they have responsibilities beyond that, such as finding their own shoes or brushing their teeth. I think using the more general term helps them understand that both kinds of tasks, either done for oneself or done because it’s part of living in a family, are important.


Who Does What and When?

My mom was a great one for lists and schedules, so as a child we always had elaborate chore lists. On Mondays I did the dishes and my sister swept the floor. On Tuesdays I dusted and my sister did the dishes. I know my brother was on the list, too, but gaining his actual assistance in these matters was, uh, a struggle (Hi, Brother, if you’re reading!).

Now I’m also a list and schedule type of person, but I don’t have lists of chores for my kids. For one thing, I’m not that organized about housework in general (as you will understand if you ever visit my house). For another, I fully recall using that list against my mom and don’t want it used against me. How was the list turned against my mother? Because, like any good union worker, I did my job and only my job as assigned. I lifted not another pinky. It didn’t matter if we were having company, or we had all been sick and were behind on things. It didn’t matter if we were simply more messy than usual. I. Would. Not. Do It. I used to try to convince them to eat out on my dishes night, and would try to persuade them to eat in when it wasn’t my night. You can see where Ryan gets this, huh?

Instead, I try to focus on doing what needs to be done when it needs to be done (similar to just-in-time manufacturing. I suppose I could call it just-in-time responsibilities-handling). As I described in the previous post, the kids do their laundry, with a bit of assistance from me. I had originally had a Designated Laundry Day in mind when I transferred this responsibility to Morgan and Ryan. Then I realized that it’s just easier to note when their laundry baskets are full and use that as the cue for Today is Laundry Day. Hmmm…reality-driven. Imagine.

Other reality-just-in-time-driven tasks might include: dishes, picking up the toys at the end of the day or when the floor is creaking under the vast weight of the detritus, cleaning up spills when they happen, etc.

Here are some of the responsibilities that the kids routinely handle (with my assistance and/or insistence):

  • Cleaning up spills
  • Putting things away
  • Picking up toys and clothes in their rooms
  • Unloading/loading the dishwasher
  • Helping put groceries away
  • Buckling their own seatbelts
  • Cleaning out the car
  • Throwing trash in the trashcan
  • Helping put the trash at the curb
  • Brushing teeth and other grooming duties
  • Sweeping the sidewalk after Brendan mows
  • Pruning trees and bushes
  • Weeding the flower beds
  • Picking up the mail

All of this is very age-specific, of course. Morgan, petite little thing that she is, is still in a five-point-harness type of carseat. So she needs help getting unbuckled from her seat because one of the release buttons is really hard for her to push. And we’re still working on hair-brushing skills. (I can’t really remember from my childhood, but is that something that takes a while to figure out?) But that’s okay. She handles the portions she can, and I certainly don’t mind helping with the hard stuff.

Ryan (and Sean) sweeps up grass clippings. on Twitpic


Get ‘Em Young

I can generally guarantee that Ryan will be helpful if he gets to use a real tool somehow. So he’s always eager to sweep up the grass clippings, as you can see. Even Sean is imitating this and will grab the broom as soon as Ryan leaves it on the ground.

This is how it starts, by the way. Toddlers, as you may know, LOVE to be helpful. Yet they often are not at all helpful, having somewhat different ideas about where the phone belongs (the garbage) or how to clean up a spill (by rolling in it). But they are also eager to be involved and to learn. So when I notice my toddler wanting to “help” I will quickly think of a way for him to use those helpful powers for Good instead of Evil.

“Oh, you want to Put Things In! Very helpful! Why don’t you put this LEGO in this box?” And then hand him a LEGO and guide his hand to the right box. Sean is just learning the Put Things In game, and so needs lots of help to know where the Thing needs to be Put, but I know that in short order, he’ll actually be pretty helpful at this. For now, I just rearrange things as necessary and try not to encourage the Take Things Out game too much.

Toddlers love to put wet things in the dryer, by the way. They also love to take a baby wipe and rub it on the windows or the floor or a table. Sure, you need to make sure they don’t get it all dirty with marker and then wipe the carpet, but usually that’s not too much of a problem. And Sean is learning to wipe up spills. He isn’t too good at this job yet, but he knows to take the dish towel and swipe it in the general direction of the spill. It’s these little steps that will build into full-fledged reliable responsibility.


Taking Time for Training

Sometimes, the kids don’t want to handle their responsibilities. I know, shocker! This is where Taking Time for Training is necessary, because sometimes they are simply overwhelmed or confused by the task. Each success with a smaller step will help the child learn that this is something he can indeed handle, and that practice builds confidence. Now, you may still need to guide them toward doing it, but I have learned the hard way that it’s a good idea to make sure they understand what you’re asking before engaging in a battle over it.

With Ryan, it was a struggle to get him to buckle his own seatbelt and I am so not kidding. He was in a booster and could use the regular shoulder belt, but the little booger dear didn’t WANT to. Well, I was tired of doing this job that I knew he could handle, so I told him that this was now his responsibility and that I would help him learn to do it.

I broke this task down into very small steps, and allotted extra travel time for the inevitable battle/learning curve. The first thing I did was pull the shoulder strap all the way across him and held the buckle just next to the slot and had him push it in. After a few days of this, I would pull the strap for him, but left the buckle in his lap so that he would have to (gasp!) pick it up himself and buckle it in. After a while of that, I had him begin to pull the shoulder strap (which can be unwieldy, no doubt) as far as he could by himself, and then I’d pull it the rest of the way so that he could buckle. Buckling is No Big Deal these days.

Morgan also needs help in breaking down steps, but doesn’t require so much physical overseeing, usually. She needs help in understanding what the next step should be, but will usually then do it independently once she knows what it is. For instance, when she spills something, she knows that she needs to wipe it up, but often hesitates as if she can’t remember just where we keep the dish towels or paper towels. I’ll say “Drawer.” to prompt her, and then she’ll head off in the right direction, get the towel, and then wipe up the spill. Then she’ll stand there and look at me. So I might say “Stairs.” to tell her to put the wet towel on the stairs so I can take it up and throw it in the laundry. She is not a natural multi-tasker, so I have learned (am learning) not to confuse her with too many directions at once.


Realistic Expectations (aka “Low Standards”)

I have had to work hard to cultivate patience in how something gets done. But if I remember that she’s four, so perhaps it’s okay if she didn’t quite get all of the mess because she really didn’t see it, then I find it infinitely easier to be encouraging of her efforts to handle the job and be responsible.

Sometimes, all they need is more practice. When Ryan first began to fold his own laundry, his shirts were more bunched up than flat. But now that he’s experienced, his shirts are fairly neat and tidy. Now I am being patient with the fact that he is still learning to transport his stack of neatly folded shirts into his drawer neatly. Because he spends all kinds of time folding them, then grabs up the whole stack and stuffs it into his drawer so that half of them are hanging out and all of them are bunched. :o) It’s a work in progress, and he’s getting it.

And this is where my generally low standards when it comes to housekeeping really come in handy! I myself am profoundly uninterested in the cleaning process even though the mess sometimes really stresses me out. I have learned that sometimes it is the effort that counts and am grateful that they are willing to help out at all. I try to take what I can get, know we can fine-tune things later, and realize that I will probably miss these messy chaotic days when they’re gone. Oh yeah—and I remember that they WILL be gone—there WILL be a time in which I can enter a room and not worry about stepping on a LEGO with my bare foot, or need to wonder where that smell is coming from. :D


Inviting Cooperation

Sometimes, people just don’t want to handle a job for which they have been fully trained, like cleaning up a spill or brushing their teeth. Often we try to make it into a game or sing Opera. They are also more likely to jump on the task if I help them out even just a little bit, say, by grabbing the dish towel and throwing it playfully in the kid’s face. Or if I’m doing some work of my own, they often will do their own work in parallel. So I might be loading the dishwasher and the kid is sweeping the floor. It’s easier to do some work you don’t especially like if you’re not the only one working.

Real Tools are always a big incentive around here. They can’t wait to get their hands on tools and love to do real jobs around the house. So they change light bulbs and air filters and dust things way up high with the feather duster. I try to let them use grownup tools as often as possible since they enjoy it so much, and it’s good practice, too!

Morgan (age 4.5) prunes a tree. #FreeRangeKids on Twitpic


We do not pay them for handling their responsibilities, though. So the allowance Ryan receives is not tied to this work around the house. I want them to learn that you need to take rational responsibility for the things you need to do. I do not want to pay someone to clean up a mess of their own making—the mess needs cleaning because it was made. I do not want to pay someone to brush their teeth—those teeth need brushing because it’s part of taking care of your body.

However, we will pay for Odd Jobs that need doing around the house—if and only if a person actually works. (Sometimes they want to show up for the Job but then hang around and claim that their mere presence entitles them to a bit of paying.) Such jobs include yard work or any kind of deep cleaning of the car or house. Ryan is helping Brendan in the basement lately, and we’ll pay him a little bit for that extra kind of work.


Remembering to Transfer Responsibilities

The difficult part for me as the parent is sometimes to remember to have them handle their responsibilities. Right now, if Sean spills, then it’s up to me to clean it up. I have to be conscious of the fact that he can begin to learn this skill and invite him to help me. But if I’m in a hurry or doing several other things simultaneously, then I might not remember to do this, or feel like I don’t have the time to show him what to do.

So periodically, I sit down and think about the things that need doing around the house and consider whether and to what extent any children can begin to learn to do these things. That’s how I decided to teach them laundry. Laundry isn’t hard if you know where to put the dials. It’s also fun, because you get to use real-live grownup machines and laundry detergent. So now the big kids are doing that, and helping with the dishes more often, grocery shopping (making lists, going with me to shop, putting food away), vacuuming up dry spills with the Dustbuster, organizing their books and toys. I just need to remember to pause and re-evaluate sometimes, because I find that the more I do that, the less work I have to do myself!

What are some of the jobs your kids do? Are there some I need to transfer to my kids? (Always looking for ideas!) How do you evaluate when it’s time for that transfer to happen? Are there any special or creative ways you enlist cooperation?

Friday, September 18, 2009

Picture of the Day

Look at this pose! I mean, just look at her! Is she a girl or what?

Monkey #2 (with Sassy Pose) on Twitpic


And yes, I promise, we really do brush her hair on a semi-regular basis. Just not right before candid snapshots, alas.

Thursday, September 17, 2009

LinkFest (Constitution Day Edition)

It's Constitution Day! My wish for this special day is that each of our elected officials take the time to become reacquainted (or acquainted, sigh) with this important document. (If I thought it would help, I'd be tempted to start thwacking people over the head with it. Kidding! Sort of.)

Thanks to Beth at A is A Academy, I learned that I'm James Madison, which is very appropriate to today. Like Madison, I'm apparently "diligent, scholarly, and shy." Which Founder are you?

LB at 3 Ring Binder has some suggestions for learning the Preamble (if it's not already in your head from Schoolhouse Rock!). A worthy endeavor.

And to read some great blog posts by people who most certainly HAVE read the Constitution over a few times, check out the latest Objectivist Round Up over at ReasonPharm!

Wednesday, September 16, 2009

Good Things about Today

Today has been a really good day! And you know what? I really needed one after the last 10 days or so. Here are some of the Good Things:

  • I'm finally feeling almost all the way better and even got the much-fabled Decent Night's Sleep last night!
  • Morgan had her very first class at one of our homeschool co-ops, and she LOVED it. She seemed so mature, walking into the classroom and talking to the teacher. She gets to do Show & Tell next week and is very excited about that. Sigh, my Big Girl.
  • I spoke to a friend I hadn't talked to in quite a long time. It was very nice to catch up with her!
  • Sean is back to his usual cheerful self. He's been "off" for so long with illness that I hadn't quite realized how much I missed his pleasant personality. He's been laughing and playful and chattering up a storm (we call it his Crazy Psycho Babble). He did break out into a rash this morning, which leads me to believe that his mystery fever from the weekend was either roseola or Fifth Disease. It doesn't seem to bother him too much.
  • Ryan played kindly and cheerfully with his siblings all afternoon, and proudly exclaimed that he "did better than his best" at Taekwondo tonight.
  • Brendan was offered the job he interviewed for last Friday! This will be a big change for us, since he hasn't worked as an employee for another company in over 7 years. He had hoped, I think, to get another big contract, but this opportunity came up and he couldn't turn it down. He's worked with one of the guys before (the guy who recommended him for the position), so I think we might owe that guy dinner, huh? Red Top Software will still stay open and functional--he has lots of little clients that only require routine maintenance. So no reason to close it down. The only drawback really, is the commute, but hopefully they'll let him go in a bit early and leave a bit early. We're both looking forward to the steady income, health benefits, and relatively work-free weekends!
  • This new job will not start until after our Disney vacation, so he gets to go with us! It was looking like I might have to travel down there with the kids all by myself. It's only 7-8 hours away, but STILL. So yay for not having to do that!
  • Also, I'm hoping this new job means we'll get the carpet replaced by hardwoods by the end of the year! Because now we don't have to use up all of our savings, you know, to live.
  • And finally, today is our 14th wedding anniversary! It's hard to believe that 14 years ago, I married the best person in the whole world. Best decision I ever made. :o) We didn't have the big celebration last night because we both still weren't feeling 100%. So we're saving that for next week. Tonight, we got to eat pizza with the kids and after Brendan and the big kids return from the grocery store, we're celebrating this great day with some ice cream!

And with that, I'm off to finish celebrating this awesome day!

Tuesday, September 15, 2009

Neglect

After a solid week of illness and diabetes emergencies and birthday parties and fewer than 5 hours of sleep per night, I know I have neglected a few things, things I've been meaning to get around to. Like the blog. And responding to comments. And OGrownups. And the Homeschooling group on the Positive Discipline Ning page. And numerous house projects.

Yeah, sure, I've updated Twitter, but that's only because I'm obsessed it's very easy to do from my iPhone while I'm holding a sick child.

But I still have a few more things to do before I can get around to the follow up post I promised about Take Time for Training and Jobs (among other posts and writing things I'm trying to do). For example--I napped this afternoon, which is such an unusual event that I feel the need to note the occasion on the blog. :o)

And tonight we have a sitter for a few hours. Brendan and I are going out to celebrate our anniversary (which is tomorrow, but tonight's the night we could get the sitter). I'm so happy that I'll be awake for it!

So in the meantime, thank you for the comments on some of my recent posts and I'll see you tomorrow! :o)

Monday, September 14, 2009

Picture of the Day

Things are much better here, but I'm not in any position to write about the multitude of things I'd like to. Yet. Soon.

I just LOVE this picture of Sean. Yeah, yeah....I've already posted it to Twitter AND Facebook, but I like it so much I'm sticking it here, too. Yay for having a blog!

S contemplates the future, perhaps a new kind of motor? ;) #fb on Twitpic


If you click on it, you should be able to read the words. I got the shirt from CafePress some years ago. It's actually a hand-me-down from Morgan (one of the few things he can wear that came from his big sister).

Sunday, September 13, 2009

Adventures in Diabetes

So we've had a very interesting 24 hours. We learned something we never knew about Type 1 diabetes when combined with the effects of Pukinson's Disease. Evidently, it's really really bad if you have low blood sugar before the Pukinson's hits you, because it's nearly impossible to get your blood sugar back up to a normal level.

What happens when you have a low blood sugar, see, is that you are supposed to eat some sugar. But if you've got a stomach bug, the sugar doesn't go anywhere, so the blood sugar doesn't go anywhere--except DOWN, since there's long-lasting insulin in your body that won't wear off for 12 more hours.

Brendan's fine now, but last night was hands-down one of the most stressful of my entire life. I have wonderful friends who came and stayed with him and the kids while I ran out to the 24-hour pharmacy for a Glucagon prescription (glucagon is the opposite of insulin and can be injected in a situation when the patient is passed out and can't eat sugar). We didn't need it, but now we have a new one for emergencies. Sort of like the Epi-pen. Yay. (And bad on us for not getting a refill of that! Never again.)

The rest of the evening was spent debating whether or not to take him to the hospital and trying to figure out some kind of sugar that his body could absorb. After several rounds of not-great-but-not-bad success, we decided to give it one more round before going to the hospital. A real Coke finally did the trick and his blood sugar, which had gone as low as 35, finally popped back up over 100.

Our friends ended up staying overnight, the kids had an impromptu slumber party, and Brendan rested upstairs. I spent the remainder of the night waking him up every two hours so that he could check his blood sugar. Oh yeah, and Sean has a mystery low-grade fever, too, so I had to tend to his needs on top of everything else. And then we all woke up early and I made a birthday cake!

It was a hard night, and Brendan is better today--he had a few lows at the birthday party, but nothing like last night. I'm all proud of myself for not panicking and just handling one problem at a time. Ryan and Morgan were a little worried about the hospital talk, but we had a followup discussion this morning that (I think) comforted them both. And I'm so grateful for our friends who came to our aid. If not for them, Brendan would certainly have spent the night at the hospital, since I am not sure I could have taken care of him and the kids, too.

So anyway, now you know--Diabetes + Pukinson's = Bad. Please just skip the whole thing if you can.

Friday, September 11, 2009

My Brief 9/11 Post

I'm under the weather today, so this will be short and sweet, I think.

Two years ago, I shared a liitle bit about my 9/11 story:

What to say? This is a tough day. Six years ago, I jumped out of bed cheerfully, the awfulness of morning sickness beginning to subside (I was about 11 weeks pregnant with Ryan), planning to watch Martha Stewart's tv show (how domestic!). I flipped on the tv just in time to see the second plane hit the tower. Some time later, I was anxiously calling my mom to make sure that my dad wasn't working at the Pentagon that day (he wasn't).

I tried to stay calm, as I had a growing baby to think about. As the days passed, that baby was all I could think about: how could I protect him, how could I ever explain this terrible day to him?

Last year, I shared some of my frustration at the fact that we really hadn't made much progress in defeating our enemies:


Instead, it feels like we're further from (what should be) our goal--the eradication of our enemies--than ever. And in the meantime, we, the innocent, are paying for the sins of our enemies with the currency of liberty, in the form of the Patriot Act, Real ID, all of the stupid ziplock baggie rules at the airport, etc. Think about it. Consider the changes you have had to make in your life because of what the Bad Guys did on 9/11 and whether or not you really feel safer. I sure don't.

This is what happens when we, as a country, as a culture, are unable and unwilling to take a moral stand, to believe that we are right to fight our enemies.

And here we are, a year later. Where are the new Towers? If it had been up to me (and honestly, why isn't everything up to me anyhow?), I would have made certain that as soon as possible, newer, taller buildings were erected on the same spot. I suspect that every time any of the terrorists who collaborated and rejoiced in the execution of this terrible plan see the skyline of New York, and note the hole that is visible to anyone who knew the old New York Skyline, I suspect that they see it and feel proud and satisfied. They crumbled a symbol of our country's success, of the philosophy that enabled our success . . . and that symbol has yet to be rebuilt. That thought simply infuriates me. Don't even get me started on this new twisted idea that somehow "service" is the ideal way to honor the dead and fight our enemies.

Remember the innocent lives that were lost. Understand what we're fighting against. Resolve to fight. I leave you with this sentiment from Samuel Adams:

A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their virtue then will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader.

Samuel Adams, letter to James Warren, February 12, 1779



Wednesday, September 09, 2009

Mythbusting: Ayn Rand, Mommies, and Children

Because of the resurgence of interest in Atlas Shrugged in past 9 months or so, I've had the pleasure of reading and hearing so many positive things about Ayn Rand in the media, from friends and family, and even perfect strangers (since I have "My Other Ride is the John Galt Line" and "Rearden Steel" stickers on the back of my minivan). I've never experienced anything like it, at least not with so much frequency. And of course, I'm thrilled, because I think everyone ought to read Atlas, or at the very least, Anthem (which, by the way, predated 1984 by several years).

I do encounter one negative sentiment over and over, and that's this notion--this myth, if you will--that Ayn Rand was somehow hostile toward children, mothers, and families. Nothing could be further from the truth, and I would like to do my part to counter this rumor. This is important to me because I've encountered a lot of crazy misinformation about Ayn Rand and Objectivism over the years. (I first read Atlas in the summer of 1989--twenty years ago!). But this particular piece of misinformation is especially critical to me--because of my chosen career.

I have, as you might not know since I hardly ever mention them (!), three gorgeous children. A boy and a girl and a boy. Their production was the result of a joint venture on the part of me and my husband, and the whole thing began about eight years ago. :o) Not only do I have these little humans living at my house and eating my food, I am "staying" (that word always cracks me up) at home to raise them. And we are homeschooling them.

I am a Career Mommy (for the time being) and I love it. I traded another job that paid actual money for this current job, which rewards me in other ways. This trade off was not a sacrifice on my part; that is, I did not give up a higher value in favor of a lesser one. After Ryan came, Brendan and I knew that we wanted to raise him ourselves if we could pull that off financially. And we could, so we did. So far, it's worked out pretty well financially (although Brendan's between contracts now, so if you have any leads, let me know!) and I have been pleasantly surprised at how happy I am at home with the kids. Not that it's not hard sometimes, or frustrating, but I seem to recall hard and frustrating days (months, years) in my "real" jobs, too.

So, enough about me. I really want to talk about Ayn Rand and these anti-children rumors.

Here is a quotation from a recent article in The New York Times, which was mostly positive but unfortunately contained many factual errors:

She had little time for women who stay home to raise children.
Really? Says who?

Here's a couple quotations from Reason Magazine back in March 2005 (the same month my daughter was born, emphasis added):

Politically, too, Rand's insistence on de-emphasizing, or even denigrating, family, community, and private charity is not a particularly clever tactic for capitalism's defenders. [RJ: I won't even get into the two other issues in this statement, but they are worthy of being addressed.]


And:

Family fares even worse in Rand's universe. The virtual absence of children in her work has been noted by many critics, starting with Whittaker Chambers in his infamous roasting of Atlas Shrugged in National Review. Actually, John Galt's private utopia in Atlas features a nameless young woman who makes it her career to raise rational children; but this brief passage comes across as little more than a pro forma nod to motherhood. In her 1964 Playboy interview Rand flatly declared that it was "immoral" to place family ties and friendship above productive work; in her fiction, family life is depicted as a stifling, soul-killing, mainly feminine swamp.



HUH? In particular, that last paragraph contains quite a few amazingly incorrect notions. Are there tons of children in Pride and Prejudice, A Room with a View (there's one I can think of, but she's a very minor character), or Moby-Dick? Has the "virtual absence" of children in Shakespeare been long noted by critics?

And an oldie-but-goodie from the Wall Street Journal:

After all, blood relationships are involuntary, and parents with any interest in rearing and educating their children are unlikely to look for guidance in "Atlas Shrugged." Ayn Rand was predictably wary of kinship ties and, like radical feminists, saw the family as a soul-killing prison.


Again with the soul-killing. Oh, look at me! I wrote not one, but two responses to this article back in 2007!

Le sigh. And you don't even need to search very hard to find even more of this stuff, especially among bloggers. I'll let you look yourself; I have linked quite a bit already.

Allow me to counter the above statements with Ayn Rand's own words.

From her interview with Playboy in March 1964 (via the Ayn Rand Lexicon, emphasis added):

PLAYBOY: In your opinion, is a woman immoral who chooses to devote herself to home and family instead of a career?

RAND: Not immoral—I would say she is impractical, because a home cannot be a full-time occupation, except when her children are young. However, if she wants a family and wants to make that her career, at least for a while, it would be proper—if she approaches it as a career, that is, if she studies the subject, if she defines the rules and principles by which she wants to bring up her children, if she approaches her task in an intellectual manner. It is a very responsible task and a very important one, but only when treated as a science, not as a mere emotional indulgence.

Once more: "It is a very responsible task and a very important one. . . ."

Is she saying that homemakers are immoral? No. What she's saying is that if a woman intends to pursue homemaking and raising children as a career, it's not practical to expect to do it after the kids go off to college. I agree with this. I've changed careers a couple of times in my adult life.

The difference between my past jobs and my current career--and I DO approach my job as a career--is that I know for certain that it will end. Actually, I even have a pretty good estimate of just when that might be--I've got about 17 years at the most left. And I really have many fewer years of this intense hands-on work. Since we are homeschooling, my Mommy Career will last a bit longer than women who choose to put their kids in school. It will be less easy for me to take on the additional responsibility of another job until the kids are much older, since I need to be around to answer zillions of questions. But I fully intend to find another career, and I will (and have) begin working productively in other areas, even while my children are small.

Are these the words of someone who has no respect for the " job of being a parent? (Again, from the Lexicon):

As I have said before, parenthood is an enormous responsibility . . . .

The task of raising a child is a tremendous, lifelong responsibility . . . .


Are these the words of someone who is anti-child or anti-family? (More from the Lexicon):

I will ask you to project the look on a child’s face when he grasps the answer to some problem he has been striving to understand. It is a radiant look of joy, of liberation, almost of triumph, which is unself-conscious, yet self-assertive, and its radiance seems to spread in two directions: outward, as an illumination of the world—inward, as the first spark of what is to become the fire of an earned pride. If you have seen this look, or experienced it, you know that if there is such a concept as “sacred”—meaning: the best, the highest possible to man—this look is the sacred, the not-to-be-betrayed, the not-to-be-sacrificed for anything or anyone.


Think about the children who lived in Galt's Gulch, from Atlas Shrugged:

The recaptured sense of her [Dagny's] own childhood kept coming back to her whenever she met the two sons of the young woman who owned the bakery shop. . . . They did not have the look she had seen in the children of the outer world--a look of fear, half- secretive, half-sneering, the look of a child's defense against an adult, the look of a being in the process of discovering that he is hearing lies and of learning to feel hatred. The two boys had the open, joyous, friendly confidence of kittens who do not expect to get hurt, they had an innocently natural, non-boastful sense of their own value and as innocent a trust in any stranger's ability to recognize it, they had the eager curiosity that would venture anywhere with the certainty that life held nothing unworthy of or closed to discovery, and they looked as if, should they encounter malevolence, they would reject it contemptuously, not as dangerous, but as stupid, they would not accept it in bruised resignation as the law of existence. p. 730 (Paperback 35th Anniversary edition)


Consider what the mother of those children said about her career:

"They represent my particular career, Miss Taggart," said the young mother in answer to her comment. . . . "They're the profession I've chosen to practice, which, in spite of all the guff about motherhood, one can't practice successfully in the outer world. . . . I came here, not merely for the sake of my husband's profession, but for the sake of my own. I came here in order to bring up my sons as human beings." p. 730


How about some of the scenes from Dagny's childhood? What fun adventures those (free-range) children had together, exploring the world, figuring things out, living their lives!

Are those the words of someone who viewed stay-at-home mommies and their children with dismissiveness or contempt?

No. Not at all. Just because those were things she did not choose to do doesn't mean that she thought no one should choose them. (By the way, search on the word "children" on the Ayn Rand Institute website for numerous Op-Eds and Articles by Objectivists that are quite pro-family and children.)

The reason children are not featured in Atlas Shrugged or in any of her other novels is quite simply because those books were not about children. They were about grownups doing grownup things. The character Dagny Taggart was a woman who chose not to have children (a very minor detail among the great many important things she did choose to do in that book). Many women in real life choose not to have children. I don't consider that to be such an unusual thing. Many women authors chose not to have children. Yet I don't hear too many people accusing Jane Austen or Margaret Mitchell of believing that families are soul-killing prisons.

Ayn Rand portrays several dysfunctional family relationships in Atlas Shrugged and her other novels. The Reardens are the most complete example of how families ought NOT to behave toward each other, but there are many more. I always feel so for the Wet Nurse, and that passage where Rand talks about how his mother must have cared so much for him, to ensure that he grew healthy and strong, but then neglected to monitor the unhealthy ideas that he took into his mind--it never fails to make me tear up. That passage is tender and heartbreaking all at the same time.

Yes, there are many, many examples in Atlas Shrugged of terrible families who share misery instead of love and happiness. Those are minor parts of the story, but important ones nonetheless. Just as she demonstrated the damage caused by businessmen who make business decisions against the principle of what is best for their companies (rational self-interest), she illustrated what happens in families when duty and self-sacrificial standards are upheld instead of selfish, life-loving, happy ones. Those story lines are included to support the main theme of the book, and are bold examples of what NOT to do.

I wonder if some of this "soul-killing" stuff comes from those who simply cannot understand the truly selfish joy of having children. So instead of trying to find out what Ayn Rand actually wrote or said about the subject, they focus on the Reardens and see how nasty they were and conveniently blank out the fact that it's obvious in the novel that these were not people Rand wanted her readers to admire. Or they cling absurdly to the fact that she personally didn't have children, and that her novels did not feature too many children as characters, as if their diminished or absent role somehow constituted "proof" that she abhorred family life.

Getting my little people started in the world has been the most rewarding, most interesting, most soul-fulfilling, happily selfish productive endeavor of my life. The life I have chosen and am happily living is fully consistent with my values as an Objectivist.

Tuesday, September 08, 2009

PD Tool Cards: Take Time for Training and Jobs

Hi everyone! This week I'm going to focus on and write about two related Positive Discipline Tool Cards: Take Time for Training and Jobs. I've been asked before about whether or not my children have assigned chores and help out around the house. The short answer is: Yes!

First let's review the cards.

Take Time for Training:

Training is an important part of teaching children life skills.




Jobs:

Children helping out a home learn life skills, develop social interest and feel capable.



Helping my kids acquire these "life skills" is something I'm devoted to doing. I don't want my kids to get to college and not know how to look after themselves and take care of their own basic needs. I don't want to wait until just before they leave home (for college or other adventures) to try to teach them these skills quickly. In short, I want them to be independent and value being independent. Feeling capable of handling things, even little things, is so crucial to good, healthy self-esteem.

And equally importantly, I don't want to have to do these things for them when they are perfectly capable of doing these things themselves! I need help around here! :o) Why waste all of this time--I'm talking about the years ahead in which they're still going to be living here--doing their laundry and cooking for them when they can handle those jobs independently? To be frank, I've got better things to do with my time. In other words, I am a rationally self-interested Mommy, and I value my Me-Time.

Take the laundry. One of my projects this summer was to teach both older children (nearly 7.5 and nearly 4.5 as of this writing) some laundry basics and to turn over most of the responsibility for doing their laundry to them. Both children surprised me by stepping up to the task. And really, what's so hard about laundry?

To teach them, I more or less did the same steps listed on the Take Time for Training card. They've always helped out here and there with the laundry, but I walked them through some of the less familiar steps a couple of times. Then, I let them do the steps with my assistance.

In this process, we found that we needed to do a few things to make the process a little easier on them. For example, washing machine settings can be confusing to people like my husband who rarely do laundry to laundry newbies. To save them the trouble of needing to make decisions about water levels and rinse settings, I used a red sharpie marker to mark the settings that they will need to choose. I got a tall step stool to help them reach the dials (and it folds so I can move it out of the way for when I need to do my laundry).

I still help, but my assistance is limited to three critical areas. First, I still need to measure the detergent for both of them--until I can get some detergent in a smaller bottle that will be easier for them to manage (I went nuts at the wholesale club a few months ago and we have several super-sized detergent containers to work through first). So this issue will change soon, I hope.

The second area I'm helping with every time is simply due to physical constraints. Ryan can't really reach the wet laundry at the bottom of the washer (and Morgan can't reach it at all), so I assist in the washer-to-dryer transition. But that's only fair, I think. How many times has each of them helped me load wet clothes into the dryer? That's a great activity for toddlers, and even Sean has already helped with that job once or twice.

Finally--folding. Morgan is still a long way from being able to fold neatly and consistently. Ryan can do it, but I've found he approaches this task in a much more productive frame of mind if he and I split the jobs. I'll fold pants and he'll fold shirts, for example. I don't mind helping right now, because it's more fun to do a stunningly boring chore with a little company and it goes more quickly, too. Also, they both need reminders about certain fine-tuning (or in Morgan's case the regular-tuning) techniques. And also also, it actually forces me to make sure that we all see this through to the end (a problem I personally suffer from in the laundry arena). Plus, I don't mind helping them do THEIR work now that it's theirs and no longer my responsibility. Because I have less to do now that they've accepted this task as their own!

One thing that I didn't know before having children--and should have known--is that kids are more capable of handling things than many adults give them credit for. When you create an environment in which they are capable of succeeding (by scaling things down for them, stepstools, etc.), and when you take the time to break tasks down into manageable steps and explain them, and when they are excited about being independent, it's an awesome experience for everyone.

It's so thrilling to hear a child exclaim proudly "I did it!" And it's just as equally thrilling to have less laundry to do. :D

That's all for now--I am planning a follow up to this post, which will explain more about how we split up jobs around here (an ongoing process), who does what, etc. But for now, speaking of laundry, I have a sick little baby who started our day with a little (I hope) bout of Pukinson's Disease.

Monday, September 07, 2009

The Non-Punitive Discipline Carnival!

Hooray! The first edition of the new Non-Punitive Discipline blog carnival is up at Kelly's blog, Reepicheep's Coracle!

It's going to come out once a month, and is sure to have lots of interesting reading for parents, caregivers, teachers, parents-to-be (or anyone!) interested in discipline without punishment. I plan to participate regularly and will even host occasionally.

Don't miss it, and spread the word!

The One about Obama's Speech

So I heard a rumor about speech tomorrow? :o)

Other bloggers have addressed this issue more thoroughly than I plan to, so I will refer you to them if you are looking for something more in-depth than my personal opinion.

In brief:

1. Presidents have been talking to schoolchildren for ages. As such, I can't get too worked up about the fact that the current President is doing the same thing. Especially because most kids are attending government schools and he is the leader of the government. When I attended Catholic schools, we listened to the Pope every once in a while. What I'm trying to say is that I think it's silly that people seem to be surprised by the fact that Obama is giving a speech to the government-schooled kids. Not the most shocking thing in the world.

2. However, the PR around it is interesting and somewhat alarming. As Dana of Principled Discovery mentions, the word "historic" in the DOE Secretary's Letter to the Principals is a bit over the top.

3. The fact that there are two versions of the teacher talking points is also very telling and rather more alarming. I'm glad they edited the part about having the students write letters to themselves about what they're going to do to help the President. But as someone on Twitter (sorry, I can't remember who, but will link if someone can find it for me) noted, it's pretty amazing that whoever wrote up and approved the original version of those "teacher talking points" didn't notice and/or think there was anything off about that language. Given the cult of personality surrounding the President, it's par for the course and, of course, alarming.

4. I plan to watch the speech, and depending on what he says, I may let the kids see it. But I probably won't--they are young and have better things to do with their time, honestly.

Dana writes a bit about why she thinks people are so riled up about this speech, and I want to quote her because I think she's on to something. She writes (my emphasis):

Both Bush’s went much further than Obama toward making our schools a national stage for federal education politics. Granted, Obama wishes to go further still, but the course has already been charted.

For twenty years, we steadily shift the power in education from the local community toward the federal government, and do nothing but occasionally grumble. The president makes a speech, however, and we call for a National Keep Your Child at Home Day. Suddenly, we’re worried about brainwashing in a “totalitarian-type telecast” befitting “banana dictators.”

Compared to the power we have willingly handed over (even demanded to be taken from us), I must agree with Joanne Jacobs on this one. What is so sinister?

And:

How much of it really has to do with the speech? Not much. Instead, it is expressing general frustration over the direction the country is heading. It is a direction we have very little control over individually, but we certainly can pull our kids out of school for one day.

One day.

Education has been moving toward national standards and centralized control for my entire life. Finally, some people are standing up and saying “Enough.” Unfortunately, it is an insignificant gesture aimed at an irrelevant event.

On the one hand, I'm glad the people are willing to make even this one small gesture, if they feel this strongly about keeping their kids out of school so they won't see the speech. Because it shows that we still have some fight left in us.

On the other hand, it IS a small gesture, precisely because we have let the Feds take away our liberties incrementally over the decades and barely noticed. Still, even the smallest gesture means something, I think.

By the way, this is exactly the reason I think so many parents get worked up into fits when their schools consider peanut bans, or even peanut tables or food-free classrooms! Many parents send their kids to government schools because "that's how things are done," or sit by and not question some of the things their kids are learning even when they feel uncomfortable about them (I'm not saying this is everyone--but I know parents like this, unfortunately, and so do you).

But the minute this school tries to make a safety accommodation for a child with a life-threatening allergy, well, look out! Suddenly, by GOD, this is the thing the parents need to stand up to the government schools and school boards about. Suddenly, there are children across the school district who will "only eat peanut butter." (I have personally never encountered a child who literally only eats one food, and I have picky eaters.) Suddenly, it's about the RIGHT to eat peanut butter in school! Suddenly, parents are circumventing what they see as a stupid rights-violating rule by sending in covert peanuts with their kids.

These parents rarely question the more important principle to which they've already given their tacit assent: the idea that there is a RIGHT to education. (I do not think that is a right, just so we're clear.) Because if they did, they'd have to concede that a food allergic (or diabetic or what have you) child has the same Right to an Education that their child does. And if their kid has a Right to Peanut Butter, well then, what to do? How can two contradictory "rights" exist? (Answer: rights can't contradict, which should give you a clue about the fact that one or both of those so-called rights is not, in fact, a legitimate right.)

On the one hand, it's refreshing to see parents stick up for their peanut-eating kids. It is, for the same reason it's good to see parents standing up about this Obama speech. Because it tells me that we, as a culture, aren't totally giving up. Not yet.

On the other hand, we need to be fighting for the right things--for ideas, for liberty, for individual rights, and for a real understanding of the meaning of rights. Or else we'll all just be, well, rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, never noticing that big iceberg in our way.

Sunday, September 06, 2009

History At Our House Update

Last Friday, we listened to the first week's worth of Ancient History lectures from History at our House. It was a HIT!

I'm so glad I gave this another try. What a difference one year makes. Ryan is really ready. He is calmer, listens more (even while he fiddles with LEGO or draws pictures of pyramids in his notebook), and is engaged with the pre-recorded class, shouting out his answers to Mr. Powell's questions. And most importantly of all--this is something he WANTS to do!

Morgan is less ready, but then again, she's just now coming up on 4.5. I can't really get too worried about her bad case of wiggles and the fact that she thinks "It's taking too long!" If she doesn't want to listen, she doesn't have to, and is free to go do something else that will not interrupt Ryan. Even so--she really enjoyed coloring her map of Egypt and looking at the paintings they're studying in the History through Art portion.

Yesterday morning, I awoke to a Ryan who was yammering on and on politely requesting to do History again. He had even set up a little desk area in the corner of our living room, complete with globe, pencils, paper, and his History notebook (I'd printed out the first month's worth of materials and stuck them in a 3-ring-binder--that's for you, LB!). We weren't able to listen yesterday, but we will do some more today, because the kids want Daddy to hear it, too.

One of our house projects this weekend is to organize our history and science books, since they tend to become scattered all over the house. We have tons of Usborne and DK books on topics such as Rocks, Bugs, Ancient Egypt, World War II, etc. This morning, I awoke to a Ryan who had already begun that project in anticipation of listening to History today!

Guess we ought to get going on that huh?

On "Because I Said So!"

I've said before many times that I don't use the phrase "Because I said so!" with my kids when I'm trying to get them to do something. Actually, the few times it's slipped out of my mouth, I've stopped myself and corrected with a "Okay. That's not a very good reason, is it? Here's why this needs to be done . . . ."

I don't use this phrase because it's parenting-from-authority. I view my role as parent-as-guide rather than parent-as-authority-figure. I have authority, sure. I have experience and knowledge and a mature brain, and all of those things help me guide my children. I hold the Experience-Knowledge-Mature Brain trump card, if you will, and I will throw it down when things are getting out of hand. (Heh. I almost said tricky. Uh, whoops.)

Besides, if I can't articulate a good, rational reason for wanting a child to something, then why am I trying to get him to do it? And if I DO have a good, rational reason, then why on Earth wouldn't I share that with him? I'm trying to lead by example here--they need this information!

I was perusing the Ayn Rand Lexicon site this morning for a longer post I'm working on, and I came across this Ayn Rand quotation (from “Causality Versus Duty,” Philosophy: Who Needs It, 98, my emphasis).

[Immanuel Kant's] view of morality is propagated by men who have never heard of him—he merely gave them a formal, academic status. A Kantian sense of “duty” is inculcated by parents whenever they declare that a child must do something because he must. A child brought up under the constant battering of causeless, arbitrary, contradictory, inexplicable “musts” loses (or never acquires) the ability to grasp the distinction between realistic necessity and human whims—and spends his life abjectly, dutifully obeying the second and defying the first. In the full meaning of the term, he grows up without a clear grasp of reality.


I thought that was interesting! Guide your kids, and give them your reasoning, lest they do what you want them to out of a sense of duty.

Friday, September 04, 2009

More About Back Talk

I mentioned in my post the other day that we don't consider angry or defiant words from our kids "back talk" in the sense that the term was used when I was growing up. When I was a child, it simply wasn't acceptable for a child to express such sentiments (such as "No." or "I'm mad at you.") to an adult, because of the way adult-child relationships worked in my family.

I thought I'd get a little more specific about how I have handled "back talk" situations around here. It's hard, because I tend to "Back Talk Back" as the PD Tool Card wisely advises against.

Let's take a somewhat common scenario with my kids. It's time to go somewhere, usually because one child has an activity we need to get to, and we need to be there at a certain time. Sometimes, despite my best efforts to adequately prepare the kids for the fact that we need to load up in the car within a certain time frame--in other words, despite my "perfect" parenting!--one of them will respond to my "Okay, everyone, it's time to get in the car!" with a "NO. I'm not going."

ARGH. Especially when I have been calm in my manner and have been more than fair in terms of meeting everyone's needs (one last round of a game, or a quick snack, etc.), that just makes me MAD. And when that "No, I will NOT." is delivered in a rude tone of voice, that just makes me madder.

Now, since I'm trying to be completely honest about my parenting successes and foibles, I must confess that I have (often) let this get to me and snapped back something in a mean voice like "I told you we needed to go! Get in the car!" [That would be the Back Talking Back.] You know? Now that I think about it--so much of better parenting is in the tone of your voice.

Anyway, my saying "WE NEED TO GO, GET IN THE CAR!" loudly, while not how I prefer to communicate with my kids, is a step in the right direction away from "Don't back talk me!" or "You'll do as I say because I said so!" But I can still do better.

When I'm really in the positive parenting communication zone, here are some things I might say (and have said) to the child instead of shouting in a mean voice:

  • "It sounds like you don't want to go and I'm sorry about that. But it's time to go now. Can you walk to the car or do you need me to carry you?"
  • "What's a kinder way to tell me what you're feeling?"
  • "I've explained the plan lots of times now and I feel frustrated about repeating myself. I'm all done talking about this right now."
  • "Would you like another chance to say that? Because I feel pretty mad."
  • Or, I could act without words (another PD Tool Card I haven't reviewed yet) and take the child gently by the hand or carry her to the car.

Yes. These situations-formerly-known-as-"back talk" are super irritating, but they are also wonderful opportunities to reiterate the principle of kind communication. (Especially when I'm able to model that myself!) They give me opportunities to express my emotions in an appropriate way, and the child can see the real-time effect his hurtful words have on someone he loves. I do this not in an "I'm going to teach him a lesson" kind of way, but in a "rational human interaction" kind of way, if you get the distinction.

I've recently hit on another way to explain why "kind communication" is not only important to the people you're talking to, but is also consistent with the child's (or anyone's) rational self-interest. I must admit that I think I'm pretty clever for having thought of this explanation, particularly because it really struck home and things have improved! :o)

Ryan. Oh my boy Ryan. He has many wonderfully endearing qualities and strengths. I have had dozens of comments from complete strangers who observe him or talk to him and say things like "He is such an interesting kid. I wonder what he'll do in his life!" And I agree. He is an interesting and creative child. I love him to the moon and back.

But, Ryan. Oh my boy Ryan. He can be pretty mean when he wants to, and he crosses the line more than he should, and upsets Morgan or his friends or even me. I dislike it when he speaks so unkindly, not just because I don't like such things said to me or others I care about, but because I can see how such words and tone will cause him harm in the long run. I don't think he truly wants to alienate his friends by bossing them to death or using an unkind tone of voice, but he simply doesn't understand why it matters. Not yet--he's getting there, and he will get there. Anyway, my intent of course, is not to rag on my seven year old, but to provide you with a bit of background knowledge for context.

One night on our vacation, Ryan was arguing and speaking pretty unkindly to me about something. I think we were trying to settle them down to bed or something. Anyway, I looked at him and said something like, "The way you're speaking to me makes me mad. I don't like it." But that didn't really faze him too much, as I believe his intent was to make me mad. Mission accomplished, yes?

And then I said, "You know how we trade in our family? How we trade work for work? Like when you need me to do something and I ask you to watch Sean while I do that for you?" And he nodded. "That's a good way for us to do things, isn't it? Because we are each getting something we want, and we are helping each other out at the same time. Right?" More nods.

"Well, the thing is, Ryan, we need to trade when we speak to each other, too. We need to trade kindness for kindness. And if you are expecting me to do something for you, then you need to offer me some kindness first, because that's your part of the trade. Or if you are glad that I did something for you, then you can offer kindness by saying 'Thank you.' You don't like it if you ask something nicely and I say "NO!" in a mean way. Because you offered kindness as your part of the trade but got meanness instead. And that's not fair, is it? And that works both ways. Does that make sense?"

AND. IT. DID. What I said to him penetrated into his head that night. He really got it. In a way, it's the Trader Principle applied to communication and relationships.

Since that evening about a week ago, Ryan has made a noticeable effort to speak kindly to me and everyone else in the family. He is thanking us more consistently. He is saying things like "Well, I don't really like that at all, but since you asked me to wait, I guess I ought to wait patiently." and "I'm feeling like yelling right now, but instead I'm going to just ask you to hurry up please, Mom." :o)

Now I'm not saying this strategy is going to help every child see the point of kind communication. Nor am I saying that Ryan has been a perfectly kind communicator in the last week (he had a big blow up this evening, as a matter of fact). But hey--it's an idea! If it helps one of your kids, I'd love to know about it!

I think if I had been focused on the idea that children shouldn't speak to grownups in a certain way, I would have missed this opportunity to get through to him on this issue. If I had been focused on Back Talk and how "no child of mine is going to speak to ME that way," I would have also become focused merely on somehow getting the child to stop that behavior--at least towards me. I'm not sure I would have been focused on helping him learn better ways to talk to others--especially if I had had the wrong idea that there are supposed to be different standards for the ways in which children should speak to adults than the ways in which they are permitted to speak to other children.

So I'm glad that I'm (mostly) successful in reframing "back talk" as "rude communication" and focusing on problem-solving the latter.