Giving Kids What They Want & Other RIDICULOUS Parenting Techniques!

Candy, Bicycles, Televisions, Phones, Computers, Televisions, Cars, Social Networking Accounts

What do you give your kids?  Why do you give it to them?  When do you give it to them?
Do you let your kids use social networking platforms?

• facebook's rules say you need to be 13 years old to have an account
• Twitter, in their TOS caution, "you are responsible for your use of the Services, for any Content you post to the Services, and for any consequences thereof."   As Lisa Nielson observes in her blog The Innovative Educator, originally Twitter had a minimum age of 13 years of age, but currently has no age restriction,  Twitter helpfully offers "safety tips for parents", and employs  "Age screening is a way for brands and others to determine online whether a follower meets a minimum age requirement". 
• Instagram TOU states, "You must be at least 13 years old to use the Service".  fb now owns Instagram.

 The three noted above are just a glimpse of what children have access to via the world wide web.  There are a myriad of social networking sites for us to lose ourselves in.  And that is not even broaching the subject of apps like Snapchat or Secret SMS App.

 If parents are curious and motivated enough to check up on kids. How's this for scary?!

(grownups, if you don't know what an app is, look here.)

  Bought your kids an iphone?  Did they pick your pocket for gaga over all things android?

                   And then there are the dizzying array of social networking apps .

  All human children have certain commonalities with one another.  They are ALL born to parent(s). They are ALL born instinctually knowing their needs.   And ALL children will not survive (read:  become fully functioning adults) without care, education, training from adults [read: parent(s)].  Hmmm...wonder why that is?  In a related story - it seems all human children develop the ability to challenge limits and boundaries, and they ALL learn about wants. ;)

  It is not hard to understand how children come to confuse a need with a want.  Nor is it puzzle to see how parents would react reflexively to fulfill the want of a child.  After all, both parties are hardwired to see the other and demand/fulfill needs - that is how nature intends it.  Without the primordial call/response instinct firing off, it is a certainty that children will die; and parents will fail.  But, what if the call/response gets twisted or perverted, and in that, loses its purpose?

  In our home, the clock could be set by my mom or dad boiling his eggs in the evening for his next day's lunch, by his knee-popping ascent up the stairs, adjusting the thermostat to nighttime temperature on his way to bed.  There were many absolutes when i was a child.  Two were, picking up the fallen twigs and branches so Dad could mow when he returned home after his Saturday morning shift, and no calls from my friends after 8:30 p.m.  There were rules and guidelines when i was a teen.  Learning for the first time about social interactions were driven by my age and development.  Teaching those lessons, was driven by my parents.  With whom i shared my PARENT'S phone number [there were only home phone numbers in those days ;) ] was up to me... However, if i gave my PARENT'S number out, the person who would call certainly would not get a second call through to me, IF:  
   "Hello, Mr./Mrs. Parent, this is WOULDBEFRIEND, is TEENAGER in?  Or,
   "Hello, This is WOULDBEFRIEND, may I please speak to TEENAGER?", was not spoken, articulately and politely.  
  IF, that call was made after 8:30 p.m., that call would NOT get through.  Although, my parents would answer and ascertain who was on the other end - for future reference!  It was that simple.  In my social development, my parents told me WHEN i was allowed to receive phone calls on THEIR phone and they set the guidelines for that privilege.  They told me what the rules were regarding using that phone - for me,  AND for whomever i might want to call me.  It was not stated explicitly, but it was up to me to decide who would be a likely candidate to follow those rules AND to COMMUNICATE the rules to the would be friend.  i did pick a couple of candidates that did not follow the rules... i didn't speak with them on my PARENT'S phone.  It was that simple.  Really.  We kids also understood, our parents had homes, phones, cars, etc.  We kids knew that our parents were the ones who had jobs, and acquired those things.  What we kids had were things our parents provided for us.  We were clear, our parents' belongings were not our belongings.  They earned their stuff, and if we wanted stuff, we would have to earn it.

  What my parents understood and undertook was that it was their job to "raise" me.  It was that simple.  REALLY.  What they accomplished by setting the rules they did for me was gain an understanding of who and how i was picking "friends",  they observed what kind of person was i accepting of in my life.  Was i picking people for friends who had "home-training"?  Was i picking people for friends who were willing to respect boundaries, follow rules, and behave as expected?  Or,  not.  What my parents were doing was PARENTING.  Giving me information about my choices, that i was not aware of at the time.  Giving me an opportunity to  grow and develop with boundaries that would give me feedback.  Clearly, as a 13, 15 or 17 year old - i was NOT AWARE of what they were doing.  But, as a parent myself, during the beginning of the not-for-generating-income-social-use-of cell phones for children era, the genius of those "antiquated" parenting modalities became crystal clear!
 
  My Wee One came to the teen years in the first decade of the 21st century.  There were people who were the parents of her peers who had wealth, AND a parenting philosophy that ascribed to giving kids what they WANTED.  As it shook out in the lottery of life, my resources were not of that ilk, and my philosophy was not skewed toward attending to, or meeting my child's WANTS.  What preoccupied me was, how to keep a roof over my child's head and food in that forever empty belly!  i was focused on how to teach my child to differentiate between a want and a need.  i parsed out how to discern what wants of my child's that i might attempt to fulfill - and under what terms.  My teen did not have consistent use of a cell phone until junior year of high school.  There was the freshman year bootleg phone, a "gift" from a "friend".  That earned a one year delay.  Sophomore year, grades and such were up to snuff, so a phone was given.  It was promptly lost it due to the 131 text messages sent and received during a two hour period of time that homework was supposed to be done.  What i was trying to measure was what ability this kid had to stand alone, in the face of peers and do what was expected.  Failing those tests was a clear indication, the pull of sexting,  stranger interactions on the internet, etc. would not - could not be resisted.  Thus, i knew i would be putting my child in harm's way - no less than if i were to post a sign at the nearest busy intersection saying my child was home alone, doors unlocked, and gave my address! 

  My parents gave me another gift, delivered by the hand of my father.  In my earlier teens, i poured over the Montgomery Wards and Sears catalogs, bending the corners of pages displaying the pictures and particulars of 10-speed bikes, you remember - the ones that had the ram handlebars.  Apparently, my parents, had decided to buy me a bike for a birthday or christmas that year.  My father said, "Well, I was planning to buy you a 3-speed."  You know, the ones where you sat UPRIGHT - ugh! "But, if you'd rather have a 10-speed", continued my father, "I will contribute 3 speeds worth of the money."  i STILL remember the price of the bike i'd had in mind - it was $79.99.  The dollar contribution of the 3-speeds my dad was offering was $49.99.  So, all i had to do was earn and contribute the $30.00 difference and i WAS THEEERRRE on my dream bike!  Cars were washed, shoes were polished, at 50¢ a pair, (that skill came in handy when i was in basic training!), babies were sat, snow was shoveled.  When i had my contribution to the additional 7 speeds, my dad contributed his initial commitment amount AND split the tax with me!  i did purchase my teen's first phone.  It was not on an account, it was prepaid - guess who had to buy the time?

  When it came time for these kinds of challenges with my own child, my parenting was informed by how i was parented.  There were many things my parents did that i bristled at as a child.  There were many tears, and profound feelings of not being loved, cared about and abandonment as i pushed through my teenage years developmentally.  i understand now, of course, that they did love, care for and about me.  They were there for me.  But, they did not kowtow to my "feelings" and capitulate to their own feelings in reaction to my sadness.  They were PARENTS .  They parentED.  They thought things through, to the best of their ability, to make choices on my behalf, or for me, that would guide, teach and protect me in life.  They were not overly concerned with, or held hostage by, my angst.  They understood my feelings would pass, and that my comprehension would grow.  They knew i would learn to discern what was real neglect, abuse or abandonment, versus what not getting a want met felt like.  They gave me an opportunity to learn what needs were - and how needs get met.  They taught me how to manage the word "no", and how to learn what was a boundary or limit versus what was an obstacle.  There are differences between the two. Today, do i wish my parents had articulated more?  Yes, i do.  My kind of brain likes information and communication.  Would i have been able to understand the underlying reasons for the limits and boundaries they put in place for me?  Likely, not.  Would i have still been emotionally immature?  Yes, without doubt.  A teen brain is still a teen brain - it has limits to what it can process and understand.  It is that simple.  Really.

  But, taking off on my parenting experience as a child, i did verbalize with my Wee One more than my parents did with me.  My Wee One would likely tell you it was ad nauseum.  But, i did it nonetheless.  i felt the need to communicate, to explain, what it means when i say to my child, "but i am not Johnny's parent and i am not concerned with what Johnny's parents are giving Johnny".

  In that message, there is a conversation about peer pressure, group-think, and manipulation going on.  For the "But what if there's an emergency?" parents.  My child at elementary, junior high and most of high school age was NOT in environments where there was no phone available in the event of an emergency, or ADULT supervision with access to a phone.  Why/How you ask?  Because, i as the parent, was approving, or not, where Wee One could be, and with whom!  i was still ascertaining if an adult was present and in charge.  So, a phone was NOT a necessity - CLEARLY.  For the ages of elementary, junior high and most of high school my child was LEARNING to be social.  How to pick friends, what kinds of behaviors and values were acceptable, and which were not.  Would parenting occur if during those lessons - i was simply NOT THERE?  No,  parenting would not occur.  That would be abandonment.  Just because you drop them off to, and pick them up after, some event or gathering THAT YOU DIDN'T screen, does not mean that you did not abandon your child!  It is that simple.  Really.

Candy, Bicycles, Televisions, Phones, Computers, Televisions, Cars, Social Networking Accounts:  Why, when and under what circumstances would WE ADULTS make these things available to children?  i think the answer is simple.  Really.  When we ADULTS can be reasonably assured that FIRST, these things will not bring harm to our children.  That second, our children are reasonably equipped to manage the thing we are giving them.  Would you give a 9-month old baby a jawbreaker?  No?  Why not?  Because, the child is NOT equipped to manage eating a jawbreaker!  Simple.  We as parents ARE SOLELY responsible for developing, establishing, and having SOME criteria for providing our children with growth opportunities -  aside from what other people are doing with their kids, and that which is established by the law or rules.

  In response to what some teens said in a  NBC TODAY piece, regarding the digital life children live, a father said, "I worry more about the direct access that everybody has to my daughter because she's got the smart phone.  And my fear is more about the people she knows and what they are saying to her than it is the internet."  Well, YEH!  It IS appropriate to "be concerned" about 'the world' being able to have direct access to your children without filter, and MOST IMPORTANTLY - without you being able to shield, protect, guide, teach and interpret for your children

  If you KNOW as a parent, as an adult - there are dangers THAT YOU ARE WILLINGLY PUTTING YOUR CHILD IN FRONT OF, are you REALLY going to default to what "Johnny's parents" are choosing for JOHNNY?! REALLY?  And when your child is hurt, damaged and overwhelmed, because they are negotiating a world they are not yet prepared to navigate ALONE - yes, WHEN they are hurt - who should they call for help, you?  Aren't you the one they were SUPPOSED to rely on for protection in the first place?

  So, the person who PUT them in harm's way, is the same person we expect them to turn to for assistance.  Kids may not be fully developed human beings, but their noses work just fine - and THAT proposition smells of horse-pucky! Seriously.  It is that simple.  Really.  Weakness, laziness, ignorance, inability, skewed understanding of values - whatever.  It is the responsibility of the ADULTS, the PARENTS, to put on big girl/big boy panties.  To value, protect, shield, guide, teach, love and usher our children into adulthood - keeping damages by the process to a minimum as much as possible.  Grow up.  And help your kids do the same.  It is that simple.  Really.

  i Thank you for stopping by.  i hope, i have shared something that you can take with you to use and share with others.  i welcome your thoughts in the conversation.  i am new at this blogging thing, and hope to grow and evolve for the better, please be patient with me as i am a work in progress.

Next time:  Teaching Children What Love Is

Telling Boys to Have Sex

  

" It is up to the adults. It is up to the adults. To intervene. It's up to the adults to change things. It's up to the adults to set boundaries. It's up to adults to teach the kids right for from wrong. The message from this grand jury, of citizens of this good county is this: This community is rectifying the problems.  This community is taking charge.  This committee is fixing things. This community is holding people accountable. That's what this grand jury did. And that is the message from this grand jury.

  Several investigators who played a prominent role in this case live right here in Jefferson County. The Grand Jury itself is, of course, comprised of citizens of Jefferson County. No one knows more about this case than this grand jury.  They heard the evidence day, after day, after day, after day.  They heard the witnesses.  People made bad choices. And the grand jury said there are repercussions.  There are consequences.  And this grand jury said there has to be accountability.

  This community has suffered a great deal.  This community has suffered so much.  I personally feel for the good of the citizens of this community.  And for what they have endured.  I know they desperately need to be able to put this matter behind them.  What we must take away from these incidences is this:   All of us, all of us, no matter where we live, owe it to each other to be better neighbors, better classmates, better friends, better parents, better citizens.  We must treat rape, and sexual assault as a serious crime of violence that it is.  And when it is investigated, or when any other crimes is investigated.  Everyone has an obligation to help find the truth. Not hide the truth. Not tamper with the truth.  Not obstruct the truth.  And not destroy the true.  I've always known this community to be a great community.  It is a resilient community.   And though our investigation uncovered some very bad things.  That investigation is (sic) also reaffirmed some very good things about this community.  about the people, about the kids, and about their determination to move forward.  It is time to let Steubenville move on."

Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine addresses accountability in latest grand jury charges Steubenville, Ohio.  November 25, 2013

  The quote above by Attorney General DeWine is in regard to the well-publicized cover up of the rape of a teenage girl, first exposed by Prinniefied.com.  There are plenty of yet on-going discussions about the rape, the criminals, football/sports culture, and the co-conspirators.  That is not what i want to explore.

  What i would like to look at more thoughtfully is the larger issue of young male sexual activity.  How we define it, how we cultivate it, encourage it, protect it - and most significantly how we seem to have little to say about the consequences of it for boys outside of a pregnancy, or the loss of education/scholarship and sport career.

  There are many, many stories with particular and specific details.  i do not wish to parse the veracity of any one story, but i will use specific stories to illustrate a point without making the case that the specific story speaks for all or others of the same ilk.  i have read it is considered patronizing to use the word "obviously".  That the use of the word conveys an assumption by the speaker that the listener has sub-par intelligence.  i want to be explicit, in no way do i convey that message to you, the reader.  That being said.  Obviously, there are girls to consider in discussions about young straight boys' sexual activity.  However, here i limit my discussion to just boys, recognizing that both boys and girls have consequences.

  My jumping off place for this discussion are three cases, two relatively well known and public, and one personal and unknown:  one, in which a young boy goes to prison, another in which a young boy does NOT realize his dream of going to college with hopes to play pro football, and the last, where the young boy has to leave college.  The former, Brian Banks, went to prison for 5 years and 2 months,  and spent nearly 5 years on strict parole and sex offender registration.  The second, is a young man whose story is told as an adjunct on 16 and Pregnant, forfeits his football scholarship to  Alabama A & M* (* school unverified).  The third is a freshman boy who, alone in his dorm room, agrees to meet a girl, whom he believes to be 14 years old, for sex.

  What i know for certain is there is no inkling that any of these young men had ANY concept that they SHOULD NOT ENGAGE IN SEXUAL ACTIVITY - whatsoever.  There is no evidence of general parent consensus stating the obvious:  You should not!  i am NOT an "abstinence-only" cheerleader, and that is NOT what this is about.  In order, for the abstinence-only position to be put forth, SOMEONE would have had to discuss the "option" of not having sex with them!  What does seem pretty well documented, is conversations are had with boys about "throwing away their future", and making "sure you use protection".

  So, let's consider this.  WE are society, we create and convey our messages:  males, they are "more driven" sexually, relative to females and thus "gotta have it".  Males are consumed by, beholden too, and controlled by their sexual urges...  As such is the case, males, and certainly young males - would have NO ABILITY to say NO to an offer of sex.  Since any, and all, offers of sex could not possibly be turned down, would it not then follow that there could be no REASONABLE expectation (by adults) that a young male would take steps to protect his own health or the future life of a yet-to-be-conceived-child? 

  A recent episode of Parenthood, a parent asks another parent for advice regarding a 14 year old boy who wants the parent's daughter as a girl friend.  The consulting parent, a mom, suggests he tell them to "use protection".  That may have been tongue-in-cheek - i'll let you decide.  But, what i found startlingly was how cavalier the answer, given the ages of the children being discussed.  i noticed...  With what we know about our country's numbers of teen's sexual behavior - it hardly seems something to "joke" about.  And if the line was intended to be 'serious'.  What in the world is wrong with us?!

  We adults, create society's message to youth, and as parents, we convey the messages of society.  We  believe that boys are entitled to sexual activity at whatever age they are successful at obtaining it.  We believe boys are not "able" to resist.  And we believe boys are not able to control their sexual urges.  Why do we allow boys to roam freely?  In fact, why do we allow boys around girls - since our message to girls is clear - "don't have sex!"  Seriously, i AM asking the question.  If the predicates are true, wouldn't we be exposing our girls to pressure and rape? Oh, we ARE!

  We adults, who create society's message to youth, and as parents, we convey the messages of society; that sexual activity for boys is only consequentially relevant to "preserving their futures".  Do we not also convey the message that their sexual objects are just that - objects?  Certainly, our message does not convey the person who would be pregnant with a child, or the potential child are important considerations - as an individual, or potential individual.  While there is plenty of discussion of urges and hormones, there is no discussion of sex being anything other than that with regard to males.  Any discussion, or existence of, a relationship seems universally as simply a vehicle to sex.  i have not heard a pervasive message in society about the responsibility of the male to ensure the well-being of his sexual attention.  Not too much conversation about ensuring the best possible circumstances for the yet to be conceived child.  UNLESS - the male is privileged!  If the family circumstance of the boy is wealth and social privilege, we are ALL aware of the measures that are taken to prevent an illegitimate birth.  "Naturally", these measures would be taken AFTER conception - NO behavior adjustments with the male PRIOR to the sexual activity he takes that occasions the child.  There is of course, the shot-gun wedding.  That duty, whether enforced by the pissed off family of the female, or shouldered by the stand-up guy, having been taught by his family as required, doesn’t really get at the heart of the matter though, does it?

  In the third example i offered, the of-legal-age boy who attempts to meet an underage girl for sex.  There was no girl.  There never was a girl.  He was interacting with law enforcement in a sting operation.  This example is the most poignant for me.  i know this boy.  i watched him grow up.  i know him to be a "good kid" - its personal.  He was arrested, tried and convicted.  He was dismissed from the university.  He was placed under common community control measures i.e., rules about living in proximity to schools, reporting to probation officers, etc.  His parents both told me what had happened, and were outraged at the penalties he was issued.  They were loud, angry and vocal.  Both, were indignant that their child (who, they railed, had ADD) was subjected to the harsh treatment meted out to sexual predators.  When the young man himself shared with me a year or so after the fact what happened, he was remorseful, resigned, and discouraged.  i inquired of him did he think he was doing something wrong or something illegal at the time.  He thought, in hindsight, wrong maybe, but legality had not entered his mind.  He was thinking in terms of "wrong" as in, if my parents knew, i would be "in trouble".  i asked him if he would engage in sex with a girl we both knew who was the age of the cyber "girl", he was visibly horrified and said resoundingly NO!  When i asked him, what his parents had taught him about what he should or should not do with his penis?  He had a slightly vacant look on his face and said, well they told him about using protection.  i asked, did they tell you anything about legal consent?  Noooo... is voice trailed off.  What about when your penis turned 18 years of age, anything about that?  No, what do you mean he asked?  Did your parents or anyone talk with you about becoming a legal adult and how that would impact your sexual behavior?  No was the response.  He was really lost.  He had no idea what i was talking about - even then, well after his conviction and sentence.  i shared with him stories of my own youth.  The age of 18 was legal for alcohol when i was young.  We enjoyed the youthful excitement of drinking.  In our crowd there were a couple of people who were slightly younger.  We did not consider that we were "legal adults" when we shared our kool-aid wine and beer with our friends.  We too, would have been shocked if law enforcement had advised we had broken a law.  We would have been even more shocked if there were criminal consequences accompanying that misjudgement.  No one was explicit with us about the great divide between legal majority and legal minority.  But then, those were different times.  There was parental community control in my youth.  Our parents knew pretty much exactly where we were and who we were with most of the time.  i knew people, and even considered some of them friends, whose parents did not monitor their behavior - and they had plenty of bad behavior to be monitored.  But, i was not one of them.  My parents, while not explicit about the why's and wherefores of unadvised behavior, were VERY clear about the consequences at the house.  His parent's (who are my age peers) according to his perception, were virtually mum about today's times with regard to sexual predator laws and how that should inform his decision making.  He and i have chatted many times over the years - about the chances of getting his sentence reduced, expunged, getting off probation, being allowed to live within a certain distance of the neighborhood school, about how to get his life back on track.  He is a young adult male now.  His prospects for "promise" are dim if not completely unilluminated.  His every dating experience requires revealing the consequences of being a clueless 18 year old college freshman.  He is a victim.  i do not equate his situation with that of the fictious 14 year old girl had she existed and he had consummated his sexual urge - not even close.  But he is a victim, nonetheless.  He has been victimized by our society's lack of ability to define for children, sex, roles, boundaries, limits, responsibility, rules, and consequences.  He has been victimized by the mute button his parents, and adults have hit, the volume button that roared in his ears from the sexualization of our children by our silence, tacit and overt encouragement.  He has been victimized by our society's and parental set-up.

  i know a straight couple, husband and wife who are very active with leadership roles in their christian faith church.  The wife told me about a program at their church that teaches girls about the process of becoming women, literally, and their church doctrine about their roles as women in the church and family.  The husband is a deacon.  One day i asked him what the equivalent program was in the church led by the men for the boys.  He said there is none.  When i asked  him why not?  He snickered and said, “We don’t need one, boys know what to do”.  He was serious.  No need for information to be afforded boys in their church.  There is silence about the process of becoming men, and their roles as such.  What about porn, promiscuity, disease, learning to respect and value women, to protect themselves, i asked?  Silence.

WE tell boys to go out and have sex.  And they do.

   i Thank you for stopping by.  i hope, i have shared something that you can take with you to use and share with others.  i welcome your thoughts in the conversation.  i am new at this blogging thing, and hope to grow and evolve for the better, please be patient with me as i am a work in progress.

Next time:  Alcohol, Technology, Machines, Laundry and Cooking