To think that there is a worrying rise of The Pushy Parent?

[ShutTheDough]

I visited my friend last week who has moved to Cambridge and happened to meet some of her friends. My friend is very down to earth and I would say has a very relaxed style of parenting. I was quite surprised about how much they invested in their children. Not saying that's a bad thing obviously but it all seemed like alot of pressure on the children. One of them already had the careers set out for their DC.
It just seemed all a bit intense tbh.

Brot I agree with you to a point re happiness. I don’t think kids should always be protected from being unhappy however I do think kids need and benefit from unscheduled time( as do adults). I also think that a schedule such as you provide and one which “costs a fortune” doesn’t make kids more suitable or deserving of top unis.

I don't think being pushy is good but encouraging your child is important. My parents didn't push or really encourage me. My dad assumed I would get a job then meet someone and have a family. That's what I did. My mum made some comments about me going to college but was quickly dropped. I have been to university and have a degree through my own encouragement but I wish they had pushed/encouraged me and I may have been to university in my early 20s and had a career for a few years.

I tried to do some French classes at Oxford and the waiting list was a year long

in the UK have language centres where you can study a wide variety of languages at different levels alongside your degree. Including Oxford: www.lang.ox.ac.uk/language-courses

Can;t imagine why the waiting list was so long.

Only read the first page but so much concentration on arts subjects. And nothing hands on - how to weed the garden, plant flowers, cook the veg you grow, build a rabbit hutch - real life goes on whilst everyone is in their frenetic skills bubble.

@Owlbabie5
I am not sure why you are fixated in believing that I asserted that my kids are more deserving of a place in a uni because of what they do. This is an interpretation of what I have said that I cannot understand.

I agree that non scheduled time is very beneficial, for reflection, relaxation, just being etc. I and the kids have actually done nothing much aside from cycling, reading for pleasure and being in the pool (for fun) this entire week as we are on holiday. Although both DP & I have had to work remotely.

However I believe in a routine and disciple because the reality is that, to be able to stick to anything academic or otherwise and to survive the required commitment and pressures of further education and in deed life in general both are needed. I appreciate your argument on costs, and I have mentioned that everyone works according to their budget. We just don't sit down and think, oh that activity is expensive so it must mean it's worth it or better than the other. Let's through money at it and all our problems are solved. We just want to expose our kids to as much as possible that is within our budget and I am grateful that we are in a position of being able to do so. Were our financial or other circumstances to change we would adjust accordingly, that's just life.

Mine do every club going, instruments and have tutors since age 7, but we still manage to have fun every week with them and give them freedom with their friends! You can have both approaches!! (we both work full time)

This is such an interesting thread for me. DS and DD are 16 months apart. DS very physically capable and sporty from an early age (walked at 10 months), but not competitive, and when young was very shy. DD very keen to be as good as him but not quite as athletic. When they were younger (until 14/12) we had small flat in London, where they went to school, and summer house (belonging to DH family by the sea, where we spent every weekend and summer). Kids could swim, surf, fish, crab, sail (in a tiny old dinghy) whenever they wanted. They could roam pretty free. We wanted them to have options and choices in their lives, so I paid for riding lessons, and they both became pretty good. In London they went to week long tennis classes in the summer and then just played with friends. They did DoE/CCF through school which gave them resilience and team working opportunities. They were lucky in that their school had a big focus on art and drama. One played guitar and still loves it, one played flute for a few years, gave it up and then just had jamming/fun piano lessons once a week. Both can read now read music. Both had a gap year which they financed themselves. DS went to a Russell Group uni and is doing well now in his work.

DD was very determined and sporty and played a sport for her school then county then region then country. I spent every weekend for six years during the season driving her to training/marches. From that she got a full
sports scholarship to Stanford (Harvard also wanted her, but California and a more chilled culture won her over). My friends tentatively raised the question as to whether I was a pushy parent. My answer, which they accepted, was that I was lucky enough to give them choices and encouraged them to find (and stick at things) they enjoyed doing to make them well-rounded individuals as they grew up. I was happy to give them my time and money to help them achieve that. They appreciate they had advantages that other kids didn't get and spend time "giving back".

I guess my message is, I wanted to bring up well-rounded resilient young people. I didn't plan their lives out, and didn't realise that my daughter would have the opportunity she had until she was 16. She has a job she loves now, in London. but it doesn't pay particularly well. But she doesn't care and neither do I.

@treehugger1

this is what I have been trying to say all along!! Are your DC resentful/unhappy/ with you now that they are older? Have they raised any complaints or concerns about the approach you took with them?

Brot you said you make your dc do all those activities to look good at 11+ and post IB( for top school and uni entrance I presume)and because you want your dc to get places at top unis. That infers you and those in admissions believe you are giving them something that makes them more deserving and likely to get places as opposed to kids who haven’t had the same expensive schedule . You also said generally during the normal working term some time on Sunday was your down time. I don’t think that is enough for kids and I don’t think an expensive schedule should buy kids places at uni.

My sons are now grown up. One is a senior government official, with some involvement in Brexit planning. he studied PPE at Oxford. The younger one did a fashion degree at a Northern Russell Group University and now designs for a well known women's clothing brand. They are both successful and happy in what they do. Apart from playing football for our local team and the odd tennis lesson neither of them did any extra curricular activities at all. They both had part time jobs from 16 at Tesco and in a local take away.

They both liked to read and just doss about in their spare time, and I would never have dreamed of formal pushing into hobby actiivities that would not have lasted into adult years. Oxford has no interest at all in how its applicants spend their spare time, and beyond his portfolio that took up a lot of spare time neither did DS2's uni.

i can't help but think most of this activity stuff is to do with competitive parenting and not the general welfare of the children. My own childhood spare time was spent wandering around the countryside with family dog and friend or two in tow, thank goodness.

@higgyhog - if your elder son is who I think he is then your parenting style certainly works as I knew him. I remember him as a calm, friendly person and have never heard anyone say a bad word about him.

It suggests that laid back parenting produces pleasant well rounded individuals who know how to succeed in life.

@Brot64

No they are not resentful about anything they did, because they enjoyed the activities. They weren't forced upon them, apart from the flute (which he stuck with for 6 months and then switched to fun piano lessons). They saw all the seaside activities, plus riding and tennis as just having fun. They weren't directed and could just muck about doing the things they wanted to do and enjoyed (the fact that they gained skills and resilience was by the by). I think they both feel they had "gilded" childhoods. Which they did.

I suppose I do think that 'ordinary' skills are important for being able to function. (They do get mentioned somewhere above,)

Stuff like being able to catch buses and plan train journeys. Being able to choose a recipe, shop and cook for yourself and others. Being able to read a map. Planning a trip with your friends. Learning how to mend and make things. Being able to look after younger siblings and/or babies. Changing light bulbs. Ironing. Sewing on buttons. Wiring plugs. Knowing how to comfort a friend who is upset. Cutting somebody's fringe. Wiping up puke if a friend's had too much to drink. Knowing what the safe routes are for walking home. Learning to cope with solitude. Learning to cope with - and resolve - difficulties in friendships. When to call 999. Driving lessons.

@HostofDaffodils

I agree. I also have never mentioned that they are not. An assumption has been made that one approach replaces the other. Some of the things you have mentioned are day to day life necessities that everyone does either way and are automatically learned or triggered by human reflex as the situation occurs (I am thinking of emergency situations here. I would not just stand/walk by/ not react if someone was to collapse in front of me , or if I saw someone requiring some form of physical assistance) from childhood to adulthood. Just like how babies learn to walk, talk etc.

It does not mean because I can play the piano for example, I cannot read a map, comfort a friend, catch a train, drive, cook, clean etc. Am I good at DYI, Nope, however I can do the basics like changing a bulb, put together small furniture items like desks etc. My DP and DC say I am awful at gardening, I still do it whenever out of London for enjoyment (we do not have a private garden in London). Can I wipe off puke when a friend or anyone for that matter is sick, absolutely, I gained extensive experience of doing this during my uni times and when DC were younger. I cannot cut anyone's hair to save my life (although unsuccessful attempts were made when DC's were younger) and numerous other things. My point is just because something else is learned it doesn't mean that necessities are neglected, this includes love, care, affection etc.

Also some of the things like climbing trees and swimming in rivers are location dependant. If we lived in an area where I could open my doors and allow DC to run freely without security concerns, I would absolutely do so. In fact, I admire people who have this opportunity.

@Owlbabie5 - different kids are gonna respond differently. I’m sure everyone agrees that berating your kid for not performing well when they tried their best is a terrible thing. But some kids do well out of being ‘pushed’ (eg made to continue something when they are going through a patch where they don’t like it though at other times they do enjoy it). Sometimes the reason they don’t like it is they would rather watch tv or play Xbox... but once they persevere and see the result of the work they put in - they get great satisfaction, confidence and motivation. It doesn’t always work and sure maybe the kid really does want to give up - in which case hopefully parents will be ‘in tune’ enough to realise this and let them stop...

I don’t think chilled out laissez faire parenting is a bad strategy either. I’m sure such parents also have boundaries and rules like limiting screen time and doing homework.

Tutors since Y7? I’m intrigued. Why and what?

Londonmummy66, thank you.

I got flamed in an earlier thread for being a pushy parent, but I think it's a peculiarly English tradition to regard making an effort as some kind of insult. As long as the kid's happy, the point of higher achievement is greater life choices later on. I don't think pushing a 9 year old to become a Financial Analyst is a great idea, but it's not unreasonable behaviour to be asking them to aspire to something, anything, that makes them fulfilled. And in order to achieve that, a certain level of discipline is required.

For those who are planning for their kids to go to certain colleges like US ILs for example, what would you say if your children turned around and said they didn't want to go to university at all? Perhaps they will want to go down the vocational training route or straight into work.

I'm not trying to be goady, I'm genuinely curious about how you would feel if they decided to go a completely different way to what you have planned and 'prepped' them for?

@treehugger1

thank you.

@Shefliesonherownwings

I would personally feel like I provided them with opportunities and experiences where they not only learned a certain skill to whatever level, but made friends, experienced both the negatives and positives of learning new things , challenged themselves, learned to accept defeat gracefully and to enjoy successes gratefully etc.

These skills of course, could in their adulthood simply be a hobby or be entirely dropped and never thought of again. If they decide that uni is not for them (and indeed it isn't for everyone) then so be it. They are my DC, it will not change how I feel about them or view them. So long as they are not sat at home doing nothing (be it apprenticeships, vocational training or working) and they are content with their choices as adults, I will be as happy with them as I am now if not more, because they would have also learned to evaluate what works for them and what doesn't.

My point is that, I presented them with the opportunities and experiences when and where I could. The rest is up to them.

I think you have to be pretty careful 2 sets of friends have had their dc down tools and refuse to work for gcse as fear of failure. Very little you can actually do in that situation

I do find it interesting the assumptions that people make about 'pushy parents'.

That they're not bothering to teach their child other basic skills like empathy or cooking.
That their children are unhappy.
That their children feel pressurised and will crack.

I had the opposite to pushy parents and honestly I'd have done anything to have parents who cared a bit more. Who actually bothered to sign me up for activities and made sure I got to them. Who watched my netball games. Who bought me the instrument I desperately wanted to learn. Who listened when I said I was bored at school, and found alternatives.

DH had a pushy father who assumed that he would define which school, college, armed force and career DH would go into. That was equally wrong.

I think most of us are walking the line somewhere down the middle, right?

There is a world of difference between a parent who shows an interest in their dc by turning up to their sports matches and supports them academically, and pushy parent.

I think what we/some of us are talking about is the relationship between intensive parenting plus a very very high income. But the demands of the work that keeps this type of parenting means there is somewhat less time to be with the children. There has to be more delegation. (Though low pay can also mean there's no time just to be with the children. People are working exhausting shifts and when they are home they're knackered. There are only small corners of time off)

There's clearly no doubt from this thread that ultra-high income parents care a great deal about their children and make time in their schedules so that not quite all active parenting activity is delegated to schools, nannies and tutors. As part of the parenting business, space for 'down time' will also be curated.

Inevitably what such parents can purchase for their children is in excess from what middle-class parents and/or hard up parents can inform. I think attitudinally there is a difference as well. I think their love is more likely to take the form of seeing their child as a long-term investment whose cultural capital must be developed in order to maximise their future potential.

Logically if somebody is highly successful within a competitive capitalist economy - and has benefited from the way it works - then that approach will influence their childrearing.

I suppose that I see capitalism as quite a destructive thing. It treats people as commodities with a particular value, whose labour is to be bought and sold. While we do have to bring up children to cope in this world, it seems to me that there are two basic approaches.

1. You work on your child like a product which will be launched on the market. The aim is to make that product the most successful one possible given the nature of the raw materials. Parenting of this kind is about added value.

or

2. You decide that you are living in a political system which is damaging to us all - though a few take home huge financial rewards. Soi as a parent your emphasis is not so much on product development but trying to give the child an alternative sense of worth, so that their later happiness will be less dependent on market fluctuations and a sense of themselves as a commodity that can fetch a high price. Instead it is based on relationships and values and abilities that largely stand outside that system.

Of course parents in group 1) work hard at parenting, They love and care a great deal about their children.

But I'm in Group 2

It's a spectrum of course. But some Mumsnet threads are very much for Group 1 discussions, although the odd Group 2 person will stick their oar in from time to time.

Whatever we may think of capitalism that’s the system we are stuck with so a pragmatic parent will surely do all they can to help their child succeed in the system we have. Of course you bolster self worth but facilitating them getting a decent paying job makes sense too.