Being too child-centric

[Judy1234]

Making a career out of the children, always putting them first, never saying no to them.... very different from where I am and how I am but certainly is how some parents operate.

Being laisser faire, letting them learn how to be board, letting them understand they don't always come first is good.

On another mumsnet thread I said we shouldn't always give children what they want and a few people were surprised I said it but I think it's true. Just because they want something doesn't mean they should get it.

women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article4212440.ece

Has she even met any SAHMs or just looked at them from a distance?!

Of course, since having a baby none of us can talk about literature or politics... What?!!

She sounds a bit up her own to be honest.

Well said!

yummymummy, I don't think your life as you describe it is what the article was getting it. It's more the fear of your child being bored, understimulated, unhappy for half a second hence the need for nonstop activity where absolutely everything revolves aroudn the child.

I would imagine it is literally impossible to be too precious when you have four - and also unnecesssary as the children start providing their own entertainment for each other.

oh and I really don't think this about SAHMs or WOHMs. Both can do it

I think this article is really silly.

In some dysfunctional families the needs of one (or more) people take precedence over the needs of others. This is manifestly unhealthy. In a healthy family, everyone's needs must be considered and, through negotiation, compromise and cooperation because there is love, everyone's needs must be met or not in equal measures. Obviously, everyone's needs are going to be different, and parents are more mature than children and will make final judgements and decisions.

Our family life doesn't revolve around the adults, or the children, or one member. We are five (with five very different lives), and we live with all sorts of quite complicated constraints. But no one is missing out or taking precedence over anyone else.

I disagree that it's SAHMs trying to "elevate" childrearing to career status. I think it is far more likely to be driven by the large uptake in paid-for childcare outside the home.

So now we have nurseries inventing ever more exotic child centred activities, to prove they're not all bored sixteen year olds texting while the children sit, dangerously unstimulated.

SAHMs then have to compete against this rather unrealistic propaganda to prove they're not holding their children back by depriving them of nursery's sensory rooms and baby yoga.

One thing's for certain, mothers in this debate are basically being berated for their "choices" (which aren't choices for vast swathes of the population). I don't see how this is feminism in action (though maybe that's because my brain has descended into a SAHM fog )

In hindsight I agree with you MargoandJerry especially as it would be impossible to focus on one of my children 100%.

This was a major worry when we had our fourth, could we invest the time equally in all the children without them feeling left out? but we are managing so far and I actually know a couple of mum of ones that are 100% devoted to their young children (to the point one little boy has seperation issues)and I would never judge them even though their lives are so different.

I also agree with the competitive issues mentioned by mrsboring and I see such a difference in my 3year old's nursery compared with the playgroup my boys attended. I also think there is much more peer pressure from other parents about what the children do (especially in the holidays) but that is probably a whole different debate!

mrsgboring I think you have a really good point there.

A related issue is children getting used to a nanny who is 100% devoted to them and not distracted by cleaning, doing her nails or chatting to her friends on the phone or ironing her husband's shirts.

Xenia is right. This is where WOHMs fall into this trap (it really isn't about SAHMs). I have a nanny and I frankly couldn't care less what she and my DD do all day. I know the nanny is lovely and kind and caring and sensible. DD is happy. That's all I need to know.

I do encourage them to go out to playgroups and stuff but that's because I worry about the nanny going out of her mind with boredom if she's stuck in the flat all day.

While enjoying my time with my sons I have taken great care to completely avoid these types or "competitive mums." Pocahontas on Christmas cards is allowed in the Tibs household but then we aren't middle-class with all the angst that brings.

And if your child doesn't know what to do with their time and you can't simply say "go play in your room/in the garden" knowing they'll occupy themselves until hungry then you're doing it wrong.

I love that clip! As someone who has worked a lot in art education it brings back some very funny memories of pushy/perfectionist teachers!

I think Xenia's last post does have it in a nutshell, really (not that I have ever ironed one of Dh's shirts). If you are at home with the children, there are many more things that need doing than 'over-parenting' your children- they have to fit in with everyday life- I can't for example pop them in nursery whilst I do the shopping or attend appontments, so much of our activity is not child centered in the way it may be with a nanny or in nursery.

Love the clip, never seen it before.

I was almost crying with laughter!

I agree with the above post about fitting things in around the children though our three year old has a funded nursery place and we will pay for one morning a week when little one turns two.

It is intresting reading about nannnies as in our area most familys I know use other family members as free nannys/cleaners/personalshoppers/dogwalkers

I think that they are really lucky but in some cases the children are looked after all the time by people who give them everything they want (adoring grandparents,aunts,big sisters) and they have very high self esteem but expect to get whatever they want, whenever they want it.

I guess this is the downside of child centred parenting which I had thoughtI was guilty of but know realise my life is fairly well balanced (and I dont iron shirts either).

Excellent post, mrsgboring.

I completely agree with you.

By SenoraPostrophe on Sun 29-Jun-08 14:51:42
God, I hate it when jounalists use "we" to mean our society, when in fact they mean "me and my journo friends".

of course you shouldn't give up your entire life for your children, and of course you shouldn't try to control every item of food which passes their lips or give them everything they want. But I don't know a single parent who does any of those things.

One parenting trait that does seem to be more common now than in the 70s / 80s though is journalists writing drivvel like this and illustrating it with a photo of their own children (with or without a caption that says "see? I must know what I'm talking about".

ha haa haa haa ha spot on.

i don't know anyone like this either.

I have spoken to several journolists about parenting issues and they are all so different,

Some are lovely and what you tell them is exactly what appears with a photo of your own children others take certain parts of a conversation to fit what they need and some are really vauge about what the info is for so I avoid these as they are probably using other peoples words as there own.

Though I do not agree with the article and find the debate interesting I also think everyone has their own opinion and at least she has a child (I have spoken to some people who write abut family life but have no children).

Also depends on the nanny - I don't think in 23 years we ever had one who was spoiling the child or giving it too much attention but then with 5 children (and the first nanny brought her own baby and then her second baby too with our first 3 children when our youngest was 2) there was just not time for any child to be little emperor with the whole of one adult's attention focussed on it like a Chinese only child.

One reason our having a daily nanny worked for all those years was like margoandJ above I was able even at age 22 with the first baby to let the nanny get on with it, even if she did things differently or not as well as I did and I could justify that on the basis I am often wrong and even if it were different and worse it was good for the child to have variety. Obviously that would not apply to someone abusing the child but if it were just a different way of dealing with feeding it etc then we found all the children just adjusted to how things were with their mother, father and nanny - three different people.

Quite Xenia.

My lovely nanny probably lets my DD watch too much tv in the day and is a bit overcautious when it comes to physical stuff (she had a nasty scare last week when DD fell and hit her head - and nanny was distraught). But my view is that she is not me. She is another person and DD has to get used to lots of different styles. She is also a lot nicer and more patient than me so it's swings and roundabouts (one of my pet hates, of course )

I was a nanny for a good few years, in the early 90s when it wasn't all so technical. It was just as important to have a good relationship with the parents as with the children but guess who was more difficult to deal with.

To add to the clip I put on here. In the local gala day my two were about the only ones whose costumes were actually made and designed by themselves. The others looked very professionally done but mine had the blue paint stained fingers to show they had enjoyed themselves.

Also to add that if it weren't for free childcare offered by grandparents/friends/family members then there would be a lot more parents having to make the choice of one of them staying home. I didn't have that option and I still don't which makes things a lot more difficult when considering what job to do. So count yourself lucky if you don't have those problems.

Finally to say that there are a few so-called SAHMs at the school who can afford to spend time at the gym, hire a cleaner, an occassional nanny/babysitter. Who is to judge who is right on these issues? We all have our different priorities and our different needs and expectations. I won't condemn even those I think are making the wrong choice because I realise that while to me it would be the wrong choice to them it is their right and need to take that route. If that makes sense I'm doing well as I have a puppy chewing on my toes at the moment (no that isn't code for something more exciting and decadent.)

Ridiculous nonsense. If you have only one child, a full time nanny and your kid spends weekends with her father you need to spend less time thinking about your child's life than if you have three of them and spend a bit of time with them.
I find her - and to be honest - society's contempt for anything to do with motherhood, very depressing.
Thinking about getting a nice bed for your child's room is tedious and trivial. Spending ages agonizing about exactly what shade of frosted glass you put in your architect-designed floating glass staircase in your poncey Grand Designs-style house, is 'important'.
She says:
"To me, it?s about life and time well spent. If you?re sitting outside in a beautiful garden having dinner and this is your life, do you really want to spend your time thinking about school admissions, which paediatrician to go to or what kind of nappy bag to buy?"

Well, Katie, what is is OK for me to think about? I actually spend quite a bit of time thinking about whether to buy that black viscose shirt I saw in Principles, and if it would look chic with a white skirt. Is that also 'bad'? Because it's certainly more trivial than thinking about which school to choose.
I agree that our parents generation cared less about the details of our lives, but we care more and are more informed about all sorts of stuff these days. Our homes, our wardrobes, our health. It's not really particular to parenting.
And I enjoy buying clothes for my children. It is part of the kind of life I want.

Why are they 'so called SAHMs'? Are they mums that stay at home? If so, they're SAHMs aren't they?

I'm still new to Mumsnet, so I'm not being facetious. I really don't understand the difference between a SAHM and a so called SAHM. and I want to be sure I'm using the right terminology.

Talking of what the 'puppy chewing on my toes' could mean, I can think of a few things...most of them very exciting and decadent and highly unlikely to happen to me

MsDemeanor I like your style.

And I agree...why shouldn't we spend time agonising over the details of our children's lives.

In my time I've agonised over the colour of paint to use in my hall; the kind of pet to buy to fit with my lifestyle; the kind of car to buy for my job and the kind of clothes to buy for a party or for work. Why is this thinking only trivial if it's applied to children?

I wouldn't be too depressed about society's contempt for all things motherhood msdemeanor. I hear plenty of things on here that hearten me when it comes to us caring for our kids.

And journalists are usually the last people anyone should believe anyway. They're full of tosh about political issues so why should they be any better when it comes to social commentary?

The propeganda that childrearing is dull and unwarranted servitude for women is great propeganda when society needs women to take on employment for our economy to work. I treat it like all propeganda. I ignore it.

I don't think there is social contempt for motherhood. And I don't think the article showed contempt either. I think it was her trying to sort out in her own mind what she should and shouldn't do. Certainly she was angsting. The cupcake story rang true to me. Making them becuase she thinks that what a mother should do even though she knows that her daughter wouldn't care if they were bought. At the school cake stall, there are mothers who seem to consider that it's better to make the cakes rather than buy them. Almost morally better in some way.

As to worrying over details, most of us do that. We worry about what's closest to hand. The question to my mind is how much parental anxiety actually helps children grow and mature and develop and how much is just the parent's worrying and they'd be better of doing something else.

Some people, of course, would argue that too much parental anxiety gets in the way of children's development.

I was extremely relieved to see at my daughter's school fête that the number of homemade cakes on sale was tiny (no more than 20 offerings), despite emotionally-charged enticements by a notoriously overkeen mother lots of polite notices inviting parents to donate home made cakes for sale at the fête. This in a school of 550 pupils.