'Pushy' parent, or 'supportive and constantly encouraging' parent??

[Legacy]

Was thinking about this while watching Wimbledon at the weekend...

'Pushy' parents get so much bad press these days, and yet we bemoan the lack of good British sports people.
Looking at all the winners at Wimbledon (Nadal, Venus, Laura Robson etc )it's clear that at a very early stage in their lives their parents presumably decided (for them?) that tennis was going to be 'their thing' and everything was going to be focused on that.

Which comes first - a child's ability which sparks off a parents desire to 'push' in a certain direction, or a little bit of ability which is then channelled and honed through careful parental management?

It seems to me that there are fewer success stories in sport or elsewhere where the person hasn't been driven by their parents in the background.

So I guess my question would be 'is pushy parenting necessarily a bag thing', and if your child has some slight talent in an area, isn't it your duty as a parent to motivate/ support them to do their best to succeed in that area?

I was pondering the same thing this morning when I watched no less than three sets of parents making their 2/3 year olds "swim" widths of the toddler pool and it made me cringe, so I guess that shows where I stand on the situation, but each to their own.

I guess it depends on what you class as success. My personal philosophy is that if you are contented you are successful, whatever path that leads you in life. I'm all for encouraging talents, but not pushing them. Yes, they won Wimbledon but who knows if they are happy and content or not?

To take your last statement, I beleive that it is your duty to support your child with a talent that they wish to pursue but it is also your duty to equip them with a variety of life skills and not to neglect all other areas in pursuit of a single goal, especially one that they have only shown a "slight" talent in.

At the risk of getting all technical here, this is how I see the divide..

Educational pyschologist Lev Vygotsky drew a distinction between what a child could do now, what a child could do with support (those things that are with the child's zone of proximal development, as he called it) and those things that a child could not do very easily even with support (outside the zpd).

He argued that for the child's optimum psychological welfare, the best thing for a child is for a parent to support or encourage the child within their zpd. To push outside the zpd, or not to encourage it at all, he argued, would lead to low self esteem in a child.

Therefore, on those grounds I would say a supportive / encouraging parent is one who encourages a child within their zpd and follows the child's interests. A pushy parent is one who takes a child outside of their zpd. A negiglent parent is one who doesn't even bother.

This theory has been big in education over the past few years, I use it a lot in my teaching and with my own children and I think it makes a lot of sense

sorry, typos again

For me, I guess I'd argue that if you introduce your child to a sport, and they take to it like duck to water, then there is no harm in facilitating them getting good at it, provided the child is actually enjoying it and asking to do it.

When it is something the parents force on the child and the child doesn't enjoy it or have a ersonal interest in it, then it is just oushy parenting.

Elkat I use that theory a lot too, it makes complete sense really.

Shoegazer, I am clearly a pushy parent as I encourage my 2 year old to swim lengths of the pool I have been 'tutted' at in the pool for this very reason!

In my defence, if I don't make sure that he has some form of vigorous physical exercise every day then he's unbearably over-energetic for the rest of the day. And I like seeing him doing things that he's good at doing - I have to admit that I feel very proud of him at those moments. But that doesn't mean my love for him is conditional, it's just that maternal glow of 'Wow, look at him go!' I like Elkat's theory very much. If DS shows aptitude for particular sports I am likely to be very encouraging of that - it's a good direction for his energy, regardless of any 'future champion' nonsense.

Pushy parent? I'm like this

I introduced DS to climbing when he was 2. To be fair, I am a climber and do it at every opportunity, so being a single mum, DS generally comes along with me. It was only natural that he would try it himself at some point.

Now he loves it, and can't wait to get his harness on and start climbing, but I know I'm not a pushy parent as there is no pressure there for him to do it, no lessons or clubs joined, no membership to anything or a need to get my money's worth out of a tutor, so if DS said "nah, I don't want to climb today" when we got to a crag, it wouldn't matter to me.

I would like to give him the opportunity to develop in his climbing, as he does show quite a bit of talent (probably because he spends so much time watching other people climbing lol) and if he's still climbing when he's old enough to enter competitions I would encourage him to do so.

However, if he turned round at some point and said actually I don't want to climb anymore, I wouldn't mind, but I'd wan him to do some sort of sport or physical activity, just for his fitness and health really.

lol witty!

witty - love that!

Ah thebecster, but I have a feeling that you refrain from barking "No, not like that, do it like this" whilst said child is crying. I did say "make" and you said you "encourage" too. I promise I was not implying that parents of 2 and 3 year olds who can swim are clearly pushy parents. Besides My child was swimming widths underwater willingly, so I beat them all hands down mwah mwah!