Can someone please explain a reason why adults don’t genuinely play with their kids? I feel like we owe it to them

[Parker1970]

Why is there an automatic assumption that any child would lose automatically? kis does not matter what outside type game it is. Is there a explanation as to why this happends?

When your child wants to race you at the playground on the kiddie rock wall, why is there this assumption that your child can’t actually race you? Children can climb a rock wall, why else are these on the playground? Instead it seems that grown-ups will just barely move, and act like the Kiddie wall is the hardest thing ever. Why not actually climb, and actually race your child like they are wanting you to do? The whole point of a rock wall races to see who can get to the top first.

It is the same thing when a child wants to arm wrestle with them the adult seemingly barely even does much of anything, and it is very obvious that they are just straight up letting their kid win. Why doesn’t the adult actually put in effort when they arm wrestle? Why not actually challenge your kid, the whole point of arm wrestling is to see who is stronger. If the opponent loses then they just need to provide a little bit more strength. Why is there this automatic assumption that any child would lose or not be able to play with them?

I have also noticed this when parents have a running relay race with their child. Why don’t the parents actually run? Instead they will sort of do this really awkward walking, and they end up just letting their kid win. The whole point of a running race is to see Who is going to get there first. Why not actually run and actually challenge your kid? Your child just needs to run a little bit faster next time to actually be able to win. Again, there seems to be this automatic assumption that a child can’t run, they have running tracks on the playground as well, so children can run.

If you were to play with a friend it’s not any different. Why would you automatically assume that your friend can’t play? If you’re going to arm wrestle with your friend, do it with your kid, if you’re going to run when you race your friend, do that with your kid . Same thing with Rockwall climbing on the playground with your child. Actually climb, just like you would do with your friend. Why isn’t that just because it’s a child wanting to arm wrestle or climb on the rock wall etc., most adults just come to the conclusion that they are going to lose and can’t play just because they’re a kid in elementary school?

There is also a school of thought that it is healthy for a child to sometimes beat their parent at games to allow a little bit of equalising of their relationship (which is otherwise very very one-sided in power) in a clearly-bounded space distinct from their 'real life' - if the child feels that sometimes they get to choose or win then they are less likely to kick off at other, more inappropriate times to try to taste some power.

Posters have explained how they vary their performance to more closely match the skill level of the child. You can "challenge" without beating the child every time.

This is one of the weirdest MN posts I’ve ever read. And that’s saying something!

Why don't we just let 7yos sit GCSEs? If they fail they clearly just need to try a bit harder! God, imagine all the money we are wasting on all those years of schooling. All those stressed out teachers. Just hold children to adult standards and tell them to try harder when they fail.

Yep.

This post gives me weird vibes, can’t put my finger on it

The difference is massive. You are taller, stronger, faster, more experienced etc.

It's like saying that if you tried your absolute best then you could beat an Olympic sprinter in a race. You couldn't, they'd beat you every time. Or that a layman could beat an experienced rock climber. They couldn't, they'd be beaten every time. Or that I could beat an arm wrestling champion. I couldn't.

Do you truly believe you could beat a professional athlete if you just tried?

Same here.
Weird.....

It's a bit weird for adults to activity seek to defeat children though - right? Part of the fun of playing games is for things to feel close rather than one person to dominate. If one has to dominate children they probably have issues!

I play cards, board games, running, tennis and swimming against my 6 year old.

The swimming is a fair race and it is 50/50 who wins. I'm a fairly weak swimmer.

Running - This is 50/50ish but I am starting to have to out more effort in to win and I expect in the next year he will consistently beat me.

Tennis - I am way way better than him so I have to tone it down significantly or he wouldn't return a shot to me. That is no fun for either of us. As he gets older and better at it I will be able to hold back less and I expect he'll give me a good game by the time he's a teenager - and way outplay me as well.

Cards and board games- we both try our hardest to win. He frequently pouts when he doesn't win and can be a poor winner as well. My husband allows him to win but I think it does DS an injustice as he can hold his own and doesn't need us to go easy on him.

Learning how to win and lose well is a skill we need to teach our children by ensuring they experience both.

Maybe because OP sounds like every brutish, domineering bully of a father who ever lived?

I'm happy to trounce my dc at bowling, darts, any board game now they're teens but I probably did give them some leeway when they were younger, which is totally normal!

I just started giggling thinking of many parents who’ve read this thread passing out their child or pushing their arm over in an arm wrestle😅

ps my kids (youngest 10) all beat me in chess and monopoly and foosball and I’m pretty sure now they’d kill me in actual football!!

It’s just oddly worded too, I remember a similar post but can’t remember exact details, but it was also strange

You're probably thinking of the one where OP apparently can't understand why a child might find an adult towering over them intimidating and whyyyyy do we crouch down to hug children or talk to them, whyyyyy don't we just stand. Or something like that. It also had the same underlying fixation of children and adults being on equal footing and/ or on the same level, and lots of discussion about interactions between adults and children.

Do I really need to spell out why this might be problematic?

It's just weird; I would caution against engaging with it.

I'm glad you said it cause I was thinking it....

I have reported.
I didn't recognise at first but I believe this is a repeat offender of weirdness.

I wouldn't be so sure it's a she.

It depends on what it is doesn’t it? I do race with my 9 year old because he is a similar speed to me now. I didn’t when he was two, because he would have cried when I beat him by miles every time.

When we do crosswords I tried to prompt him rather than just saying “the answer to 5D is ‘mendacious’”, because how does he learn otherwise? Games and puzzles have to be fun, not just me proving I can beat a child.

🙄

When they are challenged for example it might be different. I mean how vastly could the difference in running speed or strength, arm wrestling/rock rock climbing, possibly be

Are you on glue?

If you as an adult can’t run, cycle, swim or climb better than a preschooler, and aren’t disabled, you should probably start doing a bit more regular exercise.

What’s your next question? “Why do parents pick up babies? Why can’t babies pick up their parents for a change?”

Age and development make a huge difference.Not sure why you’re pretending it doesn’t. So there’s a time and place to challenge your kid. In the playground at 4 , when they’re just after a bit of fun and engagement? Neither the time or the place.

Yes I think so too and remember the other post-reported

They may not remove since the thread isn't breaking any guidelines. Best thing to do is not to engage with OP any longer, nor keep the discussion going.

I don’t do running races with my daughter because she is disabled, should I assume she can actually run faster than me if only she tried hard enough?

You talk about it being the same as challenging adults. My husband is 6ft4, I’m 5ft 1. If he walks normally, I have to run to keep up because his stride is twice as long as mine. We’ve never done it but I guarantee that despite me being a better runner than him, he would beat me because his stride is longer. I’d have to put in twice as much effort to beat him, it isn’t a fair race. Same with an adult running against a small child.

Board games we’d play usually involve questions. At 7 years old there was no chance our daughter would beat us because we’re adults with more knowledge. It wouldn’t matter how much effort she put in, she would not win. It isn’t an assumption, it’s knowledge. So we would buy games that had adult/kid questions.

Nobody lets their kid win every time, without challenging them. You pitch the game where you can see they are making a great effort.

If you truly believe in meritocracy, you should understand a real meritocracy makes sure everyone is on an equal playing field.

Do you know any human children OP? The state of childhood (in case you haven't) is one of constant development, learning, and building skills and strength. Adults never - or rarely - just 'let the kid win'. The whole process of playing with a child for an adult who is engaged with doing it is a constant appraisal of the kid's skill level to see how much of your own strength/skill you should be applying to the task. Even if you don't let them win, you don't want them to feel like they never had a chance do you? Competition for its own sake is not a motivator for most people. Losing and losing and losing does not encourage you to try. Sometimes a kid will suprise you by winning when you didn't expect them to and then you adjust the level of your effort.

Adults 'competing' with children is different from adults competing with adults for that reason, the one that means adults are teaching and developing children at the same time. When a competition is adult v adult you are actually wanting the result to show who is faster or stronger because they have trained more effectively, have developed more skills, whatever. If you have a biological advantage such as more abdomen muscle formed in a biologically developmental process that has nothing to do with effort, skill, or training, then the result of that competition is just a reflection of that biological process which has nothing to do with how hard someone works or how motivated they are. I'm talking about the processes of male vs female puberty here, which is actually I think what you're interested in.