Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's so backwards that so many parents/schools/society in general now force reading and writing on kids well before it is age appropriate for them to be doing sit down academic work (age 4- when it's more appropriate to start that around age 6 or even 7 according to most child development experts, and let children learn almost entirely by play before that)... yet we've also started infantilizing them in other ways, like with pretending it's normal for a 9 year old neurotypical kid to believe in Santa Claus. Is it to make up for the fact that we're forcing them to grow up earlier in other ways? Or are the children pushing back on being forced to grow up earlier in other ways by now lagging behind in critical thinking/ problem solving skills that would usually allow them to naturally outgrow Santa much earlier? I've heard that kids are showing delays in things like sensory skills, etc because of forced early academic work taking up brain space that should be spent playing outdoors and learning to play with friends. It is an interesting thought.

Exactly. I feel this way about playgrounds ... we have to take tetherballs away because they're too dangerous, but we'll put 500 kids onto a 100 sq ft playground with 30 ft tall slides and 5 ft of foam padding to break their falls. I think what it comes down to is that it's all parent-directed, not kid-directed, but in a weird way based on small areas of personal belief that all combine into a nonsensical whole.

That's exactly it- early and even middle childhood are so parent directed that it takes away things kids actually need- free play, outdoor play, unstructured play without adults nearby to referee/ direct- and replacing it with things we THINK kids should enjoy, like soccer teams for 3 year olds or "fun workbooks" or a trampoline park with a million rules (as opposed to just a real, actual playground without all of the "dangerous" things taken out of it so that kids can actually play freely and learn their body's boundaries like they were meant to). Part of this is adults deciding that kids need to believe in Santa until they are 10 years old in order to have a "magical childhood" when really, magical christmas memories come from so much more than that if we just step back and let kids experience things the way their own bodies and brains want to.

Okay, but there is nothing inherently natural about a dangerous playground as opposed to a safer one. Both of them are constructed by parents and are therefore the result of micromanaging.

It's man-made, yes. But it's what children naturally need and gravitate towards. Playgrounds should be places for kids to test the boundaries of their bodies, think critically abou thow to navigate them, learn about risk taking and what's too much of a risk vs something they can push themselves to do to build confidence, etc. Plenty of research out there about this if you're interested. Or, just drop your kid off at a REAL playground and let them play with zero interference from you and watch what it is they like to do- I guarnatee it will involve climbing on things they aren't "meant" to climb on, swinging from things that aren't swings, running, etc. But my point is, parents are taking away things kids really need for healthy development (such as, one example, playgrounds that involve some element of risk) and replacing them with things we think kids should need (believing in Santa until they are in 6th grade). If we let the kids guide us a little more, they'll be better off.

I actually love this sub-thread. It’s articulating sort of what I was thinking—that parental insistence on believing in Santa is emblematic of a newer type of parenting—one that insists on a sort of carefully orchestrated childhood. It includes carefully curated experiences, devoid of risk or disappointment, and based on adult definitions of what is meaningful during childhood. I think a lot of parental trends these days could be seen through this lens.

You all have put into words what I’ve been thinking fora long time now. I think we’re doing more harm than good with these performances childhoods.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's so backwards that so many parents/schools/society in general now force reading and writing on kids well before it is age appropriate for them to be doing sit down academic work (age 4- when it's more appropriate to start that around age 6 or even 7 according to most child development experts, and let children learn almost entirely by play before that)... yet we've also started infantilizing them in other ways, like with pretending it's normal for a 9 year old neurotypical kid to believe in Santa Claus. Is it to make up for the fact that we're forcing them to grow up earlier in other ways? Or are the children pushing back on being forced to grow up earlier in other ways by now lagging behind in critical thinking/ problem solving skills that would usually allow them to naturally outgrow Santa much earlier? I've heard that kids are showing delays in things like sensory skills, etc because of forced early academic work taking up brain space that should be spent playing outdoors and learning to play with friends. It is an interesting thought.

Exactly. I feel this way about playgrounds ... we have to take tetherballs away because they're too dangerous, but we'll put 500 kids onto a 100 sq ft playground with 30 ft tall slides and 5 ft of foam padding to break their falls. I think what it comes down to is that it's all parent-directed, not kid-directed, but in a weird way based on small areas of personal belief that all combine into a nonsensical whole.

That's exactly it- early and even middle childhood are so parent directed that it takes away things kids actually need- free play, outdoor play, unstructured play without adults nearby to referee/ direct- and replacing it with things we THINK kids should enjoy, like soccer teams for 3 year olds or "fun workbooks" or a trampoline park with a million rules (as opposed to just a real, actual playground without all of the "dangerous" things taken out of it so that kids can actually play freely and learn their body's boundaries like they were meant to). Part of this is adults deciding that kids need to believe in Santa until they are 10 years old in order to have a "magical childhood" when really, magical christmas memories come from so much more than that if we just step back and let kids experience things the way their own bodies and brains want to.

Okay, but there is nothing inherently natural about a dangerous playground as opposed to a safer one. Both of them are constructed by parents and are therefore the result of micromanaging.

It's man-made, yes. But it's what children naturally need and gravitate towards. Playgrounds should be places for kids to test the boundaries of their bodies, think critically abou thow to navigate them, learn about risk taking and what's too much of a risk vs something they can push themselves to do to build confidence, etc. Plenty of research out there about this if you're interested. Or, just drop your kid off at a REAL playground and let them play with zero interference from you and watch what it is they like to do- I guarnatee it will involve climbing on things they aren't "meant" to climb on, swinging from things that aren't swings, running, etc. But my point is, parents are taking away things kids really need for healthy development (such as, one example, playgrounds that involve some element of risk) and replacing them with things we think kids should need (believing in Santa until they are in 6th grade). If we let the kids guide us a little more, they'll be better off.

I actually love this sub-thread. It’s articulating sort of what I was thinking—that parental insistence on believing in Santa is emblematic of a newer type of parenting—one that insists on a sort of carefully orchestrated childhood. It includes carefully curated experiences, devoid of risk or disappointment, and based on adult definitions of what is meaningful during childhood. I think a lot of parental trends these days could be seen through this lens.

Anonymous wrote:I’m completely surprised by this thread. 1) Judy Blume books are known for addressing topics (I probably shouldn’t say this because you Mclean moms will try and ban them). 2) do parents typically read older elementary books to first graders blindly without checking them out?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My children are atheists and were brought up believing in Santa. We do not let them tell their Christian friends that the whole Jesus thing is bunk. Everyone does things differently but it is obnoxious to go out of your way to make someone else feel bad.

+1

A belief in a diety that is 'real' to millions of people is very different from a made up character that everyone knows isn't real. Debunking the existence of a diety is very different from debunking Santa. Ask the agnostics!

Anonymous wrote:I’m completely surprised by this thread. 1) Judy Blume books are known for addressing topics (I probably shouldn’t say this because you Mclean moms will try and ban them). 2) do parents typically read older elementary books to first graders blindly without checking them out?

Anonymous wrote:Since we are talking about outing Santa... I thought I would warn people that Judy Blume's book Super Fudge totally talks about how Santa isn't real and only "babies" believe it is real. The 4 year old in the book say this.

Judy Blume- who was raised Jewish: Said that she can't imagine anyone being upset about the book, because all children know Santa isn't real......sigh.....

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Teach your kids whatever, but it's not the job of non-Christians to perpetuate your lie.

- Muslim kid who stood arm in arm with my Jewish classmates over this ridiculous Santa stuff

Thank you!

- Christian kid who was creeped out about having to sit on some weird dudes lap and ask for presents.

Me too! Although I just took my kid to see Santa for probably the last time (she's 7 and knows the truth, I think) and all kids sat beside Santa, not on his lap.

-Christian married to a born Muslim living in a pretty Jewish DC neighborhood

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My children are atheists and were brought up believing in Santa. We do not let them tell their Christian friends that the whole Jesus thing is bunk. Everyone does things differently but it is obnoxious to go out of your way to make someone else feel bad.

+1

Anonymous wrote:My children are atheists and were brought up believing in Santa. We do not let them tell their Christian friends that the whole Jesus thing is bunk. Everyone does things differently but it is obnoxious to go out of your way to make someone else feel bad.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Teach your kids whatever, but it's not the job of non-Christians to perpetuate your lie.

- Muslim kid who stood arm in arm with my Jewish classmates over this ridiculous Santa stuff

Thank you!

- Christian kid who was creeped out about having to sit on some weird dudes lap and ask for presents.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe teach children not to contradict someone else’s beliefs. Santa is no less real than Jesus or G-d.

That’s right. No more contradictions and debates, even about unicorns. We’ll need to slap trigger warnings on the encyclopedias, though. (if they even still have encyclopedias at school?)