Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I am not sure whether having a lower threshold for dangerous play means you allow more or less?
I allow more dangerous play than other parents.
Buttt why
Because i think its good for them to learn to manage risk at a younger age to be safer when they are older.
She posts here and literally does nothing. After all, defiance is now protected under ODD as opposed to the true cause: ahole child, wimp parents.
I'm someone who allows a fair amount of risk. But freedom to play, and experiences with things like woodworking tools and stoves and knives in the kitchen.
But, I also think there's value in learning to manage social situations from a younger age, and allowing your kids to show off behaviors that their friends aren't allowed to do is teaching them to be obnoxious. Find other opportunities for risks, and set limits in the situations you describe where other parents are saying no.
For the situations in your own home, when the other parents aren't there, it's harder because you might allow something, that you don't know the other parent wouldn't allow.
In those situations, I do tell my kids to stop what they're doing, that they're being bad influences. But one of my kids is a bit oppositional and defiant, so doesn't listen. And in a situation like that, where we have always allowed them to do the said thing (like climb high up a tree), I can't seem to convince them why they should come down. And if I bring up the other kids, it just seems to make them resent their presence more because it limits them from doing their normal thing.
Wow, OK so that's a whole different problem. What consequences do you have for that kind of defiance?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I am not sure whether having a lower threshold for dangerous play means you allow more or less?
I allow more dangerous play than other parents.
Buttt why
Because i think its good for them to learn to manage risk at a younger age to be safer when they are older.
Anonymous wrote:Houses are not designed to be playgrounds. Kids should do running/sliding play outside. Just because your own kids haven’t been hurt or damaged the house so far doesn’t mean it’s a good idea. You need to put a stop to that and initiate some fun indoor games like charades or send them outside.
If kids are getting hurt outside playing tag then I would try to figure out why. Hopefully it’s not that your kids are too rough.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I am not sure whether having a lower threshold for dangerous play means you allow more or less?
I allow more dangerous play than other parents.
Buttt why
Because i think its good for them to learn to manage risk at a younger age to be safer when they are older.
I'm someone who allows a fair amount of risk. But freedom to play, and experiences with things like woodworking tools and stoves and knives in the kitchen.
But, I also think there's value in learning to manage social situations from a younger age, and allowing your kids to show off behaviors that their friends aren't allowed to do is teaching them to be obnoxious. Find other opportunities for risks, and set limits in the situations you describe where other parents are saying no.
For the situations in your own home, when the other parents aren't there, it's harder because you might allow something, that you don't know the other parent wouldn't allow.
In those situations, I do tell my kids to stop what they're doing, that they're being bad influences. But one of my kids is a bit oppositional and defiant, so doesn't listen. And in a situation like that, where we have always allowed them to do the said thing (like climb high up a tree), I can't seem to convince them why they should come down. And if I bring up the other kids, it just seems to make them resent their presence more because it limits them from doing their normal thing.
This is a problem of your own creation. Your kids are oppositional and defiant, so you don't tell them not to do things. Ok.
Tell them they can't have friends over if they don't listen. And then enforce that. I'm not against rough play but it sounds like your kids are brats, honestly.
If it makes you feel better to start name-calling my kids, go right on ahead.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I am not sure whether having a lower threshold for dangerous play means you allow more or less?
I allow more dangerous play than other parents.
Buttt why
Because i think its good for them to learn to manage risk at a younger age to be safer when they are older.
I'm someone who allows a fair amount of risk. But freedom to play, and experiences with things like woodworking tools and stoves and knives in the kitchen.
But, I also think there's value in learning to manage social situations from a younger age, and allowing your kids to show off behaviors that their friends aren't allowed to do is teaching them to be obnoxious. Find other opportunities for risks, and set limits in the situations you describe where other parents are saying no.
For the situations in your own home, when the other parents aren't there, it's harder because you might allow something, that you don't know the other parent wouldn't allow.
In those situations, I do tell my kids to stop what they're doing, that they're being bad influences. But one of my kids is a bit oppositional and defiant, so doesn't listen. And in a situation like that, where we have always allowed them to do the said thing (like climb high up a tree), I can't seem to convince them why they should come down. And if I bring up the other kids, it just seems to make them resent their presence more because it limits them from doing their normal thing.
Wow, OK so that's a whole different problem. What consequences do you have for that kind of defiance?
She doesn't have any. Her kids are brats and she is lazy.
Reread her first post. None of those behaviors are egregious. Most parents are Ok with those things.
Now read her second post.
She lets them do whatever no guidance at all. Which is different from just letting them be Kids.
Nope she has no rules. That is why kids are getting hurt.
It is fine to. teach your kids to think for themselves absolutely that is not what is happening here.
My guess is if her kid wanted to jump off the roof of her house she'd be fine with it.
See this is why I have issues. PP hears what I let them do, thinks I'm a lazy parent who lets them do whatever the heck they want to do and have zero rules. And that I'm at fault for the kids getting hurt, and that I'd be fine with the kids jumping off the roof.
I think what I allow is perfectly reasonable for our kids. But then when other kids come over or when we have a playdate, I start being the helicopter mom because there are parents like above.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I am not sure whether having a lower threshold for dangerous play means you allow more or less?
I allow more dangerous play than other parents.
Buttt why
Because i think its good for them to learn to manage risk at a younger age to be safer when they are older.
I'm someone who allows a fair amount of risk. But freedom to play, and experiences with things like woodworking tools and stoves and knives in the kitchen.
But, I also think there's value in learning to manage social situations from a younger age, and allowing your kids to show off behaviors that their friends aren't allowed to do is teaching them to be obnoxious. Find other opportunities for risks, and set limits in the situations you describe where other parents are saying no.
For the situations in your own home, when the other parents aren't there, it's harder because you might allow something, that you don't know the other parent wouldn't allow.
How is it teaching them to be obnoxious when they have no way of knowing what the other kids are not allowed to do?
If the other parent is right there telling their kid "you can't climb trees" and OP's kid is there, then OP's kid does in fact know what the other kid is not allowed to do.
Np. But in this example, why does "knowing the other kid isn't allowed to climb trees" mean "I can't climb trees?"
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I am not sure whether having a lower threshold for dangerous play means you allow more or less?
I allow more dangerous play than other parents.
Buttt why
Because i think its good for them to learn to manage risk at a younger age to be safer when they are older.
I'm someone who allows a fair amount of risk. But freedom to play, and experiences with things like woodworking tools and stoves and knives in the kitchen.
But, I also think there's value in learning to manage social situations from a younger age, and allowing your kids to show off behaviors that their friends aren't allowed to do is teaching them to be obnoxious. Find other opportunities for risks, and set limits in the situations you describe where other parents are saying no.
For the situations in your own home, when the other parents aren't there, it's harder because you might allow something, that you don't know the other parent wouldn't allow.
In those situations, I do tell my kids to stop what they're doing, that they're being bad influences. But one of my kids is a bit oppositional and defiant, so doesn't listen. And in a situation like that, where we have always allowed them to do the said thing (like climb high up a tree), I can't seem to convince them why they should come down. And if I bring up the other kids, it just seems to make them resent their presence more because it limits them from doing their normal thing.
This is a problem of your own creation. Your kids are oppositional and defiant, so you don't tell them not to do things. Ok.
Tell them they can't have friends over if they don't listen. And then enforce that. I'm not against rough play but it sounds like your kids are brats, honestly.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I am not sure whether having a lower threshold for dangerous play means you allow more or less?
I allow more dangerous play than other parents.
Buttt why
Because i think its good for them to learn to manage risk at a younger age to be safer when they are older.
I'm someone who allows a fair amount of risk. But freedom to play, and experiences with things like woodworking tools and stoves and knives in the kitchen.
But, I also think there's value in learning to manage social situations from a younger age, and allowing your kids to show off behaviors that their friends aren't allowed to do is teaching them to be obnoxious. Find other opportunities for risks, and set limits in the situations you describe where other parents are saying no.
For the situations in your own home, when the other parents aren't there, it's harder because you might allow something, that you don't know the other parent wouldn't allow.
How is it teaching them to be obnoxious when they have no way of knowing what the other kids are not allowed to do?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I am not sure whether having a lower threshold for dangerous play means you allow more or less?
I allow more dangerous play than other parents.
Buttt why
Because i think its good for them to learn to manage risk at a younger age to be safer when they are older.
I'm someone who allows a fair amount of risk. But freedom to play, and experiences with things like woodworking tools and stoves and knives in the kitchen.
But, I also think there's value in learning to manage social situations from a younger age, and allowing your kids to show off behaviors that their friends aren't allowed to do is teaching them to be obnoxious. Find other opportunities for risks, and set limits in the situations you describe where other parents are saying no.
For the situations in your own home, when the other parents aren't there, it's harder because you might allow something, that you don't know the other parent wouldn't allow.
In those situations, I do tell my kids to stop what they're doing, that they're being bad influences. But one of my kids is a bit oppositional and defiant, so doesn't listen. And in a situation like that, where we have always allowed them to do the said thing (like climb high up a tree), I can't seem to convince them why they should come down. And if I bring up the other kids, it just seems to make them resent their presence more because it limits them from doing their normal thing.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:OP, when you have other kids over, you should attempt to keep them safe. Sure, things happen. But you seem to be aware that your kids bring out wildness in other kids. (Fwiw, we have found it to be true that ADHD kids attract ADHD kids. Something for you to think about.)
Sounds like you need smaller playdates. Or shorter. Or with more adults around.
Yes I am aware. And I find myself always policing. Or just limiting playdates to just one kid at a time, or limiting them altogether. But I don't think that's the best approach.
Anonymous wrote:OP here. I am also really mindful of this discrepancy when our kids are playing and the other parents are around. Their kids see our kids doing something, and then their kids want to do the same thing. But it's something the other kids would never allow their kids to do. Either because they are more cautious, or because they are younger.
But in effect, our kids are the bad influences and the other parents end up having to set limits or deal with whining and tantrums.