What Dads' Play Does for Kids
wsj.com
wsj.com
Both of our sons have bruises all over from play because we let them play and challenge themselves and each other.
It's a tough balance but I think it's doing them a favor also compared to later on in life.
You are probably from a family with a few kids who all teased each other all the time so its one of your key relationship mechanisms, not only with children but adult teasing too. Am I right?
This guy says "biggest discussion my wife and I have is whether I tease them and push them too much". I read that as someone who is not in touch with the fact that he is over-teasing, and is not effective at putting himself in the shoes of others to see and feel what that teasing is like.
When adult tease, they are carrying on the behaviour they learned in the family situation as children. They have not learned that teasing is a behaviour either best left in childhood or strongly curtailed/regulated - it's not an effective way to relate to people if you are an adult, does not grow relationships. Except perhaps as described in the case of this article where a bit of teasing with the kids is fun. A bit.
what if his wife is overly sensitive to teasing because of a lack of its presence in her formative years and, as such, she never learned to cope with it and he's giving an appropriate amount of teasing? i just dont think that we have enough information to levy specific criticisms against this poster.
I think he's implying that most of the office teasing is done by people who don't understand the boundaries of teasing correctly -- which seems to be supported by the way HR policies frown on what you'd call "friendly", that many employees report being unhappy at work because of such things, the way in which many toxic workplace lawsuits come about, and that it is a way in which inter-department politics can become downright dysfunctional.
Most people who defend teasing as a default mode of social interaction -- particularly with coworkers instead of close friends -- sound like abuse victims (who internalized their abuse as a good thing as a coping mechanism) playing out their abuse over on new victims, and not people arguing for a functional social mechanic.
You. You and everyone talking about teasing be a normal way that you interact and which is a non-trivial fraction of your interactions -- that's just a more wordy way of saying "a default mode of social interaction". A "default mode" is one of a handful of ways that something happens, which is regarded as a normal way for it to happen. So quite literally, I just used other words to describe what you were already talking about.
> additionally, i think you'd do well to cite your sources for the assertion in the last sentence because right now it sounds like you're both attempting to diagnose me and misrepresenting my statements
The source of my comment is partnering with a large corporation to review the HR comments by abusers fired for workplace harassment of coworkers.
Across thousands of cases, for the ones which didn't stem from a single incident (eg, calling your coworker a "fucking nigger" and going on a rant about how he should "go back to Africa" in front of the entire office (not an actual example)), the majority asserted that they were merely trying to be friendly and teasing their coworker, and they they should learn to not take themselves so seriously and lighten up, ie, that months of teasing someone after being asked to stop until they felt motivated to involve outside parties should be excused because they meant well.
I just find it interesting that no one seems able to point out a difference between their arguments and yours.
Teasing can be a default mode of social interaction, but there's a vast gap between saying that teasing can be okay and saying that it should be a default mode of social interaction.
Your claim that they are the same is nonsense.
There's no doubt that some people try to excuse unacceptable behavior by claiming they were teasing.
There's also no doubt that teasing can be done in a way that does not have negative impacts.
The same is true of many things in the office. Asking someone to lunch can be a good way to form a positive bond with them or it can be a non-professional actionable move.
If a person asks you to stop talking to them in a certain manner or about a certain topic, you should, just like if someone asks you to stop inviting them to lunch, you should.
However, you'd never suggest that no one should ever ask a co-worker to join him/her for lunch, would you?
Thus, your position is only valid if you belief that all teasing is harmful. That's simply not supportable, regardless of your experience.
I have learned over the years it's always best to behave cordially and respectfully toward those I work with. I've come to believe that it's simply not realistic to go to work and expect to form deep friendships with people there.
I also think this expectation that everyone should be ok with banter and teasing contributes to the lack of diversity we often see now. If everyone you work with is of a certain type, and interacts in the same way, in way that some find insulting or hurtful, then you are not cultivating a diverse group of people, just more of the same.
I would avoid playful office banter with coworkers - save it for your good friends. Act professionally at work, goof around after work.
It is extremely easy to accidentally create a hostile work environment for some. Those people also don't "need a sense of humor."
Teasing friends is fine and good, all fun and games, but I think it builds deeper and more meaningful relationships to build people up rather than tear them down (even in jest). I don't make friends with people who tease routinely (all in good fun), but that's my choice. I tolerate it from family, because, family.
By the way, most school bullying starts as unreciprocated teasing. Yeah, teasing is childish and I too think friendships are better without it. Maybe it means I take myself too seriously, but I prefer to compensate for others' weaknesses (especially colleagues and spouse) rather than point it out to have a good laugh about it.
And if you're a kid, you're not going to be the one who complains about it. You don't know words like introverted or strategies like "haha that's funny, let's change the subject", you're just going to grin and bear it. And then the teaser (in total innocence, not maliciously) is going to be like, "well he always grins when I do that"...
It seems to fit all the pieces you describe: mechanism which relaxes people and which can form bonding experiences for the whole group participating.
I can't tell if I'm getting trolled because of your username or not, but it seems to fit here.
Hence, it applying to teasing doesn't say anything at all about whether or not teasing is a good thing -- the argument applies to nearly anything at all, both functional and dysfunctional.
I come from a family situation not unlike what you described, but where the teasing was a symptom of something else. We were never allowed to be serious, where the constant banter was a way to distance ourselves from issues. After my parents died I have talked to my siblings about this, and while they are now in good, loving relationships, they admit to having had a really hard time forming a relationship. In my own case I have had a really hard time talking about my emotions and I have been independent to a fault. I have since realised I was more or less suppressing my emotions throughout my childhood and we'll into my twenties.
I had a huge problem realising that my way of attaching to other people was causing me to feel bad, but when I finally decided to work hard to see my emotions and try my best to talk about them, all my relationships (romantic and otherwise) became much better. I constantly fall back into teasing mode and not being emotionally present (because hey, it is quite fun) but I have become much better at being emotionally present when I should.
I just wanted to say that it is extremely hard to see any problems with your own attachment model, because it is very natural to you.
This became an unstructured walll of text with too much personal info. I am not sure if I can read any meaning intonit myself
I
After that, though, you start to give your opinion, and your own personal experiences, as if it were facts that apply to everyone.
You have no way of knowing that the OP comment indicates that s/he is "someone who is not in touch with the fact that he is over-teasing". Heck, you don't even know if s/he is over-teasing, something you call a fact.
Your opinion about that teasing should be left in childhood is just that, an opinion, and one that actually contradicts your earlier statement that there is a healthy amount of teasing.
I think I understand your point - some people excuse bad behavior with claims that they are "only teasing". That's valid criticism, but we need to address the specific behavior, though, not a whole method of interaction that can be used in a healthy way in adulthood.
If this behavior is the biggest issue two parents have between them then they need to have a discussion. Contrary to your comments, though, it's not clear that the teasing and challenging needs to decrease. It could be that they do, or they need to be done in a different way, or in an way that doesn't make the other parent uncomfortable, or many other solutions.
Like most internet discussions, we just don't have enough information to be sure.
I'd consider the phrase to be one of those things if you have to say it, you've already messed up. Kind of like "don't worry, he's friendly!"
The inverse, ignoring all complaints, is equally bad. And figuring when to pay attention and when to ignore, is left as an exercise for the reader :P
After having four kids I would say it really depends on the personality of the kid. Three of mine love wrestling and teasing (each other as well as me), but one absolutely does not. Nothing wrong with that, and it's even been great for teaching that everyone is different and how to respect their feelings.
One drawback of this playful approach to parenting, is that my daughter perceives the mother as the authority and the father as the "friend". I reckon this is a quite common scenario, but it leads to some unpleasant situations (such as, mum says no to ipad, kid runs to father and ask ipad to father - hence creating a conflict ).
Actually, I'm trying to be less playful with her to check if I can restore the authority balance.
It's not a bad thing that your child has found a friend in you.
I don't think children need us as their friends - they have plenty of these all over the place. Plus, friendship and authority don't mix. The way I see that kids need us to be their guides and that's quite a bit different.
Kids have a lot of interesting ideas that (for various reasons) they can't act out, and sometimes you're the one preventing them. If it sucks (e.g., my daughter wants to pick every flower she sees... I have to stop her, because these are flowers other people bought & tend, to make their homes look nice), then I show her sympathy rather than anger. I still have to stop her from picking them -- it's part of my job as a parent, to keep my child's behavior from harming others -- but I tell her that in so many words. "I'm your dad, so this is part of my job, to stop you from doing things that will make other people really sad... but I'm sorry, it would be cool to bring all these flowers home!". And (because I'm sympathizing) I can think to go looking for wildflowers, or pick our own flowers. We're in the same boat -- there are also lots of things I want that I can't do, and I point them out when I can.
I don't ever say "because I said so" -- that's something I don't want to teach them. I have to have a reason, and if I can't come up with one, then I re-think what I'm asking them to do (or not do). Okay, so we're running around out in a field, and it seems kinda wrong to me for you to take off all your clothes; but honestly we'd see anyone coming a mile away, so if you can get dressed again lightning-fast if someone comes... then go for it. And remember if the lightning-fast thing doesn't work, then next time I'm going to say it's a bad idea.
There really seem to be a lot of parents who think they need to "discipline" their children, need to keep punishing them (often more & more severely) until the child learns to stop fighting back, stop challenging their authority, and will do what they're told. This is a painfully short-sighted view of parenting.
Think about it -- if my daughter doesn't pick flowers, ever, because she just knows I'll get mad, what has she learned? Nothing, just "here's another thing that makes Daddy mad" -- and optionally "if I keep picking flowers, Daddy keeps getting angrier until he stops taking me on walks, or he slaps my hand", or however else I escalated my reaction until it finally "worked". I might be more or less smart about how I enforce my authority over her, but all I'm thinking about in that case is "how can I force this child to do X" -- empathy is nowhere in sight, and it's just a struggle between us... which is going to carry over into our other interactions as well.
If I'm empathizing with her (and cheering her up, since neither of us can pick these flowers), the short-term end result is identical (flowers are not picked), but long-term is much better. She learns a bit more about the restrictions of living in a world with lots of other people in it (and can learn to apply the reasons for not picking other people's flowers to other situations), she's a bit closer to me (esp. if I managed to cheer her up successfully), and she's a bit further on her way to being a responsible, thoughtful adult.
There are a lot of ways in which being a good parent is like being a really good tour guide, much more than being a policeman/judge.
[note: this is a long rant answering a little comment! sorry about that... this is a topic I feel strongly about.]
There are only so many times you can empathize with someone who keeps trying to do the same thing, despite knowing why he can't.
They still believe that explaining why something is forbidden is the best course, but they stopped assuming the person on the street slapping his/her kid's bottom is just ignorant of the advantages of compassionate parenting.
It's also essential to think longer-term. I don't know what your brother was doing, or what your parents tried. But part of raising kids is being aware that a child's behavior is going to keep changing, week to week, almost regardless of what you do. So if they're doing something you don't like (but that isn't risky), it's sometimes the best course to just endure it for a bit.
Personally, I'm pretty open about these things, so I remind my kids that yes, they have the power to make me miserable, any time they want. Sometimes they do. But they're clearly not enjoying those times either, so we work together to try to figure out what's going on, and how we can optimize for more fun.
this approach is really aspirational, and really something to strive for
addendum - I think approaching parenting in this manner is one of those 'hard, but worth it' things in life
It falls apart in that a guide is in a business relationship, and that adds a distance that isn't there for parenting -- in that sense a parent can be more of a friend.
But one way parents are not like friends is that friends choose each other, and can drift apart. Parents have a much stronger motivation to keep a close relationship with their kids even as interests diverge, personalities may not mesh terribly well, etc..
The important aspect I wanted to touch on, though, was more about "authority" vs. "friend", and in that balance I think a parent should fall much more on the friend side.
I (personally) would rather blur the lines between friendship and authority and have my children trust me completely, than risk alienating them when they need me the most.
From what I see in raising my children (poorly, as we all must), the balance you want is "authority without oppression". e.g. "I'm the leader on this road trip of life, and I'm actively training you to take over every responsibility you're capable of" as opposed to, say, "I'm the leader so SIT DOWN."
Being a "buddy" (Tiger Mom / Kitten Dad) gives your children no one to rely on when the life hits the fan.
Obviously I can't say for sure that had my parents done X, I would have done Y, but their lack of any attempt to connect with my siblings and I on any meaningful level has had a massive impact. I don't hold a grudge against either of them but there are certainly things I know now should have raised major red flags and they completely missed them. Still, that goes deeper than whether or not I could consider them a "friend"!
I don't really think that's what my child needs from me. We can be buddies _at times_ but overall he looks up to me for help, advice and guidance on a very different level than his BFF. Both types of relationship are crucial but I don't think it my role to meet every bonding need of my child - some things just don't mix well.
It's not a binary choice: friend or parent. Parenting is situational. Sometimes kids need you to empathize as a friend would. Sometimes they need you to "lay down the law". For example, kids often have a hard time recognizing when they're over-tired. In that situation, you need to just put them to bed with no drawn out reasoning. The next morning they feel better and don't begrudge that you took away their choice.
"friendship and authority don't mix"
In a mature relationship, they certainly can. I'm in that situation with both my boss and my martial arts instructor. I'm friends with both. But, inside the office and studio respectively, I respect that they have responsibilities beyond just me. So, I don't let a disagreement get to the point in which they need to remind me of their authority. If I ever let it get to that point, I'm not being a particularly good friend.
"The way I see that kids need us to be their guides and that's quite a bit different."
Being a guide is certainly part of parenting. Parenting is probably the most multi-faceted relationship you'll ever have.
I'd be really curious to see if they think the same.
Why can't parents disagree sometimes? Might be a valuable lesson for kids, too. And perhaps less scary, too. Maybe it's nice to have somebody to turn to, and not just one parent unit?
On the other hand, it's wrong for the child to play her parents of each other. If mom says 'no', it's not OK to go ask dad.
If Mom gave a different answer than Dad would have, Dad should discuss it with Mom if it's important, perhaps in private. But it's also OK for kids see parents disagree and work things out in a healthy way. Then Mom can change her own 'no' to a 'yes' later and retain her authority (and get to be reasonable and nice).
But, yes, first-to-answer is a silly way to make decisions.
When I was reading books before my daughter was born, I came across an idea that really stuck with me. I don't remember source book unfortunately, possibly Brain Rules for Baby, http://www.brainrules.net/brain-rules-for-baby.
It was addressing this topic of parents arguing – an extreme form of disagreeing – in front of the children. Studies have shown that parents arguing can be traumatic for children. It makes them feel unsafe and emotionally threatened, and it results in increased depression, anxiety, aggression, etc.
However, what most of the studies failed to include in their analysis is what happens after the argument. Children who see their parents constructively resolve their argument, e.g., through negotiation and compromise, actually show decreased mental health and behavioral problems when compared to children who never saw their parents argue.
Children learn compassion and how to use love and kindness to solve disagreements. They also learn that disagreeing with somebody you love is okay. It doesn't mean they'll stop loving you.
Not exactly the same as showing a united front or whatever but relevant in my opinion.
The last thing I'll add is that it's also pretty well established that children respond best to clear boundaries. They need to clearly understand what behavior is acceptable and unacceptable, i.e., what is safe and unsafe. If dad gets angry about something and mom doesn't care, it's confusing for them and leads, again, to emotional instability.
So yeah, it's complicated. It can be good to disagree and model healthy resolution behavior, but at the end of the day, both (all) authority figures do need to set similar boundaries.
I am generalizing but father/daughter, as in the OP's case, seems to result in more leeway being given to the child, which can undermine the authority role of the father. Whereas with father/son, it seems that being more stern and authoritative is a natural tendency or, at the very least, the social norm. Same goes for mother/son vs. mother/daughter.
In our household, I am the primary disciplinarian, but I have not sacrificed being able to play and be silly with my kids. Another commenter outlined the need for consistency. I wholeheartedly agree and believe that you can be consistent with your kids and still be silly, play and encourage healthy exploration of new challenges.
i dont think that it's simply reducible to gender because there are many other factors at play (birth order, age difference, personality, birth trauma, age/stage of life of both parent and child, etc.). if you can control for all of those other things, then maybe you could test for gender interactions, but then you'd only have data for that set of controls.
I'm a father of a one year old with another on the way, and I'm still getting my head around it.
When a child is very young, they are incapable of distinguishing themselves from their parents or other people. As they develop the ability to make that distinction, they begin to test it. This is where the "no!"s come from in a 2 year old.
As they get older they begin to realize that each person is different. So they see if they get a different answer from mom vs. dad. It's normal and I would not pull back from being friendly with your daughter. Just make sure you and your wife are on the same page about common scenarios like food, candy, TV, video games, etc.
Being consistently funny requires some amount of intelligence, creativity, and self-confidence. All of those things are good qualities in a husband and father. It's possible that humor adds more above and beyond those qualities, but I'm skeptical that a study could separate the effects of those other qualities.
Considering most "funny people" engage in low effort puns or just ape what they hear on TV or the internet, I'm not so sure of that. I guess the potential mother's taste in humor is important here.
http://www.theonion.com/article/courageous-man-overcomes-wom...
I wonder if the copying a lot of young men do (endlessly quoting movies and such) is some kind of evolutionary trick to come off as funny or smart, like a bird fluffing its feathers to come off as a larger and stronger potential mate.
Yeah, that's pretty reductionist, but it really makes you wonder why this behavior is so common. Past "mating age" its insufferable if someone does it.
Women aren't looking for comedians. They're looking for men who can still smile when everything around them is turning to shit. So if you can crack a joke when the waiter brings you raw chicken, rather than screaming your head off and threatening to sue, that's the kind of funny a woman wants.
Considering so many entertainers are horrible primadonnas and massivly self-entitled, I doubt being good at humor has anyting to do with temperament, compassion, empathy, etc.
> When someone says, "I like people who make me laugh"
When people say that, they're not talking about a professional comedian or even a class clown. They like people who are happy and relaxed. When someone is happy and relaxed, they're having a good time and they play around, make jokes, and generally allow other people around them to also have a good time.
It's not about having a good temperament, although that's probably a prerequisite. It's about being genuinely happy.
I dare you to come up with a better test of figuring out if a person is happy or not.
Not to say everyone quoting famous lines is a genius but it doesn't rule it out.
If you get off the internet, you'll find people are capable of being funny without quoting Dave Chappelle. I seriously doubt any potential mothers out there are looking for a Quote Machine. I'll probably get crucified for this, but the fact that you reference Jon Stewart as a rare type of funny sort of betrays the point you're making. He's very much part of the "sick references" club.
I think a humorous person that may potentially make a good father and the meme-spouting quote crowd are really two different things. They're just looking for someone that can be goofy from time to time, you're making this out to be a search for Richard Pryor.
>Jon Stewart as a rare type of funny sort of betrays the point you're making. He's very much part of the "sick references" club.
When I was a kid he was more of a standard stand-up and not at all political. I use him because he's universally acknowledged as funny.
Just ask Republicans.
This is a ridiculous conversation.
But I LOVE low effort puns! They make me laugh every time!
Basically making initiating funny body movements seeking us to mirror her and to do coy little hide and seek games.
Not only is it terribly cute, seeing her think up funny games like this to play and watching how she giggles and laughs is really interesting to see how it expresses her personality when she can't even formulate words yet.
With everything in the Internet existing forever, I would never post something like this for them to find later.
It may be due to having two other siblings to observe and see playing and doing stuff.
They're not, so there's more to it than that.
Conversely, I think a lot of men are looking for the same thing too, we all know that not every day is "butterflies and rainbows," so its nice to have that person who is even-keeled in spite of the pressures of work, the screaming babies, etc.
I was talking about genuine, spontaneous humor. Not in a setting where you're acting and where others know you're acting. Not when there's an audience. Spontaneously funny about bad things happening in real-time, in real-life, in a personal setting.
Even really good unhappy comedians would have a hard time with that one.
Wow you sure know a lot of things. Can I subscribe to your newsletter?
So I'm not too sure about the validity of your rationalization.
- she means it as someone who don't take life too seriously
- saying she is looking for someone handsome/rich sounds too shallow
- she means some particular types of funny, probably not including the clown type
- she means someone who can talk to her on the same level
- she wants that because that's what all other girls claim to want
> many of their dads scored low on a standard yardstick her
> research team was using to evaluate the parent-child bond.
> ... The children described rich, warm relationships with
> their fathers ... “My dad gives me encouragement to do
> things,” or, “My dad tells me he thinks I can do well.”
It's tests like the "unsafe situation": a baby is put in peril, and the mother has to reassure it. Babies that are quickly reassured typically do better overall, and this is seen as a sign of strong bond. But fathers traditionally score low on this test (as babies appear to prefer the mothering parent for such reassurance)
There's no changes in science or technology recently that would lead to this being any easier to discover or quantify now. From a strictly scientific perspective, it's actually quite shameful that only now is this being uncovered scientifically, and points to deep and systematic problems in the relevant disciplines. Consider than from an evo-psych perspective, even as questionable as it may be sometimes, the hypothesis that fathers are just generally not very good parents should be immediately suspect, not suspect decades later.
See also the research showing that schools have become heavily biased against the success of boys.
Life favors thinking and creative problem solving, school favors regurgitation and submission to authority.
As an example my son doesn't do to well in math, however, he's been multiplying/dividing since Kindergarten. My daughter at least appears weaker (I think she's hiding her skills) but does much better on math at school.
Don't pay too much attention to statistics, bring your concerns to your administrators. They have a lot of work to do and don't need parents making complaints and creating extra work.
Note here (from a girl) remembering my childhood and maths: my interest in all things technical came to life when my father (figure) showed an interest in playing chess with me, and in building things like aerodynamically-interesting paper/card planes, rocket launchers and kites.
I can't wait to teach my kids.
The book has really helped us as well if anyone is looking for new avenues to teach, mentor, discipline their kids.
[1](http://www.amazon.com/Playful-Parenting-Lawrence-J-Cohen/dp/...)