Sometimes I read people saying that there are battles that you must pick with your children – certain things are just too important. Reading, perhaps, or family meal-times.
Not hitting another is not MAKING the child do something, it’s PREVENTING them from doing something (for the very good reason that the person being hit is not consenting to it. If they did consent, and both parties agree to the rules, like adults do when they wrestle or box, it’s ok)
For things like making them wear seatbelts, brush their teeth, wait for the lights at crossings - those are rules that apply also to adults. It is much easier to accept them as fair.
Adults imposing things on children (the likes of which would be harassment if imposed on an adult) is where the problem lies. Imagine if a woman told her husband that he can only watch his favourite program on television if he read for 15 minutes first
In most cases where this proverb was used, the horse did not ask to be led to water (nor consent to an offer of being led to water). Besides, in most cases a free horse would be able to find water by itself - it is only a captive horse that needs to be led to water.
As mum to a 16 year old PDAer and an 18 year old non-PDAer, I totally agree of course, and I find this so interesting. Because there was clearly a huge difference in what our eldest daughter was able to do, what we could make her do, versus what our youngest, the PDAer, was able to do, from a very young age.
Giving children a choice is often more enticing. Would you like to read this book or this other one? Do you want these jeans or those over there? Do you want to go to the park or the zoo? Are there any cars coming from either direction? Dangerous situations must be approached carefully.
I think you have an important point that, for the things that are not safety issues and that we want them to enjoy, giving them the freedom to choose those activities is important. BUT, as children have not yet sufficiently grown in virtue, they often do not willingly choose those activities that you know will likely bring them lasting pleasure (like reading). Because of that, I like Sarah Mackenzie's strategy (from the Read Aloud Revival) of setting aside a time where the children can read (or listen to an audio book) or they can have nap or otherwise be quiet on their beds. This gives the children an appropriate amount of freedom that nevertheless encourages the desired behavior. I think that kind of scaffolding of options helps children cultivate appropriate tastes. Just like giving children lots of sweets makes it harder for them to enjoy vegetables, giving children too much access to screens makes it harder for them to enjoy reading (especially if they are not yet fluent readers - it's hard work!).
Screens are pathologized because it gives children more autonomy than adults are comfortable with, and the whole system of coercive education is built on denying them autonomy. The reduction of every thing that an iPad or phone can do to “screens” or “devices” is a side effect of that.
My son reads (and writes) a lot - but mostly not books. It’s not exclusively screens either (as we live in a literate society there is plenty of material to read all around us).
Whenever we are thinking about we or our children are using technology, we must remember their inherently addictive nature. They are built to keep our attention as long as possible. Even we as adults must be careful about this (I no longer have a smart phone because of this problem). Children, because they are still growing in virtue, are even more at risk.
I would never claim that there is nothing useful on the internet (I am, of course, currently using the internet for this wonderful intellectual conversation), but unrestricted access for people who have poor judgment is a recipe for disaster. We, frankly, have no idea what excessive or unmonitored technology access has on children. I think there can be little doubt that there is some effect, which I will grant could be positive.
All people need to control their technology usage, but children don't have good judgment yet. They need to be guided to gain wisdom to make good decisions. Until then, it is up to me as their parent to ensure that my children are protected from harm.
There are concerns around devices deliberately designed to be addictive, just as much as there are concerns about hygiene and many other things - but when we adults constantly resort to unilateral decisions about what is “best for the child” it is paternalism
Between adults we would not accept that one adult can make decisions for the other on how much time they can spend on their device; instead we would have a conversation with them about our concerns. We can have conversations with children too, without prejudice that they can’t engage in such a conversation (but of course a child who has perpetually had their Right to be Heard (UN CRC Art. 12) suppressed won’t find it easy to find their voice)
Your distinction between “screens” and everything that’s accessible on the device is so helpful! We think of it as so passive but when my daughter was out of school for 2 years, she learnt a lot from lots of “screen time” from her own interests.
You assume reading means paper. I have almost all of my books (hundreds) in my kindle and read mostly from my smart phone, including the news"paper". I "enjoy" reading in either form. Shouldn't children have the same right?
My son’s school has an expectation that the kids (turning 8 this year) read for 15 minutes every night. On the night that kiddo doesn’t want to / is too tired, I read them with him (we alternate pages) or I read to him. Even if I read the whole book, I still record it in his reading journal - he’s still seeing and hearing the words even when he’s not saying them out loud himself.
Not hitting another is not MAKING the child do something, it’s PREVENTING them from doing something (for the very good reason that the person being hit is not consenting to it. If they did consent, and both parties agree to the rules, like adults do when they wrestle or box, it’s ok)
For things like making them wear seatbelts, brush their teeth, wait for the lights at crossings - those are rules that apply also to adults. It is much easier to accept them as fair.
Adults imposing things on children (the likes of which would be harassment if imposed on an adult) is where the problem lies. Imagine if a woman told her husband that he can only watch his favourite program on television if he read for 15 minutes first
(Intentionally reversed typical gender roles)
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.
Fortunately.
Imagine what it would be like *trying* to make a horse drink.
In most cases where this proverb was used, the horse did not ask to be led to water (nor consent to an offer of being led to water). Besides, in most cases a free horse would be able to find water by itself - it is only a captive horse that needs to be led to water.
As mum to a 16 year old PDAer and an 18 year old non-PDAer, I totally agree of course, and I find this so interesting. Because there was clearly a huge difference in what our eldest daughter was able to do, what we could make her do, versus what our youngest, the PDAer, was able to do, from a very young age.
Giving children a choice is often more enticing. Would you like to read this book or this other one? Do you want these jeans or those over there? Do you want to go to the park or the zoo? Are there any cars coming from either direction? Dangerous situations must be approached carefully.
I think you have an important point that, for the things that are not safety issues and that we want them to enjoy, giving them the freedom to choose those activities is important. BUT, as children have not yet sufficiently grown in virtue, they often do not willingly choose those activities that you know will likely bring them lasting pleasure (like reading). Because of that, I like Sarah Mackenzie's strategy (from the Read Aloud Revival) of setting aside a time where the children can read (or listen to an audio book) or they can have nap or otherwise be quiet on their beds. This gives the children an appropriate amount of freedom that nevertheless encourages the desired behavior. I think that kind of scaffolding of options helps children cultivate appropriate tastes. Just like giving children lots of sweets makes it harder for them to enjoy vegetables, giving children too much access to screens makes it harder for them to enjoy reading (especially if they are not yet fluent readers - it's hard work!).
Screens are pathologized because it gives children more autonomy than adults are comfortable with, and the whole system of coercive education is built on denying them autonomy. The reduction of every thing that an iPad or phone can do to “screens” or “devices” is a side effect of that.
My son reads (and writes) a lot - but mostly not books. It’s not exclusively screens either (as we live in a literate society there is plenty of material to read all around us).
Whenever we are thinking about we or our children are using technology, we must remember their inherently addictive nature. They are built to keep our attention as long as possible. Even we as adults must be careful about this (I no longer have a smart phone because of this problem). Children, because they are still growing in virtue, are even more at risk.
I would never claim that there is nothing useful on the internet (I am, of course, currently using the internet for this wonderful intellectual conversation), but unrestricted access for people who have poor judgment is a recipe for disaster. We, frankly, have no idea what excessive or unmonitored technology access has on children. I think there can be little doubt that there is some effect, which I will grant could be positive.
All people need to control their technology usage, but children don't have good judgment yet. They need to be guided to gain wisdom to make good decisions. Until then, it is up to me as their parent to ensure that my children are protected from harm.
There are concerns around devices deliberately designed to be addictive, just as much as there are concerns about hygiene and many other things - but when we adults constantly resort to unilateral decisions about what is “best for the child” it is paternalism
Between adults we would not accept that one adult can make decisions for the other on how much time they can spend on their device; instead we would have a conversation with them about our concerns. We can have conversations with children too, without prejudice that they can’t engage in such a conversation (but of course a child who has perpetually had their Right to be Heard (UN CRC Art. 12) suppressed won’t find it easy to find their voice)
Your distinction between “screens” and everything that’s accessible on the device is so helpful! We think of it as so passive but when my daughter was out of school for 2 years, she learnt a lot from lots of “screen time” from her own interests.
You assume reading means paper. I have almost all of my books (hundreds) in my kindle and read mostly from my smart phone, including the news"paper". I "enjoy" reading in either form. Shouldn't children have the same right?
My son’s school has an expectation that the kids (turning 8 this year) read for 15 minutes every night. On the night that kiddo doesn’t want to / is too tired, I read them with him (we alternate pages) or I read to him. Even if I read the whole book, I still record it in his reading journal - he’s still seeing and hearing the words even when he’s not saying them out loud himself.