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. Regular time outdoors or doing chores. Just make them, they say. ‘Be the parent’.
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
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!).
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.
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!).
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.