I was listening to a CBC-1 radio interview yesterday with Canadian astronaut Dr. Dave Williams. He is a medical doctor, a specialist in neurology, trained as an emergency doctor for extreme environments, like the Arctic, undersea, and outer space. He is also Director of Medical Robotics at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario.
At one point, the interviewer asked him if it was obvious that he’d excel from an early age. He replied, “Oh, not at all. If you’d asked any of my teachers to pick out the kid who’d be an astronaut, I’d have been the last person they picked. I was a very average student. What got me into the space programme was my passion for space and the confidence to pursue my dreams.”
That got me thinking about the amount of energy I see so many parents putting into worrying and stressing about their children’s future. I see parents making themselves and their children absolutely miserable, pushing the kid to excel, to work harder, get better grades. “You’ve got to think of your future,” is the refrain.
But what Dave Williams says got him where he is are things that are not as measurable as grades: passion, dreams, confidence. Not high marks.
It is not our job as parents to make sure our kids are at the head of their class. Not our job to push them to graduate Summa Cum Laude. It is our job to nurture their passions, encourage their dreams, and to help them develop the confidence to aim for the stars.
I wonder what Dave Williams’ life would have been like if his parents had nagged him to put down those stupid science-fiction novels and concentrate on improving his grades?
Not nearly as interesting, I’d bet.
Showing posts with label Parenting. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Parenting. Show all posts
Friday, February 27, 2009
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Hannah Montana and the Female Eunuch
(originally posted July 23, 2008)
Earlier this year a furore erupted in the media when fifteen year old entertainer Miley Cyrus posed for some fashion photos in Vanity Fair magazine. The photo that caused the stir was a classic “draped nude” portrait. Very little skin was actually visible, but the appearance of nudity beneath a cloth was apparently enough to throw self-appointed “morality” watchdogs into a panic.
And as usual, the media entered “feeding-frenzy” mode.
Widely reported was the fear that her photographs send a harmful message to young girls, making Cyrus an unfit role model for young women. Try as I might though, I can’t find many specific statements about what that “bad” message might be...except for Dr. Robyn Silverman’s Powerful Parent Blog, where she warns parents that their ‘tween daughters may “show up to playtime loosely wrapped in their Beauty and the Beast bedsheets...”
However, while the Cyrus photos appear to have raised more concern than they warrant, a question that hasn’t been asked is, what message does the alarm over the photos send to young girls?
It seems to me that the message being given to young girls everywhere is clear, specific and destructive: that in order to be considered good, acceptable, admirable, and worthy, a girl, a young woman, must remain completely sexless. That girls who, like Miley, even hint that a sexual being lies beneath the coverings has done something bad, unacceptable, and shameful.
A girl does not have to be very old, nor very sophisticated, to understand that her parents and the talking heads of alleged grown-ups on TV feel that Miley has been bad. And Miley’s widely publicized apology, her embarrassment, her tears, her reportedly feeling ill at a subsequent concert all reinforce the message: girls are not supposed to HAVE any sexuality. Not only must they not openly display it, they must never even hint at it. Bad things happen to those who do, and people will stop liking them.
Even her supporters urge others not to condemn this teenager for having “made a mistake.”
Hinting that you may be a sexual being is a mistake? Apparently it is in 2008.
The TV talking heads bristle in outrage over the fact that the person in these photos “is only 15.”
News flash: Human beings, males and females both, are sexual beings from before birth until the day they die.
As a sex therapist, I see many adult women, married, or in committed relationships, who are very conflicted about their sexuality. Is it any wonder?
The prescription is that a girl, a woman, should not be sexually active until marriage, that she should “save” herself for her husband. Then, all of a sudden, her husband (ideally a virgin himself) will “awaken” her sexuality, and she will suddenly go from a person who has denied even the possibility of having sexual feelings, who has been trained from toddlerhood to say “no, no, no”, to being a fully sexual being who moans “yes, yes, yes.”
Fairy tales like this keep my profession going and provide me and my colleagues with an income.
But the cost in human anguish and misery can be staggering.
Is it any wonder that women are conflicted about sexuality, when the media continually indulges in its insidious game of set ‘em up and knock ‘em down with young female celebrities? To be acceptable as celebrities, even the most timid or plain females are required to be sexualized, made-over, enhanced...their sexual appeal must be hyped to the max. But then, to be an
acceptable role model, they must be “pure.” And when young women who must be both “sexy” and “pure” make a personal decision regarding their own sexuality, be it starring in a film with “adult themes,” posing for pictures, or becoming sexually active, the media fall all over themselves to denounce her. She is now part of the morality play known as “fallen woman,” and is gleefully branded with today’s updated scarlet letter...no longer an “A” for adulteress, but an “S” for slut (or should that be an “H” for ho?).
We’ve seen that again and again. Jessica Simpson and Britney Spears publicly took virginity vows. They were then dressed by their handlers in the sexiest and most revealing outfits available. The Swift Report tells of rumours that her handlers may have pushed Britney Spears into marrying in order to boost her slumping record sales.
According to market research, CD choices are increasingly shaped by the morality of the female artists, with teenaged girls saying they prefer to buy music by female artists who put off sex until marriage. This is resulting in pressure on struggling record labels to keep young starlets chaste—or quickly marry them off.
Notice that these categories allow for no middle ground. A young woman cannot be a “little bit sexual.” Only two states for young women are recognized. More recently, some pictures of Cyrus at a sleep over with friends were posted on the internet. One photo shows Cyrus and a female friend in chaste cotton nightgowns leaning against each other while sitting on the floor, mugging for the camera. The person who posted the photo has superimposed the word “slut” on it.
And if even hinting at your sexuality makes you a “bad girl”, well why not go all the way? The notion that you may as well be hung for a sheep as a goat makes sense to many teenaged minds. Having been branded a “bad girl, dismissed as a “slut,” many of our “fallen” female celebrities spiral out of control.
I have to wonder how many young non-celebrities put themselves at risk using the same logic?
Back in 1970, when I was about to graduate high school, Germaine Greer published, The Female Eunuch, the book that changed the way the world looked at women’s sexuality and the way women looked at themselves. Greer wrote, "Women have somehow been separated from their libido, from their faculty of desire, from their sexuality.”
38 years later, that situation persists. Rather than relenting, the focus has shifted to younger and younger women. Girls in many high schools today are subjected to pressure to take a “purity pledge,” a pledge to remain a virgin until she marries. As Marshall McLuhan noted, the medium is the message. What message does the very name of this phenomenon convey? Purity equals sexlessness. Therefore, any girl who is sexual is impure, flawed, dirty...a slut.
And, of course, there is the unspoken but ever-present expectation that the natural outcome of any young woman reaching adulthood is marriage, undoubtedly followed soon afterwards by motherhood. Nearly half a century after the emergence of second-wave feminism, the gender straightjacket is alive and well and invading your daughter’s bedroom!
There is, on the part of many adults, an unhealthy, unsavoury fascination with young women’s hymens. A question we need to ask ourselves as a society is this: should we allow their obsession to be passed onto our daughters as focus for anxiety, for self-loathing, for self-neutering?
Earlier this year a furore erupted in the media when fifteen year old entertainer Miley Cyrus posed for some fashion photos in Vanity Fair magazine. The photo that caused the stir was a classic “draped nude” portrait. Very little skin was actually visible, but the appearance of nudity beneath a cloth was apparently enough to throw self-appointed “morality” watchdogs into a panic.
And as usual, the media entered “feeding-frenzy” mode.
Widely reported was the fear that her photographs send a harmful message to young girls, making Cyrus an unfit role model for young women. Try as I might though, I can’t find many specific statements about what that “bad” message might be...except for Dr. Robyn Silverman’s Powerful Parent Blog, where she warns parents that their ‘tween daughters may “show up to playtime loosely wrapped in their Beauty and the Beast bedsheets...”
However, while the Cyrus photos appear to have raised more concern than they warrant, a question that hasn’t been asked is, what message does the alarm over the photos send to young girls?
It seems to me that the message being given to young girls everywhere is clear, specific and destructive: that in order to be considered good, acceptable, admirable, and worthy, a girl, a young woman, must remain completely sexless. That girls who, like Miley, even hint that a sexual being lies beneath the coverings has done something bad, unacceptable, and shameful.
A girl does not have to be very old, nor very sophisticated, to understand that her parents and the talking heads of alleged grown-ups on TV feel that Miley has been bad. And Miley’s widely publicized apology, her embarrassment, her tears, her reportedly feeling ill at a subsequent concert all reinforce the message: girls are not supposed to HAVE any sexuality. Not only must they not openly display it, they must never even hint at it. Bad things happen to those who do, and people will stop liking them.
Even her supporters urge others not to condemn this teenager for having “made a mistake.”
Hinting that you may be a sexual being is a mistake? Apparently it is in 2008.
The TV talking heads bristle in outrage over the fact that the person in these photos “is only 15.”
News flash: Human beings, males and females both, are sexual beings from before birth until the day they die.
As a sex therapist, I see many adult women, married, or in committed relationships, who are very conflicted about their sexuality. Is it any wonder?
The prescription is that a girl, a woman, should not be sexually active until marriage, that she should “save” herself for her husband. Then, all of a sudden, her husband (ideally a virgin himself) will “awaken” her sexuality, and she will suddenly go from a person who has denied even the possibility of having sexual feelings, who has been trained from toddlerhood to say “no, no, no”, to being a fully sexual being who moans “yes, yes, yes.”
Fairy tales like this keep my profession going and provide me and my colleagues with an income.
But the cost in human anguish and misery can be staggering.
Is it any wonder that women are conflicted about sexuality, when the media continually indulges in its insidious game of set ‘em up and knock ‘em down with young female celebrities? To be acceptable as celebrities, even the most timid or plain females are required to be sexualized, made-over, enhanced...their sexual appeal must be hyped to the max. But then, to be an
acceptable role model, they must be “pure.” And when young women who must be both “sexy” and “pure” make a personal decision regarding their own sexuality, be it starring in a film with “adult themes,” posing for pictures, or becoming sexually active, the media fall all over themselves to denounce her. She is now part of the morality play known as “fallen woman,” and is gleefully branded with today’s updated scarlet letter...no longer an “A” for adulteress, but an “S” for slut (or should that be an “H” for ho?).
We’ve seen that again and again. Jessica Simpson and Britney Spears publicly took virginity vows. They were then dressed by their handlers in the sexiest and most revealing outfits available. The Swift Report tells of rumours that her handlers may have pushed Britney Spears into marrying in order to boost her slumping record sales.
According to market research, CD choices are increasingly shaped by the morality of the female artists, with teenaged girls saying they prefer to buy music by female artists who put off sex until marriage. This is resulting in pressure on struggling record labels to keep young starlets chaste—or quickly marry them off.
Notice that these categories allow for no middle ground. A young woman cannot be a “little bit sexual.” Only two states for young women are recognized. More recently, some pictures of Cyrus at a sleep over with friends were posted on the internet. One photo shows Cyrus and a female friend in chaste cotton nightgowns leaning against each other while sitting on the floor, mugging for the camera. The person who posted the photo has superimposed the word “slut” on it.
And if even hinting at your sexuality makes you a “bad girl”, well why not go all the way? The notion that you may as well be hung for a sheep as a goat makes sense to many teenaged minds. Having been branded a “bad girl, dismissed as a “slut,” many of our “fallen” female celebrities spiral out of control.
I have to wonder how many young non-celebrities put themselves at risk using the same logic?
Back in 1970, when I was about to graduate high school, Germaine Greer published, The Female Eunuch, the book that changed the way the world looked at women’s sexuality and the way women looked at themselves. Greer wrote, "Women have somehow been separated from their libido, from their faculty of desire, from their sexuality.”
38 years later, that situation persists. Rather than relenting, the focus has shifted to younger and younger women. Girls in many high schools today are subjected to pressure to take a “purity pledge,” a pledge to remain a virgin until she marries. As Marshall McLuhan noted, the medium is the message. What message does the very name of this phenomenon convey? Purity equals sexlessness. Therefore, any girl who is sexual is impure, flawed, dirty...a slut.
And, of course, there is the unspoken but ever-present expectation that the natural outcome of any young woman reaching adulthood is marriage, undoubtedly followed soon afterwards by motherhood. Nearly half a century after the emergence of second-wave feminism, the gender straightjacket is alive and well and invading your daughter’s bedroom!
There is, on the part of many adults, an unhealthy, unsavoury fascination with young women’s hymens. A question we need to ask ourselves as a society is this: should we allow their obsession to be passed onto our daughters as focus for anxiety, for self-loathing, for self-neutering?
The Lessons of Laurel Canyon.
(originally posted Sunday, February 10, 2008)
[NOTE: If you have not seen the movie “Laurel Canyon,” this contains major spoilers]
I saw “Laurel Canyon” when it was first released in 2002. The Canyon is a famous drive in the Hollywood Hills of Los Angeles that has been home to many of the most famous names in the entertainment industry.
In the movie, Christian Bale brings his brilliant fiancee, Kate Beckinsale, to his mother’s home in Laurel Canyon. His rock-legend-turned producer mother, played by Frances McDormand, is supposed to be gone. But when they arrive she, and a motley rock band are still all about the place, as they try to put the finishing touches on a new album.
Beckinsale’s character, the daughter of an old-monied New England family, is a brilliant and accomplished scholar finishing her Ph.D. dissertation in some incredibly complex branch of genetics. She starts the film as a squeaky clean little-miss-perfect. She has always excelled at everything, always been every upper-crust parents’ dream of the perfect daughter. But as Bale, working as a resident in a psychiatric hospital, becomes more and more unavailable, Beckinsale succumbs more and more to the hedonic lifestyle of McDormand and the band.
At the climax of the movie, Bale finds Beckinsale necking with the band’s lead singer at a stoned-and-drunk party hosted by his mother. During their confrontation, Bale asks how she could have done this. “I didn’t know how,” Beckinsale’s character screams. “Know how to what?” Bale demands. “I didn’t know how to fuck up!” she cries.
I absolutely loved this line. I loved it so much that I embarrassed my wife by hissing “YES!”in the movie theatre.
That is such an important idea. We need to learn how to fuck up. Because if we don’t learn, then the first time we do so, it’s going to be a whopper.
Another way of putting this is that we need to learn how to make mistakes. We need to learn how to blow it, mess up, ruin a good thing, act stupidly, make a fool of ourselves, make bad judgements, let people down, let ourselves down. But I really wonder how many people get a chance to do this, and even more, how many people give their kids a chance to do this
I have written earlier about the growing problem, seen among counsellors at colleges and universities, of young people who cannot take the stress of living away from home. They have been protected from an early age by their parents, not only from physical harm, but from “doing the wrong thing,” from making mistakes. Without mom and dad around, they run the risk of screwing up every time they make a decision. And that is just too scary.
I occasionally see parents who are worried sick because their teen is starting to break free, and they don’t trust the kid’s judgement. Rightly so, in my opinion. Teens’ judgment is not yet completely developed, and needs to be monitored. “But then,” they ask, “how can I keep them from making mistakes, from getting into problems?”
“Don’t,” is my advice.
Now look, I am definitely not advocating allowing teens to run hog-wild and get into legal trouble or physical danger. But they NEED to fall down. They NEED to fuck up! Otherwise they will not know how to do it. And then they will be in real trouble.
The flip side of the students who can’t take being on their own are the students who, once free of mommy and daddy’s watchful eye, go totally berserk, with sex and booze and drugs and partying until they get sick, flunk out, or wind up in court.
And I see the parents who never figured out how to fuck up themselves. They see their kid do it, and instead of treating it as a teachable moment, take it as a total disaster, the ruination of their kid’s life, and proof of their utter failure as parents. I remember one couple, successful professionals, who were aghast at their teen’s behaviour, which was actually well-within the norms (no sex, no booze or drugs, no law-breaking). When I described it as fairly typical teenaged rebellion they looked at each other, then at me, and lamented, “Neither of US ever rebelled.”
And I believe them.
Most troubling of all, to me, are the young clients who come to me in various stages of depression. They have had a setback, or done something stupid, or made a serious error in judgement. They have fucked up. And now their life is ruined, over. They have no idea what to do next. And so they have to pay someone to sit and listen to them, and help them learn what they should have learned as a part of their normal development.
We are people, not paragons. As parents, our children’s lives are not our achievements, they belong to those unique human beings who are living them, for better or for worse. We must let our children get it wrong, and help them learn what to do afterward.
And when we get it wrong, we must try to accept it as an unpleasant but necessary part of life, allow ourselves to grow from the experience, and learn to forgive ourselves.
For, and this is my whole point in writing this, only by learning how to fuck up, do we learn how NOT to.
[NOTE: If you have not seen the movie “Laurel Canyon,” this contains major spoilers]
I saw “Laurel Canyon” when it was first released in 2002. The Canyon is a famous drive in the Hollywood Hills of Los Angeles that has been home to many of the most famous names in the entertainment industry.
In the movie, Christian Bale brings his brilliant fiancee, Kate Beckinsale, to his mother’s home in Laurel Canyon. His rock-legend-turned producer mother, played by Frances McDormand, is supposed to be gone. But when they arrive she, and a motley rock band are still all about the place, as they try to put the finishing touches on a new album.
Beckinsale’s character, the daughter of an old-monied New England family, is a brilliant and accomplished scholar finishing her Ph.D. dissertation in some incredibly complex branch of genetics. She starts the film as a squeaky clean little-miss-perfect. She has always excelled at everything, always been every upper-crust parents’ dream of the perfect daughter. But as Bale, working as a resident in a psychiatric hospital, becomes more and more unavailable, Beckinsale succumbs more and more to the hedonic lifestyle of McDormand and the band.
At the climax of the movie, Bale finds Beckinsale necking with the band’s lead singer at a stoned-and-drunk party hosted by his mother. During their confrontation, Bale asks how she could have done this. “I didn’t know how,” Beckinsale’s character screams. “Know how to what?” Bale demands. “I didn’t know how to fuck up!” she cries.
I absolutely loved this line. I loved it so much that I embarrassed my wife by hissing “YES!”in the movie theatre.
That is such an important idea. We need to learn how to fuck up. Because if we don’t learn, then the first time we do so, it’s going to be a whopper.
Another way of putting this is that we need to learn how to make mistakes. We need to learn how to blow it, mess up, ruin a good thing, act stupidly, make a fool of ourselves, make bad judgements, let people down, let ourselves down. But I really wonder how many people get a chance to do this, and even more, how many people give their kids a chance to do this
I have written earlier about the growing problem, seen among counsellors at colleges and universities, of young people who cannot take the stress of living away from home. They have been protected from an early age by their parents, not only from physical harm, but from “doing the wrong thing,” from making mistakes. Without mom and dad around, they run the risk of screwing up every time they make a decision. And that is just too scary.
I occasionally see parents who are worried sick because their teen is starting to break free, and they don’t trust the kid’s judgement. Rightly so, in my opinion. Teens’ judgment is not yet completely developed, and needs to be monitored. “But then,” they ask, “how can I keep them from making mistakes, from getting into problems?”
“Don’t,” is my advice.
Now look, I am definitely not advocating allowing teens to run hog-wild and get into legal trouble or physical danger. But they NEED to fall down. They NEED to fuck up! Otherwise they will not know how to do it. And then they will be in real trouble.
The flip side of the students who can’t take being on their own are the students who, once free of mommy and daddy’s watchful eye, go totally berserk, with sex and booze and drugs and partying until they get sick, flunk out, or wind up in court.
And I see the parents who never figured out how to fuck up themselves. They see their kid do it, and instead of treating it as a teachable moment, take it as a total disaster, the ruination of their kid’s life, and proof of their utter failure as parents. I remember one couple, successful professionals, who were aghast at their teen’s behaviour, which was actually well-within the norms (no sex, no booze or drugs, no law-breaking). When I described it as fairly typical teenaged rebellion they looked at each other, then at me, and lamented, “Neither of US ever rebelled.”
And I believe them.
Most troubling of all, to me, are the young clients who come to me in various stages of depression. They have had a setback, or done something stupid, or made a serious error in judgement. They have fucked up. And now their life is ruined, over. They have no idea what to do next. And so they have to pay someone to sit and listen to them, and help them learn what they should have learned as a part of their normal development.
We are people, not paragons. As parents, our children’s lives are not our achievements, they belong to those unique human beings who are living them, for better or for worse. We must let our children get it wrong, and help them learn what to do afterward.
And when we get it wrong, we must try to accept it as an unpleasant but necessary part of life, allow ourselves to grow from the experience, and learn to forgive ourselves.
For, and this is my whole point in writing this, only by learning how to fuck up, do we learn how NOT to.
Monday, February 2, 2009
There is no safety anywhere
(originally posted Saturday, May 5, 2007)
That is something I truly believe. We spend so much of our energy trying to be safe, and trying to make things safer. We avoid taking any risks, protecting ourselves and our families. We are willing to give up so very much for safety. But safety is an illusion.
The reason I believe so is that we live in a capricious universe.
A number of years ago, a young girl of about 15 was in the stairwell of her high school, in between classes along with a large number of other students. According to witnesses, a bright, glowing ball dropped through the ceiling and down the back of her blouse. The upper half of her body burst into flame. After the fire was extinguished she was rushed to hospital where she died of third degree burns. Based on eyewitness description and expert analysis, the medical examiner decided she’d been killed by ball lightening.
I’m sure her parents, her teachers, and she felt she was perfectly safe where she was. But we cannot foresee all dangers, and I doubt ball lightening is on anyone’s radar. Many other freak accidents occur on a regular basis. My point is this: no matter how safe we think we are, there will always be dangers. So, it is important not to be inordinately cautious.
Counsellors at colleges and universities say they are seeing increasing numbers of young people who cannot deal with living away from their parents. Protected and kept from all risk until they reach 18, they drop out and return home, unable to cope with standing on their own two feet. Meanwhile, other counsellors tell of young people deliberately courting danger, taking stupid risks. They say they do it to feel alive. Background checks reveal they were forbidden from taking any risks as children.
Risk is a part of being alive. When we try to avoid all risks, what we are avoiding is real life. A fear of death is, at its core, a fear of living. Trying to maximize safety makes us miss out on many meaningful parts of life. Just as the price of never risking having your heart broken is never having dared to love, the price of trying to never experience any physical risk is never having dared to live.
Meanwhile, the pursuit of safety results in tremendous amounts of misdirected energy. In the United States, for instance, many people insist they need to be armed to protect themselves. Yet, an estimated thirty-thousand U.S. citizens are killed by gunshot every year. That is more than an average year’s fatal car accidents plus all the U.S. personnel who have died in Iraq, plus all of the people who died on 9/11. And yet, all the public focus and energy goes toward border security.
I do not mean that it is okay to be reckless or imprudent. We are well advised to take steps to minimize real danger, things like wearing seatbelts when driving, or not walking alone through a dangerous area at night. But we need to remember that there really is no way to be safe from all harm. To live our lives, we must face our fears, and accept such risks as cannot be avoided in living a full and meaningful life.
For many years I have tried to let myself be guided by these words:
The is no safety, and there is no end. The word must be heard in silence; there must be darkness to see the stars. The dance is always danced above the hollow place, above the terrible abyss. – Ursula K. LeGuin; The Farthest Shore.
That is something I truly believe. We spend so much of our energy trying to be safe, and trying to make things safer. We avoid taking any risks, protecting ourselves and our families. We are willing to give up so very much for safety. But safety is an illusion.
The reason I believe so is that we live in a capricious universe.
A number of years ago, a young girl of about 15 was in the stairwell of her high school, in between classes along with a large number of other students. According to witnesses, a bright, glowing ball dropped through the ceiling and down the back of her blouse. The upper half of her body burst into flame. After the fire was extinguished she was rushed to hospital where she died of third degree burns. Based on eyewitness description and expert analysis, the medical examiner decided she’d been killed by ball lightening.
I’m sure her parents, her teachers, and she felt she was perfectly safe where she was. But we cannot foresee all dangers, and I doubt ball lightening is on anyone’s radar. Many other freak accidents occur on a regular basis. My point is this: no matter how safe we think we are, there will always be dangers. So, it is important not to be inordinately cautious.
Counsellors at colleges and universities say they are seeing increasing numbers of young people who cannot deal with living away from their parents. Protected and kept from all risk until they reach 18, they drop out and return home, unable to cope with standing on their own two feet. Meanwhile, other counsellors tell of young people deliberately courting danger, taking stupid risks. They say they do it to feel alive. Background checks reveal they were forbidden from taking any risks as children.
Risk is a part of being alive. When we try to avoid all risks, what we are avoiding is real life. A fear of death is, at its core, a fear of living. Trying to maximize safety makes us miss out on many meaningful parts of life. Just as the price of never risking having your heart broken is never having dared to love, the price of trying to never experience any physical risk is never having dared to live.
Meanwhile, the pursuit of safety results in tremendous amounts of misdirected energy. In the United States, for instance, many people insist they need to be armed to protect themselves. Yet, an estimated thirty-thousand U.S. citizens are killed by gunshot every year. That is more than an average year’s fatal car accidents plus all the U.S. personnel who have died in Iraq, plus all of the people who died on 9/11. And yet, all the public focus and energy goes toward border security.
I do not mean that it is okay to be reckless or imprudent. We are well advised to take steps to minimize real danger, things like wearing seatbelts when driving, or not walking alone through a dangerous area at night. But we need to remember that there really is no way to be safe from all harm. To live our lives, we must face our fears, and accept such risks as cannot be avoided in living a full and meaningful life.
For many years I have tried to let myself be guided by these words:
The is no safety, and there is no end. The word must be heard in silence; there must be darkness to see the stars. The dance is always danced above the hollow place, above the terrible abyss. – Ursula K. LeGuin; The Farthest Shore.
Being "Too Nice" to Our Kids
(originally posted Tuesday, March 13, 2007 )
Many parents resist being “too nice” to, or “coddling” their children. “The world is a tough place,” they reason, “and I need to prepare them for it.”
I would argue that this is terribly misguided. We best prepare our children for the tough parts of the world (rather than the monolithically “tough world”), by giving them a foundation of unconditional love, acceptance, and sense of self-worth.
So many people find it difficult to trust, to believe in the possibility of being loved without ulterior motives, or hidden agendas. They find it hard to believe in unconditional love, or unconditional positive regard, never having experienced it themselves. When they experience conditional acceptance, negativity, mistreatment, they don’t feel confident about rejecting this, and seeking something better. Because after all, the world is a tough place, and their role is to suck it up and deal with it.
However, people who were raised with a firm foundation of love and acceptance from their parent(s) have far less tolerance for mistreatment. They will seek an environment in which “tough” is not accepted as a given. They will seek out those people who believe that we can do better than “tough.”
Unconditional love does not mean spoiling your child, nor being a pushover. It means that we respect the personhood of our children, and lovingly accept them as they are, even when they aren’t doing what we want. Even when we are disciplining them.
And for those who have never experienced unconditional love, the quickest way to experience unconditional love is to GIVE it.
Many parents resist being “too nice” to, or “coddling” their children. “The world is a tough place,” they reason, “and I need to prepare them for it.”
I would argue that this is terribly misguided. We best prepare our children for the tough parts of the world (rather than the monolithically “tough world”), by giving them a foundation of unconditional love, acceptance, and sense of self-worth.
So many people find it difficult to trust, to believe in the possibility of being loved without ulterior motives, or hidden agendas. They find it hard to believe in unconditional love, or unconditional positive regard, never having experienced it themselves. When they experience conditional acceptance, negativity, mistreatment, they don’t feel confident about rejecting this, and seeking something better. Because after all, the world is a tough place, and their role is to suck it up and deal with it.
However, people who were raised with a firm foundation of love and acceptance from their parent(s) have far less tolerance for mistreatment. They will seek an environment in which “tough” is not accepted as a given. They will seek out those people who believe that we can do better than “tough.”
Unconditional love does not mean spoiling your child, nor being a pushover. It means that we respect the personhood of our children, and lovingly accept them as they are, even when they aren’t doing what we want. Even when we are disciplining them.
And for those who have never experienced unconditional love, the quickest way to experience unconditional love is to GIVE it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)