... Previously I talked about banning things in the home and some of the arguments against having a ban on a particular activity like Facebook, or the content of something like TV.
Another way parents get around banning something is to say "If my child is doing it, I'll just do it so I can monitor them."
Try using the argument regarding Facebook that sounds like this, "My child has a Facebook account so I need one to monitor him/her" and then replace Facebook with pornography or drugs. It would sound like this: "My son views pornography, so the best way for me to understand him is to view it myself." Or, "my daughter is smoking pot. The best way for me to understand her is to smoke it myself." REALLY?
Where does the idea come from that if a child is doing it, we as parents must be the followers and do the same? I would not allow myself to try drugs or view pornography on my own. So why would I do it just because my child was doing it? Going back to social media - why would I have to be on Facebook or any other social media just because I learned that my child is on it? Hmmm, I guess I don't, do I?
There is an argument that completely banning something can make it more tempting. I agree that this could be true, but by banning something, it also tells our children what we stand for. We can say to our kids, "We ban drugs, because we know how harmful they are for you." We can also say "We ban Facebook because there are many dangers in using Facebook that you are not aware of." (A topic for another post)
The crux of this discussion is "who's in charge?" Are we, the parents leading the way? Or are our children and society taking control?
Coincidentally, I read an opinion piece that has a different topic - How children dress - but it addresses the same argument of who's in charge. You can read the whole article here, but I will quote the part I found most interesting:
"I don't care how popular Lil' Wayne is, my son knows I would break both of his legs long before I would allow him to walk out of the house with his pants falling off his butt. Such a stance doesn't always makes me popular -- and the house does get tense from time to time -- but I'm his father, not his friend.
Friends bow to peer pressure. Parents say, "No, and that's the end of it."
The way I see it, my son can go to therapy later if my strict rules have scarred him. But I have peace knowing he'll be able to afford therapy as an adult because I didn't allow him to wear or do whatever he wanted as a kid."
Now that's a dad that's setting a standard! Eventually, therapy or not, his son will thank him for at least setting a standard. He will thank him because kids are always pushing against the boundaries or rules to see if we will stand firm and uphold them. They aren't just testing us. They actually want the boundaries so they will feel safe! Believe it or not, they really want boundaries, but the only way to see if they exist is to test them.
The bottom line of my last two posts is that as parents we can and should set standards. Is it hard work? Absolutely. Are we often alone. You bet. Are "bans" necessary some times? Oh yes.
So we have to ask ourselves - Do we want our kids merely to be our friends? Or are we more concerned about setting a firm foundation in their hearts as we work to build moral character while working on a relationship with them?
I'm with the dad in that article.
No comments:
Post a Comment