Parenting Faux Pas

I am aware that an earlier monologue was called "Parenting," but it was written a number of years ago, and with an eye toward parenting toddlers to early teens. Furthermore, I am not sure that I have added it to this collection yet. So I have full reign to say what I want about raising children.

First of all, and least important, I think my kids are and have been great. They have tested my patience, my capacity for tolerance, and my every bias and prejudice since they passed the earliest years of adolescence.

Often through these diatribes, I have tended to focus, or at least reference, the propensity for stupidity that prevails among humans. Consequently, I intend to at least touch on my and my wife's least intelligence moments or decisions.

For instance, I decided when my oldest son hit teenager-hood that I would allow him to delay his entry into the ranks of the formally employed. The deal was that he could avoid a regular job so long as he was invested in his sport - lacrosse - and his academics. Now I need to clarify that he often went to work. For instance, he served as a waiter at a catering establishment that my brother owned, commencing after his sixteenth birthday. However, he worked only sporadically, and his bills were my bills.

Why, you might ask, did I make such a decision? Well, I expected him to hit the weight room three times per week, during the school year and in the summer. I also expected his participation in summer, winter, and fall league and tournament play. I didn't know if he would be good enough to play the game in college, but he had expressed an interest in that direction, and I wanted to support the quest.

(As it turned out, he was good enough to play at the next level, but to sustain the quest after the high school opportunities expired, he would have had to reconcile himself to being a specialist, a face off guy who wouldn't be on the field throughout the action, unless he was able to make a great deal of improvement during his college career.)

The foolshness of this decision had nothing to do with the pursuit of a sports career
or anything. The stupidity was this: the work ethic that he needed to develop, the one that would have enabled him to pursue a goal of collegiate athletics, was the very one I was squelching by giving him an out. I personally played two high school sports, trained for each of them, and held down various part time jobs from thirteen years old on. While it’s true that I wasn’t on a program, and that the sports I played were not as demanding thirty years ago.
Why would I have not sent the message that the boy should find a way to work his ass off to do all of the things he wanted? True, maybe I was deluding myself that I might have been a better college athlete had I been able to devote more time to the craft. But really, I know that my limitations weren’t caused by a lack of opportunity to train and play. I simply wasn’t that good. I had/have no resentment toward my parents in that I had to follow a frenetic pace and schedule. I don’t bemoan the fact that I had to pay my own way through school. I resent my parents for a set of reasons that have nothing to do with these subjects. My point is that of course I knew better. Why didn’t I simply send the message that I had personally learned and benefitted from? Stupidity.

Oh, and by the way. Even with my bonehead decision, my kids found plenty of opportunities to develop a work ethic. The circumnavigated my errors. Isn't it great that sometimes these mistakes don't quite come back to haunt?

Let's Pass Laws That Excuse Parents From Parenting - Not!

I read the local paper today, and learned about pending legislation that will limit the number of passengers that a young driver may carry in his/her vehicle. I also read in the same paper a comment from a parent bemoaning the public displays of affection witnessed in front of a local high school at dismissal time.

I am sick of the trend this country is taking. Everybody wants somebody else to be in charge of parenting our children. Of course, younger drivers should limit the number of passengers they carry. Of course, every driver should wear his set belt. Of course, school children should not turn displays of affection, which ought to be private no matter the age of the participants, into public enterprises.

If a law is passed that limits the number of passengers, or if the school does a better job of pollicing the kissers, will enything have really changed? The missing ingredient isn't the clarity or completeness of the legal code, or even the level of supervision at the school. The missing engredient is the set of values that curbs the questionable behaviors.

Parents need to acquaint their children who are younger drivers with the set of values that say a car is a potentially lethal weapon, and that every trip in a motor vehicle may end in tragedy. Also, parents need to convince their kids that showing affection toward their boyfrineds or girlfriends - in public venues - is simply in bad taste. If the children don't appreciate the value, the parents can demonstrate their point by having a gropefest right there in front of the children. Middle school and high school students will invariably find their parents' behavior disgusting, and after they vomit, the point will have been made.

My wife shared with me a conversation she had recently with a parent whose school had just adopted a uniform policy. The parent was ecstatic about the adoption of the policy, but not because the effect might be a better school environment, a cost-effective way to outfit the children, or an improvement in the relative appearance of the student body. No, this parent and others were ecstatic because they no longer had to fight with their children about their clothes choices. They were happy that a school dress code had precluded them from having to educate and influence their children.

The impetus for the Pennsylvania House Bill regarding passneger limitations is the same. Legislators crafted the bill because their constituant parents will support it. The parents will support it because they will need to have one fewer argument with their children. Many parents and studnets will refrain form carrying large numbers of passengers the minute the law is passed. That will be a positive side effect of POOR LEGISLATION.

Why poor legislation, you may ask. The answer should be obvious. The passage of the law will not eliminate the instances where young drivers carry too many passengers. You know, sometimes young drivers will BREAK the LAW! Sometimes, these young drivers fall prey to the distractions that plague young drivers, and they will sometimes have accidents. The negative side effect is that parents will be having one fewer conversation with their children about the way they should conduct themselves as they make their way through life.

Again, the complainant regarding the PDA episodes is motivated by the same faulty reasoning. If the school supervises and reduces the visible incidents, will the behavior really be changed? No, the adoption of a set of values that promotes self-discipline, and which encourages youngsters to be aware of the propriety of their behavior, will promote a resuction of the behavior.

In both cases, the most effective method for promotion of the positive behavior is the parent and all adults with whom the student comes into contact.

We will never be successful in legislating human behavior. Every adult must be responsible, to obviously different degrees, for the behavior of all younger people. The lady in the car who witnessed the PDA should have voiced her displeasure to the offenders. No, she shouldn't have confronted these people she didn't know, but she shouldn't have done nothing except go home and find a way to blame someone else.

My own three children have made it to young adulthood. Along the way, they have each crossed the boundaries that my wife and I have set, and I would guess that would have to do with both qualtiy and quantity. However, I am pretty sure they knew where we stood on each issue, and I am farily certain they crossed those boundaries with a sense that they were traviling outside a comfort zone. My wife and I worked pretty hard to advertise and edcuate about our set of values. Our kids tested those values - sometiems with impunity, and sometimes with definitive negative consequences. I don't want legislation to mitigate that process. I don't want to blame school officials when young people test boundaries.

Parents need to parent.