This is my son modeling his new streetfighter/UFC do. He's actually had a mohawk before last spring. Back then it was just a temporary holdover before DH shaved it close for the summer. Now my little samurai has informed us that since he's waging mighty battles against bad guys, he needs a cut that fits his superhero status. He's three by the way....
Ahh... so where does one draw the line. There are parents who view their child's personal expression as a luxury option only meant to be exercised following the advent of the child's 18th birthday. Even then, once the child has reached majority, some strict parameters are often given further curbing personal expression. These parameters often involve continued familial placement ("Date that person or pierce that extremity and you're outta here!"). They may also involve threats to withhold support in some way: financially, emotionally, etc.
Then there are parents who believe their child's personal expression to be a valid need but limit the mode of that expression to parentally sanctioned forays into Crayola-ville and ballet recitals. Somehow the final result ends up being a greater indicator of the parent's own sense of self worth than a showcase of the child's unique humanity....
Then there are the parents who have confused freedom of expression with nursing the growth of a rapacious, overinflated EGO in the body of a child.
There has to be a pleasant middle ground. AHA! My eureka moment came today.
Rules for Rules:
1.) There are certain rules that must be imposed because they harm the self or increase the likelihood of harm to the self. The self is composed of three basic elements: mind, body, spirit/soul.
Ex: Drugs are not good for your mind, body, or soul. That is why you should avoid them, not just because I as your parent said "No".
2.) There are certain rules that must be imposed because they involve another's right to be.
Ex: not being allowed to play the drumset at 3am --there are neighbors/other family members who we must think about.
Ex: Cleaning the living room or other common areas because such a shared space is just that: shared.
BUT: cleaning one's room? As long as conditions are not allowed to get to the point that it affects the health and/or property of other family members due to pests/mold/ fire hazards/etc. it becomes arguably questionable as to the merit of enforcing such a rule
BUT: it could then become an issue of personal harm(which refers back to rule #1) and as such should be dealt with in the context of the individual with their input sought.
WAIT!!!-----"input?" --- I know visions of free parenting are swimming through your mind with a dirty child, house in shambles, and utter chaos not following far behind....but shouldn't you desire their input? After all, if they're smart enough to clean their own room, they're certainly smart enough to see the benefit of keeping it clean OR make a case based upon their own needs otherwise. Children are human. Children have survival instincts. Survival instincts dictate that we want the best possible circumstances around us at all times...the problem is that often we don't have any idea what the best possible circumstances are or look like. That's where parental intervention comes in: "Do you like your room this messy?" Why?" Help me to see the benefit from the way that you see it?" "What about when you want to find things?"
Conversation...is...the...beginning...of...permanent...change. If there are folks who talk to their dogs...surely parents can talk to their very human children.
These are 2 guidelines for rule-making which will still allow a child's unique personal gifts, personalities, and what have you to shine. They're not only simple, but they help to seperate the life sustaining parental wisdom from the arbitrary chaff. What about it? Wrong? Right?
