kids and their furniture?
dkhedmo
furniture you provide for them in their bedrooms and playrooms? Do you
feel the stuff is theirs to do with as they please, or do you feel it
belongs to the family as a whole and expect things to be treated with a
certain amount of care?
Do you feel differently about items that are specifically kid
sized/designed for kids than you do about regular furniture pieces that
are in the kid areas? For example, a kid sized table and chairs set: how
would you feel about the child purposefully drawing a picture on the
table in marker that could not be removed easily? How would you feel
about marker markings on a mattress or dresser? Stickers on a lamp? Glue
on the bedding?
I'm sure you can all see where this is going! We are in a very small
place and the only area we can guarantee ds1 5.5yo freedom from the
maurauding toddler little brother is his room, which we keep gated off
so he can have all his "big boy" stuff, which includes various craft
supplies, as ds1 loves to make pictures etc and it keeps him quite
happily busy often. Unfortunately, he also tends to space out and do
goofy little things without thinking. I don't think he's being
purposefully destructive, but it's really annoying to see scribbling on
the new boombox, marker on the mattress or sheets, inky fingers smeared
on the lamp.
Some of the furniture in question are things that might be handed down
to said maurauding toddler in time, or be put into other areas of the
home such as a guest room, etc when we are in place with more space and
start aquiring more furniture.
Opinions?
-Karen-
Ericka Kammerer
> Just wondering about how others feel about how your kids treat the
> furniture you provide for them in their bedrooms and playrooms? Do you
> feel the stuff is theirs to do with as they please, or do you feel it
> belongs to the family as a whole and expect things to be treated with a
> certain amount of care?
I think the ownership issue is a red herring. Regardless
of whether it's mine or theirs, they must still treat it with
care.
> I'm sure you can all see where this is going! We are in a very small
> place and the only area we can guarantee ds1 5.5yo freedom from the
> maurauding toddler little brother is his room, which we keep gated off
> so he can have all his "big boy" stuff, which includes various craft
> supplies, as ds1 loves to make pictures etc and it keeps him quite
> happily busy often. Unfortunately, he also tends to space out and do
> goofy little things without thinking. I don't think he's being
> purposefully destructive, but it's really annoying to see scribbling on
> the new boombox, marker on the mattress or sheets, inky fingers smeared
> on the lamp.
Personally, at that age I would say that if he
cannot use the craft supplies with an age-appropriate
amount of care, then the craft supplies get put away
and used only when an adult is able to supervise.
Actually, even if his behavior is age appropriate, I
wouldn't feel that it was okay for him to destroy
things and I would make the craft items supervised toys.
Best wishes,
Ericka
cara
>
> Do you feel differently about items that are specifically kid
> sized/designed for kids than you do about regular furniture pieces that
> are in the kid areas? For example, a kid sized table and chairs set: how
> would you feel about the child purposefully drawing a picture on the
> table in marker that could not be removed easily? How would you feel
> about marker markings on a mattress or dresser? Stickers on a lamp? Glue
> on the bedding?
>
>
>
> -Karen-
We are also in a small space, and have let our 5.5 yo daughter
'decorate' her own little desk space (stickers, doodles, whatever) as
she pleases, but I guess we've successfully drawn the line and she
doesnt' attempt such things on the 'nicer' adult furniture if that makes
sense. So, no, I'm not real strict about her stuff, although I do
expect her not to totally trash her room, but as far smaller stuff we
don't mind.
cara
Anonymama
cara <ca...@earthlink.net> wrote:
We do the same. My son has his work table (actually a tall coffee-table)
that I've given up on, and it gets stuff all over it. That's okay. But
he knows that he's not supposed to draw anywhere else, including his
bookcase, the little table where he eats breakfast, or his bed, because
I don't like how it looks.
He does occasionally draw where he shouldn't, of course -- in fact right
now he's cleaning some crayon off his playroom wall -- but he's
surprisingly good about keeping his arts and crafts stuff on that table.
--
Sara
accompanied by TK, due in April
Quoting, for users of Google Groups:
http://groups.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=14213&topic=250
dragonlady
dkhedmo <dkh...@earthlink.net> wrote:
There's really two separate questions here (at least) -- so let me try
to separate out the two that stand out for me:
First, no matter what it's on, if the child is writing on things that
aren't supposed to be written on, I'd want the craft supplies out of his
reach. And, right now, at least, it sounds like he's not ready to have
ready access to stuff like that.
However, the other question -- about how much kids should decorate
"their" stuff -- that really depended, for me, on several variables:
things like cost and size and how good it looked in the first place.
Older furniture that was already beat up might be available for
decorating, but newer stuff that was in good shape was not. When she was
small, my older daughter really liked decorating stuff, and it turned
out that she has kind of an interesting flair for it. So she had
permission, for example, to do whatever she wanted to the underside of
the top bunk (she was sleeping in the bottom bunk) and the back of the
dresser that separated "her" space. She used paints, markers, stickers
-- all kinds of things. She also asked for permission to decorate lamps
and radios. As she got older, she used things like fingernail polish to
do some of the decorating of the small electronics that were hers.
These days, even her cell phone has interesting paint patterns on it.
(She's 23 now.) The main thing was that once I gave her permission to
decorate something, exactly what she did was entirely up to her -- I
didn't have to give design approval -- and that she could only decorate
things that she had PERMISSION to decorate. Her younger brother and
sister weren't into it as much.
(Which is not to say that none of my kids ever embellished something
they weren't supposed to; I don't know many houses with children -- at
least with more than one child -- where a kid hasn't gotten to a wall or
piece of furniture at least once!)
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care
Banty
I always taught my son "we want to keep things nice". Tables get lined with
paper before a messy project, drawings go on paper.
Stickers are (mostly) temporary; I allowed him a few spots, like the sides of
the builg-in shelves in his room. It was a bear to remove when I refurbished it
eventually.
Now we're having some problems with how he goes about his historical miniatures
modelling - he's tried out colors on the side of an old hutch unthinkingly! But
the concepts are there that stuff isn't just to be trashed.
One thing to consider - one of the things that drives me crazy is when my son
was younger, or friends with *visiting* children would behave roughly toward my
son's stuff, and the parents have an 'oh well they're kids' attitude. I say "oh
well they're kids that's why they need to *learn*." What they learn at home
*will* be reflected in what they do elsewhere. And they don't unlearn it as
quickly as you think. Like, not even by time they're sharing dorm rooms!
Banty
toypup
"dkhedmo" <dkh...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:C5AEf.4579$5E3....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Just wondering about how others feel about how your kids treat the
> furniture you provide for them in their bedrooms and playrooms? Do you
> feel the stuff is theirs to do with as they please, or do you feel it
> belongs to the family as a whole and expect things to be treated with a
> certain amount of care?
I would not let my kids to destroy their furniture unless it was something
they bought with their own money, which they can't do right now. DS has
toys he buys with his own money, which I let him treat any which way he
pleases. I warn him if he loses or breaks one, I'm not buying him a new
one. The result is he treats the toys he buys with care, since it takes him
quite a while to save for anything.
Rosalie B.
lower bunk bed with permanent purple crayon, which necessitated
repainting the whole room with several coats of paint before we moved
(rented house) because it could not be removed, I didn't get anything
but washable crayons for them until they were old enough to be trusted
not to write on things that they shouldn't write on.
My kids weren't that interested in stickers, and I don't remember
having any problem with glue either.
dkhedmo <dkh...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Just wondering about how others feel about how your kids treat the
>furniture you provide for them in their bedrooms and playrooms? Do you
>feel the stuff is theirs to do with as they please, or do you feel it
>belongs to the family as a whole and expect things to be treated with a
>certain amount of care?
>
>Do you feel differently about items that are specifically kid
>sized/designed for kids than you do about regular furniture pieces that
>are in the kid areas? For example, a kid sized table and chairs set: how
>would you feel about the child purposefully drawing a picture on the
>table in marker that could not be removed easily? How would you feel
>about marker markings on a mattress or dresser? Stickers on a lamp? Glue
>on the bedding?
>
The furniture is still mine even though they can use it. We sometimes
had furniture from my mom that was mine when I was little and my dd#3
had the spool bed from my great grandfather and great grandmother that
she was named for. This was a genuine antique and there was no
question that she had to treat it with care. .
But generally the non-heirloom furniture that the kids had in their
rooms was unfinished furniture that my dh finished, or else I bought
it at the junk shop or second hand store. It was often painted. So
it wouldn't have been as serious had something happened to it (I got a
chest with drawers on one side and hanging area on the other side at a
junk shop in downtown Norfolk for $5 in 1961 and after about 15 years
of use for baby clothes, ds swung on the door and cracked it off,
which was annoying, but I figured I got my money's worth out of it.)
>I'm sure you can all see where this is going! We are in a very small
>place and the only area we can guarantee ds1 5.5yo freedom from the
>maurauding toddler little brother is his room, which we keep gated off
>so he can have all his "big boy" stuff, which includes various craft
>supplies, as ds1 loves to make pictures etc and it keeps him quite
>happily busy often. Unfortunately, he also tends to space out and do
>goofy little things without thinking. I don't think he's being
>purposefully destructive, but it's really annoying to see scribbling on
>the new boombox, marker on the mattress or sheets, inky fingers smeared
>on the lamp.
>
I once carved my initials in the newel post of the house we lived in -
I was a bit older than your ds. I know that we didn't move to that
house until I was in kindergarten so I was at least 5. I got about
halfway through and realized that my mom would know who did it, so I
switched and carved my sister's initials instead. (I changed the R to
a B.) I heard my mom ask my sister if she had done it, and my sister
quite truthfully denied it, and my mom believed her. Even at that
age, I knew that what I was doing was wrong.
I agree with others - don't let him have things that can be a problem
until he is able to use them appropriately. No permanent markers
(surely there are other types of markers which can be used just as
well)
>Some of the furniture in question are things that might be handed down
>to said maurauding toddler in time, or be put into other areas of the
>home such as a guest room, etc when we are in place with more space and
>start aquiring more furniture.
I also agree that there are things that he can probably decorate as he
wishes - like the boom box which isn't a family heirloom and will
probably break before it can be passed down. I don't know that
mattresses really matter that much if there are marks on them. No one
sees them anyway as a general rule. A lamp would annoy me, depending
on what kind of lamp it was. But most furniture that I would have in
a child's room would be furniture that could be stripped and
refinished when it was to be put to a higher use.
grandma Rosalie
-L.
dkhedmo wrote:
> Just wondering about how others feel about how your kids treat the
> furniture you provide for them in their bedrooms and playrooms? Do you
> feel the stuff is theirs to do with as they please,
No.
> or do you feel it
> belongs to the family as a whole and expect things to be treated with a
> certain amount of care?
Of course!
>
> Do you feel differently about items that are specifically kid
> sized/designed for kids than you do about regular furniture pieces that
> are in the kid areas? For example, a kid sized table and chairs set: how
> would you feel about the child purposefully drawing a picture on the
> table in marker that could not be removed easily?
Wouldn't ever happen.
> How would you feel
> about marker markings on a mattress or dresser? Stickers on a lamp? Glue
> on the bedding?
Wouldn't ever happen - the opportunity for those things to be used
unsupervised by a child who doesn't know any better simply would never
exist.
>
> I'm sure you can all see where this is going! We are in a very small
> place and the only area we can guarantee ds1 5.5yo freedom from the
> maurauding toddler little brother is his room, which we keep gated off
> so he can have all his "big boy" stuff, which includes various craft
> supplies, as ds1 loves to make pictures etc and it keeps him quite
> happily busy often. Unfortunately, he also tends to space out and do
> goofy little things without thinking. I don't think he's being
> purposefully destructive, but it's really annoying to see scribbling on
> the new boombox, marker on the mattress or sheets, inky fingers smeared
> on the lamp.
Then he isn't mature enough to use such items unsupervised. I am sure
he has many other toys he can play with in his room.
>
> Some of the furniture in question are things that might be handed down
> to said maurauding toddler in time, or be put into other areas of the
> home such as a guest room, etc when we are in place with more space and
> start aquiring more furniture.
>
> Opinions?
Seems like a no-brainer to me.
-L.
Chookie
dkhedmo <dkh...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Just wondering about how others feel about how your kids treat the
> furniture you provide for them in their bedrooms and playrooms? Do you
> feel the stuff is theirs to do with as they please, or do you feel it
> belongs to the family as a whole and expect things to be treated with a
> certain amount of care?
The latter
> Do you feel differently about items that are specifically kid
> sized/designed for kids than you do about regular furniture pieces that
> are in the kid areas? For example, a kid sized table and chairs set: how
> would you feel about the child purposefully drawing a picture on the
> table in marker that could not be removed easily? How would you feel
> about marker markings on a mattress or dresser? Stickers on a lamp? Glue
> on the bedding?
I would be pretty darn cranky about any of those things.
> I'm sure you can all see where this is going!
Yes, but how on earth did you get there?!
> We are in a very small
> place and the only area we can guarantee ds1 5.5yo freedom from the
> maurauding toddler little brother is his room, which we keep gated off
> so he can have all his "big boy" stuff, which includes various craft
> supplies, as ds1 loves to make pictures etc and it keeps him quite
> happily busy often. Unfortunately, he also tends to space out and do
> goofy little things without thinking. I don't think he's being
> purposefully destructive, but it's really annoying to see scribbling on
> the new boombox, marker on the mattress or sheets, inky fingers smeared
> on the lamp.
He's not old enough to use these things unsupervised if he forgets himself
like that. Put them away, and only allow him to use them when he's
supervised. Your Ds might not be sitting there going, "Hee hee, I'll graffiti
on this sheet so it's ruined," but at 5.5 he *is* aware that sheets are not
art materials. It isn't purposeful, but it's destruction nonetheless.
The only item that has been disfigured by DS1 around here was an easel. DS
was 2, and I didn't notice the "artwork" until later -- simply never thought
that he'd use texta on the easel rather than the paper!.
The other 'artistic' additions to the house were all perpetrated by Other
People's Children. I now know that the art items need to be out of reach of
not only DS1, but also the tallest kid at the party...
--
Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
(Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)
"In Melbourne there is plenty of vigour and eagerness, but there is
nothing worth being eager or vigorous about."
Francis Adams, The Australians, 1893.
dejablues
"dkhedmo" <dkh...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:C5AEf.4579$5E3....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> furniture you provide for them in their bedrooms and playrooms? Do you
> feel the stuff is theirs to do with as they please, or do you feel it
> belongs to the family as a whole and expect things to be treated with a
> certain amount of care?
Our kids furniture has been rummage sale/tag sale stuff, it doesn't have any
particular meaning to me, so I don't really care what they do to it. We had
sticker incidents with one bed and one dresser. Dresser still has
DragonballZ stickers on it.
DS16 has DH's great-great-grandfathers bed now, but we didn't give it to him
until he was about 12 I think.
dejablues
"Rosalie B." <gmbe...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:urq5u15ogcpmkvf9f...@4ax.com...
> >
> I once carved my initials in the newel post of the house we lived in -
> I was a bit older than your ds.
I got a little cherry nightstand at a used furniture store for 12 bucks, I
loved the style and it had a label from a furniture company in a neighboring
county.
When I was rubbing orange oil into it I took out the drawer, and some child
had written in pencil on the inside "February 13, 1946" with a bunch of
little hearts. I thought that was very sweet!
Nan
wrote:
Everything in dd1's room is old/thrift shop/yard sale stuff, so it's
not special. That said, I do teach her to respect it, as I want her
to respect the nicer furniture in the family areas.
We've had some incidents where she's put stickers on things, or drawn
on things and I've just talked to her about it and required that she
use her art/craft items in the kitchen instead. We gate the kitchen
off so her younger sister can't bother her.
Nan
dkhedmo
> Just wondering about how others feel about how your kids treat the
> furniture you provide for them in their bedrooms and playrooms?
Thanks for the input, everyone. When I was in ds' room the other day and
we were working together on cleaning up some of theses issues, I did
give him a pretty stern talking to about the situation and my
expectations that things should be kept in a reasonable condition, art
work on paper, that the items belong to the family and not just him,
respecting the home etc. I told him I was taking note of the current
condition of the items and that any further transgressions would result
in removal of something, either supplies or defaced items or both. But
then afterward I wondered whether other people had the same
expectations, or felt that once items had been given for the kids' use
they could do as they pleased with them. (I know some people who would
make a case for this scenario.)
He had had these materials available in the past in the living room,
which was more supervised, but it became an issue as Little Brother
became more mobile and I didn't want to "punish" the older one by
completely removing access to things he had free reign with in the past.
There were other big-kid items that needed protection as well, and as
part of encouraging a discontinuation of co-sleeping arrangements with
the older one, we agreed we'd put all the big boy items in the second
bedroom (which had been guest room/diaper changing facility/playroom for
both) and keep it protected from ds2 if ds1 permanently moved his
sleeping arrangements to said room.
I am going to give the situation another chance, as the alternative
would result in restraining the toddler every time ds1 wanted to work on
something, which is often. Our space is very limited and to supervise
both kids means ds1 at the kitchen table and a very exuberant toddler
stuck in a high chair or gated off from 50% of the downstairs area. Ds1
knows that if I say I will take away things or privileges that I will do
it and that he will have to put in some hard work to earn back lost
items and priviledges over time.
-Karen-
Sue
news:C5AEf.4579$5E3....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> furniture you provide for them in their bedrooms and playrooms? Do you
> feel the stuff is theirs to do with as they please, or do you feel it
> belongs to the family as a whole and expect things to be treated with a
> certain amount of care?
I feel it belongs to the family and they should treat it with care. However,
we don't have much furniture for the kids or us because we haven't been able
to afford much for them yet. DD1 is the only one with a nice bed and
mattress and that's because my mom bought it when she needed to switch to a
bed. I am in the process of redoing everyone's rooms and will be purchasing
new bedroom furniture for the other two girls. I will expect them to take
care of it.
> Do you feel differently about items that are specifically kid
> sized/designed for kids than you do about regular furniture pieces that
> are in the kid areas? For example, a kid sized table and chairs set: how
> would you feel about the child purposefully drawing a picture on the
> table in marker that could not be removed easily? How would you feel
> about marker markings on a mattress or dresser? Stickers on a lamp? Glue >
on the bedding?
DD3 got a hold of some nail polish and painted her white dresser bright red.
I was extremely upset, but at the same time, the dresser wasn't that nice.
It can be sanded and redone and that's what I plan to do. My kids are pretty
rough on our furniture and stuff so we really don't have anything nice and I
don't plan on getting anything nice until they are able to respect our stuff
more. I think teaching the kids to treat objects with respect is something
that I should have done or I have neglected to do because it does seem my
kids don't care about stuff like their dad and I do.
> Opinions?
I don't have much advice, like I said my kids don't have a lot of respect
for their stuff. I just don't really buy anything expensive or nice anymore
until they can handle themselves more. And as far as the couch in our family
room, which is horrible, it's up to me to be consistent and make them not
eat on the couch or the rug and I plan to once we have anything worth
keeping.
--
Sue (mom to three girls)
Caledonia
dkhedmo wrote:
> Just wondering about how others feel about how your kids treat the
> furniture you provide for them in their bedrooms and playrooms? Do you
> feel the stuff is theirs to do with as they please, or do you feel it
> belongs to the family as a whole and expect things to be treated with a
> certain amount of care?
Regardless of ownership, I'd expecty it to be treated with care.
> Do you feel differently about items that are specifically kid
> sized/designed for kids than you do about regular furniture pieces that
> are in the kid areas? For example, a kid sized table and chairs set: how
> would you feel about the child purposefully drawing a picture on the
> table in marker that could not be removed easily? How would you feel
> about marker markings on a mattress or dresser? Stickers on a lamp? Glue
> on the bedding?
The purposeful drawing on furniture would not go over well here.
Accidental smearing of things (like the lightswitch in the bathroom,
when DD was going to wash her hands, is totally understandable).
There's a big difference between 'the glue spilled' and 'I smeared it
all over for fun' though -- but DD1 is now 6yo; when she was 1.5yo I
wouldn't have expected her to get this.
I don't see the difference between kid-sized or not, but again, my
perspective is one where kid-sized clothes are always being handed
down, as are kid-sized furniture and toys.
> I'm sure you can all see where this is going! We are in a very small
> place and the only area we can guarantee ds1 5.5yo freedom from the
> maurauding toddler little brother is his room, which we keep gated off
> so he can have all his "big boy" stuff, which includes various craft
> supplies, as ds1 loves to make pictures etc and it keeps him quite
> happily busy often. Unfortunately, he also tends to space out and do
> goofy little things without thinking. I don't think he's being
> purposefully destructive, but it's really annoying to see scribbling on
> the new boombox, marker on the mattress or sheets, inky fingers smeared
> on the lamp.
I can't say how I see scribbling on a boombox as accidental, but I tend
to get more wound up about people mistreating furniture than several of
my friends. Most of our furniture is rather old -- not heirloom
quality, but solid dovetailed oak and maple stuff that is built to
withstand use, so I really do expect that within the bounds of normal
use, there will be no damage. I know that particleboard dressers will
collapse if a kid bumps into them or accidentally spills water on them,
though, so perhaps what I define as 'normal use' is a higher threshold
of mistreatment than modern furniture can take...
> Some of the furniture in question are things that might be handed down
> to said maurauding toddler in time, or be put into other areas of the
> home such as a guest room, etc when we are in place with more space and
> start aquiring more furniture.
In our playroom and in both girls' bedrooms are *huge* bulletin boards
(4' x 4', homasote, covered with fabric), so the incentive is that they
can make anything and have ample space to put it up to 'decorate' their
rooms.
Caledonia
Nikki
I'm with Ericka. I would probably also designate an easel with and over
sized tablet of paper or table for him to do whatever he wants on/with and
then make everything else of limits. I'd remove all craft things and give
him one item at a time and either supervise or be very concrete about where
that item can be used (ie at table or easel only) and then teach from there.
--
Nikki
Hunter 4/99
Luke 4/01
Thing One and Thing Two :-) EDD 4/06
Welches
"Nikki" <kava...@iw.net> wrote in message
news:k7-dndcpsqE...@prairiewave.com...
totally accidental. I'd give him a chance while you explain that he
shouldn't do this. Then provide a packet of wipes or a damp cloth, and tell
him that he must wipe his fingers on that.
Scribbling on the boombox (whatever that is)doesn't sound like it could be
accidental, so I would either make them erase it if possible, clean it
myself instead of doing something for him (like reading a story/going to the
park)-and say so: "I wanted to take you to the park, but I'm going to have
to clean this up instead. What a pity!" I did this with #1 just after #2 was
born, and she hasn't ever scribbled on something she shouldn't have
since-she'll ask if she's not sure or take away the boom box.
If he continues, I would reduce him to a pencil, rubber and piece of paper.
You can say that he can't use anything that doesn't clean up easily.
Debbie
Nikki
> Yes, I'd agree, generally. But inky fingers, and marker on the sheets
> can be totally accidental. I'd give him a chance while you explain
> that he shouldn't do this.
I went back and re-read. The kid in question is 5.5yo. That is pretty old
to be up to these kind of shennangans ;-) I think I'd implement some other
kids of consequences as well. I was thinking a younger child. Oh - and I'd
definately get only washable markers!!
Welches
> Welches wrote:
>
>> Yes, I'd agree, generally. But inky fingers, and marker on the sheets
>> can be totally accidental. I'd give him a chance while you explain
>> that he shouldn't do this.
>
> I went back and re-read. The kid in question is 5.5yo. That is pretty
> old to be up to these kind of shennangans ;-) I think I'd implement some
> other kids of consequences as well. I was thinking a younger child. Oh -
> and I'd definately get only washable markers!!
>
posts). I thought 1.5 was reasonable. 5.5yo isn't in my books. Heck #2
(2.25yo) wouldn't get away with scribbling on the furniture.
But inky fingers can just be that they tend to get inky (stamping and ink
pads are strictly supervised for that reason with ours) and then don't clean
them before they touch something. Tell them not to lean on the bed while
colouring (#2 did this a couple of weeks ago-and poked a hole in the paper,
hence felt tip on the sheets) and provide a table or easle as someone else
suggested. They're old enough to understand at 5yo.
Debbie
toto
>One thing to consider - one of the things that drives me crazy is when my son
>was younger, or friends with *visiting* children would behave roughly toward my
>son's stuff, and the parents have an 'oh well they're kids' attitude. I say "oh
>well they're kids that's why they need to *learn*." What they learn at home
>*will* be reflected in what they do elsewhere. And they don't unlearn it as
>quickly as you think. Like, not even by time they're sharing dorm rooms!
When my ds was 3, he had a collection of blown easter eggs that we had
decorated. He was extremely careful with them as they were very
delicate. He kept them for around 2 years. Then one day, he had a
friend come over (they were around 5 by then) and he showed his
friend the collection. This friend threw them and stomped on them
and destroyed them all. My son was very upset. The friend's parents
didn't think much of it as after all they were just *easter eggs.* Ds
never invited this boy home after that though they still played at
school and were friends there.
OTOH, my own dd had some destructive behavior at 3 when she
went to play with her friend (the boy's sister, btw). The problem at
this age though was a lack of supervision. The girl's dad had a
broken leg and let the two 3 year olds play upstairs in the bedroom.
He didn't hear them pillow fighting. One of the pillows broke and
started shedding feathers all over and the girls thought it was such
fun that they took the feathers out of a second pillow and were
throwing them all over. I really didn't consider that dd's fault or
her friend's fault though as they were 3, not 5 and both girls were
involved in the playing.
--
Dorothy
There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..
The Outer Limits
dragonlady
toto <scar...@wicked.witch> wrote:
To say nothing of the fact that two 3 yo's left unsupervised is just not
a very good idea!
And what they broke didn't have sentimental value -- it's just a mess to
clean up.
Chookie
dkhedmo <dkh...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> I am going to give the situation another chance, as the alternative
> would result in restraining the toddler every time ds1 wanted to work on
> something, which is often. Our space is very limited and to supervise
> both kids means ds1 at the kitchen table and a very exuberant toddler
> stuck in a high chair or gated off from 50% of the downstairs area.
Does the exuberant toddler not like doing artwork? You could supervise them
both together, at opposite ends of the table, with their own equipment.
dragonlady
Chookie <ehreb...@fowlspambegone.com.au> wrote:
> In article <1MJEf.961$UF1...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> dkhedmo <dkh...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > I am going to give the situation another chance, as the alternative
> > would result in restraining the toddler every time ds1 wanted to work on
> > something, which is often. Our space is very limited and to supervise
> > both kids means ds1 at the kitchen table and a very exuberant toddler
> > stuck in a high chair or gated off from 50% of the downstairs area.
>
When I had a 5 yo who liked doing art, and two toddlers who got into her
stuff, the playpen got a real workout: it's where the 5 yo did her art
projects! I don't remember if it was my idea or hers the first time --
hers, probably -- but any time she wanted to do stuff that had to be
kept out of reach of her siblings, she took it into the playpen and did
it there. The babies didn't have to be restrained, she was still out
where I could see her and converse with her, and it worked out really
well.
Sue
> When I had a 5 yo who liked doing art, and two toddlers who got into her
> stuff, the playpen got a real workout:
Yes, I second the playpen. When I had multiple children of different ages is
when I used the playpen the most. The older kids loved the playpen because
they could play with their little pieces and/or the little ones could play
and the older ones could do their thing. Saved my sanity a lot.
Catherine Woodgold
I think it's nice for kids to have SOME things that
they're free to treat pretty much as they like, and
SOME things that they have to treat with care.
The first category gives them freedom and opportunity
to develop creativity, as well as possibly a way
to learn on their own from their own mistakes.
The second category teaches them appropriate behaviour.
It might be nice to give a child one piece of furniture that
they're allowed to colour and paint and draw on as
much as they like. Probably not to be allowed to
cut up or destroy, though. (Though see the
Project Lab pages about letting kids take
things apart as a sort-of creative activity
http://borntoexplore.org/plab/plab.html
After the child is finished with it, it
could be repainted.
However, I don't think it's necessary for
every child to have a piece of furniture like that.
They could have other outlets for creativity
or other ways to take control of a territory:
some kids might have the freedom to arrange the
furniture in their room how they want, for
example. Or decide which shelves are for toys.
I think it's up to the parents to decide which
items of furniture, if any, need to be treated with
care and which can be coloured or destroyed
by the child. (If allowing a child to
actually take the furniture apart, there
could also be safety issues.) I think it's usually
nice to keep things in a condition where they
can eventually be given away or sold and
used by another family.
Another issue: if a child writes on something
or partially destroys it, the same child when older
might not like the destruction or even remember
doing it, and might even blame the parents for letting
them do that. With some justification, perhaps.
This may apply more to 2-year-olds destroying
things than 5-year-olds.
Catherine Woodgold
Washable markers should be fine.
If you take things away, you can do it in a way
that doesn't seem too punitive: just a
necessity.
Banty
>
>On 2 Feb 2006 20:17:29 -0800, Banty <Banty_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>>One thing to consider - one of the things that drives me crazy is when my son
>>was younger, or friends with *visiting* children would behave roughly toward my
>>son's stuff, and the parents have an 'oh well they're kids' attitude. I say "oh
>>well they're kids that's why they need to *learn*." What they learn at home
>>*will* be reflected in what they do elsewhere. And they don't unlearn it as
>>quickly as you think. Like, not even by time they're sharing dorm rooms!
>
>When my ds was 3, he had a collection of blown easter eggs that we had
>decorated. He was extremely careful with them as they were very
>delicate. He kept them for around 2 years. Then one day, he had a
>friend come over (they were around 5 by then) and he showed his
>friend the collection. This friend threw them and stomped on them
>and destroyed them all. My son was very upset. The friend's parents
>didn't think much of it as after all they were just *easter eggs.* Ds
>never invited this boy home after that though they still played at
>school and were friends there.
>
It isn't just the kids.
When my son was younger (in fact, until recently and he's 13) he was really into
die-cast little cars (like Matchbox). We'd always put them carefully away into
boxes with slots for them or my son would park them in rows to put them away.
One evening, I had friends over, and he was playing cars with their daughter,
and they had pretty much taken them *all* out. When it was time to go home, he
and the girl started cleaning up (he had to initiate). My friend, her father,
seeing this, thought he'd speed the process up and 'make it fun' by having the
kids pitch the cars across the room into a toy box! She and her Dad were
throwing them, with them smashing agaisnt each other, chipping paint, with my
son crying and objecting, the puzzled Dad saying to my son "What's WRONG??". I
intervened and said "oh, we'll take care of that" and later had to explain to my
son that *this* time it didn't work out to have his friend help him clean up as
usual but he should still have his friends help him clean up before they go
home.
ARrgggh. You could always tell which ones got thrown into the toy box before I
went to his room to see what the commotion was about.
Banty
dragonlady
Banty <Banty_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
Did you explain to the father that your son was careful to not chip his
matchbox cars?
Frankly, it's a mistake I could see ME making -- my kids' toy cars were
not something they were that careful about, and throwing them into the
toybox is how we would have taken care of them. I'd have appreciated a
parent explaining to me that what I was doing was violating their kids'
sense of the right way to care for their items; it would have given me
a chance to, first, apologize, and, second demonstrate to my own kids a
different approach to caring for toys.
We did have one friend with a daughter who took extraordinary care of
her toys. There were some things that she just put up and didn't get
out when we visited -- my kids weren't particularly distructive, but,
for example, the "filler" pieces in those foam puzzles were things
they'd just throw away, while she liked to have even those tiny filler
pieces put back in place. (Her kid sister, by nature, was closer to my
kids -- and the two of them had to do some serious work to learn to
share space when they got older!)
>
> ARrgggh. You could always tell which ones got thrown into the toy box before
> I
> went to his room to see what the commotion was about.
>
> Banty
>
--
Banty
dragonlady says...
Well, this was something where all my friend should have needed to do was to let
his daughter follow my son's lead. Or at least have known that his change of
plan wasn't working when my son started objecting and crying! (He was 4 or 5.)
I mean, as the adult I can be more polite and articulate than "nooooo NO NO
don't DOOO that! Waaaaahhhhh!", but I do think my son *was* conveying the
essential message! And as the adult I don't necessarily need to instruct or
reform anyone; just get everyone out of an awkward situation and save the toys.
It wouldn't be necessary or even my place to explain things to him. If we
shared housing, then it would make sense. (The Dad is a very good and
reasonable human being, BTW, just a tad dense on some stuff.)
This is really my *point*. That a really casual attitude towards furniture (and
toys) *will* come out in how one treats others' things.
Banty
Catherine Woodgold
> I am going to give the situation another chance, as the alternative
> would result in restraining the toddler every time ds1 wanted to work on
> something, which is often. Our space is very limited and to supervise
> both kids means ds1 at the kitchen table and a very exuberant toddler
> stuck in a high chair or gated off from 50% of the downstairs area. Ds1
> knows that if I say I will take away things or privileges that I will do
> it and that he will have to put in some hard work to earn back lost
> items and priviledges over time.
I don't think that's the only alternative. Other alternatives
could be: restraining the toddler at times, but not necessarily
every time the older one wants to do crafts; allowing crafts
only when the toddler is sleeping; perhaps teaching the
toddler to stay away from crafts; removing all other chairs
from the kitchen table so the toddler can't reach the
top of the table. There may be other alternatives.
A combination of the last two might be workable,
especially if you pay more attention than usual to the
toddler at those times.
I think the way you're talking about taking away privileges
and earning them back is very much a punishment paradigm.
That can be OK, but I believe it's better to use other
methods than punishment if possible. I believe a parent
may get away with using a certain amount of punishment but
each bit of punishment tips the balance of the relationship
in an unfortunate direction -- for example towards a child
who will use punishment or defiance against the parent.
Instead of framing it as a punishment, you could have taken
away things like permanent markers with a non-punitive
explanation along the lines that you feel you're forced
to supervise their use to ensure that the furniture is
safe, that you regret any inconvenience to the child,
and that you expect that soon the child will have developed
and demonstrated the level of responsibility that would
allow use of markers unsupervised. You could then go on
to point out recent examples of the child's rapid
improvement in responsibility in other areas. by way of
praising the child.
With punishment, the parent's purpose is to cause the child
inconvenience or suffering in order to teach the child
something. With logical consequences, there is some
other purpose, such as directly protecting the
furniture. The child may interpret it as a punishment
even if you don't think of it that way; but I think
it's better to frame things as logical consequences
if possible. If you model purposely doing things primarily
to cause inconvenience, the child may do that back to
you later.
Catherine Woodgold
> "I wanted to take you to the park, but I'm going to have
> to clean this up instead. What a pity!"
I think that's good because you're not making it
sound like a punishment. So you don't get into
reverberations of revenge going back and forth
between parent and child (power struggle). If you
feel genuine regret about missing the park (I would)
and express it, then the child may feel you're
on his/her side.
Sometimes a child's actions such as writing
on furniture may be expressions of revenge
against the parent, or vague expressions of
freedom, dignity and defiance that the child
wouldn't feel were necessary if the child wasn't
experiencing punishments from time to time.
It's better to be in a mutually cooperative
relationship.
Catherine Woodgold
>
> Does the exuberant toddler not like doing artwork? You could supervise them
> both together, at opposite ends of the table, with their own equipment.
Excellent idea!! the toddler could have edible
finger paint, for example.
toto
wrote:
I third that suggestion. My son used to play with all his toys that
had little parts in the playpen and his sister could watch but not
destroy his creations.
toypup
"Banty" <Banty_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:ds376...@drn.newsguy.com...
If my child had something he really wanted to care for, I'd tell him he
might want not want to take it out for the playdate. Matchbox cars are
normally played with in a somewhat rough manner (I would assume, DS doesn't
care for them). If the cars were to be played with gently, he should either
keep them locked up or make plenty sure his friend (and everyone else) knew
how carefully they should be handled before taking them out. I would assume
the dad didn't know they weren't to be played with like a normal toy. And
since you had a toybox, he thought naturally that's where they went. I
would have explained to the dad why your son was so upset so that your son
would be able to verbalize it next time.
Banty
The problem is - how could we have anticipated that they'd be thrown across the
room?? (That's not playing like a normal toy IMO.) Perhaps some kids like to
throw their cars around, that's not how my son's way of playing, and that's not
how he and the girl were playing. And the toy box was full of the larger, bulky
toys (a large toy box isn't much good for zillions of little cars), I don't
think it's so obvious that some toy box across the room would be where these go,
let alone that they be thrown across the room to it (that was the Dad's idea of
how to make cleanup fun...)
The thing is - why would it be assumed that kids would play roughly with
something like that? Which things could we know that *other* kids would play
roughly with? *Can* a kid have treasured things like those Easter eggs on
display? Or is everything of interest and value to be hidden away. That's
nuts. Why is the onus on the *nondestructive* use to have to be proactively
protective, rather than on the rough usage be assumed?
It's it better to teach that things be treated well, and the category of things
that can be treated very roughly is few, and never what is others', unless
that's what the others are doing? I think so. It makes for a kid who will
engage decently with the rest of the world as he grows up.
Banty
bizby40
>>might want not want to take it out for the playdate
> The problem is - how could we have anticipated that they'd be thrown
> across the
> room?? (That's not playing like a normal toy IMO.)
They might not normally be thrown across the room, but it's quite
normal to crash them into each other. I don't think you could
have anticipated what happened, but I think that after it happened
once, you likely put some kind of protection into place to make
sure it never happened again.
FWIW, I do think the dad should have asked where the
cars went before putting them away. And I personally
would *never* have thrown a hard toy across the room
(stuffed animals or soft balls maybe). And he *certainly*
should have stopped immediately when your son got
upset. So, yeah, he was really being clueless.
Bizby
toypup
> The problem is - how could we have anticipated that they'd be thrown
> across the
> room?? (That's not playing like a normal toy IMO.) Perhaps some kids
> like to
> throw their cars around, that's not how my son's way of playing, and
> that's not
> how he and the girl were playing. And the toy box was full of the larger,
> bulky
> toys (a large toy box isn't much good for zillions of little cars), I
> don't
> think it's so obvious that some toy box across the room would be where
> these go,
> let alone that they be thrown across the room to it (that was the Dad's
> idea of
> how to make cleanup fun...)
I think it must have been obvious to the dad that the toys belonged in the
toybox. It didn't sound like he was being malicious and wanted to destroy
your son's toys.
>
> The thing is - why would it be assumed that kids would play roughly with
> something like that?
Maybe you didn't assume they did because yours doesn't play like that. My
DS doesn't play with cars, but when I think of Matchbox cars, I think of
burying them in the sand, crashing them together, etc. That is my
expectation of normal use for those cars. I'm sure a thousand people will
now chime in that their kids don't play like that, but that is my
expectation.
Which things could we know that *other* kids would play
> roughly with? *Can* a kid have treasured things like those Easter eggs on
> display? Or is everything of interest and value to be hidden away.
> That's
> nuts. Why is the onus on the *nondestructive* use to have to be
> proactively
> protective, rather than on the rough usage be assumed?
Because, as you have found, not every child is as well-trained or gentle as
yours. If there is something that is of value, then it should be protected
when others are over or else suffer the consequences. Now, I don't think
it's right that other kids might be more destructive, but such is life.
Knowing that other children may be more destructive, the toys should be
hidden away when child guests arrive, unless you know the children and know
they are gentle.
>
> It's it better to teach that things be treated well, and the category of
> things
> that can be treated very roughly is few, and never what is others', unless
> that's what the others are doing? I think so. It makes for a kid who
> will
> engage decently with the rest of the world as he grows up.
True, but you can't teach this to other children, only your own. Therefore,
if other children will be around who are more destructive, the your child
needs to protect his things or risk having them destroyed or don't invite
the destructive children.
-L.
toto wrote:
> When my ds was 3, he had a collection of blown easter eggs that we had
> decorated. He was extremely careful with them as they were very
> delicate. He kept them for around 2 years. Then one day, he had a
> friend come over (they were around 5 by then) and he showed his
> friend the collection. This friend threw them and stomped on them
> and destroyed them all. My son was very upset. The friend's parents
> didn't think much of it as after all they were just *easter eggs.* Ds
> never invited this boy home after that though they still played at
> school and were friends there.
If they were that important to you or your son, they shoud never have
been brought out in the first place. It's a no-brainer.
>
> OTOH, my own dd had some destructive behavior at 3 when she
> went to play with her friend (the boy's sister, btw). The problem at
> this age though was a lack of supervision. The girl's dad had a
> broken leg and let the two 3 year olds play upstairs in the bedroom.
> He didn't hear them pillow fighting. One of the pillows broke and
> started shedding feathers all over and the girls thought it was such
> fun that they took the feathers out of a second pillow and were
> throwing them all over. I really didn't consider that dd's fault or
> her friend's fault though as they were 3, not 5 and both girls were
> involved in the playing.
And next time they'll find some extension cords, sharp objects or guns
to play with. Great friends you have, there, and great judgement, too.
-L.
toto
>
>toto wrote:
>> When my ds was 3, he had a collection of blown easter eggs that we had
>> decorated. He was extremely careful with them as they were very
>> delicate. He kept them for around 2 years. Then one day, he had a
>> friend come over (they were around 5 by then) and he showed his
>> friend the collection. This friend threw them and stomped on them
>> and destroyed them all. My son was very upset. The friend's parents
>> didn't think much of it as after all they were just *easter eggs.* Ds
>> never invited this boy home after that though they still played at
>> school and were friends there.
>
>If they were that important to you or your son, they shoud never have
>been brought out in the first place. It's a no-brainer.
He was 5, he wanted to show his friend his collection. Why would he
expect a friend to destroy anything that was his.
>>
>> OTOH, my own dd had some destructive behavior at 3 when she
>> went to play with her friend (the boy's sister, btw). The problem at
>> this age though was a lack of supervision. The girl's dad had a
>> broken leg and let the two 3 year olds play upstairs in the bedroom.
>> He didn't hear them pillow fighting. One of the pillows broke and
>> started shedding feathers all over and the girls thought it was such
>> fun that they took the feathers out of a second pillow and were
>> throwing them all over. I really didn't consider that dd's fault or
>> her friend's fault though as they were 3, not 5 and both girls were
>> involved in the playing.
>
>And next time they'll find some extension cords, sharp objects or guns
>to play with. Great friends you have, there, and great judgement, too.
>
The house was reasonably child-proofed. The dad did use poor
judgement and his wife was pretty upset with him, but then you would
never make such a mistake as you are the perfect mom... NOT
>-L.
Chookie
an...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Catherine Woodgold) wrote:
> I think it's nice for kids to have SOME things that
> they're free to treat pretty much as they like, and
> SOME things that they have to treat with care.
> The first category gives them freedom and opportunity
> to develop creativity, as well as possibly a way
> to learn on their own from their own mistakes.
> The second category teaches them appropriate behaviour.
For myself, I find that these categories are dictated by the permanence of the
materials. There is nothing wrong with cutting a sheet of blank paper into
little bits, for example (and all the bits better go into the rubbish bin!)
but I would be pretty angry if DS1 took an axe and did the same thing to his
wardrobe! Paper, leaves and twigs are disposable. The furniture and the
garden shrubs are not. If unsure of the category, see Mummy.
darth_b...@yahoo.com
Anonymama wrote:
> In article <rmAEf.4583$5E3...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> cara <ca...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > dkhedmo wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Do you feel differently about items that are specifically kid
> > > sized/designed for kids than you do about regular furniture pieces that
> > > are in the kid areas? For example, a kid sized table and chairs set: how
> > > would you feel about the child purposefully drawing a picture on the
> > > table in marker that could not be removed easily? How would you feel
> > > about marker markings on a mattress or dresser? Stickers on a lamp? Glue
> > > on the bedding?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -Karen-
> >
> > We are also in a small space, and have let our 5.5 yo daughter
> > 'decorate' her own little desk space (stickers, doodles, whatever) as
> > she pleases, but I guess we've successfully drawn the line and she
> > doesnt' attempt such things on the 'nicer' adult furniture if that makes
> > sense. So, no, I'm not real strict about her stuff, although I do
> > expect her not to totally trash her room, but as far smaller stuff we
> > don't mind.
>
> We do the same. My son has his work table (actually a tall coffee-table)
> that I've given up on, and it gets stuff all over it. That's okay. But
> he knows that he's not supposed to draw anywhere else, including his
> bookcase, the little table where he eats breakfast, or his bed, because
> I don't like how it looks.
>
> He does occasionally draw where he shouldn't, of course -- in fact right
> now he's cleaning some crayon off his playroom wall -- but he's
> surprisingly good about keeping his arts and crafts stuff on that table.
> --
> Sara
> accompanied by TK, due in April
We took this approach too. Theirs, within reason. I think the
underlying principle was not to disable the functionality of the
object. So stickers on lamps, desks, clocks and other flattish surfaces
was okay. Dropping them from a height was not. The other thought was
that the room and contents should be reasonably presentable,
age-appropriately. So stickers, drawings, even little engravings on the
furniture would be okay, slathering them with mud or black paint would
not.
DB
Banty
>
>
>"Banty" <Banty_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>news:ds3uu...@drn.newsguy.com...
>> In article <MKeFf.22255$Jd....@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>, toypup says...
>>>If my child had something he really wanted to care for, I'd tell him he
>>>might want not want to take it out for the playdate
>
>> The problem is - how could we have anticipated that they'd be thrown
>> across the
>> room?? (That's not playing like a normal toy IMO.)
>
>They might not normally be thrown across the room, but it's quite
>normal to crash them into each other. I don't think you could
>have anticipated what happened, but I think that after it happened
>once, you likely put some kind of protection into place to make
>sure it never happened again.
Oh, it only happened once, although we had these friends over again. I think
they 'got it', and also after that my son didn't pull out alllllll the cars to
make the clean up so daunting to begin with.
>
>FWIW, I do think the dad should have asked where the
>cars went before putting them away. And I personally
>would *never* have thrown a hard toy across the room
>(stuffed animals or soft balls maybe). And he *certainly*
>should have stopped immediately when your son got
>upset. So, yeah, he was really being clueless.
He was being the fun dad coming up with a way to make a clean up job fun. It's
just that his idea was taking these pristine little cars and smashing them! I
mean, don't people have even a little voice inside of them saying "these are
nice looking, these aren't mine, mebbe there's a diffeent fun idea.." Which to
my son and his daughter was to park them all neatly, but that wasn't going to
get them home in time. But still...
Banty
Banty
>
>
>"Banty" <Banty_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>news:ds3uu...@drn.newsguy.com...
>> The problem is - how could we have anticipated that they'd be thrown
>> across the
>> room?? (That's not playing like a normal toy IMO.) Perhaps some kids
>> like to
>> throw their cars around, that's not how my son's way of playing, and
>> that's not
>> how he and the girl were playing. And the toy box was full of the larger,
>> bulky
>> toys (a large toy box isn't much good for zillions of little cars), I
>> don't
>> think it's so obvious that some toy box across the room would be where
>> these go,
>> let alone that they be thrown across the room to it (that was the Dad's
>> idea of
>> how to make cleanup fun...)
>
>I think it must have been obvious to the dad that the toys belonged in the
>toybox. It didn't sound like he was being malicious and wanted to destroy
>your son's toys.
Oh no of course he wasn't malicious. But, it's like the housmate who dug into a
cake that I had prepared to take to an event - I don't think he meant to ruin
the event, but SOME neurons should fire saying "this isn't mine, I should'nt
demolish" somewhere in the noggin!
>
>>
>> The thing is - why would it be assumed that kids would play roughly with
>> something like that?
>
>Maybe you didn't assume they did because yours doesn't play like that. My
>DS doesn't play with cars, but when I think of Matchbox cars, I think of
>burying them in the sand, crashing them together, etc. That is my
>expectation of normal use for those cars. I'm sure a thousand people will
>now chime in that their kids don't play like that, but that is my
>expectation.
I do think it's true that a lot of kids play with their cars that way and that
he assume my son's cars were fair game. My son had a few set aside for rougher
play (like with our neighbors, who know no other way to play!), and also had
some that he used in the sandbox we had on our enclosed porch.
>
>Which things could we know that *other* kids would play
>> roughly with? *Can* a kid have treasured things like those Easter eggs on
>> display? Or is everything of interest and value to be hidden away.
>> That's
>> nuts. Why is the onus on the *nondestructive* use to have to be
>> proactively
>> protective, rather than on the rough usage be assumed?
>
>Because, as you have found, not every child is as well-trained or gentle as
>yours.
Heh. "Sit." "Roll over." "Beg!" Think I'll work now that he's 13? ;)
It isn't so much that he's all that gentle - I think it's more that we've always
had as a value that most things are to be kept nice, and rough play has its
place.
>If there is something that is of value, then it should be protected
>when others are over or else suffer the consequences. Now, I don't think
>it's right that other kids might be more destructive, but such is life.
>Knowing that other children may be more destructive, the toys should be
>hidden away when child guests arrive, unless you know the children and know
>they are gentle.
See, this is where I disagree. Why is rough treatment the default? Why are
those of us who don't want markers on our furniture, die cast cars (let alone
cherished projects like hte blown eggs) have to kept out of sight, etc.? WHy
isn't the onus on those who want to be very, um, *consuming* in how they do
things to not do that with others' stuff?
>
>>
>> It's it better to teach that things be treated well, and the category of
>> things
>> that can be treated very roughly is few, and never what is others', unless
>> that's what the others are doing? I think so. It makes for a kid who
>> will
>> engage decently with the rest of the world as he grows up.
>
>True, but you can't teach this to other children, only your own. Therefore,
>if other children will be around who are more destructive, the your child
>needs to protect his things or risk having them destroyed or don't invite
>the destructive children.
>
>
He does with some things. Our neighbor has boys, three of them, are they are
very rough. My son is really choosy what he does with them, alhtough he enjoys
them. Also the parents, who were cut from the same cloth, do nonetheless
reinforce that others' stuff can't be messed up with.
But I do think that a child should be able to, for example, have a cherished
project like the blown eggs on display for his own pleasure and to show them,
without having to have them smasshed because - because they exist and they're
fun for certain kids to smash. What was he to have done? Maintain two places
for them, constantly moving the delicate things back and forth? Really, it in
practical terms adds up to having nothing nice, if the onus is on folks to
protect stuff, rather than for folks to respect stuff that isn't there.
Banty
Banty
darth_b...@yahoo.com says...
>
>
>
>We took this approach too. Theirs, within reason. I think the
>underlying principle was not to disable the functionality of the
>object. So stickers on lamps, desks, clocks and other flattish surfaces
>was okay. Dropping them from a height was not. The other thought was
>that the room and contents should be reasonably presentable,
>age-appropriately. So stickers, drawings, even little engravings on the
>furniture would be okay, slathering them with mud or black paint would
>not.
>
>DB
>
Reasonably presentable, "age - appropriately"??
It might work if one replaces furniture every few years! I dont' know about
you, but I expect to use furniture for some years. Even my son's old Little
Tykes stuff now has storage duty in the furnace room.
Banty
Rosalie B.
>Oh no of course he wasn't malicious. But, it's like the housmate who dug into a
>cake that I had prepared to take to an event - I don't think he meant to ruin
>the event, but SOME neurons should fire saying "this isn't mine, I should'nt
>demolish" somewhere in the noggin!
This reminds me of one of my favorite cartoons from "Punch". There is
an elaborate five tier cake on the table in the kitchen - has a bride
and groom on top - obviously for a wedding. There's one piece cut out
of it. The man in the cartoon is saying "How was I to know you were
saving it for something?"
grandma Rosalie
Rosalie B.
>In article <1139139153.8...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>darth_b...@yahoo.com says...
>>
>>We took this approach too. Theirs, within reason. I think the
>>underlying principle was not to disable the functionality of the
>>object. So stickers on lamps, desks, clocks and other flattish surfaces
>>was okay. Dropping them from a height was not. The other thought was
>>that the room and contents should be reasonably presentable,
>>age-appropriately. So stickers, drawings, even little engravings on the
>>furniture would be okay, slathering them with mud or black paint would
>>not.
>
>Reasonably presentable, "age - appropriately"??
>
>It might work if one replaces furniture every few years! I dont' know about
>you, but I expect to use furniture for some years. Even my son's old Little
>Tykes stuff now has storage duty in the furnace room.
>
When my dd#3 moved to TX, I gave her the furniture that had been in
her room, some of which had also served for her older sister.
Included was a flip front desk that had been my mom's when she was a
child, and a chair. My dd's in-laws stripped the paint off the desk
and found it was made of mahogany. They painted it again. Which is
OK with me - it has been painted for probably 90 years. It isn't
like the similar desk that we have with inlaid wood on the front.
But unless something is an antique (like my great grandfather's spool
bed from the late 1800s, which my daughter's in-laws also 'cleaned
up'), there's very little bad that can be done to good quality
furniture that can't be fixed with refinishing or paint. Although my
mom lent a chest to a child of a friend and they cut the legs off,
which was pretty much irreparable.
It may be a pain to do (like removing stickers from the door), but is
usually possible.
grandma Rosalie
Banty
Sure. But the refinishing is time and labor and materials, or it has to be
hired out. And would over-cost a lot of furniture. I mean, if it's an
inexpensive piece based on particleboard or MDF laminated, it's not even
refinishable but it's useful life *is* cut short by defacement. It's a cost to
replace it, and a cost and labor (and heavy lifting for the particle board
stuff!) to get rid of the old piece.
>
>It may be a pain to do (like removing stickers from the door), but is
>usually possible.
>
There's a lemon-oil based product which is popular for removing stickers (fergit
which it is, but I learned about it from alt.home.repair) which I used on some
built-ins in his room when we did renovations of the bedroom. But it was a
pain. I did allow him those stickers, though.
Banty
bizby40
>>If there is something that is of value, then it should be protected
>>when others are over or else suffer the consequences. Now, I don't think
>>it's right that other kids might be more destructive, but such is life.
>>Knowing that other children may be more destructive, the toys should be
>>hidden away when child guests arrive, unless you know the children and
>>know
>>they are gentle.
>
> See, this is where I disagree. Why is rough treatment the default? Why
> are
> those of us who don't want markers on our furniture, die cast cars (let
> alone
> cherished projects like hte blown eggs) have to kept out of sight, etc.?
> WHy
> isn't the onus on those who want to be very, um, *consuming* in how they
> do
> things to not do that with others' stuff?
I don't think it's the default so much as the reality. You don't
have control over other people's kids, so when you have
something that is *particularly* important to you, you only
allow kids you know and trust to play with it.
That doesn't mean that you have no recourse. If it's a
child who comes over regularly, you can teach them
your "house rules" which may be different from their
own. And if there is a child who is consistently
destructive and just doesn't get it, you can either stop
inviting them at all, or only invite them during warm
weather when they can play outside, or supervise
them closely when they are there.
Of *course* it is a good idea to teach your kids to
respect other people's things. I don't think anyone
says otherwise. Just that since you can't count on
everyone else doing that, it makes sense to protect
the things that are important to you.
> But I do think that a child should be able to, for example, have a
> cherished
> project like the blown eggs on display for his own pleasure and to show
> them,
> without having to have them smasshed because - because they exist and
> they're
> fun for certain kids to smash.
Smashing the eggs (clearly destructive and wrong)
and tossing the cars are on different levels.
Bizby
toypup
> But I do think that a child should be able to, for example, have a
> cherished
> project like the blown eggs on display for his own pleasure and to show
> them,
> without having to have them smasshed because - because they exist and
> they're
> fun for certain kids to smash. What was he to have done? Maintain two
> places
> for them, constantly moving the delicate things back and forth? Really,
> it in
> practical terms adds up to having nothing nice, if the onus is on folks to
> protect stuff, rather than for folks to respect stuff that isn't there.
What should happen and what does happen are sometimes very different. A few
blocks from my neighborhood, it was gang-infested. Crimes happened in broad
daylight. I should be able to park my car on a public street without having
it broken into or stolen. The reality is, if I park it there long enough,
something will happen to it. It is the onus on folks to not steal, but they
do; and I'd be pretty stupid to park it there overnight.
We have a fancy vase. It's way up high and protected where the kids can't
get it. If I had it lower, I'd move it up when other kids were invited
over. If I had it on the coffee table and it gets knocked over, I'd blame
myself just as much as the careless, destructive child. It's common sense.
The things don't have to be out of sight always, just when it's a good
possibility that it might be damaged.
bizby40
> There's a lemon-oil based product which is popular for removing stickers
> (fergit
> which it is, but I learned about it from alt.home.repair) which I used on
> some
> built-ins in his room when we did renovations of the bedroom. But it was
> a
> pain. I did allow him those stickers, though.
Goo gone? I *love* goo gone!!!
Bizby
Banty
Yes that's it!
It works. Needed careful clean up of the goo-gone to followup with painting,
though.
Banty
Banty
Well, sure - don't leave the wallet on the park bench, and all that.
But this thread started with what we should teach our kids, right? I realize
that this is jumping from teaching our own kids vs. what other kids do, but I do
think there is some connection to be considered that how they treat their own
stuff gets reflected in how they *use* the rest of the world, now and later.
One can draw a dinstinction of "own stuff" vs. "others' stuff", but that's
imperfect. Witness the thing with the cars - automatically, if one can treat
one's own stuff roughly, then *everyone* must be using it that way.
The boy who destroyed the blown eggs may have not realized that he was
destroying his friend's precious projects (and I *don't* agree he has to hide it
away 'cause there are kids who are louts who may come over and visit any given
day!), but the seed really is planted when his parents had long been
disregarding things like that at home.
Now I know folks could come up with all kinds of counter-examples that kids
should be able to be rough or consuming with this, or with that, whatever my kid
or the kid next door does, and I'll concede at the outset that there's a lot of
truth to that and most of these counter examples would be right.
But *somewhere* the concept has to be planted that things, at least some things,
yes, those accessible to kids too, need to be well treated, and that has to
happen at home.
Banty
toto
>The boy who destroyed the blown eggs may have not realized that he was
>destroying his friend's precious projects (and I *don't* agree he has to hide it
>away 'cause there are kids who are louts who may come over and visit any given
>day!), but the seed really is planted when his parents had long been
>disregarding things like that at home.
I do think he realized that he was destroying them after the first
egg, but at that point he might have just been trying to see what
would happen if he stomped it. After the first one though and when
my son told him to stop, it was obviously a game to get my son
upset. Teasing is pretty big at 5.
Still I don't think that my son should have anticipated that a friend
would deliberately stomp on any thing that he showed off to him.
-L.
toto wrote:
> >And next time they'll find some extension cords, sharp objects or guns
> >to play with. Great friends you have, there, and great judgement, too.
> >
> The house was reasonably child-proofed. The dad did use poor
> judgement and his wife was pretty upset with him, but then you would
> never make such a mistake as you are the perfect mom... NOT
No, I wouldn't. I would never leave two 3 year olds unattended. No
one should.
-L.
shinypenny
dkhedmo wrote:
> He had had these materials available in the past in the living room,
> which was more supervised, but it became an issue as Little Brother
> became more mobile and I didn't want to "punish" the older one by
> completely removing access to things he had free reign with in the past.
> There were other big-kid items that needed protection as well, and as
> part of encouraging a discontinuation of co-sleeping arrangements with
> the older one,
Just a thought here.... perhaps this is DS's way of getting attention
right now, or handling stress?
When my DD#2 was 4 years old, she went through a stage where she'd
write "NO" on furniture, walls, everywhere.... with pen, with pencil,
with markers, sometimes even gauging it in. We'd just moved to a rental
as I was separating from their dad. When we moved out, I found "NO"
written in the oddest places all over that rental.... behind
furntiture, down along the baseboards, in the back of the toy closet,
etc. I still have "NO" carved into the wood lazy susan that my dad
made me. There was also a "NO" carved into the kitchen table, but we
gave that away when we moved. This was all from the same time period of
a few months after we first moved in there.
I'm pretty sure in her case it was a stress reaction. It sounds like
your own DS has his reasons to be stressed right now: newly mobile
younger brother, and discontinuation of the co-sleeping.
jen
dragonlady
darth_b...@yahoo.com wrote:
> The other thought was
> that the room and contents should be reasonably presentable,
> age-appropriately. So stickers, drawings, even little engravings on the
> furniture would be okay, slathering them with mud or black paint would
> not.
Right -- the black paint isn't age appropriate until they hit their teen
years. (I did refuse to let DD1 paint her room black -- since we live
in rentals, and it's too hard to cover up -- so she used black sheets to
cover the walls instead.)
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care
dragonlady
Banty <Banty_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> See, this is where I disagree. Why is rough treatment the default? Why are
> those of us who don't want markers on our furniture, die cast cars (let alone
> cherished projects like hte blown eggs) have to kept out of sight, etc.? WHy
> isn't the onus on those who want to be very, um, *consuming* in how they do
> things to not do that with others' stuff?
The issue (for me) is not whether "rough treatment" should be the
default, but what category various things belong in.
Given how I have watched MOST kids play with them, it wouldn't have
occurred to me to put them in the "fragile" category, or that tossing
them into a toybox would do any harm.
Smashing an egg is clearly distructive. Breaking a pillow open is
distructuve. Writing on walls or furniture is totally not OK (without
permission). Throwing nerf balls into a hoop is generally OK -- though
in some households even that is only allowed outside. Throwing stuffed
animals into a toybox should be OK. And, for this Dad, turning "clean
up time" into a hit-the-goal throwing game was OK, as it would be for
many people.
Your son treated his matchbox toys in an unusual way; most kids don't
treat them with that much care. That doesn't make the other kids wrong,
nor does it make your kid wrong. But I do have an issue with you
jumping to the conclusion that this family was somehow generally rougher
than yours: they just didn't put "matchbox cars" in the right category
for your house.
I guess I don't understand why you would not tell the other parent that
your son took more care with his cars than that, and that he was upset
because the treatment they were getting was too rough and might result
in chipped paint. I've never had a problem telling another child (or
parent) "In this house we..." (never, ever put a glass with any sort of
liquid on the piano -- even a flower vase; leave the TV set on when no
one is watching it; leave the screen door open, even if there are no
insects obviously around; climb that particular tree --- trying to
think of things that have come up, though I know there've been more, and
more interesting ones). I've never had anyone react badly to it, either
-- though we've sometimes ended up in interesting discussions of
different household standards.
So -- why NOT tell the Dad what was upsetting your son? If it had been
me -- and, as I've said, it could have been, since my kids were never
into that treatment of their cars -- I'd have wanted to know what it was
I was doing that was so upsetting. (I also would have stopped
everything immidiately when it was clear that your son was upset by
something we were doing, and tried to find out from him -- but that's a
different issue.)
Banty
dragonlady says...
I don't know about that - that's how my brother and I played with them; that's
how other friends I know play with them - play with them, but with care.
Actually, I did not say anything about this family being "generally rougher"
than mine.
>
>I guess I don't understand why you would not tell the other parent that
>your son took more care with his cars than that, and that he was upset
>because the treatment they were getting was too rough and might result
>in chipped paint. I've never had a problem telling another child (or
>parent) "In this house we..." (never, ever put a glass with any sort of
>liquid on the piano -- even a flower vase; leave the TV set on when no
>one is watching it; leave the screen door open, even if there are no
>insects obviously around; climb that particular tree --- trying to
>think of things that have come up, though I know there've been more, and
>more interesting ones). I've never had anyone react badly to it, either
>-- though we've sometimes ended up in interesting discussions of
>different household standards.
It was simply not necessary to elaborate. Not to handle the current situation,
not for future situations. My son conveyed his upset, I'm fairly sure Dad
figured it out (what part of "NO! Don't do that" and then crying wouldn't folks
get??), the *daughter* who plays with my son wasn't the problem at all except
when her Dad got her to the throwing, but that's not *her* - until then she was
happy to follow my son's lead.
I think what you're often looking for is some explicit discussion of the point
that people have different expectations but they're all equally valid and 'I'm
OK, you're OK' and everyone validating each other. Or at least something along
that line implied in "..in our house we ...". I *do* think it's useful phrase
to trot out for a lot of situations, but I just don't think that's always
necessary or sometimes even strictly right.
>
>So -- why NOT tell the Dad what was upsetting your son? If it had been
>me -- and, as I've said, it could have been, since my kids were never
>into that treatment of their cars -- I'd have wanted to know what it was
>I was doing that was so upsetting. (I also would have stopped
>everything immidiately when it was clear that your son was upset by
>something we were doing, and tried to find out from him -- but that's a
>different issue.)
>
Um, OK - "my son is crying because he doesn't like his cars thrown around".
?
He and daughter were playing fine and smiling. Then throw-cars-across-room
started and he started crying. Hmmm. Really, the Dad isn't Asperger's or
anything, I really do think he eventually got it. It just surprised him. I
broke up the situation politely, fixed it up after they left, continued the
friendship, never brought it up. That works all the way around. I don't have
to go around *explaining myself*.
Banty
Laura Faussone
>
>
> There's a lemon-oil based product which is popular for removing stickers (fergit
> which it is, but I learned about it from alt.home.repair) which I used on some
> built-ins in his room when we did renovations of the bedroom. But it was a
> pain. I did allow him those stickers, though.
>
> Banty
>
In addition to Goo-Gone, there's also a product called UnDu that
works really well -- the stickers are even reusable when you've
peeled them off!
Laura
darth_b...@yahoo.com
Yup. Meaning, some gets replaced and some lives on, stickers, drawings
and all. Beds go. Dressers and shelves stay. Carpet, sheets, curtains
change.
Stickers, drawings and other 5 y-o modifications enliven their teen
room furniture. If it bothered them - doesn't seem to - they can
remove, cover, re-paint. At some point, the furniture will be tossed,
having served its purpose for maybe a decade or more. This is not
mahogany we speak of, more like pine and/or particle-board. If it
morphs into basement storage, stickers/ graffiti won't bother us. Kinda
cute, actually.
DB
toypup
> But *somewhere* the concept has to be planted that things, at least some
> things,
> yes, those accessible to kids too, need to be well treated, and that has
> to
> happen at home.
But some things precious to one person are not precious to others. At home,
you may teach them to care for your and their precious items, and they may
treat their other belongings with not as much care. But sometimes, kids may
not realize something that's not precious to them may be precious to someone
else. The cars, for instance. I don't know a lot of boys who take great
care not to scratch up their cars, because normal use of the cars involve
crashing them together. Most children would know not to smash them with a
hammer to destroy them, but they would not know to treat them gently so as
not to scratch them. Heck, even the dad didn't know. So, if something is
to be treated with more care than usual, then it needs to be kept from
others who might not know how not to damage them. On this vein, DH won't
even let me touch his baseball cards.
toypup
<darth_b...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1139178686....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Stickers, drawings and other 5 y-o modifications enliven their teen
> room furniture. If it bothered them - doesn't seem to - they can
> remove, cover, re-paint. At some point, the furniture will be tossed,
> having served its purpose for maybe a decade or more. This is not
> mahogany we speak of, more like pine and/or particle-board. If it
> morphs into basement storage, stickers/ graffiti won't bother us. Kinda
> cute, actually.
Yes, I think it would give it character and sort of freeze a moment in time,
not that I would want all my furniture decorated in that fashion.
JennP
"toto" <scar...@wicked.witch> wrote in message
news:jqsau1h5fsrq9g1m6...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 4 Feb 2006 08:19:21 -0500, "Sue"
> I third that suggestion. My son used to play with all his toys that
> had little parts in the playpen and his sister could watch but not
> destroy his creations.
Gosh, I never thought of that. Ds loves Playmobil and Lego but he has to go
upstairs to play with them because Jessica (15m) wrecks everything he
creates. However, he won't go upstairs much because he gets lonely. I wonder
if he would use it though, he's five and already too cool for himself. ;)
JennP.
dragonlady
"JennP" <jennifer...@comcast.net> wrote:
It seemed to work pretty well for us -- but I think it was my daughter's
idea in the first place; I don't remember for sure. It may make a
difference that she seldom saw me use it much for the babies, nor did
she spend much time it it as a baby or toddler -- it was there for the
occassional time when a brief confinement was necessary -- to run to the
bathroom, for example.
It can't hurt to try; present it to him, and see what he thinks. Let
us know.
Banty
Why would only *precious* things be treated with care? Especially others'
stuff.
Banty
Banty
darth_b...@yahoo.com says...
Why is pine furniture, or laminate furniture, even, so disposable?? Why does it
have to be mahogany to be expected to last? My son is still using his pine
furniture, and we added more, and he *really* wanted the stickers and other
little-boy stuff out. Twelve year old boys aren't much for their friends seeing
cutesy cowboys and smiling little airplanes in their rooms anymore. Maybe
teenaged girls don't mind so much the little-girl stuff, but still, they do make
it into their twenties or the guest room will need the dresser.
But, hey, I expect my cars to last 10 years or more. I don't think it's
particularly great value to teach that things are disposable. Sorry, I don't -
it's been making for a crappy, consuming, throw-away society.
Banty
dragonlady
Banty <Banty_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
Did you have a problem with the OTHER stuff being thrown into the
toybox?
I'm genuinely curious about this. Do you think that the very idea of
making throwing things into the toybox as a game is disrespectful
towards those belongings -- a distructive thing to do?
If you do, then we'll just have to agree to disagree -- I think most
people would not have a problem with throwing toys into a toybox, and
using it for "target practice" is a fairly common way to get kids to
help clean up.
If you don't -- if, in general, tossing toys into a toybox IS an
appropriate way to put toys away -- then why do you think this father
should have known that these particular toys were in a different
category? (They wouldn't be in most households.)
I have a real problem with THIS incident being used to judge a
particular parent. Once your son got upset, he may have not responded
appropriately -- but the game itself just doesn't sound that out of line
to me.
Ericka Kammerer
> "Banty" <Banty_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
> news:ds5am...@drn.newsguy.com...
>
>>But *somewhere* the concept has to be planted that things, at least some
>>things,
>>yes, those accessible to kids too, need to be well treated, and that has
>>to
>>happen at home.
>
>
> But some things precious to one person are not precious to others. At home,
> you may teach them to care for your and their precious items, and they may
> treat their other belongings with not as much care. But sometimes, kids may
> not realize something that's not precious to them may be precious to someone
> else.
But that's *exactly* the point! Why is it that one
should only take care of "precious" things? Why is it not
appropriate to take good care of everyday, ordinary things?
I'm with Banty here. I think the default setting is that
one takes care of things. If it's worth having at all, it's
worth taking care of. I would never, ever treat something
that belonged to someone else roughly without their
express permission, even if it seemed disposable to me.
I certainly expect my children to treat anything that is
not theirs with the utmost care, regardless of whether it's
no more than a crappy plastic kids meal toy from some fast
food joint, unless the owner is the one encouraging them
to do otherwise. I expect my children to treat their
own stuff with care. I think if they were taught that
it's okay to be careless with stuff, they'll be careless
with other people's stuff--and probably get in trouble
for it at times.
That said, I do agree that there are times when
it's okay to take off the kid gloves. However, one only
does that after careful consideration, *especially* if
the thing doesn't belong to you. The default is to be
careful. With everything. All the time. If you're going
to be rough with something or use it in a manner that
could damage it in any way, then you need a justification
*before* you start in on it--and you need the agreement
of the owner, if that's not you.
I just don't see that there's any excuse for
a child (or an adult) having the notion that it's okay
to be cavalier with stuff. Others can choose to be
cavalier with their stuff, but then I think it's
incumbent upon them to teach their children that
sort of thing is not okay elsewhere without the
express permission of whoever's stuff is being
affected.
So, I don't think that "maybe it's not as
precious to someone else as it is to you" is ever
a justification. It doesn't matter. You never
treat anything carelessly if it belongs to someone
else, even if you think it's silly.
Best wishes,
Ericka
Ericka Kammerer
> Did you have a problem with the OTHER stuff being thrown into the
> toybox?
>
> I'm genuinely curious about this. Do you think that the very idea of
> making throwing things into the toybox as a game is disrespectful
> towards those belongings -- a distructive thing to do?
>
> If you do, then we'll just have to agree to disagree -- I think most
> people would not have a problem with throwing toys into a toybox, and
> using it for "target practice" is a fairly common way to get kids to
> help clean up.
>
> If you don't -- if, in general, tossing toys into a toybox IS an
> appropriate way to put toys away -- then why do you think this father
> should have known that these particular toys were in a different
> category? (They wouldn't be in most households.)
Personally, I think this is very simple. The
stuff didn't belong to the father or the other child.
So, the appropriate question is whether the proposed
action has any possibility of damaging the item in
any way. Ball? Nope. Stuffed animal? Almost certainly
not. Little metal car with a painted finish? You betcha.
Voila! It is inappropriate to throw the car unless it
is clear that the owner approves. You don't have to
know how such toys are usually played with. You don't
have to know what is precious to whom. All you need to
know is whether the proposed action might possibly
cause the condition of the item to change. Small children
might be excused from being able to predict what will
and won't damage something precisely, but the father
has no such excuse.
Does this mean the dad was a bad person? Of
course not, and Banty said as much. But it was an
inappropriate action to take.
Best wishes,
Ericka
Anonymama
Ericka Kammerer <e...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Personally, I think this is very simple. The
> stuff didn't belong to the father or the other child.
> So, the appropriate question is whether the proposed
> action has any possibility of damaging the item in
> any way. Ball? Nope. Stuffed animal? Almost certainly
> not. Little metal car with a painted finish? You betcha.
> Voila! It is inappropriate to throw the car unless it
> is clear that the owner approves.
I admit that I probably would've done the same thing the father did.
I've never met a little kid who cared what the paint on his or her cars
looked like (the kids I know are three or younger), and every parent I
know cleans up by tossing toys into the toybox -- it wouldn't've crossed
my mind to do otherwise with sturdy little cars.
I now know such people exist, and I'll keep this thread in mind next
time I'm helping clean up at someone else's house.
--
Sara
accompanied by TK, due in April
Quoting, for users of Google Groups:
http://groups.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=14213&topic=250
Ericka Kammerer
> In article <gO-dnebqJNVQJHve...@comcast.com>,
> Ericka Kammerer <e...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>> Personally, I think this is very simple. The
>>stuff didn't belong to the father or the other child.
>>So, the appropriate question is whether the proposed
>>action has any possibility of damaging the item in
>>any way. Ball? Nope. Stuffed animal? Almost certainly
>>not. Little metal car with a painted finish? You betcha.
>>Voila! It is inappropriate to throw the car unless it
>>is clear that the owner approves.
>
> I admit that I probably would've done the same thing the father did.
> I've never met a little kid who cared what the paint on his or her cars
> looked like (the kids I know are three or younger), and every parent I
> know cleans up by tossing toys into the toybox -- it wouldn't've crossed
> my mind to do otherwise with sturdy little cars.
>
> I now know such people exist, and I'll keep this thread in mind next
> time I'm helping clean up at someone else's house.
Which is great, I think, but I also think it's a
bigger issue. I can't imagine going through life having
to guess about what everyone else might value or not
value. That would drive me crazy! It's *much* easier
(not to mention safer) to just think about what might
damage the object in some way. *That* I've got a prayer
of figuring out--certainly much more than I've got
second guessing everyone else's peccadillos. It's a rule
of thumb that works everywhere--kids toys, office equipment,
friends' china, whatever. Saves you from annoying bosses
and friends and teachers and passers by and goodness knows
who else ;-) I'm a big fan of habits that get me out of
having to have a zillion different rules for a zillion
different situations and personalities.
Best wishes,
Ericka
Banty
dragonlady says...
You're restating me - I didn't say "toys" in general, I was talking about die
cast cars.
>
>If you do, then we'll just have to agree to disagree -- I think most
>people would not have a problem with throwing toys into a toybox, and
>using it for "target practice" is a fairly common way to get kids to
>help clean up.
>
>If you don't -- if, in general, tossing toys into a toybox IS an
>appropriate way to put toys away -- then why do you think this father
>should have known that these particular toys were in a different
>category? (They wouldn't be in most households.)
>
>I have a real problem with THIS incident being used to judge a
>particular parent. Once your son got upset, he may have not responded
>appropriately -- but the game itself just doesn't sound that out of line
>to me.
>
I didn't judge the parent past this one incident! I've gone on to say it wasn't
mentioned again and we're still friends.
Really, this isn't fair. We've gone from die cast cars, specifically, to "toys"
in general, and my relating one incident specifically, even describing a
continuing friendhip and no further mention, to "THIS incident being used to
judge....".
Perhaps you're defensive because *you'd* lead the kids in throwing hard,
painted, good-condition METAL toys across the room, taking no mind as they chip
and grind agaisnt each other, 'cause after all, it's just some kids toys and
don't all kids wreck their stuff anyway. Well, consider that not all kids wreck
their stuff.
Banty
toto
>At some point, the furniture will be tossed, having served its
>purpose for maybe a decade or more. This is not mahogany
>we speak of, more like pine and/or particle-board. If it morphs
>into basement storage, stickers/ graffiti won't bother us. Kinda
>cute, actually.
In my family, furniture was intended to last through more than one
child and even to be passed on to relatives who had younger
children if they needed it.
While, I would not mind some stickers and graffiti on a piece I was
keeping for basement storage, I would not want to pass it on for
someone else to use that way.
While particle board furniture may be cheap and won't last, pine
will if treated well. And we actually had good furniture as children.
I did break the vanity glass when I was too young to realize that
it would not take my weight leaning on it (can't remember how
old I was. I actually still have the dresser and one nightstand that
I had as a child. My dil has the bedroom set that she used and is
currently using it for her daughter.
toypup
> In article <h%vFf.9676$2O6...@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>, toypup >>else.
>>care not to scratch up their cars, because normal use of the cars involve
>>crashing them together. Most children would know not to smash them with a
>>hammer to destroy them, but they would not know to treat them gently so as
>>not to scratch them. Heck, even the dad didn't know. So, if something is
>>to be treated with more care than usual, then it needs to be kept from
>>others who might not know how not to damage them. On this vein, DH won't
>>even let me touch his baseball cards.
>>
>>
>
> Why would only *precious* things be treated with care? Especially others'
> stuff.
Things that are precious need to be handled with extra care because they are
precious. Things that are not precious are expected to be handled everyday
care. I never said children should be reckless with everyday objects, but
normal handling may result in wear and tear. If all of your things need
special handling, well, you're a bit different from anyone I know and I'd be
afraid to come over for fear of accidentally damaging something. There's no
way for most people to know that an everyday object needs extra special
care.
dragonlady
Banty <Banty_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
I've said that right from the beginning: I could see BEING the parent
who would lead the game throwing the toys in the toybox, not realizing
that, in your house, die-cast cars weren't in the same category as the
other toys.
So, I wanted to know if you object to toys, in general being thrown into
the toybox, and if you don't, why you would expect another parent to
know that "matchbox cars" aren't in the "toys that can be thrown"
category in your house -- and why you didn't just SAY so when the father
asked what was wrong.
And we wouldn't be discussing this, except that YOU used it as an
example of someone being destructive in your house.
toypup
"Ericka Kammerer" <e...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:8t-dnYErOfK...@comcast.com...
> So, I don't think that "maybe it's not as
> precious to someone else as it is to you" is ever
> a justification. It doesn't matter. You never
> treat anything carelessly if it belongs to someone
> else, even if you think it's silly.
I don't mean that I would treat things that are not precious carelessly. I
would treat them as they are normally meant to be treated. I just wouldn't
give them extra special gentle treatment. That's a lot different than being
cavalier with others' belongings. I wouldn't do that. But a Matchbox car
gets crashed and buried in sand. That's the usage I had in mind for them.
Maybe not anymore, but it wouldn't occur to me before this that they get
played with any other way. Throwing them in a box (not from across the
room, I wouldn't do that because they're hard and might damage a wall or
something), is not careless nor cavelier, at least before I knew anyone just
took them out to look at them.
What if someone collected balls and didn't want them bounced because they
might get scuffed or dirtied with oil? How in the world are you supposed to
know that? They are made for bouncing. You would constantly have to ask
about everything, which would make you look pretty silly for having to ask
if the ball can be bounced.
Banty
But normal everyday care should be careful enough to allow things to last as
well as they can. Throwing metal things that are carefully painted and detailed
damages them. Drawing grafitti on furniture defaces it. I don't see how
refraining from damaging things is "special handling".
If you came to my house, and accidentally dropped a bowl, that would be one
thing. But if by "normal wear and tear" you mean chips from tossing it through
the air into the sink, right, you really shouldn't come over and visit. But
I've known adults like that, who go around saying "shit-tappens" while they do
amazing things that would quite unlikely *not* lead to damage (things like,
pulling something out of the bottom of a stack with one hand without bracing the
other items). Indeed, they'e not welcome at my house. It's not a very
attractive attribute to have in a person one shares space with in a house or in
a workplace and sometimes even in public. So it's something to teach children
*not* to do.
Banty
Banty
dragonlady says...
>
>In article <ds6ei...@drn.newsguy.com>,
> Banty <Banty_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Perhaps you're defensive because *you'd* lead the kids in throwing hard,
>> painted, good-condition METAL toys across the room, taking no mind as they
>> chip
>> and grind agaisnt each other, 'cause after all, it's just some kids toys and
>> don't all kids wreck their stuff anyway. Well, consider that not all kids
>> wreck
>> their stuff.
>>
>> Banty
>>
>
>I've said that right from the beginning: I could see BEING the parent
>who would lead the game throwing the toys in the toybox, not realizing
>that, in your house, die-cast cars weren't in the same category as the
>other toys.
>
I think Ericka put it very well - it's quite simple and no mystery about
personal preferences and quirks - just plain don't damage stuff.
That it might be OK to dunk a rubber ball in a bathtup full of wahter does not
mean it should be a mystery to you why one should not to dunk a teddy bear in
it! Likewise that you can throw a teddy bear into a toy box across the room
doesn not mean you can throw metal painted toys which are in good condition,
into a toy box across the room.
>So, I wanted to know if you object to toys, in general being thrown into
>the toybox, and if you don't, why you would expect another parent to
>know that "matchbox cars" aren't in the "toys that can be thrown"
>category in your house -- and why you didn't just SAY so when the father
>asked what was wrong.
OK "Matchbox cars are in the category of not throwing across rooms. To be
complete, the pyrex dinnerware also is in the category of not throwing across
rooms." What else can I say?? "The impact force of metal against metal creates
pings and dents in said metal. When said metal furhtermore is painted, the
pings and dents also create discontinuities in the color, which degrade the
appearance therefore the enjoyment of the item." WHAT is one supposed to SAY??
"Don't break or deface my stuff - I have this little quirk about people breaking
my stuff, really, I'm seeking counselling about this, but while I work on that,
please do avoid it because I really find it difficult to handle
right now."
How much explanation would you give someone as to why they should remove their
foot from on top of yours??
Really, my son put it rather simply if a bit primordially "No no no don't do
that." That's it. All that's needed. The owner said stop. You stop.
>And we wouldn't be discussing this, except that YOU used it as an
>example of someone being destructive in your house.
>
And your point is?
Banty
Banty
>
>
>"Ericka Kammerer" <e...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:8t-dnYErOfK...@comcast.com...
>> So, I don't think that "maybe it's not as
>> precious to someone else as it is to you" is ever
>> a justification. It doesn't matter. You never
>> treat anything carelessly if it belongs to someone
>> else, even if you think it's silly.
>
>I don't mean that I would treat things that are not precious carelessly. I
>would treat them as they are normally meant to be treated. I just wouldn't
>give them extra special gentle treatment. That's a lot different than being
>cavalier with others' belongings. I wouldn't do that. But a Matchbox car
>gets crashed and buried in sand. That's the usage I had in mind for them.
>Maybe not anymore, but it wouldn't occur to me before this that they get
>played with any other way. Throwing them in a box (not from across the
>room, I wouldn't do that because they're hard and might damage a wall or
>something), is not careless nor cavelier, at least before I knew anyone just
>took them out to look at them.
Matchbox cars get run along floors and rugs and parked and used for little
imaginary traffic scenarios. THey also get collected. They get rinsed after
playing in sand. A few disfavored ones get into "crashes". But that's HIS
crashes not some OTHER lout's crashes.
Would the evident gentle play going on, and the really good condition of the car
come into consideration, even if you think it so unusual that this toy not be
purchased with the intent of destroying and defacing it??
>
>What if someone collected balls and didn't want them bounced because they
>might get scuffed or dirtied with oil? How in the world are you supposed to
>know that? They are made for bouncing. You would constantly have to ask
>about everything, which would make you look pretty silly for having to ask
>if the ball can be bounced.
>
If you took a basketball and rolled it in motor oil, that would be upsetting
too. Or does the owner have to put you on notice "please do not roll my
basketball in motor oil"??
Would you take a baseball off the shelf and throw it in the woods? If the owner
said in despair "that was the one with Derek Jeter's signature on it" woudl you
say Oh WELL it's just a BALL it's to be thrown!" Or would you say "you should
have had it in your attic never to be seen by anyone you shoulda known everyone
would want to pick it up and throw it in the woods" or what.
Hey, a lot of the dolls I've seen have their hair chopped by their young owners,
can I have of your dolls for a minute?
How about treating things well, and for any treatment otherwise taking the cue
from the owner? That sounds like a policy that would allow folks to get along.
How about it? Consider it.
Banty
dragonlady
"toypup" <toy...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
I've been told that my great-grandmother would buy her kids toys, and
not allow them to play with them, because they might get dirty or
broken. So, as adults, they had some lovely toys that they'd always
owned -- but they'd only been allowed to take them out, look at them,
and put them away. They lasted a long, long time, and were beautiful.
I've know people who didn't allow their kids to play with Beanie Babies
-- because they might damage them, and they wouldn't be worth as much.
(These were Beanie Babies they'd given the kids, and the kids were
pretty confused.)
I got chastised at one house for putting their every-day glasses in the
dishwasher. Washing them in the dishwasher etches them, so they don't
last as long, so glasses were always washed by hand. Doesn't everybody
know that?
And my MIL had to tell me that, because of plumbing issues, they didn't
actually USE their garbage disposal in the way that most people would.
(Unfortunately, SHE didn't know that their problems were unusual, and
was upset that I put potato peels down the disposal. Fortunately, DH
understood what was going on, and let her know that their problems
didn't exist for most people with garbage disposals, and blamed himself
for not telling me not to use it.)
Then there was the friend I had who always, always swept her carpet
carefully before she vacuumed it, because that way the vacuum cleaner
would last longer.
My point is that people differ in what they consider "normal wear and
tear" use, and it doesn't mean that any of them are wrong. It's pretty
clear from what I've read here that I'm not the only one who wouldn't
have thought twice about tossing metal cars into a toybox -- it wouldn't
result in any more damage than the way most if the kids I'd watched play
with them.
(The father should have stopped as soon as the boy told him to -- but
that's a different issue.)
--
toypup
> Would the evident gentle play going on, and the really good condition of
> the car
> come into consideration, even if you think it so unusual that this toy not
> be
> purchased with the intent of destroying and defacing it??
As I see it, the cars are durable and are meant to be crashed. Crashing
does not destroy. I never thought of chipped paint as equal to a destroyed
car. They still run, they still play and the average boy wouldn't even
notice.
>
>>
>>What if someone collected balls and didn't want them bounced because they
>>might get scuffed or dirtied with oil? How in the world are you supposed
>>to
>>know that? They are made for bouncing. You would constantly have to ask
>>about everything, which would make you look pretty silly for having to ask
>>if the ball can be bounced.
>>
>
> If you took a basketball and rolled it in motor oil, that would be
> upsetting
> too. Or does the owner have to put you on notice "please do not roll my
> basketball in motor oil"??
I didn't say roll it in oil, did I? Balls get dirty even when you don't
deliberately roll it in oil. Just bouncing it in the street gets it grimy
from the oil in the street. At least if it's a street that has ever had any
cars run on it.
>
> Would you take a baseball off the shelf and throw it in the woods? If the
> owner
> said in despair "that was the one with Derek Jeter's signature on it"
> woudl you
> say Oh WELL it's just a BALL it's to be thrown!"
A ball with a signature on it is obviously not the average ball. You are
stretching things. I wouldn't throw any balls into the woods because that
is not average everyday use. I am talking about regular wear and tear and
the normal use of a toy.
> Hey, a lot of the dolls I've seen have their hair chopped by their young
> owners,
> can I have of your dolls for a minute?
You know that is not the intent of use for a doll.
>
> How about treating things well, and for any treatment otherwise taking the
> cue
> from the owner? That sounds like a policy that would allow folks to get
> along.
> How about it? Consider it.
Of course, if somenone were to mention they treat a particular item
especially carefully, I would respect that. Like I said, DH won't let me
touch his baseball cards and I don't.
Barbara Bomberger
wrote:
I'm with Banty and Erika on this thing. I think everything should be
taken care of, not just precious things. So, I dont care of the couch
is ten years old, ya dont bounce on it, and I dont care if the bed is
second hand, you dont write on headboard with Markers, And even
though the dishes may be second hand corelle, yes, they deserve to be
washed and dried and treated properly. So even though leggo may be an
everyday toy, leaving pieces around to get stepped on, thrown out, or
lost is not acceptable.
Aside from the primary discussion, I happen to not believe in "toy
boxes" because things do get damaged and in general, everyime the kid
wants to get somethign out, they are dumping other toys out that they
may not play with. So we have alwyas had plastic shelves and bins.
>
toypup
"dragonlady" <meh...@removepacbell.net> wrote in message
news:mehouck-31D56B...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
> My point is that people differ in what they consider "normal wear and
> tear" use, and it doesn't mean that any of them are wrong. It's pretty
> clear from what I've read here that I'm not the only one who wouldn't
> have thought twice about tossing metal cars into a toybox -- it wouldn't
> result in any more damage than the way most if the kids I'd watched play
> with them.
>
> (The father should have stopped as soon as the boy told him to -- but
> that's a different issue.)
I'd say I agree with you. I have relatives who own a leather couch no one
has ever sat in to keep it new. I don't think they'd accuse anyone of being
destructive for coming over and accidentally being the first to sit on it
and possibly scratch it, but I don't know.
I once unwittingly ruined my ex-BF's dad's chair. You see, he was a
germaphobe and wanted his chair in pristine condition, touched only by him.
I didn't know that, because no one warned me. He came in and saw me sitting
in his chair. My ex-BF was mortified. I was only in it for a minute, but
my ex-BF told me that was enough to ruin his chair. I guess sitting in
chairs can be considered careless disregard of other's property to some
people.
toypup
"Barbara Bomberger" <barbarab...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3dtdu15js23anbkbh...@4ax.com...
> I'm with Banty and Erika on this thing. I think everything should be
> taken care of, not just precious things. So, I dont care of the couch
> is ten years old, ya dont bounce on it,
But can you sit on it?
and I dont care if the bed is
> second hand, you dont write on headboard with Markers,
But can you lay on it?
And even
> though the dishes may be second hand corelle, yes, they deserve to be
> washed and dried and treated properly.
But can you eat from it?
My point is, though you may not be destructive with it, you use it the way
it was intended. Like I said in another post, I have relatives with a couch
that is used only for display. How is anyone to know that? If they invite
you over, assuming a sleepover or party where you are not formally invited
to sit here or there and the couch is not mentioned as off limits (because
everyone ought to know a pristine looking couch is only for display), are
you showing blatant disregard to their property for sitting on the couch?
Likewise, toys usually go in the toybox when a toybox is present. How is
the dad to know the cars don't go there?
dragonlady
Barbara Bomberger <barbarab...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I don't think anyone here has suggested that waton carelessness is
called for -- only that there is a difference of opinion over what
constitutes "normal wear and tear".
Noone would suggest that just because your corelle is second hand it
should be thrown on the floor, walked on, or put away dirty.
On the other hand, I'd be surprised if you expected it to be washed by
hand (assuming you have a dishwasher) and handled the same way you would
handle delicate china. (Which, at least in some homes, means only used
once or twice a year, and put away with spacers between each of the
plates to reduce the chance of chipping.)
Different things require different treatment. I'd expect my kid's rag
dolls to be carried around, taken to bed for naps, etc. On the other
hand, when they were old enough for porcelain dolls, I expected them to
spend most of their time on the shelf, taken down occassionally for
dressing or fussing over, but never taken to bed. They are different
classes of dolls, requiring different treatment. No one would expect
all dolls to be treated the way porcelain dolls are treated -- that
would be silly, and would be kind of counter to the point of the rag
dolls.
Before reading this thread, I'd have put most die-cast cars in the
relatively casual category. I'd expect them to be put away properly --
but in my house that would have been in the bin where we kept toy cars,
floor road maps, road signs and a few other things, and they'd have just
been tossed in. I've been educated here to understand that some people
put matchbox cars in a different category, and expect them to be treated
more like collectables.
Not everyting needs to be treated like porcelain dolls (or blown Easter
eggs); that doesn't mean it's OK to engage in wanton destruction, but
kids do need to be able to play with toys in a way that allows for
reasonable use and therefore reasonable wear and tear.
I'm just trying to figure out how to best know when something that *I*
think of as corelle is in the "china" category for the people I'm
visiting.
Caledonia
Yes and no -- don't you also have some metal cars that are used in the
sandbox? (We have indoor metal cars and outdoor metal cars -- both are
stacked in their respective boxes, despite Mr. Collector Dad pointing
out that the Tonka trucks from the 1960's (indoor) are very valuable.
We've always treated them like toys -- they get zoomed around inside
and indeed even suffer crashes when going down block ramps. Such is the
life of toys -- they're not tossed around, but part of being a truck is
going down block ramps, in my book.)
> If you came to my house, and accidentally dropped a bowl, that would be one
> thing. But if by "normal wear and tear" you mean chips from tossing it through
> the air into the sink, right, you really shouldn't come over and visit. But
> I've known adults like that, who go around saying "shit-tappens" while they do
> amazing things that would quite unlikely *not* lead to damage (things like,
> pulling something out of the bottom of a stack with one hand without bracing the
> other items). Indeed, they'e not welcome at my house. It's not a very
> attractive attribute to have in a person one shares space with in a house or in
> a workplace and sometimes even in public. So it's something to teach children
> *not* to do.
>
> Banty
I'm with you on keeping things undamaged (hey, most of our toys are
from the stash my parents had, and they're still going strong, 50-60
years later), but in this example I don't think it was wanton
recklessness. Then again, we don't typically let parents clean up here,
as I can't stand the 'get everything off the floor' approach given that
we have plastic boxes where everything is sorted (legos with legos,
trucks with trucks, wooden little people with wooden little people --
the wholesale gathering and placing drives me and DD1 crazy.)
Caledonia
Banty
>
>
>"Banty" <Banty_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>news:ds6jg...@drn.newsguy.com...
>> Would the evident gentle play going on, and the really good condition of
>> the car
>> come into consideration, even if you think it so unusual that this toy not
>> be
>> purchased with the intent of destroying and defacing it??
>
>As I see it, the cars are durable and are meant to be crashed. Crashing
>does not destroy. I never thought of chipped paint as equal to a destroyed
>car. They still run, they still play and the average boy wouldn't even
>notice.
Do you adopt such low standards for how you would handle others' stuff in
general?
Why second guess what damage would be noticed? Why not just be careful??
>
>>
>>>
>>>What if someone collected balls and didn't want them bounced because they
>>>might get scuffed or dirtied with oil? How in the world are you supposed
>>>to
>>>know that? They are made for bouncing. You would constantly have to ask
>>>about everything, which would make you look pretty silly for having to ask
>>>if the ball can be bounced.
>>>
>>
>> If you took a basketball and rolled it in motor oil, that would be
>> upsetting
>> too. Or does the owner have to put you on notice "please do not roll my
>> basketball in motor oil"??
>
>I didn't say roll it in oil, did I? Balls get dirty even when you don't
>deliberately roll it in oil. Just bouncing it in the street gets it grimy
>from the oil in the street. At least if it's a street that has ever had any
>cars run on it.
If in YOUR house there are a lot of grease slicks in the driveway, b-balls would
just get a little oily, wouldn't they? "Oh well, it's a b-ball, meant to be
used outside..."
>
>>
>> Would you take a baseball off the shelf and throw it in the woods? If the
>> owner
>> said in despair "that was the one with Derek Jeter's signature on it"
>> woudl you
>> say Oh WELL it's just a BALL it's to be thrown!"
>
>A ball with a signature on it is obviously not the average ball. You are
>stretching things. I wouldn't throw any balls into the woods because that
>is not average everyday use. I am talking about regular wear and tear and
>the normal use of a toy.
How would you necessarily know? Perhaps you didn't notice the signature.
Perhaps you just don't know about signed baseballs and never heard of Derek
Jeter?? What if there is just a sentimental value attached to it (first ball
Dad pitched to her, maybe.)
This isn't a stretch at all - this is basic.
How about a general priniple that covers all these things - treat others' stuff
with care. Period.
>
>> Hey, a lot of the dolls I've seen have their hair chopped by their young
>> owners,
>> can I have of your dolls for a minute?
>
>You know that is not the intent of use for a doll.
I don't know! *I* did that with my dolls. Just about all the little girls I
know do that with their dolls! Isn't this a learning-playacting thing?
If my standard for how I treat others stuff *my* particular understanding of how
it is used, I'd try a trim on your doll. Why would you have a problem with it?
As far as I know, that's what dolls are for. So what are you so uptight about
- can I use your doll?
>
>>
>> How about treating things well, and for any treatment otherwise taking the
>> cue
>> from the owner? That sounds like a policy that would allow folks to get
>> along.
>> How about it? Consider it.
>
>Of course, if somenone were to mention they treat a particular item
>especially carefully, I would respect that. Like I said, DH won't let me
>touch his baseball cards and I don't.
Why do I have to put up special advance notice "I like my things to be damaged;
don't damage them."? Most people I know would be insulted by the implication
that they have to be told.
Just
don't
damage
other
people's
stuff.
Works all the way around. Takes a little restraint sometimes, but really, it's
worth it.
Banty
Ericka Kammerer
> Banty wrote:
>>But normal everyday care should be careful enough to allow things to last as
>>well as they can. Throwing metal things that are carefully painted and detailed
>>damages them. Drawing grafitti on furniture defaces it. I don't see how
>>refraining from damaging things is "special handling".
>
>
> Yes and no -- don't you also have some metal cars that are used in the
> sandbox?
No need to unnecessarily complicate this. The cars that
it's fine to bang around and get full of crud are banged around
and full of crud, no? Again, the issue is causing the item to
change state. It's probably a safe bet that the cars that are
banged up and dinged don't have to be played with as carefully
as the ones in pristine condition. This isn't rocket science.
If your actions would leave the item worse off, don't do it
without explicit permission.
Best wishes,
Ericka
Banty
But this is a false dichotomy. Not damaging stuff does not mean not even using
things, and I think these stories of extremely touchy people are relevant,
actually.
The main thing about the die cast cars, is that you and ohters presume that it
be used destructively.
If at YOUR house the old leather chair was jumped upon because it's old, that's
how you use it, right? Does that mean you would jump on any old leather chair??
No. You would consider that you've been putting your own chair to *destructive*
use. And you wouldn't assume that someone else's chair is likewise used
desstructively. But it would be OK to sit on it.
>
>Likewise, toys usually go in the toybox when a toybox is present. How is
>the dad to know the cars don't go there?
>
What, do you think toyboxes are all Big Cosmic Toyboxes where All Toys in Sight
Go? How did a toybox turn into a black hole, or a Bose Einstein condensation
site?!?
This toybox had big (like, at least 8 or 12 inches) things in it. And we never
*throw* toys in there, no more than you would *throw* your dishes on the shelf
to put them away, animated cartoon style. Things are *placed* in there to put
them away.
The room (like any kid's room *I've* seen but we seem to deal with different
species of kids!) has many OTHER places where different kind of things go as
well as a toybox.
Banty
Ericka Kammerer
> "Barbara Bomberger" <barbarab...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3dtdu15js23anbkbh...@4ax.com...
>
>>I'm with Banty and Erika on this thing. I think everything should be
>>taken care of, not just precious things. So, I dont care of the couch
>>is ten years old, ya dont bounce on it,
>
>
> But can you sit on it?
...and when you get up from sitting on it, it looks
and functions as well as it did previously.
>> and I dont care if the bed is
>>second hand, you dont write on headboard with Markers,
>
> But can you lay on it?
...and when you get up, it looks and functions as
well as it did previously (especially presuming you make
the bed, if it was made prior to your laying in it).
>> And even
>>though the dishes may be second hand corelle, yes, they deserve to be
>>washed and dried and treated properly.
>
> But can you eat from it?
...and when you're done eating from it and washing
it up properly, it's back to the same state it was in before.
> My point is, though you may not be destructive with it, you use it the way
> it was intended. Like I said in another post, I have relatives with a couch
> that is used only for display. How is anyone to know that? If they invite
> you over, assuming a sleepover or party where you are not formally invited
> to sit here or there and the couch is not mentioned as off limits (because
> everyone ought to know a pristine looking couch is only for display), are
> you showing blatant disregard to their property for sitting on the couch?
That's a red herring. No one's claiming that you
can't use or touch anything. Couches are clearly made for
sitting, and it would be quite unusual for sitting on a
couch (without putting your feet up on it) to be considered
inappropriate action. The fact that you've got an oddball
in your family who has a no-sit couch doesn't change that
general rule of thumb. But that in no way makes it okay
to take actions that *do* change the condition of something
owned by someone else. And who knows? Maybe your oddball
relatives are reacting defensively because so many people
thought that not only was it okay to sit on a couch, but
it was okay to put feet up on it (shoes intact), eat and
drink on it, and other things that are okay in their house
because they don't really see any need to treat their own
furniture in such a way as to preserve its condition, so
it must be okay to do that in someone else's home. Or
maybe they're just looney tunes. I wouldn't know. But
the argument is still a red herring.
> Likewise, toys usually go in the toybox when a toybox is present. How is
> the dad to know the cars don't go there?
It ain't rocket science to figure out that the
pristine cars can't be tossed into the toy box from across
the room without changing their state.
Best wishes,
Ericka
Ericka Kammerer
> "Ericka Kammerer" <e...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:8t-dnYErOfK...@comcast.com...
>
>>So, I don't think that "maybe it's not as
>>precious to someone else as it is to you" is ever
>>a justification. It doesn't matter. You never
>>treat anything carelessly if it belongs to someone
>>else, even if you think it's silly.
>
>
> I don't mean that I would treat things that are not precious carelessly. I
> would treat them as they are normally meant to be treated. I just wouldn't
> give them extra special gentle treatment. That's a lot different than being
> cavalier with others' belongings. I wouldn't do that. But a Matchbox car
> gets crashed and buried in sand. That's the usage I had in mind for them.
But then it would be quite obvious to anyone encountering
your Matchbox cars that they were dinged up and full of sand,
and it would be equally obvious that tossing them in a box and
playing with them in the sandbox wouldn't change their state.
Not true of a Matchbox car that is in pristine condition.
> What if someone collected balls and didn't want them bounced because they
> might get scuffed or dirtied with oil? How in the world are you supposed to
> know that? They are made for bouncing. You would constantly have to ask
> about everything, which would make you look pretty silly for having to ask
> if the ball can be bounced.
Again, a red herring. It's very simple to figure out.
The pristine basketball full of signatures doesn't get bounced,
because bouncing would change its state. The scuffed basketball
that has clearly seen use can be bounced with no problem. The
brand new looking basketball with no signs of wear and tear,
you ask the owner if it's okay to play with.
I don't get why this is complicated.
Best wishes,
Ericka
Donna Metler
matchbox cars and doesn't bang them together, run them into walls, etc is
probably the exception, not the rule. And, if you're that concerned, would
you store them in the toy box anyway? Or have them out to play with? Or
would it be more like the Madame Alexander dolls a well-meaning relative
keeps giving my daughter (Why would you give a 1 yr old a doll which can't
be mouthed and chewed on???) -on a shelf not to be played with, just
admired.
>
> Banty
>
Nan
<dmme...@xxxbellsouthxxx.net> wrote:
>I have to say that a young child who is picky about the condition of
>matchbox cars and doesn't bang them together, run them into walls, etc is
>probably the exception, not the rule. And, if you're that concerned, would
>you store them in the toy box anyway? Or have them out to play with? Or
>would it be more like the Madame Alexander dolls a well-meaning relative
>keeps giving my daughter (Why would you give a 1 yr old a doll which can't
>be mouthed and chewed on???) -on a shelf not to be played with, just
>admired.
We used to live in an apt, and had an upstairs neighbor whose son
collected Matchbox cars. It was very apparent they weren't for
"normal" play, as they were kept displayed in a cabinet with a glass
door.
My ds and he would take them out to play with them, but the father
supervised, and it was clear the child was very careful with them.
My ds would be equally careful by following the child and father's
example, in spite of being allowed to play with his own cars in what I
considered to be "normal" play.
Now, I believe the upstairs neighbor was an exception, and I believe
it was important for my ds to learn to respect his belongings.
However, I wouldn't have taught my child to treat another child's toys
with 'extraordinary care'. I would (and did) teach him to treat them
they way he would want his own things treated. If a friend wanted his
toys treated in a special manner, then I felt it was up to that friend
to make that known.
Nan
Banty
>
>In article <d2DFf.18264$_S7....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>, toypup says...
>>
>>
>>"Barbara Bomberger" <barbarab...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:3dtdu15js23anbkbh...@4ax.com...
>>> I'm with Banty and Erika on this thing. I think everything should be
>>> taken care of, not just precious things. So, I dont care of the couch
>>> is ten years old, ya dont bounce on it,
>>
>>But can you sit on it?
>>
>>and I dont care if the bed is
>>> second hand, you dont write on headboard with Markers,
>>
>>But can you lay on it?
>>
>>And even
>>> though the dishes may be second hand corelle, yes, they deserve to be
>>> washed and dried and treated properly.
>>
>>But can you eat from it?
>>
>>My point is, though you may not be destructive with it, you use it the way
>>it was intended. Like I said in another post, I have relatives with a couch
>>that is used only for display. How is anyone to know that? If they invite
>>you over, assuming a sleepover or party where you are not formally invited
>>to sit here or there and the couch is not mentioned as off limits (because
>>everyone ought to know a pristine looking couch is only for display), are
>>you showing blatant disregard to their property for sitting on the couch?
>
>But this is a false dichotomy. Not damaging stuff does not mean not even using
>things, and I think these stories of extremely touchy people are relevant,
>actually.
I meant to say - I *don't* think these stories are relevant.
Banty
Banty
Actually, he treated the sand-box cars (trucks, mostly - little loaders and snow
plows and stuff) well as far as their use. We'd rinse them off and let them dry
at the end of the season or when he wanted them for his in-home construction
scenarios. Sure, the sand marred the finish, but not like in big chips. More
like real construction equipment. Even those wouldn't be thrown around.
We still have most of the die cast cars - well used and played with, but not
trashed and chipped and smashed up. They'll be passed down or sold eventually.
Banty
Banty
>
>
>Aside from the primary discussion, I happen to not believe in "toy
>boxes" because things do get damaged and in general, everyime the kid
>wants to get somethign out, they are dumping other toys out that they
>may not play with. So we have alwyas had plastic shelves and bins.
>>
>
Yes - I can't imagine how legos and die cast cars and kennex sticks and all can
be jumbled up in a big toy box and be much fun to play with later. Half the
play time would be taken up picking out which pieces would be used and many
would be pretty much lost. We used plastic boxes and bins, too.
Banty
Caledonia
I understand this and it's relatively intuitive for me (as mentioned,
I'm the compulsive 'toys sorted in each plastic box' lady) -- but I can
easily see how someone else wouldn't see the difference, not out of
wanton Disregard For All Things, but just by pattern matching on 'toy
cars = toy cars'. (DH, for example, can't figure out what clothes are
'play clothes' for our 3 yo -- he's meticulous about clothing care, but
seemingly doesn't 'see' a difference between older scuffy leggings and
new leggings.)
Caledonia
Caledonia
Banty wrote:
> In article <1139178686....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> darth_b...@yahoo.com says...
> >
> >
> >Banty wrote:
> >> In article <1139139153.8...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> >> darth_b...@yahoo.com says...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >We took this approach too. Theirs, within reason. I think the
> >> >underlying principle was not to disable the functionality of the
> >> >object. So stickers on lamps, desks, clocks and other flattish surfaces
> >> >was okay. Dropping them from a height was not. The other thought was
> >> >that the room and contents should be reasonably presentable,
> >> >age-appropriately. So stickers, drawings, even little engravings on the
> >> >furniture would be okay, slathering them with mud or black paint would
> >> >not.
> >> >
> >> >DB
> >> >
> >>
> >> Reasonably presentable, "age - appropriately"??
> >>
> >> It might work if one replaces furniture every few years! I dont' know about
> >> you, but I expect to use furniture for some years. Even my son's old Little
> >> Tykes stuff now has storage duty in the furnace room.
> >>
> >> Banty
> >
> >Yup. Meaning, some gets replaced and some lives on, stickers, drawings
> >and all. Beds go. Dressers and shelves stay. Carpet, sheets, curtains
> >change.
> >
> >Stickers, drawings and other 5 y-o modifications enliven their teen
> >room furniture. If it bothered them - doesn't seem to - they can
> >remove, cover, re-paint. At some point, the furniture will be tossed,
> >having served its purpose for maybe a decade or more. This is not
> >mahogany we speak of, more like pine and/or particle-board. If it
> >morphs into basement storage, stickers/ graffiti won't bother us. Kinda
> >cute, actually.
>
> have to be mahogany to be expected to last? My son is still using his pine
> furniture, and we added more, and he *really* wanted the stickers and other
> little-boy stuff out. Twelve year old boys aren't much for their friends seeing
> cutesy cowboys and smiling little airplanes in their rooms anymore. Maybe
> teenaged girls don't mind so much the little-girl stuff, but still, they do make
> it into their twenties or the guest room will need the dresser.
Inexpensive pine and laminate furniture (or my nemesis, drawers that
are nailed together) that's subjected to daily use (versus a bookshelf,
with minimal moving parts) is not typically *built* to last. (It's like
asking 'why are those $.50 goody bag toys not expected to last -- or
why is using particleboard for a kitchen countertop a bad idea...) Pine
with large exposed knots that can't be sealed and paste-waxed seems to
expand, contract, swell and crack a whole lot more with our temperature
swings here (and no, I'm too cheap to heat my house above 62 in the
winter). Without being sealed, if you don't wash your hands before
touching it, it will discolor from the (natural) oils on your hands.
The nails will eventually work themselves out due to the open/shut
action over a few years -- even screws would be better, truly, if it's
not dovetailed. Typically, the nails also rust, too. Then again, my
pine furniture experience is limited to the 'pine furniture you buy in
college.' We still have it, but it's basement quality stuff despite
relatively gentle use.
It's like wondering why those red oak kids school chairs from the 1920s
are still around, but the plastic ones with the tubular legs from the
1980's have all cracked and rusted (despite indoor only use) -- it's
not that we've treated the 1920s chairs any better, but that the 1980s
chairs weren't built to last, and require repair every couple years or
so.
> But, hey, I expect my cars to last 10 years or more. I don't think it's
> particularly great value to teach that things are disposable. Sorry, I don't -
> it's been making for a crappy, consuming, throw-away society.
>
> Banty
True -- but it's easier to maintain a 1960's Chevy Suburban here, than
a 1980's Subaru Justy. Materials and construction are as large a factor
in longevity as 'appropriate use'.
Caledonia
Banty
>
>
>> Perhaps you're defensive because *you'd* lead the kids in throwing hard,
>> painted, good-condition METAL toys across the room, taking no mind as they
>chip
>> and grind agaisnt each other, 'cause after all, it's just some kids toys
>and
>> don't all kids wreck their stuff anyway. Well, consider that not all kids
>wreck
>> their stuff.
>I have to say that a young child who is picky about the condition of
>matchbox cars and doesn't bang them together, run them into walls, etc is
>probably the exception, not the rule. And, if you're that concerned, would
>you store them in the toy box anyway? Or have them out to play with? Or
>would it be more like the Madame Alexander dolls a well-meaning relative
>keeps giving my daughter (Why would you give a 1 yr old a doll which can't
>be mouthed and chewed on???) -on a shelf not to be played with, just
>admired.
The die cast cars were *not* stored in a toy box. The toy box was there for
*other* stuff. There were bins and little divided boxes for the cars, although
they often 'lived' in parking garages made to their scale.
Do folks truly not see any middle ground between smash-and-crash and up on a
shelf pristine in boxes like Madam Alexander dolls?? This is the fallacy of
false dichotomy. It's some of why I object to this idea that 'precious' stuff
should be hidden away (so that even the owner can't enjoy them!), else it's
fair game for whatever use strikes someone else. There's a huge and livable
middle ground of using things decently, such that they're not ruined can can
continue to be used. Indeed, it's necessary to recognize that to ever be able
to have nice things happen - to enjoy things, and enjoy them for a length of
time. Hide-and-hoard or smash-and-trash doesn't allow for that.
Banty