![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Leave those kids alone.
Another great article from The Sunday Times (and yes I'm being *ridiculously* lazy today!)
Leave those kids alone
Leave those kids alone
Forget play dates, language classes and endless activities. Father of three Tom Hodgkinson presents the lazy man’s guide to responsible parenting: doing nothing
As the leader of a pressure group that promotes lying around doing nothing, I am often asked by friends how I manage to combine my lazy principles with being the father of three small children. Surely childcare is a lot of work, they say. Yes, in many ways, it is. You have to get up at seven or earlier. Nights are broken. Children make an unbelievable amount of mess, so you are constantly cleaning up. They have to be bathed, fed, clothed, put on the school bus and collected from friends’ houses. They whine, whinge and cry. All this tends to impinge on idling time.
*
However, in recent years, we as a society have made things much worse for ourselves — and much worse than they need to be — by applying a work ethic to childhood. Children these days seem to be constantly busy. Where we have jobs, children are expected to have endless “activities”: ballet, tennis lessons, music class. Every day, they are being trained in something or other, rather than just being left to play. A woman I met on holiday once said how much she hated the phrase “art project”, which gets bandied around all the time. Why can’t they just muck about? Why the rampant overscheduling, with all the extra work it involves for parent.
Before moving on to my tips for responsible parenting — which, to me, is synonymous with lazy parenting — I would like to explain the intellectual philosophy I’ve based the tips on. It comes from the following lines from an essay called Education of the People, written in 1918 by DH Lawrence: “How to begin to educate a child. First rule, leave him alone. Second rule, leave him alone. Third rule, leave him alone. That is the whole beginning.”
My friend, Slack Dad, was much struck, as you might well believe, by these lines when I showed them to him last year. We were sitting on a grassy knoll, drinking and trying to ignore our children, so you can see the appeal.
Lawrence is absolutely right. There is far too much interference in the lives of children. This interference is usually carried out under the excuse of “health and safety”. Oh, health and safety. How many crimes to humanity have been committed in thy name? I understand, for example, that in nursery schools around the country — which are now known by the unappealing term “preschools” — running around is no longer allowed. Running around not allowed? For children of three and four? Surely they should be doing nothing but running around? But, no. We have decided somewhere along the line that preschools should prepare three-year-olds for the discipline of school, where their natural urges will begin to be tamed.
Lawrence was not, of course, recommending slothful neglect. We don’t let our children eat nails. What he meant was that we should allow them space, physical and mental. “Leave his sensibilities, his emotions, his spirit and his mind severely alone,” he wrote.
The leave-them-alone philosophy, or benign neglect, as it is sometimes called, seems in direct opposition to everything that we have decided to believe. You are supposed to play with children, give them attention, give them special time, mummy time, quality time. You are asked to make play dates. Thus it is that childcare becomes a burdensome task rather than a pleasure. It’s surely worse to play a game with your kid under sufferance than to ignore them and read the paper while they find something to do. “Bill, play with Fred,” I heard a mother command her husband. “I thought play was supposed to be a spontaneous thing,” came the lugubrious reply.
When we overschedule and overstimulate our kids, and put them on the clock, we don’t leave enough to their own imagination. They will come to rely on pre-organised activities without acting for themselves. I think of the great New Yorker cartoon that satirised this work-ethic trend in parenting. Two kids are standing next to each other, both staring at their electronic organisers. “Well,” says one to the other, “I can fit you in for unscheduled play next Thursday at four.” This we may call the doctrine of activities, and it is to be avoided for all your sakes.
With our eldest son, we definitely made the mistake of overstimulating him, whether playing with him or letting him watch lots of television. We were in his face. “I ... need ... some ... entertainment!” he shouted the other day. Already he is in danger of becoming a passive consumer of entertainment, rather than a creator, a player. The younger two have been left alone more, simply because there wasn’t time to give them the same amount of attention as No 1, and the result is that both are showing signs of being more self-sufficient.
It’s amazing how resourceful children are, once given the opportunity, once left alone. The other day, in a fit of pious rage, I stormed into the sitting room and turned off the television. To be sure, they objected at first. But soon they were playing their own games. Later I realised that I was washing up while all three of them played near me in the kitchen, without hassling me. How I achieved this miracle, I don’t know, but I suspect it was by leaving them alone.
The leave-them-alone philosophy is better for the kids and less work for the grown-ups. If kids grow up accustomed to looking after themselves, then they will surely turn into independent adults who do not look to employers or governments or commercialised entertainment systems to sort out their lives for them. They will be like the Famous Five, the Narnia children, or Wendy, John and Michael in Peter Pan: parentless and free.
In my ideal world, I would also give the kids far fewer toys, particularly the plastic ones with five million bits that get lost or have to be cleared up. The best toy, I have often thought, would be a block of wood. Nothing to lose, nothing to break and not too offensive to the parents’ aesthetic sense, either. A simple block of wood can also be re-created into anything by the child’s imagination. In fact, one episode of The Simpsons featured a television advert for a toy called Log!, which was, simply, a log. The joke, of course, was the ingenious way that marketing men have of packaging something without value and making it into a special toy with a price tag. But still, a log. I thought that was a good idea.
Other tricks that work are combining drinking with childcare. Drinking makes you less grumpy (albeit temporarily) and less inclined to be addicted to strict modes of behaviour. It loosens the hold of the internal puritan, and kids respond well to that.
It’s also wise to live near granny and grandfather, simply for the childcare possibilities, especially as the kids grow older. The other tip is always, always, always get enough sleep. The terrible cruelty of young children is the sleep deprivation they impose on their parents. The answer is for both parents to do as little work as possible in the first two years, to enable lots of extra time for naps. If this is impossible, then make sure you go to bed early.
So our new low-effort approach to childcare seems to have three definite advantages: one, it is easier than trying to keep them entertained all the time; two, it is cheaper; and three, it produces more confident children, who are able to look after themselves and will not constantly seek a parent substitute in later life, be that employer or spouse.
The lazy approach is cheap, easy and effective. Minimise authority and maximise freedom — that should be our plan.
Extracted from The Idler, issue 37, by Tom Hodgkinson, published by Ebury Press at £10.99. Copyright Idle Ltd 2006. To order for the special price of £9.89, call Books First on 0870 165 8585
As the leader of a pressure group that promotes lying around doing nothing, I am often asked by friends how I manage to combine my lazy principles with being the father of three small children. Surely childcare is a lot of work, they say. Yes, in many ways, it is. You have to get up at seven or earlier. Nights are broken. Children make an unbelievable amount of mess, so you are constantly cleaning up. They have to be bathed, fed, clothed, put on the school bus and collected from friends’ houses. They whine, whinge and cry. All this tends to impinge on idling time.
*
However, in recent years, we as a society have made things much worse for ourselves — and much worse than they need to be — by applying a work ethic to childhood. Children these days seem to be constantly busy. Where we have jobs, children are expected to have endless “activities”: ballet, tennis lessons, music class. Every day, they are being trained in something or other, rather than just being left to play. A woman I met on holiday once said how much she hated the phrase “art project”, which gets bandied around all the time. Why can’t they just muck about? Why the rampant overscheduling, with all the extra work it involves for parent.
Before moving on to my tips for responsible parenting — which, to me, is synonymous with lazy parenting — I would like to explain the intellectual philosophy I’ve based the tips on. It comes from the following lines from an essay called Education of the People, written in 1918 by DH Lawrence: “How to begin to educate a child. First rule, leave him alone. Second rule, leave him alone. Third rule, leave him alone. That is the whole beginning.”
My friend, Slack Dad, was much struck, as you might well believe, by these lines when I showed them to him last year. We were sitting on a grassy knoll, drinking and trying to ignore our children, so you can see the appeal.
Lawrence is absolutely right. There is far too much interference in the lives of children. This interference is usually carried out under the excuse of “health and safety”. Oh, health and safety. How many crimes to humanity have been committed in thy name? I understand, for example, that in nursery schools around the country — which are now known by the unappealing term “preschools” — running around is no longer allowed. Running around not allowed? For children of three and four? Surely they should be doing nothing but running around? But, no. We have decided somewhere along the line that preschools should prepare three-year-olds for the discipline of school, where their natural urges will begin to be tamed.
Lawrence was not, of course, recommending slothful neglect. We don’t let our children eat nails. What he meant was that we should allow them space, physical and mental. “Leave his sensibilities, his emotions, his spirit and his mind severely alone,” he wrote.
The leave-them-alone philosophy, or benign neglect, as it is sometimes called, seems in direct opposition to everything that we have decided to believe. You are supposed to play with children, give them attention, give them special time, mummy time, quality time. You are asked to make play dates. Thus it is that childcare becomes a burdensome task rather than a pleasure. It’s surely worse to play a game with your kid under sufferance than to ignore them and read the paper while they find something to do. “Bill, play with Fred,” I heard a mother command her husband. “I thought play was supposed to be a spontaneous thing,” came the lugubrious reply.
When we overschedule and overstimulate our kids, and put them on the clock, we don’t leave enough to their own imagination. They will come to rely on pre-organised activities without acting for themselves. I think of the great New Yorker cartoon that satirised this work-ethic trend in parenting. Two kids are standing next to each other, both staring at their electronic organisers. “Well,” says one to the other, “I can fit you in for unscheduled play next Thursday at four.” This we may call the doctrine of activities, and it is to be avoided for all your sakes.
With our eldest son, we definitely made the mistake of overstimulating him, whether playing with him or letting him watch lots of television. We were in his face. “I ... need ... some ... entertainment!” he shouted the other day. Already he is in danger of becoming a passive consumer of entertainment, rather than a creator, a player. The younger two have been left alone more, simply because there wasn’t time to give them the same amount of attention as No 1, and the result is that both are showing signs of being more self-sufficient.
It’s amazing how resourceful children are, once given the opportunity, once left alone. The other day, in a fit of pious rage, I stormed into the sitting room and turned off the television. To be sure, they objected at first. But soon they were playing their own games. Later I realised that I was washing up while all three of them played near me in the kitchen, without hassling me. How I achieved this miracle, I don’t know, but I suspect it was by leaving them alone.
The leave-them-alone philosophy is better for the kids and less work for the grown-ups. If kids grow up accustomed to looking after themselves, then they will surely turn into independent adults who do not look to employers or governments or commercialised entertainment systems to sort out their lives for them. They will be like the Famous Five, the Narnia children, or Wendy, John and Michael in Peter Pan: parentless and free.
In my ideal world, I would also give the kids far fewer toys, particularly the plastic ones with five million bits that get lost or have to be cleared up. The best toy, I have often thought, would be a block of wood. Nothing to lose, nothing to break and not too offensive to the parents’ aesthetic sense, either. A simple block of wood can also be re-created into anything by the child’s imagination. In fact, one episode of The Simpsons featured a television advert for a toy called Log!, which was, simply, a log. The joke, of course, was the ingenious way that marketing men have of packaging something without value and making it into a special toy with a price tag. But still, a log. I thought that was a good idea.
Other tricks that work are combining drinking with childcare. Drinking makes you less grumpy (albeit temporarily) and less inclined to be addicted to strict modes of behaviour. It loosens the hold of the internal puritan, and kids respond well to that.
It’s also wise to live near granny and grandfather, simply for the childcare possibilities, especially as the kids grow older. The other tip is always, always, always get enough sleep. The terrible cruelty of young children is the sleep deprivation they impose on their parents. The answer is for both parents to do as little work as possible in the first two years, to enable lots of extra time for naps. If this is impossible, then make sure you go to bed early.
So our new low-effort approach to childcare seems to have three definite advantages: one, it is easier than trying to keep them entertained all the time; two, it is cheaper; and three, it produces more confident children, who are able to look after themselves and will not constantly seek a parent substitute in later life, be that employer or spouse.
The lazy approach is cheap, easy and effective. Minimise authority and maximise freedom — that should be our plan.
Extracted from The Idler, issue 37, by Tom Hodgkinson, published by Ebury Press at £10.99. Copyright Idle Ltd 2006. To order for the special price of £9.89, call Books First on 0870 165 8585