Thursday, May 26, 2011
Mennonite Disscussion #9?
The Mennonites disapprove of dancing and drinking alcohol. Rhoda says that while growing up, radios, eight-track tapes, unsupervised television, Lite-Brites, and Barbies – among other things – were all forbidden. Does her family gain anything positive by limiting “wordly” influences? Did Rhoda and her siblings lose anything in being so sheltered? What “wordly” influences would you try to protect your children from today?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I think that eliminating most of these things (aside from dancing and radios) was beneficial to Rhoda's upbringing.
I don't think being "sheltered" really hurt her. But then again, maybe all of this "sheltering" caused her to marry someone from the opposite end of the spectrum. Rhoda seems to blame it on her education, but maybe she was like a moth to a flame. Nick seems to be the antithesis of her family.
Hmmm. Now that got me to thinking a little more. Let me come back to this.
I think parental sheltering can either be a win-win or a lose-lose situation...and I'm not sure there is any way to predict. It's a spicy recipe of 1) How do the parents act? (ie...is it 'do what I say not what I do', or do they set a good example) 2) While sheltering the kids, do the parents communicate the reasons for sheltering or do they just say, "you can't dance because God says so"? 3)The basic relationship between father/mother and parents/child.
I know parents who sheltered who's children are the worst little fuckers you've ever seen. I also know parents who sheltered who's children are the nicest and most loving you've ever met. I think it more than just 'do we shelter or not'...it's more about communication and family dynamics.
I think they definitely gained something by limiting the worldly influences. At the least, Rhoda's family seemed to make a conscious effort to spend time together (whether at dinner, camping, etc). This is huge and it's something that's more difficult to mandate when everyone has a television and/or telephone in their room (not to mention laptops!).
I agree that it's got to be more than just forbidding things because "God says so" or even because "Mommy and Daddy say so." If Rhoda and her siblings "lost" anything, I'd say it was more as a result of their parents not talking with them further about the particular rules they made. I think that when children are old enough, they should be introduced to ideas of all kinds and allowed to see different sides of issues so that they learn how to negotiate the wealth of information available. Exposing them to different ideas also ensures (I hope!) that they will not be afraid of (or overly intrigued by) people who have different opinions. Ideally, parents provide children with the space to develop their opinions and learn to express them respectfully.
As for sheltering my own child, we don't have a television and we don't allow Cady to own princess stuff. That's not to say that Cady never watches TV, but we don't have one in the house. She has a portable DVD player that's pulled out for her to watch (parent-approved) DVDs. She still asks to watch it, but since it's not usually sitting out, it's not a constant battle. More importantly, it limits her exposure to advertising.
I could write a buckoo on the princess stuff, but Peggy Orenstein's book Cinderella Ate My Daughter put words to a lot of my feelings on that subject. She was also on NPR and CAR linked to it awhile back so check it out if you haven't; it's powerful stuff. I wrote entirely too much here, but I'm too lazy to edit it. I'll try to be less verbose on the next question.
Post a Comment