If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
kids and their furniture?
|
#42
|
|||
|
|||
kids and their furniture?
Anonymama wrote: In article et, cara 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 |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
kids and their furniture?
In article , bizby40 says...
"Banty" wrote in message ... In article , 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 |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
kids and their furniture?
In article , toypup says...
"Banty" wrote in message ... 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 |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
kids and their furniture?
|
#46
|
|||
|
|||
kids and their furniture?
Banty wrote:
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 |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
kids and their furniture?
Banty wrote:
In article .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 |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
kids and their furniture?
In article , Rosalie B. says...
Banty wrote: In article .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. 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 |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
kids and their furniture?
"Banty" wrote in message ... 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 |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
kids and their furniture?
"Banty" wrote in message ... 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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|