
What Dads' Play Does for Kids - kareemm
http://www.wsj.com/articles/what-dads-play-does-for-kids-1434476561
======
ThomPete
I have two boys and the biggest discussion my wife and I have is whether I
tease them and push them too much. Especially the oldest one who was born 10
weeks to early and therefore we of course for a long time were being extra
careful.

Both of our sons have bruises all over from play because we let them play and
challenge themselves and each other.

It's a tough balance but I think it's doing them a favor also compared to
later on in life.

~~~
hoodoof
If you teasing your sons is being raised as an issue by your wife then maybe
you _are_ teasing them too much?

You are probably from a family with a few kids who all teased each other all
the time so its one of your key relationship mechanisms, not only with
children but adult teasing too. Am I right?

~~~
swasheck
not necessarily. did you read the article?

~~~
hoodoof
I still think there is a healthy amount of teasing and there is too much
teasing. People can tell when it is too much. Often people who were brought up
in an environment with pervasive teasing (typically from siblings) do not have
a sense of "how much is too much" when they become adults. The continue to
tease beyond the point that is sensitive and healthy and fun - they are not
tuned in to the impact of their teasing. Others notice it though - like wives.
Typically though the over-teaser dismisses such concerns.

This guy says "biggest discussion my wife and I have is whether I tease them
and push them too much". I read that as someone who is not in touch with the
fact that he is over-teasing, and is not effective at putting himself in the
shoes of others to see and feel what that teasing is like.

When adult tease, they are carrying on the behaviour they learned in the
family situation as children. They have not learned that teasing is a
behaviour either best left in childhood or strongly curtailed/regulated - it's
not an effective way to relate to people if you are an adult, does not grow
relationships. Except perhaps as described in the case of this article where a
bit of teasing with the kids is fun. A bit.

~~~
swasheck
i still can't agree with you. are you implying that playful office banter with
my coworkers is childish and should not exist? are you stating that joking
with friends is childish and should have been discarded in primary school?

what if his wife is overly sensitive to teasing because of a lack of its
presence in her formative years and, as such, she never learned to cope with
it and he's giving an appropriate amount of teasing? i just dont think that we
have enough information to levy specific criticisms against this poster.

~~~
SomeStupidPoint
> are you implying that playful office banter with my coworkers is childish
> and should not exist?

I think he's implying that most of the office teasing is done by people who
don't understand the boundaries of teasing correctly -- which seems to be
supported by the way HR policies frown on what you'd call "friendly", that
many employees report being unhappy at work because of such things, the way in
which many toxic workplace lawsuits come about, and that it is a way in which
inter-department politics can become downright dysfunctional.

Most people who defend teasing as a default mode of social interaction --
particularly with coworkers instead of close friends -- sound like abuse
victims (who internalized their abuse as a good thing as a coping mechanism)
playing out their abuse over on new victims, and not people arguing for a
functional social mechanic.

~~~
swasheck
who said anything about a "default mode of social interaction" anywhere in
this thread? additionally, i think you'd do well to cite your sources for the
assertion in the last sentence because right now it sounds like you're both
attempting to diagnose _me_ and misrepresenting my statements.

~~~
SomeStupidPoint
Who said anything about teasing being a default mode of social interaction?

You. You and everyone talking about teasing be a normal way that you interact
and which is a non-trivial fraction of your interactions -- that's just a more
wordy way of saying "a default mode of social interaction". A "default mode"
is one of a handful of ways that something happens, which is regarded as a
normal way for it to happen. So quite literally, I just used other words to
describe what you were already talking about.

> additionally, i think you'd do well to cite your sources for the assertion
> in the last sentence because right now it sounds like you're both attempting
> to diagnose me and misrepresenting my statements

The source of my comment is partnering with a large corporation to review the
HR comments by abusers fired for workplace harassment of coworkers.

Across thousands of cases, for the ones which didn't stem from a single
incident (eg, calling your coworker a "fucking nigger" and going on a rant
about how he should "go back to Africa" in front of the entire office (not an
actual example)), the majority asserted that they were merely trying to be
friendly and teasing their coworker, and they they should learn to not take
themselves so seriously and lighten up, ie, that months of teasing someone
after being asked to stop until they felt motivated to involve outside parties
should be excused because they meant well.

I just find it interesting that no one seems able to point out a difference
between their arguments and yours.

~~~
SteveLAnderson
Yeah, sorry, there's a big gap between what was written and "default mode of
social interaction".

Teasing can be a default mode of social interaction, but there's a vast gap
between saying that teasing can be okay and saying that it should be a default
mode of social interaction.

Your claim that they are the same is nonsense.

There's no doubt that some people try to excuse unacceptable behavior by
claiming they were teasing.

There's also no doubt that teasing can be done in a way that does not have
negative impacts.

The same is true of many things in the office. Asking someone to lunch can be
a good way to form a positive bond with them or it can be a non-professional
actionable move.

If a person asks you to stop talking to them in a certain manner or about a
certain topic, you should, just like if someone asks you to stop inviting them
to lunch, you should.

However, you'd never suggest that no one should ever ask a co-worker to join
him/her for lunch, would you?

Thus, your position is only valid if you belief that all teasing is harmful.
That's simply not supportable, regardless of your experience.

------
koevet
I am the father of a 4 years old girl (and a 2 months old baby girl) and I can
relate to the study's results. In the family, I'm the one that pushes my
daughter limits, sometime with a certain amount of risk.

One drawback of this playful approach to parenting, is that my daughter
perceives the mother as the authority and the father as the "friend". I reckon
this is a quite common scenario, but it leads to some unpleasant situations
(such as, mum says no to ipad, kid runs to father and ask ipad to father -
hence creating a conflict ).

Actually, I'm trying to be less playful with her to check if I can restore the
authority balance.

~~~
Jem
Not sure that necessitates you being less playful - just back your wife up so
that you come across as a team, rather than two individuals who can be played
off as each other?

It's not a bad thing that your child has found a friend in you.

~~~
fishnchips
> It's not a bad thing that your child has found a friend in you.

I don't think children need us as their friends - they have plenty of these
all over the place. Plus, friendship and authority don't mix. The way I see
that kids need us to be their guides and that's quite a bit different.

~~~
jtheory
Being a really good parent (in my view) is all about mixing authority and
friendship/trust/empathy.

Kids have a lot of interesting ideas that (for various reasons) they can't act
out, and sometimes you're the one preventing them. If it sucks (e.g., my
daughter wants to pick every flower she sees... I have to stop her, because
these are flowers other people bought & tend, to make their homes look nice),
then I show her sympathy rather than anger. I still have to stop her from
picking them -- it's part of my job as a parent, to keep my child's behavior
from harming others -- but I tell her that in so many words. "I'm your dad, so
this is part of my job, to stop you from doing things that will make other
people really sad... but I'm sorry, it would be cool to bring all these
flowers home!". And (because I'm sympathizing) I can think to go looking for
wildflowers, or pick our own flowers. We're in the same boat -- there are also
lots of things I want that I can't do, and I point them out when I can.

I don't ever say "because I said so" \-- that's something I don't want to
teach them. I have to have a reason, and if I can't come up with one, then I
re-think what I'm asking them to do (or not do). Okay, so we're running around
out in a field, and it seems kinda wrong _to me_ for you to take off all your
clothes; but honestly we'd see anyone coming a mile away, so _if_ you can get
dressed again lightning-fast if someone comes... then go for it. And remember
if the lightning-fast thing doesn't work, then _next_ time I'm going to say
it's a bad idea.

There really seem to be a lot of parents who think they need to "discipline"
their children, need to keep punishing them (often more & more severely) until
the child learns to stop fighting back, stop challenging their authority, and
will do what they're told. This is a painfully short-sighted view of
parenting.

Think about it -- if my daughter doesn't pick flowers, ever, because she just
knows I'll get mad, what has she learned? Nothing, just "here's another thing
that makes Daddy mad" \-- and optionally "if I keep picking flowers, Daddy
keeps getting angrier until he stops taking me on walks, or he slaps my hand",
or however else I escalated my reaction until it finally "worked". I might be
more or less smart about how I enforce my authority over her, but all I'm
thinking about in that case is "how can I force this child to do X" \--
empathy is nowhere in sight, and it's just a struggle between us... which is
going to carry over into our other interactions as well.

If I'm empathizing with her (and cheering her up, since neither of us can pick
these flowers), the short-term end result is identical (flowers are not
picked), but long-term is much better. She learns a bit more about the
restrictions of living in a world with lots of other people in it (and can
learn to apply the _reasons_ for not picking other people's flowers to other
situations), she's a bit closer to me (esp. if I managed to cheer her up
successfully), and she's a bit further on her way to being a responsible,
thoughtful adult.

There are a lot of ways in which being a good parent is like being a really
good tour guide, much more than being a policeman/judge.

[note: this is a long rant answering a little comment! sorry about that...
this is a topic I feel strongly about.]

~~~
icebraining
My parents used to have the same view when I was a single child. Then my
brother was born.

There are only so many times you can empathize with someone who keeps trying
to do the same thing, despite knowing why he can't.

They still believe that explaining why something is forbidden is the best
course, but they stopped assuming the person on the street slapping his/her
kid's bottom is just ignorant of the advantages of compassionate parenting.

~~~
jtheory
I'm not at all saying that the same tactics work for all kids. But there are
_tons_ of ways to influence kids' behavior that don't involve corporal
punishment, and I've never had to go too far down the list, when I sit down
and brainstorm ideas.

It's also essential to think longer-term. I don't know what your brother was
doing, or what your parents tried. But part of raising kids is being aware
that a child's behavior is going to keep changing, week to week, almost
regardless of what you do. So if they're doing something you don't like (but
that isn't risky), it's sometimes the best course to just endure it for a bit.

Personally, I'm pretty open about these things, so I remind my kids that yes,
they have the power to make me miserable, any time they want. Sometimes they
do. But they're clearly not enjoying those times either, so we work together
to try to figure out what's going on, and how we can optimize for more fun.

------
spectre256
A lot of women, when asked what they're looking for in a male partner say they
really desire someone who is funny. Obviously, it's generally more enjoyable
to be around a funny person than a boring one, but could it also be that
funnyness/humor, being an important trait in parenting, is being selected for
that reason? Very fascinating.

~~~
maratd
That's not it. Being "funny" is actually a great screening test for being
"happy". Try to be genuinely funny when you're miserable. You can't. Not let's
crack a joke you read on the internet funny, but say something that's actually
funny and in good humor when something isn't going right. That's genuine humor
and that's what women are looking for. It's impossible to do it when you're
miserable. Women are just screening for happy, successful men.

~~~
GuiA
Anecdata and all, but I've dealt with depression since my teenage years, yet I
was a successful improv actor in high school and often have friends telling me
they think I'm funny. And in fact many comedians avow to dealing with
depression in some way.

So I'm not too sure about the validity of your rationalization.

------
wodenokoto

      > many of their dads scored low on a standard yardstick her
      > research team was using to evaluate the parent-child bond.
      > ... The children described rich, warm relationships with
      > their fathers ... “My dad gives me encouragement to do
      > things,” or, “My dad tells me he thinks I can do well.”
    

What kind of yard stick are they traditionally using?

~~~
crusso
There were decades long trends in psychology that attempted to "undo the
damage of male-dominated thinking and behaviors". It went too far and so now
we're seeing lots of these combination "duh!"/"aha!" moments in the field.

See also the research showing that schools have become heavily biased against
the success of boys.

~~~
fleitz
School might be but life generally is very favorable to traditionally
masculine characteristics.

Life favors thinking and creative problem solving, school favors regurgitation
and submission to authority.

As an example my son doesn't do to well in math, however, he's been
multiplying/dividing since Kindergarten. My daughter at least appears weaker
(I think she's hiding her skills) but does much better on math at school.

Don't pay too much attention to statistics, bring your concerns to your
administrators. They have a lot of work to do and don't need parents making
complaints and creating extra work.

~~~
marquis
>My daughter at least appears weaker (I think she's hiding her skills

Note here (from a girl) remembering my childhood and maths: my interest in all
things technical came to life when my father (figure) showed an interest in
playing chess with me, and in building things like aerodynamically-interesting
paper/card planes, rocket launchers and kites.

~~~
cheald
I just wanted to chime in and say that your talking about your dad playing
chess sparked a bunch of warm memories. Mine played with me, too, and never
pulled his punches - the day that I finally beat him was a tremendous triumph.
I thought we were just playing a game - he was teaching me how to analyze a
problem, and how to anticipate and evaluate my actions and their outcomes.
What a gift!

I can't wait to teach my kids.

------
mcv
My first reaction when I read this was that it's actually my wife who plays
all the weird random games with our oldest son, whereas I often seem to be the
serious parent who wants to explain stuff all the time and gets angry when he
doesn't listen. But then I fortunately remembered that I often carry him
upside down by his ankles when I take him to bed.

------
chrisgd
Very exciting to see this. This book [1] argues for more play from both
parents as it is how children learn and develop. If you are a parent, you will
probably notice that when a child plays by himself, he will use phrases you
use with him, pretend to be the parent in situations with his dolls / toys,
act out situations he didn't understand previously. After reading this book,
it gave both my wife and I new ideas on how to interact with our son (now 3).
Is he afraid of something, have his dolls act it out and one of them is afraid
of the same thing, for example.

The book has really helped us as well if anyone is looking for new avenues to
teach, mentor, discipline their kids.

[1]([http://www.amazon.com/Playful-Parenting-Lawrence-J-
Cohen/dp/...](http://www.amazon.com/Playful-Parenting-Lawrence-J-
Cohen/dp/0345442865/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1434641931&sr=8-1&keywords=playful+parenting))

------
joe563323
read half way through the article could not find anything useful. not going to
read other half.

