kids and their furniture?

In article ,
(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.

--
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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

"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

"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.