The supporting parent paradox

This morning, I saw two boys dressed in football outfits with their mothers waiting for the rest of the team to arrive. The mothers were two completely different types. One was more of an upper-middle-class type. The other was more of a lower-middle-class type. Both moms supported their child on a morning that required scraping ice off your windshield.

I thought to myself that both moms are very proud of their child. But I also realised that being proud can go in totally different directions, with the same meaning.

As a dad of a six month old boy, I surely hope for the best for my child. Let's assume all parents have this interest in their child. Still, the way I support my boy can lead in totally opposite directions. My intention is still to strive for the best for my boy.

If my personality were more danger averse, I would make sure my kid doesn't get into any dangerous situations. The problem with this approach is that I'm the one who determines what is dangerous or not. Sure, in many situations, the adult is simply better at assessing the danger in a situation. Babies and children can't. I would control what my boy can and can't do because I'm anxious.

The other route is to let your kid be free and have him decide what's best. The problem is obviously that he can't assess danger in a sensible way. Next, as the child grows older, he might grow up less attached to me as a parent.

My basic philosophy is that every person has some kind of free will, or a personality, for that matter. As a parent, we can't control what our children want to do. On the one hand, we will have to support them with whatever we can. But we can't keep holding hands with our children forever. From birth to adulthood, the amount of protection declines. I think we should just try to deliver a decent grown-up person and not project whatever we want onto our child. They will eventually always find their own way. No matter whatever intention we had for them.