Why do SOME parents REFUSE to realize that THEY, NOT SIBLINGS are the MAIN teachers,
interactors, & role models for their children? What makes SOME parents erroneously believe that SIBLINGS are the main teachers, interactors, & role models for their children? Why do some people ABDICATE their parental responsibility regarding raising & interacting w/their children, leaving it to SIBLINGS instead? Parents, as adults, are more influential, experienced, educated, & knowledgeable regarding the education of their children than mere siblings who clearly AREN'T adults & are children themselves. Where are the intelligence & common sense of such "parents"?
I'd think that if there are parents who do what you describe in your question it's most likely, or often, that they don't really understand the extent/depth of role of parent beyond, say, making sure kids are clean and well fed and/or the fact that, as you say, kids are kids and parents and parents; and even once kids are older there's still a very different set of responsibilities and different perspective of a parent in the family and of the siblings that are a part of that family.
Every "group" of people in a family can be different but can share things and have a perspective/picture from that place of the thing that amounts to the title of the category of that group. Siblings can share a "picture" and things that happen from that place in the family that's separate from the "take on the matter" that parents (correctly or incorrectly, sometimes depending on the kid involved). So they have a "fresh take/perspective" on things from within that role/category.
In fact, in fairly recent times I realized that people in the category of "cousins" can, once they're all old enough, realize that they can share their own "category's worth" of experiences as kids. Then, once they're all old enough to be beyond the things that generally mean cousins grow up and become more distant, they, too, can bring a new perspective and even accuracy to the picture of family members and childhood. Cousins are, of course, extended family but are often a big part of the "kids-in-the-family" picture.
If you think in terms of "forests versus trees", the people in the category of "kids in the family" are the trees and can see things from the perspective of a tree, rather than seeing the forest. They can also look around and see the trees that are nearby and see things that the parent(s) How accurately they see some things can, as they say, "depend".
Parents "forest" of their own, little, family. Some see (and present) things to the "trees" fairly accurately. Some don't (either because they won't or can't). Still, the role of parents is to aim to see, be, and preserve that "forest" of their own family.
Kids of families grow up and often start their own "forest". Parents die off. The former kids of the family share one set of things/perspective. The former kids "from nearby forests" (cousins) often share their own experiences from yet a different perspective..
The parent(s) of each nuclear family, though, has to AIM to see each tree AND the forest too.
There are parents who are perfunctory parents &/or parents in the most physical sense only. These parents aren't what one would call involved parents. They are the most rudimentary of parents. Their parenting only involves providing food, clothing, & other necessities, no more no less. They are the parents who believe that they really don't have to interact w/their children-that is what siblings are for.
They are the parents who believe that children should learn on their own w/very little or no input on their part. They are the parents who instead of actively interact w/their children, leave the interaction of their children w/siblings. They believe that siblings can teach & impart more than they ever could. They are the somewhat absentee parents. They are parents only in the sense that they gave birth & provide the necessities. They don't want to be involved in parenting beyond that. They may even feel that it is unnecessary to interact w/their children.
Less educated, lower middle, working, & lower class parents are such parents. They view parenting as only providing the rudiments & giving birth. They believe that children ought to learn on their own as by osmosis. They are the ones who strongly argue that it is siblings who are more important in the child's development, not them. They are just the physical vehicles as far as they are concerned.
Parents of large families(6-more children per household) are known for being little or not involved in their children's lives. They are also perfunctory parents. They leave the rearing of their children to each other. They also believe that siblings are more instrumental in children's development than they are. They feel that the parents' role in children's development are insignificant in comparison to that of siblings. They are notorious for leaving children to fend for themselves for good or for bad. The parental attitude is that the child will either swim or sink. If the child swims, good or if h/she sinks, well too bad.
They assume that the older siblings doing much of the work are training the younger siblings so the parents don't have to do as much.
And too many assume lessons taught from older to younger siblings are correct and sufficient for many topics.
by Grace Marguerite Williams8 weeks ago
According to an article from Business Insider, a study done by researchers Juhn & C. Andrew Zupann of Houston University along with Yona Rubinstein of the London School of Economics, children born into large...
by Grace Marguerite Williams5 months ago
To those who have 1 child, do you get intrusive, probing questions from relatives &other people?
by Innuentendre5 years ago
If incest laws were created to prevent inbreeding and same sex couples are at no risk of doing so, should same sex marriage laws supersede incest laws?
by Cindy Lawson4 years ago
How many children do you think is too many to have?There is a woman on the island where I live who survives only on benefits and now has 14 children. She openly admitted she got jealous when her 16 year old daughter got...
by Jami Johnson3 years ago
Who's smarter the first born or the second born (or the third or forth)?I always hear, the first born child is smarter because they have more attention from the parents.... or the second born is smarter because of the...
by jagandelight4 weeks ago
Do you think an only child is better off more than they are with siblings?
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.