How you can cope when your accomplice’s parenting model may be very completely different

It’s often the little things that get on your nerves. You try to get the kids up the stairs so they can get into their pajamas and into bed, then your other half says, “Give them five more minutes.”

If you close the void, your kids will dive to the sofa and your night will drag on for about an extra 10 or 20 minutes while you have to start bedtime over.

Or you come in to hear your partner argue with your 10 year old about whether to just sit and do his homework without fiddling, fooling around, or dreaming. You think there is no need to fight, and you know that this would bring all of this anger only to yourself. But it sucks.

When you decide to get married or have a long-term relationship, you usually have a very deep understanding of the other person. You feel like you know them. Or at least you feel like you know them until you have children with them. Then you discover values, beliefs, and approaches to parenting that you never knew the other person had.

I am regularly asked how to solve the problem of parents having different approaches to raising their children. Conflicting parenting styles can be the source of great disharmony, frustration, and excitement between parents, and this inevitably affects children as well.

When asked, I always gave the same advice. The more consistent you can be, the easier it is for your kids and the easier it is for you.

Finding our own internal consistency in our responses to our children can be hard enough. Your mood, energy level, frustration, or stress can make you snappy when you intend to be calm, or you can escalate an argument when you know you really need to just walk away.

But at least when it comes to striving for internal consistency, all you have to do is grapple with your own answers.

It’s much more difficult to get your partner on the same page that you have real and lasting consistency in your shared approaches to parenting. I remember my father explaining that he just left the big parenting decisions to my mother. He thought that was her area of ​​expertise and mostly just went along with her decision.

Perhaps that made for a peaceful home as I don’t remember too many arguments between my parents and less about us and what we were doing.

After 25 years of my own marriage, I still have a disagreement with my wife about how we raise the children (although two of the three are adults and do not live at home).

I never see this as a sign of failure, as I think our disagreements are just a point of tension that creates the fact that one or the other or both of us realign our views to the point where we have a common ground or common denominator find a uniform answer.

It is this discussion and the willingness to be open to the possibility of change that is at the heart of successful co-parenting.

Neither of us, myself included, can claim we have the “right” approach to education. Certainly I have some expertise, but it is surpassed and sometimes surpassed by that of my wife. So I have to listen.

Sometimes I have to persevere and convince, sometimes I have to try another path or compromise. And all of this has to happen in private, away from the children.

Despite all efforts to communicate effectively about what we all think is the best way to approach a situation, we still have moments of misunderstanding and stalemate.

However, we work very hard to reconcile our core values ​​of what it means to be parents and how we would like our children to experience their childhood in our home.

If you find that you are resentful or undermined by your partner’s way of dealing with the children, then maybe it is time to have a real, in-depth conversation about yourself. to lead What are your common goals in raising children?

Start with the big picture. What are your hopes and wishes for the children and how do you intend to achieve them?

Let this starting point be the establishment of your shared values ​​about what parenting means and what you think children need from parents.

When you can agree on this it becomes much easier to find the parenting techniques to achieve it. Yes, it will help if both of you take the same approach, but shared values ​​are far more important.

As children keep growing and developing, your parents need to change to adapt to their circumstances and needs.

Infants and adolescents cannot be treated equally. However, at all stages of your parenting career, things like mutual respect, allowing children to make mistakes, kindness and warmth in your responses, and a willingness to understand their feelings will always be important.

When you arrange things like this with your partner, everything becomes easier.

The Indo-Pacific Does not Simply Want Cash to Cope With Local weather Change. It Wants a Full Plan.

April 28, 2021, 10:14 a.m.

Last week, US President Joe Biden convened 40 heads of state for a virtual climate summit of heads of state and government. In addition to the notable attendance of Vladimir Putin from Russia and Xi Jinping from China, the guest list also included a strong list of Indo-Pacific countries. Biden was joined by Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina from Bangladesh, Prime Minister Lotay Tshering from Bhutan and Secretary General Nguyen Phu Trong from Vietnam.

As part of the United States’ official re-entry into the global climate dialogue, Biden discussed ways to strengthen global capacities to protect nations from the effects of climate change, address the global security threats posed by climate change, and possible solutions to achieve net zero emissions by up to 2050.

Biden’s invitation to the Indo-Pacific states particularly reflects their risk status. The region is warming up rapidly and weather extremes are already displacing communities and increasing conflicts over resources. The situation is ripe for violence and if the region is not adapted to climate change it risks becoming a breeding ground for major security threats.

That’s probably why, on the first day of the dialogue, Biden announced his administration’s efforts to double US public climate finance for developing countries by 2024, and pointed out the urgent need to increase money for adaptation and resilience in those countries . The success of US climate policy depends on Biden’s ability to implement these plans.

If he’s serious, he needs a great strategy that includes climate change, alliances and a growing challenge from the great power in the Indo-Pacific. Although US-led international institutions are burdened by the arbitrary approach of the previous administration, they can once again serve as levers for the intertwining challenges of poverty, climate change and pandemic global insecurity.

This brings us to the question of how Biden’s climate ambition can be turned into a great strategy for the region.

For inspiration he could look to the US Marshall Plan in Western Europe after the devastation of World War II. The courageous strategy, which provided more than $ 15 billion to rebuild the continent, is widely accepted as the catalyst for the birth of NATO and for strengthening the United States’ alliance with European countries. The Marshall Plan helped rehabilitate the economies of 16 European countries and promoted stable conditions in which democratic institutions could flourish.

A similarly bold strategy in the Indo-Pacific region could have profound and lasting effects. As in 1947, when the Economic Cooperation Administration, a predecessor of the US Agency for International Development, jointly administered the Marshall Plan with the Committee on European Economic Cooperation, Biden must lead the newly formed US International Development Finance Corporation (DFC) its lending capacity of USD 60 billion to regions in the direct crosshairs of poverty, insecurity and climate change.

For the Marshall Plan, the Committee on European Economic Cooperation was a joint European conference that set priorities for the post-war recovery of the European economy. It consisted of delegates from 16 European nations and met in Paris. This committee later established the Organization for European Economic Cooperation, which allowed countries to control the administration and distribution of Marshall funds themselves.

For robust climate protection measures, active regional cooperation organizations like the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, as well as dying organizations like the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation, are likely partners. In addition to the DFC, a committee of the Indo-Pacific states could help set the priorities for a climate strategy and support the management of US climate investments. A bold strategy would increase the municipal capacity of nations to provide essential services and expand investment in response systems and climate disaster prevention.

Together, the United States and a group of Indo-Pacific nations could do a great deal of good. Establishing a platform for others to join will encourage greater international cooperation. The so-called Annex II states within the meaning of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change can use such a mechanism to meet their own financial responsibility. In the meantime, initiatives such as the Green Climate Fund and a proposal to link debt relief with investing in climate change at the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund should be fully implemented. And the G-20 must take into account the central role of climate change in their deliberations. A newly designed trans-Pacific partnership could also focus on investing in climate change as part of regional trade.

Consistent with the success of the United States in Europe in the mid-twentieth century, an Indo-Pacific climate strategy will promote and sustain US leadership while promoting critical alliances in the region. China currently has massive economic influence in the region. From infrastructure projects to threats restricting access to Chinese markets, China is using its tools in the region to compete with the US. And if Washington is committed to diplomacy in the Indo-Pacific, Biden must cultivate deeper ties there beyond Japan and India to include marginalized nations such as Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Vietnam, backed by a robust economic strategy.

The then British Prime Minister Winston Churchill described the decision of the US Secretary of State George Marshall to rebuild Europe as “the highest level of statecraft”. By investing in the future of Europe, the United States helped lay the foundations that enabled the European Union to become one of the largest global economies and a political force in the international order. Addressing the needs of the nations most vulnerable to the effects of climate change will be a similar act of statecraft for US foreign policy in the 21st century.