BY VIRGINIA TRIOLI
My Italian grandmother had a dog called Bindi. A doe-eyed beagle with soft, warm, caramel-coloured ears, Bindi would always enjoy a quiet breakfast with my grandma before most of the household was up. As she enjoyed her own coffee, grandma would tip a weak, warm caffe latte into Bindi’s bowl. Bindi would eagerly lap it up. Then the dog would be shooed outside and spend her day wandering the huge, fruit tree-filled garden and lying in the sun. Italians don’t mollycoddle their dogs: they may be loved, but they are just animals.
As a child I adored that dog, and one day Bindi was gifted to us, becoming a much-loved member of my family until that saddest of days. She was, until recently, the only dog I have ever had.
I have always been nervous about combining a dog and a baby: horror stories in the news of jealous canines and fits of animal rage easily draw my eye and have persuaded me that these two creatures are not a wise fit – at least not until a child was of a certain age. I once ran into a nervous grandfather who confided to me that his pregnant daughter shared an apartment with two great Danes that had been treated as children themselves. He was terrified at what would happen when the baby came. I didn’t even know his daughter, but at the end of the conversation, so was I.
However, my grandmother’s genes must be strong within me. Bunk, the chocolate lab, has been a family member for three years now, and while he is adored in this household, he’s no baby. He sleeps outside, he is not fed from the table (except by evil friends who can’t resist), and he is not allowed upstairs nor in the lounge room. OK, so he’s started leaping on the TV-room couch for a snooze whenever we’re not around, and I am a little ashamed to admit that I just don’t have the heart to shoo him off when I catch him.
Top Comments
Well.... there's a lot of "yes! and no!" in my immediate response to this.
With regard to dogs... 100%, absolutely. My grandfather bred german shepherds. He loved them, but they were dogs, he was boss. Any children were *not* to be around them unsupervised, as they could not be 100% trusted, even though he had trained them excellently, and they never scared or harmed me as a small child. He was adamant there was always a risk. The one exception was goregeous beautiful Rahnee, who was old, almost deaf and blind (and probably arthritic) by the time I kew her. I think, to her, I was the pup she never had! I used to happily sit between her front paws, curled up. But unquestionably, if a dog hurt a child, even if the child had been stupid and gone against the rules about how to properly treat a dog, I know the dog would've got in trouble.
And yes, I tend to agree about the hierarchy stuff too. I have a daughter who recently turned 3, and she most definitely does not get final say in most things. Of course her opinion is valued, in what she wants to play / wear / eat, but I will usually offer two options, and expect her to pick one of those ideas. If there's something else that is repeatedly requested, and reasonable, well then, I'll maybe get it, but only as and when I can - I'm not rushing out that day, necessarily. I want a happy child, but not a spoiled one - I honestly don't believe spoiling ultimately increases a child's happiness anyway, for how will she learn contentment?
However, for very young babies - realistically, theirs needs *are* quite acute. They don't have the psychological maturity to predict that needs will be met, they simply know either they are (and always will be), or aren't (and never will be). This is why young babies scream when Mum goes to the toilet. As far as they're concerned, Mum is 'gone forever', for that minute or so. When very little babies need a nappy change / feed / sleep / more or less clothing, they need it *now*, otherwise they get highly distressed. For this reason, I will unquestioningly meet a young baby's needs sooner rather than later.
But as Steve Biddulph says, "Babies have simple needs - but toddlers want the world!" To me, this is when you *stop* satisfying every request - when you instinctively know it's a want, and *not* a need. I'm happy to validate wants - "Yes, I know that's what you want, I heard you" - but I will also refuse it, especially if greedy or impractical - "You don't get everything you want / that's just not possible, at least today. Maybe tomorrow / next week." She recently had a party for her birthday, so now we're getting into the "No, that was special day, you don't always get all the lollies / toys / treat drinks you want." I want her to *know* that birthdays are special, and treats are for special occasions.
There are certainly interesting times ahead for me. I'm 37 weeks pregnant, and once bub arrives, he will be having his needs met as required, while I hope to keep her convinced that she's a big girl, with a lot more maturity and independence. I'm inspired by a visit with my in-laws when she was very little. She was the centre of everyone's attention, and my brother-in-law joked, "Why doesn't anyone wait on me hand and foot like that?!" Quick as a wink, MIL jumps in with, "Because you had your turn when you were her age. I remember!" - coupled with a wry grin. The words carried no sting, but clearly made the point. I got the feeling it was not the first time she'd made that point (as the mother of five!!). Not for the first time, I think I'll be following her example!
when asked what's for dinner - it's always FOOD. once on the table, when asked what it is - answer's always FOOD.
If you asked my mother what's for dinner - she'd say ARSENIC!! code for "buzz off" and let me fry that mince with onion and tell you it's bolognese