Why children benefit from fewer toys

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

Renown child educator, Maria Montessori said “Play is the child's work.” With that she meant that children are not just playing when they play, but they are working. Play is an important part of child development, and the types of toys that a child interacts with shapes their understanding of the world around them. Toys are the tools children use to accomplish their work, but it is best for the amount of toys that a child has to be limited.

Through play, children practice cooking, cleaning, going to work, fighting, taking care of the baby. I other words every adult activity they see around them. This kind of playful practice, performed over and over, makes them more confident. Play also helps children cope with problems ranging from big traumas to little upsets and helps them process the new information they receive every day.

Toys help children play. They also help children self-entertain and become independent. Therefore it may seem logical to assume that more toys provide more entertainment and help the child work, but that is, apparently, not the case.

Here are reasons why it is best to keep toys minimal and simple:

Children with less use their imagination more. Without many toys, children use their craft of pretending to imagine the scenario in which they are working. Studies show that Einstein was right when he stated that “the true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination.” They also, might, make their own toys. We certainly did as children.

Children maintain focus. Fewer toys mean fewer distractions teaching the child to focus on the task at hand. Toys that provide excess stimulation have been linked to various attention deficiency related problems.

Children interact more with others. Communications skills are not innate; they are learned. Having less stuff allows for less to get in the way of social interactions. When children pretend together, they communicate together and pretend play is the most beneficial play.

Children learn to respect what they have. A child is more likely to value their work when they know they do not have replacements.

Children are more educated. When you choose toys like books, blocks, art supplies and puzzles, children work on skills like reading, building, drawing, and writing. Such toys can incorporate lessons about the world that the child is immersed in rather than distract them from it.

Children become resourceful. Kids learns to use what they have to get the job done and to make things and toys up as they go along.

Children learn to share and share. As parents, we want our children to put people over possessions and to not be greedy. Interacting with others without objects coming between them allows children to value people over things.

Children learn mastery. As a child focuses on a certain toy, they learn to master it and to be proud of their accomplishments.

Children realize they cannot have everything they want. As it goes, “you can't always get what you want, but you get what you need.” Parents may worry that not giving their child what their peers have may make them unpopular or feel under privileged, but it teaches them that a persons identity is built by character, not possessions.

Children appreciate nature. Children have tons of fun outdoors once they are out there, but it may be hard to get them outside if they have endless entertainment inside the home. Outdoors also the building material for homemade toys can be found.

With less, as in fewer toys and games, children learn to be happy with what they have. What a child needs most is love, and they will learn that love and happiness cannot be bought.

Fewer toys also means less clutter in the child's room or the playroom, or wherever they play with their toys and it is all easier for them (and you) to clear up after.

If there are a few toys too many then put them away and only let your children have a certain number. If and when they get bored with them you can circulate them around and refresh with the others.

When I was a child toys, much like clothes, were very much in short supply growing up relatively poor by most standards, even back then, but it did not matter to us. As far as toys and play was concerned we made many of our own toys or had them made for us, from wood, mostly, and much of that wood “natural”, that is to say it cam from the woods and hedgerows. Other “real” toys were those that we found lost or thrown away by others, whether toy cars, stuffed cuddly toys, or whatever. But most fun, I seem to remember, we had with those toys that we made ourselves and such and with the imaginary play using sticks, for instance.

© 2018

All you need is one

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

“A man with one watch knows what time it is. The man with two is not quite sure.” Unknown

So many homes are clogged with duplicate items, which are supposed to make things easier, but end up contributing to clutter and cost. But can downscaling to just one of each really be done? Maybe, maybe not entirely. It all depends on the individual's and the individual family's situation.

If you do have children who attend school then you can't just have one pair of school trousers, and one shirt, and pair of underpants, for the child unless you can wash and dry this each and every time that they need washing so they can be ready again the next day.

The same goes for someone who has to have clean clothes for work every day. Here too just having one set would not work. It is a little different if you are working somewhere where you are being issued with a uniform, and that in a couple of sets.

In most cases you will need two sets, whether this is as regards to bedding or clothes, especially underwear and socks. It would also not be very environmentally healthy, so to speak, to do your washing every day and use a tumble dryer, for instance, so as to have the clothes clean again next day.

Just having one, good, pair might work with shoes but not necessarily with anything else. You can reduce some of the clothing pile, even to a very minimalist level, if you add family nudism to the equation.

If your children are homeschooled and thus need no clothes for going to school, as they don't go to school, and can do their lessons at home in the altogether then you win even more in that department.

The one section in the clothing department you can do away with altogether, at least for the males, and that is underwear in the form of underpants. Science has shown that they are actually bad for boys and men alike.

In addition to that the idea that you only need one and only owning one item or pair of something goes against our cultural, and possibly even human, tendency to stockpile multiples for future times of need, even though most of the time those extras add more clutter, cost, and work to our lives than benefits.

Personally, I have to say that I am guilty of this, but many of the things stockpiles are consumables and it saves having to dash out to the stores when you run, say, out of toilet paper to have another couple sitting there in the cupboard.

In some departments it is possible to pare down to single items or just two of them, in others this simply does not work. With clothing this would mean that daily, more or less, you have to do the washing and then, probably, use a dryer, such as a tumble dryer, to dry the clothes so that they are ready for the next day. It does not make for savings and neither is that good for the Planet; the opposite rather.

As far as some items are concerned the question also is why own them at all. The television, as far as I am concerned, is one of those. If it has only entertaining and childminding duties then it is best not ever given houseroom in the first place or gotten rid off now. It is also not called program for no reason. It is a means of programing us and especially the kids who do not have as much discernment as adults should have.

In addition the toy department can be reduced – though ideally in cooperation with the children – as too many toys do not make for better play either. In fact the fewer toys kids own the better and more imaginary the play is.

While, as said, it can be possible to have just one items of something, as far as clothing is concerned this is not, and also not very environmentally friendly even if some may think it. Constant washing is not good for the clothes, requires water and energy, not speaking of detergent, and if the drying has to happen on the quick, via a dryer, then that costs additional energy and extra wear on the clothes.

Owning less in a way is a good idea as there is less stuff and clutter in the house, making it easier to find that single item as it is easier to designate a specific location in which to keep it. But in many cases the single items just is not going to be possible.

There are many minimalists and aspiring minimalists who believe that they are doing the Planet a service by cutting down almost to the bone but this is not always the case and what do you do if your single set of clothes that you have washed that evening is not dry for the next morning? Just one of the possible dilemmas.

You also wouldn't, necessarily, want to pare down too much on practical items like dinner plates, cutlery, etc., since that could create more work, and this is the same with regards to owning just one set of everything in regards to clothes. However, having ten shirts, ten pairs of pants, etc., as some seem to have, really is not necessary. Nor are hundreds (OK, I may be exaggerating) toys for the kids.

As far as clothes go good reduction and reduction in use is possible if you, whether you are an individual, a couple, or a family, embrace nudism, at least at home (and on the property) as a lifestyle. Also your health and that of the kids will benefit from such a change.

© 2018

Choosing Freedom

“If you want to fly, give up everything that weighs you down.”

When I tell people I’ve lived out of my suitcase for the last 4 years and that I’m homeless and happy, they usually stare in disbelief.

They either think my life as a digital nomad and suitcase entrepreneur on a quest for freedom is the coolest thing ever. Or they think I’m mad as a hatter and wonder why on earth anyone would want to live that way.

I’m a minimalist and I love it that way. I have just enough in my suitcase to suit my lifestyle of travel and business and get me through almost any occasion and not look like a vagabond.

I can pack up my whole life in 14 minutes flat—it all fits in one medium-sized suitcase and a mini carry-on.

Read more here.