Brief Treatise on Child Rearing
Related Topics
go ...@SPAMNOThotmail.com (Ivan Gowch)
To listen to some of the pro-hitters here, one could form the impression that raising children without violence is so difficult, it's an impossible task for most people.
We are told it is appropriate to hit toddlers when they dash into the street, or when they try to insert some object into an electrical outlet, or reach up to touch a hot stove, or have a tantrum or act up in a store We're told that ***aulting a child is a reasonable response when the child is defiant, or breaks the rules or when "nothing else seems to work." All of that is nonsense, of course. Millions of parents have managed to raise happy, healthy children who grow up to be healthy, successful, law-abiding adults without ever deliberately hurting them.
In fact, hitting -- even as a "last resort" -- is a parent's blatant admission of incompetence and failure, as well as lack of intelligence and imagination.
For those with higher expectations of themselves and more concern for the well-being of their offspring, I offer the following Brief Treatise on Child Rearing Establish a good relationship -- one founded on mutual respect -- from the time a kid is born.
Set the example you want your kid to follow. Guide and teach.
Expect and foster co-operation instead of demanding obedience. Keep the rules to a minimum and always reasonable and, whenever possible, involve your kid in setting them.
Eschew punishment; when a consequence for some episode of misbehaviour is appropriate, let it be a natural consequence or, at least, a logical one.
Be consistent at all times.
Do not bully or threaten or bribe, and avoid phrases like "because I said so," because it is disrespectful and breeds defiance.
Treat your kid(s) like you would have liked to have been treated -- with limitless, unconditional love and relentless kindness.
And, of course -- never, never hit them.
---
--
Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations or the dictates of our p***ions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.
-- John Quincy Adams
LaVonne Carlson carls...@umn.edu
Not most people -- only the people who equate discipline with hitting.
Hitting toddlers for exploring their environment. Amazing. Some people actually do seem to think this is an appropriate response.
Another amazing belief. When "nothing else seems to work" the burden is on the parents, not the child. Parents are adults with the capability to develop alternative strategies that do work. Good grief.
Of course it is nonsense. The child hitters and defenders of the practice know this. It's a last resort for parents who lack the intelligence, the knowledge, or the creativity to know about and use alternative strategies. It's also about parents who do not care to learn
-- parents who are so into the power of parenting that they cannot view parenting as teaching children or their practices as being about what is best for their child.
LaVonne
"Larry R Harrison Jr" larrytu...@yahoo.com
Don't expect obedience? Okay, fine--I'm going to go break the law, and expect the cops to understand "hey--your job is to foster cooperation, not expect obedience." See how far that gets me. I'm an adult, you say? That's funny--modern culture teaches children are merely little people, deserving of the same rights as us if not MORE of them. Yet, it's okay for them to break the rules but not me. O-KAY.
I prefer the John Rosemond/James Dobson style. Tell them what the rules are, tell them to obey them--or else. Why? "Because I Said So." The parent is supposed to be a "benevolent dictator," that is, loving but firmly in charge. The reward for obeying the rules? You aren't sent to bed early without dinner. The penalty for disobeying? Being fed nothing but vegetables you know they can't stand--hey, it's not starving them--and sending them to bed early whether they like it or not.
I kind of like "because I said so." It basically lets the child know--I am the parent, and the fact that I say you are to do this or not to do this is good enough. If I feel like giving you an explanation, I will. But I don't have to, and you don't have to like it to have to obey it. That's how it goes, buddy.
No disagreement there. Everyone's definition of that varies, but I doubt anyone disagrees with the prinipal per se.
go ...@SPAMNOThotmail.com (Ivan Gowch)
[reposting to restore a line that somehow got dropped from original] To listen to some of the pro-hitters here, one could form the impression that raising children without violence is so difficult, it's an impossible task for most people.
We are told it is appropriate to hit toddlers when they dash into the street, or when they try to insert some object into an electrical outlet, or reach up to touch a hot stove, or have a tantrum or act up in a store We're told that ***aulting a child is a reasonable response when the child is defiant, or breaks the rules or when "nothing else seems to work." All of that is nonsense, of course. Millions of parents have managed to raise happy, healthy children who grow up to be healthy, successful, law-abiding adults without ever deliberately hurting them.
In fact, hitting -- even as a "last resort" -- is a parent's blatant admission of incompetence and failure, as well as lack of intelligence and imagination.
For those with higher expectations of themselves and more concern for the well-being of their offspring, I offer the following Brief Treatise on Child Rearing Establish a good relationship -- one founded on mutual respect -- from the time a kid is born.
Set the example you want your kid to follow. Guide and teach.
Expect and foster co-operation instead of demanding obedience. Keep the rules to a minimum and always reasonable and, whenever possible, involve your kid in setting them.
Eschew punishment; when a consequence for some episode of misbehaviour is appropriate, let it be a natural consequence or, at least, a logical one.
Be consistent at all times.
Do not bully or threaten or bribe, and avoid phrases like "because I said so," because it is disrespectful and breeds defiance.
Treat your kid(s) like you would have liked to have been treated -- with limitless, unconditional love and relentless kindness.
Don't sweat the small stuff.
And, of course -- never, never hit them.
---
--
"A friend of mine in California drove to his local supermarket with a sticker on his car saying: 'Peace is also Patriotic.' It was gone by the time he'd finished shopping."
-John le Carre
go ...@SPAMNOThotmail.com (Ivan Gowch)
On Fri, 24 Jan 2003 20:45:17 -0700, "Larry R Harrison Jr" ==>...
==>> Expect and foster co-operation instead of demanding ==>> obedience. Keep the rules to a minimum and always ==>> reasonable and, whenever possible, involve your kid ==>> in setting them.
==>Don't expect obedience? Okay, fine--I'm going to go break the law, and ==>expect the cops to understand "hey--your job is to foster cooperation, not ==>expect obedience." See how far that gets me. I'm an adult, you say? That's ==>funny--modern culture teaches children are merely little people, deserving ==>of the same rights as us if not MORE of them. Yet, it's okay for them to ==>break the rules but not me. O-KAY.
In addition to being obsessed with "rules," You obviously know nothing -- nor, apparently do you care -- about child development. Much of the behaviour of children that prompts inept parents to punish stems from natural curiosity and/or normal underdeveloped impulse control.
Punishment not only fails to deal with the behaviour, it is damaging to the child's developing character and mental health.
==>I prefer the John Rosemond/James Dobson style.
That's because you are authoritarian, immature, lacking in self-esteem, ignorant of child development and unconcerned about children's needs. In other words, you seem to have all the attributes of a world-cl*** lousy parent.
==> Tell them what the rules are, ==>tell them to obey them--or else. Why? "Because I Said So." Yes, that perfectly describes the attitude of the type of incompetent, immature parent as detailed above -- the type of moron who ends up wondering why his teenager is such an out-of-control mess and concludes that the reason must be that s/he just wasn't punished enough.
==> The parent is ==>supposed to be a "benevolent dictator," that is, loving but firmly in ==>charge.
Bullshit. The actions and attitudes of dictators breed defiance and, often, open rebellion.
You can dictate to and dominate a toddler. Try it with a teenager and you will see just how ineffective it is.
OTOH, learn to enlist your child's _co-operation_ from the time the kid is small, as part of a mutually respectful relationship, and you won't have to worry about who is "in charge." IG: ==>> Do not bully or threaten or bribe, and avoid phrases ==>> like "because I said so," because it is disrespectful ==>> and breeds defiance.
==>I kind of like "because I said so." That's because you are apparently an inadequate person who needs to bully _someone_ because you have little or no authority over anyone in your adult life. "Because I said so" is the resort of bullies and glaringly incompetent parents. Kids understand the injustice and stupidity of it and respond in kind.
==> It basically lets the child know--I am ==>the parent, and the fact that I say you are to do this or not to do this is ==>good enough. If I feel like giving you an explanation, I will. But I don't ==>have to, and you don't have to like it to have to obey it. That's how it ==>goes, buddy.
As many, many clueless parents have discovered, "that's how it goes" only until the kid is old enough to tell them to **** off. At that point, the parents realize that their authoritarian style of childrearing has not only produced a child they have no control over whatsoever, but a kid who rejects even the positive lessons they may have to teach. At that point, of course, it's too late to seek co-operation or heal the relationship.
The attitude you have expressed has been proven a million times to be a formula for disaster.
I strongly advise you to read Children -- the Challenge, by Rudolph Dreikurs, which may just save you from making the biggest mistake of your life.
Sadly, I predict that you won't.
--
"A friend of mine in California drove to his local supermarket with a sticker on his car saying: 'Peace is also Patriotic.' It was gone by the time he'd finished shopping."
-John le Carre
"Larry R Harrison Jr" larrytu...@yahoo.com
So I take it you feel John Rosemond--an accomplished psychologist with several degrees as I understand is--is himself an "ignorant of child's development" fool? Apparently, having a different opinion than that of the attachment parenting crowd gets one such a label, if I hear you correctly.
Quite effective, I would imagine, if you revoked their privelages, disconnected their computer from the Internet, and made it clear as long as they are in your home they will do as you say whether they like it or not.
Yeah, they'll hate you later, but so what? You can't effectively parent if you parent in fear of your kids hating you. You don't parent with them hating you being the GOAL, but you parent them the way that's right in spite of the risk they may hate you. Besides, in all likelihood, they won't hate you indefinitely. They may be irritated at you then, but oh well--big woop.
So every person--including the likes of John Rosemond--who actually believe in being a parent rather than a buddy to their kids is a "last resort." I would suggest that it means the parent is letting the child know they don't NEED the child's okay to make a certain rule. And in fact, they don't. The kid doesn't like it? Tough. Who asked if they liked it? It's not about whether they like it--although if they like it that's a positive--but rather if it's in their best interests.
As I read in the book, an answer that is given when a child says they don't like the rule is something like "you have every right to disagree and not like my rules, but that doensn't give you the right to disobey them."
"Frank Downey" fabfour....@verizon.net
No, they won't hate you later--well, they probably will, but that's not the point. What they'll do is sneak around. You can't watch them 24/7 in the teen years. You'll end up with a kid that it's 2am and you don't know where they are because they sneaked out--and they're probably doing something self-destructive.
I can't think of too many troublemakers I knew as a kid that *didn't* come from authoritarian parents. The ones that were drinking and doing drugs were also breaking curfew. I didn't drink much and didn't do drugs--and I didn't *have* a curfew. I didn't sneak around because I didn't *have* to. I didn't disobey my parents because the things that I was required to "obey" were few, far between, and reasonable. (The one time I *do* remember having one too many, I did what I was asked to--called Dad for a ride home. He picked me up, laughed at me the whole way home, and told me to go sleep it off <G>.
The rule was, "If you do happen to have one too many, no driving." A reasonable rule. I followed it. Dad held up his end of the bargain by fetching me.) I have two siblings. All three of us were good kids, good students, got along with our parents right through adolescence. There wasn't much of a generation war in my house. I never went through the "I hate my parents" stage, and neither did my brother or sister. And none of us were troublemakers, not even remotely. This, even though a more lenient set of parents than my own would be hard to find.
My parents thought that love was more important than obedience, and thought that respect was *far* more important than obedience--and understood that there was a difference. My father--who has an anti-authority streak a mile wide himself--once said to me, "Respect must be earned. It's not granted, it can't be forced, it doesn't come with any title or position. It has to be earned." He was talking about something political at the time <G> but he could've been talking about himself. My parents *earned* my respect, and that of my siblings--*because* they didn't feel it was theirs by right. They earned it by *doing*.
My job as a parent is to eventually make myself irrelevant. I can't do that if my kids grow up having their decisions made for them. Why didn't I drink much, even when my friends were? Because it wasn't "forbidden fruit"--Dad let me drink at home--and because I wasn't trying to "get away with anything". That takes out external motives--so it was *purely* my decision on whether I wanted to have a beer, or whether I didn't want to have a beer.
I had an interesting conversation with my sister once. She was talking with some friends about their high-school sexual experiences--and she realized that it was *far* easier for her to say "no" to guys who were putting the moves on her--because it was *her* "no", not Daddy's or Mommy's. She was with a group of about eight women, she was the only one with liberal parents when it came to sex--and she was the only one that graduated high school a virgin. Because it was *her* choice. My parents said, "It's up to you--but here's what you need to know." My parents made themselves well and truly irrelevant, and they knew what they were doing. Because if the only choices in your head are "Daddy says no, boyfriend says yes," Daddy's not going to always win.
--Frank father of Brigid 10/24/95 and Cara 1/20/01
pohakuyakok ...@subdimension.com (Kane)
Whatever made you think the educated are immune from foolish wrongheadedness?
It isn't the "different" opinion.
The only way you get away with such despotic behavior is that the child loves you and thus is vulnerable to your wrath and authoritarian ploys. Eventually he or she gets it that you are actually a powerless unimaginative intellectual and emotional dwarf and they are OUT of there. The streets are full of children whose parents behave in such ways.
A climate, usually from infancy, is set with the child by the parent who sees the child's expression of needs, including their developmental needs, as an imposition and the parent being made a target of the child's control.
It's a silly mistake p***ed on by being raised by similar parents, and becomes intergenerational and academics with advanced degrees are as vulnerable to its affects as anyone.
The trick is to have enough intelligence and emotional stability to help the child grow with no particular focus on hate or love...just grow and learn. You aren't teaching a child anything with the tactics you mention except to treat others in the world the same way. The roots of domestic violence, child abuse, and criminal thinking lie in treating the child like an opponent.
Yes you can, because that isn't the only emotion you have access to...well, unless that is YOUR problem. You see the child as someone who can't be dealt with without the risk of hate.
Look carefully at that sentence. What makes you so sure you are always right? And if you parent the way you suggest the goal will be HATE whether you wish it or not. One way or another, you will get it.
You hate your child or children, obviously. The tone of your post is full of a bitter nasty small minded torturer of children...with a full blown exhibition of denial masking it from yourself.
No, actually if you carry on like you say you believe the chance is extremely good they will hate you for life. Elder abuse is a very nasty problem and some cases that have been investigated well turn up childhoods of the perp being very like the one you are describing.
A controlling, confrontive, negatively focused, bully of parent, lording it over a child from early on.
You not only are ignorant of developmental realities, but of the capacity of children to hide, while they are in your clutches, their real feelings. Even as adult children they will hide it from you because of the trauma bond between you. They are essentially, victims of domestic violence.
What an oddly contrived sentence. It fails to address the poster you reply to in the manner he wrote. He didn't say last resort, and how can people who believe as John Rosemond be labelled a "last resort"?
I think you lost it.
Rather typical of those with such serious control issues as you appear to have.
There is that ***umption that children are about control battles. They aren't unless they are taught to be. They are about natures imperative to explore and learn to control their invironment for both survival and flourishing. No target, unless you are so stupid as to get in the way, presume you are the target of their consuming compulsive need to do their developmental tasks and do battle with them.
What you do by doing this, among other things, is to divert the energy that rightly belongs to the childs exploration of the world, to your little ego laced battle of wills. You ***ume the child wishes to battle. He or she responds only as they can, by continuing to try and explore, and instead of the world around them, the business they should be about, YOU become their major focus.
How to stunt a child, emotionally, psychologically, even physically, while you get your jollies at having cheated a tiny human of his or her natural rights.
I've seen thousands of children raised by gentle supportive learning methods that had no beef with their parents and were quite easy to persuade to do as asked when it was reasonable, and often when it wasn't, just because they loved their parent...but they are exceedingly difficult for OTHERS to order about. That makes them somewhat immune to despots such as yourself.
Of course you don't need the child's consent. You are bigger and stronger and children learn rather quickly that you actually have the power of life and death over them, and the Ice Cream money. Either one will usually get a lot of compliance out of a child.
But you DO need the consent of Nature. Ignore it and you not only emperil the child, but yourself. One day you might actually break through your brutish persective on the world and realize what you have done, and go hang yourself out of well deserved guilt and shame.
With you though, I sincerely doubt you'll ever wake up. You are probably safe...but then the child under your control isn't.
If a child spends his life engaging in control battles with those larger (or having authority over them) than themselves, you can bet he or she will develop some pretty sneaky, and or violent responses. One sees these children rather often, trouble with authority, is the term they use in school, and on the job.
The ***umption that there is a narrow set of best interests of the child is a common failing of parents invested in control battles with their children as a way of life. In fact very often the child is a far better judge of what is in their best interests. Sometimes it's sitting in the mud making a roaring happy good mess, with their body learning to integrate their senses. Another time it's throwing a ball against the side of the garage and waking you from a nap.
Are you unable to figure out how to handle either of these kinds of activities without getting into a conflict with the child? Even if upon asking the child to stop, they do not? You don't really know where to go from there except to orders and punishments, do you?
Take that carefully apart. What makes you think that those that raise children by "attachment" methods...it's a fair but not entirely accurate label for what true teaching parenting is about....ever even have to do a formal rule conflict engagement?
Their children tend to be lovingly compliant with them and the parent, instead of focusing on and wasting thought and energy on battle, easily work out non punitive ways of helping the child learn what children need to learn.
I am truly sad that you have had such a bad upbringing and see the relationship between child and parent as an uncooperative clash of wills that must be won by the parent.
In fact, what I learned in child raising, mine and others, is that when I very pointedly stopped myself in the execution of a command statement and "lost" the loved child often graciously, even at a very young age, conceeded and I had to encourage them to be more ***ertive in asking for what they wanted and needed.
I'm a big nasty looking brute and I recall sitting knee to knee with an 8 year old boy, both of us with tears on our cheeks because we both refused to use our formidable powers on each other (and trust me, children have them, they just get very clever with thugs such as you at concealing them).
He would not whine or argue, but simply ask, and I would not order, or threaten. We were at an imp***e.
What he wanted was reasonable. I came from an adult view of my time and effort being worth more than his. I was wrong. I ...
LaVonne Carlson carls...@umn.edu
Larry R Harrison Jr wrote: One would expect you are no longer learning the rules of appropriate social behavior, how to make appropriate behavioral choices, and are old enough to exhibit higher levels of impulse control and social problem solving than a child.
A parent fostering cooperation rather than demanding obedience is teaching the child to learn reasons for appropriate behavioral choices and to live cooperatively within society's requirements.
This is probably why as an adult you are unable to make acceptable behavior choices without fear of the law. You were raised with a Rosemond/Dobson mentality of obey or else rather than a mentality of higher order moral reasoning and social problem solving.
No reason to continue to p*** this on to children though, is it?
LaVonne
LaVonne Carlson carls...@umn.edu
I suspect the poster is obsessed with rules because he was raised with a punishment mentality. Rules are to be obeyed only to avoid punishment. Had the poster been raised in a climate that fostered cooperation, reasoning and social problem solving, he may be advocating an entirely different parenting technique.
LaVonne
LaVonne Carlson carls...@umn.edu
Larry, John Rosemond is not an accomplished psychologist with several degrees. He has an undergraduate and a master's degree. He has no doctorate nor does he have several degrees. There are many in the attachment crowd who also over-represent themselves.
John Rosemond is an individual with a master's degree earned many years ago --
the man has conducted no research nor has he remained current in the child development knowledge base. He is simply an individual who says what certain individuals want to hear -- hit and disrespect your children. His thinking goes no deeper than power, and he preys on individuals who need to feel power and view their children as powerless.
It's frightening and it's shameful. And you along with many others are buying into his ignorant and uninformed message or power, pain and punishment as a proven ineffectual way to teach and parent children.
LaVonne Larry R Harrison Jr wrote:
"Frank Downey" fabfour....@verizon.net
Plus, he's a man.
Why is this important? Two reasons. First of all, I'll bet dollars to donuts he was never a SAH parent, as SAH fathers, especially of his age, are few and far between (and, checking his resume on his website, I'll double the bet.) Second reason--most men are over-testosteroned to begin with <G>.
He's a psychologist and an academic--and a male one--someone who never got his hands dirty with the day-to-day rearing of a child. Like most fathers, he flits in and flits out--something that describes my own dad, as much as I love him--and only gets "parenting" in small doses, probably as the "relief squad" for a SAH mom who just wants her kids disciplined after 10 hours of listening to them <G>.
I'd *never* buy a parenting book written by someone who let their spouse do the "dirty work" of raising a child while they were out working. I don't care how many degrees he has. And that goes double if the writer is a male--the impulse to use testosterone to solve all problems is only exacerbated if the parental role is relief squad/disciplinarian.
In my case, I'd also never buy a parenting book from someone who quotes the Bible every other second--but that's me, and I'm an atheist, so there you go <G>.
--Frank SAH Dad to Brigid 10/24/95 and Cara 1/20/01
pohakuyakok ...@subdimension.com (Kane)
It sorta works like the death penalty, yah know they aren't dashing into the street during the brief time you are whalin' their butts, dontchaknow. And besides, yah don't want to be interferin' with Darwin, now do yah?
It's the theatrics, Ivan, the theatrics. Now wouldn't life be dull if we didn't have these little episodes to liven things up?
Well, reasonable or not we know for sure they aren't doing those things while we are paddlin' their ***es. Who cares about the side effects. Lots of drugs are actually poisons and parents know just how much ***aulting their kids need a dose of...they are the experts, not you....r r r r r `ere now...what's this? Watch me prove you wrong.
That's all well and good but it has nothing to do with the fact that millions of parents, deliberately hurting their children, as you put it, have managed to raise happy, healhty, children who grow up to healthy, successful, law-abiding adults...all you have to do is look at the medical records, the mental health records, the numbers of people in jail, and locked up in mental wards, the end to wars, the burgeoning fabulous improvements in the invironment, the end to world wide poverty, disease, and despotism, and....and....oh.
Never Mind. (thanks Emily) Says you. Why I've seen right here in this newsgroup more imagination and intelligence devoted to the defense of spanking as a valid, or acceptable parenting method, and citations out the yingyang that show the wide range of ways to hurt and control children available to the dedicated. Where do you get these strange ideas....r r r r Well you just go ahead and offer away. I'm sure the fine folks that are solidly behind (pun intended) brute force parenting will have some brilliant, well thought out, logical, brilliant, well thought out, logical, brilliant...well you know, responses.
Mutual respect is for those dullards that don't want to go off to war and kill people. Now you can't have that, can you? What would the budding little tin pot despots do without a large cadre of disrespectful well conditioned to follow orders folks? I mean what makes your kids so special they shouldn't contribute to the war effort, eh?
Are you trying to say that whalin' their butts ISN'T teaching them something? As for being a good example...you are ignoring the fact they may themselves have little savages to raise, or kids with some kind of nervous organic disorder, and if your kids haven't had the proper example to follow how will they ever learn all the graduations of force and variations of pain application necessary to parent those impossible children? No, Ivan you are misled.
It's obvious that children are born with an innate sense of their right to ride roughshod over poor helpless parents. THEY MUST BE STOPPED, and brute force parenting is the only resource that is absolutely one hundred percent guaranteed to work...don'tchaknow.
You Sir, are a menace to civilization as we know it. Where will we get our great and fearless leaders to fight off the savages of other lands and peoples if we coddle our children as you suggest?
Will children raised this way follow orders when they are told to shoot, gas, decapitate, mutilate, rape, kill, kill, kill, kill...ah, hurumph...scuse me, give me a moment here ....
There, that's better. Now where was I? Oh yes....
Well just "eschew" on this for a minute: Logical and natural consequences are not likely to happen at all on my tight schedule. I'm not going to wait around for nature, or for me to figure out what is and isn't logical before I correct my children. You know that fifteen minutes later they will have forgotten and if the natural or logical consequence doesn't show up for 15 minutes, well how will they get their lesson...eh? How.
On the other hand if it doesn't come does that mean that there wasn't anything worth...wait....stop....cant' be thinking like this.... Boy, Ivan, you and the other anti spank people are a sinister lot sneaking this stuff into my thinking without me even knowing it. No wonder we have to stop you....
Well, now that's a fine howdoyoudo. Is the boss consistent all the time. Will a grown person's spouse be consistent all the time. No, the kid has got to learn the world is a mess and not on THEIR little timeclock. In fact I want an end to regular meals for kids and random *** whollipin' just to train them up to the real world. What IS the matter with you, boy?
I'm reporting you to the office for control of subversives. No decent, moral, ethical and righteous society can exist for long if people do not respond to bullying, threats, and bribery....and "because I said so" must be responded to when the officers order the men over the top.
In fact YOU are teaching your children to think for themsel.....I mean......teaching them NOT to be blindly and unquestioningly obedient. How... dare... you.... Sir!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Well, I know MY folks were sensible and didnt' fall for this pap you spoon out to us. And look at me, I turned out kao, oyak, .. ah, just fine, THANK YOU VERY MUCH!!!!!!!!!!!!
As I said, you and your anti spanking zealots ARE NOT going to have your way with our children. WE will decide when we want to make cooperative, self managing, happy, joyful adults out of our children....and and and and...<sputter, sputter, sputter> e e e e e e blango, biscuit, blurber The Tsmanomon.
"Frank Downey" fabfour....@verizon.net
Just priceless <G>.
--Frank Liberal atheist subversive Dad to Brigid 10/24/95 (anarchist in training) and Cara 1/20/01 (subversive toddler menace to society) <G>
go ...@SPAMNOThotmail.com (Ivan Gowch)
On Sun, 26 Jan 2003 07:22:25 GMT, "Frank Downey" ==> ==>"Larry R Harrison Jr" <larrytu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message ==> > > You can dictate to and dominate a toddler. Try ==>it ==>> > with a teenager and you will see just how ==>> > ineffective it is.
==>> > ==>> Quite effective, I would imagine, if you revoked their privelages, ==>> disconnected their computer from the Internet, and made it clear as long ==>as ==>> they are in your home they will do as you say whether they like it or not.
==>> Yeah, they'll hate you later, but so what?
==> ==>No, they won't hate you later--well, they probably will, but that's not the ==>point. What they'll do is sneak around. You can't watch them 24/7 in the ==>teen years. You'll end up with a kid that it's 2am and you don't know where ==>they are because they sneaked out--and they're probably doing something ==>self-destructive.
==> ==>I can't think of too many troublemakers I knew as a kid that *didn't* come ==>from authoritarian parents. The ones that were drinking and doing drugs were ==>also breaking curfew. I didn't drink much and didn't do drugs--and I didn't ==>*have* a curfew. I didn't sneak around because I didn't *have* to. I didn't ==>disobey my parents because the things that I was required to "obey" were ==>few, far between, and reasonable. (The one time I *do* remember having one ==>too many, I did what I was asked to--called Dad for a ride home. He picked ==>me up, laughed at me the whole way home, and told me to go sleep it off <G>.
==>The rule was, "If you do happen to have one too many, no driving." A ==>reasonable rule. I followed it. Dad held up his end of the bargain by ==>fetching me.) ==> ==>I have two siblings. All three of us were good kids, good students, got ==>along with our parents right through adolescence. There wasn't much of a ==>generation war in my house. I never went through the "I hate my parents" ==>stage, and neither did my brother or sister. And none of us were ==>troublemakers, not even remotely. This, even though a more lenient set of ==>parents than my own would be hard to find.
==> ==>My parents thought that love was more important than obedience, and thought ==>that respect was *far* more important than obedience--and understood that ==>there was a difference. My father--who has an anti-authority streak a mile ==>wide himself--once said to me, "Respect must be earned. It's not granted, it ==>can't be forced, it doesn't come with any title or position. It has to be ==>earned." He was talking about something political at the time <G> but he ==>could've been talking about himself. My parents *earned* my respect, and ==>that of my siblings--*because* they didn't feel it was theirs by right. They ==>earned it by *doing*.
==> ==>My job as a parent is to eventually make myself irrelevant. I can't do that ==>if my kids grow up having their decisions made for them. Why didn't I drink ==>much, even when my friends were? Because it wasn't "forbidden fruit"--Dad ==>let me drink at home--and because I wasn't trying to "get away with ==>anything". That takes out external motives--so it was *purely* my decision ==>on whether I wanted to have a beer, or whether I didn't want to have a beer.
==>I had an interesting conversation with my sister once. She was talking with ==>some friends about their high-school sexual experiences--and she realized ==>that it was *far* easier for her to say "no" to guys who were putting the ==>moves on her--because it was *her* "no", not Daddy's or Mommy's. She was ==>with a group of about eight women, she was the only one with liberal parents ==>when it came to sex--and she was the only one that graduated high school a ==>virgin. Because it was *her* choice. My parents said, "It's up to you--but ==>here's what you need to know." My parents made themselves well and truly ==>irrelevant, and they knew what they were doing. Because if the only choices ==>in your head are "Daddy says no, boyfriend says yes," Daddy's not going to ==>always win.
==> ==>--Frank ==>father of Brigid 10/24/95 and Cara 1/20/01 Great post, Frank. Sounds like it could have been written by one of my kids.
I was going to write a rebuttal to the ignorant, authoritarian crap Harrison posted, but you've made that unnecessary.
Thanks.
--
Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations or the dictates of our p***ions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.
-- John Quincy Adams
LaVonne Carlson carls...@umn.edu
Frank, I know there are many SAH parents, both mothers and fathers, that do the "dirty work" and parent in huge doses, yet follow John rosemond. I don't think this is about parents being male or female, about testosterone, or about working out side the home. I think this is about an authoritarian individual with no sensitivity to children, knowledge of their developmental needs, or understanding of the parenting practices that result in the best results for children, both short and long term.
This is not about atheism or Christianity. This is about knowledge and understanding. By the way, John Rosemond is *not* an academic. He is a fraud with a Master's degree.
LaVonne
"Larry R Harrison Jr" larrytu...@yahoo.com
Gee, and I thought we were aiming for equality of the sexes? We now don't listen to someone because he's a MAN? And I thought we had ADVANCED in our society and gotten beyond sexism. Guess it's okay if the object of your prejudice happens to be a man--especially a white one.
As for "I'd never buy a parenting book" etc etc., personally--I'd never take the advice from someone who was too lazy to spell out stay at home dad.
That's just ltfy (lazy typing for you).
ly ...@osufpp.org (Lynne M.)
And "do as I say or I will make your life a living hell" is not an example of being a benevolent dictator. The idea that you *might* get dinner if daddy approves sounds like something from Dickens. And no one but an idiot would get into a food fight with a kid: they will win every time, and your blood pressure will go through the roof. Your ideas, while sounding so hostile they are scary, also discount the fact that there are a million ways to tell a child that you don't love or care about him -- sort of like death by a thousand cuts. It doesn't take long for kids who are *constantly* being jerked around to decide that they are worthless and that there is no point in trying. Go ahead: feed him stuff he can't stand (and watch him eventually vomit it up), lock him in his room with no furniture, make him crawl around on all fours, whatever --
just don't be surprised if he doesn't turn out to be a nice, polite, caring person.
You're supposed to be smarter than your kids, or at least more experienced. There are plenty of ways to get your point across, or to teach a lesson, without threatening or bullying. Small case in point: one day my then 3-4 year-old daughter pushed her food away when I served her lunch: "I don't want that." "Ok," I said, "fine," and proceeded to just sit and eat my lunch. (I had to kind of keep my head down so I wouldn't laugh.) After about 2 minutes, I saw a little hand quietly pull the plate back and she started eating. We never spoke of it, and she never did it again. Now, we could have gone on the Larry plan and started years of fights, but somehow, because I am weird, or a softy, or something, I just thought we both could use our time more productively. Kids want and deserve attention. Give it to them, and you'll be able to dish out far more positive than negative. Any any heavy punishments should be a last resort, not a first resort.
And why are you concerned that a child cannot tell who is the parent and who is the child? A parent who has to continually remind his kid of this is insecure. They're not trying to take over; they just want you to love them. They already look up to you so much as a parent. Kids in happy homes are stunned when they find out their parents don't know everything. There is no need to treat them as an invading force to be conquered. It's much easier on everyone if they don't want to disappoint you. You could, on the other hand, teach your kid to say just what you want to hear when he's in front of you, and then let him act out as soon as he's out of your sight. You won't know, and he'll never tell you because he can't talk to you. I can promise you, the latter is *much* harder than the former, so I can't understand why anyone would pick that.
Lynne
"Frank Downey" fabfour....@verizon.net
"Larry R Harrison Jr" <larrytu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message ...
> Gee, and I thought we were aiming for equality of the sexes?
I'm all for equality of the sexes. But that's theory, not practice. You find a book written by a man who was a full-time parent, I'll buy it in a second.
In fact, there's so few of us, I'd *love* to see one.
--Frank
pohakuyakok ...@subdimension.com (Kane)
Why yes, such bias still exist institutionally. Check out divorce courts and their decisions on who gets the kids.
No, actually NOT. It's still rampant.
Yes, that is the case...on the other hand, men, white men, have been going about stereotyping and exercising their own biases against women, people of color, or other ethnicities or economic cl***es for some time. Possibly there is a little bit of backlash, don't you think?
Frank was giving advice?
You don't make your point very well when you fail to notice first person commentary. He never once suggested that someone else do something or even follow his lead, now did he?
You givin' advice here, Larry, or just having a slow day?
Slow day, right, Larry?
Too buckin' bad...r r r r Stoneman
go ...@SPAMNOThotmail.com (Ivan Gowch)
==>"Larry R Harrison Jr" <larrytu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message <>...
==>> ==>> Don't expect obedience? Okay, fine--I'm going to go break the law, and ==>> expect the cops to understand "hey--your job is to foster cooperation, not ==>> expect obedience." See how far that gets me. I'm an adult, you say? That's ==>> funny--modern culture teaches children are merely little people, deserving ==>> of the same rights as us if not MORE of them. Yet, it's okay for them to ==>> break the rules but not me. O-KAY.
==>> ==>> I prefer the John Rosemond/James Dobson style. Tell them what the rules are, ==>> tell them to obey them--or else. Why? "Because I Said So." The parent is ==>> supposed to be a "benevolent dictator," that is, loving but firmly in ==>> charge. The reward for obeying the rules? You aren't sent to bed early ==>> without dinner. The penalty for disobeying? Being fed nothing but vegetables ==>> you know they can't stand--hey, it's not starving them--and sending them to ==>> bed early whether they like it or not.
==> ==>And "do as I say or I will make your life a living hell" is not ==>an example of being a benevolent dictator. The idea that you ==>*might* get dinner if daddy approves sounds like something from ==>Dickens. And no one but an idiot would get into a food fight ==>with a kid: they will win every time, and your blood pressure ==>will go through the roof. Your ideas, while sounding ==>so hostile they are scary, also discount the fact that there ==>are a million ways to tell a child that you don't love or care ==>about him -- sort of like death by a thousand cuts. It doesn't ==>take long for kids who are *constantly* being jerked around to ==>decide that they are worthless and that there is no point in ==>trying. Go ahead: feed him stuff he can't stand (and watch ==>him eventually vomit it up), lock him in his room with no ==>furniture, make him crawl around on all fours, whatever --
==>just don't be surprised if he doesn't turn out to be a nice, ==>polite, caring person.
==> ==>You're supposed to be smarter than your kids, or at least more ==>experienced. There are plenty of ways to get your point across, ==>or to teach a lesson, without threatening or bullying. Small case ==>in point: one day my then 3-4 year-old daughter pushed her food ==>away when I served her lunch: "I don't want that." "Ok," I said, ==>"fine," and proceeded to just sit and eat my lunch. (I had to kind ==>of keep my head down so I wouldn't laugh.) After about 2 minutes, ==>I saw a little hand quietly pull the plate back and she started ==>eating. We never spoke of it, and she never did it again. Now, we ==>could have gone on the Larry plan and started years of fights, ==>but somehow, because I am weird, or a softy, or something, I just ==>thought we both could use our time more productively. Kids want ==>and deserve attention. Give it to them, and you'll be able to dish ==>out far more positive than negative. Any any heavy punishments should ==>be a last resort, not a first resort.
Great post, Lynne. You sound like a great Mom.
--
Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations or the dictates of our p***ions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.
-- John Quincy Adams
"Storm" st...@stormsstoryarchives.com
Yes, and that of course signals the message to the young mind that is exploring socialization 'get out of my house if you want to be happy.' So the next thing you know your kid is high on drugs or dead in a ditch somewhere because they heard you tell them to get out of your house.
I know that I tried this several times as a teen having heard those words.
Eventually, I made it, all the way to England. I went through the fire, and while I'm glad that I did, I wish that my parents had been more supportive when I most needed it.
People like you make me sick.
Storm
pohakuyakok ...@subdimension.com (Kane)
I believe Larry is just another troll p***ing through. I've run across him in other ngs under various handles.
Though your points is well and truly taken on this issue of how we fail teens and then blame them for their failure to comply.
Kane
"Storm" st...@stormsstoryarchives.com
I promised myself that I was going to respond to this post more intelligently than before, so here it is: That is an entirely different situation. Children who's parents are looking after their well-being rarely break the law, and those that do usually find reprimand *with* the law in this day and age.
There is absolutely no way that you can compare an adult who *knows* better breaking the law to a child testing his or her limits. The *reasons* that an adult breaks the law are entirely different from the reasons that a child pushes his or her parents and/or tests his or her limits.
There is no connection here, and it strikes me that this is the kind of raving lunacy that the pro-spanking crowd has used and continues to use to justify their actions. But that's all that it is: lunacy.
Children certainly *are* people. If you think otherwise, then I suspect that you were taught otherwise by the kind of uncaring parents you appear to be yourself.
Truthfully, children are still people, no matter how old they are. But their limitations are different than ours. Even the law holds different accountability for adults who have mental disorders or disabilities, because their limitations are different than those of an adult who is of sound mind.
There can be no comparison between adults and children, because adults and children *do* have different limitations from one another. Additionally it is quite apparent if you bother to read any research on the subject that children can't even tell the difference between right and wrong before a certain age (while I can't remember where I read it, I do believe that the age is believed to be around nine years). Adults may not *always* have the capacity to understand the difference, but children absolutely do *not* before a certain age.
This being the case, punishment serves no purpose except perhaps to discourage a child from learning in their environment and about their environment. Punishment teaches only fear, and there is no purpose than that.
Even our own criminal justice system is fear based, with capital punishment still being in effect. Essentially we are making examples of the wrong-doers and exterminating them in order to breed fear in those that might contemplate committing a similar crime.
"Because I said so?" What is that supposed to teach a child, honestly? It only serves to teach a child (once they have the ability to understand such things, which, as I said, cannot happen before a certain developemental stage) that those who are bigger and (sometimes) older than them are able to make arbitrary rules and dictate the way that their lives can be run.
Further, they will then be taught in school that this is a country (if in the U.S.) free from dictatorship, where the rules are in place for a reason and where they have some input into what the rules are.
It seems to me that this mentality only serves to confuse the child, as much as to generate fear.
I don't like the word 'dictator' and would never want to consider myself one. Considering what our society here in America thinks of dictators in the political sense, why would anyone want to be thought of in that way? Rather odd, if you ask me.
So you are saying that you don't think that good behaviour should be rewarded?
A loving parent will reward good behaviour in every way possible, in order to encourage their child to continue to behave. Their reward? Maybe they don't get an increase in their allowance or that special treat they want just for following the rules (which should be in place in order to protect the child, of course, rather than just being arbitrary), but they will be able to bask in the love and attention of Mom and Dad, and be able to feel the sense of security that every child needs and deserves.
Yes, children do deserve rewards. Parents who don't reward their children in this way will be faced with the concequences when their child becomes an adult and can't cope with their inability to love another person, adult or child.
It's not starving them? Chances are the child won't eat those particular vegitables, and anyway, how is that a logical concequence to anything? If the rule is 'you must eat your vegitables' I have to ask why the parent isn't striving to find a food that the child *likes* in order to teach them more about healthy nutrition. Forcing a child to eat something they hate serves no purpose at all but to make them hate that food even more -- in this case, my guess is that you'll find that child not wanting *any* vegitables in the future, the end result of which could be poor nutritional balance. What parent (but an abusive one) wants that?
Children need explanations to grow and learn. They need to understand *why* the rules are in place in order to co-operate with them. They don't understand 'because I said so'. That reads to a child (and even to me, as an adult) as: "I don't really care whether you like it or not. I have no other reason other than the fact that I don't really give a hoot about your feelings. Enough said." Storm
"Storm" st...@stormsstoryarchives.com
The question that continues to creep into my mind (and one which makes my skin crawl) is whether or not an adult with this mentality really cares if their child is discovered raped and/or murdered in a ditch somewhere.
I've already said how this statement reads to me, and it makes me very uncomfortable. Telling a child 'while you're under my roof' gives that child an incentive to want to get out of there, and quickly. It is telling the child that you don't really want them there, and that they are a burden to you.
If your children are nothing more than a burden, I have to ask why you had them in the first place?
So what? Goddess knows I don't want *my* son growing up to hate me, even if he isn't in my care. My goal, as a parent, or as a caregiver, is to have a long-lasting *positive* effect on that child so that not only will they grow up, but they will grow up saying 'she gave me something wonderful' whatever that 'something wonderful' may be.
How about the child I met who was anorexic at the age of seven? I didn't spank her. Yes, sure, I had to bribe her, but I got her eating, and with my help, she put on thirty pounds. I forged a bond with that little girl that lasted through some very heavy issues in her life, including being molested by a close family friend. I was the person that little girl called 'Mum'. I had a lasting effect on her life. I did something that kept her alive when she might not have been.
Oh, and I should add that this little girl's mother has much the same attitude as you do. Very punitive. It was *me* who told her mother that she wasn't eating anything in school, and *me* who noticed that she wasn't eating at home. It was *I* who first mentioned to her mother that I thought she was being abused, and my suggestions were blown off. Eventually, it was me who sat with this little girl in my lap and listened to her telling about how this family friend touched her, and her sister. It was *I* who cried with and for this little girl, and it was to *me* she clung.
I made serious risks of these kids hating me, of course. I set out limits, told them what the rules were. The rules looked something like this, and yes, they were questioned and tested. (These applied only when I was the caregiver and mom was out/away.) 1. You can't go anywhere without letting me know where you are going.
Why?
Because I need to make sure that you're safe and that you haven't gone somewhere dangerous.
Okay.
2. You are permitted to scream, and yell at me as much as you want, and for whatever reason, but you may not punch, bite, or kick.
-- Now this is an interesting one, which I doubt is common to most caregivers. But the fact is that these kids had been being abused by a variety of adults for quite some time, and I was their only 'punching bag' in a manner of speaking. I'd heard it all from the five of them, and offered myself as an outlet and a sounding board. They bonded with me like no other adult, *because* of this fact.
3. You will respect your brothers and/or sister(s) and anyone else in the home at the time, including friends.
Why?
Because it hurts not to have that kind of respect shown to you.
Now of course the concequences here were fairly logical. I never *did* get hit, bitten, scratched or kicked by a child because they knew they could let it out verbally. Great release for these kids, I imagine. If they wandered off where they weren't allowed, they came into the house for the rest of the day. Their friends were welcome to come in, of course, but they couldn't go out (except in the back yard) unless I was with them. Logical concequence and kept the kids safe. If they showed disrespect to their brothers or sister(s) or used any physical violence on one another, I simply separated them, got one of them playing a video game, and read a book or drew pictures with the other.
These techniques worked like a charm *without* me ever having the need to say 'I'm the caregiver and I say so.' Not only did the kids behave most of the time (except for the two little ones, who were still learning their limits), but they learned that I was somebody they could trust. I was the first person to know of them being abused, and when they finally told their mother, they wouldn't do so without me there. They were afraid Mommy would hit them.
My *goal* was to make an impact on these children's lives. I did. A positive one. You seem to justify not having a postive effect on a child's life by not caring if they hate you. If you do it right, you risk them hating you, but you care a great deal if they do, because that means you've made a mistake.
I don't think that you are discussing the 'right' way to parent a child, so I'm not even going to *go* there.
woop.
You seem to be a very uncaring person. In that case, I don't think you should have children anywhere near you.
Storm
| To Top |