Subject:
|
Re: Suddenly Chris makes it personal (was: Nothing personal, but...)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 22 Jun 2001 23:04:48 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
774 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> > > > Punishment doesn't teach what the punisher normally expects. It merely
> > > teaches the recipient to avoid being caught. It also creates a divide
> > > between the authority and the punished, rather than bringing them together
> > > team-wise.
> > >
> > > That's true, but there's a limit to that.
> >
> > Why is there a limit? What is it? What is it based on? You go on to say some
> > pretty commonly accepted stuff, but I'm not infering what this limit is. • (And
> > simply by being popular, doesn't make it right.)
>
> You're creating a false dichotomy; by forcing Shiri to assert a hard line
> of distinction--knowing that such a hard line is by its nature
> impossible--you are attempting to say that no distinction can exist between
> "too much," "too little," and "enough."
I can see what you're saying, but that wasn't my intent. I would be satisfied
to discuss the results of her (or your) attempt to codify (even with the
understanding that the edges are hazy) what "too much," "too little," and
"enough" actually are. After all, how do we know they exist if we don't know
what they are?
> The fact that Shiri cannot put
> forth such an irrefutable yardstick does not mean that no measurement can be
> made, even if it's a fundamentally grey measurement.
Sure. I'm willing to be reasonable. :-)
> > > At some point you just *can't* let a kid not have any bad effect to his
> > > wrong actions.
> >
> > It sounds like you think I'm advocating shielding children from the natural
> > consequences of their actions. I am not. Most parents do that. I sometimes
> > do it on impulse, but when life or limb is not at stake, letting your kids
> > learn the cause and effect is the way to go.
>
> In one stroke you're judging "most parents" and declaring the proper "way
> to go" re: child rearing.
I am comfortable with this part of your assessment. You're right, I am. I
hope you aren't going to ask where my stats on "most" parents are coming
from...
> You're also deliberately mis-characterizing
> Shiri's assertion;
No I'm not. I am not entirely sure what she meant by "can't let a kid not have
bad effect." I made what I thought was the right guess about what she meant
and prefaced my comments with "it sounds like you think I'm..." in order to
make it clear that I was not entirely sure. And then I went with it. I'm not
sure why that isn't clear.
> she's not suggesting that you take no action to protect
> your children--she's saying (quite rightly) that there are lessons to be
> learned that don't have a tangible or demonstrable (to a young child)
> consequence, and these lessons may still (and quite often do) entail "right"
> and "wrong." Are they, because they aren't "life or limb," somehow outside
> of your notion of which lessons a child must learn?
First, I am concentrating on the word 'must' here. I don't think that children
"must" learn even the life and limb lessons. What I am saying is that I am
willing to intervene in high-risk experiential learning opportunities like
dabbling with traversing the street in order to assure the continued health of
my children (or your children, or you -- be sure that if I saw you stepping in
front of oncoming traffic, I would grab you and pull you back). The lessons
that the child *should* learn at any given time are the ones that they know
they are ready for. My six year old told us when he was ready to cross the
street by himself. And he was right.
> Even the "life or limb"
> distinction is arbitrary--how can you decide suddenly that some wrong action
> requires your intervention, while other wrong actions will just sort
> themselves out?
I'm not sure I follow what you/we are meaning by "wrong" here. The way I
decide is that if my child is in real (by my perception) danger, then I exert
immediate point influence on his life to keep him out of danger. This is
tougher, but if my son later develops an addiction to heroin, I might consider
the same logic as valid and commit him to some institution that could heal him.
That specific scenario would require more research on my part and much
discussion with him. Less serious than that, and it is not justifiable for me
to dictate to him what lessons he is ready to learn. The universe will do it
for me. When he had a spate of treating his playmates poorly, the other
parents were bugged that I didn't make him "be nice." But now he seems to
realize that since they stopped playing with him, there is a _real_ reason to
be nice. He actually learned, rather than obeyed. I'll take that every time.
> We're not talking about 10 and 12 year-olds here--we're discussing younger
> children prior to the onset of formal operational reasoning.
My child psych is fairly weak. I draw most of my information from a smattering
of early childhood education courses I took in college (studying to be a
secondary teacher, they don't emphasize that) and my own child, as well as
those with whom I regularly discuss parenting issues. (e.g.
alt.parenting.solutions, my friends, etc.) When do you think that happens?
And do you think it's all at once, or a gradual process?
> > > When a kid crosses that line, I think it is well and fair to give him/her a
> > > strict disciplinary action.
> >
> > Why? Why does a child (what ages are we talking about, btw?) need authority
> > that you and I do not?
>
> Are you kidding? By asking the question, you're stating outright that a
> child is fully accountable for his actions and competent to make decisions
> regarding those actions and their consequences. This simply isn't true--not
> to casual observation, close examination, cultural history, or legal
> precedent. What is your evidence (apparently uniquely yours) that children
> require no greater authority than adults?
Children will not make the same decisions given the same information that
adults will make. The standard explanation is that they are mentally deficient
because of immaturity. Children can be handled as if they are responsible for
the results of their actions. From what I know, when that happens, they more
fully take responsibility for themselves and are able to cope with the burden.
I am talking about their existance in a world shielded by their parents etc.
from the rigors of having to find food and shelter. Not thrown on the street
to fend for themselves. What evidence would you accept Dave?
> > > I would say "no TV for the day" or something of the sort;
> >
> > No TV for the day is an absolutely fabulous consequence for breaking the TV.
> > What it has got to do with mouthing off, I have no idea.
>
> Just for clarification, are you of the eye-for-an-eye school of
> discipline? Do you, for example, maintain that every wrong action by a
> child should entail no consequences other than those directly caused by the
> action? So if your child burns the house down, you'll take no other action
> than to point out to the child that he/she is now without a house?
I am absolutely not of the "eye-for-an-eye" school of discipline. I would
expect that to mean that I believed in doing back to the child what was done by
them. That is ludicrous. I'm not sure I'm even following your argument at
this point.
If my child burnt down my house, I would investigate why it happened. If it
was a result of some kind of mental disorder, I would seek
psychological/psychiatric assistance. If it was a little mistake, in what way
would some kind of punishment help him? Or me? He would clearly understand
what happened and he would experience all of the tragic heart-breaking clean up
that had to happen as a result. I'm quite sure that would make a tremendously
more profound impact than anything I could do would. Further, if I did provide
a punishment, it would act to absolve him of responsibility for his actions.
The psychology behind receipt of punishment includes the placement of the
punishment as a counterweight that makes up for what was done.
> > > As a kid I received the smack, once in a long time. I was slapped on
> > > the cheek *once*, when I hit my mother at the age of 12, and believe me, it
> > > only hurt for a little bit, but it left a very strong don't-cross-that-line
> > > impression.
> >
> > What it taught you is that if you strike someone you are likely to be whacked
> > back (I consider that a good and just repercussion) and that the person in • the
> > world who is supposed to love and care for you above all else is willing to
> > hurt you in order to force your compliance with their own agenda (I consider
> > that bad).
>
> Spoken like a spin-master.
Dave, did you just get out a bad meeting or something. The verbiage and
general tone of this note is out of character. Have I hit a nerve of some kind
with this?
> The lesson, as you spin it above, is what you
> as an adult have retroactively decided to infer about the lessons you have
> retroactively decided that you learned as a child. I refuse to accept that
> you (or any of us) as a child possessed the abstract reasoning skills to
> think in terms of agendas and power structures.
Why is it inappropriate for me to describe the events in adult language merely
becuase they are happening to a child? Should I have said it like "the kid
learns that grownups make them do stuff?"
> Further, you underestimate
> children's resilience if you think that a smack on the butt will permanently
> scar that child's psyche and parental relationship.
I think that it is an indicator of a power relationship that needn't exist. I
believe that that power imbalance does color the relationship and psychology of
the child and adults, both. How could it not?
> On the other hand, standing by while a child commits a wrong action is a
> fantastic way for the parent to tell that child that his/her actions aren't
> sufficiently important for the parent to intervene or take notice.
I didn't want to just snip this away and be acusable of ignoring it, but I
really need to hear what "wrong" means.
> If you see your child shoplifting a pack of gum, are you going to report
> your child to the store manager and have your child jailed overnight? I
> know you have certain concepts of how "the universe" works things out, but
> in reality, society (the only "universe" that matters to the child) jails
> shoplifters or slaps them with a fine.
I don't know what I will/would do when/if that happens. I guess I would urge
him to give it back and explain how our society deals with shoplifters. I'd
also use it as a spring board to talk about how other societies do.
> > As I suggested above, I agree. It leaves the "impression" that the adults in
> > their life are willing to use any tools necessary to coerce the child into
> > jumping through the hoops that the parent finds valuable rather than helping
> > the child to figure out what _they_ think is important and then helping them
> > achieve along those lines.
>
> And now your mis-characterize my statement, too. A child who is smacked
> on the butt does not--even at a non-verbal level--possess the abstract
> reasoning skill to consider the role of the hegemonic adult ruling class in
> the day-to-day struggles of the oppressed sandbox crowd.
First, how do you know that? And so what? The fact that a child might be so
inculcated with societal norms as to think that they are being treated
properly, doesn't make it so. It was once believed that Africans couldn't
really think like real human adults either. Once, we denied the vote to women
because we thought they weren't capable of truely rational thought. And now we
say that about kids. I certainly agree that they think differently. The
conclusion from that, that they need masters is quite tenuous however.
> Nowhere have I
> suggested the "any tools necessary" nonsense that you assert; you are
> equating a single, open-handed smack on the butt with lifelong, ritualized,
> systematic torture.
I would say that I was over generalizing, rather than mischaracterizing your
statement. When they understand that you first ask, then tell, then reprimand,
then pull TV rights, then ground, then smack their bottoms, then spank them
fully, in order to get them to do whatever you say, I think they can
extrapolate out beyond that to understand that it will continue to get more
severe. For that matter, why wouldn't you if their recalcitrance continued?
> Why, I wonder, do you rear your children at all? Why not turn them loose
> in society and let them figure it out for themselves, since--you assert--the
> universe has its concept of how discipline is to be acquired?
A) Because I have a responsibility to care for my progeny. B) Because I
enjoy children much of the time. C) Because they will be happier and more
productive when they're done with my coaching if they have been guided and
assisted along the way.
> Since morality is a learned behavior with a basis in biology, it is not
> inappropriate (indeed, it is necessary) for a parent to instruct the child
> in lessons of morality.
Why wouldn't they get it from observation and experience with life in our
society?
> Given how disaffected and out-of-touch-with-reality you have consistently
> demonstrated your spare-the-rod philosophies to be, I would suggest that not
> only should you not have kids, but perhaps you should return any that you
> have already. In any case, don't you dare presume to judge me--or anyone
> else--simply because our notions of parenting don't coincide with your odd
> conceptions.
Why not? Don't we all judge one another all the time? Aren't you being quite
overtly judgemental yourself? If it's not right for me, how is it right for
you?
> So, to sum up: You mis-characterize Shiri's statments and mine, you
> presume to define the proper way that all children should be brought up, you
> ignore the facts of child psychological development, and then you presume to
> judge the propriety of my choice to have children. Did I miss anything?
> I don't care to be baselessly insulted by you, so I leave you to your
> misguided theories of child-coddling.
Was it just the maybe you shouldn't have kids line? I'm guessing that's it
since the rest of my note seemed really reasonable. I guess I meant that as a
throw-away line, but I can really see how it was well over the limit of
reasonable discourse. I apologize to anyone who thought I was targetting them.
For all the world that I _do_ think I know a better than the normal way to
raise kids, I also fully realize that most people (who do seem to be turning
out OK) haven't been raised as I advocate. It is not the only way to get
satisfactory results. It is only the way that I have found to be best.
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
67 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
