Subject:
|
Re: Excellent article
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 12 Aug 2001 07:11:42 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
126 times
|
| |
|
|
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> Why is it so tough for people to grasp that there is an actually fair way to
> treat kids? Treat them the way you treat your best friends. That is, they
> don't get to tell you what to do, and you don't get to tell them what to do.
Of course children deserve love and fair treatment, but it doesn't make
sense to me to say we (adults) shouldn't tell kids what to do. Perhaps
you're being too general with that statement. Parents ARE here to tell kids
(and show them) what to do until they learn how to do it for themselves.
Example: As a parent, I will decide what chores my kid may have and at what
age they should start. BTW, my style is to give kids choices. More than
likely I'd offer a few chores to choose from so that my kid gets a sense of
empowerment. Nevertheless, I am telling my kid what to do but helping them
have part in the decision making.
Now, to continue that example, if my child's household chore is to take out
the garbage and he didn't, then as his father I'm going to see why not. If
there's really no good reason other than laziness, then I'll give him more
choices-- do your chores or no TV and no friends over (or some other
priviledge). Still, I am telling him what to do and I have the moral
authority to do it. The ideas and lessons here are (random order):
- Dad is the boss and there are rules to follow (even for me)
- Work and responsibility is a part of living, whether you feel up to it or not
- All members of the family should have a role in household decisions
- Authority comes with experience and should reflect knowledge and morality
Parents, that is to say parents who take an active role in their child's
life, are responsible for contributing to their child's moral and
intellectual development. The parent should be the child's moral compass
until they get their own.
> And kids do have a right to some of the family discretionary income.
Right or priviledge?
> It is impossible to 'spoil' them by purchasing toys.
Really? What makes you think that it's impossible? Perhaps as a kid, maybe
you feel more loved when you get stuff? Is that what you mean?
I think when a kid gets loads of stuff, they really don't appreciate it as
much. And maybe they are not aware of the work it took to earn the money to
buy the stuff. So, yeah, I think the word "spoil" would apply because the
kid is getting all this stuff and it becomes sort of "expected" rather than
celebrated. I've also noticed the thrill of the new thing wears off sooner
when the kid expects newer stuff to soon replace the old.
As I got older, I appreciated material things more when I understood the
story behind how I got the gift. One of my favorite toys (which I still
have) was my Scout Walker from "Return of the Jedi." It was a Christmas gift
from my childhood friend. When we were 12 years old, he had a paper route
and I'd help him out sometimes so that was his thank you gift. Considering
it took him 3 days of work to earn the money to buy me that, it was really a
great gift.
> If you can afford it (I mean,
> it creates no hardship on the family to purchase) then you aren't inherently
> giving more than they deserve. And if you can't, then obviously it isn't an
> issue.
Right. I think "deserving" is relative to the resources available. Love is
always deserved, though. I do think the idea of deserving something can be
twisted into a negative attitude. I don't think it is wise to allow a child
to think they "deserve" this and that (materialistically speaking) if that
sense of deservance is baseless expectation. That is, getting stuff is a
regular thing and something owed rather than earned. The "I deserve it"
attitude is for the Gen-X'ers and often not quite realistic. I think it's
healthier to feel that you get certain "exotic" stuff (like toys, games or
money) because you did something positive (helped around the house, ate all
your veggies, cleaned your room).
> And you can't give too much attention or affection either. It seems to be a
> common misunderstanding that when you see a child who is being allowed to
> publically misbehave, the assumption is that the child has been given too much
> affection/attention/freedom. The fact is that the child is either experiencing
> an uncommon emotional outburst (which can be excused), or has not had the
> difference between freedom and license made clear.
Yes, it could be that kid is craving attention because they don't get it at
home or they are not allowed to be themselves. But I do believe in limits to
behavior and a child will discover the limit one way or another. If a parent
doesn't set limits, I don't think the kid will. If a parent doesn't have a
sense of fairness, I don't their kid will either.
Some parents tune out their kids and then wonder why they're acting up or
failing in school. I say it all comes back to home life and how involved the
parents are with their kid's life. It's like a water balloon: Hold it tight
and it bursts, hold it loose and it slips. There needs to be an even mixture
of leadership styles with kids (mainly situational) so that they learn,
through example, how to lead for themselves someday.
Dan
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Excellent article
|
| (...) If you mean that you think I'm being too general, then we disagree. If you mean you think that what I meant was something more specific than what I wrote, then that is not correct. I believe that inherent in our humanity is the productive (...) (23 years ago, 12-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Excellent article
|
| (...) Sure. I'm deeply disturbed by the seeming perception that the only two states that a child can occupy are a) subordinate inferiors and b) overindulged family tyrants. Why is it so tough for people to grasp that there is an actually fair way to (...) (23 years ago, 11-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
11 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
|
|
|
|
