Subject:
|
Re: Corporal punishment (was rah rah, canada!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 4 Feb 2004 21:13:37 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
465 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks wrote:
> You point out that the kid will learn that tantrumming gets them their way
> (carried out of the undesirable venue). My answer is maybe you should be
> teaching them that simply asking gets them their way.
With respect, it is seldom the case that "simply asking" will result in getting
one's way. Why don't you ask your boss to double your salary and increase your
benefits? Will you get your way? I grant you, throwing a tantrum probably
won't double your salary, but "simply asking" won't do it, either. I suspect
that your underlying message is that "simply asking" translates to "asking, with
awareness of the responsibilities and consequences of receiving what is asked
for and also of the possibility that the request will be denied." What happens
when the child finds this explanation to be unsatisfactory?
> If your child is having a
> tantrum in an antique store because you've been shopping for three hours, then
> maybe you've set your expectations too high. Hell, I can barely stand to be
> doing nothing interesting for that long! And why should they not have a right
> to dictate how their time is spent?
I think it's because, in practice, the child's dictates will be contrary to the
needs of the adult, vis a vis actual time constraints and legitimate
responsibilities.
Let me ask it this way: Suppose you have a mandatory appointment at some time
this afternoon, but in the morning you take your child to Toys-R-Us because you
know that your child likes to look at the toys. What do you do when your child
still wants to keep looking at the toys 18 hours later--do you leave him at the
store? Do you miss your mandatory appointment? Do you try to explain to the
child why you must attend the appointment? What do you do when the child says
"I don't care--we're staying here"?
> Compare how much say [children] had about
> whether you'd bring them into the world or not with how much say you had. That
> same ratio represents the amount of giving that's owed. The parents owe the
> children. Whatever respect or time or joy the children give the parents must be
> earned.
Suppose your 6-year-old child says to you "Although I appreciate your choice to
give me life, I now elect to end my life." Do you say "Okay, you are under no
debt to me, and I accept your decision to end your life"? What steps would you
take to prevent your child from undertaking this chosen course?
Why do the parents "owe" the children anything, by the way? It is entirely
consistent with my values to require parents to accept responsibility for their
children, but that's not the same as an actual, inherent debt.
> So what about when your girlfriend is being difficult? Do you turn to a
> rod no thicker than your thumb?
Let's assume another extreme for a moment. Suppose your child is ignoring
your voice and is unknowingly walking toward a pit of spikes, and you are
confident that you are unable to reach him to restrain him or to physically
prevent his fall into the pit. Would you strike him to get his attention?
How does this differ in kind from other circumstances in which parents are
inclined to intervene physically in their child's chosen course of action?
> Parents don't need to teach it. You can't really
> grow up and _not_ know that actions have consequences. When you run too fast,
> you trip and skin your knees. What teaches that better: haranguing parents, or
> tripping?
Do I understand correctly that you prefer a child to suffer physical, perhaps
debilitating, injury, rather than requiring the child to hear a verbal scolding?
I'm also not sure why unchecked non-human-caused violence is preferable to
human-caused verbal harangue.
And what about when the consequences are not as directly physical or apparent to
the child? How about an unruly child who screams throughout the running of a
film he wants to see? He's ruining the experience for other paying customers,
but you seem unwilling to remove the child from the theater (because that would
be a violation of his right to see the film when he chooses) or to explain it to
him (harangue). Do you simply explain to the child that he will enjoy the film
more if he's quiet? What if he disagrees loudly? Do 500 paying customers have
to endure your child because your model of parenting differs from theirs? Why
should your (or anyone's) child take precedence over any others?
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Corporal punishment (was rah rah, canada!
|
| Dave, I'm thinking that you are nit-picking by way of purposely failing to read between the lines. If I'm wrong, then I must have communicated rather poorly. If you take a minute to evaluate my notes and your response, and then think that your (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Corporal punishment (was rah rah, canada!
|
| (...) Honestly considering tantrums is a somewhat humbling experience for parents. You can pretty explicitly track the cause of the tantrum to failure to act on the part of the parents. I've been there and done that. It's been my fault. It might be (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
88 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
|
|
|
|
