Subject:
|
Re: Parental strategies? (was: Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 13 Nov 2000 19:53:01 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1175 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> How about the thinking that "if I don't go to my room when my parents ask, • they
> will be displeased with me and I want them to love me, not be unhappy with • me, so
> I will do it".
Well, how about it? I know that that takes place. But what is behind that?
What do they know will happen when they are "displeased with me?" And I think
it is distinctly unhealthy for kids to grow up in an environment where they
think they have to kowtow in order to receive love from parents. That might
not be exactly what you meant, but that's how that reads above.
> This is the usual motivation IMO, not that "if I don't do x,
> then my parents will forcibly make me do x". If parents raise
> their children in such a way that the children respect them,
> then I think coercion is not is the formula,
> especially at such a young age as 6.
Really? Punishment is coercion. Below you ascribe to a philosophy of
punishment. I am raiding my kids in such a way that they have the option of
respecting me if I prove worthy.
> > My son is a small human and I get him to do stuff for me
> > the same way I get other people to do stuff for me.
> How is that?
Asking him for a favor. Offering to trade services. Paying him a fair wage
for his time. I think all the permutations are covered in those three tactics.
> Why wouldn't dealing with your son be different than dealing with
> strangers? I think it's very different.
I never said strangers. I said other people. There is nothing about my
parental relationship that gives me rights over my son. All that I have are
responsibilities to him. Just like my wife. When I want her to do something,
I ask or bargain. Why would it be different for my son?
> > Further, my son doesn't get punished. It doesn't work, it removes his
> > psychological need to make things right, and it build animosity and a power
> > relationship that doesn't have a place in my family.
> Doesn't get punished???
Right. Just like I don't punish you when you annoy me.
> How can you discipline your son, then?
I guess I'd need you to define discipline. Since I don't tell him what to do
with his time, I don't have a need to. If you wonder how I encourage him to
learn, I just supply him with info that he needs for his pursuit of happiness,
and away we go. So far he's substantially ahead of his age group (thought not
to the extent that I was).
> Believe me, your
> son will not have animosity towards you if you punish him.
Believe me, he will. His BS detector will flare like a sun when an arbitrary
and artifical consequence is handed to him for his actions. The universe
provides its own consequences and they are quite adequate. He doesn't need me
heaping artificial crap on top of the sublime purity of reality.
> He will respect you for it, because it will show him that
> you care about him and his welfare
I suspect that he will respect me for being able to break out of the paradigm
of my day and go beyond the way I was raised. That whole "this is gonna hurt
me more than it hurts you" line is laugable.
> But surely you must agree that disobedience requires consequences.
No. I don't. Not at all. I should be punished for issuing my friend orders.
And if I don't issue orders, then there is nothing for him to disobey. And
thus, even by your logic, no reason to punish him. It isn't my job to force
him, only to love him and show him what I think is best. He gets to decide
from there.
> How are you going to teach your son to take responsibility for
> his actions?
By not punishing. When children are punished, it removes their innate need to
make things right. The think something like 'well, since I had to go to my
room for pulling the cat's tail, I don't have to feel sorry for having done
so.' Obviously, that all happens at a subconscious level, but it's pretty
clearly true when you watch for it.
> > Most children are their parents' slaves, whether or not the child or the • parent
> > thinks of it in those terms.
>
> Disagree. If anything, I would say the opposite. My life now revolves around • my
> kids' lives. Please explain what you mean.
Oh, in that way, you are your child's slave, but that is how it should be.
That is what you freely signed up for when opting to become a parent. My life
is wrapped tightly around what my son wants and needs. But really, I'm not his
slave. He doesn't and can'e make me do stuff. OTOH, small people can be made
to do stuff by big people. They can be forcibly enslaved. And routinely are.
It is the norm.
> > > Now, as far as discipline goes, don't we (mustn't we) impose our
> > > wills upon our children every day?
> >
> > No. Never. That is not the way between equals and friends.
>
> We are not talking about "equals and friends", we are talking about
> our children, who are neither. There is a huge difference.
It doesn't have to be that way. My son is a very close friend of mine. And he
is certainly my equal. I feel sorry for most kids, because I know that they
are living as subordinates to people who merit no special treatment over them.
To be perfectly clear: I belive that in an ideal family, you are 100%
incorrect. You are promoting an old and corrupt paradigm of the family as if
it were the only way to be. Control is not a central topic in any loving
relationship.
> > It sounds as if you understand. You just don't think I can mean what I do.
> > But I do. My son has freedom without license, to use a common phrase.
>
> Please explain a little more what you mean about "freedom without license".
My son has the freedom that all people have. His body and his time are the
most important things in the world to him and he may do anything that he wants
with them short of trampling the rights of others. This sounds dangerous to
some people, but the reality is the you don't even need to _make_ your kids
behave. If you behave, they do too. If you are their friend, then they want
to be yours. For whatever reason, a commonly raised scenario includes brushing
teeth. The line is that the kid doesn't want to brush their teeth.
But the kids that don't want to, simply don't want to be made to. Anyone who
is educated about oral hygiene and the repercussions that will come (presented
by the universe, as natural and logical consequences) from ignoring oral
hygiene will want to brush twice daily.
He has freedom to do as he pleases with his time. This does not include
license to abuse others, or the property of others.
> When I understand that, then we can discuss scenarios. But I will say
> this-- too much freedom for a child is a *bad* thing IMO.
I trust that this is your opinion. I believe it is a possibly well-meaning but
deluded opinion that stems from people not accepting that they were mistreated.
My experience suggests that it is difficult to get people to acknowledge that
they were abused. But we were. To reject the entire paradigm of how you were
raised is to admit that your parents were totally wrong. That is
uncomfortable. But for your children, you must do it...or at least I would ask
you to really deeply examine it.
I have not seen too much freedom to exist.
> Children *need* boundaries,
The boundaries that they need are imposed by the universe. They are as real as
walls, and you can neither erect or remove them. Only by creating artifical
(social) boundaries in addition to the real ones, do they get confused about
their proper behavior.
> they need to know within what limits they can act.
They learn that as they grow, no? They do so without your "limits" in place
too. I don't let my son rip up my art. That's not a limit. That is me
protecting my stuff. I wouldn't let you do it either. And I would respond to
both of you in similar (if not exactly the same) way.
> This provides reassurance and a sense of safety.
They get these feelings from cuddly love.
> As they mature, more
> freedoms can be added,
I can't add any meaningful freedoms to my son's life.
> but only in amounts they can handle.
According to you or to them? Why you?
> This is different for every child, and up to responsible parents to
> determine.
Oh. I see. Nuh-uh! ;-)
> Only when an individual is fully mature (18 is fine, I suppose) AND/OR on
> their own should total freedom be awarded.
As a reward for finally getting the heck out of the parents' house and leaving
them free from their troubles? No thanks.
> Total freedom at any point sooner ends up
> being harmful to the individual and society as a whole, IMO
Is this opinion based on anything? My experience (admittedly limited, but so
is everyone's) doesn't coroborate that at all.
For the record, this philosophy is not at all the philosophy that I held when
my son was born. And it is a work in progress. And is totally open to
revision, but I'm finding it harder and harder to belive that I'll ever be able
to act as a dictatorial parent again. I have seen the light!
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
279 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- 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
|
|
|
|
