Subject:
|
Re: Parental strategies? (was: Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 14 Nov 2000 00:17:55 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
johnneal@uswest.net+spamcake+
|
Viewed:
|
1111 times
|
| |
|
|
Christopher Weeks wrote:
> 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.
Not what I meant. Kids need to know right from the git-go that their parents love
them-- that no one in the world will ever love them more than they will. It is an
unconditional love. There isn't any "love extortion" going on at all. A child
obeys his parents because he recognizes that they love him and care for him and
want what's best for him. It is in his own best interest to follow their
guidance. Father Knows Best;-) (and mother)
> > 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.
Strangers can be "other people"...no?
> 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.
Am I annoying you? :-)
> > 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).
Okay, let's take school work, for example. Let's say your son would rather play
Ninetendo than do homework. You explain that video games are a waste of time and
that he really needs to study to learn to become happy in life in the future (hard
sell). But he sees that school work is hard and unfun; video games are fun. So
he chooses to spend his time playing video games. So you either ask him, offer
him a trade, or bribe him (payment). Still forms of coercion, no?
> > 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.
What is artificial with "If you don't finish your homework, you may not play with
your LEGO" Are you doing him any favors by letting him play with LEGO instead of
doing homework? Do you go ahead and let him fail a grade so that he learns
better? That is part of parenting-- discerning what our kids need when they are
too immature to know better.
> 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.
I suspect that he won't even have the slightest idea what your talking about until
he reaches college.
> That whole "this is gonna hurt
> me more than it hurts you" line is laugable.
I realize that that is a cliche, but I suspect there is some truth in it.
Although usually referring to spankings (which I don't advocate), sometimes
forcing a child to take responsibility for their actions is hard to do-- only
because we realize from experience how hard and painful it is. But that's life.
> > 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.
Okay, we need to clarify "punishment". I am not talking about punitive measures
here. I am talking more about consequences. For instance, if I ask my child not
to play with his LEGO until he finishes his homework, and he continues, then I
will say "if you continue playing with that LEGO before finishing your homework, I
will box it up and put it away for a week." If he continues to play with the
LEGO, then the LEGO gets put away. This would be the punishment. Not arbitrary,
but a consequence as a result of their choice. Sure, I made up the condition, but
I do so in such a way that I hoped would motivate positive action. Doesn't always
work out, and so they must live with the consequences of their disobedience.
> 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.
Well, if you say, "if you pull the cat's tail again (after explaining to them why
this is not a good thing to do for the cat's sake), I am going to send you to your
room", and they do, they will learn that 1. Mom and dad have authority 2. I have
the choice to obey that authority 3. There are consequences if I don't, and
hopefully 4. Mom and dad know what is best for me and I will obey them
> > > 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.
Agreed.
> 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.
I agree that their are a lot of rotten parents out there.
> > > > 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.
Come on, Chris. The guy is 6. How many other close friends do you have who are
6? If none, then why not? My point is that the father-son relationship is way
more intimate than a friend-friend relationship is. Dude, you *created* that kid,
for crying out loud! He is way more special than the closest friend could ever
be!
> 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.
Control is not the issue. Helping little people whom you created become all they
can be is. The paradigm of an experienced adult raising an inexperienced child is
certainly old, but hardly corrupt.
> > > 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.
Hmm. He's only 6. Don't start writing any books yet.
> If you behave, they do too.
??
> If you are their friend, then they want
> to be yours.
Wait until he is 14... BTW, Does your son call you "Chris" or "dad"? Would it
matter to you?
> 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.
No, sometimes they are just too lazy to. They don't want to be made to because
that would require work.
> 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.
What if he does these things? He suffers consequences, which will *seem* like
punishment to him.
> > 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.
I work with kids a lot. They enjoy knowing what is expected of them. Try playing
a game with a group of grade school kids. You will find that it will run best and
they will have the most fun if everyone knows the exact rules of the game. They
need the rules so that they will have a guide for their conduct. Conversely, try
running a game where the rules are not at all clear. There will be great
confusion, apprehension, and overall dissatisfaction, because they won't know what
to do or what is expected of them. Believe it or don't, kids *like* rules, and
they like following them.
This is hardly mistreatment or abuse. Quite the opposite. It is a comfort zone.
When they are comfortable, they are able to take the courage to extend their
comfort zones. That is how they grow up in a secure environment, rather than,
say, on the streets where anything goes.
> > 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.
Kids need special treatment. They are not adults, and they shouldn't be treated
as such.
> > 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?
I am their parent. I am responsible for their well-being.
> > This is different for every child, and up to responsible parents to
> > determine.
>
> Oh. I see. Nuh-uh! ;-)
What I mean is that every child develops mentally, physically, etc at different
rates. It is up to the parents to gauge this process and guide accordingly.
> > 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.
No, because they are now adults, and no one has any legal authority over them
anymore.
> > 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!
I am not advocating a dictatorship relationship at all, or if I am, it would be
one of a benevolent dictatorship. I think you will run into problems as your son
matures if you treat him truly as your equal and friend, and not your son. Your
son can have lots of friends; he can only have one (biological) dad. I could see
the kind relationship you are talking about exist in a step father-son
relationship, though.
-John
>
>
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
