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 16:47:39 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1138 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> There isn't any "love extortion" going on at all.
You mean there shouldn't be, right? Because I believe it's not too uncommon
for exactly that to take place. And even when the parents don't know that
that's exactly what they're doing.
> A child obeys his parents because he recognizes that they love him
> and care for him and want what's best for him.
I can't imagine why you would think that. Do you believe that your children
love you and care for you and want what's best for you? Do you obey them?
And how exactly do you know what's best for your kids? I know what's best for
me, only because I'm in me and know what my values and desires and dreams are.
I don't really, and can never, know that about another person. You want what
you have decided is best for your kids. Your decision doesn't make it so.
> It is in his own best interest to follow their guidance.
They are smart enough to figure out the times when that is true. Don't get me
wrong, guidance is exactly what our kids need from us. We provide the widsom
that we can, and they make their own decisions.
> > > 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?
You are being obtuse. I indicated that there is nothing that suggests I should
treat my son differently than I would any other person for whom I cared in the
same way. All strangers are other people, but not all other people are
strangers.
> > > > 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? :-)
Mostly not. Only when you're being obtuse.
Seriously though, don't discount all that I'm saying just because it sounds
wrong at first. Think about it. I have a fair amount of non-scientific
evidence suggesting that I have an improved vision of how to do something.
There are adults who were raised with freedom, who are happy and productive.
At least several, that I know about. Just in the year or so that we've been
adopting a continuously more free parental philosophy, we have seen a
blossoming in our son. Maybe that just happened because of his age, I won't
ever really know, but maybe not.
> 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?
I have several points, some of which may seem like nitpicks, but I don't think
so. Others you will simply disagree with:
1) we don't have a Nintendo or any other dedicated video game. We have several
PCs and some have entertainment and edutainment software. That is a concious
decision. Garrett can have one when he can afford one. Thus far, he prefers
to spend his earnings on Playmobil, LEGO, arts'n'crafts, and occasional video
game at the movie theater, etc.
2) Video games are not a waste of time. Many of them develop important
thinking strategies and others develop hand-eye motor skills. He would
certainly reject such a "hard sell" because he would immediately detect it as a
delusion or a lie. Lying to kids is completely out, and I have always
believed that. (Back when I thought it was OK to punish kids, I still wouldn't
lie to them about _anything_.)
3)Similarly, if I were to lie to him about homework being needed for future
happiness, I'm sure he would detect it and disrespect me for it. Homework is
needed when you want to learn stuff. People want to learn stuff when they're
ready for it. I never did any meaningful learning because it was asigned to me
for a required class. But when I took elective courses, I learned lots.
4)Those forms of getting what you want are not coercive in the sense that I
mean it. That is like saying that you're being coerced to go to work daily.
The fact is that you want your salary, so you go to work. It is a freely
entered agreement. OTOH, if you chose not to work, but someone would get in
your face and complain incessantly about your decsion, and not allow you to
leave their presense, and maybe pick you up and take you bodily back to work,
and take your LEGO away until you decided to do your work, then that would be
coercive.
> > > 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"
LEGO play has nothing to do with homework. Now saying "if you don't finish
your homework, you may not plat with _my_ LEGO is appropriate." Maybe not
nice, but appropriate. But only because you can do what you like with
your stuff. However, the most appropriate response to a child not doing his
homework is that he looks unprepared in class the next day and he'll want to
keep up with his contemporaries. That is the response that the universe
imposes. Your pidly little LEGO punishment is just silly. It divides your
family for no reason.
> Are you doing him any favors by letting him play with LEGO instead
> of doing homework?
No. I'm not doing him a favor. I'm allowing him personal soveriegnty. He has
as much right to it as I do.
> Do you go ahead and let him fail a grade so that he learns better?
If my son is not ready to take the challenges of the next grade, then he should
remain in a program that prepares him for those challenges. We strongly
considered keeping him in kindergarten for an extra year because he is a bit
behind his peers emotionally. But he's doing fine with first grade.
> That is part of parenting-- discerning what our kids need when they
> are too immature to know better.
That "part of parenting" is what makes our kids have to sneak around to do the
things they want when their parents are too immature to know better.
> > 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.
To some degree, parents are (or should be) buffers between the kids and the
harsh reality of the world. You shouldn't make things harder, but sometimes
you should make things easier. If your child isn't ready to take complete
responsibility, then you should help him with that responsibility. We all
screw stuff up. But if we haven't been stripped of responsibility, then when
we realize what we screwed up, we are made happier by making it right. Our
kids want to make it better. If your kid gets into your car and takes the
brake off, and puts it in neutral, and the car careens down the road and hits
another car. Obviously they aren't prepared to take full financial
responsibility. But they could make a point of being involved in the clean up
and apologies, and maybe even helping to pay for the insurance increase.
That's an extreme example that I have not had to deal with, but in the little
daily things, my son has shown an increased (from before, and over
other kids) readiness to make amends and think of ways to do so.
> Okay, we need to clarify "punishment". I am not talking about punitive
> measures here. I am talking more about consequences.
You are talking about punitive measures. You are talking about wholly
unnatural consequences that you make up in your misplaced zeal to help control
the lives of your kids. If an action is bad, it is defined as bad by the
natural consequences. Why do you have to heap extra consequences onto a bad
situation, or worse yet (I think) create consequences for actions that aren't
even bad.
> 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."
You are throwing your weight around in order to micromanage the lives of your
kids. When they're free of you, they won't fully know how to handle the
infinity of choices available. They will still be dependent on someone to tell
them what to do. Maybe that will be a strong spouse, or the government, or
their employer. Or maybe they'll be strong enough to figure it out and think
for themselves. But that's not where most people end up.
> 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.
Yes, that is a punishment. A punitive measure. And totally arbitraray. The
ability to play with LEGO in _no way_ stems naturally from the doing of
homework. Thus it is an arbitrary imposition placed on a small human by a
bigger human. That is the philosophy of might makes right. Throw it out.
> 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.
So it's an arbitrary punishment that you hope (for whatever reason) will
motivate them. And I'm sure it does. I'm sure it motivates them to do that
boring mind-bending homework just to get dad off their back. It takes all the
joy from learning. That's a great goal.
> 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
And eventually, I hope, they'll wonder why?
> 2. I have the choice to obey that authority
Just like they have the choice to obey all might-derived authority, like the
kid in the schoolyard who wants their lunch money, or the senator in DC who
institutes the draft that might get your kid killed.
> 3. There are consequences if I don't,
Well, that's true. If you don't obey a bully, they beat you up. I supose that
is a valuable lesson. But do you want them to learn the corrollary to that,
that if you stick a fork in their skull, they'll leave you alone too?
> and
> hopefully 4. Mom and dad know what is best for me and I will obey them
How in the f...heck...do you think they would learn that from your
micromangemet antics? For that matter, how could it possibly be true?
> > 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?
I don't know. I have two close friends. One is six one is thirty one. I
could use the same logic wondering why my son isn't thirty one. That's
completely nonsensical.
> 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!
The act of creating him did not engender increased intimacy between us. The
acts of seeing him daily, and helping him realize happiness, and watching him
grow, and watching him help me to grow, and living together, and lots of little
things engendered that closeness.
> He is way more special than the closest friend could ever be!
There is no limit to the amount of love I can produce/feel. If you want
friends as close as your kids, then you can have them. You just have to create
them too. Friendship doesn't just happen, it is forged and repeatedly tested.
> > 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.
Control is the issue that I am disputing. You advocate the improper control
of other humans merely because of a fluke of genetic relationship. And you
helping "your" (another faulty term) little people to be all that they can be,
as long as your particular psychology/morality/ethos approves is broken.
> The paradigm of an experienced adult raising an inexperienced child is
> certainly old, but hardly corrupt.
It is. Many old institutions are corrupt.
> Hmm. He's only 6. Don't start writing any books yet.
I won't. I discover daily that there are new challenges ahead. But so far,
that's half the fun. And I believe that freedom is a nimble enough philosophy
to cover all the common problems.
> > If you behave, they do too.
>
> ??
What didn't you understand?
> > 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?
Both. Most often dad. He recently started calling me daddy which he has never
done before. I'm interested in why. He is free to and occasionally does use
my first name. I don't care which he uses. Right now, I think it's cute when
he says 'Chris', but I'm sure that would revers if it were the norm.
> > 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.
Not kids who were raised with the freedom to follow good examples.
> > 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.
I'm pretty convinced that at six he knows the difference. You point is very
valid with a two year old. I'm working on making one, so I'll let you know in
three years how it goes. Right now, I think that sometimes, I'll simply have
to not let my toddlers do everything they want. I'll have to apologize to them
comfort them, and give them as much freedom as my life and handle.
> I work with kids a lot. They enjoy knowing what is expected of them.
So that they can avoid punishment.
> 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.
Games absolutely need rules. For kids and for adults. Playing games of
various kinds is my primary avocation. I really, really, understand that games
need rules, and that kids need games. But life is not a game.
> Believe it or don't, kids *like* rules, and they like following them.
When playing games.
> 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.
Have you ever lived on the streets? It isn't an anything goes world. There
are social systems that let participants know that certain actions will be
painful.
Slavery is always abuse.
> Kids need special treatment. They are not adults, and they shouldn't
> be treated as such.
Kids are small people. Adults are big people. The main difference is size.
The next main difference is intellect: kids are smarter, and adults have more
experience. Kids want the same things that adults want. Your claim that they
don't merit similar treatment is falacious. It is part of your antiquated and
corrupt paradigm.
> > > freedoms can be added,
> > > 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.
When you give them the freedom, they know what they need.
> No, because they are now adults, and no one has any legal authority over them
> anymore.
Just because our corrupt legal system give you that authority, doesn't mean
that it is "right" to exercise it. When it was legal to own dark people, it
was still evil to do so. Now it is still legal to own little people, and it's
just as wrong to do so.
> I am not advocating a dictatorship relationship at all, or if I am, it would
> be one of a benevolent dictatorship.
I believe that you believe that you are a benevolent dictator. But not all
subjects of "benevolent" dictators get what they need for inner satisfaction.
> 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.
I'm treating him as my equal, my friend, and my son. Just not my inferior, or
my slave.
> Your son can have lots of friends;
Yes, and each one will satisfy different needs for him.
> he can only have one (biological) dad.
So?
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
|
|
|
|
