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 19:12:26 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
JOHNNEAL@USWESTnomorespam.NET
|
Viewed:
|
1208 times
|
| |
|
|
Christopher Weeks wrote:
> 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.
Yes, a parent's love should be unconditional for their children. Even so, I'm not
sure one can really turn love on and off for their kids.
> > 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.
I tested my theory with my own kids last night. They actually gave me that
answer. Maybe I have brain washed them...
> Do you believe that your children
> love you and care for you and want what's best for you?
Yes.
> Do you obey them?
Usually. Depends. They don't have the final say like their mother and I, if that
is what you mean. BTW, why ask that?
> And how exactly do you know what's best for your kids?
Mostly from my experience of having been a kid once.
> 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.
What makes you think that a 6 year old would have *any* idea of what's best for
them? Sure, they would know what makes them happy, but beyond the very immediate
future, it's impossible for them to have any clue.
> > 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.
No. We have wisdom that guides them along a path to maturity, whether they like
it (at the moment) or not. Example: I am insisting that my kids play piano. I
wish that I had had the opportunity to play when I was young, but didn't. Now,
sometimes I have to get on them about practicing, and my son probably would quit
if I let him, but I won't. I am extremely confident that one day (but not today)
he will thank me.
> > > > 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.
You were being unclear. Thanks for clarifying.
> > > > > 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.
What if he spent 4 hours a day playing them. That's the problem-- they are
addictive. Kinda like LUGNET;-)
> 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.
Homework is needed to pass grades. Don't pass grades, don't get an education. I
think we could agree that life without an education would be unhappy.
> 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.
There are no elective classes in first grade.
> 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.
Oh, so you've met my wife, but I digress....;-)
> > > > 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.
Not at all. It's called prioritization. There are only so many hours in a day.
I know that my son will play with LEGO for hours on end without realizing it.
Then suddenly, no time for homework. I inform him of this and he agrees, and so
does his homework first. What is silly is letting your child humiliate himself in
school. You could warn him first of that possibility, and then it would be his
choice. Why should kids have to learn stuff the hard way all the time?
> 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, according to you, that would be his decision, not yours, no?
> 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.
Hey, doing homework is not an option, but a requirement. That's not me. That is
the way it is. Sometimes you have to do things you don't want to do. Not
everything is this world is fun.
> > 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?
They already know why, and they accept it, and they appreciate it. They *know*
that we love them and want what's best for them. They *know* that we aren't
perfect. They *know* that we don't have all of the answers. They *know* it
because we *tell* them. And they respect us for it.
> > 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?
I'm not sure, but it is.
> > > 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.
To deny the sense of family negates probably the most powerful emotional bond
humans experience. I'm sorry I used the term "little people" because they are
children, and they *are* your children, in the sense that you created them and you
are responsible for them. "Fluke of genetic relationship" is laughable.
> 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?
lol Believe me now and hear me later, there is no such correlation!
> > > 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.
Because kids need a daddy. They don't need an adult friend. I would think it
*very* odd if my kids called me by my first name. It would probably strike them
as odd, too. It would actually bother me.
> 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.
I don't care how one was raised-- everybody gets lazy sometime.
> > > 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.
Nope. intellect.
> The next main difference is intellect: kids are smarter, and adults have more
> experience.
Nope. Adults are smarter (they were kids once, too) AND have more experience.
> Kids want the same things that adults want.
Nope. Kids (mostly) want happiness, adults (should) want meaning.
> 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.
Merely because one has freedom doesn't follow that one will attain wisdom to 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.
No. Parental rights are denied all the time. Children are not considered
property in the eyes of the law. Parents are guardians, not slave owners.
> > 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.
Intellectual equal? Explain to me this: how is treating your son as a friend and
treating him as a son different.
> > 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?
I'm curious, and hope I'm not getting too personal-- were you not very close to
your dad? Did you grow up with a dad? I think your views on parenthood are
stemming a lot from the way you were brought up.
-John
>
>
> 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
|
|
|
|
