Subject:
|
Re: Parental strategies? (was: Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 15 Nov 2000 16:22:40 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1319 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.
>
> 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.
I believe that love (real love) can't be turned on and off. It would sometimes
be easier if it could. But just because you can't turn your love for your kids
on and off, doesn't mean that you can't pretend that you can and abuse them
with that tactic.
> > > 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...
Maybe so. Or maybe they just haven't had the opportunity to think freely about
it because it would hurt too much.
<as an aside, this last statement, and statement that I am yet to make will be
attacks on your parenting. I don't know how to have this conversation without
saying stuff fairly bluntly. But you should know that it is chance that you
are being singled out, and that I understand you are wildly more the norm than
I.>
> > 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?
Then it's not obeying. It is following suggestions. You obey people who are
somehow your superiors. I asked because you seemed to suggest that your kids
should obey you because you love and want the best for them. It seems that the
logic should flow both ways.
> > And how exactly do you know what's best for your kids?
>
> Mostly from my experience of having been a kid once.
A completely DIFFERENT experience. In a different time. In a different place.
With different culture and context. You are not, and were not, them.
> 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.
They know within the context of their experience (same as us) what they want.
What's so bad about being happy? You might be surprised by the results if you
had ever followed a child who was given those choices. They make good
decisions.
> > 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.
OK, so instead of correcting something that was left out of your life, by
sitting down to the piano yourself, you're living vacariously through your
children. And you even know that they don't want to. Why doesn't that seem
bizarre to you? You know when he'll thank you? When he's making his own son
do the same thing. He'll be too cowed to see that the road to happiness isn't
playing the piano. If and when your kids wish to express themselves musically,
they will. Adults can learn to play. My mother taught music for many years,
private lessons (piano and guitar), and jr. high band and general music. I
have watched people learn the piano.
> > 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;-)
Video games and LUGNET are both good for the mind. I spent about that time
frame playing video games from the age of twelve to the age of sixteen. I'm
fine. I still like computer games, but not mostly hand-eye games anymore. So
what if he did spend that time playing? Playing is good. What exactly is your
outcome by preventing your kids from having that much of that kind of fun?
> > 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.
Grades, shmades. Grades (both kinds) are another broken paradigm. You do
understand that the important part of education is not the numbers that
teachers send home on report cards don't you? Important education is when
people (your kids in this case) learn something that makes them intellectually
greater. When they discover the magic of numbers or how all these various
words with similar meanings start with the same sound. If you don't squash
their desire to learn, they'll learn and learn and learn, but I do admit they
won't learn the same things that society pumps down their throats in public
school. Instead, they'll learn much more and it'll all be relevant to their
lives. And in the process, they will learn how easy learning new things is, so
when they want to go to college, but they kind of ignored foreign languages,
they'll get the books at the library and they'll pass some tests to get in.
> I think we could agree that life without an education would be unhappy.
There is no such thing as life without an education, so your stance is
meaningless. But life without freedom is unhappy. Part of life is figuring
out when to give up some freedoms too. Like getting married, having kids,
going to college, and lots of other things. But there's plenty of time for
that (and a more thoughtful understanding of the implications) after people get
to experience their freedom.
> > 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.
You should use a different school. My son is faced with elective activities
through most of the school day. I would rather the school be more free with
him, but this one is the best we could find.
> > 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.
When you prioritize another person's time it's called slavery. That is the
crux of what slavery is. When one person controls the time of another.
> 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.
Wait, the way you say it now, it sounds like a suggestion. Suggestions are
great. I suggest to my son that he might want to get his homework out of the
way too. Sometimes he does, and other times he doesn't.
> 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?
In my experience kids are much smarter than the ones you seem to have
experience with. They don't need to be told every little thing. But, telling
them that that might happen is OK, I guess. Again, you seem to suggest that
you'd nudge them a little and then it would be their choice. Earlier you'd
steal their toys and hold them hostage until they complied with your dictates.
Which is it?
And for your last question above, they learn better from experience than from
being lectured. If you tell them they might want to avoid that kind of
embarrassment, then you'll have to tell them every day. What about when
college comes, and they're not used to thinking for themselves? But if they
experience it once or twice, then it sticks with them.
> > 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?
His and the school's, with our council. And that's what finally decided us.
His K year was in a class of K and pre-K kids. He could have stayed in K with
the younger group, doing the same kind of work, or he could go to 1st with the
older group and get into some meater explorations. He opted to move on. And
surprise, surprise, it seems to have been the right choice.
> > 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.
Hehehehe. Come again?
Doing homework is absolutely an option. It is one with consequences. Real
ones. Ones that are much more effective than not getting to play with LEGO.
What exactly do you mean that its a requirement? Required by what law of
nature?
> 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.
Why is that? Why must you do things you don't like? I sometimes choose to do
things that aren't constant fun...like vacuuming the family room rug, which I'm
supposed to be doing right now ;-) But the fact of the mater is that it's an
option. And if I choose not to, then I'll have to look at the tufts of white
cat fur and bits of leaf matter that are all over. So, for me, and only I get
to decide, the payoff for doing the task is an overal positive. That is how we
all make all of our decisions.
> > > 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.
So you think that your kids wouldn't have figured out that you love them or
that you don't have all the answers without being told? Come on John. And I'm
sure they really do know why you have authority too. It is really because you
don't trust them and are willing to use your might to enforce your will on
their life.
> > > 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.
Well, I hope to raise kids who know that _they_ know what's best for them. So
that they won't have to look to someone else for such information. Old habits
are hard to break.
> > 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.
Oh, but I'm not denying the sense of family. But I believe that family comes
from living relationships. Not phylogenetic relatedness. I have an associate
who was deeply emotionally abused. She has no real family. I know a guy who
was adopted and has much stronger bonds than most seem to with his family. And
I know that I loved a man with whom I was a room mate in a way that approaches
the way I love my wife. We were best friends. The fact that it was a non
sexual relationship does not detract from the depth of feeling that was
present. He and I could have formed a family.
> > > > If you behave, they do too.
> > >
> > > ??
> >
> > What didn't you understand?
>
> lol Believe me now and hear me later, there is no such correlation!
Can you support that assertion? At all? I have such strong support
from my personal experiences, that I find your negation ludicrous. When I knew
'bad' kids, it was because their parents were bad. Hell, when I _was_ a bad
kid, it was because my parents were bad. I'm not shifting blame here...I want
it all for myself, but my observations stand.
> > 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 disagree. I think adult friends is what they need most. They certainly
don't need masters.
> 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.
Of course it would. First, y'all are unused to it. Anything that you'r not
used it is odd. Second, it would imply a degree of equality that you are
clearly not comfortable with. One of the things that I don't like at my boy's
school is that they call the teachers using the honorifics, Miss, Mrs, etc. but
the teachers call the kids by first name. What's up with that?
I know that's how it was in my schools, but I thought we'd made it out of the
social stone age by now. At his school in Missouri, they all used first names.
> > > 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.
Sure...like debating instead of vacuuming...but sometimes it's OK. It's their
life. AND, I still assert, that kids given good examples, mostly follow good
examples.
> > > 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 AND have more experience.
You are using a definition of intelligence other than the norm. I acknowledge
that it is a big fuzzy term that can include a whole slew of
sub-characteristics, but in all normally accepted ways, kids are simply
smarter. If you test IQ of a person across their life, they will tend to drop
in IQ. If you measure the speed at which a five year old, a thirteen year old,
and a thirty year old absorb new information, you will find a clear inverse
correllation.
Kids are smarter.
> > Kids want the same things that adults want.
>
> Nope. Kids (mostly) want happiness, adults (should) want meaning.
Kids derive happiness from a variety of things. Meaning, in the sense that I
think you mean it, is not typically one of them. Adults derive their happiness
from a variety of things, and the adults that we respect do include 'meaning'
in that list of things. But in both cases, humans seek happiness. I derive
happiness from learning stuff. Others don't. That means that I should learn
more stuff than those others. So what?
> > 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.
Everyone already knows what they need. Wisdom teaches us various ways to reach
need fulfilment, and more importantly, that putting off need fulfillment can be
used to reach greater levels of fulfillment in the future. But they still know
what they need.
> > 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.
Then why do parents get to force children to spend their time (the most
precious of all resources) in certain ways?
> > > 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.
That depends on your precepts. To me, they are not different. Son's are
friends. I'm not sure that answers what you wanted. If not, please clarify.
> 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.
I would assume that all of our views stem from the way we are brought up.
Prior to adolesence, I was very close to both parents. My father was an
authoritarian (and doesn't approve of my philosophy ;-). When I was a teen, we
had conflicts, but I think they were run of the mill interactions. No physical
fights, for instance. I decided that living with them was unbearable at
nineteen and left. I talk and email with them frequently, and visit them a
couple or three times a year. (I'm 1100 miles away now, so it's harder to
visit, and was much more frequent when I was only 100 miles away.)
If you want me to say that I'm bitter about being his slave, I'm not. I
believe that he (they) handled their parental responsibilities as well as they
knew how. They made mistakes. They did much better than either of their sets
of parents did. I am confounded though, by how they can still assert that
simultaneously telling kids that violence is not appropriate, and spanking for
discipline, is appropriate. That's just obviously ridiculous.
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
|
|
|
|
