Dealing with "Flat out No!"s...

[PianoLover]

I am shocked that anyone in the 21st century would not see that the "new rules" of parenting just may have something to do with the increase in drop outs, drug abuse, suicidal and all around rude behavior of our very modern children.

The reverse is true! Children who were physically punished regularly are far more likely to have anxiety problems, depression and therefore suicidal impulses
The drop out rates have more to do with crappy schools and poor methods of teaching that are not based on reason and evidence than the kids. But it's easy to blame the kids and not the adults. The problem here is seeing kids as somehow different and less worthy of ethical consideration than adults.

When you say parents are afraid to parent you mean they are afraid to punish.

Punishment only teaches people not to do something because of the consequences to THEM PERSONALLY, not because of an altruistic care for the needs of others. this should be obvious to anyone who thinks about it, as soon as there is no one around to punish why should they be motivated not to do the behaviour?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRE2gqjQx5Q

Of my 6 children.. 4 are honor students... 1 who made average grades but but has an IQ 2 points away from genius.

Note these are statistical Correlations, it doesn't mean that every kid will conform, just as not every smoker gets cancer, but why take a risk? There are other methods that work. I don't expect to convince you on this point.

I do not BEAT my children... but a hand on the rump when they are young was what it took to get the behavior that I deem dangerous under immediate control.

as I say jsut because this worked doesn't mean it's the only or best way to do things. Again from what you're saying I don't imagine being able to convince you on this point.


"When a child hits an adult, we call it hostility. When an adult hits an adult, we call it assault. When an adult hits a child, we call it discipline.”

It only teaches the child not to do things because of a threat of retaliation.

There is not a constant battle in my home. Rooms are cleaned.. they call and check in without being told...

why though? behaviour isn't as important as motivations for that behaviour, I could not steal someones wallet either because I care about their property or because I'm afraid of being arrested. there is a big difference. I'm not casting any aspursions but you should keep in mind results are not the all.

and the eye-rolling smart remarks you may have to deal with

I don't have to deal with them, the children I work with love and respect me and so do their parents, I've never have to threaten, coerse, punish or reward anything ever and likely never will. They do what I ask out of love and respect alone.

 

[PianoLover]

Share a link to the studies if you would. Not an interpretation of the studies, but the actual studies.

Yes, full list here:
http://board.freedomainradio.com/forums/t/32072.aspx

 

[PianoLover]

I am shocked that anyone in the 21st century would not see that the "new rules" of parenting just may have something to do with the increase in drop outs, drug abuse, suicidal and all around rude behavior of our very modern children.

Also I should add that a lot of the 'so-called' new approaches revolve around giving rewards for behaviour we 'like' such as gold stars and golden time, which actually make children more selfish because they only do 'good things' because of what they can get out of it, as soon as there are no more rewards they are LESS likely to do these things rathe than more.

Thanks for reading!

 

[Mom2all]

Do you model all of these values by coming the instant your child says, by respecting when he says no? by doing everything he asks you to do? without debate?

that would be the best way to

1. If my child calls me, I assume it would be an emergency and yes I would come. You see, they were taught manners.. they come to me when they need something. If they call my name without being in the room.. something is wrong.

And no... I do not doing everything my child asks me. I AM THE PARENT. It is my job to decide what is best for them. If there is no reason to say no.. then I'll give a yes. Otherwise, suck it up.

That being said, my rules are very clear. There is no reason to break them. Listen to me, be respectful, and learn when its okay to open that mouth and fight for something. We have dinner together every night. If there is something to be discussed, they can bring it up there. If it is not confrontational but a chance for them to express themselves, okay. Will I consider it if they have a valid point? Yes. DO I still have the ultimate decision... no doubt.

Originally Posted by Mom2all

[/URL]
<I>My job is to teach my children to respect rules.</I>

Really? Regardless of how reasonable the rules are and without any critical thought?
To use an extreme example in Nazi Germany the rule is kill a jew
Someone who was taught by their parents to "always respect rules" is much likelier to follow the extreme rule than someone who was taught only to follow instructions when they seem reasonable

As a principle do you think all people should do things they find unreasonable?
I don't think people should do things they don't find reasonable, that's a very scary principle to apply.

Really? This is offensive. I again am teaching my children to respect me and the rules they must live by. I have put in "critical thought" to every rule. Standing up for your fellow man, defending yourself and loved ones, having morals have everything to do with why I make the rules. Children need parents to define what is good and bad.. what is acceptable and not, when to speak up and when to keep silent.

HUMAN COMPASSION is something that I teach them by following rules.

The ten commandants are rules.

 

[bssage]

Thanks for the link. But I am not convinced that is a study. More a person siting several studies to support his agenda. He sites the Gershoff studies frequently. Her studies are not the only ones available and not without fault.

Some of the names on his "sources" list:


<LIST>

• 
  <LI>
• Stopspanking</LI>
  <LI>
• Repeel43</LI>
  <LI>
• NoSpank</LI>
  <LI>
• Neverhitachild</LI>
  <LI>
• NoSpank (yes twice)</LI>
  <LI>
• NaturalChild</LI>

</LIST>
The video contains him stating so many times I have lost count. "And a study show's" That is someones interpretation of many studies. Not only that. It is a biased, misleading interpretation to support his agenda.

I recommend this. http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1566&amp;context=lcp[/URL] Its involves some reading. My link is not a study but rather things that should be considered when reading the studies on this topic. The link sites 5 or six studies (Including Gershoff) that are accepted as the most thorough and complete. After I get done reading his link I may move on to the actual studies as time allows. This is a topic frequently discussed on this forum. So I feel obligated now to actually read the studies. Thanks to Jeremy3 I have learned my lesson about taking the time to read the studies rather than other people's interpretation of them.

 

[PianoLover]

Thanks for the link. But I am not convinced that is a study. More a person siting several studies to support his agenda. He sites the Gershoff studies frequently. Her studies are not the only ones available and not without fault.

Some of the names on his "sources" list:


<LIST>

• 
  <LI>
• Stopspanking</LI>
  <LI>
• Repeel43</LI>
  <LI>
• NoSpank</LI>
  <LI>
• Neverhitachild</LI>
  <LI>
• NoSpank (yes twice)</LI>
  <LI>
• NaturalChild</LI>

</LIST>
The video contains him stating so many times I have lost count. "And a study show's" That is someones interpretation of many studies. Not only that. It is a biased, misleading interpretation to support his agenda.

I recommend this. http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1566&amp;context=lcp[/URL] Its involves some reading. My link is not a study but rather things that should be considered when reading the studies on this topic. The link sites 5 or six studies (Including Gershoff) that are accepted as the most thorough and complete. After I get done reading his link I may move on to the actual studies as time allows. This is a topic frequently discussed on this forum. So I feel obligated now to actually read the studies. Thanks to Jeremy3 I have learned my lesson about taking the time to read the studies rather than other people's interpretation of them.

Hi look Below the video for a list of studies. The video is not the study
It should be intuitive that using violence as a deterrent teaches children that the more powerful party can use violence to coerce the less violent party into conformity with rules. If it is illegal for an adult o hit an adult by should it be legal to hit a defenceless child? It's madness to think any good can come of it in the long term, thankfully the number of parents using physical punishment in the us has dropped dramatically in the last decade but the European countries which have made it illegal are doing a lot better in violent crime rates and delinquency etc.

 

[bssage]

Ok this is a copy of his sources list.

aappolicy.aappublications.org

stopspanking.com

themoneytimes.com

repeal43.org

utexas.edu/know/2009/09/21/elizabeth_gershoff/

latimesblogs.latimes.com

nospank.net

neverhitachild.org

nospank.net

stophitting.com

naturalchild.org

time.com

This is the link of his bio

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Molyneux

His qualifications to interpret medical studies are that he is an author and blogger.

One of the studies he is site's, he states that the group reviewed spanks 2 to 6 yr olds a min of 3 times a week or 187 times a year. And that 12.8% percent of the study spanked at least 7 times per week. This is not what I call a spank. He jumps from study to study.

In the interest of keeping the piece I wont say you are wrong. I will ask that you refer to the link in my last post. Then see how much of his video is addressed in that link.

A example if some of the issues are. In Gershoff studies if you were not spanked once in the last two weeks you were removed from the spanked group and placed in the no spanked group. I am not going to do a long thread. I will say this. I am unaware of ANY study that has shown me spanking DS twice in 2004 will have any lasting adverse outcome. Or any study that shows an occasional wack to the butt will cause long term effects. If you find that study. And by study I mean an actual study by an accredited institution not a blogger selling books. Then link me to it and I will concede your point.

Tell you what. I will start a new spanking debate thread in the debate section. Its always a hot topic. That way we can leave this thread to its own devices.

 

[PianoLover]

A example if some of the issues are. In Gershoff studies if you were not spanked once in the last two weeks you were removed from the spanked group and placed in the no spanked group. I am not going to do a long thread. I will say this. I am unaware of ANY study that has shown me spanking DS twice in 2004 will have any lasting adverse outcome. Or any study that shows an occasional wack to the butt will cause long term effects. If you find that study. And by study I mean an actual study by an accredited institution not a blogger selling books. Then link me to it and I will concede your point.

ok good observations but I am concerned with the blase nature of how you refer to an "occasional wack on the butt", something that would be considered either assault or sexual harassment. Why are children entitled to LESS moral protection under the law rather MORE given they are defenseless. Hitting a child is like you being spanked by a 60 foot tall robot, that then will turn around and say they did it because they love you and will later want to play with you. How confusing even for an adult, how is an individual with the cognitive capacity of a small child meant to understand why this great giant who hits it later expresses love and wants to play. If violence is wrong then this should be a PRINCIPLE it's not fair to use the fact that you're greater to dominate a defenseless child. I fear the only reason why people deny this is because it means they have to accept they did something wrong, appologise and make amends and find new methods, that is deeply worrying an attitude.

I cannot believe what I'm reading. Children having autonomy! They are children. You are the parent! Especially at that age they need to understand when you speak it is law

I can't believe I'm reading this! :-O word is law?
no consideration of what the word IS allowed??
Compliance compliance compliance
blind obedience
The parent's word is law, regardless of the word
ignorance is strength
freedom is slavery


"word is law" comes from the bible so you are projecting parent as god
I don't understand why one would think it's better to force a child rather than to reason with them, and why reasoning should be a bad thing.

You are stetting up a bad future for a child if you teach it your word is law,
those are the preconditions for dictatorships as well (see the work of Lloyd DeMause who shows the link) but people don't accept this, because it means actually having to change their habits, and changing habits means accepting old habits were wrong and maybe that is too much moral responsibility to take.

 

[PianoLover]

incidently I don't see what Stefan's credentials have to do with anything, he's a full time philosopher and dad with a keen interest in pedagogy and has been writing, researching and talking about the subjects related for the best part of a decade as well as having tonnes of positive feedback from listeners who have adopted what he prescribes and seen benefits in the short term ranging into the long term.

But still, e=mc^2 has the same truth value whether I say it, you say it, einstein says it, ghandi says it or hitler says it. If I had a degree in physics that would only show that I can learn folumulae and apply them, it wouldn't give my statement more authority.

 

[PianoLover]

There are people in our society that you must teach your children to give respect to automatically. The police, their teachers, their elders in general. Respect is earned among peers and such. Not among authority figures to children.

Absolutely not, I think the police, teachers and elders in general should earn the respect of citizens, students and youngers respectively. I don't respect a policeman just because he's a policeman especially if he harasses someone as I have seen happen many times, I do not want to live in a dictatorship.

 

[PianoLover]

No, no consideration of what the word is required. WERE TALKING ABOUT A 3 YEAR OLD! You have got to be kiddddddin me! Do you really believe the stuff you say?

So what you are suggesting is that a 3 YEAR OLD requires less moral consideration than an adult because he is only 3 rather than more? A three year old child is a human being who is far more susceptible to abuse than an adult, if someone hits you you can at least think they are a messed up person, your child is Completely Dependent on You ---- can you imagine how scary that must be? Being hurt by someone you are completely dependent on?

 

[PianoLover]

I can see this is going no where, so good luck with your kid living with you and leeching off you till hes 40

Your use of resorting to personal comments shows your inability to process what I'm saying because it means reconsidering your personal morality. I would never have a child leach upon me because everything I do is greared towards helping children developing autonomy, independence and self-mastery in children. They will be skilled in many ways and have lots of talents they can turn their hand to make money, probably more than I ever will.

I can see where this is going as well so I'd rather turn my eyes to people who are actually willing to examine themselves, change, and learn for the benefit of their children. Those who do all report positive results, for myself I have learned a lot of great stuff on here and do not consider myself the law but I know right from wrong. I don't redefine coersion as "guidance" and assault as "discipline" just so that I don't have to face having acted immorally.

I only ever punished a child once when I was a summercamp councillor 5 years ago and looking back on it now I see how idiotic it was and how I could have got results 100 times better by using any of one thousand different approaches I have learned since then. I don't condemn myself. I promise to do better and I have done better ever since, I could produce as many testimonials to back that up as anyone would like to see.

Peaceful approaches work because violence breeds violence and immorality breeds immorality. If it is wrong to hit an adult (unless it's to push him out the way of a bus) it is 1000 times more wrong to hit a defenseless child. Anyone who refuses to see that is deluding themselves to avoid facing up to having acted immorally which is selfish and wrong-minded. That's my final word on the matter as far as this thread goes, I don't care if it puts anyone off listening to me as they are the people with corks in their ears anyway. Those who want to learn, understand and ask how the alternatives work in practice.

 

[IADad]

I don't believe in being overly heavy handed with my kids but I do expect them to respect my authority when I make a "this is how it's going to be" statement. That doesn't mean I'm an ogre and I certainly don't think I've done anything (more than any other parent) to damage them. Children need boundaries and yes there most certainly are benevolent dictatorships. I care enough about my kids to tell them "no" sometimes. If keeps them safe sometimes, it teaches that them that you don't always get your way in life and that they are not in fact the center of the universe. Sure, if you are too heavy handed and unyeilding you're going to teach negative messages and psychologically damage them, but the same can be said for being too permissive.

I live in a very liberal town and I interact with parents who espouse such "free range" children beliefs and I'll tell you what I witness. I withess kids being ignored in the name of exploration, I witness kids being allowed to wander into harms way. I witness kids who learn that their parents words mean nothing, and they can do as they wish and when their parents attempt to give any direction they have learned to lie and cheat and manipulate their way into getting what they want.

I'll continue to set reasonable limits, give guidance protect and yes, explore and ask my children things as well. My kids are happy, interact well with their peers and adults. Their teachers tell us they are joys to have in class, they are responsive, resourceful considerate and helpful. I think we set a pretty good example.

There's a difference between violence and responsible leadership. There's a difference between benevolence and abdincation of responsibility. And the call to listen to other perspectives is not the sole property of any one side of the argument.

 

[Mom2all]

Absolutely not, I think the police, teachers and elders in general should earn the respect of citizens, students and youngers respectively. I don't respect a policeman just because he's a policeman especially if he harasses someone as I have seen happen many times, I do not want to live in a dictatorship.

I was fixing to go again. Then I took a minute to look. My understanding is that you work with children, but do not actually raise them.

It actually explains a lot.

I am going to assume that you play the piano, maybe even teach it. I have one in my study that I have been playing on, trying to learn. I'm not good, by any means. Can't read music, but I try. My music is broken. But I can play a few songs that I learned off the Internet. I would never.. in a million years try to teach someone else with my expertise.

That being said, I would never search for child rearing expertise with you.

 

[IADad]

let's all be respectful in our posts, I'm not singling anyone out, but I think we all, me included need to remember that not everyone shares our points of view.

I believe pianolover is a moom, from what she said in the biting hitting thread.

 

[bssage]

confuseddad

is on a long timeout. I believe he was just trying to pick a fight.

 

[Mom2all]

I admit my fingers got away from me.

 

[mom2many]

Mine haven't gotten away from me and I have stayed out of this cause the whole thought process that parents are some how wrong for placing rules is just laughable to me. Rules are what guide our society, we don't always agree with the rules and we may even find them stupid but without rules people could just run crazy and do what they want.

 

[superman]

I'd never tolerate a no.

 

[alter ego]

I prefer to turn 'no' into 'yes'
ie "its time to come inside and get ready for dinner."
"No!" (I have a 10 month old and a 4yo, both will do this)
"do you want fruit and yoghurt after dinner/ do you want to choose your bowl/do you want to pick the first story?"
(One of these is always 'yes')
"then you need to come get ready for dinner please"
If it doesnt work then we just start to eat, and they will miss out (or see us eating and want to join us)