Bipolar or just undisciplined?

"Stephanie" wrote:


wrote in message
oups.com...
On Nov 2, 5:54 am, enigma wrote:
snip
For those who wonder why I harp on him, it's because he's more liberal
than some would believe. Examples: He's said more than once that Dr.
Spock got an bad rap, because Spock said "trust your instincts" and
not "trust your stupid instincts." Therefore, it was unfair to blame
bad or wimpy parenting on Spock. Also, in 2000, Rosemond made Dr.
Laura furious when he told the mother of a four-year-old to stop her
son from complaining about Mom's working outside the home and his
being in an after-school program, unlike the other neighborhood kids.
(Rosemond feels 3 is quite old enough for kids to start catering to
parents.)

"Catering to?" I wonder if you meant that particular phrase?

He added that even if she WERE a stay-at-home mom, the boy
should revolve around her, not the other way around. (Not exactly in
line with Dr. Laura's mantra "I am my kid's mom"!)

Thats' horrible! Not to say that Mom should "cater to" a child, but I
definitely don't think that that means a child should "cater to" or "revolve
around" a Mom. I think the needs and wants of both people need to be
addressed. And in that way you teach a child how to address the needs and
wants of another human, by seeing your needs met and by contributing to
someone else's needs being met. Give and take. Teamwork. Yadda yadda.

I'm sorry, but I disagree. Not that the child should 'revolve around'
or cater to the mom, but that mom's need to take their own comfort and
needs more seriously and not always put what they want last. It's not
good for a child to get everything that they want, or to have
grown-ups jump to their cries all the time. Whether 3 is a good time
to start this or not might be up for discussion.

It isn't necessary to let a child CIO or something like that so that
the mom doesn't have to get out of bed, but the give and take thing
probably works better in print than in reality.

In short, he reminds me of the old-fashioned liberal parents who
didn't divide chores by gender or act shocked when their kids say they
don't plan to go to college or have children (he's cool with all of
the above) but at the same time, never allowed their kids to address
parents or adults by first names without permission, yell at parents,
or wear white shoes after Labor Day. Though he'd never call himself a
liberal.


Thank God! Because he sure has never seemed so to me.

Is that liberal? Because that's the way my parents were, and I tried
to follow in their footsteps as much as possible.

Except maybe for the white shoes after Labor Day.

In article . com,
says...

On Nov 2, 5:54 am, enigma wrote:
Chookie wrote
innews:ehrebeniuk-79CE24.17345402112007@news:





In article
. com,
wrote:

Keep in mind, when you read this, that 1) he's not saying
bipolar kids don't exist, and 2) being open to his methods
would save a lot of parents tons of money in the cases
where the kid is NOT bipolar.


the writer is a well know fundemental Christian that doesn't
believe any type of childhood mental illnesses or brain
misfuctions exist. there are no mentally ill children, only
wilful ones. there are no autistic children, only badly raised
ones, etc.

lee

Um, see above.

It's not true that he "doesn't believe any type of childhood mental
illnesses or brain malfunctions exist." So far as I know, he does not
believe in ADHD, but that's the only disorder whose existence he
scoffs at, to my knowledge. He freely admits that Asperger's Syndrome
exists in children, but like any responsible family columnist, he's
not about to diagnose a child he's never met.

For those who wonder why I harp on him, it's because he's more liberal
than some would believe. Examples: He's said more than once that Dr.
Spock got an bad rap, because Spock said "trust your instincts" and
not "trust your stupid instincts." Therefore, it was unfair to blame
bad or wimpy parenting on Spock. Also, in 2000, Rosemond made Dr.
Laura furious when he told the mother of a four-year-old to stop her
son from complaining about Mom's working outside the home and his
being in an after-school program, unlike the other neighborhood kids.
(Rosemond feels 3 is quite old enough for kids to start catering to
parents.) He added that even if she WERE a stay-at-home mom, the boy
should revolve around her, not the other way around. (Not exactly in
line with Dr. Laura's mantra "I am my kid's mom"!)

In short, he reminds me of the old-fashioned liberal parents who
didn't divide chores by gender or act shocked when their kids say they
don't plan to go to college or have children (he's cool with all of
the above) but at the same time, never allowed their kids to address
parents or adults by first names without permission, yell at parents,
or wear white shoes after Labor Day. Though he'd never call himself a
liberal.

Lenona.

Yeah.....Rosemond is actually a reasonable pretty liberal guy... that's why you
post all about him and few others. You say you're ever so open minded about
other experts, too... Lenona is suuuuch a reasonable girl.

::looking at my usenet BS meter, and seeing it spinning then pinned. At least in
this case the BS is easy to demonstrate::

Um, Lenona - so this would be (ahem) why you post pretty much the same
references to alt.support.childfree (where you're a regular), often with
different intros, responses and discussion always to the tune of "see see see
payrunts are idiots if they only followed this guys advice and told their kids
to shaddup.."

Enough of this, as I suspect you also do this to get a rise out of people.
Folks here know how to google; and yours is a pretty transparent game.

Banty

"Rosalie B." wrote in message
...
"Stephanie" wrote:


wrote in message
roups.com...
On Nov 2, 5:54 am, enigma wrote:
snip
For those who wonder why I harp on him, it's because he's more liberal
than some would believe. Examples: He's said more than once that Dr.
Spock got an bad rap, because Spock said "trust your instincts" and
not "trust your stupid instincts." Therefore, it was unfair to blame
bad or wimpy parenting on Spock. Also, in 2000, Rosemond made Dr.
Laura furious when he told the mother of a four-year-old to stop her
son from complaining about Mom's working outside the home and his
being in an after-school program, unlike the other neighborhood kids.
(Rosemond feels 3 is quite old enough for kids to start catering to
parents.)

"Catering to?" I wonder if you meant that particular phrase?

He added that even if she WERE a stay-at-home mom, the boy
should revolve around her, not the other way around. (Not exactly in
line with Dr. Laura's mantra "I am my kid's mom"!)

Thats' horrible! Not to say that Mom should "cater to" a child, but I
definitely don't think that that means a child should "cater to" or
"revolve
around" a Mom. I think the needs and wants of both people need to be
addressed. And in that way you teach a child how to address the needs and
wants of another human, by seeing your needs met and by contributing to
someone else's needs being met. Give and take. Teamwork. Yadda yadda.

I'm sorry, but I disagree. Not that the child should 'revolve around'
or cater to the mom, but that mom's need to take their own comfort and
needs more seriously and not always put what they want last.



I agree completely. But nor should they put the child's needs last as the
tenor of cater to implies.



It's not
good for a child to get everything that they want, or to have
grown-ups jump to their cries all the time. Whether 3 is a good time
to start this or not might be up for discussion.

It isn't necessary to let a child CIO or something like that so that
the mom doesn't have to get out of bed, but the give and take thing
probably works better in print than in reality.

In short, he reminds me of the old-fashioned liberal parents who
didn't divide chores by gender or act shocked when their kids say they
don't plan to go to college or have children (he's cool with all of
the above) but at the same time, never allowed their kids to address
parents or adults by first names without permission, yell at parents,
or wear white shoes after Labor Day. Though he'd never call himself a
liberal.


Thank God! Because he sure has never seemed so to me.

Is that liberal? Because that's the way my parents were, and I tried
to follow in their footsteps as much as possible.

Except maybe for the white shoes after Labor Day.

On Nov 2, 5:23 pm, Rosalie B. wrote:


He added that even if she WERE a stay-at-home mom, the boy
should revolve around her, not the other way around. (Not exactly in
line with Dr. Laura's mantra "I am my kid's mom"!)

Thats' horrible! Not to say that Mom should "cater to" a child, but I
definitely don't think that that means a child should "cater to" or "revolve
around" a Mom. I think the needs and wants of both people need to be
addressed. And in that way you teach a child how to address the needs and
wants of another human, by seeing your needs met and by contributing to
someone else's needs being met. Give and take. Teamwork. Yadda yadda.

I'm sorry, but I disagree. Not that the child should 'revolve around'
or cater to the mom, but that mom's need to take their own comfort and
needs more seriously and not always put what they want last. It's not
good for a child to get everything that they want, or to have
grown-ups jump to their cries all the time. Whether 3 is a good time
to start this or not might be up for discussion.


Thanks for that. As he once said, "the modern woman wouldn't dream of
making her husband a sandwich on command, but she'll jump up and draw
a glass of water for an able-bodied four-year-old."

Here's a link to the letter that got DL so mad, if you like:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.o...e7658d415d0f0f

Last paragraph:
He needs to see that outside of your job, you are not a one-
dimensional
cardboard cut-out with a sign reading "What can I do for you?" hung
about
your neck. Rather you are an interesting person with a variety of
interests
and responsibilities, of which he is one. An important one, yes, but
not the
only one.


It isn't necessary to let a child CIO or something like that so that
the mom doesn't have to get out of bed, but the give and take thing
probably works better in print than in reality.


Mainly because adults and children should not think of each other as
equals, of course.




In short, he reminds me of the old-fashioned liberal parents who
didn't divide chores by gender or act shocked when their kids say they
don't plan to go to college or have children (he's cool with all of
the above) but at the same time, never allowed their kids to address
parents or adults by first names without permission, yell at parents,
or wear white shoes after Labor Day. Though he'd never call himself a
liberal.

Thank God! Because he sure has never seemed so to me.

Is that liberal? Because that's the way my parents were, and I tried
to follow in their footsteps as much as possible.


I should have said simply "old-fashioned liberals." A breed you don't
see much anymore, I guess. Anyway, my mother was like that too, and
she's as politically left-wing as they get, but obviously she was
never a hippie. (She can't even stand to see a white SHIRT after Labor
Day.)

Another way in which Rosemond may be too liberal for some is that he
once said that if a 12-year-old doesn't want to work at a summer job,
that doesn't mean he's lazy or going to be good for nothing. I'm
guessing he said that simply because so many kids that age these days
DON'T work in the summer.

Lenona.

And you conveniently left out all the areas in which I disagree with
him, such as on religion and his refusal to talk about the need for
kids to learn how to stand up to bullying teachers and other adults.
Yes, he can be smug, but he's not a hothead like so many
conservatives. He's also pretty polite, as this article demonstrates
(it's about getting kids to eat what they're served without
complaint):

http://www.azcentral.com/families/ar...nting0222.html

And I admit, from reading it, that I didn't use the word "cater" in my
post in the sense that it should be used.

Lenona.

wrote:
On Nov 2, 5:23 pm, Rosalie B. wrote:



He added that even if she WERE a stay-at-home mom, the boy
should revolve around her, not the other way around. (Not exactly in
line with Dr. Laura's mantra "I am my kid's mom"!)

Thats' horrible! Not to say that Mom should "cater to" a child, but I
definitely don't think that that means a child should "cater to" or "revolve
around" a Mom. I think the needs and wants of both people need to be
addressed. And in that way you teach a child how to address the needs and
wants of another human, by seeing your needs met and by contributing to
someone else's needs being met. Give and take. Teamwork. Yadda yadda.

I'm sorry, but I disagree. Not that the child should 'revolve around'
or cater to the mom, but that mom's need to take their own comfort and
needs more seriously and not always put what they want last. It's not
good for a child to get everything that they want, or to have
grown-ups jump to their cries all the time. Whether 3 is a good time
to start this or not might be up for discussion.



Thanks for that. As he once said, "the modern woman wouldn't dream of
making her husband a sandwich on command, but she'll jump up and draw
a glass of water for an able-bodied four-year-old."

Here's a link to the letter that got DL so mad, if you like:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.o...e7658d415d0f0f

Last paragraph:
He needs to see that outside of your job, you are not a one-
dimensional
cardboard cut-out with a sign reading "What can I do for you?" hung
about
your neck. Rather you are an interesting person with a variety of
interests
and responsibilities, of which he is one. An important one, yes, but
not the
only one.


It isn't necessary to let a child CIO or something like that so that
the mom doesn't have to get out of bed, but the give and take thing
probably works better in print than in reality.



Mainly because adults and children should not think of each other as
equals, of course.




In short, he reminds me of the old-fashioned liberal parents who
didn't divide chores by gender or act shocked when their kids say they
don't plan to go to college or have children (he's cool with all of
the above) but at the same time, never allowed their kids to address
parents or adults by first names without permission, yell at parents,
or wear white shoes after Labor Day. Though he'd never call himself a
liberal.

Thank God! Because he sure has never seemed so to me.

Is that liberal? Because that's the way my parents were, and I tried
to follow in their footsteps as much as possible.



I should have said simply "old-fashioned liberals." A breed you don't
see much anymore, I guess. Anyway, my mother was like that too, and
she's as politically left-wing as they get, but obviously she was
never a hippie. (She can't even stand to see a white SHIRT after Labor
Day.)

Another way in which Rosemond may be too liberal for some is that he
once said that if a 12-year-old doesn't want to work at a summer job,
that doesn't mean he's lazy or going to be good for nothing. I'm
guessing he said that simply because so many kids that age these days
DON'T work in the summer.

Lenona.


I'm 54, and when I was 12 almost none of my peers had summer jobs,
unless you mean the odd job babysitting or mowing a lawn. Who the heck
was going to hire a 12-year-old? Well, now that you mention it, my
husband (in Ohio) did farm labor at that age, for $1/hour (for someone
other than his parents - they didn't pay him.)

Clisby

Another way in which Rosemond may be too liberal for some is that he
once said that if a 12-year-old doesn't want to work at a summer job,
that doesn't mean he's lazy or going to be good for nothing. I'm
guessing he said that simply because so many kids that age these days
DON'T work in the summer.

Lenona.

I'm 54, and when I was 12 almost none of my peers had summer jobs,
unless you mean the odd job babysitting or mowing a lawn. Who the heck
was going to hire a 12-year-old? Well, now that you mention it, my
husband (in Ohio) did farm labor at that age, for $1/hour (for someone
other than his parents - they didn't pay him.)

Clisby


Well, I think in the case I mentioned the boy was being asked to work
for the family business, but I can't be sure and I can't look it up.

However, DR did say that if the boy wants more money than his current
allowance, he should be told to work for it.

Lenona.

wrote in message
oups.com...
On Nov 2, 5:23 pm, Rosalie B. wrote:


He added that even if she WERE a stay-at-home mom, the boy
should revolve around her, not the other way around. (Not exactly in
line with Dr. Laura's mantra "I am my kid's mom"!)

Thats' horrible! Not to say that Mom should "cater to" a child, but I
definitely don't think that that means a child should "cater to" or
"revolve
around" a Mom. I think the needs and wants of both people need to be
addressed. And in that way you teach a child how to address the needs
and
wants of another human, by seeing your needs met and by contributing to
someone else's needs being met. Give and take. Teamwork. Yadda yadda.

I'm sorry, but I disagree. Not that the child should 'revolve around'
or cater to the mom, but that mom's need to take their own comfort and
needs more seriously and not always put what they want last. It's not
good for a child to get everything that they want, or to have
grown-ups jump to their cries all the time. Whether 3 is a good time
to start this or not might be up for discussion.


Thanks for that. As he once said, "the modern woman wouldn't dream of
making her husband a sandwich on command, but she'll jump up and draw
a glass of water for an able-bodied four-year-old."




Why would a modern or any other man COMMAND?!? I certainly will hop up an
dget a beverage for my love on request. Actually just delivered him his
favorite beverage to him while he puts the stove pipe up. But if he were to
command me, he could kiss my lilly white butt cheeks!


Here's a link to the letter that got DL so mad, if you like:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.o...e7658d415d0f0f

Last paragraph:
He needs to see that outside of your job, you are not a one-
dimensional
cardboard cut-out with a sign reading "What can I do for you?" hung
about
your neck. Rather you are an interesting person with a variety of
interests
and responsibilities, of which he is one. An important one, yes, but
not the
only one.


It isn't necessary to let a child CIO or something like that so that
the mom doesn't have to get out of bed, but the give and take thing
probably works better in print than in reality.


Mainly because adults and children should not think of each other as
equals, of course.




In some respects they *are* equal. They are certainly not equal in their
judgement, experience and ability. They are not the same in their
responsibility. But they are equal in their human dignity.


I worry that the conversation has to be framed in a manner of to whom the
"catering" is done. It seems to me that no one is to be catered to. I owe
my children an upbringing, education, discipline. I give them from my heart
love, caring, kisses all better. They give me love, kisses all better, love,
limit testing and the things that are *their* responsibility.

But no one caters to anyone else.





In short, he reminds me of the old-fashioned liberal parents who
didn't divide chores by gender or act shocked when their kids say they
don't plan to go to college or have children (he's cool with all of
the above) but at the same time, never allowed their kids to address
parents or adults by first names without permission, yell at parents,
or wear white shoes after Labor Day. Though he'd never call himself a
liberal.

Thank God! Because he sure has never seemed so to me.

Is that liberal? Because that's the way my parents were, and I tried
to follow in their footsteps as much as possible.


I should have said simply "old-fashioned liberals." A breed you don't
see much anymore, I guess. Anyway, my mother was like that too, and
she's as politically left-wing as they get, but obviously she was
never a hippie. (She can't even stand to see a white SHIRT after Labor
Day.)

Another way in which Rosemond may be too liberal for some is that he
once said that if a 12-year-old doesn't want to work at a summer job,
that doesn't mean he's lazy or going to be good for nothing. I'm
guessing he said that simply because so many kids that age these days
DON'T work in the summer.

Lenona.

wrote:
He's also pretty polite, as this article demonstrates
(it's about getting kids to eat what they're served without
complaint):

http://www.azcentral.com/families/ar...nting0222.html

I agree that children need to learn not to *complain* about food that's
been made for them - there are politer and more pleasant ways of
expressing a desire to eat something else. But this just sounds like a
power struggle. Sure, if you leave a child hungry until he takes a
token bite of green bean, he *might* find out that green beans don't
taste as bad as he thought. Or maybe he'll find out that they taste
just as bad. Or worse. One thing he'll definitely find out is that his
parents aren't interested in his opinions on what he eats, but just want
to force him to do things their way.

And, while I completely agree that children are much better off for
learning manners that will allow them to eat in the homes of others
without upsetting those others or embarrassing themselves, I think it's
every bit as important for children to learn consideration for others -
and that's something they learn largely by example. Would you serve
something to your husband that you know he hates, and then insist that
he eats it? If not, why would you treat your child that way? I don't
think parents should be expected to be short-order cooks catering to
everyone's whims, but there's a middle ground. I think it perfectly
reasonable to make sure everyone gets something for dinner that they
don't dislike, and to allow anyone *not* to eat those items on the table
that they don't like.


All the best,

Sarah
--
http://www.goodenoughmummy.typepad.com

"That which can be destroyed by the truth, should be" - P. C. Hodgell