How Dangerous is Childhood

wrote:

HIS sentiments, definitely. Though, IIRC, he said it less distinctly.
Since he relatively seldom talks about the need for Judeo-Christian
parenting, especially when the parent who's writing the question is
talking about something else, I'm willing to put up with a little
creepy chaff for the sake of a lot of wheat.

Lenona.

The fact that he talks about the need for Judeo-Christian parenting at
all is enough for me to discount everything he says.

-L.

Chookie wrote:

There is a difference between respect and obedience, and it sounds like you
might be conflating them.

You aren't going to get any obedience if there is no respect.

There is also the concept of respect for the office
rather than the individual.

If the individual is an asshole, "respect for the office" goes out the
window. GWB, for example...


My third-grade teacher thought humiliating children was good for them. Or
something. She did it a lot, anyway. I would not expect my children to
respect her as a person -- but I would still expect them to allow her to
teach, not disrupt the class.

I would always expect my child to not disrupt the class - there isn't
any "allow" involved.

That is, I would want my children to respect
her office and obey her legitimate requests. What would you want your child
to do?

If I knew the teacher humiliated the children, my kid wouldn't be in
the class.


It's getting them to undertstand when the line (for each)
has been crossed that is the problem, because it's always open to
interpretation.

I don't think it's the line being crossed that is the problem -- it's working
out that there IS a line. I've met adults who haven't figured out that an
uncongenial person is not necessarily the enemy.

I guess I see a line with everything. shrug There's only so much of
*anything* I would tolerate from anyone. How much depends on the
person and the circumstances.



It was a generic you. But the problem is the how do you teach a child to
question authority rather than think he IS the authority? As I said, I think
that's difficult for adults.

I guess I must run with a different crowd. Questioning everything
is sort of an intregal part of our (DH, my family, my friends) basic
personalities. You give people "of power" respect (and obedience)
until they prove they are no longer worthy of that respect. Or, you
give them obedience if your health and well-being may be compromised
otherwise. (Thinking about cops here - I have absolutely NO respect for
police - as individulas or as an authority - but since they can and do
beat the **** out of people for no reason and get away with it, I obey
them...or would, if I ever had to (I have not).

-L.

In article , Rosalie B. says...

Banty wrote:

In article . com,
says...


L. wrote:

wrote:

Excerpt: Resolution #4 - "I will not take my child's side in a dispute
with the teacher, even if I think the teacher's being slightly unfair.
If I think she's being very unfair, I'll ask someone else's opinion
before talking with her."

In other words, I will distrust my own judgement and that of my child.

Um, no thanks.

I think you have to know your child. And a new parent or one whose
first child is going to school may not have very good judgment WRT
what the child is saying that the teacher is doing or wants. A child
does not always have good judgment.

Oh - *nobody* always has good judgement. Of course some are more well-grounded
than ohters.


I'm sure most people have had a child who tells a neighbor or stranger
about something in the family which wasn't exactly accurate, either
because of misunderstanding or misremembering the situation.

And one check on having missed communication would be to ask another
parent whether they are getting the same story from their child.


I agree with that. Level-setting with other parents is a good thing, hopefully
with parents one knows and has some confidence in.

My children have rarely ever (that I remember) said anything about a
teacher that indicated that they thought the teacher was unfair, or
indicated that I should intercede for them. Most of the time I only
knew about any 'unfairness' from other parents, from the child's
siblings, or from stuff that the teacher herself told me. Most of the
time I had to infer from their behavior that something was wrong.


My son will often say that this or that teacher is unfair (possibly party
because there was a time he *was* unfairly recommended for retention), but I can
tell it's simply that something didn't go his way. Like the mere existance of
homework

But I can tell that that's all it is. While I'm absolutely sure some parents
woudln't have that meta-awareness of the situation and rush to their child's
defense, likewise I'm absolutely sure some teachers aren't particularly
reasonable. I think most parents have a pretty good skepticism about taking
anything their kid says at face value.

By time my son was in junior high he *never* wanted me to intervene. Partly
because of his being a pre-teen then teen, but largely becuase he knows that my
intervention consists in getting his team of teachers together and getting all
the facts and coming up with a mutualy-derived plan. Not exactly what he wanted
- I'm definately not going to simply run to his side and draw my sword!

It certainly does NO GOOD to go up to the school with all guns
blazing.

I absolutely agree with this! But, I would put talking to the teacher *first*,
getting his or her take on it, pretty early in the process. Why am I to go
running to some un-named other before listening to the person who is at the
center of the process? This "rule" seemed more of an admonition to parents to
stifle than a real guideline.




I'm sure you're very reasonable.

Hmm. Heh

Trouble is, teachers have plenty of
legitimate complaints about overbearing parents who overreact to
everything. In the TIME cover story "What Teachers Hate About Parents"
from Feb. 2005(?), one teacher gently told a middle-schooler that she
had to work on her reading skills at home, not just in school. Result?
The student went crying to her mother and the latter went raging to the
teacher, saying her daughter had been "traumatized."

::snip::

Sure sure - there are unreasonable people in any group.

But, to state as some kind of blanket resolution that, each and every time, each
and every parent, is supposed to ask someone else (which leads me to one rather
obvious question - WHOM??) about a judgement isn't appropriate or constructive.
It doesn't even give any real guideline. It doesn't go past talling all parents
not to trust themselves and instead to ask .... someone...(?). Apparently
Anybody But Parent would know better in his view.

Banty

I don't know this book and have not read it. But if you agree with
everything except one point, that indicates to me that maybe you are
reading what he said wrong.



Well, actually, it's more of a matter of my not knowing this particular author
much at all, only responding to the excerpt oddly drawn out by "leona". From
what I *have* read, though, it seems somewhat patronizing to parents. But
possibly that's only a matter of being without the proper context. (And, no
Leona, I'm not going running off to the library and reading up on all the more
conservative seen-and-not-heard child-rearing philosophies...)

Banty


--

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5222154.stm

In article , Banty says...



Well, actually, it's more of a matter of my not knowing this particular author
much at all, only responding to the excerpt oddly drawn out by "leona".

Sorry - "Lenona."


--

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5222154.stm

In article , Banty says...

Well, actually, it's more of a matter of my not knowing this particular author
much at all, only responding to the excerpt oddly drawn out by "leona". From
what I *have* read, though, it seems somewhat patronizing to parents. But
possibly that's only a matter of being without the proper context. (And, no
Leona, I'm not going running off to the library and reading up on all the more
conservative seen-and-not-heard child-rearing philosophies...)


Although, on reading Rosemond's website, I wouldn't characterize him as
unreasonable at all. Rather common sense. On the conservative side, but not
doctrinaire, rather realistic and flexible. I don't agree with *everything*,
but even where I do, I think it's something that a reasonable person may
disagree.

http://rosemond.com/index.php

Attachment parents wouldn't like him much. But I think that's the only group
that would really have a basic quarrel with him.

Banty


--

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5222154.stm

Chookie wrote:

There is a difference between respect and obedience, and it sounds like you
might be conflating them. There is also the concept of respect for the office
rather than the individual.

I think that's the crux of the issue. To me, it's
a matter of where the burden of proof is. There are situations
in which obedience is due and situations where it is not.
In situations where obedience is due, the burden of proof is
on the subordinate to show that the request is illegal/
unethical/immoral/whatever. So, the student can think a
teacher's request to do homework in purple ink with 3"
margins is ridiculous, but you do it anyway. A directive
to do something that injures or humiliates someone else,
however, is something one objects to. It's sort of like
the military--you do what you're ordered to do, *but* you
have an obligation to disobey an order that is illegal
and you're expected to know the difference. It isn't
easy for kids to learn this, but that's what they're
to learn in life.
At the same time, in all situations, particularly
when we're the superior, we have an obligation to
exercise that position responsibly. People will be
imperfect in that, but that doesn't mean that one
runs around challenging everything with everyone.
You save that up for when you've really got a case
to make, not when you just think a situation isn't
perfectly ideal for you.
I think that was one of the things that drove
me nutso teaching. I'm all for discussions and
interesting questions in class, but I also have a
certain amount of material to cover. At some point,
while I *can* defend my decisions, I don't have time
in class to defend every single tiny aspect of every
requirement or grading criterion. You can come to
office hours and pursue the issue if you like, but
at some point you have to take on faith that I know
what I'm doing and the requirement is there for a
reason. Yes, I know the code still compiles if
you type it in all caps with no comments and no
formatting, but trust me, every formatting requirement
is there for a reason. We can go round and round that
tree in office hours, and I'll give my standard few
minutes spiel in class explaining why we do this,
but after that I have to move on or we won't get to
the meat of the class. You can comply or not, but
if you choose not, you get to take your lumps grade-wise.
Same with parenting. There isn't time
to explain and justify every detail of every decision.
As a child, you have to take some of it on faith and
do it "because Mommy says so." I have no patience
for the attitude that everyone deserves exhaustive
justifications resulting in consensus for everything
required of them. I'm happy to answer genuine
questions at appropriate times, but not to engage
in a rabbit chase as a delaying or diversionary tactic.
I think every individual, adult or child,
deserves consideration and a measure of respect. It
is certainly the case that some in power abuse their
authority and should be challenged. But that doesn't
mean that you get to go through life doing whatever
the heck you think it best regardless of the situation,
which is what "I'm only going to be obedient to those
I respect" boils down to for a lot of folks. It just
means "I'll do what you say only as long as you tell
me to do what I want to do." That's pretty much the
inmates running the asylum ;-) There's a virtue in
choosing obedience in appropriate situations where
it doesn't require actions that are illegal/immoral/
unethical/etc.
So, while this can be complicated for kids,
most of the time it's not. Usually teachers and
others in charge *aren't* asking kids to do something
that is clearly wrong. For example, DS1 had a teacher
who had a bugaboo about leading zeros (putting a
zero before a decimal point for numbers less than 1).
She said it was wrong and graded off for it. Personally,
I think that's patently ridiculous, and even inappropriate
in some situations. However, there are many
experts in the field who make the pedagogical
argument against leading zeros, so it's not like
this is something she made up or that is clearly wrong
in the field. We simply have a disagreement. DS1
didn't like the rule and got bitten by it several
times. I told him that she was the teacher, she got
to set the standards in her classroom, and unless he
could prove that the rule was flat out *wrong*, his
job was to learn it and abide by it in her class.
On the flip side, the teacher who refuses
to abide by the requirements in a student's IEP
clearly needs to have his or her authority challenged.
I think even kids can learn to distinguish between
"orders" that are illegal/immoral/unethical/wrong
and things they just don't like, in order to make
an appropriate decision about when to challenge
authority. In fact, I think that's one of the main
lessons they need to take away from all these sorts
of interactions. It's certainly a skill they'll need
the rest of their lives, and the stakes will be much
higher as adults.

Best wishes,
Ericka

Ericka Kammerer wrote:

(snip)


Beautifully said.

And, in the same vein, the Doctor wrote:

"Children cannot understand the adult point of view. Furthermore, they
aren't really interested. If they were, they wouldn't keep interrupting
when we tried to explain our rules to them."

(This is the thesis behind the book title "Because I Said So!", which
is actually a collection of short columns - one per page. He's also
said: "Should you give your kids reasons? Absolutely. Should you try to
reason with them? Never!")


Lenona.

In article om,
"L." wrote:

Chookie wrote:

There is a difference between respect and obedience, and it sounds like you
might be conflating them.

You aren't going to get any obedience if there is no respect.

Untrue. My Dad grew up in a totalitarian regime. There was plenty of
obedience, but no respect for the people at the top. The threat of moving to
Siberia will do that to you. You can also have obedience without respect if
the subordinates *choose* to obey for the greater good. I remember during
Year 12 (final year of school), we had a hopeless student teacher for English
and a hopeless regular teacher for Physics. In both cases the classes stayed
relatively orderly, because (a) we felt a bit sorry for the teachers, who were
nice people, if incompetent, and (b) we really wanted to learn. Year 9, OTOH,
chewed these teachers up and spat them out -- but that's 14yos for you.

There is also the concept of respect for the office
rather than the individual.

If the individual is an asshole, "respect for the office" goes out the
window. GWB, for example...

I have a problem with my Prime Minister as well (come to think of it, a lot of
problems). But that does not mean I'll be spitting on him if I happen to meet
him (which is entirely possible; my Dad lives in his electorate!) -- I'll
still nod and smile (and stand for him if it's required), though I may well
use the lady's privilege and not offer him my hand to shake! I certainly
won't act to bring down the government by force, or shoot the PM, nor have I
lost confidence in the office he holds. That's what I mean by respect for his
office. How have you lost respect for the *office* of President of the United
States?

My third-grade teacher thought humiliating children was good for them. Or
something. She did it a lot, anyway. I would not expect my children to
respect her as a person -- but I would still expect them to allow her to
teach, not disrupt the class.

I would always expect my child to not disrupt the class - there isn't
any "allow" involved.

Then you would respect her office, if not her personally.

That is, I would want my children to respect
her office and obey her legitimate requests. What would you want your
child to do?

If I knew the teacher humiliated the children, my kid wouldn't be in
the class.

There's the rub -- our parents didn't know. They often don't. For example,
what parent would think to ask, "When you get your homework all wrong, does
your teacher make you walk around the class and show the line of crosses to
all the other kids?" (She did this to a good friend of mine.)

It was a generic you. But the problem is the how do you teach a child
to question authority rather than think he IS the authority? As I said,
I think that's difficult for adults.

I guess I must run with a different crowd. Questioning everything
is sort of an intregal part of our (DH, my family, my friends) basic
personalities. You give people "of power" respect (and obedience)
until they prove they are no longer worthy of that respect. Or, you
give them obedience if your health and well-being may be compromised
otherwise.

I think it's easy to question the authority of someone else (remember that my
native city started as a convict settlement!). What is difficult is to
determine whether you *truly* have grounds to reject that authority (eg,
illegal orders), or whether you just don't like the individual person, or
don't like their politics.

As Ericka put it, "I'm only going to be obedient to those I respect" equals
"I'll do what you say only as long as you tell me to do what I want to do" for
many people, and that is not the kind of person you want to produce.

--
Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
(Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)

"Parenthood is like the modern stone washing process for denim jeans. You may
start out crisp, neat and tough, but you end up pale, limp and wrinkled."
Kerry Cue

"Cathy Weeks" wrote in message
ps.com...

Knit Chic wrote:
"Cathy Weeks" wrote in message
ps.com...

Knit Chic wrote:
"toto" wrote in message
...
http://health.theledger.com/article/...11/FAMILY/1478


IMO the author of this article has very poor logic skills. The
information
that is used to back up her issue has nothing to do with the issue
that
has
been presented.
Comparing apples to oranges ...

Oh? Give examples please? Hard to have a good conversation without
knowing your reasons.

Cathy Weeks

I haven't chosen a "side" IMO the article has no real value as it is
illogical.
If your asking me if I think some parents are over the top w/ how they
act
w/ their children and dangers, I would have to say yes. Do I think that
some parents are not attentive enough w/ their children and dangers,
again,
I would have to say yes.
If you asked do I think that I handle the issue w/ my family in a healthy
and positive way, again I would have to say yes ... and I may say
about
you even though that you may chose to handle it a completely different
way
... it doesn't mean that I think your dealing with it incorrectly or
"wrong"
(I have no idea how you deal w/ it, it's a hypothetical you)
I also don't think that making a child aware of dangers and making a
child
fearful (as an adult or a child) go hand in hand.
I believe that making a child aware of dangers is the easy part ...
giving
them the tools they need to deal with those dangers ... that's not so
easy.
And it's often overlooked.

I don't mean to be dense here, but what things in the article are
illogical? I don't understand how they are comparing apples to
oranges. I do have a "side" - I tend to think parents don't have a
good perspective on risk taking, but that does NOT mean I cannot
overlook a problem with the article, nor does it mean I spot every
logic error. In fact, *because* I agree with the writer of the article,
I am *less* likely to spot logic errors.

grin that's where you come in handy! :-)

Cathy Weeks


I believe the article isn't logical because rating non related behaviors and
then using them to justify behaviors isn't sensible to me. Comments like:
'there is more danger letting my kid wash dishes and getting hurt than
letting my child walk home from school alone. So ... I'll let my kid walk
home from school alone' make no sense to me. One activity has nothing to do
with the other.
I believe that each activity has to be assessed on it's own merit and w/ the
abilities of the child in mind. ie. My daughter has difficulty w/ balance
and coordination. I encourage her to use climbing toys at the park to help
her with this, however there is one park that we go to that has one piece of
equipment that I don't allow her to climb. While there are other 7 year
olds climbing that particular piece of equipment and my daughter would like
to climb the 12 foot high equipment, I don't allow it. Not yet at least,
she will get there but she isn't ready yet. I could easily be viewed as
overprotective by those who do not know my reasoning. However they don't
know that I have truly assessed the risk to her and have decided that the
risk is too great. OTOH my daughter is an excellent swimmer at the age of 3
I permitted her to dive into 12 foot water while I stood at the edge of the
pool, other parents looked at me w/ horror.
So .. my point ... and I think I have one is that while I could be viewed
as overprotective by one set of parents (at the park) and under-protective
by another set of parents (at the pool) I know that I have made the best
choice for my child by the facts concerning that particular activity. I
didn't have to compare the risk of unrelated activities to make a good
judgment.

also .. thanks for asking It helped me gather my thoughts on the issue.

In article , Knit Chic says...


"Cathy Weeks" wrote in message
ups.com...

Knit Chic wrote:
"Cathy Weeks" wrote in message
ps.com...

Knit Chic wrote:
"toto" wrote in message
...
http://health.theledger.com/article/...11/FAMILY/1478


IMO the author of this article has very poor logic skills. The
information
that is used to back up her issue has nothing to do with the issue
that
has
been presented.
Comparing apples to oranges ...

Oh? Give examples please? Hard to have a good conversation without
knowing your reasons.

Cathy Weeks

I haven't chosen a "side" IMO the article has no real value as it is
illogical.
If your asking me if I think some parents are over the top w/ how they
act
w/ their children and dangers, I would have to say yes. Do I think that
some parents are not attentive enough w/ their children and dangers,
again,
I would have to say yes.
If you asked do I think that I handle the issue w/ my family in a healthy
and positive way, again I would have to say yes ... and I may say
about
you even though that you may chose to handle it a completely different
way
... it doesn't mean that I think your dealing with it incorrectly or
"wrong"
(I have no idea how you deal w/ it, it's a hypothetical you)
I also don't think that making a child aware of dangers and making a
child
fearful (as an adult or a child) go hand in hand.
I believe that making a child aware of dangers is the easy part ...
giving
them the tools they need to deal with those dangers ... that's not so
easy.
And it's often overlooked.

I don't mean to be dense here, but what things in the article are
illogical? I don't understand how they are comparing apples to
oranges. I do have a "side" - I tend to think parents don't have a
good perspective on risk taking, but that does NOT mean I cannot
overlook a problem with the article, nor does it mean I spot every
logic error. In fact, *because* I agree with the writer of the article,
I am *less* likely to spot logic errors.

grin that's where you come in handy! :-)

Cathy Weeks


I believe the article isn't logical because rating non related behaviors and
then using them to justify behaviors isn't sensible to me. Comments like:
'there is more danger letting my kid wash dishes and getting hurt than
letting my child walk home from school alone. So ... I'll let my kid walk
home from school alone' make no sense to me. One activity has nothing to do
with the other.

Where is that in the article? I read it, then searched for the word "dishes",
and didn't find it. Are you talking about something other than the link that's
posted above?

I believe that each activity has to be assessed on it's own merit and w/ the
abilities of the child in mind. ie. My daughter has difficulty w/ balance
and coordination. I encourage her to use climbing toys at the park to help
her with this, however there is one park that we go to that has one piece of
equipment that I don't allow her to climb. While there are other 7 year
olds climbing that particular piece of equipment and my daughter would like
to climb the 12 foot high equipment, I don't allow it. Not yet at least,
she will get there but she isn't ready yet. I could easily be viewed as
overprotective by those who do not know my reasoning. However they don't
know that I have truly assessed the risk to her and have decided that the
risk is too great. OTOH my daughter is an excellent swimmer at the age of 3
I permitted her to dive into 12 foot water while I stood at the edge of the
pool, other parents looked at me w/ horror.
So .. my point ... and I think I have one is that while I could be viewed
as overprotective by one set of parents (at the park) and under-protective
by another set of parents (at the pool) I know that I have made the best
choice for my child by the facts concerning that particular activity. I
didn't have to compare the risk of unrelated activities to make a good
judgment.

also .. thanks for asking It helped me gather my thoughts on the issue.



OK - different children may need different limits, even in a world where
limit-setting is always appropriate.

It still doesnt' clarify what you think is apples vs. oranges in the article.
Which analogy fails, and why?

Even *if* there were a sentance about dishwashing (where I think the danger may
be in grabbing a knife or something like that), it would depend on what point is
being made or how it's being made, and whether or not the obvious differences
are pertinent to the point beging made. In analogies there are *always*
differences. What matter is whether or not they're differences which make the
analogy false ("apples and oranges").

That's the kind of clarification I'd be looking for.

Banty


--

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5222154.stm