If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
How Dangerous is Childhood
|
#42
|
|||
|
|||
How Dangerous is Childhood
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. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
How Dangerous is Childhood
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 |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
How Dangerous is Childhood
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 |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
How Dangerous is Childhood
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 |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
How Dangerous is Childhood
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 |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
How Dangerous is Childhood
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. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
How Dangerous is Childhood
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 |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
How Dangerous is Childhood
"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. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
How Dangerous is Childhood
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
misc.kids FAQ on Childhood Vaccinations, Part 1/4 | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 3 | April 20th 06 05:33 AM |
misc.kids FAQ on Childhood Vaccinations, Part 1/4 | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 3 | December 19th 05 05:35 AM |
Childhood leukaemia risk doubles within 100 metres of high voltage power lines - damning results known for 3 years. | john | Kids Health | 9 | September 19th 04 01:48 AM |
misc.kids FAQ on Childhood Vaccinations, Part 1/4 | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 3 | June 28th 04 07:41 PM |
misc.kids FAQ on Childhood Vaccinations, Part 1/4 | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 3 | March 18th 04 09:11 AM |