Anarchy Applied to Family Life: Give Kids a Say

[David Floyd]

Option 3: What I and others advocate, talk to both kids to figure out what they *really* want. Kid B probably only wants the toy because Kid A has it, maybe there is a game they can both play together, or an alternate toy that would satisfy one of them, etc.

The problem is, Ozzy, that you assume that children are rational beings. They aren't. Hell, most people in general aren't. The problem is, treating children as if they are rational will only result in them getting hurt.

Seriously, try engaging a 7 year old in intellectual discourse about a course of action the 7 year old wants to pursue, but you don't think is a good idea. You won't win using logic - children don't generally have any. If your 7 year old wants to play in the street, you say "No!", and if they do anyway, you spank them. It's simple. You provide consequences to disobedience. I'm all for explaining WHY something is wrong, and I'm also all for listening to your children if they have a counterargument. But at the end of the day, it's just too dangerous to let a 7 year old play in the street. If they don't agree, I'm sorry, but their opinion doesn't count. They don't have the necessary experience to understand. That's what you, as a parent, are there for.

[Ben Kenobi]

The problem is, Ozzy, that you assume that children are rational beings. They aren't. Hell, most people in general aren't.

Truer words never spoken. However, they can argue in a logical fashion without being reasonable. You can say that if B follows A and that C follows B therefore A will lead to C. However the question "c is bad for you" never arises.

[-Jrabbit]

However, they can argue in a logical fashion without being reasonable.

Wow. Such thick, delicious irony...

[Dis]

I played in the street all the time with no ill effects. . I also played in the wash. Smart kids know to stay out of the way of cars. Or stay out of the wash when there's rain (or rain in the mountains).

[Nugog]

you say "No!", and if they do anyway, you spank them. It's simple. You provide consequences to disobedience.

There are other ways to do this without hitting them.

I have two kids, 4 & 6.

General punishment for the oldest being disobediant is removal of a priviledge or not allowing him to attend an activity (ie can't go swimming, to tai kwon do etc).

He responds well to this - he is old enough to understand that there are consequences to his actions. He may not agree with the boundaries set - but he knows well enough to generaly live within them.

This does not work for the youngest. For one thing he is too young to really make the connection, and the other - he is a different child. Tell him he can't go swimming - he's ok with it and finds something else to do. Time out is his nemesis. He cannot stand it. Threaten him with Time Out and he listens.

I have never seen the point of smacking/hitting my children. I fail to see what it will teach them. I am, however, not one of these people who think that it is something that should be banned, or get all upset if someone does it around me. And I will be honest enough to admit, that when they were younger they did get smacked once or twice. And I always felt terrible afterwards.

Children see and understand the world very differently from adults. Sometimes this is a beautiful thing. Sometimes it is scary as hell. And sometimes it is a pain in the arse.

But they do not have the capability to percieve the world as adults, and a parents role is to do that for them. And parents also need to know when to back off and let the kid make a mistake or allow them to make some decisions. The hard part is getting the balance right. And I'm guessing that only gets harder as they get older.

[Elok]

My nephew is an incredibly stubborn child, but the threat of time out is enough to keep him in line. He's never been smacked AFAIK.

[Arrian]

No need for the smacking, agreed.

There isn't anything wrong with trying the "logic & reason" route first. Explaining the why behind the "no" is a good thing But the no has to stand if it's something as silly as DF's example (playing in traffic).

-Arrian

[Arrian]

But others are always very quick to label me a loon before taking the time to think about what I propose.

Perhaps we're a little trigger happy on the looniness b/c of past history, Ozzy. Look, I'm glad you do what you do. It's good to make the argument. But I reserve the right to disagree, and even the right to think you're loony about something.

I have yet to raise a child, but I've spent a lot of time around kids (my half siblings had kids, starting when I was 10, and I watched them grow up, and now my friends are popping out kids left and right). The simple fact is that you sometimes have to force a child to wear something he/she doesn't want to wear. Let's dispense with the cold weather example, and go with one that I think illustates the point even better:

Sunscreen. My friend's little girl effing HATED being smeared with sunscreen. I mean, hell, who likes putting on that stuff right? We all sympathized with her. But she was 18 months old, pale as can be (parents of English & Irish extraction), and the sun's ablazing. The proper thing to do is *not* to say "ok, but you will get sunburn, just wait" and let that happen.

-Arrian

[Elok]

Silly Arrian, Melanoma is the best teacher of all.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but this is the passage that really got to me:

Her days became more relaxed when she focused more on Kahlan's needs, she says. If she had a doctor's appointment but her daughter was feeling grumpy, for example, Ms. Hollett would not force Kahlan to wait with her to see the doctor. Instead, Ms. Hollett might cancel the appointment or arrange alternative child care, she says.

This. Is. Bull****. Mommy rearranged her schedule to fit in a doctor's appointment. In fact, because mommy did that, somebody else didn't get that appointment (as anyone knows who's tried to see a doctor in the US recently). And the nice doctor thinks he has a full schedule for the day. But now mommy's going to inconvenience herself, the doctor's office, and the patient who really could have used that appointment slot, all because Kahlan is feeling grumpy? Not sick or anything, not even psychotic with rage over the awful designer name her parents gave her -- just grumpy? Holy Mary Mother of God.

And the lesson Princess Kahlan takes away from all this? That the whole fvcking universe revolves around her.

Thanks for raising hellspawn, Ms. Hollett. Can't wait until you foist her upon an unsuspecting world.

[Alinestra Covelia]

Yay for not teaching sharing! It's gold I tells ya!

If nothing else, it means they can't be accused of being commies.

[Arrian]

Rufus

-Arrian

[Kidlicious]

My son is 10, and I always make a point to try to explain things to him so he understands why he should behave in certain ways and why somethings have to be a certain way. The thing about him is that he'll try to be the boss sometimes. That's when I have to put him in check. I haven't had to spank him, although once he threw such a fit that I threatened him pretty good. There gets to a point when it's just not right to let them do whatever the **** they want because no one wants to live with a little monster.

Although I generally believe in the philosophy of the OP, I think that it's over thought and not that practical. But it's something to keep in mind.

[-Jrabbit]

It's not a philosophy at all. It's sophistry used to excuse parents who cop out of their responsibilities.

[Jon Miller]

10 is very different from 6 is very different from 2

JM
(is very different from 14)