No wonder today's kids are all screwed up!They're being 'taken seriously'!

[Guinastasia]

The problem is, comparing getting a scratch from Fluffy for pulling her tail and getting mauled by a lion is ridiculous.

And quite frankly, if my friend kept going up to said lion and pulling his tail, and wouldn’t stop, I wouldn’t BLAME the lion for eating him!

D’uh!

Of COURSE in a split second, you can push someone out of harm’s way. However, I once asked what happens if someone insists on driving drunk, no matter what. They told me it would be wrong of me to wrestle the keys out of that person’s hands.

[80sHairMetalMaven]

If they parents never say no the kid won’t have a proper grasp of the boundaries of reality or have any idea what’s really expected of them.

[hijack]
Ya know, I think Android is on to something here. This statement reminds me of how I remember my step-aunt (who is about half my age…long story. I’ll tell it if somebody asks)behaved around my grandfather and his little Aznslut wife. When my sister and I would visit, she would tear our clothing on purpose, she slit the straps on my leather backpack, stole money from us and basically acted like the little shit she is. But my grandfather and her mother never did anything more than tell her she wasn’t acting very nice. The last time I saw her (which was at my grandfather’s funeral a couple of years ago), when her mother wasn’t looking she flipped me off and stuck her tongue out at me. Only my sister holding me back kept me from strangling the bitch.[/hijack]

IDBB

[The_Great_Unwashed]

*Originally posted by Guinastasia *
**…However, I once asked what happens if someone insists on driving drunk, no matter what. They told me it would be wrong of me to wrestle the keys out of that person’s hands. **

Who’s they, Guinistasia? It seems to me that driving whilst drunk is in itself coercive (or, rather, it has the potential to be catastrophically coercive).

You asserted that they advocate a number of things, yet I’ve seen no evidence of this advocacy (though I don’t doubt that you are faithfully reporting correspondence between you and some other parties, but are they the same “they” that is TCS?), the only link that you have provided seemed to contradict your statement of TCS’s position.

Personally, I really do not give a flying fuck if TCS are extremist lunatics or not (but neither view has been demonstrated, or even argued rigorously here).

[msmith537]

*Originally posted by The Great Unwashed *
What the fuck do you mean?

Do you mean that when “push comes to shove” your opinion counts most?

'cause that’s a whole different thing to WeirdDaviditta’s preferences mean diddly-squat!

But then you reiterate, "Saying that a child’s opinion dosen’t matter is the truth: It doesn’t. "

If this is truly your position, and not just an over-hasty remark, then just maybe you should go fuck yourself – less chance of you procreating that way! **

When I have kids and I want their opinion, I’ll give it to them. Kids don’t know nuthin. That’s why they are kids. As the adult responsible for their safety and well being, the parent has every right to tell them what to do, what not to do, and when to do (or not do) it. Once they move out and support themselves, THEN they can consider themselves my equal.

I mean WHAT THE FUCK??!! I am supposed to sit there and negotiate with a five year old to take his/her medicine or not throw food on the floor as if this is a committee? Is this the same five year old who’s undeveloped cognitive skills still makes him think a hot dog cut in half = 2 full-size hot dogs?

I am supposed to facilitate a session with my teenager as to why he can’t borrow the car til 2:00 am? It’s because I don’t want you and your friends drinking and banging girls in the back seat or getting it scratched! I don’t trust you?!! NO! I don’t fucking trust you! I don’t trust that I gave birth to the only teenager in history who never does anything stupid once he’s out of sight of his parents!

“Hey man!! We tried nuthin and it ain’t workin!”

That’s why your kid is spoiled and stupid and living at home in his late 20s! (-diddly).

[Guinastasia]

“They” meaning the list.

sigh

Try this article instead. Read about Little Billy and tell me there isn’t something seriously wrong here.

[The_Great_Unwashed]

*Originally posted by Guinastasia *
**“They” meaning the list.

sigh

Try this article instead. Read about Little Billy and tell me there isn’t something seriously wrong here. **

What are you sighing for? That’s the first piece of information that I’ve seen that goes any way at all to supporting the many assertions of the whackiness of TCS methods.

(Actually, I’ve felt rather alienated here, maybe that’s an indication that I’m harbouring some whacky ideas of my own, but it sure doesn’t feel that way.)

Now, we agree that is whacky (Jesus, just take the sugar lumps away already!), and probably “seriously wrong” (but again, nowhere near as seriously wrong as some of the accusations that have been “levelled” at TCS), let me ponder on it, because I’m not at all sure exactly what I think of that scenario (the apparent insistence on non-coerciveness seems to be at the cost of being coercive to others (in that example))…

[msmith537]

Just so I understand…a foot to the ass is not considered a “natural consequece” according to the TCS method?

[Primaflora]

GreatUnwashed, you’ve put your finger on the issue at the heart of TCS. A lot of the solutions do involve someone other than the child being coerced.

FWIW I think Guin is referring to ‘they’, the TCS list. On that list, there is a hell of a lot of theory discussed and extreme examples are put up. Not all the situations discussed there are real and given that on TCS lists you do not discuss your children by name without permission, it can be hard to tell whether it’s real or not.

I think Common Preference is an OK way to parent done within reason. But then I think most parents do that anyway. I’ve got to give my 5 yo a tablet this morning – it’s only common sense and basic kindness to spend 30 seconds thinking of the easiest and nicest way to get it into him.

[lezlers]

I’m still waiting for the TCSer to come back and participate in this thread.

Looks like it was just a drive by though.

[Priam]

I agree with the poster (can’t remember who, my mind has been deluged in this thread) who said that sometimes hands-off negotiative parenting works, and sometimes authoritative parenting works. My family indicates this very well.

I’m the youngest of two boys (19 and 21 respectively), and my parents used a very hands-off friendly strategy wth me. They used the lawgiver strategy with my brother. Why? Because the other way around didn’t work so well.

When we were young (under 11ish), a lot of the basics were non-negotiable, but my parents made an effort to explain why they were. We had no say, but at least we had a limited understanding of the reasons. As we got older, more and more decisions were open for negotiation. Where we wanted to go eat, what we wanted to do after school, then whether we could stay out a little later after dark.

More and more, especially when we hit teenage years, my brother and I were under a double-standard. Oftentimes, despite having the rules explained to him, he needed a good smack to pay attention. Without discipline he would’ve dropped out of high school to be with his girlfriend of a couple months. Now he’s graduated, in the Navy, and not doing too bad for himself.

On the flipside, I was actually quite a tame teenager so long as no one told me “just because”. Once those words were out of the parent’s mouth, I would immediately demand to know the real reason. I didn’t care so much about the rule, but rather why the rule was important. I hated being dismissed out of hand as too stupid to grasp the reasons, and would consistently cause trouble until I knew why I should obey. The punishment involved meant nothing to me, even if it was something I enjoyed. The principle was more important, and once I understood I more often than not obeyed.

What works for one kid could be explosive for another. Maybe the hard line works well for most, but my parents soon learned that some kids need to have at least a small voice in the family rules. The carrot and stick method only works when the kid cares more about the punishment/reward than the motives behind them. And yes, we’re out there.

[Ogre]

I think that the idea would be to engage your child, and let them understand that the sting is not nice but is necessary for them to be cured of their “pink eye”, or whatever. No-one here (nor I suspect at TCS (cite me otherwise if I am wrong)) advocates neglect of one’s child’s health because the child is uncomfortable or fearful of the immediate experiences.

Of course the idea is to engage your child. No parent worth shit simply makes no logical connection to their child between the pinkeye and the stinging medicine. What idiocy. A parent is not going to simply grab the kid and shove painful stuff in the kid’s eye. In reality, the exchange would go more like this:

Parent: Come here. You need this medicine to make your eye better.
Child: But it stings!
Parent: It stings, but it will make your eye feel better. You’ll thank me later.
Child <cries as treatment is administered, unaware that in a week, the pinkeye will be a distant memory>

At this point, the decision is made. The child has ZERO further input because of several factors:

1. The child does not have the experience or the knowledge base to make an informed decision.
2. The parent does.
3. Pinkeye is a highly communicable disease. By delaying treatment, the child is, in effect, endangering the people around him or her.

If the child, after the explanation, absolutely refuses to cooperate, it is perfectly acceptable to force the treatment on him. Why? Because it’s best for the child and those around him.

When my dad held me down as a child and forced my hand open so he could remove a large, festering splinter and treat the wound, was he being a coercive, brutal parent? Of course not. It was, beyond all reasonable argument, for my own good.

[Priam]

For clarification…

The punishment involved meant nothing to me, even if it was something I enjoyed [being revoked].

[Ogre]

Oh, and as for the cat-scratching, I don’t think you should stand by and let your child be mauled by a cat who has it in for him, but if the child grabs the cat by the tail, and gets a nice set of claw marks across his hand for his trouble, I’m disinclined to think of that as anything but a well-taught lesson.

[doreen]

Try this article instead. Read about Little Billy and tell me there isn’t something seriously wrong here.

You know, reading that article made me think I was right after all about the cat story. The cat story seemed to be about saving the child from the unpleasant consequences of torturing the cat while still allowing him to torture the cat, but I thought I must be imagining it. But here it is again in the Billy article

how to lessen the risk of something unpleasant or embarrassing happening;
what to do to minimise the chance that any unpleasantness on the part of the waiter or manager might affect Billy adversely.
…

If the waiter seems to be behaving unreasonably, Mum might, for example, whisper something to Billy about what an idiot the waiter is, and they might make quiet little jokes about the waiter – in order to assure Billy that the waiter’s completely unreasonable disapproval does not matter a jot, and should not be distressing.

I could maybe understand the idea of treating children as if they were adults, and maybe understand why such a parent wouldn’t stop the child from playing with the sugar and the salt ( although I certainly wouldn’t agree). But if you are going to treat them as if they are adults by giving them an equal say, and not being coercive, then why on earth would you not treat them as adults on the other side? I mean , really, is someone going to bribe a waiter to ignore an average adult making a mess with sugar? Or convince that adult that the waiter is being unreasonable?

[The_Mad_Hermit]

I know it may not be acknowledged or aprreciated, but I have to agree with Weirddave and Guin’s points after reading some of the links. Letting a toddler be attacked by a cat- wheter or not the toddler brought it upon themselves- is endangering the life of the kid. Cat claws and bites can get infected.

I know there is a lot of hyperbole being thrown around, but the idea of allowing the youngest and least experienced children make important decisions about health care and life in general is ludicrous. They do not have the necessary knowledge and experience to understand what is happening around them; as another poster noted this cannot lead to a good attitude about other people.

On preview, I see that Ogre has said what I was awkwardly leading up to.

[spinky]

I think it’s reasonable to say that the people here who agree with the statement “a child’s preference doesn’t mean diddly-squat” are talking about cases where the decision actually matters. I haven’t seen anyone advocate completely ignoring the child’s preference on all matters (“Do you want the red lollipop or the green one? Doesn’t matter, you get green.”)

I’m not sure why Alereon chose to interpret milroyj’s statement in the worst possible way when a much more reasonable meaning is obvious. Don’t call someone an asshole and a bad parent because of your own silly assumption.

Regarding the pink-eye example, sure, it’s a good idea to try to explain to the kid that he needs the medicine for his own good, if nothing else to make him understand that you’re not just sticking stingy stuff in his eye for your amusement or because he’s being punished. Where it gets ridiculous is when someone thinks it’s necessary for the child to get to the point where he rationally looks at the situation and says, “yes, father, I see that this pain is for my own good, so I think you should stick that stuff in my eye right away.” There are plenty of cases where that just ain’t gonna happen, and you have to strike a balance between “let me explain and convince you” and “you’re getting this whether you like it or not.”

[Krisfer_the_Cat]

I hadn’t realize how much my off the cuff comment about my sons meds had generated discussion.

1. He has had it explained to him. Yes it stings and I am sorry.

2. He is seeing day to day improvement. This pleases him.

3. After the first day it no longer stung.
   I read the first couple lines of The Great Unwashed post way up a bit under my initial post… decided he was a total idiot and have tuned out the discussion ever since.

I take my child totally seriously but most of the examples I have seen of TCS look to me as merely examples of bad parenting and rude adults. As a food server I am appalled at that example. After all after your mini adult child leaves it is the poor “unreasonable” waiter that has to clean up the mess.
But I thought I’d give an update on the “pink eye” situation.

[Guinastasia]

Mind you, I am NOT advocating letting a nasty feline maul a child to ribbons.

However, if MY child were continuiously pulling the cat’s tail, I would simply remove the child from the cat.

If it were an older kid, though, say around five or older, I probably wouldn’t, because by then a child should really KNOW better.

[Primaflora]

Krisfer, giving meds is a really really common debate. It’s one of those hot buttons where hardcore TCS’ers would say they would not give the meds if they had to coerce the child into agreeing.

FWIW I’ve had lunatic TCS’ers tell me I was a child abuser for taking my kids to speech therapy and occupational therapy and to see psychologists. Apparently if my kids need these therapies a reasonable response is for a TCS parent to figure out programs by themselves in preference to using a coercive therapist.

[Ogre]

It’s one of those hot buttons where hardcore TCS’ers would say they would not give the meds if they had to coerce the child into agreeing.

Then I for one don’t have the least problem in labeling those particular people utterly unfit to be parents.