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

[80sHairMetalMaven]

Unless we tell children what we want and how we feel, they cannot possibly take our wishes into account

I took this from the article Guin mentioned and I was thinking “WTF?”. Um…who died and made children the kings/queens of the world?

I thought it was supposed to be the other way 'round.

IDBB

[Weirddave]

*Originally posted by Steelerphan *
**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. **

Why, thank you SP. Now we gotta work on your football preferences.

[The_Great_Unwashed]

*Originally posted by Steelerphan *
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.

Did I read a different link to the one that Guinistasia posted, you know, the one where Sarah Fitz-Claridge takes the poster to task saying “I find the idea of your standing by and watching a cat biting and scratching your son rather abhorrent”?

Krisfer the Cat, I am not an idiot, total or otherwise, I just can’t find the stomach to stay quiet as people bandy around the idea that “a child’s desires mean diddly-squat” or “a child’s preferences don’t mean jack” or whatever, this is wholly different to me saying that I believe a child should get their way in any “conflict” with the parent, nor do I support, or advocate, the practices of TCS.

I am quite prepared to believe (and indeed expect it is true) that posters who “espoused” such views inadvertently overstated their position, but such an overstatement when pointed out is hardly my problem.

I want to post back to this thread, particularly about my thoughts on Guinistasia’s link to the “sugar-cube” scenario, but I want some time for that, I’ve not d & r-ed.

[Ludovic]

A child’s opinion matters a great deal, in that not acknowledging the existence of a preference and opinion can make it seem like the parent doesnt even think the child exists. In certain cases, even if there is a possibility of danger, one must weigh the psychological consequences versus the danger.

For instance, if someone has a psychiatric disorder, they might take medicine even if it has a deleterious medical consequence. Same deal, in some instances it’s worth it, other instances not.

Around where I’d draw the line is the previous thread where a parent’s child wanted to walk home from school because he didnt like the parents he was walking back with and he considered himself old enough. I , myself would lean towards letting him walk himself, but it would be a close call, since it would be marginally more dangerous by himself.

[Krisfer_the_Cat]

*Originally posted by The Great Unwashed *

---

Y’all (and y’all know who y’all are),

Your mileage may fucking vary, but this thread stinks of the most narrow-minded ignorance I have seen on these boards, charitably, I am tempted to ascribe your posts to a momentary lapse of reason, uncharitably, I’m tempted to say Sure, your parents didn’t practice “non-coercive parenting” and it never did you any harm. Look in the fucking mirror, tossers. **

This is the part I meant… I stand by my opinion dahlin.

[Sunny_Smile]

*Originally posted by 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.
**

This is completely untrue. What they say is that this whole battle with the child need never happen in the first place. It is simply not true that TCS kids are running around not taking vital medication. You are assuming that that is what happens becvause you can’t see any possibility other than either forcing the kid or leaving them untreated. What the TCSers say is to treat the kid as a human being. If you do that, bad things <I>don’t</I> happen.

**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. **

I’m not saying this isn’t true, but I do find this really difficult to believe. It doesn’t sound very TCS to me.

[Sunny_Smile]

Referring to this article:

http://www.takingchildrenseriously.com/node.php?id=45

*Originally posted by doreen *
**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? **

TCS does not advocate treating children like adults, they advocate treating them like human beings. They are not adults.

You could also have quoted this bit of the article:

**Assuming Billy continued playing with the sugar lumps, Mum will be thinking about

1. whether what Billy is doing might adversely affect anyone else (e.g., other diners, or the owner of the restaurant) – we want to do the right thing;**

i.e., TCS advocates taking everyone seriously, not just the kids. The article was about natural consequences and was clearly assuming the waiter was being unreasonable. There was nothing in the article that I could see that was saying screw the other diners, because that would be very bad from a TCS perspective.

[Sunny_Smile]

*Originally posted by Krisfer the Cat *
**My child has pink eye… he is miserable. He didnt want to go to the doctor. He doesnt like his medicine it stings. He still gets it. **

What you have to ask is <I>why</I> is he scared of going to the doctor? He was not born that way.

**So I am an asshole… **

It was not a TCS person who said that. I don’t think you’re an asshole, I think you’re trying to do what’s best for your son.

[doreen]

You could also have quoted this bit of the article:
quote:

Assuming Billy continued playing with the sugar lumps, Mum will be thinking about

1. whether what Billy is doing might adversely affect anyone else (e.g., other diners, or the owner of the restaurant) – we want to do the right thing;

---

i.e., TCS advocates taking everyone seriously, not just the kids. The article was about natural consequences and was clearly assuming the waiter was being unreasonable. There was nothing in the article that I could see that was saying screw the other diners, because that would be very bad from a TCS perspective.

It sure does asume the waiter is being unreasonable, but yet this is the description of the waiters possible behavior

She might warn Billy that the waiter might order them to leave, or that he might demand, as a condition of their staying, that Mum stop Billy’s activities, or that he might ask Billy to stop (though this last seems less likely). Mum might tell Billy that if the waiter says any of these things he might use a harsh tone of voice – or perhaps the waiter might just continue to give them the evil eye but not say anything. Or he might give up the evil eye stuff

It appears that any objection the waiter might have qualifies as unreasonable. And the article was about natural consequences in a very strange way- here’s what the article calls a natural consequence-

The answer is that if, given all Mum’s efforts, the waiter were to ask them to leave the restaurant, that might reasonably be called a natural consequence.

. That is, if after Mom talks to the waiter, and bribes him the waiter still throws them out, it’s a natural consequence. If she doesn’t try to change the waiter’s behavior (rather than Billy’s) then it’s not a natural consequence.
I found a few spots of the website that make sense such as this
http://www.takingchildrenseriously.com/index.php

Another possible misinterpretation of TCS is the idea that coercion is always wrong – that if one child is attacking another with a cricket bat, it is wrong to intervene. On the contrary, it is vital to protect the victim, and that might well involve stopping the attacking child against his or her will, i.e., coercively

, but more often, the articles are like the one with the parent who has an aversion to even the sounds of pretend violence and the child who wants to play violent video games- the parent is supposed to get over their hang-up.

[80sHairMetalMaven]

What you have to ask is why is he scared of going to the doctor? He was not born that way.

No, kids are not ‘born’ being scared of going to the doctors. BUT kids do have very long memories and if they remember that going there as a young toddler was scary because they got poked, prodded an d stuck with needles, they’ll be more afraid of going there because they don’t know what’s going to happen.

Trust me. That is the whole reason for my intense fear of needles and the very reason I don’t go to doctor’s now, even though I’m an adult and know better.

IDBB

[Krisfer_the_Cat]

*Originally posted by Sunny Smile *
**What you have to ask is <I>why</I> is he scared of going to the doctor? He was not born that way.

It was not a TCS person who said that. I don’t think you’re an asshole, I think you’re trying to do what’s best for your son. **

1. He is not SCARED of going to the doctor. He didn’t want to go but wasn’t scared of going.

2. I know MY child better than anyone else.

3. I was not refering to a TCS person with the asshole comment. No one called me an ashhole. I was being sarcastic to someone who called another poster an asshole. Maybe you should try to read for content.

[spinky]

From the article I’ve unofficially titled, “Billy the shit”:

Mum will be assuming that Billy will want to take her embarrassment into account, and she will be conveying it accurately.

It’s silly stuff like this that makes TCS sound like a great big pantload. Billy is not savvy about subtle things like the mother’s embarrassment, otherwise he wouldn’t be acting like a shit in the first place.

The scenario starts out with an obvious bias: the waiter is a jerk because he doesn’t want kids in “his” restaurant. This is how people whose little angels can do no wrong see the world. In actuality, the waiter is annoyed because Mum is letting Billy be a brat.

[csanant]

Thanks for the much needed laugh ntucker…
After checking out TCS and forcing myself to read many of their moronic essays, I decided what made me so angry about the site and its creators was not that they espoused fucked up ideologies… that is blase, but that they have assumed the role of educators and are actively ( and for profit) brain-washing naive parents into believing their blather. That is what is scary…
Some of my favorit helpeful advice from Sarah… involved the poor SOB who had a 9 month old son who cried to breast feed constantly…his wife was exhausted and he didn’t know what to do… her response…she insinuated that the child was insecure and that was why he was crying…
or the one about letting kids watch violent movies…“it is the adults problem, why ruin the kids life by making him miss the fun stuff…” or if your kid wants to play violent games too much, make certain that he is given MORE time to play…

A just punishment for her…hmmm…an island with 100 or so kids whose parents she has advised… hmmm…Lady Of the Flies…that could work.

[Palo_Verde]

*Originally posted by Sunny Smile *
**This is completely untrue. What they say is that this whole battle with the child need never happen in the first place. It is simply not true that TCS kids are running around not taking vital medication. You are assuming that that is what happens becvause you can’t see any possibility other than either forcing the kid or leaving them untreated. What the TCSers say is to treat the kid as a human being. If you do that, bad things <I>don’t</I> happen. **

They always seem to assume that the child is of an age t be reasonable. I have a 17 month old. She is quite unerasonable.

When my 6 year old got pink-eye, I could explain the advantages of taking the medicine and he came to accept taking it (even though he didn’t like it).

But my 17 month old got it too. I can’t explain to her that it would make her feel better in the long run. I can’t talk about killing germs or not passing it to other children. She doesn’t understand. All she knows is that it hurts and she doesn’t like it.

So, how would ‘treating her like a human being’ make her understand the wisdom of taking the medicine and agree to it?

[Leonor]

If anyone in this forum gets it about children being fully human and deserving respect and not punishment, and still suspects TCS is wrong, please do contact me!