I've been talking a bit about spanking children, and gathering a bit of interest, granted mostly from someone who would like me to change my ways by not neglecting my child so that he doesn't act out. That brought to mind a few of the things I do to avoid my child's acting out, and I thought some of these things may be of interest to other parents. Probably a lot of you do this already, but maybe something will be news for someone.
Diet
The easiest way I prevent bad behavior is by watching what I get at the grocery store. I avoid food with additives whenever I can. Most importantly, I don't buy any juice or 'juice drink' that isn't 100% nothing-added juice. I look at the ingredients listing. A juice container may list juices from concentrate and pure water, or just the juices themselves. I also allow for added ascorbic acid (Vitamin C). That's it. No high fructose corn syrup, and no food coloring at all.
It's really amazing what added sugars and food coloring will do to an active little boy. I'll let him have a small glass of soda at family gatherings, and just let him bounce around with his cousins in my grandmother's huge yard until it wears off.
Exercise
Just about a hundred years ago and less, kids got a lot more physical activity than they do in modern culture, and it did them good. My son has an abundance of energy. This one isn't easy for me, since I have a few physical ailments that sap my energy level. But if you can walk while he runs circles around you, so much the better! I plan exercise opportunities and opportunities for him to play with other kids so that they can all get their energy out together!
This is one of the big reasons why I'm homeschooling him. So often children in public schools have to spend most of the day sitting still as the teacher tries to keep order enough to teach them something, and then spend much of the evening doing the homework that the teacher couldn't get them to do during classtime. My kid has his learning concentrated in periods between run-around time, and it makes him a lot more willing to learn.
Exhaustion Level
Ever had a normally sweet kid suddenly turn into a tiger? Before you automatically think he's turned into Mr. Hyde, check the clock and think about his day. Any kid (and adult!) will be grumpy when he's overstimulated and/or exhausted. If he acts up even though he's been eating like a horse and wrestling like a bear, he's probably tired as a dog. If my kid screams "No!" and cries buckets of tears over nothing, I just give him a hug and put him down for a nap (or to sleep for the night).
When mine was a baby, he would reach a point where the world was just too much for him and he couldn't keep control of himself. Simply holding him would do no good, because to an overstimulated child, your intense presence is nearly painful! So I would check his diaper and consider when he was last fed to eliminate those possibilities, try cuddling to see if that would help, and then simply put him down in his crib without turning any distraction devices on and walk away. I'd set the timer. Guaranteed, within three to five minutes of having his world reduced to four cushioned walls and utter silence, he'd straighten right out and be an angel for the rest of the day.
When dealing with babies, of course, this depends on age. Very young infants are not likely to have this kind of problem. You may also want to check his gumline to see if he's just teething. There were many times when a small packet of children's orajel did more than anything else in the world.
If my kid starts acting up at a party, I ask myself how long we've been there and consider taking him home to rest. If this happens and you don't want to leave yet, I'd suggest putting your kid in your lap and letting him/her listen to the soothing cadence of your voice and get some downtime for a while. Chances are your kid will pick up a 'second wind' and head off after a while for some more play.
Responsibility
Though I left this one for last, I don't mean to understate it's importance. A lot of times a child will act up because he simply doesn't know what to do with himself. When my son got too big to sit in the shopping cart, he threw seven kinds of fits until I made a new role for him. Now he pushes the cart.
He is all of five years old, but he's got heft to him and he can actually provide the majority of the propulsion even when the cart is very full! I let him do it himself if the aisles are wide and empty. Otherwise, I'll keep a touch on the leading edge of the cart to help guide it and prevent it from crashing. I gently correct his 'driving'. "Careful around this corner. Stop stop! You almost hit that lady.. be careful! You're doing so well!" My shopping-tantrum problems vanished.
Go ahead and push a little where chores and jobs are concerned. Don't complain about his inability to do something unless you're absolutely sure your kid is slacking off. Try him on things you don't think he can do. You might be surprised! If he can't do it, go ahead and make his way a bit easier. Don't be ridiculous, of course. A five-year-old has no call, say, changing a diaper. But mine can clear the table (and will come asking me for my dish when I'm done!), start the dishwasher, maneuver the shopping cart (with a bit of help), and clean his own room. Start your kid on simple responsibility as early as you can, while keeping it gentle. I don't punish my five-year-old for not doing his chores, but there are privileges (like watching TV or playing with certain toys) that he must earn by doing.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Monday, January 14, 2008
The true reason for 'equal representation'
Now some of you may read that title and instantly think that I'm going to talk about racism or sexism. Actually, I am not. I am going to talk about the push to have children see an equal number of storybooks in which Prince marries Prince, in which Princess remains single, or in which any other sort of non-standard romantic/sexual relationship or family ensues. There are generally two groups who are letting this in: the group that is pushing for it and the group who figures it's only fair to accommodate them. I am going to be speaking of the first group, a much smaller set, who are pushing for much more than is immediately apparent. They would prefer to completely remove the depiction of heterosexual married couples and parents, and they have a very important reason for it.
Numerous studies show what is already self-evident to many of us. Children do best in every part of their life with a mother and a father married to each other. You can take some cherry-picked examples of the best non-traditional families stacked up against the worst of the abusers in traditional families, but when given a fair shake, non-traditional families fail to measure up.
You see, I read an article some time ago about 'failure of feminism', written by someone on the hardcore side of feminism about the increasing numbers of upper-class women deciding to become full-time homemakers. A paragraph in that article clued me in.
Kids want a mom and dad. Kids want their mom and dad to be married. Consider the theme in movies and books prior to this present day. Consider an old Disney movie called 'Parent Trap'. When people write books and movies to mirror real life rather than to set an agenda, you see child after child in one of these non-traditional families wishing they were in a traditional one. However, traditional families are not formed by the guiding principle of groups seeking to push non-traditional depictions for children, and that is the principle of sexual freedom.
See the correlation? People who believe that women should not be homemakers seek to hide from women the choice of a meaningful, politics-free solution to their desires, because that will work against the principle of feminist 'liberation'. People who believe in sexual freedom will seek to hide from children the ideal of a traditional family, because as long as they know it is possible they will wish it for themselves and do their best to implement it for their children. The key here is to think, "We want them to do it our way, so we must not let them know that a better way exists."
Of course, the hardline feminists and 'sexual freedom' advocates aren't exactly thinking "a better way exists." At least, that's not what they say. Generally it's that a "way exists that seems better to the unenlightened masses." They're the intelligent ones, the thinking people, the educated elite. (The fact that they have been steeped in four to eight or more years of heavy propaganda in liberal extremist colleges means that they must be 'critical thinkers' for following the liberal extremist viewpoint to a T.)
Eliminating mention of the traditional family will not actually improve the fortunes of non-traditional families. It will simply give the impression that such fortunes are improved, the same way that you may think 25mpg is excellent for a car when you do not know of the 50mpg European minis, or you may think malnutrition is normal if you simply never see the fortitude of a man well-fed.
Note again that I am not speaking of everyone who favors letting children in school know that some children don't have fathers or mothers, that some live with their grandparents, etc. I personally favor this. It includes children from non-traditional families and prepares children from traditional families for dealing with them without meanness. Neither do I intend to bash people who are in non-traditional families and doing their best. A lot of single parents agonize over whether their struggle is going to hurt their children, and I don't mean to add to that. My problem here is with those who would try to hide from us the better choice, the choice that we tend to prefer, that we tend to feel deep inside is the right one, in order to glorify their favorite alternatives.
Numerous studies show what is already self-evident to many of us. Children do best in every part of their life with a mother and a father married to each other. You can take some cherry-picked examples of the best non-traditional families stacked up against the worst of the abusers in traditional families, but when given a fair shake, non-traditional families fail to measure up.
You see, I read an article some time ago about 'failure of feminism', written by someone on the hardcore side of feminism about the increasing numbers of upper-class women deciding to become full-time homemakers. A paragraph in that article clued me in.
By contrast, a common thread among the women I interviewed was a self-important idealism about the kinds of intellectual, prestigious, socially meaningful, politics-free jobs worth their incalculably valuable presence. So the second rule is that women must treat the first few years after college as an opportunity to lose their capitalism virginity and prepare for good work, which they will then treat seriously. - http://www.alternet.org/story/28621?page=4Notice what this means. Women are finding intellectual, prestigious, socially meaningful, politics-free jobs worth their incalculably valuable presence as homemakers. Therefore, to prevent them from being homemakers, we must teach them that they must set this ideal aside and prepare themselves for the jobs that will not make them as happy. You must keep them from knowing that a better way exists, or they will take it, and feminists' goal of 'liberating' women from their preferred sphere of influence will never happen.
Kids want a mom and dad. Kids want their mom and dad to be married. Consider the theme in movies and books prior to this present day. Consider an old Disney movie called 'Parent Trap'. When people write books and movies to mirror real life rather than to set an agenda, you see child after child in one of these non-traditional families wishing they were in a traditional one. However, traditional families are not formed by the guiding principle of groups seeking to push non-traditional depictions for children, and that is the principle of sexual freedom.
See the correlation? People who believe that women should not be homemakers seek to hide from women the choice of a meaningful, politics-free solution to their desires, because that will work against the principle of feminist 'liberation'. People who believe in sexual freedom will seek to hide from children the ideal of a traditional family, because as long as they know it is possible they will wish it for themselves and do their best to implement it for their children. The key here is to think, "We want them to do it our way, so we must not let them know that a better way exists."
Of course, the hardline feminists and 'sexual freedom' advocates aren't exactly thinking "a better way exists." At least, that's not what they say. Generally it's that a "way exists that seems better to the unenlightened masses." They're the intelligent ones, the thinking people, the educated elite. (The fact that they have been steeped in four to eight or more years of heavy propaganda in liberal extremist colleges means that they must be 'critical thinkers' for following the liberal extremist viewpoint to a T.)
Eliminating mention of the traditional family will not actually improve the fortunes of non-traditional families. It will simply give the impression that such fortunes are improved, the same way that you may think 25mpg is excellent for a car when you do not know of the 50mpg European minis, or you may think malnutrition is normal if you simply never see the fortitude of a man well-fed.
Note again that I am not speaking of everyone who favors letting children in school know that some children don't have fathers or mothers, that some live with their grandparents, etc. I personally favor this. It includes children from non-traditional families and prepares children from traditional families for dealing with them without meanness. Neither do I intend to bash people who are in non-traditional families and doing their best. A lot of single parents agonize over whether their struggle is going to hurt their children, and I don't mean to add to that. My problem here is with those who would try to hide from us the better choice, the choice that we tend to prefer, that we tend to feel deep inside is the right one, in order to glorify their favorite alternatives.
Friday, January 11, 2008
My banana bread alteration
I got my original banana bread recipe off of the Better Homes and Gardens cookbook. Over time, I made a few small changes, so I thought I'd list them down! I've got a loaf of it in the oven right now. It's good stuff!
The majority of this recipe can be credited to BHG cookbook, but a few changes are mine!
1 cup all-purpose flour
1/2 cup oatmeal (I use Quaker quick oats)
1/4 baking soda
1/4 ground cinnamon (I just dump to taste, and sometimes I add a lil nutmeg or ginger)
1 egg
3 medium bananas (The riper, the better)
3/4 cup sugar
1/4 cup cooking oil (I use canola)
Grease the bottom and sides of a loaf pan and set aside. Set the oven to 375F. (The recipe says 350F, but my oven runs just a touch cool.) Combine flour, oats, baking powder, baking soda, cinnamon, and a pinch of salt. Make a well in the center of the mixture and set aside.
In another bowl put in the bananas (peeled, of course) and the sugar. Mash with a fork until it's all combined. I do this in this order for two reasons. I'm going to want the 1/4 cup measure for the oil as well, and it's a pain to use it for sugar after using it for oil. Also, sugar somehow makes bananas easier to mash. It breaks something down, I think.
Add egg, oil, and a capful of vanilla extract to the bananas/sugar and mash/mix it all up good.
Add wet mixture all at once to the dry mixture and stir just until moistened. The batter should be a bit lumpy.
Spoon batter into the loaf pan and bake for an hour. Insert a toothpick (I use a butter knife) and if it comes out clean, the bread's done. Remove, let sit for about 10 minutes, dump it out upside-down on a wire rack, and let it cool further.
So what's the difference? Instead of using 1 1/2 cups of flour, I use 1 cup flour and 1/2 cup oatmeal. BHG adds 1 teaspoon shredded lemon peel and 1/2 cup chopped walnuts or pecans as optional. I don't like nuts and rarely have lemon peel, so I substitute a capful of vanilla extract and forget the nuts. BHG says specifically 1/4 teaspoon ground cinnamon, but I just add some cinnamon and sometimes either nutmeg or ginger depending on my mood, keeping in mind that this is the spice and doesn't have much bearing on the constitution of the bread.
The majority of this recipe can be credited to BHG cookbook, but a few changes are mine!
1 cup all-purpose flour
1/2 cup oatmeal (I use Quaker quick oats)
1/4 baking soda
1/4 ground cinnamon (I just dump to taste, and sometimes I add a lil nutmeg or ginger)
1 egg
3 medium bananas (The riper, the better)
3/4 cup sugar
1/4 cup cooking oil (I use canola)
Grease the bottom and sides of a loaf pan and set aside. Set the oven to 375F. (The recipe says 350F, but my oven runs just a touch cool.) Combine flour, oats, baking powder, baking soda, cinnamon, and a pinch of salt. Make a well in the center of the mixture and set aside.
In another bowl put in the bananas (peeled, of course) and the sugar. Mash with a fork until it's all combined. I do this in this order for two reasons. I'm going to want the 1/4 cup measure for the oil as well, and it's a pain to use it for sugar after using it for oil. Also, sugar somehow makes bananas easier to mash. It breaks something down, I think.
Add egg, oil, and a capful of vanilla extract to the bananas/sugar and mash/mix it all up good.
Add wet mixture all at once to the dry mixture and stir just until moistened. The batter should be a bit lumpy.
Spoon batter into the loaf pan and bake for an hour. Insert a toothpick (I use a butter knife) and if it comes out clean, the bread's done. Remove, let sit for about 10 minutes, dump it out upside-down on a wire rack, and let it cool further.
So what's the difference? Instead of using 1 1/2 cups of flour, I use 1 cup flour and 1/2 cup oatmeal. BHG adds 1 teaspoon shredded lemon peel and 1/2 cup chopped walnuts or pecans as optional. I don't like nuts and rarely have lemon peel, so I substitute a capful of vanilla extract and forget the nuts. BHG says specifically 1/4 teaspoon ground cinnamon, but I just add some cinnamon and sometimes either nutmeg or ginger depending on my mood, keeping in mind that this is the spice and doesn't have much bearing on the constitution of the bread.
Followup to the Spanking Post
It seems that in my earlier spanking post I've attracted an anonymous poster who thinks I'm wrong about spanking. When I pointed out that I was already glad my mother spanked even while she still was doing it, this poster assumed it was because of 'early indoctrination'. How convenient it is to assume that you are right and anyone who disagrees intelligently was 'indoctrinated'. We are all indoctrinated to one degree or another. Anyone who doesn't recognize that is missing an important part of logic and reasoning.
I'll tell you what hurts a child. Among people who declare in self-righteousness that they would never spank a child because it's violent and hurtful, I see an increasing amount of name-calling. They try to control their children through shame, using words like "stupid" or "bratty" that I never use with my child. I can't tell you how many times I've heard an angry mother hiss from a nearby supermarket row, "I'm calling you a BRAT because that's what you ARE."
For heaven's sake, woman, take the kid out to the car and give him a smack on the butt. The sting will fade in less than two minutes and what it will teach him is that behavior has consequences. But if repetition makes 'stupid' and 'bratty' his identity, he's sunk! I have never, ever called my son 'stupid' and he is not allowed to call other people 'stupid'. Things, ideas, events, yes. People, no.
The truth is, people are not born knowing how to control themselves. From potty training to getting to the office on time, they need to learn how to 'take the reins' and do what they need to do. Parents who will not do what's necessary to keep control seem to be a lot more desperate when a child will not behave. A parent who keeps control merely watches calmly and might even allow further misbehavior before the child 'reaps what he sows'. That parent may barter, but he does not plead. He may speak, but he does not need to scream.
Discipline your child. Create for him a safe world in which the consequences for bad behavior are uncomfortable. Keep those consequences age-appropriate rather than instantly realistic. Young children should not be facing adult consequences. You don't have to spank every child to do it right. Any and all parts of your toolbox will depend on both parent and child. But please, please don't resort to name-calling and don't ever tear your child down.
I'll tell you what hurts a child. Among people who declare in self-righteousness that they would never spank a child because it's violent and hurtful, I see an increasing amount of name-calling. They try to control their children through shame, using words like "stupid" or "bratty" that I never use with my child. I can't tell you how many times I've heard an angry mother hiss from a nearby supermarket row, "I'm calling you a BRAT because that's what you ARE."
For heaven's sake, woman, take the kid out to the car and give him a smack on the butt. The sting will fade in less than two minutes and what it will teach him is that behavior has consequences. But if repetition makes 'stupid' and 'bratty' his identity, he's sunk! I have never, ever called my son 'stupid' and he is not allowed to call other people 'stupid'. Things, ideas, events, yes. People, no.
The truth is, people are not born knowing how to control themselves. From potty training to getting to the office on time, they need to learn how to 'take the reins' and do what they need to do. Parents who will not do what's necessary to keep control seem to be a lot more desperate when a child will not behave. A parent who keeps control merely watches calmly and might even allow further misbehavior before the child 'reaps what he sows'. That parent may barter, but he does not plead. He may speak, but he does not need to scream.
Discipline your child. Create for him a safe world in which the consequences for bad behavior are uncomfortable. Keep those consequences age-appropriate rather than instantly realistic. Young children should not be facing adult consequences. You don't have to spank every child to do it right. Any and all parts of your toolbox will depend on both parent and child. But please, please don't resort to name-calling and don't ever tear your child down.
Monday, January 7, 2008
The Cow vs 43 – Two Fundamental Principles of Religion
Here we come across a fairly simple verse, but my commentary claims it to be much more. “These are the two fundamental principles of religion,” the commentary claims, and so I immediately think of the equivalent section in the Bible, the two greatest commandments. Upon further study, I realized that these two greatest were similar on the outside and, as in previous sections, notably different in the details! Next Time: Speaking to
The Greatest Commandments
In the Bible, Jesus responds when asked for the greatest commandment, not with something from the pre-established Law, but something entirely new that nevertheless encompasses it. “You shall love the Lord your God with all of your heart, and with all of your soul, and with all of your mind.” In the Koran, the first listed fundamental principle is at the beginning of the verse, with “Keep up prayer,” and at the end, with “bow down with those who bow down.” Jesus continues His speech with the second greatest commandment which is “like the first: Love your neighbor as yourself.” The corresponding part in the Koran is similar: to pay the poor-rate.
At first glance, there are similarities that make these a good set for comparison. In both cases, the first principle involves God while the second involves others. However, as before, the difference is in the details!
Do what with your God?
The commentary/translation note for the first part of the Koran verse, “Keep up prayer,” explains prayer as worship. I remembered the very first section, the seven-verse prayer known to be so much more important to the Muslims than the roughly corresponding Lord’s Prayer is to Protestant Christians. Upon looking up the word ‘worship’ in the dictionary, I came up with a similar word picture. The first principle for Muslims is to acknowledge Allah’s greatness and power, to show proper respect, and to exalt Allah to a proper place, being at the top of everything. This is not a bad thing for Christians to do when dealing with whom I refer to as “Yahweh” as from the Old Testament. However, Christians are asked to do so much more. Love the Lord your God.
Placing worship of a deity as the top priority is nothing new in the myriads of religions before and after Islam. In this, I admit that Mohammed disappoints me a great deal. Jesus encourages us to call to God using names that translate to a very close father-child relationship. The idea of loving your God rather than simply exalting Him is extraordinary, as well it should be. In the Old and New Testaments, God consistently breaks ground, confounding mortal wisdom. What we find in the Koran, which is supposed to be further revelation from this same God, is a step backwards to the common practice of so many other religions throughout history, a simple exaltation of Allah, who so far has seemed disinclined to draw very close to us. Furthermore, while Christians are told to love God with their hearts, minds, and souls, it seems that simple religious observance of prayers and acknowledgments at proper times is sufficient for Allah.
Is this connected in any way to the difference between the two religions of how badly we need salvation and from what? Yahweh, saving us from our sins and restoring us to a right relationship, may rightly speak of a love encompassing every part of us. Allah, only apparently having need to save us merely from ignorance and the consequences of sin accidentally committed, may therefore require less from us.
Who needs our help?
The second principle contrasted with the second commandment is something of which I have much less to speak, mostly because I have not read enough of the Koran to know if all of your neighbors are addressed at another juncture. I will, however, point out that Christians are required to do much more than to pay a poor-rate and otherwise support those who do not have enough material possessions. Jesus requires of us that we reach out not only to the poor but to the rich. When He said that if a man makes you carry his burden for a mile that you should go two, He was not speaking of aiding the poor. He was speaking not only of the rich, but of the rich oppressors over the Jews at that time. I will need to read more of the Koran to know if Mohammed addresses this issue in more detail.
Next Time: Speaking to Israel
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)