One of the bigger controversies of 80's films is Steven Spielberg's decision to replace guns with walkie-talkies in the DVD version of E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial. Remember that? Spielberg made a pretty little speech about how he felt the guns were 'too scary' for youngsters and he felt it was wrong to depict them in the movie.
Happily, Spielberg has seen the light, and regrets that decision. The guns will be back for the Blu-Ray release of the film.
That didn't stop me from thinking, though, as I listened to some E.T. soundtrack music while pinning and cutting a new dress on the dining room table. (Yes, I am that weird.) Spielberg was responding to a lot of criticism he received about that part of the movie. Apparently, there are many parents who believe that showing guns in a children's movie is just too scary. I have to wonder about their priorities. The scariest thing in that movie, for the children, has nothing to do with weapons or aliens.
Early in the movie, we are introduced to a family in crisis. The mother is obviously overtired and has little control over her kids. There is no sign of a father. We soon find out why, when the little one blurts out that "Daddy is with Sally in Mexico." From the way her older brothers hush her up, and her mother's shattered poise, it was obvious that only one member of the family did not know. The theme emerges a few more times. The boys are very obviously keeping important problems from their mother to spare her feelings and keep from burdening her further.
I was about eight years' old when the movie really hit the market and started being shown and reshown everywhere. I saw it at friends' houses, with that familiar green thing on the VHS tape making it easy to pick out from the others. I saw it at school for an 'afternoon treat' during a Christmas party. I saw it in a summertime drive-in theater. Right around that time, my closest neighborhood friend's parents got a divorce. It was like that in the mid-80's. You were going along your merry way and suddenly a friend, a neighbor, maybe even your own mom and dad were getting a divorce. In a way, it was like a battlefield. You never knew which of your fellow soldiers would fall next.
Spielberg chose to remove those guns from the DVD edition of the movie. Do I wish he had removed the parental abandonment angle from the movie? After all, in other famous kid movies, like Iron Giant and Toy Story, the missing father is barely alluded to, and his method of disappearance is never explained. No, I wouldn't want it removed. It is one of the major reasons, perhaps even stronger than the alien himself, this became such an iconic and important movies of the '80's. It dared to do what so many movies do not, and show all of us just how badly it hurts a family when "Daddy is in Mexico with Sally".
In this day and age, divorce is no longer a new and strange phenomenon. Our children are growing up with peers who never had a father, whose mothers never even married the guy, and they are being taught that this is fairly normal and no big deal. On top of that, we have seen all sorts of new gun legislation and attempts at gun legislation, enforcing and reinforcing the notion that guns are just too scary for children. Fatherlessness, though, that's just no big deal...
The idea of facing an adversary bearing weapons is practically second-nature to these kids. The guns aren't ever even pointed at them. Not a single shot is fired. What scares them is the lack of a parent, or the fear that, at any time, one of their parents may simply walk away... and go to Mexico with Sally.
Showing posts with label parenting. Show all posts
Showing posts with label parenting. Show all posts
Thursday, August 21, 2014
Saturday, May 17, 2014
Spontaneous Storytelling for Morality
This morning, I looked around at the general mess left from yesterday's birthday party. I started loading dishes into the dish drainer as my eldest finished his breakfast. Then I told him to clean up the dining and living room.
Cue the angst. "But I just did it yesterday!"
"Does it look clean?"
"Nooooo! But that's because it got so messy so quickly!"
"It needs to be done, then."
"It's going to take me all day! It'll take five hours!"
"Then perhaps you need practice. I should have you do it every day."
"Then I'll never get any schoolwork done at all, because I won't have time!"
I'll spare you the rest. It went on for a while, and got ridiculous. Yes, more ridiculous than the notion that picking up toys and carrying dishes to the sink will take up five hours of every day, and taking up five hours of a day at any activity will prevent him from having the time to finish a curriculum that typically takes him 4-6 hours depending on the day, including breaks and food. (With a recent average of two, since we are close to the end of his year and half of his books are finished.) Anyways...
Improvisational storytelling in such situations comes to me so easily that I used to assume that every mother gained it as a natural skill, like the ability to change a diaper and remember what your five-year-old had for lunch. Since then, I have heard from people who tell me that my gift is not all that common. If it is inherited, I definitely inherited it from my mother, who does it all the time. On my father's side, my semi-famous great-uncle poet credited his mother's ability to invent songs and rhymes on the fly while cleaning the house, and engaging her children in the process as if they were playing a game. (They didn't exactly have television, or radio, or electricity, in the late 1800's Ukrainian slums.)
The skill is definitely strong in my line.
"Do you know what comes of this? Do you? The way you treat your mother is the way you will treat your wife. Oh yes, it's true. The way you treat your mother and your sisters, growing up, is the way you will treat your wife. Do you know what will happen? Let me tell you.
"At first she'll ask for your help when the house needs to be cleaned after a party, or when the kids are acting up and she can't keep ahead of her chores. You'll whine and complain just like you're doing here, try to blame everything on her..." I approximated (and may have exaggerated) the whine in his voice. "'Oh I won't have time for my job if I do that, and then I'll lose my job, and we won't have any money anymore!' So she'll ask at first, but she'll get tired of your emotional abuse, and she'll stop asking. She'll do everything herself. She'll be afraid to seek help from you.
"Guess what happens next. She burns out. She gets burned out, so exhausted she can't think, just working and working all the time, doing her chores and yours. And then do you know what she'll do? She'll divorce you." This produced a moment of silence, which I allowed to cultivate for a moment before picking up my narrative. "She'll divorce you for neglect, and for emotional abuse. And do you know what she'll say when she exits the courthouse after signing the divorce papers? She'll say..." Here I paused and changed my expression (and tone) from dramatic to a mixture of relief and slight disbelief. "'I don't have to wash his socks anymore. I don't have to take out his garbage anymore." The relief gives way to excitement. "I'm going to go out and see a movie tonight! I haven't gone out to a movie in ten years!"
Back to lecture mode. "How would you feel if your wife divorced you and then said that? You wouldn't like that, would you? Who do you think washes Daddy's socks? I do. And you know what? I don't mind doing it! Do you know why? It's because when I have a house to clean, or a party to set up, or misbehaving kids, I know he's got my back. You want to be like Daddy. He's a hard worker, and he cares for us. He might grumble a little when he has to take out the garbage, but he does not gripe at me, and he does not blame me. He does not say, 'I bet you fill it up so fast just to give me more work to do!'" Here, of course, I had cut in the kid-whiny tone again.
"So I'm going to make sure you learn. You're going to learn how to clean, and how to do it without complaining. I'm doing this for the sake of your wife, so that she will never have to go through what you put me through this morning. Do you understand?"
A mumbled yes. This is actually the first full vocalization from him, since all of my repeated questions have not incorporated any answer-me pauses, implicit or explicit.
"Good. Now clean the living room and dining room."
Cue the angst. "But I just did it yesterday!"
"Does it look clean?"
"Nooooo! But that's because it got so messy so quickly!"
"It needs to be done, then."
"It's going to take me all day! It'll take five hours!"
"Then perhaps you need practice. I should have you do it every day."
"Then I'll never get any schoolwork done at all, because I won't have time!"
I'll spare you the rest. It went on for a while, and got ridiculous. Yes, more ridiculous than the notion that picking up toys and carrying dishes to the sink will take up five hours of every day, and taking up five hours of a day at any activity will prevent him from having the time to finish a curriculum that typically takes him 4-6 hours depending on the day, including breaks and food. (With a recent average of two, since we are close to the end of his year and half of his books are finished.) Anyways...
Improvisational storytelling in such situations comes to me so easily that I used to assume that every mother gained it as a natural skill, like the ability to change a diaper and remember what your five-year-old had for lunch. Since then, I have heard from people who tell me that my gift is not all that common. If it is inherited, I definitely inherited it from my mother, who does it all the time. On my father's side, my semi-famous great-uncle poet credited his mother's ability to invent songs and rhymes on the fly while cleaning the house, and engaging her children in the process as if they were playing a game. (They didn't exactly have television, or radio, or electricity, in the late 1800's Ukrainian slums.)
The skill is definitely strong in my line.
"Do you know what comes of this? Do you? The way you treat your mother is the way you will treat your wife. Oh yes, it's true. The way you treat your mother and your sisters, growing up, is the way you will treat your wife. Do you know what will happen? Let me tell you.
"At first she'll ask for your help when the house needs to be cleaned after a party, or when the kids are acting up and she can't keep ahead of her chores. You'll whine and complain just like you're doing here, try to blame everything on her..." I approximated (and may have exaggerated) the whine in his voice. "'Oh I won't have time for my job if I do that, and then I'll lose my job, and we won't have any money anymore!' So she'll ask at first, but she'll get tired of your emotional abuse, and she'll stop asking. She'll do everything herself. She'll be afraid to seek help from you.
"Guess what happens next. She burns out. She gets burned out, so exhausted she can't think, just working and working all the time, doing her chores and yours. And then do you know what she'll do? She'll divorce you." This produced a moment of silence, which I allowed to cultivate for a moment before picking up my narrative. "She'll divorce you for neglect, and for emotional abuse. And do you know what she'll say when she exits the courthouse after signing the divorce papers? She'll say..." Here I paused and changed my expression (and tone) from dramatic to a mixture of relief and slight disbelief. "'I don't have to wash his socks anymore. I don't have to take out his garbage anymore." The relief gives way to excitement. "I'm going to go out and see a movie tonight! I haven't gone out to a movie in ten years!"
Back to lecture mode. "How would you feel if your wife divorced you and then said that? You wouldn't like that, would you? Who do you think washes Daddy's socks? I do. And you know what? I don't mind doing it! Do you know why? It's because when I have a house to clean, or a party to set up, or misbehaving kids, I know he's got my back. You want to be like Daddy. He's a hard worker, and he cares for us. He might grumble a little when he has to take out the garbage, but he does not gripe at me, and he does not blame me. He does not say, 'I bet you fill it up so fast just to give me more work to do!'" Here, of course, I had cut in the kid-whiny tone again.
"So I'm going to make sure you learn. You're going to learn how to clean, and how to do it without complaining. I'm doing this for the sake of your wife, so that she will never have to go through what you put me through this morning. Do you understand?"
A mumbled yes. This is actually the first full vocalization from him, since all of my repeated questions have not incorporated any answer-me pauses, implicit or explicit.
"Good. Now clean the living room and dining room."
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Responsibility for education
In Florida, a State Representative has proposed increasing parental involvement in childhood education by having public school teachers grade the parents. Of course, there are many angles in describing the problems with this proposal. A friend of mine who is a Florida-certified to teach and knows the local public schools told me that the parents should be the ones grading the teachers.
On the plus side, the proposal does address a problem that is very real in today's society. Too many parents don't have enough involvement in their children's education. The question in my mind is, will this proposal solve or worsen the problem? I believe that it is a treatment of a symptom rather than the ending of a societal disease.
In Harper Lee's To Kill A Mockingbird, young Scout does not take easily to school. Her teacher is appalled when she discovers that Scout knows not only how to read, but how to write cursive. Her father has spent so much time reading with her in the evenings, and her housekeeper copied out words for her to practice when she wanted something to do. The teacher is adamant that this is wrong.
Combine these two together and you have, nurtured for about 50 years by the Liberal Left, the belief that it is the job of parents to work outside the home while leaving the matter of their children's education in the hands of government officials and "properly-trained" instructors. I note that one of the biggest questions I hear as a homeschooling mother is, "How do you know that you're qualified to teach your child?" Before the '60's and its various revolutions, such a question would have been downright laughable. Who is better qualified to teach a child than the people whose genetics created him or her?
Of course, as with many such reforms, we are now discovering that parental involvement does in fact have a strongly positive effect on a child's education. What is the solution? Although Representative Stargel is listed as a Republican, she offers the very liberal proposal that the Government, having discouraged parents from involvement, must now mandate parental involvement for the exact same reason... the good of the children. This is worse than the purported ambulance-in-the-valley solution for the lack of fence on the dangerous cliff. This is tantamount to removing an already-present fence on the cliff before instituting the ambulance in the valley.
On the plus side, the proposal does address a problem that is very real in today's society. Too many parents don't have enough involvement in their children's education. The question in my mind is, will this proposal solve or worsen the problem? I believe that it is a treatment of a symptom rather than the ending of a societal disease.
In Harper Lee's To Kill A Mockingbird, young Scout does not take easily to school. Her teacher is appalled when she discovers that Scout knows not only how to read, but how to write cursive. Her father has spent so much time reading with her in the evenings, and her housekeeper copied out words for her to practice when she wanted something to do. The teacher is adamant that this is wrong.
"Now you tell your father not to teach you any more. It's best to begin reading with a fresh mind. You tell him I'll take over from here and try to undo the damage-"This book was published in 1960 and referred to the rise of new teaching methods including the much-lampooned "New Math" in public school systems. The adjoining message, naturally, was that these methods would be compromised if all these parents kept thinking that they could do the job of teaching their children how to learn. The movement coincided with the Feminist Movement, which championed pushing mothers, against their will if necessary, to leave their child-rearing and climb the career ladder.
"Ma'am?"
"Your father does not know how to teach. You can have a seat now."
Combine these two together and you have, nurtured for about 50 years by the Liberal Left, the belief that it is the job of parents to work outside the home while leaving the matter of their children's education in the hands of government officials and "properly-trained" instructors. I note that one of the biggest questions I hear as a homeschooling mother is, "How do you know that you're qualified to teach your child?" Before the '60's and its various revolutions, such a question would have been downright laughable. Who is better qualified to teach a child than the people whose genetics created him or her?
Of course, as with many such reforms, we are now discovering that parental involvement does in fact have a strongly positive effect on a child's education. What is the solution? Although Representative Stargel is listed as a Republican, she offers the very liberal proposal that the Government, having discouraged parents from involvement, must now mandate parental involvement for the exact same reason... the good of the children. This is worse than the purported ambulance-in-the-valley solution for the lack of fence on the dangerous cliff. This is tantamount to removing an already-present fence on the cliff before instituting the ambulance in the valley.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Sesame Street Classics!
This is for the sake of my little daughter, Tricia, who has come to absolutely adore these videos. Just favoriting them on Youtube would be a pain, because they'd be entirely out of order, and I'm tired of having to search them each time I want to play them... which is nearly daily! So without further ado, I display for you the Sesame Street Pinball Machine numbers 2-12!
Isn't that supposed to be 1-12? Haven't found #1 yet.
Sunday, January 17, 2010
When the doctor is wrong
Most mothers of young children will run across this problem at one time or another. It seems that the standard pediatrician office, even the excellent one, still may be behind the times in dealing with child-rearing. Their advice is unlikely to hurt your child, but you still may end up reading the newer publications and gaining quite a different opinion from theirs. What do you do then?
I ran across this problem just a few days ago. My daughter had her nine-month appointment, and they checked her weight and height. Her height was fine by their standards, lying right along the same point in the growth curve as her last appointments. Her weight, however, had barely moved. She had not lost any weight, but she did not gain enough to maintain her point on the curve, or even the point below it.
"We're not concerned yet," the pediatrician told me. "But I would like for you to push solids four or five times daily. Sit her down in her chair and feed her all she'll take. I'm an advocate of breastfeeding, and I breastfed my own children, the last one for two and a half years. But sometimes they just need that extra help. Besides, they say that you need to introduce solids during this time period or the child may become resistant to them."
Fair enough, I suppose. So I took her home and gave it a try.
My first problem was that my baby is not interested in solids. Oh, she loves to eat from a spoon, but she'll only consume an ounce or two before losing interest. To put this into perspective, the baby food jars labeled for her age are six ounce containers. Then, despite having eaten only one ounce of food, she will skip half a nursing session. That means that she loses probably about four ounces of breastmilk for one or two ounces of solids. The calorie count of solids runs from seven calories per ounce for vegetables like carrots or green beans to eighteen calories per ounce for a banana and cereal mixture. The average calorie count for breastmilk is twenty calories per ounce. So this effort is not likely to help her gain any extra weight.
I suppose that many doctors assume that low weight gain after six months on mostly breastmilk is a case of low milk output from the mother, and we will be able to add solids without reducing the amount of nursing sessions. This is not the case for my baby. I'm an overproducer, and she just isn't hungry.
My mother assured me that I underwent the exact same weight change at the exact same age. I told her the doctor's recommendations, and she told me that her doctor had made the exact same recommendation... thirty years ago! She had obediently pushed solids. "Did it work?" I asked. "Did I gain the way they wanted to see?" No, I hadn't, but introducing more solids into my diet hadn't seemed to hurt, either.
This is not the case for my baby, which brings me to the second problem with following the pediatrician's advice. From her earliest days, my baby has been strongly prone to intestinal trouble. Every feeding results in gassiness, and she used to have frequent episodes of reflux. These episodes died down over the past month or two, and I was hoping that the trouble was behind her. Every time I feed her, I sit with her for a while afterwards and help her work the worst of the bubbles out of her body.
Now I'd like to take this moment to clarify that I have not actually refused to start her on solids. In the morning, either I or my mother (if I am working) tries her on a basic, First-Foods item. She'll eat an ounce of it, or, some days, two ounces. It causes her a little bit of intestinal discomfort at times, but not too much. Then, in the late afternoon, she often gets fussy and wants frequent feedings while I'm trying to get supper on the table. I sit her in her chair and give her a handful of Cheerios. She eats most of them, and I get a break to cook and eat!
I took her home from the doctor's office and started her immediately on the solids regimen. On the first day, she ate pretty well, and I thought that this was surely the right thing to do! But on the second day, her appetite had fallen off significantly, and by the third she was in agony for most of the day with stomach trouble and constipation. On the fourth day, she ate very little and then threw up in the evening...
What do you do when the doctor is wrong?
I had a long talk with my mother and with the lactation consultant, and they both told me the same thing I had already guessed in my own heart. This baby is not like the typical bottle-fed baby not moving to the next step quickly enough. This baby is a different case. It's in her genetics to slow her weight gain at this juncture. Her ribs do not show, she has little fat folds on her legs, and she sleeps through the night. She is a very happy, active, healthy baby when she is not having severe intestinal pain. I have been reading about some babies whose intestinal tract mature more slowly than others. Some of them need to be nearly exclusively breastfed for two or three years as they are very slowly transitioned to other foods. Nearly all of them have shed the majority of their difficulties by age six.
Therefore, I am going on record to say that I will not be following my pediatrician's advice. I am going to return to her previous schedule, with a mashed food introduced in the morning and Cheerios (or bread) given in the evening, and I am going to keep breastfeeding her as much as she'll take. Now for the concern... am I going to get into trouble?
In this country, there seems to be a movement towards further government interference in the health of the population, which often translates to further government interference in the raising of young children. Already, doctors can label a child with the dreaded FTT (Failure To Thrive), and that diagnosis can cause a good parent all sorts of trouble if that good parent would rather follow the guidelines of the World Health Organization instead of the conventional wisdom of thirty years ago. Some pediatricians are more proactive than others and will put you in contact with the dreaded Social Services... simply over their disagreement with your method of parenting.
Some pediatrician groups are convinced that they know what's best for your child and you do not. These are the ones who groan when they find out that one or more of your children are homeschooled, because that immediately puts you into a different group entirely, an independent-thinking, intelligent woman who is not likely to follow their advice to the letter if she disagrees with it. Admittedly, sometimes they have cause for concern. At times like this, however, it may simply mean that they become frustrated with the mother's refusal to fit like a cog into the Great Machine.
Now I may be maligning my own pediatric group, so let me state that they have typically taken the individual approach much more kindly than most. I do not foresee being sent to Social Services over the amount of green beans that my baby may not be consuming instead of breastmilk. Still, I find myself making my decision and then preparing for my next appointment as if for battle, to fight for my right to care for this baby in the way I feel best.
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
The President circumvents parental authority?
On September 8th, President Obama is planning to address schools across our nation.
Now we don't know what he's going to say yet, and having the President talk to kids is not necessarily an evil thing. It's good to teach children about our country and its political process. When I was young, I wrote a letter to President Reagan. I got a lovely little courtesy book with full-color pictures of the White House most famous rooms. I have it to this day.
However, we do not know what this community organizer plans to say to our children. There is no copy circulating of the speech that I can find. The one document I was able to find, a teaching guide for the event, did not inspire confidence that this would be a simple, friendly hello. The guide can be found here.
For those of you who don't want to read it, these are the parts that trouble me:
Some people might say, "What's the big deal? So the kids have to sit through this speech. They'll probably be bored. They'll have forgotten it by tomorrow. Just let it happen and let it fade away." Unfortunately, the teacher's guide includes a followup:
This is no longer about a student sitting through a speech and then going home. It's about peer pressure and adult pressure for a student to do what the President has asked them to do. This is serious business, whether you approve of Mr. President or not. We do not live in an authoritarian society, and our elected leaders of the country should not be directly interfering with our children's lives in this fashion.
Quite simply, this is wrong.
I personally have no worries about this event for my family. My son is homeschooled and my daughter is too young to understand speeches. Still, I would like to encourage parents of public school students to keep their children home on September 8th. If enough people do so, perhaps we can send a message.
Now let me put in my "usual disclaimer". Suppose the President merely wants to ask the students to be more charitable? To help others? Isn't this a good thing? Don't we want our children to help others? Yes, we do! We definitely do, and I entirely agree with the goal in mind. What I disagree with strongly is its implementation. Children should be charitable because their parents and community teaches them to be. Charting progress toward charity goals should be done at home, or perhaps in Sunday School. Children should not learn the lesson that they must do whatever their President requests of them. That is the road, not to genuine charity, but to tyranny and despotism.
Now we don't know what he's going to say yet, and having the President talk to kids is not necessarily an evil thing. It's good to teach children about our country and its political process. When I was young, I wrote a letter to President Reagan. I got a lovely little courtesy book with full-color pictures of the White House most famous rooms. I have it to this day.
However, we do not know what this community organizer plans to say to our children. There is no copy circulating of the speech that I can find. The one document I was able to find, a teaching guide for the event, did not inspire confidence that this would be a simple, friendly hello. The guide can be found here.
For those of you who don't want to read it, these are the parts that trouble me:
Before the speech, third point: Why is it important that we listen to the President and other elected officials, like the mayor, senators, members of congress, or the governor? Why is what they say important?Indeed, why is what they say important? In this country, the government is created for the people and by the people. Of course it's important to listen to what they have to say. But why is that? Do you think that the teachers will encourage students to answer that they should become involved in the political process so that they can do their best to intelligently evaluate the truthfulness of their President's speeches and speak out against them if he is wrong?
During the speech, second point: Students can record important parts of the speech where the President is asking them to do something. Students might think about: What specific job is he asking me to do? Is he asking anything of anyone else? Teachers? Principals? Parents? The American people?This troubles me, because it is basically evidence that, when our President speaks to our children outside of our presence, he will be asking them to do something. What sort of thing will he ask them to do? What was the last thing he asked people to do? The last thing he asked people to do was to go to town hall meetings specifically to shut up the people who disagreed with his nationalized health care plan.
Some people might say, "What's the big deal? So the kids have to sit through this speech. They'll probably be bored. They'll have forgotten it by tomorrow. Just let it happen and let it fade away." Unfortunately, the teacher's guide includes a followup:
Extension of the speech, second point: Write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president. These would be collected and redistributed at an appropriate later date by the teacher to make students accountable to their goals.Everyone should find this troubling. The President is encouraging children to work for him directly, and encouraging teachers to put a system into place by which children are made accountable for their goals. I would like to point out that in our system of government, children are traditionally considered too young to enter into contracts and have them enforced. There is a reason why, for instance, there are minimum ages on marriage and on entering the Armed Forces. Further points on the same section encourage teachers to set up school-wide incentive programs for students who reach their goals and graph student progress toward these goals.
This is no longer about a student sitting through a speech and then going home. It's about peer pressure and adult pressure for a student to do what the President has asked them to do. This is serious business, whether you approve of Mr. President or not. We do not live in an authoritarian society, and our elected leaders of the country should not be directly interfering with our children's lives in this fashion.
Quite simply, this is wrong.
I personally have no worries about this event for my family. My son is homeschooled and my daughter is too young to understand speeches. Still, I would like to encourage parents of public school students to keep their children home on September 8th. If enough people do so, perhaps we can send a message.
Now let me put in my "usual disclaimer". Suppose the President merely wants to ask the students to be more charitable? To help others? Isn't this a good thing? Don't we want our children to help others? Yes, we do! We definitely do, and I entirely agree with the goal in mind. What I disagree with strongly is its implementation. Children should be charitable because their parents and community teaches them to be. Charting progress toward charity goals should be done at home, or perhaps in Sunday School. Children should not learn the lesson that they must do whatever their President requests of them. That is the road, not to genuine charity, but to tyranny and despotism.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Focusing on the wrong end
I keep hearing it from the Republican so-called leadership who are hijacking the party into moderate materialism... "We need to focus on the financial conservatism and jettison the social conservatives... so that we can reach more people." They have their tactic completely and totally backwards. If anything, we need to do completely the opposite. I'd go so far as to say that if I had to choose between social or financial conservatism, I would choose social.
Did anybody reading this also read George Orwell's Animal Farm? I recommend it. Right now I am thinking of a specific character in the story, a pig named Snowflake. In the story, the farmer is chased from the farm and the pigs set up a socialist government that turns brutally totalitarian by the end. Snowflake, chased off and killed eventually by the power-seizing Napoleon, is a 'gentler dictator' and genuinely works towards the good of the other animals. He may be an economic liberal, but he acts as a social conservative, and does not seem to govern his own life by the mantra that you do what you can to secure your own power and satisfy your own pleasure. He is not a moral relativist.
I will never truly believe that socialism is the best way for a country to operate, but I would rather have a good dictator than a society left adrift and manipulated by evil men. Even government-mandated programs for the poor is better than a set of undisciplined rich men who sneer at and oppress those beneath their income levels. Indeed, in a morally-corrupt culture, a firmer hand is needed. Liberty is for adults, not children.
If we truly work for the good of our society, we must focus on morality, even above freedom. If our sons and daughters are not raised in such a way as to be willing to give up power voluntarily, what will it matter when we send them into public office with their heads full of capitalism? We will end up with tyranny of a different sort.
Those who prize economic conservatism above social conservatism will create a land so undisciplined and brutal that socialism will be needed eventually just to hold man's passions in check. Those who prize social conservatism will create a land in which government power holds no fear for the citizens and can be lowered over time by those who have not grown to love power.
We are headed for a time of increases socialism under Obama, but we can still train ourselves and teach our children to be people of moral standing, who not only understand, but feel that lying, cheating, and stealing is plainly wrong. That is the only way we will continue to be worthy of the economic conservatism we so badly want back!
Did anybody reading this also read George Orwell's Animal Farm? I recommend it. Right now I am thinking of a specific character in the story, a pig named Snowflake. In the story, the farmer is chased from the farm and the pigs set up a socialist government that turns brutally totalitarian by the end. Snowflake, chased off and killed eventually by the power-seizing Napoleon, is a 'gentler dictator' and genuinely works towards the good of the other animals. He may be an economic liberal, but he acts as a social conservative, and does not seem to govern his own life by the mantra that you do what you can to secure your own power and satisfy your own pleasure. He is not a moral relativist.
I will never truly believe that socialism is the best way for a country to operate, but I would rather have a good dictator than a society left adrift and manipulated by evil men. Even government-mandated programs for the poor is better than a set of undisciplined rich men who sneer at and oppress those beneath their income levels. Indeed, in a morally-corrupt culture, a firmer hand is needed. Liberty is for adults, not children.
If we truly work for the good of our society, we must focus on morality, even above freedom. If our sons and daughters are not raised in such a way as to be willing to give up power voluntarily, what will it matter when we send them into public office with their heads full of capitalism? We will end up with tyranny of a different sort.
Those who prize economic conservatism above social conservatism will create a land so undisciplined and brutal that socialism will be needed eventually just to hold man's passions in check. Those who prize social conservatism will create a land in which government power holds no fear for the citizens and can be lowered over time by those who have not grown to love power.
We are headed for a time of increases socialism under Obama, but we can still train ourselves and teach our children to be people of moral standing, who not only understand, but feel that lying, cheating, and stealing is plainly wrong. That is the only way we will continue to be worthy of the economic conservatism we so badly want back!
Monday, September 1, 2008
Anti-anti-feminism? Or not quite?
Since McCain has made his unexpected VP pick, forums and blogs everywhere have been alight. Especially in the media areas where I watch, suddenly everyone wants to talk about this not-unknown-for-long woman, governor of a state most people don't even think about on a semi-regular basis.
I, being a bit of an 'anti-feminist', track sites with similar beliefs, of course, and I've been surprised to see an ultra-conservative backlash against this VP pick. I've been even more surprised to find that I, usually pretty nearly solid in my agreement with them, find myself a bit at odds. There are two main areas in dispute, and I plan to lay out my own thoughts on each one separately.
1. Sarah Palin, being a mother of young children, especially one with Down Syndrome, should be at home taking care of them.
I'm not sure where people who worry over this think the Palin children and husband actually are. I recommend http://www.mccainblogette.com/postings/083008_0928.shtml for an answer. In case you don't feel like wading through the pictures, I can tell you myself... her family is with her. For hours and sometimes days between campaign trips, she will have plenty of time to spend with husband and children, feeding her baby and snuggling with him. She may well have more time to spend with her family than any mother who is not homeschooling. Even during events, her family are no further away from backstage, and, increasingly, out in the front alongside her.
Palin is headed for a position that allows her to work in the same building that she and her family will live. The other working women afforded her level of flexibility, mostly schoolteachers, small business owners, or telecommuters, are often in the ranks of the anti-feminist groups and accepted by them. What is the difference here? It may have something to do with the second issue: Authority.
2. What's a woman doing taking authority over men? Indeed, placing herself in the line of succession for the most powerful job in the country?
Well, women in Ancient Israel might have taken issue with this question. As I said before, I agree with anti-feminist groups largely for the most part. In this area, though, I have some concern that they are taking an extremist position against an extremist position rather than looking to restore a proper balance. From wives frequently ruling their husbands, they push for a time when women are more or less ruled by men. I take a different tack, and one that I believe to be Biblically supported.
As I just mentioned, women in Ancient Israel might take issue with this view. During the Golden Ages of Israel, women had a great many rights not allowed to those in 1700's America, which even then was not the time of terrible oppression feminists claim it to be. In Ancient Israel, not only could women own and inherit property, but they had equal access to the courts and equal access with non-Levites to the Temple.
The Bible, when it speaks of submission to men, is clearly laying out the proper roles within a family. The husband is the CO, and the wife is the XO. However, these positions hold only within the family. As an example, when I conduct family business outside the home, I am not subordinate to any man with whom I may deal. My position as XO of the family trumps his position as outside the family, and he will not induce me to do anything against my family's betterment simply for the sake of being male. This position was supported even in America of the 1800's. If the husband died, the widow owned his property and cast votes in the family name.
A lot of people have been quoting the Old Testament case of Deborah as 'proof' that having a woman take a position of power over men outside of the family is a shameful thing. However, there are numerous instances of Old Testament women judging in the gates, owning and profiting from their own land and businesses (even married women), founding cities, and building bridges. In the New Testament, women commonly founded and led early churches, and Paul had plenty of them to greet and bless in each of his letters. There are two sets of verses usually used against this, but I believe one of them actually supports women's authority and the other is taken out of context.
The first involves women praying with their head covered (or with long hair). People claim that these verses establish all women as subserviant to all men as a matter of nature. "For God is the head of man, but man is the head of woman, and man was not created for woman, but woman for man." What they seem to be missing is the import of the last verse: "For this reason and for the angels, women should pray with a symbol of authority on their heads." This line of reasoning does not end with "women serving men is a matter of nature." It follows on to say, "Because nature suggests that women do not have the authority of men, women should pray with a symbol of authority on their heads." We are different than men, and we take different roles in marriage, but we are not lesser in God's eyes.
The second is a little trickier. After several occasions of Paul talking about how we are all equal in Christ, man and woman, free and slave, after all the times he's cheered on the women leaders in the church, suddenly he declares that "the women shouldn't teach" because "Adam was formed first, and Eve was the one who sinned first." What's he talking about? Many people have taken it to mean that no woman should teach any man, but if you look at the context, you see a slightly different story.
Paul wrote his famous statement to Timothy, in Ephesus. Ephesus was home to the Diana cult. (Diana is also known as Artemis.) In Acts, we got to read about this cult causing a riot and nearly getting the early Christians in a lot of trouble. It turns out that their troublemaking had not ended there. The cult was very feminist-minded, and members who joined churches began distorting Scripture to suit themselves. "Eve was created first, before Adam," they'd teach loudly. "Eve did not sin, so women are not under the same curse as men."
Now his statement makes much more sense when taken with his previous affirmation of female leaders, doesn't it? "Timothy, your women need to stop preaching. Adam was created first, not Eve, and Eve did sin... she's not excluded from the sin curse."
On the matter of women in authority, by the way, my mother had a very interesting take on it. A housewife and mother for about as long as I've been alive, she pointed out that political leadership involves administrating the will of the people and has since the peasants forced the King of England to sign the Magna Carta. "Women make excellent administrators," she pointed out.
To conclude, I'd like to point out that the loudest people speaking against Palin's position due to her sex are not the conservative Christians. They are the liberals, particularly the liberal feminists. Why are they on this tack? Why do they care? They don't, to be honest. But they'll do anything they can, including trying to use our own arguments on us, to prevent her from winning this election. I hope to predict that they will fail because they do believe the bad light they cast us in, the distorted view that we believe woman is inherently inferior to man, that holding values mean we must crucify anyone who doesn't live up to our standard, and that "it's important for mothers to raise their children" means "mothers had better not move from the kitchen... ever!"
I, being a bit of an 'anti-feminist', track sites with similar beliefs, of course, and I've been surprised to see an ultra-conservative backlash against this VP pick. I've been even more surprised to find that I, usually pretty nearly solid in my agreement with them, find myself a bit at odds. There are two main areas in dispute, and I plan to lay out my own thoughts on each one separately.
1. Sarah Palin, being a mother of young children, especially one with Down Syndrome, should be at home taking care of them.
I'm not sure where people who worry over this think the Palin children and husband actually are. I recommend http://www.mccainblogette.com/postings/083008_0928.shtml for an answer. In case you don't feel like wading through the pictures, I can tell you myself... her family is with her. For hours and sometimes days between campaign trips, she will have plenty of time to spend with husband and children, feeding her baby and snuggling with him. She may well have more time to spend with her family than any mother who is not homeschooling. Even during events, her family are no further away from backstage, and, increasingly, out in the front alongside her.
Palin is headed for a position that allows her to work in the same building that she and her family will live. The other working women afforded her level of flexibility, mostly schoolteachers, small business owners, or telecommuters, are often in the ranks of the anti-feminist groups and accepted by them. What is the difference here? It may have something to do with the second issue: Authority.
2. What's a woman doing taking authority over men? Indeed, placing herself in the line of succession for the most powerful job in the country?
Well, women in Ancient Israel might have taken issue with this question. As I said before, I agree with anti-feminist groups largely for the most part. In this area, though, I have some concern that they are taking an extremist position against an extremist position rather than looking to restore a proper balance. From wives frequently ruling their husbands, they push for a time when women are more or less ruled by men. I take a different tack, and one that I believe to be Biblically supported.
As I just mentioned, women in Ancient Israel might take issue with this view. During the Golden Ages of Israel, women had a great many rights not allowed to those in 1700's America, which even then was not the time of terrible oppression feminists claim it to be. In Ancient Israel, not only could women own and inherit property, but they had equal access to the courts and equal access with non-Levites to the Temple.
The Bible, when it speaks of submission to men, is clearly laying out the proper roles within a family. The husband is the CO, and the wife is the XO. However, these positions hold only within the family. As an example, when I conduct family business outside the home, I am not subordinate to any man with whom I may deal. My position as XO of the family trumps his position as outside the family, and he will not induce me to do anything against my family's betterment simply for the sake of being male. This position was supported even in America of the 1800's. If the husband died, the widow owned his property and cast votes in the family name.
A lot of people have been quoting the Old Testament case of Deborah as 'proof' that having a woman take a position of power over men outside of the family is a shameful thing. However, there are numerous instances of Old Testament women judging in the gates, owning and profiting from their own land and businesses (even married women), founding cities, and building bridges. In the New Testament, women commonly founded and led early churches, and Paul had plenty of them to greet and bless in each of his letters. There are two sets of verses usually used against this, but I believe one of them actually supports women's authority and the other is taken out of context.
The first involves women praying with their head covered (or with long hair). People claim that these verses establish all women as subserviant to all men as a matter of nature. "For God is the head of man, but man is the head of woman, and man was not created for woman, but woman for man." What they seem to be missing is the import of the last verse: "For this reason and for the angels, women should pray with a symbol of authority on their heads." This line of reasoning does not end with "women serving men is a matter of nature." It follows on to say, "Because nature suggests that women do not have the authority of men, women should pray with a symbol of authority on their heads." We are different than men, and we take different roles in marriage, but we are not lesser in God's eyes.
The second is a little trickier. After several occasions of Paul talking about how we are all equal in Christ, man and woman, free and slave, after all the times he's cheered on the women leaders in the church, suddenly he declares that "the women shouldn't teach" because "Adam was formed first, and Eve was the one who sinned first." What's he talking about? Many people have taken it to mean that no woman should teach any man, but if you look at the context, you see a slightly different story.
Paul wrote his famous statement to Timothy, in Ephesus. Ephesus was home to the Diana cult. (Diana is also known as Artemis.) In Acts, we got to read about this cult causing a riot and nearly getting the early Christians in a lot of trouble. It turns out that their troublemaking had not ended there. The cult was very feminist-minded, and members who joined churches began distorting Scripture to suit themselves. "Eve was created first, before Adam," they'd teach loudly. "Eve did not sin, so women are not under the same curse as men."
Now his statement makes much more sense when taken with his previous affirmation of female leaders, doesn't it? "Timothy, your women need to stop preaching. Adam was created first, not Eve, and Eve did sin... she's not excluded from the sin curse."
On the matter of women in authority, by the way, my mother had a very interesting take on it. A housewife and mother for about as long as I've been alive, she pointed out that political leadership involves administrating the will of the people and has since the peasants forced the King of England to sign the Magna Carta. "Women make excellent administrators," she pointed out.
To conclude, I'd like to point out that the loudest people speaking against Palin's position due to her sex are not the conservative Christians. They are the liberals, particularly the liberal feminists. Why are they on this tack? Why do they care? They don't, to be honest. But they'll do anything they can, including trying to use our own arguments on us, to prevent her from winning this election. I hope to predict that they will fail because they do believe the bad light they cast us in, the distorted view that we believe woman is inherently inferior to man, that holding values mean we must crucify anyone who doesn't live up to our standard, and that "it's important for mothers to raise their children" means "mothers had better not move from the kitchen... ever!"
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Imperfect Parents
Yes, there are always the few on Mother's Day or Father's Day who may feel as if they don't quite deserve the title. They look back on their lives, their successes, but more often their failures. Some are unwed mothers. Some struggled with alcohol or drug addiction. Some are simply perfectionists who pick up any perceived shortcoming (I didn't make his favorite cookies often enough!) and magnify it until it fills the world.
Children learn from their parents, and the way the parents approach their shortcomings will teach their children some very important life lessons. Everyone has shortcomings. Parents should realize and remember that they need to teach their children how to handle them. Strive, of course, and try your best, but don't hate yourself for your mistakes! God doesn't!
Of course, to a young child you're 'perfect', and boy, you'd better be. You're laying down a foundation that helps the child relate to other people and God in this point of his life. If he claims that you're perfect, there's no need to burden his heart out of a desire to tell the truth. You can point out that no human being is perfect and redirect his attention towards God. But there's no need to fill in the details.
On the other hand, there's no need to hide the details forever. As your child is old enough to understand, it's not a terrible thing to admit your shortcomings in the past and, as your child ages further, in the present as well. There are several good things that will come of this careful but honest introspection.
Your child may be able to avoid your mistakes, especially if he knows of the situation before he is old enough to encounter something similar in his own life. All the vicious cycles, alcoholism, violence, procrastination, they can all be broken. Maybe your child won't be the one to do it. Maybe it's meant to be you. Maybe it'll be his child. But an understanding of the tendencies in his family can help him face them within himself without bewilderment and shame.
Also, it can be a relief to a child to know that though the bar may be set high, that it's not insurmountable. It can be a source of comfort to know that perfection is not required for your love. I am reminded of the Back to the Future main character reminiscing about his mother's retelling of her childhood. "I think the woman was born a nun!" That can be a lot for a kid to live up to! When a parent refuses to present himself as anything but perfect, his child might be intimidated at the thought of speaking honestly when he's made a mistake, and that could keep them both from dealing with it before it becomes worse.
Finally, the way a parent handles an imperfection can teach a child a great deal about handling his own mistakes. A parent with a bad temper who honestly and humbly apologizes afterwards can teach a child that it's okay to admit you were wrong. A child can learn the importance of reconciliation, honesty, and humility by watching a parent correct his own mistakes. For an intense, serious child this is even more important, as it shows him how to handle imperfection with calm and dignity. Many children who commit suicide are high achievers who made a relatively unimportant mistake. Be forgiving of yourself for the sake of your child!
A child can learn from an imperfect parent, even one who never owns up to his mistakes. I was reading a list of essays that famous men's sons wrote about their fathers. Some of them wrote things like "My dad taught me how not to treat a woman. I will not call my wife any of the names he called my mother." Children are more observant than you know, and they pick up on emotional cues you may not even know that you're sending. On the other hand, the bond between you is very strong and it is very difficult to turn a child fully against a parent. A simple acknowledgment that you are not a perfect person is not enough to do it.
Children learn from their parents, and the way the parents approach their shortcomings will teach their children some very important life lessons. Everyone has shortcomings. Parents should realize and remember that they need to teach their children how to handle them. Strive, of course, and try your best, but don't hate yourself for your mistakes! God doesn't!
Of course, to a young child you're 'perfect', and boy, you'd better be. You're laying down a foundation that helps the child relate to other people and God in this point of his life. If he claims that you're perfect, there's no need to burden his heart out of a desire to tell the truth. You can point out that no human being is perfect and redirect his attention towards God. But there's no need to fill in the details.
On the other hand, there's no need to hide the details forever. As your child is old enough to understand, it's not a terrible thing to admit your shortcomings in the past and, as your child ages further, in the present as well. There are several good things that will come of this careful but honest introspection.
Your child may be able to avoid your mistakes, especially if he knows of the situation before he is old enough to encounter something similar in his own life. All the vicious cycles, alcoholism, violence, procrastination, they can all be broken. Maybe your child won't be the one to do it. Maybe it's meant to be you. Maybe it'll be his child. But an understanding of the tendencies in his family can help him face them within himself without bewilderment and shame.
Also, it can be a relief to a child to know that though the bar may be set high, that it's not insurmountable. It can be a source of comfort to know that perfection is not required for your love. I am reminded of the Back to the Future main character reminiscing about his mother's retelling of her childhood. "I think the woman was born a nun!" That can be a lot for a kid to live up to! When a parent refuses to present himself as anything but perfect, his child might be intimidated at the thought of speaking honestly when he's made a mistake, and that could keep them both from dealing with it before it becomes worse.
Finally, the way a parent handles an imperfection can teach a child a great deal about handling his own mistakes. A parent with a bad temper who honestly and humbly apologizes afterwards can teach a child that it's okay to admit you were wrong. A child can learn the importance of reconciliation, honesty, and humility by watching a parent correct his own mistakes. For an intense, serious child this is even more important, as it shows him how to handle imperfection with calm and dignity. Many children who commit suicide are high achievers who made a relatively unimportant mistake. Be forgiving of yourself for the sake of your child!
A child can learn from an imperfect parent, even one who never owns up to his mistakes. I was reading a list of essays that famous men's sons wrote about their fathers. Some of them wrote things like "My dad taught me how not to treat a woman. I will not call my wife any of the names he called my mother." Children are more observant than you know, and they pick up on emotional cues you may not even know that you're sending. On the other hand, the bond between you is very strong and it is very difficult to turn a child fully against a parent. A simple acknowledgment that you are not a perfect person is not enough to do it.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Discipline without discipline
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.
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.
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
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, December 3, 2007
Spanking guidelines
I get the feeling that people who decry spanking of any sort for any reason, who talk about things like brutality and unacceptable punishment, really don't appreciate how hard it is to spank correctly. I don't think they understand how carefully calculated and measured it is, how much easier it is to perform much harsher punishments, like name-calling and other emotionally-damaging attacks. So for those who don't understand how to spank for one reason or another, I present my guidelines.
Do not spank in anger or without decisiveness. Never strike any person in anger. You can't help the mother bear slap of fear, especially with a toddler. That's not likely to do them any real damage. But never actually spank a child without a clear idea of why it is necessary and a cool head.
Do not spank for genuine forgetfulness, for absent-mindedness, or for accidents. I reserve spanking for deliberate disobedience. If he throws a toy in the house, I tell him no. If he gets all excited playing and does it again, I may remove the toy for a while. If I say "Do not throw toys" and he responds by looking at me and throwing another, that is call for a spanking.
Make sure he knows ahead of time how many spanks and what they are for. "One spank for disobeying me, and one spank for spitting at me." That reinforces his sense of fairness, understanding exactly what is deserved and why.
I saved the most important for last. Ensure that the spanking wipes out the offense. Once it is finished, it has done the job of restoring him to good graces. Don't reward him afterwards, but do not withhold hugs and let your voice revert to it's pleasant tone. Treat him as if the offense and punishment has not happened at all. If you are raising him as a Christian, you are teaching the most important spiritual truth in this way; total forgiveness and remission of sins.
I hope my little guideline list has helped you understand how I use spanking for punishment. I was one of the lucky kids who learned how to spank from my own parents. My husband derived similar rules from his own experience. It is useful to keep in mind that what your child learns from your spanking habits will affect the way he punishes his own children, your grandchildren. And grandchildren are perfect, aren't they?
Do not spank in anger or without decisiveness. Never strike any person in anger. You can't help the mother bear slap of fear, especially with a toddler. That's not likely to do them any real damage. But never actually spank a child without a clear idea of why it is necessary and a cool head.
Do not spank for genuine forgetfulness, for absent-mindedness, or for accidents. I reserve spanking for deliberate disobedience. If he throws a toy in the house, I tell him no. If he gets all excited playing and does it again, I may remove the toy for a while. If I say "Do not throw toys" and he responds by looking at me and throwing another, that is call for a spanking.
I had a particular challenge with my son in this area. If he got put to bed early for acting thoroughly tired, he would refuse to pee before bed and then wet the bed. Was he doing it deliberately? Much as I hesitate to decide that, it seemed so. However, I do not feel it is right to spank a child for bed-wetting. How did I deal with it? By making it more of a nuisance to him than was worth. A thorough impromptu shower including a hair-wash, thorough change of clothes and bedding, and answering complaints with "You wet the bed, so we have to make everything clean again."Measure the spanking and spanking tool. I favor hand or wood, the hand because you can better gauge how hard the spanking is, and wood because it is lighter and more flexible, stinging without injuring. A wide wooden spoon is good for this, spreading out the impact. Plastic hurts more, and I don't favor it. How do I measure spankings? This is a carefully administered punishment, not a beating opportunity. Just as I used the inside of my wrist to test his bath temperature, I use my own arm or leg to test the spanking before I deliver it. (You don't have to do this every single time. Just enough to get the feel of whatever you're using.)
Make sure he knows ahead of time how many spanks and what they are for. "One spank for disobeying me, and one spank for spitting at me." That reinforces his sense of fairness, understanding exactly what is deserved and why.
I saved the most important for last. Ensure that the spanking wipes out the offense. Once it is finished, it has done the job of restoring him to good graces. Don't reward him afterwards, but do not withhold hugs and let your voice revert to it's pleasant tone. Treat him as if the offense and punishment has not happened at all. If you are raising him as a Christian, you are teaching the most important spiritual truth in this way; total forgiveness and remission of sins.
I hope my little guideline list has helped you understand how I use spanking for punishment. I was one of the lucky kids who learned how to spank from my own parents. My husband derived similar rules from his own experience. It is useful to keep in mind that what your child learns from your spanking habits will affect the way he punishes his own children, your grandchildren. And grandchildren are perfect, aren't they?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)