Gentle Parenting

[anatess2]

43 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

So when the fitness trend rose up it justifies ignoring it because it's a trend?

Yes.  Trends are here today, gone tomorrow (or repackaged to start a new trend) kinda like Jane Fonda's exercise tapes and platform shoes.

 

43 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

And when fitness fades as a trend those who jumped on the bandwagon should then give up?

No.  If you like it, why give it up?  Of course, when you find out the trend you bandwagonned on - like avocados are bad for you -  are actually stupid, then I would hope you'd give it up.  

 

43 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

What does trendy or not have to do with whether being in shape is a good idea or not?

Can we define trend here? Do you mean:

1. a general direction in which something is developing or changing.

or:

2. a fashion.

If you mean 1 then electricity was a trend. So are you suggesting that jumping on the electricity bandwagon was a mistake?

If you mean 2...well...electricity was also a trend, at one point.

Trendy - not designed to stand the test of time.  The problem with trends when applied to families is... families are the foundation of the Eternal Kingdom.  Bad trends (perfect examples would be gay parenting, gender neutrality, transgender kids, etc.) have very long-lasting effects destroying generations of families even after it's proven to be stupid.  The best place to apply conservative principles is through the family.  Building traditions and legacies and being overly skeptical and cautious of newfangled ideas is a better approach.  I am a die-hard fan of building and nourishing The Clan through the generations - something that is proven through all the experiences of my family history to be solid.  Children are not raised by one parent trying to follow some proscribed list of dos and don'ts pulling their hair out trying to match some measuring stick when you got one chance to raise a child correctly.  Rather, children are raised with the knowledge that they belong to a family of traditions and legacies for which their parents are trying their best to uphold as well as contribute their own legacies to the upliftment of the family.  It's an IDENTITY.  So, a parenting article that address parenting as a one parent/one child list of characteristics to follow will always strike me as trendy that will not last through the test of time.  In my family, for example, we have members who have personality flaws like - well, me for example.  It doesn't take down my entire branch of the family because my children belong to a family tradition larger than me.  So, of course, parenting articles like these serve only to make me feel bad for not measuring up.  Just like "beauty magazines making you feel ugly"  that poem talks about.

 

Edited October 10, 2017 by anatess2

[The Folk Prophet]

16 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Yes.  Trends are here today, gone tomorrow (or repackaged to start a new trend) kinda like Jane Fonda's exercise tapes and platform shoes.

We'll have to agree to disagree. If something is good, I don't care if it's a trend or not. If something is bad I don't care if it's a trend or not. Trend or not is irrelevant to me.

16 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

No.  If you like it, why give it up?  Of course, when you find out the trend you bandwagonned on - like avocados are bad for you -  are actually stupid, then I would hope you'd give it up.  

Yeah...like the trend of using timeouts as a punishment? If bad for the child and actually stupid then I agree...give it up.

16 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

The problem with trends when applied to families is... families are the foundation of the Eternal Kingdom.  Bad trends like gay marriage and gender fluidity have very long-lasting effects destroying generations of families even after it's proven to be stupid.  The best place to apply conservative principles is through the family.  Building traditions and legacies and being overly skeptical and cautious of newfangled ideas is a better approach.  I am a die-hard fan of building and nourishing The Clan through the generations - something that is proven through all the experiences of my family history to be solid.  Children are not raised by one parent trying to follow some proscribed list of dos and don't dos pulling their hair out trying to match some measuring stick when you got one chance to raise a child correctly.  Rather, children are raised with the knowledge that they belong to a family of family traditions and legacies for which their parents are trying their best to uphold as well as contribute their own legacies to the upliftment of the family.  So, a parenting article that address parenting as a one parent/one child list of characteristics to follow will always strike me as trendy that will not last through the test of time.

I'm not sure I follow your consternation with addressing the one-on-one parent/child relationship. That is not mutually exclusive to the clan thing? I also don't quite follow how you have a problem with the idea of including measures that have been shown to be useful in helping children develop desirable characteristics such as empathy and respect into your through-the-generations, "Clan", family traditions.

I wish you'd directly address the points of the method rather than writing it off for irrelevant reasons. If there's a problem with any of the proposals I'm game to consider. The I-won't-consider-anything-that-I-interpret-to-be-trendy idea is fine for you. But it doesn't convince me to discard the principles being shared as useless.

For example, which of these is mistaken:

• Have empathy with children. Look at it from their point of view as you consider your interaction with them.
• Show respect for childen
• Understand children and the development level they are at
• Set boundaries -- but make them count
• Don't use extrinsic punishments or rewards to motivate

What is it about these that spoils your clan concept?

Edited October 10, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[anatess2]

46 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Really?

"Where is the scripture that says that Jesus would hit (or spank, or swat, or pop) a child?  I posed that question on one of my posts over two years ago, and I’m still waiting for someone to take me up on it.  Show me the scripture.  Because from where I’m sitting, Jesus loved children, and was never anything but gentle, kind, and welcoming to any child he came in contact with.

Where in my responses did I say spanking or swatting or popping a child is Christlike?  And in any case, just because it is not written  in scripture that Christ did not pop a child doesn't mean it is not Christlike.  Remember, Christ didn't raise his own child in scripture.  

 

46 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

"Being a Christian means lots of things to lots of people, but to me it means to love and follow Christ which translates to love, kindness and respect for ALL people.  And what better place to start than with our own children?"

Love, kindness, respect for ALL people doesn't always mean you give your child 2 options - brush your teeth before or after pajamas.  Love, kindness, respect for ALL people still applies when you tell your child - brush your teeth, then put on pajamas because that's the proper order of things in this family.

 

46 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

"The word ‘discipline’ actually means “to teach”. Think of the stories of Jesus and his disciples (disciples being ‘those being taught’, stemming from the same root word as “discipline”). Would Jesus have been considered such a great teacher if he taught his disciples by yelling at them, sending them to another room, smacking them, ignoring them, shaming them, taking away their beloved items or making them sit on a prescribed spot or step?"

So, if you don't think this "Gentle Parenting" is all that, then you are a proponent of yelling, sending to room, smacking, shaming, etc. etc.?

Christlike means to bring your children closer to Christ.  If the best way for that child's unique personality to come closer to Christ is to send them to another room or put them on time out or even pop them on the bottom, then that's what's Christlike.  Each child responds to discipline/teaching differently.  That's the beauty of Clans.  The parents and children have a vast set of experiences to learn from so they don't fall into the mistake of thinking this article called Gentle Parenting is the bom-diggity and if you're not following it, you're not being Christlike.

This story of Christ upending tables at the temple is always used when it comes to showing that side of Christ that is not one would call "gentle".  The important part of that story, in my opinion, is that part where Christ braided the ropes before he smashed tables with it.  It takes quite some time and patient effort to braid a rope one would use to accomplish one's objective.  So for Christ to have braided the rope first then used it to clear out the temple in a not-so-gentle manner speaks of the manner by which that show of what one would call anger being a very controlled expression.  This principle can be applied in disciplining children especially when you're in a position where you have to clear bad things out of the home temple.

 

Edited October 10, 2017 by anatess2

[The Folk Prophet]

17 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Where in my responses did I say spanking or swatting or popping a child is Christlike?  And in any case, just because it is not written  in scripture that Christ did not pop a child doesn't mean it is not Christlike.  Remember, Christ didn't raise his own child in scripture.  

You said the links did not address being Christ-like. It is interpretation, yes...but they most definitely do address it.

17 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Love, kindness, respect for ALL people doesn't always mean you give your child 2 options - brush your teeth before or after pajamas.  Love, kindness, respect for ALL people still applies when you tell your child - brush your teeth, then put on pajamas because that's the proper order of things in this family.

Why are so many of you incapable of looking past examples (which may be less than ideal) to principles?

17 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

So, if you don't think this "Gentle Parenting" is all that, then you are a proponent of yelling, sending to room, smacking, shaming, etc. etc.?

Well now ain't that a logical fallacy if ever there was one?

I'll try to keep the sarcasm and snideness out of the obvious response.

No. If you are a proponent of timeouts then you are a proponent of timeouts. If you aren't a proponent of timeouts then one of your ideals aligns with a concept being suggested by "gentle parenting".

Obviously.

17 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

If the best way for that child's unique personality to come closer to Christ is to send them to another room or put them on time out or even pop them on the bottom, then that's what's Christlike.

This is the first thing you've said that makes sense to me.

I do believe, however, that there are general characteristics that one can call Christ-like, kindness being one of them. And it would be disingenuous to imply that because Christ once ran people from the temple with a whip that to walk around whipping people you dislike is "Christ-like".

For what it's worth, Gentle Parenting, as I have read up on it, specifically declares that it is NOT a set of rules, but is a set of principles. That's why the examples are only suggestions of a way one might consider applying the principle rather than a rule itself -- not sure why that's hard to understand. The principle is to show respect, for example. If I apply that to another adult, there are times (and cultures) where my respect for another adult dictates that I punch them in the nose. That is rare -- but not outside the realm of possibility. The principle is respect. It is not "don't ever punch someone in the nose".

I don't think this concept is difficult. But apparently, for some, it is.

Edited October 10, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[Traveler]

22 hours ago, Grunt said:

Joint ownership is important.  I don't have a farm.  We have a farm.  We share in the work and share in the rewards.  Each of my young children asked for and accepted elements of the farm that they are personally responsible for.  It's rewarding to see them taking responsibility on their own.  

 

Interesting response – you may like to know that in general kids raised on a farm are much easier to teach river rafting skills than kids raised in cities.  Because of my chosen profession, I ended up living a city life for raising my family.  As a scout master I was stunned with how many parents were willing to send their kids off camping for the first time (without one of their parents) and without even been taught the skill of making their own bed when they get up in the morning.

Something else I thought was interesting – from time to time we would invite a family on church welfare to join our river expeditions  - without any exceptions in my experience such families always did better than the well to do families – often (not always – just often) well to do families expect others to be of service to them and have some difficulties being of service to others.

 

The Traveler

[JohnsonJones]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Really?

"Where is the scripture that says that Jesus would hit (or spank, or swat, or pop) a child?  I posed that question on one of my posts over two years ago, and I’m still waiting for someone to take me up on it.  Show me the scripture.  Because from where I’m sitting, Jesus loved children, and was never anything but gentle, kind, and welcoming to any child he came in contact with.

"Being a Christian means lots of things to lots of people, but to me it means to love and follow Christ which translates to love, kindness and respect for ALL people.  And what better place to start than with our own children?"

"The word ‘discipline’ actually means “to teach”. Think of the stories of Jesus and his disciples (disciples being ‘those being taught’, stemming from the same root word as “discipline”). Would Jesus have been considered such a great teacher if he taught his disciples by yelling at them, sending them to another room, smacking them, ignoring them, shaming them, taking away their beloved items or making them sit on a prescribed spot or step?"

I'm not disagreeing with you, per se, directly, but I think your question is ironic.

Do you believe that he is the same as the Old Testament, that he is the same individual that gave commandments and laws to the Jews?  Do you believe him when he stated he was that individual?

If so, he did FAR worse than say swap, or swat, or pop, a child.  He ordered their massacre (along with their parents) in the Old Testament at times.  Sometimes we forget that he is good, but he can also be very strict.

If you truly believe the words of the Lord, and thus know he was also the Lord of the Old Testament, you KNOW he has called for things very harshly on every living thing in certain cities at some points. 

He's done so directly as well.  When the flood came, do you think he somehow spared all the children...because that's not what the Bible states.  When he destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, do you think he spared all the children...because that's not what the Bible states.  When he killed the firstborn sons in Egypt, do you think he spared those firstborn sons who were under the age of accountability...because that's not what the Bible states.

The Lord is capable of both great love and great chastening, both in the Old and New Testament (though he is more known for the chastening in the Old Testament, we can also see his great love in many places...and though he is known more for love in the New Testament, there are times like the money changers in the temple, or Paul being stricken that we can see chastening).

Edited October 10, 2017 by JohnsonJones

[anatess2]

21 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

We'll have to agree to disagree. If something is good, I don't care if it's a trend or not. If something is bad I don't care if it's a trend or not. Trend or not is irrelevant to me.

Trend is especially used because it's only good today.   You won't find out if it is REALLY good or bad until the trend goes through it's phase.  Those that have stood the test of time cease to be trends.  They become Traditions.

21 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Yeah...like the trend of using timeouts as a punishment? If bad for the child and actually stupid then I agree...give it up.

Time outs are in my family tradition as far back as anyone can remember.  So it's not a trend.  They work for certain personalities.  It doesn't work for others.  Children are not created from cookie-cutters.  My uncles would go into fisticuffs and my grandfather would separate them and put them in separate parts of the house until they are ready to join civilized society so my grandfather wouldn't go caveman on them and punch them both out.  It doesn't work for my oldest son because he is just as happy to defy me in his time-out.  Here's a Jordan Peterson video that explains the psychology of time outs and why it's a part of a parents' arsenal of disciplinary tools.  If you're short on time you can start at minute 5.

 

21 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I'm not sure I follow your consternation with addressing the one-on-one parent/child relationship. That is not mutually exclusive to the clan thing? I also don't quite follow how you have a problem with the idea of including measures that have been shown to be useful in helping children develop desirable characteristics such as empathy and respect into your through-the-generations, "Clan", family traditions.

I wish you'd directly address the points of the method rather than writing it off for irrelevant reasons. If there's a problem with any of the proposals I'm game to consider. The I-won't-consider-anything-that-I-interpret-to-be-trendy idea is fine for you. But it doesn't convince me to discard the principles being shared as useless.

For example, which of these is mistaken:

• Have empathy with children. Look at it from their point of view as you consider your interaction with them.
• Show respect for childen
• Understand children and the development level they are at
• Set boundaries -- but make them count
• Don't use extrinsic punishments or rewards to motivate

What is it about these that spoils your clan concept?

Okay, I think you're completely misunderstanding where I'm coming from.  Those bullet points are not bad in and of themselves.  And those bullet points are not "Gentle Parenting" in and of themselves.  The Gentle in gentle parenting comes from HOW those bullet points are expressed in the rest of the article.  Men are authoritarians, women are empathic.  Young and old are playful, middle adults are serious.  Some adults can teach to the level of the child.  Some adults can't.  Trying to do all of those things as a parent will drive you crazy.  Trying to do all those things in a CLAN tradition is how to raise civilized children.

[anatess2]

20 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

You said the links did not address being Christ-like. It is interpretation, yes...but they most definitely do address it.

Why are so many of you incapable of looking past examples (which may be less than ideal) to principles?

Well now ain't that a logical fallacy if ever there was one?

I'll try to keep the sarcasm and snideness out of the obvious response.

No. If you are a proponent of timeouts then you are a proponent of timeouts. If you aren't a proponent of timeouts then one of your ideals aligns with a concept being suggested by "gentle parenting".

Obviously.

This is the first thing you've said that makes sense to me.

I do believe, however, that there are general characteristics that one can call Christ-like, kindness being one of them. And it would be disingenuous to imply that because Christ once ran people from the temple with a whip that to walk around whipping people you dislike is "Christ-like".

For what it's worth, Gentle Parenting, as I have read up on it, specifically declares that it is NOT a set of rules, but is a set of principles. That's why the examples are only suggestions of a way one might consider applying the principle rather than a rule itself -- not sure why that's hard to understand. The principle is to show respect, for example. If I apply that to another adult, there are times (and cultures) where my respect for another adult dictates that I punch them in the nose. That is rare -- but not outside the realm of possibility. The principle is respect. It is not "don't ever punch someone in the nose".

I don't think this concept is difficult. But apparently, for some, it is.

Okay, I'm not going to respond to a lot of this.  You're not trying to understand what I'm saying.  You're trying to argue for argument's sake.  

Using Respect, for example, and bottle it under "Gentle Parenting" is trendy.  Respect is a tried and true principle that is taught by parents since the time of Adam.  No "Gentle Parenting" necessary.  A parent having children not knowing that they are to Respect their children and not know what Respect looks like fell asleep in their growing up years or are a by-product of bad parents that do not have a clan for them to learn from.

Edited October 10, 2017 by anatess2

[Grunt]

13 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 

Interesting response – you may like to know that in general kids raised on a farm are much easier to teach river rafting skills than kids raised in cities.  Because of my chosen profession, I ended up living a city life for raising my family.  As a scout master I was stunned with how many parents were willing to send their kids off camping for the first time (without one of their parents) and without even been taught the skill of making their own bed when they get up in the morning.

Something else I thought was interesting – from time to time we would invite a family on church welfare to join our river expeditions  - without any exceptions in my experience such families always did better than the well to do families – often (not always – just often) well to do families expect others to be of service to them and have some difficulties being of service to others.

 

The Traveler

Honestly, we moved here because of the children.  We felt it was better for them, and our parenting style, to be in the country.  

[Grunt]

1 minute ago, anatess2 said:

Okay, I'm not going to respond to this.  You're not trying to understand what I'm saying.  You're trying to argue for argument's sake.  

Using Respect, for example, and bottle it under "Gentle Parenting" is trendy.  Respect is a tried and true principle that is taught by parents since the time of Adam.  No "Gentle Parenting" necessary.

This was the conclusion I came to.  The church has already spoken on the issue of parenting.  It didn’t seem to be what was proposed here.  Does that not matter?

[anatess2]

6 minutes ago, Grunt said:

This was the conclusion I came to.  The church has already spoken on the issue of parenting.  It didn’t seem to be what was proposed here.  Does that not matter?

In a sense, all the principles touched in the article are also taught in the Church.  The article puts a spin into it assigning the "Gentle" catch-word to it.  That's where this thing failed, in my opinion.  Asian parents would go, whaaat?, when they hear the phrase "Gentle Parenting".  That's why the article spends a lot of time un-gentling their Gentle Parenting explaining what it's not because the label gentle gives you all these pre-conceived notions.  What can I say... trendy.

[The Folk Prophet]

38 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

I'm not disagreeing with you, per se, directly, but I think your question is ironic.

What question? Did you miss the quote marks? 

[The Folk Prophet]

37 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

And those bullet points are not "Gentle Parenting" in and of themselves.  The Gentle in gentle parenting comes from HOW those bullet points are expressed in the rest of the article.  

I see it differently.

[The Folk Prophet]

37 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Okay, I'm not going to respond to a lot of this.  You're not trying to understand what I'm saying.  You're trying to argue for argument's sake.  

Right. My views are just argumentative. I don't actually believe them. Just trolling. 

[The Folk Prophet]

27 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

In a sense, all the principles touched in the article are also taught in the Church.  The article puts a spin into it assigning the "Gentle" catch-word to it.  That's where this thing failed, in my opinion.  Asian parents would go, whaaat?, when they hear the phrase "Gentle Parenting".  That's why the article spends a lot of time un-gentling their Gentle Parenting explaining what it's not because the label gentle gives you all these pre-conceived notions.  What can I say... trendy.

I agree that the name is unfortunate. 

[Grunt]

32 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

In a sense, all the principles touched in the article are also taught in the Church.  The article puts a spin into it assigning the "Gentle" catch-word to it.  That's where this thing failed, in my opinion.  Asian parents would go, whaaat?, when they hear the phrase "Gentle Parenting".  That's why the article spends a lot of time un-gentling their Gentle Parenting explaining what it's not because the label gentle gives you all these pre-conceived notions.  What can I say... trendy.

The Principles of Parenting has very distinct opposition to some points in the article, in my opinion.  

[anatess2]

6 minutes ago, Grunt said:

The Principles of Parenting has very distinct opposition to some points in the article, in my opinion.  

Yes, I agree.  The "brushing teeth before or after pajamas" was an example that I mentioned.  Obedience should be a principle taught without the need for those kinds of options.  The option is Obey or Disobey.  Consequences follow.

Edited October 10, 2017 by anatess2

[The Folk Prophet]

[Just_A_Guy]

I like the general concepts of empathy, understanding, respect, and boundaries.  I suspect no one wants to be a shouting ogre or a drill seargeant in their relationship with their kids. 

That said, there does seem to be a “THIS kid uber alles” undercurrent to some of this advice that becomes impractical—at least in its application—and particularly as families get larger.  It just isn’t going to be possible to accommodate the child’s every  self-perceived “need” in the family, just as it isn’t possible to accommodate a grown-up’s every self-perceived ”need” in a community; so to some degree you have to pick your priorities and figure out which “needs” will have to wait.  The sleep-training thing, for example.  I’ve handled about half a dozen “broken baby” cases in the past three years.  Most of those (not all, but most) were the result of frazzled, sleep-deprived parents who were ordinarily very loving and conscientious people.  It only takes half a second to hug a baby too tight, hear a “pop”, and suddenly realize you’ve broken eight ribs; and knowing how easily one can slip into that kind of thing—I’m not going to let the “perfect” become the enemy of the “good”.  As for me and my house, we’ll be sleep-training #6 just as we sleep-trained numbers 1-5.  And no, when I have four other kids, my three-year-old doesn’t get to bring the family routine grinding to a halt by occupying a central location in the house and screaming her guts out while I drop whatever I’m doing, hold her, and repeatedly chant “I know . . . I knoooow” until she runs out of gas.  If she isn’t ready to talk to me about why she’s caterwauling I give her a quick hug, tell her I’m sorry she’s sad, and then excuse her to her room until she’s ready to discuss it; and life goes on for the other six members of the family.

With the business about not using rewards or punishments—I generally agree about, whenever you can, making a point of explaining *why* you need something done.  But that needs to be balanced by the fact that very often, your kids couldn’t care less how you feel when you have to pick up their backpack for the umpteenth time (their brains aren’t formed yet, and they can’t conceptialize any reason why you shouldn’t do their chores for them).  And so sometimes you have to say “well, I wanted us to be able to go out and do x, but Daddy’s tired from cleaning the family room all by himself; so maybe we’ll try to do x next Saturday—if I don’t have to clean the family room again”.  If that’s “punishment”—so, sue me.

One other thing I think we probably should bear in mind—and I haven’t thought a lot about this, but it’s good for continuing inquiry—are we sure that the “experts” want us to raise the same sort of kids that we want to be raising?  What does it really mean for a kid to be “confident” or “independent”—does that just mean they’ll be sexually adventurous when they get to college?  That they’ll be so wrapped up in their own selves that they’ll delay, or completely forego, marriage and child-rearing?  That they’ll be quicker to abandon a marriage they don’t view as “fulfilling”?  That they’ll be so obsessed with being “heard”, that they’ll never be able to work in a group or voluntarily subjugate their own interests to that of a greater whole?  That they’ll reject authority and experience, and make a bunch of stupid life decisions?  That they’ll shout down opinions that conflict with their own worldview?  The APA might consider those to be good outcomes in its ongoing quest to pathologize conservatism and religiosity—but I don’t. 

Academic inquiry is always helpful for perspective.  But we aren’t utter nincompoops ourselves here; and I think, if we fearlessly examine our own parenting techniques through the lens of scripture and the godly people the Church brings into our lives, we’ll get a pretty good idea of what aspects of our parenting God wants us to improve.

Edited October 10, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[anatess2]

12 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I like the general concepts of empathy, understanding, respect, and boundaries.  I suspect no one wants to be a shouting ogre or a drill seargeant in their relationship with their kids. 

That said, there does seem to be a “THIS kid uber alles” undercurrent to some of this advice that becomes impractical—at least in its application—and particularly as families get larger.  It just isn’t going to be possible to accommodate the child’s every  self-perceived “need” in the family, just as it isn’t possible to accommodate a grown-up’s every self-perceived ”need” in a community; so to some degree you have to pick your priorities and figure out which “needs” will have to wait.  The sleep-training thing, for example.  I’ve handled about half a dozen “broken baby” cases in the past three years.  Most of those (not all, but most) were the result of frazzled, sleep-deprived parents who were ordinarily very loving and conscientious people.  It only takes half a second to hug a baby too tight, hear a “pop”, and suddenly realize you’ve broken eight ribs; and knowing how easily one can slip into that kind of thing—I’m not going to let the “perfect” become the enemy of the “good”.  As for me and my house, we’ll be sleep-training #6 just as we sleep-trained numbers 1-5.  And no, when I have four other kids, my three-year-old doesn’t get to bring the family routine grinding to a halt by occupying a central location in the house and screaming her guts out while I drop whatever I’m doing, hold her, and repeatedly chant “I know . . . I knoooow” until she runs out of gas.  If she isn’t ready to talk to me about why she’s caterwauling I give her a quick hug, tell her I’m sorry she’s sad, and then excuse her to her room until she’s ready to discuss it; and life goes on for the other six members of the family.

With the business about not using rewards or punishments—I generally agree about, whenever you can, making a point of explaining *why* you need something done.  But that needs to be balanced by the fact that very often, your kids couldn’t care less how you feel when you have to pick up their backpack for the umpteenth time (their brains aren’t formed yet, and they can’t conceptialize any reason why you shouldn’t do their chores for them).  And so sometimes you have to say “well, I wanted us to be able to go out and do x, but Daddy’s tired from cleaning the family room all by himself; so maybe we’ll try to do x next Saturday—if I don’t have to clean the family room again”.  If that’s “punishment”—so, sue me.

One other thing I think we probably should bear in mind—and I haven’t thought a lot about this, but it’s good for continuing inquiry—are we sure that the “experts” want us to raise the same sort of kids that we want to be raising?  What does it really mean for a kid to be “confident” or “independent”—does that just mean they’ll be sexually adventurous when they get to college?  That they’ll be so wrapped up in their own selves that they’ll delay, or completely forego, marriage and child-rearing?  That they’ll be quicker to abandon a marriage they don’t view as “fulfilling”?  That they’ll be so obsessed with being “heard”, that they’ll never be able to work in a group or voluntarily subjugate their own interests to that of a greater whole?  That they’ll reject authority and experience, and make a bunch of stupid life decisions?  That they’ll shout down opinions that conflict with their own worldview?  The APA might consider those to be good outcomes in its ongoing quest to pathologize conservatism and religiosity—but I don’t. 

Academic inquiry is always helpful for perspective.  But we aren’t utter nincompoops ourselves here; and I think, if we fearlessly examine our own parenting techniques through the lens of scripture and the godly people the Church brings into our lives, we’ll get a pretty good idea of what aspects of our parenting God wants us to improve.

You perfectly explained what I meant by Trendy...

Although, man... using so many words to teach a 6 year old to obey or explaining the consequences of disobedience is exhausting.  I mean, sure, when they're 12... but when you're 6 and I tell you to pick up your backpack, it needs just those words.  Pick up your backpack.  Or clean up after you play.  If you have to explain why you're not going to the park because the family room is a mess in so many words, you'll be pulling your hair out debating with a 6 year old.   But that's just me.

Rewards and consequences are natural occurrences of behavior.  You obey to please your mother.  Disobedience begets displeasure.  There was no better consequence to my bad behavior as a little kid than The Look my mom gives me when I displeased her.  I still get the jibbies when my mom gives me that look today.  And I'm a mother of 2 teens now!  There are daily occurrences of uncivilized behavior inside the home whose natural consequences would be too severe for a child outside of the home.  So, you substitute "made up" consequences within the home to teach that behavior without the child having to be exposed to its natural consequence.  Defying authority, for example, would be something you need a "make up" consequence for because the natural consequence for that behavior outside of the home could get your kid killed so you need to teach that principle inside the home through your authority that may involve a made-up consequence.  But things like - if you behave in the car on this 12-hour trip I'll get you a prize at every stop.  That's an unnatural consequence that is unnecessary.  Your reward for behaving in the car is the family unity inside the car.  Your consequence is the discord.  But, that's also just me.

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I like the general concepts of empathy, understanding, respect, and boundaries.  I suspect no one wants to be a shouting ogre or a drill seargeant in their relationship with their kids. 

That said, there does seem to be a “THIS kid uber alles” undercurrent to some of this advice that becomes impractical—at least in its application—and particularly as families get larger.  It just isn’t going to be possible to accommodate the child’s every  self-perceived “need” in the family, just as it isn’t possible to accommodate a grown-up’s every self-perceived ”need” in a community; so to some degree you have to pick your priorities and figure out which “needs” will have to wait.  The sleep-training thing, for example.  I’ve handled about half a dozen “broken baby” cases in the past three years.  Most of those (not all, but most) were the result of frazzled, sleep-deprived parents who were ordinarily very loving and conscientious people.  It only takes half a second to hug a baby too tight, hear a “pop”, and suddenly realize you’ve broken eight ribs; and knowing how easily one can slip into that kind of thing—I’m not going to let the “perfect” become the enemy of the “good”.  As for me and my house, we’ll be sleep-training #6 just as we sleep-trained numbers 1-5.  And no, when I have four other kids, my three-year-old doesn’t get to bring the family routine grinding to a halt by occupying a central location in the house and screaming her guts out while I drop whatever I’m doing, hold her, and repeatedly chant “I know . . . I knoooow” until she runs out of gas.  If she isn’t ready to talk to me about why she’s caterwauling I give her a quick hug, tell her I’m sorry she’s sad, and then excuse her to her room until she’s ready to discuss it; and life goes on for the other six members of the family.

With the business about not using rewards or punishments—I generally agree about, whenever you can, making a point of explaining *why* you need something done.  But that needs to be balanced by the fact that very often, your kids couldn’t care less how you feel when you have to pick up their backpack for the umpteenth time (their brains aren’t formed yet, and they can’t conceptialize any reason why you shouldn’t do their chores for them).  And so sometimes you have to say “well, I wanted us to be able to go out and do x, but Daddy’s tired from cleaning the family room all by himself; so maybe we’ll try to do x next Saturday—if I don’t have to clean the family room again”.  If that’s “punishment”—so, sue me.

One other thing I think we probably should bear in mind—and I haven’t thought a lot about this, but it’s good for continuing inquiry—are we sure that the “experts” want us to raise the same sort of kids that we want to be raising?  What does it really mean for a kid to be “confident” or “independent”—does that just mean they’ll be sexually adventurous when they get to college?  That they’ll be so wrapped up in their own selves that they’ll delay, or completely forego, marriage and child-rearing?  That they’ll be quicker to abandon a marriage they don’t view as “fulfilling”?  That they’ll be so obsessed with being “heard”, that they’ll never be able to work in a group or voluntarily subjugate their own interests to that of a greater whole?  That they’ll reject authority and experience, and make a bunch of stupid life decisions?  That they’ll shout down opinions that conflict with their own worldview?  The APA might consider those to be good outcomes in its ongoing quest to pathologize conservatism and religiosity—but I don’t. 

Academic inquiry is always helpful for perspective.  But we aren’t utter nincompoops ourselves here; and I think, if we fearlessly examine our own parenting techniques through the lens of scripture and the godly people the Church brings into our lives, we’ll get a pretty good idea of what aspects of our parenting God wants us to improve.

I first want to say that I declared the thread dead and so anything you've added is moot by that virtue.

And...as typical, you are a paragon of respectful discourse, which I very much appreciate. I just came from the Utah 100 awards where the keynote speaker's theme was respect. I was, as listening, considering this and my ongoing communication and thinking that I owed @anatess2 and @Grunt an apology for failure to give them as much respect as I should have in my replies. The fact that I felt disrespected by their approach is irrelevant. So apologies there.

As to your reply, JaG, I think the practicality of any given thing is certainly worth consideration. I would guess, upon exploration, that there are answers as to how to handle situations as you present. I have never gotten the idea that the proper response to a child throwing a tantrum is merely to say "I know...I know..." until they get over it. But understanding that the tantrum being throw stems from -- you know -- being a toddler, rather than a choice of rebellion or the like, does alter the core of why I act, if not the how. And that is valuable to me. 

I believe in teaching accountability. Despite the fact that toddler's literally, are not accountable (in the eternal sense), does not mean that they shouldn't be given the foundation of that in their choices. But I do have the sense (at least on my own part) that there is a tendency to clearly understand that an infant isn't being "bad" when they cry, but when they learn to walk and talk we (and by "we" I mean "me" at least) feel that they should be able to reason at a higher level than they are literally capable of, label them bad or misbehaving, and merit out harsh punishment accordingly. What I have learned, I feel, is to rethink this somewhat. And that is of worth.

As to your punishment example, that is actually a prime example of how I would apply the no extrinsic punishment/reward idea. If you don't do this we can't do this instead of an entirely unrelated timeout. The same is true of a screaming child. You are disrupting the room and so you cannot be in here. That is related. You didn't pick up your backpack so you get your nose on the wall is not related. And I think it well worth consideration that this is a long game, not a quick fix method. (Explicitly declared this way).

As for what the experts want...well the idea seems to be that we want to teach by doing. So show empathy by being empathetic, and so forth. So the goals of this, at least, seem to be to create empathetic, respectful, understanding children who understand boundaries. That seems well to me. I do understand the potential problem with how it will create hardworking, obedient people. But -- realistically, I expect that if I'm hard working and obedient then we'll probably get there in the end. (And even though I presented the fact that the ideas of "gentle parenting" appeals to me does not mean I am, at heart, anything but an authoritarian, despite what some seem to be assuming (without really knowing me -- but, really -- read some of my other posts folks). And I plan on having structure in my home. That doesn't mean that there is no value in a system that is based on LOTS of studies. I mean the amount of studies done in child development....well...it is not insignificant.

When push comes to shove, where I really stand is that it doesn't much matter. I was raised under an authoritarian structure. Do it or die was the basic idea. I was spanked (we still joke about the wooden spoon), put on time out, yelled at, grounded, etc. My wife was raised under what might be viewed as pre-gentle-parenting parenting. Her father was the head of child development at a University and so he was aware of some of these ideas about how children think, response, understand, etc., and applied it to his parenting. The end result (not as evidence, per se...because...agency) was two strong gospel centered families. (This, by the way, is a direct refutation of the idea that these concepts are trendy. They have been around for a very long time, and child development experts (real experts...not Hollywood celebrity types) have long understood them.)

But the fact that I believe parenting style won't make or break things doesn't mean that I consider it wise to blow off any given theory just because it's named in a trendy manner, or because one's family has been just fine doing it the way it's been done.

Incidentally, for what it's worth, both my and my wife's extended families have some seriously messed up situations therein. Not sure what to make of that...but in those instances, the clan failed. I have thought long and hard about why. I do not know for sure, but I do suspect that some traditional parenting ideas may well play into the matter. I"d suspect agency alone, but the trends indicate otherwise. It's not a cousin here or there. It's like 4 out of 6 cousins in this one family and 4 out of 7 in this other and 3 out of 3 in another, and the like.

Anyhow, I appreciate your input.

Edited October 10, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

14 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Yes, it has.  Just because you didn't have great parents doesn't mean the template for good parenting does not exist nor been applied.  The Proclamation of the Family is just another one of those reminders that reinforces that template that is in existence from the beginning of time. 

I think you missed my point.  I'm not the only one who experienced less than ideal parenting.  I know many people who also have.  The family as described in the Proclamation of the Family is basically on the "endangered list", I mean it is less common these days.  

I don't think that the Gentle Parenting is "trendy" at all.  To me there is nothing wrong with people trying to learn a better way to parent and sharing those ideas with others.  People have also been doing that --trying new ideas and sharing them-- since the beginning of time.  

[NightSG]

On 10/7/2017 at 7:25 PM, Traveler said:

what children learn will be more what parents do and how parents behave than what parents may be thinking they are teaching – especially by lecture or force.

This: especially at 41, I find myself often doing more of what I saw my parents and grandparents do than what they told me to do.  Actions speak much louder than words.

[anatess2]

9 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

I think you missed my point.  I'm not the only one who experienced less than ideal parenting.  I know many people who also have.  The family as described in the Proclamation of the Family is basically on the "endangered list", I mean it is less common these days.  

I don't think that the Gentle Parenting is "trendy" at all.  To me there is nothing wrong with people trying to learn a better way to parent and sharing those ideas with others.  People have also been doing that --trying new ideas and sharing them-- since the beginning of time.  

As JAG has eloquently pointed out, when you're needing to try new ideas when there's "the template" available, you're risking a generation of experiments.  And the results of that experiment are not going to be felt until generations later.  So, we might think, Oh look - my kids grew up much better than I have.  Then we look at society and realize - wait a minute... is this really what we wanted?  But then we're all dead so it's not "our problem".  It would be for the next generations to "fix", so they end up trying out "new ideas".

[anatess2]

18 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

And...as typical, you are a paragon of respectful discourse, which I very much appreciate. I just came from the Utah 100 awards where the keynote speaker's theme was respect. I was, as listening, considering this and my ongoing communication and thinking that I owed @anatess2 and @Grunt an apology for failure to give them as much respect as I should have in my replies. The fact that I felt disrespected by their approach is irrelevant. So apologies there.

No apologies necessary here.  I never thought you were disrespectful.

 

18 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

When push comes to shove, where I really stand is that it doesn't much matter. I was raised under an authoritarian structure. Do it or die was the basic idea. I was spanked (we still joke about the wooden spoon), put on time out, yelled at, grounded, etc. My wife was raised under what might be viewed as pre-gentle-parenting parenting. Her father was the head of child development at a University and so he was aware of some of these ideas about how children think, response, understand, etc., and applied it to his parenting. The end result (not as evidence, per se...because...agency) was two strong gospel centered families. (This, by the way, is a direct refutation of the idea that these concepts are trendy. They have been around for a very long time, and child development experts (real experts...not Hollywood celebrity types) have long understood them.)

There ya go.  I think you're finally understanding what I'm saying.  You thought because I called "Gentle Parenting" trendy that I was calling Respect, Compassion, Understanding, etc. etc. trendy.  No.  Those are bedrock principles that came from gospel centered teaching.  So there's your template - gospel-centered.  The "methods" of the matter is what's trendy.  People think if you smack the kid across the face when he mouths off that will teach them Respect.  Then people started thinking... hmm... that's not really a good thing (even though kids did learn to Respect with that method), we should do X instead (because kids did learn Respect with this method too) when what both of them are missing is that Respect is taught through TRADITION and IDENTITY - "Our family Respects people".  Kids grow up Respecting people because they have all these people the kid trusts showing Respect to each other teaching them what Respect looks like.  Hence, The Clan.

So, in summary.  Family History is not only the gathering of dead people.  Family History is also important in the gathering of the ones alive.  Pulling the family together into Christian Living as a Family Identity that is passed down from generation to generation to generation is how you raise children with Christian values no matter what the trendy parenting methods parents try to promote in their generation.