or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

What's TCS? - Page 12

post #221 of 233
Quote:
First I want to say it was very brave of you to say this in this forum and I hope that the other readers can take this with a grain of salt and know that it is not us per-se that you are referring to as "unhealthy" but that groups of people who embrace radical ideas (many of whom are very healthy and rational) do tend to attract those who do not.
Yes, that's why I was very clear about the issue isn't the philosophy or the organization.

I wrote a blog post a long time ago about this dynamic in attachment parenting. I don't think any aspect of AP is unhealthy or permissive. I do think the tools of AP are a place where permissiveness or unhealthyness can manifest.
post #222 of 233
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyHSer
(pretty new to this forum but not discipline discusssions).

TCS/NCP is a parenting theory.

It's one I researched and rejected. I don't agree with the premise or the implementation.

The TCS online community is related to, but sepearate from, the theory. I have found them odd at best and creepy at moments.

It's my experience with watching any radical fringe group that they have a higher percentage of unhealthy people. It's true with PETA, for example. Or radical pro-life groups. Or homeschoolers. Or LLL members. Or attachment parenting. The more extreme/counter-cultural the philosophy, the more less than centered people are attracted to it. That doesn't mean the idea, thought or central thought is wrong, but that there will be a significant percentage of people who are not healthy embracing counter cultural ideas. That can be dangerous. I saw that in my experience with the online TCS community when I was considering it as a lifestyle and parenting paradigm.

So, is "mainstream" healthy? Our culture of coercion is healthy? Conventional is healthy? Sheeple is healthy? I guess it depends on what one values. Mainstream, conventional, sheeple don't value thinking for themselves, in my experience. And I don't think that is too healthy, imo. Unless one wants them to do what they are told to do.

Pat, very radical fringe, thankyouverymuch.

P.S. TCS/NCP ain't just a theory in our home. (And TCS is an *educational* theory, not a parenting theory) It is a way of living consensually with other humans, even young and inexperienced ones.
post #223 of 233
Quote:
So, is "mainstream" healthy? Our culture of coercion is healthy? Conventional is healthy? Sheeple is healthy? I guess it depends on what one values. Mainstream, conventional, sheeple don't value thinking for themselves, in my experience. And I don't think that is too healthy, imo. Unless one wants them to do what they are told to do.
Pat, my post was exceedingly clear. It said nothing about mainstream being healthy, better, desirable. There is nothing in my post that suggests being a sheeple as a good choice.
post #224 of 233
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyHSer
Yes, that's why I was very clear about the issue isn't the philosophy or the organization.

I wrote a blog post a long time ago about this dynamic in attachment parenting. I don't think any aspect of AP is unhealthy or permissive. I do think the tools of AP are a place where permissiveness or unhealthyness can manifest.
"Permissiveness" is a concept in the context of authoritarian relationships. Just as my husband isn't "permissive" if I do xyz, neither are parents "permissive" if their child does xyz. The construct of "allowing" doesn't exist in TCS. It is a relationship dynamic based upon equal dignity and autonomy. Not one of a superior *authority* permitting anything.

Pat
post #225 of 233
Quote:
Originally Posted by scubamama
"Permissiveness" is a concept in the context of authoritarian relationships. Just as my husband isn't "permissive" if I do xyz, neither are parents "permissive" if their child does xyz. The construct of "allowing" doesn't exist in TCS. It is a relationship dynamic based upon equal dignity and autonomy. Not one of a superior *authority* permitting anything.

Pat
Which is why you are more likely to find TCS'ers within an AP philosophy than in a mainstream parenting group.
Pretty much what Happy is saying.
Good example.
post #226 of 233
Quote:
"Permissiveness" is a concept in the context of authoritarian relationships. Just as my husband isn't "permissive" if I do xyz, neither are parents "permissive" if their child does xyz. The construct of "allowing" doesn't exist in TCS. It is a relationship dynamic based upon equal dignity and autonomy. Not one of a superior *authority* permitting anything.
I'm completely familiar with TCS theory and rhetoric. I didn't call TCS permissive. I wouldn't, if only because I don't want to have that discussion.

However, seeing as I do believe in an authority structure in parenting and excluding TCS/NCP, I do see a higher level of permissivenss in AP circles, both online and in person. *Permissiveness*, however wasn't my point.

My point is that the more extreme the philosophy, the higher percentage of people in it that are not healthy. That's true in the counter cultural groups I'm a card carrying member of. It's an observation.
post #227 of 233
:

I also believe that parents need to be the authority figures. Not authoritarian, but authoritative. By reneging on this responsibility, I will go ahead and say that I think TCS is "permissive". Just because this permissiveness is done deliberately and ideologically doesn't mean it is anything less.

Sorry to be so harsh, but after reading countless threads about TCS, I really think people need to speak up against it. I find it to be a dangerous idea, and not just in the you-will-get-hit-by-a-truck sense, but I think it encourages the wrong sorts of things in a child. And rationality isn't one of them. By pretending that young children can be rational, I think an entirely different lesson is being meted out.

Infants, toddlers, and young children are potentially rational, but I don't think you're truly rational til adulthood, and even then it's questionable. Sorry, my dissertation is about how we are ultimately all irrational underneath the rational facade. I am in philosophy, and in this field rationality is fast becoming a code word for those whose ideology is controlling, moralistic, and ego-centered. No one can agree on what is rational, so for someone to call themselves that or others, that is just another way of saying that they are "good" and "just" where everyone else is "bad" and irrational.

But that's getting technical. Young children are motivated by an entirely different set of issues than one of rationality. I don't think it respects the child to ascribe that to him or her, and to have expectations that just does not fit.




Stepping off.
post #228 of 233
Hmmmm......and it was also said,

yeah:

I also believe men to be the authority figures. Not authoritarian, but authoritative. By reneging on this responsibility, I will go ahead and say that I think men are "permissive". Just because this permissiveness is done deliberately and ideologically doesn't mean it is anything less.

Sorry to be so harsh, but after reading countless threads about women being rational, I really think people need to speak up against it. I find it to be a dangerous idea, and not just in the you-will-get-hit-by-a-truck sense, but I think it encourages the wrong sorts of things in a woman. And rationality isn't one of them. By pretending that women can be rational, I think an entirely different lesson is being meted out.

Infants, toddlers, and young children, women are potentially rational, but I don't think you're truly rational unless you are a man, and even then it's questionable. Sorry, my dissertation is about how we are ultimately all irrational underneath the rational facade. I am in philosophy, and in this field rationality is fast becoming a code word for those whose ideology is controlling, moralistic, and ego-centered. No one can agree on what is rational, so for someone to call themselves that or others, that is just another way of saying that they are "good" and "just" where everyone else is "bad" and irrational.

But that's getting technical. Women are motivated by an entirely different set of issues than one of rationality. I don't think it respects a woman to ascribe that to her, and to have expectations that just does not fit.




Stepping off

Yep, authoritarian ideology sounds the same no matter who says it. But then who says what is or isn't rational? If you disagree with another's "motivations", they must be 'irrational'? Or just "because I said so"? Another time honored authoritarian reasoning......
post #229 of 233
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyHSer
I'm completely familiar with TCS theory and rhetoric. I didn't call TCS permissive. I wouldn't, if only because I don't want to have that discussion.

However, seeing as I do believe in an authority structure in parenting and excluding TCS/NCP, I do see a higher level of permissivenss in AP circles, both online and in person. *Permissiveness*, however wasn't my point.

My point is that the more extreme the philosophy, the higher percentage of people in it that are not healthy. That's true in the counter cultural groups I'm a card carrying member of. It's an observation.
HappyHSer, I would agree, to an extent, but I would also argue that the more radical members are also usually much more visible, as they are more involved, passionate, etc. So the percentage of non-radicals could be very, very high, but the ones who are really LIVING for the cause, as opposed to just being interested/involved, skew the perception. Or not?

I could see how TCS could get dangerous, or at least unhealthy, as in the example of Hunsberger's being negated or blamed on an authoritarian family. But I'm not sure I understand how assuming children are rational could be dangerous. Could you elaborate, Mommay?
post #230 of 233
Quote:
HappyHSer, I would agree, to an extent, but I would also argue that the more radical members are also usually much more visible, as they are more involved, passionate, etc. So the percentage of non-radicals could be very, very high, but the ones who are really LIVING for the cause, as opposed to just being interested/involved, skew the perception. Or not?
Yes, I can agree with that.
post #231 of 233
Men and women are both fully grown adults responsible for theirselves. It is a humongous stretch of the imagination to equate the relationship between two adults with the relationship between an adult and their child.
I know that there are a few who have made that leap. But the metaphor just has no meaning for those of us who havent.
joline
post #232 of 233
Quote:
Men and women are both fully grown adults responsible for theirselves. It is a humongous stretch of the imagination to equate the relationship between two adults with the relationship between an adult and their child.
I know that there are a few who have made that leap. But the metaphor just has no meaning for those of us who havent.
Yes. It's the same reason the "real world" arguement against GD (or homeschooling, for that matter) hold no merit for me.

The parent/child relationship is unique and analogies made that compare it to adult interaction are therefore limited in usefulness to me.
post #233 of 233
Scubamam, Huh? I think I understood you to be saying that I was being authoritarian, but without the extensive quotes, can you explain how I was being authoritarian? I'm not trying to be cheeky. I need the men thing and women thing explained.

Obviously, I don't agree with TCS and I stated my opinions without blunting it, which maybe was rude. But does that make me authoritarian? I don't consider opinions authoritarian. Only when it's used to control or limit the free will of others do I find it authoritarian. But I don't expect TCS'ers to speak only when they agree with me, just as I am free to voice my opinion even when it doesn't agree with TCS. So again, am I being authoritarian or am I just disagreeing with TCS?

Nietzsche once talked about the "tyranny of the weak". A phenomenon in which some group is so fanatically opposed to a show of assertiveness that forced "tameness", a dull equality, and total submissiveness prevails. But to whom would everyone submit? Nietzsche thought this phenomena was motivated by a fear of our natural powers, and brought on by a society gone too far in the way of artifice. I usually don't defend Nietzsche, but was reminded of him.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Gentle Discipline