Originally Posted by Shami
I don't mean to toot my own horn, but I wouldn't classify myself as a selfish person. I am reasonably generous and like to do things for others. However, I was raised like this: As long as I did what was asked of me and followed the rules, I got privileges. If I misbehaved I got grounded or things taken away for a period of time. This didn't make me selfish as a previous poster said. And I never wondered how the punishment fit the crime, so to speak.
After all, I do good because it makes me feel good. I am honest because it makes me feel good. I don't want to have a guilty conscience, therefore I do my best to avoid doing wrong things.
Thanks to all of you for the input. It is helping me to formulate my thoughts a little.
if you do good things simply because you liked to help other people that would be unselfish. if you don't do bad things simply because your actions would hurt other people that would be unselfish.
doing bad or doing good based on how it makes you
feel is "selfish".
it was really hard for me to get my head around when i first started thinking about it...
there are many things i do because i want people to like me (or to be socially acceptable) and many things i don't do because i don't want rejection. it takes a lot of self awareness and letting go to interact with people outside of those ingrained motivations.
when i've been around someone who is honest because being honest is simply respectful to the other person or someone who is a giver out of pure abundance of spirit (not keeping track or using their giving to guarantee some kind of loyalty) it is a very freeing and wonderful energy! (dang! that sound all hippie like.
i guess i aspire to be like that to with my lo. and i want him to grow up to be that sort of really clear, kind, genuine person.
Originally Posted by North_Of_60
Threads like this always intrigue me, because I really cannot fathom spending so much time concentrating on how I phrase
things. Just the back forth subtleties of how to word a simple sentence, that, in grand scheme of things, is going to achieve the same effect. It really resembles egg-shell parenting, where you get so paranoid that every little thing is going to be damaging to our children. I don't think we're giving them enough credit for being the resilient, critical thinkers that they are.
But, I'm openly a coercive, manipulative parent. And I'm fine with that.
Originally Posted by North_Of_60
Feel free to quote me
or refer to my post when you refer to something I said. My point was simply that I don't feel bad about my parenting, and I don't want those who are reading (er, lurking) to feel bad either.
For some people, spending a lot of time on wording and phrasing doesn't come easily or naturally, and being "false" in their interactions with their children can be just as detrimental as being unintentionally manipulative because something wasn't phrased quite right
. Conversations like this make me feel bad for the parents who come down heavy on themselves for simple wording when, in the grand scheme of things, they are otherwise great parents. The persecution complexes I've seen over parents who came on here upset that they said *gasp* the word "no" is sad!
are you really "intrigued" or a you just busting on those of us who are interested in the semantics of discipline?
I don't think it's "egg shell parenting" at all. i'm not paranoid about saying the wrong thing to my kid. i'm sure i'll manipulate and coerce and do and say many things that aren't 100% conscious and aware. do i think my kid is going to be damaged?- um, no.
i don't think that we are talking about never saying the word "no". i do think we are talking about saying "no" in a way that shames, punishes, and is disrespectful to boundaries of both parents and children.
i think it's good to push oneself to be more aware about the subtlety of language and phrasing, especially the language we use with our children. to me this is just a really interesting discussion about how people relate to each other.
Originally Posted by DevaMajka
I don't know that kids necessarily benefit from someone setting limits, per se. But I think they do benefit from *knowing* what the limits are, if that makes sense.
I see manipulation as using a sneaky way of getting things your way, or using some "false" emotional plea ("it makes me so sad when you don't eat your veggies"), or withholding something that the other person wants/needs in order to get your way.
I don't see straight up insisting as being manipulative, though. Coercive, perhaps. (Not that that's a bad thing. It just is.)
I also think that "false" choices tend to be manipulative. When you give the child a "choice" between something that you want done, and something that is unpleasant for the child and that you REALLY don't want the child to choose. So, "Pick up your toys or sit in time out." That's not really a choice, even though it's offered up as one. The parent isn't going to be happy if the child "chooses" a time out over picking up toys.
Where I'm confused is in situations where I offer a choice, and either choice by ds is perfectly fine with me. Like..."Put on your helmet and you can ride your bike, or you can leave your helmet off and NOT ride your bike."
Is that manipulative? Maybe I guess. But I don't care which he chooses. Either way is a-ok with me. I'm not trying to offer one unpleasant choice in order to make the one I want appear to be a good choice. Does that make sense? hmmm...
right on- to the first part that is bolded.
with wearing a helmet and bike riding there is no choice.
being manipulative would be implying that there was a choice.
i would say "if you are riding your bike you have to wear your helmet. it is the rule in or family. it is for safety and it is non negotiable. if you don't wear you helmet you are not allowed to ride your bike." straight up. end of discussion. we all know that he *could* ride the bike, it will still work, but in our family our rule about bikes is that we don't ride them without a helmet. same goes with carseats and seatbelts. we don't ride without buckling up.
it is my responsibility to keep my child safe. it is not "my whim" or "my need". it's for the child's protection. i fulfill my duty and set the boundary and then i can engage my child to participate in the rule by offering him a choice of what kind of helmet he would like to wear.