TCS Discussion Threads - Archived - Page 15 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
Old 12-27-2001, 12:24 AM
 
Netty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 96
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
"Just Wondering" wrote (in a thread entitled "Ways to Answer a question -- NOT!"):

****I suggest that you subscribe to their list[the TCS list]. It is interesting, and will give you a far better idea of the practicalities of TCS, and what people think. And you will find that despite their ideas, many parents of TCS have problems distressingly familiar to AP parents. And sometimes, TCS doesn't work for them either.****

Of course TCS parents have problems just like other parents. We simply have a different way of *approaching* problems or *defining* problems than non-TCS parents. TCS is an educational theory, it is not a parenting method that "works" or "doesn't work." It's quite easy to find solutions that "work" to get the child to do what the parent wants. Just force them to. The child won't get in the bath? Well, simply putting them in and scrubbing them clean will "work," but it won't "work" in the sense of avoiding coercion, will it? If having a solution "work" were all that mattered, there would be little need for debate. But TCS parents object to all forms of coercion and strive to avoid it whenever possible. So TCS parents might look at the problem differently to begin with. Why does my child not want a bath? Is a bath really that important right now? What theories am I acting on that may be entrenched or illogical? and so on....That is the only difference, it seems to me, between TCS and non-TCS parents. If we are to say that TCS "works," it does so in the sense that all involved parties (parents *and* children) are happy with the solutions to problems. I just don't understand why anyone would be against that. Can you clarify why you are?

Netty
Netty is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 12-27-2001, 12:24 AM
 
Jish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: in a constant state of chaos
Posts: 5,233
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Truth has never been something that was a goal in my life (please don't read this that lying is okay, we are all talking about a greater 'truth' here.) The important things in my life are things such as raising my children to be loving, caring, respectful (the list is not all inclusive )people. I strive to be a good wife and partner to my husband. I want to make a positive difference in the lives of those I meet. I want to make the world a better place than it was when I arrived.

My upbringing wasn't so bad, even though my parents had issues of their own that often affected my brother and I. I personally feel that our parents and our grandparents often get a bum rap when it comes to our opinion of their child rearing. Most of us turned our to be loving, caring people, otherwise their wouldn't be so much passion on these boards.

Larsy, please feel free to continue your search for the truth. I however am going to enjoy each day as it comes and do my best to raise my children to be wonderful adults. My truth comes from a higher power.
Jish is offline  
Old 12-27-2001, 12:43 AM
 
Jish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: in a constant state of chaos
Posts: 5,233
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Just a note,

As for the cross issue. Catholics wear a crucifix, I should know, I'm wearing mine now.

Thanks again JW for a great post.

I can't imagine living without the reward of an afterlife in heaven, and without God to guide me in everything including parenting.
Jish is offline  
Old 12-27-2001, 12:51 AM - Thread Starter
 
larsy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 236
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Scrutiny of a poster's style or the way they use language or their attributes is what meta-discussion is. It scrutinizes everything except the actual issue under discussion.

Suppose Netty's passage read like this:

"Some parents, however, *do* think--under certain circumstances-- that their ideas have more validity than their children's and that their needs and desires supersede their children's needs and desires. This is where some parenting methods differ. Where some parents would *justify* coercion, other parents would seek a common preference. When the first type of parent coerces hir child, s/he assumes that s/he had no other choice and that it was for the child's own good. When the second type parent coerces hir child, s/he apologizes and admits hir failure at finding/creating a better solution. S/he doesn't beat hirself up about it, but s/he strives to ensure that s/he will not have to coerce hir child the next time a similar situation comes up. She learns from hir experience and strives to do better. Where the first type of parent *rationalizes* coercion, the second type parent uses rationality to seek better solutions. "

Is there any truth at all in this passage?
larsy is offline  
Old 12-27-2001, 01:01 AM
 
Netty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 96
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
***Do you understand why the tone of your post might be offensive? Implying that any parent who is not a TCS parent is "a coercive parent," ****

I'm sorry if my tone is offensive. I certainly don't mean to offend anyone. If someone is a non-coercive parent (excepting neglectful, of course), then s/he *is* a TCS parent, in my opinion, even if s/he has never heard of TCS (just as someone who paints like Picasso would be considered a cubist even if s/he had never heard of that term). I have no argument with parents who strive to avoid coercion. I am arguing with those who claim that sometimes they *have* to coerce their children and that it is *good* for the children to be coerced sometimes (such as being forced into a carseat, having a diaper changed against hir will, or physically moved against hir will, etc.).

****implying that those "coercive" parents have to "justify" and "rationalize" instead of coming up with better solutions--- do you see how judgmental that sounds? ****

Again, I'm sorry if this seems offensive. Of course, I *am* judging those who use coercion. I think it's wrong and I am explaining my reasons for thinking so. On these discussion boards, some parents have been advocating and justifying coercion. I think coercion can be avoided and I'd like to help those who would like to avoid coercing their children. And I'm willing to answer questions and challenges from people who either object to TCS theory or seek further clarification.

****This is why I likened these discussions to religious debate, because it just sounds so self-righteous to me.****

I'd be lying if I said that I didn't think I was right. I'm defending a theory that I strongly believe to be the best parenting theory I've encountered. I'm trying not to meta-discuss or skirt the issues or personally attack anyone here. I think that some people read that as being "self-righteous" or "arrogant" and I wish that weren't so. I have admitted, and will always admit, to being fallible. And I hold my theories open to criticism and strive to respond to any questions being asked of me or about the theory I advocate. I believe that children have rights equal to those of all human beings (personal autonomy). I realize that many others say that they believe this too. But then they also say that it is okay to coerce children under certain circumstances. This seems to be a contradiction to me. But TCS theory is nothing like a religion. We don't ask you to simply "have faith" that what we say is true. We welcome criticism and strive to learn from it. I'm not saying that others here do not do the same and I don't think I've accused anyone of that. I'm just answering questions to the best of my ability. I'm sincerely sorry if that seems offensive.

Netty
Netty is offline  
Old 12-27-2001, 01:14 AM
 
Pallas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Humidity Capital of the Known World
Posts: 571
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
when you catagorise people as either TCS or non-TCS. and infer by that that non-TCS parents are therefore some illogical inferior ignorant species.
What's the difference between this and referring to people as AP, CC, mainstream, non-AP, DP (Detachment Parenting, an unfortunate phrase that was being used for a mercifully short while)?

Just because you infer it doesn't mean someone else implied it.
Pallas is offline  
Old 12-27-2001, 01:17 AM
 
Jish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: in a constant state of chaos
Posts: 5,233
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I'm not JW, but may I give my opinion? I simply don't feel that my 'entrenched' ideas are all necessarily bad, or that coersion is always a horrible thing. I also don't feel that it is necessary for us all to be happy all of the time. There are many valuable lessons to be learned through unhappiness and suffering. It is simply not possible to be happy all of the time, and if you (not you personally) are, you are wired wrong. We will all encounter times of sadness, anger, frustration, etc. I want my children to live in the real world that sometimes includes happiness, negotiation, and cooperation. I also want them to know that there are times when life is not fair, that sometimes even their friends will hurt their feelings and make them sad, that they need to be respectful to those around them, especially adults.

I want them to know that I always love them, but part of that love means that there will be times that they won't like me for the decisions that I make concerning them and the family as a whole. I want them to put the wants, needs and feelings of others above their own. My children are a wonderful gift given by God and it is my job to raise them in my faith. My sons were both baptized in their first weeks of life and I take the responsibility of raising my children in the Catholic faith very seriously. I am responsible not only for their bodies, but for their souls. I believe in things like the Ten Commandments, and the Golden Rule. I have a hard time combining the theory of TCS with my Catholic faith.

I would love to go back to the days when children addressed adults as Mr. and Mrs., to the days when children respected their parents simply because they were their parents. IMO there is such a lack of respect in our (my) country today, not just between children and adults, but between adults also. I see encouraging children to negotiate every tiny issue as a way to perpetuate this lack of respect to the next generation, not as a way to correct it. I know you won't agree with this and that is fine. Just wait, the pendulum will swing back in the other direction again some day soon.

I do take my children seriously. Their wants and needs are my number one priority, just like yours are for you. Please don't forget that, and please don't belittle, criticize, or roll your eyes when I give my opinions. They are, after all, just as important as yours (again, not personal,) not more and not less.
Jish is offline  
Old 12-27-2001, 01:23 AM
 
Netty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 96
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I'm sorry. I was not referring to any particular thread when I posted the bath scenario as an example of coercion that "works". I was simply offering it as an example. I don't think I've read the post you refer to.

****We are not against non-coercion in most things. ****

"Most things"? My point is that TCS parents are against coercion in *all* things. Non-tcs parents are not. Isn't that a fair statement? Why is it that you justify coercion on one hand but claim to be against coercion on the other? Of course we all make mistakes. I'm not claiming--nor ever have--that TCS parents never coerce their children or themselves. I am not arguing against parents who say something like, "I can't seem to find a way to avoid coercing my child in X situation. Any suggestions?" I'm arguing against parents who advocate coercion as a good or inevitable solution to problems.

****The scenarios you put up, are, in general, ludicrous to ap and cc parents. ****

I'd need more specific examples to comment on this.


Netty
Netty is offline  
Old 12-27-2001, 01:26 AM - Thread Starter
 
larsy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 236
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
have you seen Gentle Spirit Magazine? http://www.gentlespirit.com/index2x.htm
larsy is offline  
Old 12-27-2001, 01:39 AM
 
Daisy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: AZ
Posts: 61
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
How is this thread related to Gentle Discipline? This is why I said maybe there was a more appropriate place for these discussions of philosophy and general lifestyle. *I did not say these discussions shouldn't take place, just that there may be a more appropriate place to do so.*
Daisy is offline  
Old 12-27-2001, 01:42 AM
 
Daisy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: AZ
Posts: 61
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Also true.
Daisy is offline  
Old 12-27-2001, 01:55 AM
 
Daisy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: AZ
Posts: 61
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I went to that website but most of it was inaccessible to me because I don't have a subscription to the magazine. What specifically did you want to share from that website?
Daisy is offline  
Old 12-27-2001, 02:01 AM
 
Netty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 96
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I'm not sure, but this URL might get you to the NCP-parenting folder at the GentleSpirit magazine's forum:

http://www.gentlespirit.com/cgi-bin/...orum=Protected

If not, go to the main page, click on "forum" and then scroll down to the folder entitled "NCP Parenting." As a Christian, you might find the discussion there--and in other folders--interesting and supportive of the Christian veiwpoint with respect to TCS/NCP parenting.

Netty
Netty is offline  
Old 12-27-2001, 02:05 AM
 
Daisy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: AZ
Posts: 61
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I'm Pagan, so I guess you meant that link to be for someone specific?
Daisy is offline  
Old 12-27-2001, 02:16 AM
 
k'smami's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: New England
Posts: 180
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
First of all, I apologize if what I'm about to discuss has already been said in previous posts but since I have a lot of catching up to do, I'll be just posting as I read the responses from when I last left the debate. (It's been a busy week for me and since I only really have the time to be on the computer at work, the holidays put a damper on my posting.)

Quote:
Originally posted by Just Wondering

Dear Larsy,

You make a statement

If babies were quite rational from birth, then they would be able to work out that when mother disappears from sight temporarily, she hasn't abandonned them for ever. But babies are not rational from birth, for the simple reason that as you say, they have not had the experience to analyse the daily workings around them and what is the normal order of things.
I looked up rational in the dictionary (American Heritage- third edition) and found this:

1. Having or excercising the ability to reason
2. Of sound mind; sane
3. Consistent with or based on reason.

Which led me to reason:

1. The basis or motive for an action, decision, or conviction
2. An underlying fact or cause that provides logical sense for a premise or occurence.
3. The capacity for logical, rational and analytic thought
4. A normal mental state; sanity

Given these definitions I would argue that babies are indeed rational. Because I think that 1. They have the ability to reason once given information (with young infants information=experience imo- meaning that a baby once having had the experience that mother always comes back will be able to work out that the mother has not abandoned them forever.) 2. I believe they are consistent with or based on reason. (IMO babies cry or whatever for a reason i.e. they are cold, wet, tired overstimulated etc..., their distress is rational.)

Quote:
Reading your comments on coerciveneess is not flattering to the average person, is it? From your perspective, all adults seem to appear to be coercive, and to have caused children a lot of problems.
Is this what is so offensive? Is this what has been eluding me? (And I'm not being facetious, I'm totally serious.) If this is the case I would have to ask at what point are people required to apologize for their beleifs? For example, there are people who find the concept of Hell offensive but don't take offense when someone answers a religious question based on their belief (and their assertion of it as fact) that there is a Hell. Why does someone have to apologize for believing that coercion damages rational thinking, and that many people are doing this?

re: 15 month old and "Daddy wants you"
Quote:
For a very bright child, this did not indicate rational thinking.
Actually, I think it does. A child in this situation knows that s/he has to wait before s/he could do something (as per the scenario you illustrated) and didn't want to. (This is understandable because s/he may have the patience of a toddler.) Also, the first time s/he told the mother about Daddy needing her, the mother left. He was thinking rationally, if it worked the first time, why not the second? S/he soon discovered that it doesn't always work so s/he will probably not use that tactic again or may require a few more tries in order to understand.

Quote:
Now I do not mean these next two paragraphs as an insult towards you, but as discussion of a basic premis from TCS, which is that we are (all) rational. I'm not sure why it would take TCS to wake up any parent to the fact that those three things are arbitrary. AP parents and even many non AP parents figured those out eons ago.
You know, a lot of the parents I see around here haven't. In any case those are three things (which I believe are simply examples) of many arbitrary rules that parents have for thier children.

Quote:
If the basic premis is that a child is rational, and adults are more so, then I wonder why a "rational" adult could not work out that screaming, yelling and spanking is irrational without reading about TCS?
They probably could (I'm one of them ) but the bottom line is they might come up with is using a different method of coercion to get the child to do what they want. This could be due to any number of things- their own entrenched theories of parents having the ultimate right to control, society's assertion that parents who try to find common preferences are negligent or lax, etc...

Quote:
As I understand it, a philosophy is something that can be defined, which by TCS's own definition, there can be no definition of TCS, and neither can we define whether it is correct or not.
I looked up philosphy and this is what I found:
1a. A speculative inquiry concerning the source and nature of human knowledge.
1b. A system of ideas based on such thinking
2. The sciences and liberal arts, except medicine, law and theology
3. The system of motivating values, concepts or priciples of an inidvidual, group or culture.
4. A basic theory concerning a particular subject

In my opinion TCS fits this definition based on 1a,1b and 4.

Quote:
But in saying that, there are children for whom logic is a redundant concept. For them then, knowing that running on the road could kill him, and if he still wishes to do that, the result would be experiencing consequences with a fatal end, and that is not TCS. I had one of those... so I simply child-proofed the back yard. Absolute coercion, and I don't care much...it kept him alive, until he got to an age when the concept made sense.
My statement that if the argument is rational, it should stand on its own without coercision was in reference to morality or behavoir where most adults have a choice and where most children are denied the right of choosing. That is how I took your original question.

In my opinion, the issue is not that the child wants to run into the road and to let him or not. The issue is what the child wants to learn from running out there. Maybe the parent can show the child what happens to something when it is run over by a car and be convinced. However, when it comes to life-threatening instances parents must weigh the issue of what are suitable precautions. Now if a child wanted to run out into a busy street for no discernable rational reason and no death wish... then not having a gate could be construed as coercive IMO since the parent would be leaving the child to the consequences of death. Now I'm assuming that this toddle didn't have a death wish because IMO if this were the case, there would be many other instances of the child choosing to risk his or her (just for you JW ) life after being given all of the appropriate information and after the parent tried to find alternatives for the knowledge the child is trying to gain.

Quote:
Regarding my comments about the swearing, you said you would not take offence, so here goes. Here (in this country) most of the people I know who swear prolifically in front of their children, also drink to excess, smack their children, many also smoke - many also have extra-marital relationship, use recreational drugs etc etc. And what's more, they hate it when their children swear, which has me totally baffled. So I was speaking from my experience base, which is not what I want from my children.
So now you know about gentle parents who swear and don't fit this description, is that assumption still fair in regards to using it against TCS?

Quote:
we hope that they will take the best of what they see from us, and reject whatever they don't like. But they have to have an experiential base upon which to decide what suits them.


All right, tell me when this starts getting annoying but this sounds like TCS too.

Quote:
As to the people on the TCS website. My comment was based on the fact that if these people who wrote the website felt that it was alright for small children to swear, then I had serious doubts about the "rightness" of all their other definitions upon which their discussion of what they consider TCS is based on. But I guess that is covered by the fact that they admit that TCS cannot be defined, and neither can its "rightness"
Hmmm... I'l have to re-read the article on swearing but what I gathered is not that it is "alright for children to swear" (which in my case, I really have no issue with) but that parents should not use coercion to make children stop.

Quote:
How do you find a common preference about a car-seat? There was only one type when my kids were little, and that was it! There is no compromise between no clothes and clothes. It is either one or the other. Merc Benz - no issue. Designer jeans, no issue. So in my family they were dealt with this way. "you don't want to be in the car-seat? Fine. You stay home with a babysitter (usually my husband, or vice-versa, me) , and I/DH go alone." "You don't want to wear clothes? Fine. You stay home." "You want a Merc? Fine - win a lottery. Here is the money we have saved over 6 years for your first car (did this with both, and they knew it) - if you want beyond this, the answer is in your court. Same with designer jeans. Here is your clothes budget for the year. You want designer jeans? Fine. But if you ALSO want that super good pair of cross trainers you need for cricket you might not be able to afford it. If you ruin your feet, you ruin your career. Your choice."
I think the car-seat issue has been discussed to everyone's satisfaction, but if the child does not want in, then perhaps s/he prefers to be left with someone else, nothing wrong with that imo. I'm not going to dissect this point by point because you have the idea. If the children agree with this then a common preference is found. If they disagree and the parent actively encourages the child to try to think of other ideas in the hopes of finding a common preference, then it sounds like TCS to me.

Quote:
My maxim for myself was, and always has been, as you know "If it doesn't feel right, don't do it." and for the children "children learn best by making decisions, and experiencing the consequences of those decisions" Which does not seem to me to be TCS, in either case.
Well it depends. If that is your maxim for your own actions then I don't think it matters whether it's TCS or not but I guess the question is: What happens if it feels right to your children but not to you? That, in my opinion would determine whether it is TCS or not. And it does not mean that I'm advocating that the child run around the neighborhood naked. I mean that instead of slapping clothes on the kid in the interest of saving time, the parent could try to find a common preference first.

Quote:
The "consequences" issue, since I believe consequences are the most valuable teacher...and the possibility that when these children get into the real world which is "he who pays the spondoolicks, calls the tune" they may not be able to adapt to a situation in which they may have minimal input into HOW or WHY they do something.
I think that children learn from consequencesif the consequences are not parentally imposed to teach the child a "lesson". For instance, to bring up the toy out the window scenario, a child has thrown a beloved toy out the window and it breaks. The child has learned from this mistake what happens when you throw toys out the window and is upset at the loss and asks that the parents replace the toy. A parent my decide that the broken toy is a natural consequence of throwing the toy out the window and as such not replacing the toy is a natural consequence as well, even though the parent can easliy do so. I think that this is where TCS is implying that children don't need "natural consequences" to learn. At least, this is the way that I've understood TCS.

Quote:
As a by-line, doesn't it strike you as odd, that most of what you learned at school was totally irrelevant? And most of what you needed, beyond the ability to read, write, do maths, compute and analyse was gotten everywhere else BUT school? Different topic... sorry...
I'm actually quite upset at all of the hours I was forced to waste learning stuff I don't need to know and it seems like the poorer you are, the less important the stuff they teach is. But I too digress...

Quote:
And finally, your moniker:

Commonly called "consequences" is it not? But is it TCS?
In my opinion, yes.
k'smami is offline  
Old 12-27-2001, 02:23 AM
 
Holistic Momma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Down South in Texas
Posts: 572
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Oh Daisy, you are such a character! Heeheehee
Holistic Momma is offline  
Old 12-27-2001, 02:29 AM
 
k'smami's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: New England
Posts: 180
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I see what you're saying about the word "mis-interpretation". How about a generalized statement dismissing the theory using wording that was not explicity said by anyone? Such as "the child is the boss of the house". KWIM? What word could be used to mean that?
k'smami is offline  
Old 12-27-2001, 02:31 AM
 
hugosmoma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: MN
Posts: 244
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Just want to add my voice to the roll call...
Maybe the momas posting with tcs information/theory could keep it to the tcs threads and refrain from bringing it to threads where it is unasked for. I mean, it is clear that many momas wish not to participate in tcs dicussions nor have threads began on non-tcs subjects end with a tcs debate. So why the continuing problem? I agree with the self-modification suggestion. How 'bout keeping the peace by keeping tcs theory to spefically designated threads? Wouldn't this work exceptionally well for those who *are* interesting in learning more about tcs? This way those threads can be more efficient by focusing on the specifics of tcs rather than the offensive/defensive serve which is being played out now.

I'm wondering what other lurking momas are thinking..


hugosmoma is offline  
Old 12-27-2001, 02:31 AM
 
Netty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 96
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Sorry, I'm not really sure for whom the original URL was posted. I was just clarifying *why* it may have been posted and the forum which discusses TCS for anyone who is interested in checking it out. I support all forms of religion and/or non-religion (as long as they're non-coercive ;-))

Netty
Netty is offline  
Old 12-27-2001, 02:36 AM
 
k'smami's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: New England
Posts: 180
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Confining TCS posting to a separate "corner" i.e. thread or forum is a way of censoring opinions IMO. There may be someone not reading a TCS thread/forum who may actually be glad that a TCS response was posted on a thread where a parent didn't specifically ask for TCS advice.
k'smami is offline  
Old 12-27-2001, 02:56 AM
 
jtsmom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: NH
Posts: 699
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I just realized what it is that is rubbing me the wrong way about this tcs stuff. Forgive me if I am lagging behind, I am very tired.

The ones who are tcsers (or whatever) seem to be coming from a very intellectual place, as opposed to most of the posts that mamas are writing about real life experiences, coming from the heart. I haven't seen ( and I haven't looked to hard) any posts from tcsers about their own families. It is like they are only expousing some textbook stuff. Am I missing it? No wonder it feels like they are playing ask the experts. Why is it that I don't see anything but tcs stuff from these people?

jtsmom
jtsmom is offline  
Old 12-27-2001, 03:21 AM
 
Britishmum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 4,195
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Netty, you say that "Coercive parents, however, *do* think--under certain circumstances (which differ according to each individual parent, which is quite telling in itself)-- that their ideas have more validity than their children's and that their needs and desires supersede their children's needs and desires."

Many of the people that you label 'coercive parents' make decisions based on their belief that they have greater knowledge and experience than a young child. That does not mean that they believe that their needs and desires supersede their children's needs and desires. It means that they do not necessarily subscribe to the premis that all coercion is psychologically harmful.

To make this sort of statement and label non-tcs parents in one sweeping statement as 'coercive parents', is failing to understand that people have sensible and legitimate concerns about tcs, and that people are here because they are interested in gentle discipline.
Britishmum is offline  
Old 12-27-2001, 03:45 AM
 
Mommy2Max's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 24
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
good point!
Mommy2Max is offline  
Old 12-27-2001, 04:15 AM
 
Britishmum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 4,195
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
It seems that by the time I posted my message above, others had said the same thing. If only dd would take less time to go to sleep I would get my posts up quicker ;-)

Netty, you have clarified a little how you feel about the non-tcs people, and what your 'argument' is with them.

You said "I have no argument with parents who strive to avoid coercion. I am arguing with those who claim that sometimes they *have* to coerce their children and that it is *good* for the children to be coerced sometimes (such as being forced into a carseat, having a diaper changed against hir will, or physically moved against hir will, etc.)."

It was these issues that persuaded me to re-register on these boards. Statements such as yours above about forcing children into car seats seem to me to be frankly irresponsible.

I know that there is little point in trying to discuss individual hypothetical situations with tcs-ers. The discussions go around in circles and no adequate answer is given, possibly because the tcs site itself completely fails to address these issues.

I have no 'argument' with anyone, least of all about whether or not their child wears nappies. But I do think that we should all take care about what we say about issues where children's health and safety come into question. These seem to be the issues where many 'non-tcs-ers' feel that coercion is sometimes necessary.

There are many new or uncertain mums who visit these boards for advice and ideas. They might not read through a lengthy discussion to see statements clarified or retracted. We all need to take responsibility that any advice we give does not make them feel that they should take risks with their babies in order to measure up to any parenting ideology.
Britishmum is offline  
Old 12-27-2001, 04:16 AM
 
Dr.Worm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 2,241
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
This is for Larsy and anyone else who believes in TCS...what would you do in the following situations since you don't believe in coercion?
1)You take your four-year-old to the Grand Canyon and they start to run over to the edge...do you try to stop him?
2)Your 10-month-old wants to stick her finger in a light socket? Do you let her?
3) Your three-year-old watches Daddy jump off a diving board into 12 ft. deep water and wants to do it too..do you let her?

I gotta understand this whole non-coercive thing so please let me know what you would do in those situations. How far does this letting the child decide stuff go for you?
Dr.Worm is offline  
Old 12-27-2001, 04:43 AM
 
k'smami's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: New England
Posts: 180
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally posted by Just Wondering
Before the board went down, some people used to post no TCS please at the top of the thread. Is that not right? I see nothing wrong with that. Though I can immagine TCS people feeling slighted.
I have no issue with that. I just don't like the idea of making it a blanket rule so that every time TCS advice appears someone gets reprimanded for not confining their posts to their forum.

re: Little Emperor

That's a good one but I was asking for a replacement for "mis-representation" that was semantically correct to the point I was trying to say.
k'smami is offline  
Old 12-27-2001, 04:58 AM
 
k'smami's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: New England
Posts: 180
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I can't speak for others here but I most certainly "speak from the heart" and do share real life experiences and sometimes I share the life experiences of others who I've read about. Of course I do this by hypotheticalizing. Why? Because I want to respect my son's privacy when it comes to disciplinary manners and I don't want him to be potentially embarrased later and in regard to other's experiences that I hypotheticalize, I am respecting those people's right to privacy. I understand that not everyone feels the need to do this but after giving it much thought, I do. I guess I'm hoping that the point I'm trying to make when I post is the same one I would have made had I given personal details. I explain this so that you know where I'm coming from. Another plus for being hypothetical is that it detaches you from the situation so that when people criticize you, you are less likely to get offened. A real plus for me , even though it doesn't always work.

I don't really post about other topics because I just don't have the time now that there are so many TCS threads LOL! But a lot of the old timers will tell you that I was avery active member before the boards went down.
k'smami is offline  
Old 12-27-2001, 06:48 AM
Banned
 
Leonor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 463
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally posted by Lucy
Haha! This happenned to us today at Sams club. We were in the toy aisle and dd sat down in the middle of the aisle and started palying with a toy guitar that was on display. Immediately a lady with a huge cart (warehouse sized) came up behind her, and of course she couldn't get by. She said "excuse me please" to dd. DD didn't respond, so I told dd she was in the lady's way. No response from dd. I said , "you are blocking this lady's way, can you move to the side?" No response, and btw I was down on dd's level. At this point, I picked up dd, who immidiately threw a tantrum bc she was being forced to move.
Wouldn't you throw a tantrum if someone moved you out of the way like that? Do you think it's ok to treat adults like that? Why do you think it's ok to treat children like that?

The child didn't move because she was very interested in that toy. Also the lady wasn't complaining wasn't she? It could have been tried to ask the child if she wouldn't mind to take toy somewhere else where she could explore it without bothering anyone.

Many times I cross with people that block aisles but as they are browsing through items on display I usually wait or go some other way.

Why not ask the lady if she didn't mind to wait or go some other way? A nice lady would not say "No, take your horrible brat out of the way!"

Quote:
To say that it would be the lady's responsibility to work it out with my 4 yr old is ridiculous!
I don't think it's ok to wait for the problem to be solved bettween child and a stranger, because adults usually believe children can be move out people's ways. I had strangers picking up my child out of the way because I was trying to solve the problem with child only or too embarassed to talk with the adult.

Quote:
She is my responsibility! I am trying to raise her to be considerate of others needs, not to let herself be ruled by her id!
It's because parents are responsible to their children they should be helping them, considerate of their needs, and not be ruled by their ids.

Quote:
DD's Preference was clearly to remain seated in the aisle blocking all unsuspecting shoppers lol!
No, I believe her preference was probably sitting in the aisle because she wanted to play with that toy badly. A need that was forgotten.
Leonor is offline  
Old 12-27-2001, 07:03 AM
 
simonee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Where the sun don't shine
Posts: 4,867
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I wonder why so many posters feel so defensive when dealing with the tcs perspective. The last few posts gave the impression that many people are not really interested in advice that they hadn’t already thought of themselves, and that they only want to hear that they’re doing a great job as it is. Wouldn’t it be more appropriate for those posters to label their threads “support only,” instead of negatively (NO tcs)?

I don’t understand the sometimes hostile attitude toward the tcs advocates and the common perception that the tcs-ers sit in a ivory tower being all superior and arrogant. I’ve gotten the opposite impression in the few months that I’ve read things here: the tcs-ers on these boards really believe in the tcs philosophy/theory, and they feel that it helps them so much that they want to spread it. OK, it may appear proselytizing at times, but don’t the other approaches have the same problem? I, for one, have learned a lot from the tcs posts. The advocates strive for consistency, which I find very important in childrearing, and they tend to be honest and proud. Maybe some posters would feel more sympathetic if everybody came here with an overtly humble attitude, but haven’t women been too humble for long enough?

In my opinion, tcs works like a switch. It’s either on or off. You either strive to take your child/ren seriously under all circumstances, or you take them only seriously when their opinion agrees with yours. I don’t know which is better, though I am definitely developing preferences for my own situation. Nevertheless, I do believe that tcs-ers take their children more seriously (because all the time, not just when it agrees with your ideas) than non-tcs-ers. Not that non-tcs-ers don’t take their children seriously, but many of the comments against tcs have the “little emperor” tone that turns taking your children seriously under all circumstances into a sarcastic joke.

Same with ap – non-ap-ers are attached to their kids, too, of course. But (on average) probably less so than ap-ers, simply because they don’t spend as much time as close together.

OK ladies and gents, flame ahead
simonee is offline  
Old 12-27-2001, 07:15 AM
 
Holistic Momma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Down South in Texas
Posts: 572
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Hmmm, that was a very interesting perspective. I'm just glad that staunch TCSers are in the minority. Heavens, I keep imagining what if everyone allowed themselves to be ruled by their child's whim. None of us would ever get to walk an aisle to its end. We'd be constantly turning around only to find the next aisle with a child who can't be bothered to clear a path. Heeheehee

Here's something else I found interesting:

QUOTE
A nice lady would not say "No, take your horrible brat out of the way!"
END QUOTE

She may not SAY it, but you can bet your bottom dollar she is sure THINKING it!
Holistic Momma is offline  
 
User Tag List

Thread Tools


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off