TCS Discussion Threads - Archived - Page 9 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
Old 12-19-2001, 04:42 PM
 
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)
Dear Just Wondering,

First of all, thank you for actually reading the website to understand the basic premises before deciding that there is a flaw.

And now to your post...

Quote:
Originally posted by Just Wondering
Everyone who is TCS here treats the concept as if it is fact, and proven, and yet it is not.
Yes. I do this but I do not claim it to be a "proven fact". Meaning that, yes, I believe that this is a fact but I am cognizant of the fact that this has not been "proven". This is much like people who advocate Gentle Discipline. They must believe that hitting is wrong in order for it to work. And although there may be studies that prove that beating children is harmful, there aren't any that I'm aware of that proove an occasional swat not done in anger (as I have seen people advocate spanking) is harmful. However, many women here are committed to not spanking, even in the controlled way that I explained above, because they believe it is wrong. So just as those who advocate Gentle Discipline believe that spanking is wrong, TCS advocates believe that coercion is wrong. So just like for Gentle Discipline to work parents must believe that hitting is wrong, TCS advocates must believe that coercion is wrong in order for TCS to work.

Quote:
Children learn by seeing behaviour repeated by their parents. What sort of parents constantly swear in front of their children? I assume the people who set the site up...which raises serious questions about the validity of the ASSUMPTIONS upon which their theory is based. After all, we have to accept the assumptions, to accept the theory.
A lot of AP mothers on these very forums swear in front of their children (including me ). In fact, a few months ago there was a thread all about it.

Now since I am coming from the opposite side on the swearing issue, I'd like to know what "interesting pointers" you have come up with about the possible nature of these people (which seems a lot like attacking the person, not the argument) and how this affects the validity of the assumptions because I'm not seeing a connection. (Feel free to respond to this privately if you wish. I promise I won't take offence .)

Quote:
In other words, our children do what we don't want them to do because we coerce them?
Yes. I've seen this many times. It's commonly called defiance and rebellion. Some children who expereince coercion do not rebel but many children do.

Quote:
So are we supposed to let the child decide what is right and wrong?
Yes. After the parent has shared their best theories on the subject, the child will decide for themselves. If the arguement is rational, it should stand on its own without coercion. (IMO)

Quote:
With such a new concept, we are looking at an experiment here and now.
Perhaps. I'm sure that way back when they invented Waldorf and Montessori these education philosophies were looked at in the same way by most people. Someone has to be the first. And if you think that what you are doing is the right thing for your family, who cares how new the concept is?

Quote:
What they call parental control which is coercive, I might not consider as breaching a child's right at all. For instance:

My child will sit in his car seat whether he wants to or not, and I don't give a brass razzoo about whether the child believes that he should not be in a car seat. And my six year old will not walk through town wearing no clothes, just because he hates them. And my adolescent is not going to have a mercedes Benz as a first car, or to use a more apt definition, the designer jeans that are the current peer pressure - because we don't have the money spare to do that. And if he thinks he is going to do speed, and other recreational drugs in this house, because he thinks that is right, then he has another think coming.
I think that in all of these examples it is possible to find a common preference. Meaning, both parents and children are going to get what they want. So in light of this I would consider it breaching a child's rights (in my family).

re: financial hardship and TCS

I think that a child who is aware of the budget can rationally see when the family can afford something so they probably won't ask for it. To use myself as an example, I was involved with budget discussion from a very young age as well and I had a very clear understanding of what we could afford and if we couldn't afford it, I wouldn't ask. However, this was due to the fact that I was thinking about money rationally, not because my mother used parental control to make me understand.

Quote:
But then, I have very sensible children, who have always been in on everything in this family. Including Budget discussion from the age of 8 years.
Don't look now, but that sounds a lot like TCS! LOL

Quote:
and which does not prepare children to cope with the wrold today, perhaps even with a view to changing it
Why do you think that TCS does not prepare children to do this?

Quote:
I know a few young mothers here who I think were pretty much brought up sort of TCS. Certainly not so much Laisse faire. They were never smacked, or yelled at, and always wore what they wanted when they wanted, and got the food they liked... And they are the mothers who are finding motherhood very very difficult. They didn't go through labour (why bother with pain) they didn't breastfeed, (they didn't WANT to)--- in fact, their children are emotional antagonists to their lives, because all their lives, they have got either what they wanted, or forced a compromise.
Hmmm... I don't see how this proves anything about TCS, mainly because thre are plenty of women in the world who think like this and were not parented with TCS.

Quote:
TCS creates division amongst parents.
I would say that all parenting philosophies do or at least have the potential to do this. How many times do we see AP mothers go to a mainstream website and find that their ideas cause a great deal of division among the parents there?

Quote:
it does make people like Heavenly and Jbcjmom and others feel sort of railroaded.
Please tell me what you mean by "railroaded". I saw it as disagreeing with eachother's theories but maybe I'm not seeing how I'm wrong. (Perhaps we should discuss this privately since it's off topic to the main points of your thread. I don't want to offend people so I would really like to know.)

Quote:
You might not like my opinion. But you did ask for it...
I thank you for sharing.
k'smami is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 12-19-2001, 04:58 PM
 
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)
Can you believe I won't be quoting anyone? LOL I actually agree with everything that was said. I also definatly see how the mother is trying to coerce Dh into parenting the way she thinks is right.
k'smami is offline  
Old 12-19-2001, 09:07 PM - Thread Starter
 
larsy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 236
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Just Wondering wrote:

"Though TCS seems to be denying the role of "instincts" I actually feel that true TCS would encompass not only instincts, but an inate understanding of a child's mind. "

How can anyone innately understand another person's mind? You believe that you can read people's minds? <incredulous> This is profoundly disrespectful. Not to mention, impossible (thank goodness!). Most people have a hard enough time knowing what is going on in their own minds, let alone someone else's!

A parent who spends lots of time (or not, I suppose) with their child will be able to make their best guess as to what their child might want, if the communication is not clear, or if they see something that is similar to things that their child has enjoyed in the past (keeping in mind that the child's preferences/interests might have changed), and often be successful at guessing what their child wants and are able to help them get it. But this is not 'innately knowing' what is in another person's mind.

Instincts... well, I have witnessed many discussions about the role of instinct in rational decision making (check archives on the TCS list) and it seems to me that, while instinct might bring something to one's attention from below the level of consciousness, the decision one makes using that input will benefit from reflecting upon it in the light of reason. The instinct might make perfect sense, and be acted upon as such. Instinct can also be over-ridden, when it makes sense to a person to do so- for instance, a hunger strike or a nursing strike.

As humans are able to solve problems creatively, we can go instinct one step better. A mother might instinctively know to put her baby to her breast, but if that baby is unable to latch on properly and use hir tongue and jaw properly to milk the breast, that baby will not be able to get enough milk to thrive. That problem can be solved in a number of creative ways, and that baby is not doomed to die or live weak and sickly because it cannot nurse properly. Humans engage creativity and solve the problem.

instinctively ducking and covering,
l.
larsy is offline  
Old 12-19-2001, 09:24 PM
 
discovermoma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Texas
Posts: 87
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
k'smami, that's not fair! Give us a target!

LOL! LOL! LOL!
discovermoma is offline  
Old 12-19-2001, 09:40 PM - Thread Starter
 
larsy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 236
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Just Wondering referred to "a basic premis from TCS, which is that we are (all) rational." and "the basic premis is that a child is rational, and adults are more so".

Actually, I think the reverse is true- that children are often more rational than adults, before they get confused by coercion.

And it is not across the board. We all have areas where we can think clearly, and areas where our thinking is muddy. Few people, I conjecture, experience systematic coercion in all areas of life- at least, and remain sane. But then, what is sanity... but another can of worms. Never mind.
larsy is offline  
Old 12-19-2001, 10:50 PM
 
grisletine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: starksboro vt :)
Posts: 256
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
just wondering... i disagree with your statement that babies are not rational because they do not understand from birth that when mom isnt visble she "hasnt abandoned them forever" .. you go on to sya that they dont know this yet from lack of experience... is that the same as a lack of rationality? i think the fact that a baby eventually learns that mommy is coming back proves that the child *is* rational..
i mean .. the child isnt rational until they have the experience to learn from?

~ sadie
grisletine is offline  
Old 12-19-2001, 11:23 PM
 
outlawmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 49
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I don't know if this has been brought up yet, but we need to remember that what we consider "traditional" parenting--NOT cosleeping, non-intuitive, non AP/TCS, etc--has only been common cross-class for a little over a hundred years, since the industrial revolution. Before the industrial revolution it was only the very wealthy who could afford to pay for somone to watch thier children, to separate themselves from thier kids, have wet-nurses etc. This standard was considered proper. The rest of the masses almost all lived in tight family groups with both parents at home and working together and bringing up the children to help with the houshold. It wasn't until industry forced poor families to separate by out-of-home jobs that high rates of child abuse began to be noticed. And then, of course, with the rise of the middle class people wanted to act as much like the rich as possible--to have a "nursery" for thier babies, to not have to breastfeed thier own child...
This is obviously only the european model. Cultures throughout history--I'm specifically thinking about Native american cultures--have raised thier children in an extemely AP/TCS style where it was inherent in the culture that children were treated with respect and nuturing, with the knowledge that children are our future being at the forefront of every decision. In the Dakota culture, if there was a parent who beat thier child that parent was approached by the community and if thier parenting did not change, they would be exhiled from the tribe and thier child would be adopted into a capable family. It was also considered irresponsible parenting to have children closer than 5 years together, that a mother could not properly give her attention to her kids if they were that close in age--of course, that is also surely due to the nomadic nature of the tribe, but I find it telling none the less, as it was also a common belief among the "eskimo" tribes who were not so nomadic.
Anyway, my point is that historically, there have been cultures where there were none of the luxeries we have today--indoor plumbing, central heating, cars, ready-made clothing etc.--and parents were able to "AP" parent perfectly well because they were culturally expected to do so and it is how they were themselves raised. To do any thing else would be unthinkable. For most of us, who were not brought up AP and who don't have an amazing support network, when we are stressed out due to whatever we fall back on yelling, and punishment, and separation because that is our default parenting. For myself, having two children under five and a less than 25,000 a year income, and no family within 800 miles has been the nost challenging, mind-blowing experience. I know if I had more cultural examples and support I would fall off track much less often than I do. But, alas, living here in this time that is just not reality. So I come here to these boards to remind me of what I believe in, I read mothering mag, and other literature, I try and build my own community.

I've rambled...
outlawmama is offline  
Old 12-20-2001, 12:13 AM
 
sagewinna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: CA
Posts: 2,002
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally posted by k'smami
Hey Sagewinna,

I think that when just wondering said "here" she meant New Zealand.
Even so, I think it was a very generalized point of view!

DS: 18 DD: 15 DD: 8  angel1.gif 11/10  angel1.gif 4/11
  adoptionheart-1.gifDD: 3  angel1.gif 8/11

sagewinna is offline  
Old 12-20-2001, 12:21 AM
 
sagewinna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: CA
Posts: 2,002
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Just so you know, I have never spanked. I was using yelling and spanking as examples of way some parents deal with things. Perhaps my wording was confusing.

I disagree that AP means you don't have abitrary rules for your kids. I find that many power struggles between parent and child come from decisions for the child that may not make sense to the child. Do AP parents never have problems with bedtime, or keeping shoes on their child or even mealtime battles (There have been several threads about food battles lately)?

DS: 18 DD: 15 DD: 8  angel1.gif 11/10  angel1.gif 4/11
  adoptionheart-1.gifDD: 3  angel1.gif 8/11

sagewinna is offline  
Old 12-20-2001, 12:53 AM
 
Mommy22B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Colorado
Posts: 262
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I don't understand why everyone has to argue about this?!?!?! Cant we all just accept that we all raise our children differently? Why do people have to get all offended? To me the TCS thread started by Larsy was for those interested to discuss is, or even for those who don't understand it to debate it. Why must people take offence? What if it was your parenting style being attacked ?if this were a mainstream board perhaps all you "AP" parents would be being yelled at for your style.
I just don't understand why we can't all agree to disagree and stay out of each other's business.
Beth
Mommy22B is offline  
Old 12-20-2001, 01:03 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 Wondering,
What an impressive post (the lead post)! You obviously know where I stand on this topic. I too have read the TCS website, but wow, how long did it take you to create that post. I couldn't have agreed with you more. The thing that frustrates me is that most of the time we are all probably parenting in a very similar way. I offer choices, I try to come to agreeable solutions, but as I have said before, I don't run a dictatorship, but it is not quite a democracy either. I am the parent and that gives me certain responsibilities to my children -- in my opinion. No one has to agree with me and that's fine. I have just been wondering where the "support" in these threads has gone.

To Wildflower - Why wait to start signing? I started at day one with my youngest (about 8 months with my oldest.) They may not be able to sign back, but they certainly recognize the signs early. My son knew the sign for "breastfeeding" by three months of age. He would get so excited when he saw me do it. If you are looking for a good website try handspeak.com It is a great site. If you want any help or advice in this area, just let me know.
Jish is offline  
Old 12-20-2001, 01:07 AM
 
Mommy22B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Colorado
Posts: 262
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Thank you for your answers.
I guess my main problem with TCS right now is that dd is not very verbal. I know she understands much of what we say, but, as an example, if we told her before entering the store that she could get one item she wouldnt remember that. Or trying to explain about a party we are going to when she hasn't been to a church party in months...(She is 17 months by the way)
But i admit that maybe I underestimate her. Perhaps she understands much more than I think she does. I think I will try explaining things to her more from now on and see how it goes.
And you are right on the question about her meandering in front of people. Something that helps me grasp this TCS concept is to picture myself doing some of the things I do to dd to older people. Seeing myself annoyingly pick up an old lady in a wheelchair and scoot her aside was just too much for me. I see the error of my ways. The issue there is that i care way too much what others think...(See my other thread today....)
ANyway, thanks.
Beth
Mommy22B is offline  
Old 12-20-2001, 01:10 AM
 
erika's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: iowa
Posts: 205
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
your rambling was great, outlawmama! My turn now...

How interesting that having children closer than five years apart was frowned upon. Mine are just shy of five years apart and I still think I have a tough time negotiating enough attention for them both!

I'm reminded of something a friend from Africa (Zaire) said, a mother of seven children who had been in the US for two years: "I really understand why people in this country have so few children". I asked if it was because of the extended family in Africa and she said, "No, it's because in Africa the children are outside playing all day. Once they can walk they come home to eat and sleep and that's it. It's really hard to have them in the house all day."

It was particularly frustrating when I was pregnant, not having the strength to take dd to a playground, and knowing that she was really old enough (4yo) to find her way there and back by herself - and yet the safety risks today prevent me from allowing her to even play in the front yard unsupervised. Some things used to be much simpler.

But I do think positive parenting is getting easier. Believe it or not, committing myself to homeschooling the 5yo has helped. It was a commitment to at least 30 minutes every day of positive interaction between us - and it appears to have rubbed off on our other interactions.

Now if I could just find some time for myself....
erika is offline  
Old 12-20-2001, 01:24 AM
 
erika's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: iowa
Posts: 205
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
actually, I want to add one more thing, in reference to outlawmama's comments -- some AP practices haven't been lost for that long in our US history. My mother, who was born (and breastfed) in the 40's in rural Pennsylvania, remembers falling asleep in bed with her aunt and brother every night with the aunt telling them stories until they fell asleep, and only then carrying them to their own beds.
erika is offline  
Old 12-20-2001, 04:57 AM
 
paula_bear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Chester County, PA
Posts: 857
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Thanks, outlawmama, for taking the time to articulate those points so well. You have provided me with much info to mull over and consider. When I get those attacks of self-doubt, I will remember that the "majority" is actually quite a "minority," speaking from an historical perspective. I feel fortunate to have had a mom who didn't have anesthesia for any of her 4 births (we all came too fast...) and my dad was actually present for my birth back when fathers were banished to the waiting room to smoke cigarettes and pace the floor nervously awaiting the arrival of some stranger to report on the status of wife and child. (LOL) I was lucky enough to have been breastfed for 3 precious months before mom "ran out of milk," or so she thought. So when I feel critical for facets of my folks' parenting style with which I disagree, I can remember to thank them for these gifts.

I read somewhere that in a 30-year study, they found that women related to their babies in almost identical ways to the way their own mothers related to them. So I certainly hope that my efforts to find a parenting style that respects my children and treats them gently will be passed down to future generations.

Anyway, I think I've strayed far enough off topic here, but outlaw you really got me thinking tonight!
paula_bear is offline  
Old 12-20-2001, 01:35 PM
 
grisletine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: starksboro vt :)
Posts: 256
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
i think we just hve different definitions or something. you're talking about rational thought.. that it comes after the baby has processed enough information ...

but if the child is capable of rational thought when she learns something doesnt that make her rational b4 she learns it?

im sorry i have a hard time articulating my thoughts but there is a differnce between rational thought and being rational.

like you were speaking of a game, that you cannot rationally analyze the agme until you know the rules. so maybe you cant make rational decisons about the game yet but does that mean you're not rational at all? you yourself said youre capable of logical analyses on it when you learn the rules and the outcome is rational thought.

i feel that you were rational b4 you learned the rules because you were capable of logical analyses, even though you did not have all the info to make the rational outcome.

am i making sense?
grisletine is offline  
Old 12-20-2001, 01:50 PM
 
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)
Just a quick reply before I finish writing my other long one...

Quote:
Originally posted by grisletine
i think we just hve different definitions or something. you're talking about rational thought.. that it comes after the baby has processed enough information ...

but if the child is capable of rational thought when she learns something doesnt that make her rational b4 she learns it?

im sorry i have a hard time articulating my thoughts but there is a differnce between rational thought and being rational.

like you were speaking of a game, that you cannot rationally analyze the agme until you know the rules. so maybe you cant make rational decisons about the game yet but does that mean you're not rational at all? you yourself said youre capable of logical analyses on it when you learn the rules and the outcome is rational thought.

i feel that you were rational b4 you learned the rules because you were capable of logical analyses, even though you did not have all the info to make the rational outcome.

am i making sense?
Yes, that's pretty much what I was about to say.
k'smami is offline  
Old 12-20-2001, 02:21 PM - Thread Starter
 
larsy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 236
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Just Wondering wrote:

"I did not say "read" someone else's mind. I said understand another person's mind. How they process things, the way they analyse things. How is this profoundly disrespectful?"

I think this is profoundly disrespectful, to assume that one knows what is going on in another person's mind, because it is based upon assumption and not real knowledge.

I know people who feel quite disrespected when another person attempts to finish their thought for them, and call attention to the fact that this person has interrupted, and would they please listen? I also know people who are able to finish each other's sentences correctly much of the time, and who do not feel the least bit coerced it- though sometimes, maybe a bit, when the person is going on about what they think the person was talking about and they are wrong.

Yes, it is lovely to be in sync with loved ones and share quite similar world views and to have ongoing discussions so that each knows the other's ideas and preferences (at the point of the discussion) in the matter, but the fact is that people's ideas and preferences change-sometimes frequently- in the light of new knowledge, so assuming that one knows what another is going to say (which, ime, turns out to be wrong a percentage of the time) and to assume that one knows what is in another's mind are likely to be dangerous assumptioins.

Dangerous in that such assumptions can lead a person to treating others according to the assumptions and to miss the reality of what the person is actually trying to communicate.
larsy is offline  
Old 12-20-2001, 04:05 PM - Thread Starter
 
larsy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 236
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
In the parent-child relationship, who holds the power? Who has the access to the world- be it locomotion or language or money- and the knowledge and experience to get what they want?

Since the imbalance of power is strongly on the side of the parent, it behooves parents to not abuse their position and to be scrupulous about helping a child get what they want in life. It is the right thing to do, isn't it?

Parents are responsible for having put their child/ren in the position of living/exploring/riding in the car/whatever; parents are responsible for helping children to learn about the world so that they can get what they want in life.

There is not a reciprocal responsibility for children to help parent get what they want in life- though if that is how they are treated, as they are doing the important work of the first many years of life, of learning how to negotiate the world safely and effectively, they are likely to carry on that way, imo&e. It is in their own best interests, a good and powerful motivator.

So, do children coerce parents? Certainly, there are many instances of conflict where a parent experiences coercion in their mind, but is this the child's doing? Other than the mere fact that the child is there, in existence and in relationship with their parent (which the parent is responsible for), and that child has a different idea than the parent, I don't see the child as responsible for the parent's experience of coercion.

Surely we can't fault the child for having ideas. That is a good thing, right? And how do people learn? Conjecture and refutation. Child has the conjecture (stairs! explore them! can I climb them?); if s/he can't get help with the refutation (up is easy, down...forward or backward?) learning will be cut short. Coercion cuts the learning (about what child is interested in) short, at the risk of entrenching irrational theories (stairs are dangerous! stay away! I will hurt myself!).

When there is conflict in a parent-child relationship, how is it to be resolved? Those of us who are convinced that coercion is the wrong way to solve problems in this close and important relationship, will look for the common preference. We will help a child explore what it is that s/he wants to explore, in a way that does not involve self-sacrifice on our part or the experience of coercion for any of us involved. At least, that is what we shoot for, even if we don't always make it, being fallible and imperfect humans as we are.

When a parent is experiencing coercion in their dealings with their children, what can they do to not feel coerced and not inflict coercion on their child? Beyond creating/finding common preferences, a parent can find good information and seeds of solutions by examining their theories about the matter. Am I objectifying my child, by assuming that s/he is this way or that? What are my assumptions and expectations? Are they reasonable? Do I really believe that child will never do X if I don't make hir? Am I expecting this because that is the way it has been done in the past/in the predominate paradigm of society? Do I really believe that is right? Am I insisting on my way because it is more convenient for me? How can I help child get the experience child wants without it being inconvenient for me? Are my priorities such that I would rather do the clean-up/interrupt my project/change my plans so that I can help child learn what s/he wants to learn at this moment by exploring X? and so on.

Engaging creativity and opening up to the non-coercive solutions is very effective in solving problems. No one wants their child to be hurt in their explorations of the world. Fear seems to be the greatest factor in people coercing their children. Fear of them getting hurt, fear of future health repercussions, fear of what other people will say, fear of child not fitting into society properly, fear of not getting enough sleep... Thinking about these fears in the light of reason, assessing reasonable risk, getting more information about X, considering whether it is a parent's business to be deciding about X or is it really child's decision to make (about their own body, for instance), can help people to avoid coercion for their selves and for their loved ones.

Criticism of theory welcome
larsy is offline  
Old 12-20-2001, 04:33 PM - Thread Starter
 
larsy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 236
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Just Wondering wrote:

"The TCS concept that even babies are rational people with identical autonomy is without a serious foundation. And children only acquire that autonomy step by step as their logical analysis progresses to a broader rational analysis. "

That babies are rational and autonomous from the get-go is a new and startling proposition, isn't it? As others have pointed out, babies are very capable of learning and revising their theories- of reason (processes that tend to create knowledge). Conjecture and refutation, how we all learn.

Autonomy is not to be confused with indepedence (I think we are all interdependent, all our lives, in relationship with others). Autonomy is about a person's right to be self-directed. What would be the magic age when a person suddenly gains the right to be autonomous, if not from birth? AP respects a baby's autonomy, their expression of their needs. I think autonomy is something that everyone has automatically, though it is not neccesarily recognized as such. It is customary in our society to not recognize people's autonomy at any age, except in very limited ways. It seems to me that people can live by being motivated extrinsically- by outside forces (rules and laws and authority) or intrinsically (truth-seeking morality, based upon best interests of the person). An intrinsically motivated person is aware of and values their autonomy, and that of others. An extrinsically motivated person will hardly be aware of their own autonomy, let alone respect it in their self or others.

What about this 'best interests' motivation? Is it in one's best interests to think only of their own self, and not consider any one else? How long and how well will a person survive, if they are not interested in the interests of those around them, especially those they are in close relationship with? I think that 'best interests' involves a complex web of relationship, and makes sense in negotiating the world, to act in one's own self interest- to create a life of doing what one is interested in, and so creating new knowledge that is vital and alive and useful to one's self and others.
larsy is offline  
Old 12-20-2001, 06:26 PM
 
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 am editing this to note that when I use the word "you" I am referring to all of us, not anyone specifically.

Just a reminder as we all throw the word "discipline" around, that it originated from the latin "disciplina" meaning "teaching or learning." Doesn't this definition fit in with what we are ALL trying to do regardless of our ideals or theologies.

I am also wondering why we seem to feel it necessary to prove ourselves as having the "right" method of parenting. Although there are definitely some wrong ways to parent, is there really any one ''right" way to parent? We are all very different people with different backgrounds, doesn't it stand to reason that our experiences would shape our values and ideals, and thus our parenting? The idea that you are right because you choose never to coerse your child and that I am wrong because I feel that children need rules and limits is closed minded, and I think that goes against your ideals as TCSers. I had a nowhere near perfect childhood, but I thank my parents for the way they raised me. I think they did a pretty good job overall, but I must emphasize that it was not peaches and cream. I have some issues with things that occurred while I was growing up, but they have more to due with circumstances at the time, or issues other than parenting style. Our parents must have done something right to make us the caring and passionate people we all obviously are.

This is a situation where noone has to "win" or be "right." We are all raising our children the best we can with the gifts that God gave us (you can read that in more ways than one.) This is one of those times that to say that we should all agree to disagree might be a good idea.

Holiday blessings to all!
Jish is offline  
Old 12-20-2001, 07:07 PM
 
kama'aina mama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Watching Top Chef, eating Top Ramen
Posts: 19,143
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Yammer I have to disagree. What we call AP. keeping the baby close to mom, etc was crucial in hunter/gatherer societies. A baby not closely watched was a meal for a predator. As for discipline and silence, as a general rule the women gathered and tended the children and the aged/inferm while the men went off often for a few days at a time hunting. Women and children didn't belong near the hunt.
kama'aina mama is offline  
Old 12-20-2001, 07:34 PM - Thread Starter
 
larsy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 236
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
If that's the case, children discipline their parents on a daily basis!

Aren't we all trying to clarify our understanding of the parent-child relationship and how that relationship can best be supported and nurtured? I find great value in the discussion of parenting theory, and I appreciate all who engage in criticism of theory here. It is a great gift of time and thought and effort. Thank you.

I don't go in for the moral relativity that I see a lot of on these boards. I think there is right and wrong. We all might see it differently, from our differing viewpoints, but I am hoping that we are all aiming for truth. At the same time, since we are all fallible, we are all probably wrong a good bit of the time.

I look forward to better parenting and relationship theory. And thanks for everybody's part in working toward it.

Sincerely,
l.
larsy is offline  
Old 12-20-2001, 07:51 PM
 
paula_bear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Chester County, PA
Posts: 857
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally posted by jbcjmom
Just a reminder as we all throw the word "discipline" around, that it originated from the latin "disciplina" meaning "teaching or learning." Doesn't this definition fit in with what we are ALL trying to do regardless of our ideals or theologies.

I am also wondering why we seem to feel it necessary to prove ourselves as having the "right" method of parenting. Although there are definitely some wrong ways to parent, is there really any one ''right" way to parent? We are all very different people with different backgrounds, doesn't it stand to reason that our experiences would shape our values and ideals, and thus our parenting?
I must say that I don't really see what's going on in this forum as arguing or trying to prove one method of childrearing right and another wrong. I don't think anyone here is trying to do that. And I think this thread in particular has been devoid of the perceived lack of respect and hurt feelings present in the TCS thread started by Larsy. I wouldn't even call this a debate, rather a discussion of views that seem very dissimilar on the surface, but have many qualities in common.

Yes, we are all trying to improve our parenting so that the next generation may be healthier and happier than we were. We may follow different roads, but I think our destination is the same. I don't believe one road is better than the next, but we may enjoy the scenery more on the road we choose as oppossed to another person's route. So, I say we all continue on the road that feels best, all the while sharing our experiences, perceptions and descriptions of the scenery along the way! The most glorious thing about it all is that if we remain open-minded, we may learn something and decide to take a by-road over to join someone else's path. We can alter our course at any time! Isn't that fantastic?

I for one have learned an unbelievable amount from these boards in less than a month. I look forward to continuing to come here to discuss and learn. I hope this remains a safe place to explore new options. I think it is very important that we have differences of opinion - if we all thought exactly alike, how could we possibly make improvements? We would all be "right," and that would be dreadfully boring!

Happy holidays, all. Hope to continue these discussions well into the new year!

Blessings,
Paula Bear
paula_bear is offline  
Old 12-20-2001, 09:36 PM - Thread Starter
 
larsy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 236
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Gosh, Yammer, how about living creatively in ways that solve the problems of powerlessness, unfairnesses, etc, so that the anger is not necessary or to be turned upon anyone at all?
larsy is offline  
Old 12-20-2001, 11:00 PM
 
laurajean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 450
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I don't believe in letting your child CIO either. But, when it comes to the car seat... safety is the number one rule. There is no way that I would put my child in jeopardy! Regardless of the desserted dirt road or not. In fact, before I had my ds, I was in a major car accident - just because my wheel fell off on the high way. So, accidents happen and not just because of other people.

I implore you to rethink your actions. If something were to happen to your child, you would never forgive yourself.

If you must practice TCS. Then you maybe you shouldn't be getting in the car period.

I understand many of the philosophical ideas that TCS discusses. But, I do not think anyone should advocate unsafe and irresponsible behavior.

~Laura
laurajean is offline  
Old 12-20-2001, 11:37 PM - Thread Starter
 
larsy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 236
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
But that's just it. Who gets to say what is unsafe and/or irresponsible behavior *for another person*? Aren't individual people capable of evaluating risk for their self, and deciding which risk is worth taking, and which isn't? What about the risk of psychological damage from coercion? Lots of people think that this is a more real and present danger on a daily basis, than the risk of a car accident (which certainly do happen, and it is worth taking precautions against).

What about all of us who grew up before there were seat belts in cars? Somehow, we made it. <whew> What about those of us who fly with babies on our laps/in slings? Or fly at all? Oh, well, I guess the odds are better with flying than driving in an auto.

I am concerned about the mindset that all risk can (and should) be avoided by everyone, forceably. Save me from people trying to save me from myself. Personal freedom out the window, human rights can't be far behind.
larsy is offline  
Old 12-21-2001, 12:05 AM
 
geomom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 89
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Yammer- You may want to check out the book 'Spare the Child' by Philip Greven to learn more about the Western tradition of child cruelty.
geomom is offline  
Old 12-21-2001, 12:14 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)
Larsy,

When you say you hope we are all aiming for truth, what "truth" is it that you are talking about. I was not aware that their was any great "truth" that is the focus of parenting. It seems like a pretty abstract goal. There are many things in this world that we can not prove with fact or logic. I am curious what "truth" you are striving for and how you hope to prove it when you find it. It seems to me that no one yet has been able to prove that their is a correct way to parent based on fact. It is always a matter of opinion. I have been striving to raise my children as thoughtful, caring, considerate, loving, nurturing, (this is obviously not all inclusive) people. Their happiness is a byproduct of our parenting and the relationship my dh have with each other and our children, but is not always my main goal.

Please explain this "truth" that keeps coming up, and how you intend to find and prove it. Just curious.

PS: Is Larsy your real name? I like it!
Jish is offline  
Old 12-21-2001, 12:28 AM
 
grisletine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: starksboro vt :)
Posts: 256
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
just wondering..
ok so her decision to leave the nappy on is irrational... i believe that is where you come in.. you could explain to her how uncomfortable it will become and try to find a way to change it that wont upset the child. maybe if you heated the clean diaper in the dryer real quick? if the child adamently refuses, why deprive the child of a learning experience? eventually she will want the daiper off.

as far as the game analogy goes, im sure the others at the meeting would be willing to fill you in. and if you refused ot learn, and wanted your voice heard regardless, im sure the others present would hear you out and then make the right decision anyway.. especially if your input is irrelevant.. but i dont think theres any harm in listening.
grisletine 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