Can we talk about this forum? - Page 5 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#121 of 158 Old 01-12-2006, 11:37 PM
 
a-sorta-fairytale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hangin' with the raisin girls
Posts: 5,060
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by yoopervegan
So now I am really confused. Does this mean in order to not let someone misunderstand I cannot state that I do not force my child to have her diaper changed? My dd is potty learned, but when she was in diapers, I did not force her to be changed. That does not mean I am neglectful. So someone misunderstood. She did not choose to ask more about it or read more about it. But how does that pertain to this conversation? Are you suggesting we should censor against diaper changing discussion?

I am suggesing that abrasiveness turns people off. I was surprised myself by some of the ugly arguements on this board. i dont know, i just thought MDC members were "better" than that. I was usuing the example to show how nastiness makes other view AP/GD parents.
a-sorta-fairytale is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#122 of 158 Old 01-12-2006, 11:46 PM
 
a-sorta-fairytale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hangin' with the raisin girls
Posts: 5,060
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nora'sMama
I don't post much in this forum but I just wanted to add my $.0002. (Yes, the zeros are intended )

I was shocked to see a recent thread where after a poster who was new to MDC posted about using tokens or whatnot, there were several SERIOUSLY SARCASTIC posts. There were some people posting things like "let's be nice to the newbie, but..." - it came off as shockingly condescending to that poster (who as I recall did not return to the thread, gee wonder why not!).

The whole 'atmosphere' of that thread was so ugly to me. Whatever it is that was done on that thread, if we can NOT do that to each other, I think that would be good.

And yeah, you can't assume everyone who comes here has read or even heard of Alfie Kohn. To 99.99% of the parents out there, 'positive reinforcement' (rewards) is the very definition of gentle discipline. So unless this forum is meant to be a closed club of people who have all read the same books, I think it behooves people who are against rewards & token systems (just for example) to be...gentle and for heaven's sake not SARCASTIC to people who come here and talk about using them, especially if those people are new. And it might also behoove us to consider the remote possibility that there is room for this type of thing under the umbrella of Gentle Parenting. Instead I see an undercurrent of ridicule for people who are not 'initiated' into some of the parenting concepts that are de rigeur in this forum.



Elizabeth

YES! I am always interested in seeing what other people do so i read. But when someone is being nasty it doesnt make me think "wow, what a great person i sooo want to take their advice" Instead i think they are a petty irritating person and it is hard to see past their negativity and actuall "hear" what they are saying. It is one reason i am very mindful to drive courteously. I have a car covered in breastfeeding advocacy stickers and i wouldnt want people to think "there goes another butthead breastfeeding jerk!"
a-sorta-fairytale is offline  
#123 of 158 Old 01-13-2006, 12:00 AM
 
lisac77's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 3,191
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I think one of the most important things that we GDers need to realize is how we come across to those who want to GD but are intimidated by the whole process. Let me give you an example from my own life.

I want to practice better nutrition, but it is a real challenge for me because I love junk food. So I will start to read about nutrition and visit some internet sites and maybe hit a couple of message boards, where I read that widgits are really, really good for you. So are gogits and mogits Great. I go to the health food store and buy some widgits and gogits and mogits. I eat them, I feed them to my DS, and I feel like I have taken a big step in my plan to have better nutrition. The next day, I log into my message boards and I read an article by someone saying that widgits are still good for you, but gogits and mogits are bad and will make you fat and give you cancer. Feeling defeated, I get rid of my gogits and mogits and go right on eating widgits. A couple of weeks later, someone links to an article in a medical journal that says that widgits once appeared to be good for you, but they were wrong. mogits are still bad, but they've reviewed gogits and now think that they may not be as bad as they once were. If you will recall, I still have widgits but have thrown away my expensive gogits and mogits. I get frustrated and defeated and give up on the whole idea of good nutrition because it is too hard for me.

Many, many people (myself included) struggle with gentle discipline. When they come to a forum like this one (in my opinion, the premier positive/gentle discipline forum on the internet) and people start bashing them for taking away their kids' crayons when they're coloring on the wall, or telling them they're ruining their child's self-esteem by saying "good job" - these are the kinds of statements that will force them to give it all up as a bad job. Becuase they are in search of the best way, when they get too bogged down in the details it causes them to feel overwhelmed and just let it go rather than try harder. It's not just a matter of being strong in your beliefs and having a tough skin - if you're seeking information and people start yelling or portraying themselves as saints, that's when it starts to go downhill.

Don't get me wrong, I've learned a TON from the detailed conversations on this board. But that's because I'm no longer seeking a way of doing things, I'm simply trying to fine tune as system that's already in place and I'm able to shrug off the posts that don't pertain to what I'm looking for. Not everyone on here is a GD guru, and we all have different ways of doing things. I would hate to scare off people by overanalyizing and nitpicking everything.

When you're trying to catch a fish, there is a moment where the hook is in the fish's mouth, but it hasn't caught yet. If you pull too hard the hook will fall out and you will lose the fish. If you don't pull enough the hook will fall out and you will lose the fish. You have to pull just right, just enough to set the hook, and then you can reel in the fish. That's how we should be self moderating our posts. Think of the fish, people.
lisac77 is offline  
#124 of 158 Old 01-13-2006, 12:05 AM
 
Yooper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 3,473
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by cali's-hippymama
I am suggesing that abrasiveness turns people off. I was surprised myself by some of the ugly arguements on this board. i dont know, i just thought MDC members were "better" than that. I was usuing the example to show how nastiness makes other view AP/GD parents.

I just do not understand how anything in that topic is "nastiness". You stated that your friend was appalled by the idea, not how it was presented. You did not mention that their was "nastiness" in the thread that your friend read. I took it to mean that your friend was shocked that anyone thought it was OK to wait until their dc was ready and willing before changing a diaper. Which does not in itself seem mean spirited. So I am just confused.
Yooper is offline  
#125 of 158 Old 01-13-2006, 12:26 AM
 
a-sorta-fairytale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hangin' with the raisin girls
Posts: 5,060
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by yoopervegan
I just do not understand how anything in that topic is "nastiness". You stated that your friend was appalled by the idea, not how it was presented. You did not mention that their was "nastiness" in the thread that your friend read. I took it to mean that your friend was shocked that anyone thought it was OK to wait until their dc was ready and willing before changing a diaper. Which does not in itself seem mean spirited. So I am just confused.
I guess i should have just stayed out of it. BUT this woman (not a friend just a lady who asked me a ? on another site) was turned off by how this thread about something was turned into this debate about how redirection, rewards, etc was turned into this thing about NEVER telling your child to do anything INCLUDING changing their dirty diaper. To someone new to this site that was pretty aweful as she is imagining leaving a baby in their waste all day. Again, i DID NOT read whatever thread she was talking about. BUT just another example of how we just pick apart each and every post. I think the name of this forum should be GD debate. And like the rest of my thread mentioned no one likes feeling like they are being beaten into submission.
a-sorta-fairytale is offline  
#126 of 158 Old 01-13-2006, 12:51 AM
 
johub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,163
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nora'sMama
And yeah, you can't assume everyone who comes here has read or even heard of Alfie Kohn. To 99.99% of the parents out there, 'positive reinforcement' (rewards) is the very definition of gentle discipline. So unless this forum is meant to be a closed club of people who have all read the same books, I think it behooves people who are against rewards & token systems (just for example) to be...gentle and for heaven's sake not SARCASTIC to people who come here and talk about using them, especially if those people are new. And it might also behoove us to consider the remote possibility that there is room for this type of thing under the umbrella of Gentle Parenting. Instead I see an undercurrent of ridicule for people who are not 'initiated' into some of the parenting concepts that are de rigeur in this forum.
It's not none of your beeswax and I agree 100%.
and want to add, that even those of us who have read all the same books STILL dont agree on them, and pick and choose among different ideas.
So three women who have read the same 3 books might have entilrey different viewpoints.
johub is offline  
#127 of 158 Old 01-13-2006, 01:02 AM
 
julesmom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 311
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Completely off topic....

lisac77, thank you so much for this paragraph:
Quote:
Originally Posted by lisac77
I want to practice better nutrition, but it is a real challenge for me because I love junk food. So I will start to read about nutrition and visit some internet sites and maybe hit a couple of message boards, where I read that widgits are really, really good for you. So are gogits and mogits Great. I go to the health food store and buy some widgits and gogits and mogits. I eat them, I feed them to my DS, and I feel like I have taken a big step in my plan to have better nutrition. The next day, I log into my message boards and I read an article by someone saying that widgits are still good for you, but gogits and mogits are bad and will make you fat and give you cancer. Feeling defeated, I get rid of my gogits and mogits and go right on eating widgits. A couple of weeks later, someone links to an article in a medical journal that says that widgits once appeared to be good for you, but they were wrong. mogits are still bad, but they've reviewed gogits and now think that they may not be as bad as they once were. If you will recall, I still have widgits but have thrown away my expensive gogits and mogits. I get frustrated and defeated and give up on the whole idea of good nutrition because it is too hard for me.
Your post is very true for me and really made me smile, thank you!

My new favorite quote is now "Think of the fish, people." So true!
julesmom is offline  
#128 of 158 Old 01-13-2006, 02:51 AM
 
Piglet68's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Vancouver Island, Canada
Posts: 10,977
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I haven't had a chance to read through this entire thread, just snippets. I've been on these boards for a long time, and I've been a mod here too, and I've seen these conversations come up in NUMEROUS forums here at MDC, not just the GD one.

And before I was interested in parenting I belonged to equestrian boards b/c that was my passion. And I was there for years and I saw the EXACT SAME DISCUSSIONS only there instead of "GD vs spanking" it was "natural horsemanship verus those-other-nasty-trainers-who-hit-their-horses" and it was "classical versus competitive" training techniques and it was "going deep versus breaking at the poll", blah blah blah.... Otherwise it was ALL THE SAME, how people need to be nice, non-judgemental, welcoming, etc....you could superimpose this thread on all those ones and not know the difference.

And you know, after posting on internet discussions boards for about a decade now, I can tell alot of you that the answer is to just get over it and grow a thicker skin. This is the reality of discussion boards: there are certain aspects that make them prone to such complaints and if you are going to spend time on boards you need to understand some things:

1) you can't pick who comes here; some are sophisticated, educated conversationalists, and some have limited abilities with basic grammar or with getting their thoughts into clear words....and all these people have things to say. You just aren't always going to understand where they are coming from, or you just plain don't like their conversational "style" or you just plain don't mesh with that personality type. It's easier to avoid them IRL then on the Internet.

2) text is an extremely limiting medium for discussion of passionate subjects: even with smilies it is very hard to convey tone. I have offended more people than I can count simply by not being careful to word things a certain way, or to add a "disclaimer sentence" just in case. The more experience I get here, the better I get at it. But it's a learned skill, and many people simply don't have the experience on boards to understand just how much what they are saying can either get twisted around, or come across wrong, etc.

3) and of course some people are just plain mean and abrasive and, as IRL, the best thing to do is just ignore them and keep speaking to the people who are being at least constructive in their participation

4) these are PUBLIC boards; OP's don't "own" a thread, and have no right to get "pissed off" when conversations disgress to offshoot topics. you can't start making rules like "everybody looking for support only has to say so" etc. You can ask that vulgarity and outright attacks be moderated, but you can't moderate conversational style; some people are just abrupt. that doesn't make them "mean" or "judgemental"

5) when someone posts something you find offensive or judgemental MODEL THE BEHAVIOUR YOU WISH TO SEE. If I post something that offends someone I am FAR more likely to feel bad about it and apologize if the offended party is nice about it "hey, Piglet, I think you are trying to make an interesting point but I can't help but feel a bit slagged by your comment here..." instead of "wow, what a judgemental woman you are! I bet you think you are just the greatest GD'er ever, miss gentler-than-thou"...because MOST people don't want to hurt or offend others, and when they do it's usually just a poor choice of words. Assuming they are a monster is not going to help them apologize.

6) remember that for some people, especially those who are "newly converted" to AP or GD, they can be really, really zealous about it. Not because they are horrible, judgemental people at all, but because they are just so excited and passionate about this whole new view on life that they have found, that they can't WAIT to share it with others. It happened to me and I've seen it in countless newbies on this board, where they are just zealous and they offend without realizing it or meaning to be hurtful or rude; they just get a bit overboard and lost in their own passion and fail to see that spreading the word is about compassion and understanding and connecting, not alienating and insulting and demonizing. In other words, their hearts are in the right place, but they need examples of how to discuss with understanding. I learned that from wonderful role models when I first came here. Now I try to model that myself.

So there....that's my two cents on the issue. This is a great forum, it has so much to teach, and if you find yourself offended then you probably just need to put it all in perspective. I can't tell you how many times I used to get so worked up over internet discussion board threads that I was literally suffering from anxiety for days and getting a stomach ache over it. I've learned over the years how to avoid that. Y'all will too.

teapot2.GIF Homeschooling, Homesteading Mama to DD ('02) and DS ('04)  ribbonjigsaw.gif blogging.jpg homeschool.gif

Piglet68 is offline  
#129 of 158 Old 01-13-2006, 02:58 AM
 
Mizelenius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: In Lalaland
Posts: 6,938
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Piglet68!

 2/02, 4/05, 2/07, 11/09, and EDD 12/25/11 wave.gif

 

 

Mizelenius is offline  
#130 of 158 Old 01-13-2006, 03:02 AM
 
annab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: IN
Posts: 773
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Yea, Piglet68!
annab is offline  
#131 of 158 Old 01-13-2006, 04:20 AM
 
mykdsmomy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: On the way to or from Starbucks
Posts: 3,170
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Here's me I married then we had dd15 , dd11 , ds10 , and then and now we and I blog!
mykdsmomy is offline  
#132 of 158 Old 01-13-2006, 04:33 AM
 
PaganScribe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Texas!
Posts: 267
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I don't post here often, but I read a lot.

I have a couple of things that come up for me while reading this thread.

First, I don't have a problem with someone who says "I think timeouts are damaging to children." It's an opinion; I'm sure it's reasoned; it's not disrespectful or awful or judgemental or whatever. It's no different than saying "I think spanking is damaging to children" or "I think vaccines are damaging to children."

So, I absolutely agree with the idea that we should be gentle with each other and that we should not make inflammatory statements -- but we're all going to have different opinions of what "inflammatory statements" are. Johub apparently thinks that the above statement is not respectful. I disagree; I don't think there's anything disrespectful about it. So simply saying "We should all be careful how we word things and be respectful of each other and be diplomatic" isn't really going to be helpful, IMO, because we are all going to have different opinons of what those things are.

So what happens when a Mama comes along and says to me "I was offended and hurt when you said that time outs are damaging to children; I use time outs and I don't think I'm damaging my children . . . " or whatever? I'm going to say "I'm sorry that you were hurt and offended, it was not my intent to offend, but I do believe that timeouts are damaging. I don't think they're ever a good idea." I don't think backing off of my opinion is going to mean that I'm being more respectful or more diplomatic or whatever. While I understand the desire for using "I" statements and all, there is a difference between "I don't think timeouts work for my family" and "I think timeouts are wrong." Sometimes there is a place for value judgements, and we are all going to draw that line in a different place so I don't think it's useful to try to define what kind of statement is or isn't okay.

I also think that just because I (or whoever) have a strongly held and well reasoned opinion means that I am not considering others' feelings. I am not being mean or inconsiderate or thoughtless when I say "I think timeouts are wrong." I am merely stating what is, I believe down to my bones, as true a statement as "I think spanking is wrong." I do, and I always will, and I believe it in all situations. I believe there is ALWAYS a better alternative.

But the thing is -- saying that I believe time outs are wrong does NOT mean that I think that you (generic you) are a bad mother. It does NOT mean that I am judging you and thinking horrible things about you because you use them. In fact, I really truly believe that EVERY MAMA HERE is making the decisions that she believes are ABSOLUTELY in the best interest of her child. I am not saying, by saying that timeouts are wrong, that you are a horrible mom if you use them, or that you are trying to hurt your children, or whatever. Does it mean that I think you made a poor choice if you chose to use a time out? Yes, it does, but it doesn't mean that I don't believe you made what you believed was the best choice for your family.

And you know what? You are free to think I'm wrong. You are free to think and tell me "Well, I think you are making a poor choice by not using time outs with your child." THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. There is nothing disrespectful or mean or nasty with that. It is two people who disagree about a very complex subject and hopefully, if we are trying to reach understanding (which I would think is why we are posting on a message board?), then the next thing we will do is each discuss our reasons for believing what we do. And maybe neither of us will change our minds, but that's OKAY.

Disagreeing (or attacking) someone's opinion is NOT the same as attacking them. Making a judgement about a specific practice (ie, timeouts) is NOT the same as judging the worth of a mother.

It seems to me in this thread a lot of attention has been paid to "we should be gentle with each other" and I do agree with that sentiment -- but my definition of gentle and yours are probably going to be different. Maybe we should also be talking about taking responsibility for our reactions to statements, and opinions. Certianly, we should be gentle with each other, but we should ALSO not take disagreement as attack. We shouldn't take things personally when they aren't intended that way.

Mostly, I think we should do what I believe is one of the most important things in GD -- we should assume positive intentions. We should assume every mother is trying to do the best thing for her child. We should assume everyone who posts is not trying to be hurtful, but to be helpful. We shouldn't assume the worst of each other, but the best.

Carrie
Mama to Nate (11/02) and due 4/12/11
PaganScribe is offline  
#133 of 158 Old 01-13-2006, 04:45 AM
 
Starflower's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Western WA
Posts: 2,419
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
: : :

I think Piglet summed it up well.

I am a 40 year old unschooling, belly dancing, artist-mama of one almost 8 year old. I just had brain surgery and blogging.jpg about it a bit because it's just so surreal.
Starflower is offline  
#134 of 158 Old 01-13-2006, 07:04 AM
 
Jennisee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,168
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I am all for posting respectfully, taking others feelings into account, trying to use "I" statements instead of "you" statements, etc. I think doing these things would go a long way towards making peace in tense forums.

However, I totally agree with yoopervegan here:
Quote:
Originally Posted by yoopervegan
And I have to know. What exactly is the difference between a judgement and an opinion? What I seem to get out of this is that it is a judgement if one does not agree with the opinion, but it is an opinion if one does agree.
This is an attitude that I find pervasive on MDC. I cannot count the number of times I have seen people cry "judgemental" or "flames" when someone respectfully disagreed with them. How do you have a civil discussion with someone who perceives your disagreement to be an attack? I think Piglet nailed it on the head, and sometimes we all need to take a step back and not assume things so personally.

Jennisee is offline  
#135 of 158 Old 01-13-2006, 12:42 PM
 
chinaKat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Also being a veteran of many other ENTHUSIASTIC message boards, I would agree that Piglet nailed it.

It's the nature of the beast.

Perhaps we can *all* act a bit as moderators and try to keep the conversation gentle?

I really think that's the best we can hope for.

No matter what, this is a valuable forum.
chinaKat is offline  
#136 of 158 Old 01-13-2006, 12:49 PM
 
WuWei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the moment
Posts: 11,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Piglet68 and PaganScribe, I loved your posts. Interesting, I am going to be a bit of a dissenting opinon to Piglet's "get over it and grow a thicker skin". Living with two Highly Sensitive males, both dh and ds, I understand that their perspective of any situation affecting them, *does* matter, irrelevant of my intent. There is a dance of seeking mutually agreed upon definitions to situations which make communications more effective. And just as we discussed in not telling our children to 'get over their feelings', I don't believe that this is validating or practical advice.

I believe this thread helps us all to come to an clearer understanding of eaches' underlying needs relative to desiring "respect". Which is exactly the point that I keep about related to children. Understanding the child's underlying needs and understanding that "respect" and "gentle" are determined by their perspective. Not mine. As I stated before, respect is treating someone like *they* wish to be treated. Not only treating someone like we wish to be treated (or think others should be treated). This goes for children too. From their perspective.

In an on-line "relationship" the issues are much more difficult to clarify because there are so many perspectives, as Piglet and PaganScribe described. But if the underlying need continues then the "objectionable behaviors" will continue as long as the needs are not addressed. Hopefully, this thread helps to address some of those needs for understanding of eaches' pov.

As a result, discussing what is or isn't GD isn't determined by 'where the parent is coming from'. (ie. if they hit their kids, imposing consequences instead is therefore more "gentle" and "more attachment" nurturing.) The issue is the child's pov that they desire respect from *their* perspective, which requires listening to the child and seeking to understand their underlying needs, not focusing on the behavior and how to modify it (the parent's pov). Through this thread's discussion, we *are* seeking to understand our (collective) underlying needs, and I trust that others here wish to respect each other in the manner that others wish to be treated. Just as I do. I just keep suggesting that we do the same for children, and this is heard as judgement of the parent.

Respect and gentle are in the eye of the beholder, not only the intender's perspective. And I have found this discussion significant and practical because my goal is to understand the underlying needs of both the parent and the child, in my efforts to advocate for the child's pov (which in our culture is much harder for most adults to hear than their own). Just as it is harder for me to hear the parent's pov than the child's. The child's voice is still very loud in my ears when I hear parents disrespecting their child's dissent. Is this "judgement" to hear another's pov and attempt to convey it? I don't intend any judgement of the parent; and I do try to respect the parent's pov by suggesting solutions which address both needs: the child's and the parent's, not just the parents. But, I see how it could be (is?) perceived as 'judging' when I convey that the child is dissenting and that I believe that this is not gentle nor respectful from a child's pov.

Seems we need a mutually agreed upon definition of 'judging' to be clarified.

Pat

I have a blog.
WuWei is offline  
#137 of 158 Old 01-13-2006, 01:48 PM
 
aira's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: missing the Grandmother Lodge
Posts: 2,959
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by scubamama
I trust that others here wish to respect each other in the manner that others wish to be treated. Just as I do. I just keep suggesting that we do the same for children, and this is heard as judgement of the parent.
Really excellent points!

-----------------

I'm interested in considering how much responsibility to the ones initiating communicating have in the responses of others.

I mean, it's pretty clear (to me anyway) how that work in marriage, family, and friendships. But when we talk about something publically and with no knowledge or control over who read it, what their particular issues/needs are, or how they will receive it, how much responsibility do we have in the end in those cases?

Sometimes, like Piglet and Pagan pointed out, people will be offended at the message, and no amount of rephrasing will get to their underlying need for respect. Nothing short of "Everything is great!" will make those people feel good about being here (anywhere in online discussions...) This is very clear in the recent drama over the spanking article, and all the thoughts on the authors blog comments.

What are your thoughts??


By the way, I can't believe I got to type all that right now... I've been so interrupted! It may not make a lick of sense!!
aira is offline  
#138 of 158 Old 01-13-2006, 02:35 PM
 
WuWei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the moment
Posts: 11,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Aira,

Are you saying that someone might react by 'shooting the messenger' due to the message they don't want to have just read as a result of the difficulty in predicting your (collective) personal filters when communicating on-line? Or that some people just want to 'feel good' about whatever they are doing and no matter the 'how' of the message, they don't want to hear a different opinion or pov?

I believe, as Piglet stated, effectively communicating (both, speaking and listening) on a public board is a developed skill when one hopes to meet this underlying need of empathy due to such varied perspectives, histories and baggage.

Certainly, validating the parent is something I could focus more on. But, there seems to be plenty of that going around in our culture which generally considers children with negative connotations of 'manipulative' and controlling, rather than perceiving their behaviors as seeking to meet underlying needs.

Pat

I have a blog.
WuWei is offline  
#139 of 158 Old 01-13-2006, 02:36 PM
 
monkey's mom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,922
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I definitely think that respect and decorum are vital.

However, I'm not sure that's the crux of what's going on here.

People aren't talking about the disrespectful "camp" and the respectful "camp."

People aren't suggesting subforums for those who are polite and those who are rude.

I sense there is real resentment for for non-coercive points of view, period.

In a recent thread where I stated that I thought sending a child to bed hungry was cruel, I was told by several posters that I was an extremist and merely a vocal minority here.

Maybe I am extreme and maybe I am in the minority on that issue, but I would like to be able to express my opinion of a discipline practice without being told I'm too 'out there' to have a voice here.

fussy baby....gotta run
monkey's mom is offline  
#140 of 158 Old 01-13-2006, 02:48 PM
 
aira's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: missing the Grandmother Lodge
Posts: 2,959
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by scubamama
Are you saying that someone might react by 'shooting the messenger' due to the message they don't want to have just read as a result of the difficulty in predicting your (collective) personal filters when communicating on-line? Or that some people just want to 'feel good' about whatever they are doing and no matter the 'how' of the message, they don't want to hear a different opinion or pov?
I think both happen. And how much responsibility do we bear in each case? It is a skill to learn this online communication business. And I wholeheartedly agree with this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by scubamama
...there seems to be plenty of that going around in our culture which generally considers children with negative connotations of 'manipulative' and controlling, rather perceiving their behaviors as seeking to meet underlying needs.
I feel exactly the same way.


Monkey's mom... another great post. I wish I could've said that as clearly as you did.


I guess I'm trying to get at this:

Some people have a way with words, and others... not... have... way.

That's me - Not have way.


Thank you for those who do!
aira is offline  
#141 of 158 Old 01-13-2006, 03:14 PM
 
DevaMajka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Burnaby, BC
Posts: 10,344
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
PaganScribe- wonderful post- great points!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Piglet68
6) remember that for some people, especially those who are "newly converted" to AP or GD, they can be really, really zealous about it. Not because they are horrible, judgemental people at all, but because they are just so excited and passionate about this whole new view on life that they have found, that they can't WAIT to share it with others. It happened to me and I've seen it in countless newbies on this board, where they are just zealous and they offend without realizing it or meaning to be hurtful or rude; they just get a bit overboard and lost in their own passion and fail to see that spreading the word is about compassion and understanding and connecting, not alienating and insulting and demonizing. In other words, their hearts are in the right place, but they need examples of how to discuss with understanding. I learned that from wonderful role models when I first came here. Now I try to model that myself.
Definitely that!

Becky, partner to Teague, SAHM to Keagan (7yo), Jonah (2yo)
 

DevaMajka is offline  
#142 of 158 Old 01-13-2006, 03:46 PM
 
Piglet68's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Vancouver Island, Canada
Posts: 10,977
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
You know what else I find interesting? On boards where people have met IRL, you rarely get any sort of flaming or bad threads. In my "local MDC tribe" forum we are overly polite and respectful, easily apologize for anything misconstrued...but that rarely happens. It's really interesting to see how differently people act (post) when it's a real person on the other end that you know and will run into from time to time.

I think sometimes people find it therapeutic to "lash out" online because there is no "real person" and it allows them to be the person they are afraid to be IRL. Like for me, I'm a very non-confrontational person - I don't have the constitution to engage in conflict with people I don't know extremely well. It can feel a bit therapeutic sometimes to take a more aggressive stance online, sort of "get in touch with my inner bitch", IYKWIM.

I think if we "regulars" model the kind of behaviour we want to see here, by pointing out offenses politely, and by apologizing when we've made them (or at least clarifying), then we will influence how new people coming here will behave.

teapot2.GIF Homeschooling, Homesteading Mama to DD ('02) and DS ('04)  ribbonjigsaw.gif blogging.jpg homeschool.gif

Piglet68 is offline  
#143 of 158 Old 01-13-2006, 04:09 PM
 
writermommy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,300
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piglet68
You know what else I find interesting? On boards where people have met IRL, you rarely get any sort of flaming or bad threads. In my "local MDC tribe" forum we are overly polite and respectful, easily apologize for anything misconstrued...but that rarely happens. It's really interesting to see how differently people act (post) when it's a real person on the other end that you know and will run into from time to time.

I think sometimes people find it therapeutic to "lash out" online because there is no "real person" and it allows them to be the person they are afraid to be IRL. Like for me, I'm a very non-confrontational person - I don't have the constitution to engage in conflict with people I don't know extremely well. It can feel a bit therapeutic sometimes to take a more aggressive stance online, sort of "get in touch with my inner bitch", IYKWIM.

I think if we "regulars" model the kind of behaviour we want to see here, by pointing out offenses politely, and by apologizing when we've made them (or at least clarifying), then we will influence how new people coming here will behave.



Great post Piglet! You put my thoughts into words here. The anonymity of the internet makes it much easier to be more aggressive than most people would be in a face to face conversation. I just wanted to say I agree with your post completely, and loved the idea of "getting in touch with the inner bitch"
writermommy is offline  
#144 of 158 Old 01-13-2006, 04:13 PM
 
Fuamami's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 4,375
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piglet68
You know what else I find interesting? On boards where people have met IRL, you rarely get any sort of flaming or bad threads. In my "local MDC tribe" forum we are overly polite and respectful, easily apologize for anything misconstrued...but that rarely happens. It's really interesting to see how differently people act (post) when it's a real person on the other end that you know and will run into from time to time.

I think sometimes people find it therapeutic to "lash out" online because there is no "real person" and it allows them to be the person they are afraid to be IRL. Like for me, I'm a very non-confrontational person - I don't have the constitution to engage in conflict with people I don't know extremely well. It can feel a bit therapeutic sometimes to take a more aggressive stance online, sort of "get in touch with my inner bitch", IYKWIM.

I think if we "regulars" model the kind of behaviour we want to see here, by pointing out offenses politely, and by apologizing when we've made them (or at least clarifying), then we will influence how new people coming here will behave.
And then, maybe, we'll be less likely to lash out at our kids. So, maybe, we should actually be MEANER to each other!

Just kidding, I think this is a great point, and a great thread. I think it's interesting that people on both sides of the "coercion" fence have said that they feel outnumbered and undervalued, and that the other side's trying to run them off. It's just such an emotionally loaded issue.

Mommy to kids

Fuamami is offline  
#145 of 158 Old 01-13-2006, 04:42 PM
 
writermommy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,300
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I agree it is emotionally charged, which is the root of the problem. Whenever a person feels passionately about something, as we all do about parenting/discipline, you are more likely to state those beliefs vocally and forcefully. In most cases, not meaning to offend or drive anyone away, but just because we all do feel so strongly about our individual style. It's easy to get carried away by that passion and forget the person on the receiving end.
writermommy is offline  
#146 of 158 Old 01-13-2006, 06:47 PM
 
johub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,163
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaganScribe
First, I don't have a problem with someone who says "I think timeouts are damaging to children." It's an opinion; I'm sure it's reasoned; it's not disrespectful or awful or judgemental or whatever. It's no different than saying "I think spanking is damaging to children" or "I think vaccines are damaging to children."

So, I absolutely agree with the idea that we should be gentle with each other and that we should not make inflammatory statements -- but we're all going to have different opinions of what "inflammatory statements" are. Johub apparently thinks that the above statement is not respectful. I disagree; I don't think there's anything disrespectful about it. So simply saying "We should all be careful how we word things and be respectful of each other and be diplomatic" isn't really going to be helpful, IMO, because we are all going to have different opinons of what those things are.

.
I am sorry you have misunderstood, so I will restate. I think that clarifying a belief with an "I think" or an "I believe" IS the way to go to make statements that are diplomatic. I was advocating this very thing.
It is my belief that the statement "time outs are damaging to children" is less diplomatic than "I believe timeouts to be damaging to children".
When somebody tells me that time outs are damaging to children, and I have already said that I use time out, this makes me feel that it is implied that I am damaging my children. Which is something I would vehemently argue against.
However if somebody says "I believe timeouts are damaging to children" I have nothing to argue, because they have a right to their beliefs andto apply them to their children.
It is my perceptions that statements of belief are unique and individual and are to be applied by that person to their lives. Statements of "fact" are to be applied to all.
I may be unique in this perceptoin however.
And I agree 100% with Piglet it is important to realize that not everybody who comes here has learned how to communicate effectively and diplomatically (yet, it improves with time certainly) and they have every right to be here and express their thoughts. (and just about the rest of your post I agree with too. Lots of things to keep in mind)
Joline
johub is offline  
#147 of 158 Old 01-13-2006, 07:08 PM
 
johub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,163
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
ON second thought. I dont think there is any way to explain this thought or idea in a way which is not very likely to be offensive or taken personally by some, even if I mean to be as neutral as possible, so I deleted it.
johub is offline  
#148 of 158 Old 01-14-2006, 05:12 AM
 
Soundhunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Gulf Islands, BC
Posts: 335
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
This thread is so long, read a couple of pages into it, one post by you Joline, had me nodding.

As an adult survivor of child abuse, I think it's really over the top what some people call child abuse around here. I also think it's very valid for people to get their backs up if people suggest that commonly accepted GD parenting practises are child abuse. Calling something Child Abuse is an extremely strong statement, and in my opinion, it's lame lame lame lame and extremely disrespectful to true survivors of child abuse to toss this term around in order to add juice to a strong opinion.

I was in the Canadian child and family services system from 13-18 yrs old and spent time with some very severely abused children who would be grossly offended at how easily that term is tossed around in this place.

I personally appreciate reading diverse interpretations of GD here, this place would suck if there was only one narrow definition of what was acceptable GD. Well, since I haven't read the last few pages I'm sure my post is really out of touch with where the thread's at now, so on with your regulalry scheduled programming.
Soundhunter is offline  
#149 of 158 Old 01-14-2006, 08:27 AM
 
mamakay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in la la land, or so they say...
Posts: 8,332
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Aaaahh..
I've read this whole thread and a few similar other ones, and I'm still not sure what is and isn't "gd".
Ergo, I'm not sure if I'm practicing what is known as GD.
I guess I'm closer to the "logical consequences are sometimes ok" group. Like, when my 2 yo is flipping out I'll every once in a while put him in "time out" for maybe 15 seconds beside me on the couch till he agrees to talk.
Or if he throws something at me out of anger, I put it on the shelf till he gets that we don't throw stuff at people, which is about 10-15 seconds after whatever happened.
(btw, I am looking for alternatives. Please feel free to post ideas about what else I could do. Right now this method is working about 50/50.)
Anyway, I'm not sure I belong here.
While I have no desire to just "control" my child, sometimes his 2yoldness is totally unacceptable, and his throwing stuff at people needs some tempering.
I understand that it's just him being 2. I'm not expecting him to be 4. It's just a matter of me communicating to him that "If you hurl that firetruck at your great-grandmother, it's going on the shelf until you're calm enough to not throw it at people.
And I've found that just mentoning that I'll put the thrown object on the shelf till he agrees to not throw it at someone makes him reconsider throwing it in the first place.
mamakay is offline  
#150 of 158 Old 01-14-2006, 10:49 AM
 
aira's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: missing the Grandmother Lodge
Posts: 2,959
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundhunter
As an adult survivor of child abuse, I think it's really over the top what some people call child abuse around here. I also think it's very valid for people to get their backs up if people suggest that commonly accepted GD parenting practises are child abuse. Calling something Child Abuse is an extremely strong statement, and in my opinion, it's lame lame lame lame and extremely disrespectful to true survivors of child abuse to toss this term around in order to add juice to a strong opinion.
I've never been able to understand this thinking... that differing degrees of something make lesser degrees invalid.

I'm also a survivor of serious abuse and psychological torture. In no way whatsoever do I feel a diminishing of my experience because others were "less abused" than I was. And it's really unfair to them to invalidate what harmed them just beacuse you had it worse.

I suppose that holocaust survivors wouldn't consider my childhood abusive in camparison to their abuse. But that doesn't make it not abuse. There are degrees of everything and they are not linearly comparable. I'm actually disturbed that people try to do that.

If a person is/was harmed by an act commited on them, they were harmed. End of story. No one else gets to decide if they were.
aira is offline  
Reply

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


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