Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Single Parents  > Gotta admit, it is easier to parent alone than co-parent      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 My I
Joined: 1/23/2007
Msg: 51
Gotta admit, it is easier to parent alone than co-parentPage 3 of 6    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)
Parent A does something/says something that you, as Parent B doesn't agree with, do you:

a) Give support to the parent?
b) Give support to the child?
c) Both? If so, how does one do that?

D) You mind your own business under your own roof as long as the child is not in iminent danger and/or risk. Too often, parents feel they have the ownership rights to adjudicate matters that really shouldn't be adjudicated by a third party.

The only way to imnprove conflict resolution skills is through experience. How can the other parent develop skills if he has an ex breathing down his neck?

How do parents who have differences in styles actually do it?!

As I said:
You mind your own business under your own roof as long as the child is not in iminent danger and/or risk. Some parents have a terrible habbit of being the ex's parent as well. Meaning, some people need to stop regulating two households when they live in one..... it comes of as a superiority issue, leaving the other parent feeling as if he/she must answer to the ex as if the ex was the school principal.

"Get over yourself" is the first thing that comes to mind.
 ConsciousSoul
Joined: 7/9/2008
Msg: 52
view profile
History
Gotta admit, it is easier to parent alone than co-parent
Posted: 7/27/2010 6:12:52 PM

While sound, they are wholly unrealistic when it comes to single parenting.

Well, all I can tell you is that on the 2.2 million parents who used the parenting method I teach, there is solid percentage of these who are single parents. I am not sure which percentage - anywhere between 5 and 20% - and they had great success in using it. That's at least hundreds of thousands of single parents who had great success using it.



There is little room for negotiation in my household.

There is no "negotiation" in attachment parenting. Negotiation is something you do to find a compromise. There is no compromise in the parent effectiveness method: both parents and child gets their needs met. (and I said NEEDS, not desires).
I can see how at first glance and until you actually get the formation you may think it looks a lot like negotiation. I assure you it really has nothing to do with it. Parents are the caregiver, and they are the one responsible, not the other way around - and this is never in question.



I like to think I run a dictatorship and until they are 18 and legally able to care for themselves

I would strongly encourage you to revise this view of parenting. While this may be desirable when children are toddlers, it's going to cause you a lot of problems when your kids reach adolescence, because adolescent NEED to establish their identity: no matter how strong you think your stance is, they will challenge it and, most likely, fall into serious problems as a result (drug, early pregnancy, violence, etc).

The myth is that the parent has to be the dictator all the time, and then magically, at 18, the kid is a "grown up" and can care for himself and leave "your" house. But it's a myth. If you do this, your 18 years old will not know how to make decisions because he will have been raised into a dictatorship environment. You need to slowly adapt your parenting style to the child's age and grant them more and more opportunities to be responsible for themselves, so that when they reach adulthood (which could be much later than 18, that number is just a legal number), they are actually prepared to be on their own. Anyway, there is much to say about this and it's out of the thread topic. Email me if you want to learn more.



And CS.. not allowing the pool trip to happen isn't so much punishment as it is about not rewarding bad behaviour.

Honestly, how you perceive your actions with your kid is of little importance for the child's psychological development. What matters is how HE will see your actions. If he is seeing this as a punishment, it erodes the strength of the parent-child relationship, and it reduces the attachment, hence removing your primary tool for influence and parenting power.



it is about not rewarding bad behaviour.

This concept stems from the behavioral model: do not "reinforce" a "misbehavior" by rewarding it. The problem with this is that it only tackles the surface problem. What is a "misbehavior"?

Here is an extract from the P.E.T program: "Children don't misbehave"
http://www.gordontraining.com/Children_Don_t_Misbehave.html

Principle 1:
Like adults, children have basic needs that are important to them, and they continually strive to meet their needs by doing something.

Principle 2:
Children don't misbehave. Their behaviors are simply actions they have chosen to meet these important needs.

An infant cries because she is hungry or cold, or in pain. Something is wrong; her organism needs something. Crying behavior is the baby's way of saying, "Help." Such behavior, in fact, should be viewed as quite appropriate ("good"), for the crying is apt to bring the child the help that is needed. When you view the child as a creature that is doing something appropriate to get its needs met, you can't really call it misbehaving.



How do you judge that a behaviour is "bad" or "good" - according to which criteria? If a child is reacting perfectly normally according to his psychological development and as a result of the choices you made as a parent, how can this be a "misbehavior" ? I am not asking rhetorical questions: I am trying to get you to reverse the thinking. When we look at the behavior, we start from the parent (outside) and we look at the child (outside-in). I am asking you to try to place yourself from the child first (inside) and get all the way to the ending behaviour (inside-out).



Where does he learn that he can't get everything he wants?

It's an important question, and a very valid concern. I think the lesson isn't that "a child should not learn that he can get anything he wants", but rather than "a human being's freedom to get what he wants stops where another human being's needs are impacted". It's a much more subtle lesson to teach. But I think it's also more valid. In order to teach this, however, one must understand the difference between a desire and a need, and one must also understand what are the children's fundamental needs, and how they often express them in inappropriate ways because they simply don't know yet how to do so properly.

There is always a need behind a behavior. For instance, back to the trantrum in the kitchen: do you have an idea what the need (not the desire) is behind that behavior?
 big pacific
Joined: 7/2/2009
Msg: 53
view profile
History
Gotta admit, it is easier to parent alone than co-parent
Posted: 7/28/2010 5:55:51 AM

This concept stems from the behavioral model: do not "reinforce" a "misbehavior" by rewarding it. The problem with this is that it only tackles the surface problem. What is a "misbehavior"?


Using an example of a child crying to misbehavior is inappropriate at best. You argue that a child doesn't misbehave but are trying to express needs, what need is being met when he steals another childs toy? What "need" is there? What need is there to "punch" a baby brother?

There is room for your parenting philosophy, but i fear it will raise weak men and women. Your parenting philosophy flies in the face of the parenting of the greatest generation. It's too one sided for my liking. Similar to a parent that only resorts to spanking, the touchy feely let's see what it all means babble teaches an unfair life lesson. When you throw a tantrum at work, no one is going to care about your "needs", just your behaviour. When you go to school, some kids won't want to "talk it out" and kids need to have an understanding of multiple ways to handle conflict.
 itsallinthesoul
Joined: 6/26/2009
Msg: 54
Gotta admit, it is easier to parent alone than co-parent
Posted: 7/28/2010 6:26:08 AM

what need is being met when he steals another childs toy



What need is there to "punch" a baby brother?


Children, especially young children react in accordance with their feelings. The capacity to reason comes much later in development. Using the Pavlovian approach of reward/punishment to "train" behaviours out of existence does work but at what cost? It is not like children have empathy when they are young so they don't even have the capacity to see how their actions affect others...they are egocentric. To punish them for something they don't possess seems rather harsh and unfair to me. I also don't think it internalizes the right message. As a parent, I would much rather my child internalize the lesson and not the punishment. A child can internalize the lesson without being punished.

Unlike CSoul, I don't see that punishments are a bad tool to use with the caveat being that the explanation comes as to why they are being treated the way they are and are used at age appropriate times. In the real world, punishments are doled out by non-parents and teaching our children how to handle them is a parental responsibility. The other caveat being that the punishment should fit the "crime". The only benefit I truly see when it comes to punishments is teaching our kids that if they don't want to do the time (have the punishment), they need to not do the crime. It is a lesson in personal accountability. On those rare occassions as a parent when I feel "forced" to use punishment, I try to remember to be fair with my children, but I'm far from perfect.

I see many parents who don't....they are angry so they heap on the punishment and most of the time once they cool off, they realize that the punishment was excessive and retract some of it. Like any parenting tool, punishment should never be doled out when one is angry and should be used when it is age appropriate (in other words, when they have the developmental ability to understand why they are being punished).
 ConsciousSoul
Joined: 7/9/2008
Msg: 55
view profile
History
Gotta admit, it is easier to parent alone than co-parent
Posted: 7/28/2010 8:55:06 AM

You argue that a child doesn't misbehave but are trying to express needs, what need is being met when he steals another childs toy?

There could be many needs behind that behavior. It would require a bit more details about the context and situation to have a better guess. Here is some possibilities:
- feeling of unfairness (if that kid feels the toy should be his)
- need for understanding why the other kid sees something in this toy (curiosity)
- need to model (try to do what someone else do and see what happens)
The behavior might also stem from the child's natural cognitive development stage:
- understanding of the concept of ownership not yet developed (toddlers)
- failure to understand that other children have feelings too (child ego-centrism)

In each of these case, a punishment misses the boat because it does not help the child develop missing cognitive abilities (which will take a while, by the way, it's unrealistic to think it will be solved only with a one-time intervention from the parent) and it also fails at addressing the root cause (the need). For instance, this is why when you have toddlers and small children as siblings, it's often recommended to buy the main toys in double, so that they can both have that really bright and intriguing flashy red car at the same time: it's perfectly natural, when one starts to be interested by a toy, to see the other suddenly interested in it too.


What need is there to "punch" a baby brother?

That one is a lot easier to figure out, and it is a typical case that is reviewed in many parenting workshop, such as "Sibling Rivalery" from Faber & Mazlish.
A kid who punches a baby brother is feeling a strong emotion, and using an unacceptable way to express that emotion. Usually, this emotion is a desperate attempt to express how frustration about sharing the parent's love has been accumulated for months, perhaps years. It's very difficult for an older child to see a younger new one appear in the family and take time away from his parents, especially when the age difference is only a few years. Punishment completely misses the boat because it INCREASES the resentment that the older sibling feels for the younger one: he will (rightly so) associate the younger sibling as being the source of his pain and humiliation - and it will make the root cause of the behavior MORE likely to happen again - especially when the parents aren't around.
As for toddlers who hit their siblings, remember very young children have no concept of others (child's ego-centrism), they may not even REALIZE that they are hurting their sibling because they don't understand the concept that other people think different things that they do.


There is room for your parenting philosophy, but i fear it will raise weak men and women.

Inner strength is developed and will grow when we have acquired a solid self-esteem. Self-esteem is eroded and hindered when parents use punishments and fail to understand their child's inner emotions. Perhaps your fear comes from the society's view of a "strong man" as being someone who doesn't show his emotions ("a real man doesn't cry")? Yes, parenting from the inside-out promotes a true expression of feelings and helps children become adults who are in-tune with their emotions, and also who learn to listen and understand other people's emotions. But this makes them strong, not weak. See Goleman's EI (Emotional Intelligence) ratio for instance.


Your parenting philosophy flies in the face of the parenting of the greatest generation.

Sorry? And what generation would that be? The baby boomers? The generation who is destroying the planet and starving half of its population?


Similar to a parent that only resorts to spanking, the touchy feely...

You know, the use of that adjective speaks volume right there. It's not a descriptive adjective: it's a connoted, charged, derogatory way to describe the act of empathy and understanding your child's emotions. And it is sad, because until he reaches adolescence, a child *IS* nearly ONLY emotions.


When you throw a tantrum at work, no one is going to care about your "needs", just your behaviour. When you go to school, some kids won't want to "talk it out" and kids need to have an understanding of multiple ways to handle conflict.

In real life, you pay the rent (or mortgage) or you are kicked out of your home. Yet children aren't asked to pay a rent. The argument about "how it works in real life" is a really weak argument. Teaching a child, educating and raising a child, is precisely about shielding them from "real life" (when they are little) and progressively and slowly introducing them to a controlled environment as they grow their cognitive faculties.

Let me give you a concrete metaphor to explain: imagine if you are trying to grow a plant of tomato. Would you purposely decide to stop giving it water for several days (because in real life, it may not rain for many days) or purposely drown it in a lot of water (because in real life, there may be a very large rain storm)? If you do this, especially when the plant is still young, it will never grow as solid as it could have, and perhaps may never grow mature at all. The point is that in order for the plant to become solid and mature, so that it can resist any storm or drought, it has first to grow in a protected and secure environment in order to reach that growth.

What we know today, tanks to the recent research in neuro-biology, is that the child brain NEEDS absolute security and absolute unconditional love to grow. What happens at work should you, as an adult, make a tantrum, should be of NO concern to your child, because he is a child, and he is not working to make a living. He is growing up. You are already a grown up. He has no other way to express his feelings, and expressing his feelings is a matter of fundamental need to develop properly. You on the other hand have many ways to express your feelings, including getting a walk out to cool down, asking your boss for a meeting, sitting down with him and talking, etc. Your brain is fully capable of handling these emotions, where the child's brain is not. You do not need your boss' unconditional love to survive. If your boss yells at you, it will not change how your brain grows, because you are not emotionally attached to your boss, and your developmental psychology isn't driven by the depth of attachment you feel for your boss. Your child, on the other hand, depends on you for his survival and his psychological development.


kids need to have an understanding of multiple ways to handle conflict.

Absolutely, they do. Punishment is not a way to handle conflict: it's a way to "win" (for the parent) at the expense of the child (the loser in the conflict). Real conflict management is about addressing the real problem. If you want children to learn multiple ways to handle conflict, you must first make sure they have the proper cognitive process to handle this. Adults do. Children don't: they are still at the stage of learning to handle their own emotions. They need to learn THAT first. And you can help them learn that step by listening to them, by identifying their emotions and naming them, and by showing them that no matter what, you are there for them - even if you won't let them have all they desire: listening to feelings doesn't mean you have to act on it or let the kid choose what to do.
 ConsciousSoul
Joined: 7/9/2008
Msg: 56
view profile
History
Gotta admit, it is easier to parent alone than co-parent
Posted: 7/28/2010 8:58:42 AM

Like any parenting tool, punishment should never be doled out when one is angry and should be used when it is age appropriate (in other words, when they have the developmental ability to understand why they are being punished).

ItsAll, if I may challenge you on this tidbit of information: are you then saying that punishment would be useful then with adolescents? After all, of all ages, adolescents certainly have the developmental ability to understand why they are being punished. Is that your experience with adolescence - that punishment is useful?
 itsallinthesoul
Joined: 6/26/2009
Msg: 57
Gotta admit, it is easier to parent alone than co-parent
Posted: 7/28/2010 9:32:18 AM
I knew you would call me out on that one....

If you recall, that disastrous attempt of mine to use punishment didn't go too well. The main reason it didn't go to well was I forgot the golden rule.....talk first, punish later and never do either when even a little angry. If I had taken the time to actually talk to my son before doling out the punishment I would have realized what his real issue was and wouldn't even have considered punishment in that situation. I would have worked with him (as I eventually did) to help him succeed (pass his art class). If he hadn't pulled his weight in it, I would have limited his priviledges to give him the time to at least consider his options. I just recently discovered from him that marks don't matter to him, which explains a lot (root cause)....sigh....now how to counter that because whether they matter to him or not, they sure will matter to Universities in two years. He wants to go to University so at some point I imagine the lightbulb in his brain will go off....

Punishment for me is the removal of priviledges (not rights). For instance, if my son has been told that he needs to ask to borrow my car and he instead just takes my car, you can bet there will a punishment in it for him. He won't have access to my car keys and there would be NO negotiation on that point. He would know why I was doing it and he would be expecting it. The violation of trust is not taken lightly in our home, on anyone, adult or child. Of course, I truly do not expect that my son would ever do such a thing in the first place. Our relationship is built on mutual respect and trust....love...not fear. He knows that if he asks and his request is reasonable and I don't need the car for work, I will say yes. I've been fair with him most of the time and in those instances where I wasn't, I acknowledged it and apologized to him for it.

Nathan and I have many discussions as he is now in the midst of the teenage years. Most of the discussions that involve issues related to parenting still are conversations, the giving and receiving of information. He talks about how he feels and what freedoms he wants and we discuss the risks/benefits of these added freedoms. Most of the time he makes a solid argument and I accept that he has to be given the freedom to make his own life choices. He also knows it is very hard for me to continually be letting him go and he is sensitive to that. I've been his mom for 16 years and while I do want for him to be strong and independent, part of me still resists because he will always be my little boy in my heart.

I know that you will undoubtedly come back with the statement that I don't have to use punishments because I'm used most of the methods you talk about for the last 16 years with my son and you are correct.

If you haven't been using the methods of which you speak though, punishment is a tool that many use and it is an effective one....just depends on how you define effective. Every child is different and each situation is unique because we are dealing with humans. I will still contend that punishment can be effective, even with children raised using the methods you prescribe to....depends on the situation. I will however concede that the need to punish is greatly reduced when we apply the methods you speak about. I will also concede that children raised used the methods of which you speak are more secure in themselves and are better able to make their own decisions and more likely to make good decisions for themselves.

When Nathan was younger, I did teach him cause/effect as a means to teach him. When he made a mistake or did something I didn't approve of, I didn't scold him or punish him, I talked to him about what he did. I asked why he did it, I explained how I felt about what he did and we problem-solved to find a way he could do it differently next time and meet his objectives and mine. I did also advise him that repeating the same mistake over again would likely result in A (removal of priveledges) and we discussed that too. At the end of the discussion, I knew where he stood, he knew where I stood and repeat performances didn't occur once he was able to predict the future outcome of his actions (around 7 or 8 I think). The "threat of punishment" was a deterrent more than anything else and perhaps wasn't even necessary. Before he was at the age where he could see cause/effect, it was constant reinforcement until it sunk in.
 ConsciousSoul
Joined: 7/9/2008
Msg: 58
view profile
History
Gotta admit, it is easier to parent alone than co-parent
Posted: 7/28/2010 7:08:55 PM

If I had taken the time to actually talk to my son before doling out the punishment I would have realized what his real issue was and wouldn't even have considered punishment in that situation.

Very well. So, in that case, in which situation would you deem necessary to punish?


Punishment for me is the removal of privileges (not rights). For instance, if my son has been told that he needs to ask to borrow my car and he instead just takes my car, you can bet there will a punishment in it for him. He won't have access to my car keys and there would be NO negotiation on that point.

I realize we are arguing on the terms here, but what you are describing is not a punishment. A punishment is something that is inflicted on someone with the specific intent of hurting them for the purpose of getting them to "learn" something.
It's not even technically a "removal of privilege" so much as it is the clear and normal consequence of a breach of trust. If you honestly believe that your adolescent son will be safe next time with your car, removing this privilege is useless, because the lesson is already learned from his own experience. If you don't believe it is safe and the trust is breached, then it's perfectly normal to stop letting him use your car, until that trust is back. How can it be back? That part is up to him. But either way - that's not a punishment.


I know that you will undoubtedly come back with the statement that I don't have to use punishments because I'm used most of the methods you talk about for the last 16 years with my son and you are correct.

More importantly, I am curious to understand why you find it so hard to let go of that concept, since you have been so successful at not using it anyway?


If you haven't been using the methods of which you speak though, punishment is a tool that many use and it is an effective one....just depends on how you define effective.

Yes, I agree with you - it really depends on what you mean by "effective". It is an effective tool at behavior modification in the short term. However, it is also massively counter-productive on the long term because it disconnects the parent-child relationship and removes your long term leverage to stay influential in the life of your child, at the moment where your influence is most deeply needed. It is also useless as a cognitive tool, because it acts as a suppressor of emotions ("I must hide my negative emotions because my parent can't handle my behaviour") instead of dealing with them and teaching the child how to deal with them.


Every child is different and each situation is unique because we are dealing with humans.

While this is totally true, we also all share the same brain development process and we all go through the same developmental stages. And our parent's parenting choices lead to the same various attachment disorders and, later in life, to the same kind of recurring problems.


I will still contend that punishment can be effective, even with children raised using the methods you prescribe to....depends on the situation.

Can you perhaps give me some concrete example of a situation, including full context, it which you think it could be effective even in the long term?
 ItsComplicated76
Joined: 7/1/2010
Msg: 59
Gotta admit, it is easier to parent alone than co-parent
Posted: 7/28/2010 8:31:35 PM

I'd be seriously worried about their professional competences. But perhaps you are approaching this from the legal stand point rather than the social work stand point? I couldn't say, as my expertise is not on the legal side. What do you think?


Yes CS, I was thinking more along the lines of a legal perspective. While certainly any experts appointed by the Courts are very experienced in their fields unfortunately the limitations imposed on them (mostly time...being a single 1 hour interview with either parent and a 1/2 hour observation of each parent with the child) is not nearly enough to always draw accurate conclusions. As such any statements made by either parent especially where those statements include the words "my children" and/or "I would not let the child see the other parent" can become a large focal point of any recomendations made and be viewed as negative from a legal standpoint.

The biggest issue is that due to those time limitations parents who might not be as articulate or are very emotional during the interview (Court in itself is unfamiliar territory to many...let alone being placed on observation) might make such statements unwittingly and due to them not having an adequate opportunity to explain (so much needs to be covered in that isolated interview) might be viewed as differently to who they really are or what they really think. Although, at least here, you are given an opportunity to cross examine anything written into the report especially where the report writer has made conclusions exceeding their scope of expertise, many litigants are unrepresented and do not possess the skills of their more learned counterparts during cross examination to discredit and opinions of the expert given they are an expert are pretty much followed for the most part. I should mention that here our system is advesarial while yours is inquisitorial...so a little different.

In relation to alignment. While not all isolated statements made during an expert report will be converted into a context of alignment again the limitations of the report menas that statements can be "held onto to" as "whole opinion" of a parent and sometimes treated as a prediction of future negate behaviour of that same parent towards the other in relation to the child. If that makes sense.
 big pacific
Joined: 7/2/2009
Msg: 60
view profile
History
Gotta admit, it is easier to parent alone than co-parent
Posted: 7/29/2010 7:57:11 AM

I realize we are arguing on the terms here, but what you are describing is not a punishment. A punishment is something that is inflicted on someone with the specific intent of hurting them for the purpose of getting them to "learn" something.


Sorry man, removal of a perk to prove a point IS a punishment. If you are just going to word jive to make it sound like a punishment isn't, than i guess no one has ever "punished" a kid outside of a spanking. I don't know any parents that punish with the intent of "hurting" them, they punish with the intent of understanding cause and effect.


For instance, this is why when you have toddlers and small children as siblings, it's often recommended to buy the main toys in double, so that they can both have that really bright and intriguing flashy red car at the same time: it's perfectly natural, when one starts to be interested by a toy, to see the other suddenly interested in it too.


Perhaps you and i describe "need" differently, the basic needs are food, shelter, clothing and in children love from a parent. I do not see how the desire of another toy or curiosity being indulged is a "need" it's a desire.


A kid who punches a baby brother is feeling a strong emotion, and using an unacceptable way to express that emotion. Usually, this emotion is a desperate attempt to express how frustration about sharing the parent's love has been accumulated for months, perhaps years. It's very difficult for an older child to see a younger new one appear in the family and take time away from his parents, especially when the age difference is only a few years.


Again, there isn't a NEED here. I think at earlier ages we need to teach children that their actions have consequences at others, i don't completely ignore your teachings, at the same time i'm concerned at what teaching like this has wrought on my generation, i'll elaborate in a bit.


Inner strength is developed and will grow when we have acquired a solid self-esteem. Self-esteem is eroded and hindered when parents use punishments and fail to understand their child's inner emotions. Perhaps your fear comes from the society's view of a "strong man" as being someone who doesn't show his emotions ("a real man doesn't cry")? Yes, parenting from the inside-out promotes a true expression of feelings and helps children become adults who are in-tune with their emotions, and also who learn to listen and understand other people's emotions. But this makes them strong, not weak. See Goleman's EI (Emotional Intelligence) ratio for instance.


Inner strength is NOT taught by your pacification techniques. It's not about society's view of a "strong" man that doesn't cry. It's about raising capable men and women that understand the world doesn't revolve around them. An idea that children learn from an early age that the world isn't going to take a time out to talk out their feelings for every single thing that might cross their mind, that they are accountable for their behaviour and actions. Despite their "wants", we can teach children that their wants are NOT a trump on anyone else's.


Sorry? And what generation would that be? The baby boomers? The generation who is destroying the planet and starving half of its population?


No actually, "the greatest generation" refers to the generation that dealt with the great depression and fought in ww2. The baby boomers are their children/grandchildren. When we went through the drastic social changes in the 50's and 60's, we saw a swing to a more liberal view of raising children from many people such as yourself starting in the 50's. The more it happened, the worse children became, the less capable, the more needy. We teach children of today that most desires are "needs" and that they "deserve" to be happy. This sense of entitlement has led to higher divorce, lower educational standards and the dissolve of the traditional family, latchkey kids, children of divorce and single parenthood has been on the rise SINCE the greatest generation, in my opinion due to this swing.

Your disdain for the boomers is actually kind of funny, because it's your mentality of emotion based thinking that LED to the boomers being how they are in the first place, again, my opinion.



Let me give you a concrete metaphor to explain: imagine if you are trying to grow a plant of tomato. Would you purposely decide to stop giving it water for several days (because in real life, it may not rain for many days) or purposely drown it in a lot of water (because in real life, there may be a very large rain storm)? If you do this, especially when the plant is still young, it will never grow as solid as it could have, and perhaps may never grow mature at all. The point is that in order for the plant to become solid and mature, so that it can resist any storm or drought, it has first to grow in a protected and secure environment in order to reach that growth.


Now let me use your example. Imagine a plant, with all your protection and "understanding" and no "punishment" for bad consequences are personified in a green house. You want whats best for it's growth, so you shelter it in said greenhouse, and tell yourself "it'll grow stronger in there, i'm doing the right thing". Couple years go by and you've raised what YOU think to be a strong vibrant plant. Then you let the plant go, you plant it outside having never seen the harshness of the real world in winter, you've sheltered it with over emotional "care" and thinking it was best for his growth, and protected it for SO long that it can't survive outside in the real conditions. They expect the greenhouse, the caring and compassion you showed their entire lives to continue, and it won't.

We've had child rearing like what you are describing now for over 40 years, are you satisfied with the children that have been raised?

I agree you must teach children to deal with emotions first, then handle behaviour. That being said i'm not going to give a child free reign to express their feelings when they are inappropriate. It feels like you taking the easy way to raising children, with less tears, but less success when they grow up.
 FunkyMonkee
Joined: 4/7/2009
Msg: 61
view profile
History
Gotta admit, it is easier to parent alone than co-parent
Posted: 7/29/2010 9:16:15 AM
^^^
Oh yes !

The theories come and go ...we have generations of good parents behind good parents.

They are adaptable to social change but maintain a core set of values.
 itsallinthesoul
Joined: 6/26/2009
Msg: 62
Gotta admit, it is easier to parent alone than co-parent
Posted: 7/29/2010 9:22:17 AM

I realize we are arguing on the terms here, but what you are describing is not a punishment. A punishment is something that is inflicted on someone with the specific intent of hurting them for the purpose of getting them to "learn" something.


We are indeed arguing on the meaning of a word. The reason I suppose I don't let it go is because I view the removal of priveledges as a punishment where you may prefer to call it a natural consequence of a violation of trust.

I don't condone corporal punishment of a child, nor do I condone extreme punishments that do not fit the crime.


It's about raising capable men and women that understand the world doesn't revolve around them. An idea that children learn from an early age that the world isn't going to take a time out to talk out their feelings for every single thing that might cross their mind, that they are accountable for their behaviour and actions. Despite their "wants", we can teach children that their wants are NOT a trump on anyone else's.


I've raised by son using many of the techniques discussed by CSoul and I will admit that I did have to go the extra step of explaining to him why his teachers didn't follow the same ideologies that I did. For instance, he did find it hard when his teacher wasn't interested in hearing why he forgot his pencil in his locker and came unprepared for class. He felt it was unfair that she simply punished him without allowing himself to provide a defense. He didn't really have a defense, which I did point out to him. I also pointed out to him that the teacher had told the class at the beginning of the year that if they came unprepared for class, it meant detention. He still didn't like it, but at least he understood it. He did acknowledge that he screwed up and the teacher's provision of a detention was the consequence he KNEW he would have to accept, even if he had forgotten about the rule. In society, ignorance of the law is no defense. He felt that he should have been given one freebie. I told him that if he felt that strongly about it, he should ask to speak to the teacher in private and explain his position. He didn't follow through but he didn't forget his pencil again either.

What these methods really do is keep the lines of communication open between you and your child so that incidences like I described can be discussed in an environment of respect and love, not distrust and fear. My son doesn't become defensive with me because he knows he doesn't have to be. He can communicate with me openly, knowing I won't judge him harshly. Every mistake he makes is an opportunity for me to teach him.

I was raised "the old-fashioned way" ...not allowed to speak my mind, controlled by the use of punishment (harshly) and humiliation. I battled with low self esteem for years and it only recently that I've turned a corner. My parents made all my decisions for me (or tried to) and what that resulted in was my becoming really good at lying to them and hiding things from them. When I really did need them, I couldn't go to them because I knew they would make me feel even worse than I already did. I have never trusted my parents, nor have I ever truly believed (even today) that they love me without condition. There is no safety zone around them....it is either do as you are told or else, no explanation, just threats. No teaching just demands for obedience.

To assume that children are ill-prepared because of these types of techniques is not really right IMO. Any technique that is not done correctly can fail but it is not the failure of the technique but rather the failure of the one using it incorrectly.

The methods we use as parents are dictated by our goals and how well we think we turned out. When we don't think our parents did a good job, we seek alternative methods to use (as I did). When we think our parents did a fine job and we are fine, we adopt the methods they used. That is one of the reasons why breaking cycles of abuse is so difficult...the denial that comes along with it (I'm fine, I was a bad kid so that is why my parents hit me, punished me frequently and were always on my case). There are a lot of broken people in this world who truly think they are fine.
 big pacific
Joined: 7/2/2009
Msg: 63
view profile
History
Gotta admit, it is easier to parent alone than co-parent
Posted: 7/29/2010 9:37:39 AM
Absolutely, and there is a HUGE seperation between what i'm advocating and abuse. The old fashioned way isn't "not allowed to speak your mind", it's not allowing you to control the situation at a whim, and discussing it when it is appropriate for everyone, not just you.

I don't advocate corporal punishment either. I was raised the old fashioned way as well, i was raised as a child, someone who had no right to dictate the circumstances or actions of adults, not just parents. I didn't lie to my parents, never doubted their love. I was punished for things i did wrong by shoveling a driveway or extra chores or not being able to go to a movie on friday. Those weren't to hurt me, but to teach me that my choices have consequences to match. It was a lesson that has served me well in life. Unlike many children, i have personal accountability.


<div class="quote">To assume that children are ill-prepared because of these types of techniques is not really right IMO. Any technique that is not done correctly can fail but it is not the failure of the technique but rather the failure of the one using it incorrectly.


Are children better or worse since the 20's, 30's, 40's in this country? Are they more or less capable? Do we have higher or lower rates of suicide? Are there more or less divorces? When i look at the results of this parenting philosophy over the last 50 years, i gotta tell ya, we were better off back in the 40's and 50's.
 ConsciousSoul
Joined: 7/9/2008
Msg: 64
view profile
History
Gotta admit, it is easier to parent alone than co-parent
Posted: 7/29/2010 10:23:53 AM

Are children better or worse since the 20's, 30's, 40's in this country? Are they more or less capable? Do we have higher or lower rates of suicide? Are there more or less divorces? When i look at the results of this parenting philosophy over the last 50 years, i gotta tell ya, we were better off back in the 40's and 50's.


Big pacific, I understand your concern regarding the way the society is moving and the accountability problems, or suicide rates. However:

a) In the 20's, 30's and 40's, we had no reliable statistics on suicide rates and on various other metrics. In fact, some of these variables were not measured across country nor with any coherent standard, and in some cases, these variables were not even measured at all. (In fact - some of the measuring metrics we use today even exists because of the field of psychology, that was virtually nonexistent 50 years ago). So how do you "know" what it was like to be a child 50 years ago?

b) The society is facing today challenges that we didn't have 50 years ago. There are hundreds if not thousands of variables in play: how today you need two revenues to be able to makes ends meet where as before you could handle it with one revenue, how children are "hurried" today toward responsibilities as fast as possible because parents have no more time, how many women today also choose to work, leaving children in the care of strangers, the impact of globalization, the impact of the increase of population, the impact of technology (cells, computers, video games, television) and the influence of marketing strategies, the shift of the society toward consumerism, and so much more. To compare children from 50 years ago to children today, and assume all the changes is linked to the impact of "listening to your kids" is a huge generalization.

c) Even if you could make that case, it still wouldn't be true, because by large, parenting styles have NOT evolved that much. The methods I advocates have started to be taught to professional educators less than 5 years ago. New findings in neuro-biology leading discoveries in attachment theory and attachment parenting are only barley starting now, in the past few years, to truly be heard. The benefit from using these techniques will likely take another 2 or 3 decades to be seen actively in the society. What you are observing is still more of the same: punishment, time-outs, control, etc. For instance, take the P.E.T. workshop that I facilitate. It exists since 1970 approximately. 2.2 millions parents worldwide were trained to use this technique. It's a lot when you want to show that it WORKS. But it's also barely a drop in the ocean: there are 6 billion people on earth. In US alone, there is 330 million people. In US, according to my life-span course, (as of around 2006) there was 15% of children raised in permissive environment, 25% of children raised in abusive environment (yeah, that one is a shocker!), only 35% of children raised in "balanced" parenting, and a whooping 25% in authoritarian parenting.
The P.E.T. Model does not fall in the permissive category, bur rather in the balanced one (authoritative), but even if you didn't believe me and thought it was a permissive method, that's still only 15% of families all the way up to years 2006.

Most of what you said is true, but it is not related to the parenting abilities and skill I am referring to. In fact, using a parenting method in which children are respected and their emotions are heard has a direct impact on reducing suicide - not the contrary. Suicide rate are directly correlated to the lack of communication in families, as children reach adolescence. Divorce is also directly correlated to the amount of communication in your marriage: the ability to truly listen to your spouse, to set aside your emotion and to problem solve - all things that are thought in the P.E.T. workshop. Seems quite far fetched to me to assume that a child whose emotions were heard when he was young and who learned how to communicate well would divorce more when adult.

In reality, the divorce rate, and more generally, the quality of your love relationships has been proven to be directly related to the quality of your attachment in your youth: secure attachment, ambivalent attachment, avoidant attachment, or disorganized attachment (see the work of Ainsworth and the "strange experiment", search it on google or on youtube to learn about it).
 sarniafairyboy
Joined: 6/19/2010
Msg: 65
Gotta admit, it is easier to parent alone than co-parent
Posted: 7/29/2010 10:33:11 AM

b) The society is facing today challenges that we didn't have 50 years ago. There are hundreds if not thousands of variables in play: how today you need two revenues to be able to makes ends meet where as before you could handle it with one revenue, how children are "hurried" today toward responsibilities as fast as possible because parents have no more time, how many women today also choose to work, leaving children in the care of strangers, the impact of globalization, the impact of the increase of population, the impact of technology (cells, computers, video games, television) and the influence of marketing strategies, the shift of the society toward consumerism, and so much more. To compare children from 50 years ago to children today, and assume all the changes is linked to the impact of "listening to your kids" is a huge generalization.


oh, right, blah, blagh, blah

"life is sooo mcuh TOUGHER now than it was 50, 60, 70 + years ago..

whhhine, waaaah, call the waaaaah- mbulance..

WHAT-ever!

do we have to face 25% unemployment and a Great Depression right now?

not 1, not 2, but 3 megalomaniac dictators who wanted to control the world?

Hitler, Mussolini & Hirohito? all with strong militaries, facing the very real possibility that they WOULD gain control of Europe, and maybe even N.America, and Asia?

do 17-18 year olds today in N. America get a draft notice that says show up for the army, see you in 5 years maybe -you're over in Europe or Asia, away from your family/wife/girlfriends/friends for 5 years? with no e-mail, very limited access to telephone, only possible communication snail mail letters that take a few months to arrive, each way?

I think my father's generation had it tougher than I do, and his father's tougher than he did. he had to work a farm basically by hand and with horses.

most kids today have it pretty SOFT -parents give them all kinds of toys, X-box, cell phones, computers, many don't have to work at all -get a car given to them at 17 or 1 8, etc.
 big pacific
Joined: 7/2/2009
Msg: 66
view profile
History
Gotta admit, it is easier to parent alone than co-parent
Posted: 7/29/2010 11:17:36 AM
Most of what you said is true, but it is not related to the parenting abilities and skill I am referring to. In fact, using a parenting method in which children are respected and their emotions are heard has a direct impact on reducing suicide - not the contrary.


How do you know? Your specific version of the PET program may have only been around since the 70's, but a pervasive and far more permissive parenting style similar to what you propose has been around for over 50 years. By the way you define punishment, i don't trust your statistics on "permissive" or "abusive" or the definitions of the words themselves as they apply to modern life. 25% authoritarian parenting compared to 50% permissive or "balanced" is exactly what i mean. This shift has been going on for decades.

I find it telling that you dismiss suicide statistics saying they aren't reliable, then say that your method reduces suicide.

You say divorce has nothing to do with it, i say the instant gratification of controlling a situation for a child instilled since birth is one of the biggest problems out there, and your method seems to be far more tolerant of allowing a child to seize attention and control. It's this entitlement to self gratification that has eroded marriage, the idea that you have a right to be "understood" and "happy" at all times, that life doesn't come with sacrifice. This though leads to divorce, single parenthood, etc. Selfish decisions, because children were raised thinking their "needs" should come first.


So how do you "know" what it was like to be a child 50 years ago?


I listen to those who came before me thats how. I take the advice of parents i have seen be successful at raising well mannered and respectful children that became successful later in life, NOT the advice of some random shrink who is an "expert" in the field.


One thing you can not argue is that parenting has been becoming more liberal than it has been in the past, this happens to correlate to the shift in parenting. Now is it 100% the cause? Absolutely not. It is however a STRONG contributing factor. At 27 years old, the kids i was raised with were NOT as a rule character people. They are selfish "me" driven ego maniacs fed by drivel saying their happiness is the most important thing in the world, their parents taught them that.


The society is facing today challenges that we didn't have 50 years ago. There are hundreds if not thousands of variables in play: how today you need two revenues to be able to makes ends meet where as before you could handle it with one revenue, how children are "hurried" today toward responsibilities as fast as possible because parents have no more time, how many women today also choose to work, leaving children in the care of strangers, the impact of globalization, the impact of the increase of population, the impact of technology (cells, computers, video games, television) and the influence of marketing strategies, the shift of the society toward consumerism, and so much more. To compare children from 50 years ago to children today, and assume all the changes is linked to the impact of "listening to your kids" is a huge generalization.


2 revenues are NOT required to make ends meet. I had a stay at home mom while my father earned welfare qualifying wages in the army, you can't have the frills, but you CAN make it. You think kids are hurried more to responsibility now? Kids started working when they were 10 years old, i was working on a farm at 11 contributing to the household income, most kids NEVER have that responsibility. In fact i'd say children have FARRRRR less responsibility now. Technology is controlled by parents, nintendo's were around when i was a kid, and i didn't have one. This goes back to needs vs wants. Consumerism and marketing are functions of the shift in selfishness, this ALL goes back to what i've been saying, people feel they deserve happiness and understanding at all times because their parents INDULGED them that at a young age.

I've never said don't listen to your kids, i've said listen to your kids on YOUR schedule not theirs. You can call it a generalization all you like, but the thing is this, parenting has become more liberal and less old school, and kids have gotten worse.

Jive the "societal" pressure all you want as an excuse, but it's ALWAYS been there. Funny though, when kids were raised to put others first, instead of being "heard" whenever they feel they should be, the world was a better place.
 ConsciousSoul
Joined: 7/9/2008
Msg: 67
view profile
History
Gotta admit, it is easier to parent alone than co-parent
Posted: 7/29/2010 11:21:35 AM

Sorry man, removal of a perk to prove a point IS a punishment.

That's precisely what I meant: in the example provided by ItsAll, the car was NOT removed to "prove a point". It was not removed to teach a lesson. It was not removed to inflict pain, suffering, annoyance or frustration to the child. It was not removed as a way to win a power struggle. It was simply removed because the child is not deemed mature enough to handle it in a safe way. There is a world of difference between the two intent, because children and especially adolescent perfectly understand the underlying intent.


I don't know any parents that punish with the intent of "hurting" them, they punish with the intent of understanding cause and effect.

Of course. But they also believe that a child cannot understand cause and effect unless he is forced to live a negative experience such as pain and suffering (corporal punishment) or mental pain and humiliation (shaming) or removing a pleasure or a commodity (giving frustration and a feeling of unfairness), etc.
And the neuro-biological studies shows that this is not true. Children either CANNOT learn consequences at all (before their brain connections wire-up), or they can, and will, provided the connection with the parent is strong and they are patient. The artifical consequence that you speak of, and that inflicts a negative emotion, HINDERS the learning process because, when you are under a strong negative emotion, you no longer use your left brain (cognitive reasoning), you use the right brain fast survival reflexes instead.


Perhaps you and i describe "need" differently, the basic needs are food, shelter, clothing and in children love from a parent. I do not see how the desire of another toy or curiosity being indulged is a "need" it's a desire.

See the Maslow pyramid of needs to see what I refer to when I talk about needs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs
The needs you describe (shelter, food, clothing) are physiological needs. There are also love and belonging needs, security needs, self-esteem needs and self actualization needs.
Curiosity is part of your fundamental need for understanding how the world works and build your self esteem. Babies and children are always curious, they need to explore and understand how things works, they need to play - because for them, playing IS their "job"; it is how their brain develops and its a fundamental need that they feel, to learn and to grow.

By the way, you mention yourself that the love of the parent is one of the fundamental needs for a child. I know that parents who punish want the best for their kids and they love their kids. But the point is: that's now how it is perceived from the kid's point of view. It erodes the strength of the parent-child relationship .



It's very difficult for an older child to see a younger new one appear in the family and take time away from his parents...
Again, there isn't a NEED here.

You just said that the love of their parents is a need. Children often sees their sibling as someone in competition for that love. It is not to say one must not teach consequences for their actions: it's a question of understanding that:
a) the child who did that had no idea how to express his fears and frustrations in other ways
b) punishing the child to teach him "consequence" about hitting a sibling only reinforce the resentment he will feel for his sibling.
Even assuming that this would teach him "consequences" (which it won't, because at this age, his brain cannot truly understand that concept), isn't it more important to teach that kid to love his brother than to teach him consequences for hitting him?


at the same time i'm concerned at what teaching like this has wrought on my generation, i'll elaborate in a bit.

See my response up above on this.


Couple years go by and you've raised what YOU think to be a strong vibrant plant. Then you let the plant go, you plant it outside having never seen the harshness of the real world in winter, you've sheltered it with over emotional "care" and thinking it was best for his growth, and protected it for SO long that it can't survive outside in the real conditions.

In your example, your plant would already be dead before it would have a chance to grow, unless the climate would be good all the time, in which case there would be no "learning" anyway. In reality, once your plant is mature in the greenhouse, you then proceed with acclimatization: you expose the plant to the direct sun one hour a day and increase this one more hour every few days, until it is ready to have direct sun; and you can do the same with other possible hazard from outside. Eventually, the plant is ready to be transplanted outside. (research it, I am not inventing this. The flowers people typically plant in their backyard were planted from plants grown in greenhouses, not from seed directly put in the uncontrolled conditions at home).
In term of child rearing: you need to wait until your child has a deep and secure attachment and until his cognitive capacity has reached the point where he can actually truly take decisions, and then you can slowly start giving him these responsibilities, while still watching and controlling the environment.


They expect the greenhouse, the caring and compassion you showed their entire lives to continue, and it won't.

Why not? Do you stop caring for your children as soon as they are 18? Why shouldn't they expect to be able to be supported by dad and mom if they hit a really hard spot, even years later in their adult life? Expecting someone who loves you to always be there for you doesn't mean you will abuse it. Remember how adolescent yearn for freedom, how much they need to feel it's their OWN life and they can decide. If you let them, they would rather NOT latch on to you. If they do, it's because you didn't prepare them well - not because they shouldn't expect unconditional love. And, incidentally, it is mostly children of the permissive (they can do anything they want) and authoritarian (using punishment and control) parenting styles who end up not developing their autonomy enough. Not children raised with authoritative methods such as what I advocate.


We've had child rearing like what you are describing now for over 40 years, are you satisfied with the children that have been raised?

You mean the 0.00035% of parents who follow the kind of parenting I describe?


That being said i'm not going to give a child free reign to express their feelings when they are inappropriate.

Feelings are NEVER inappropriate. ACTING out on your feelings might be. That's rule #1 of psychology.


It feels like you taking the easy way to raising children, with less tears, but less success when they grow up.

Considering the amount of parents on these forums who keep telling me how "impossible" and "unattainable" it is to use the techniques I am advocating, you can call it anything BUT simple. Make no mistake: there might be less tears, but it's anything but simple to use true win-win communication techniques and problem solving in parenting. And as for success as they grow up, this is your perception, but there are studies on this: you'd be surprised at how successful the kids who were raised with these kind of methods are.
 kissmyasthma
Joined: 12/4/2009
Msg: 68
Gotta admit, it is easier to parent alone than co-parent
Posted: 7/29/2010 11:35:28 AM
Getting tired of this notion that all marriages were bad in the past and it was nothing but a trap for life. Are singles that much happier? Or is just a whole lot easier not to have to compromise?
Seems to me that based on many threads - this one included - that sharing custody isn't any easier than staying together. Sorry but we have to stop treating marriage like going steady and really have to get the notion of continuous bells and whistles or I'm off to see the divorce lawyer mindset out of it too.

Just looking at the op's opening post says it all really. It's obvious they never communicated from the get go and how are they expected to do so afterwards?
That is the beauty of a good relationship is that you're going to have some rough spots and that includes arguments but man it would be nice to get that shyiate out of the way before you bring a life into this world.

Cs, as far as needing two incomes, you're forgetting that only one was enough before, now we it seems we do more for less and our value of jobs is way out of whack.
When your life has been transformed into a continuous shopping spree it's easy to always be out of cash. Think about what we buy our kids, much of it would hardly be called a necessity.

And are you kidding about parenting styles not being affected? Nobody has time to parent anymore. Between filling our own time we over-schedule the heck out of kids yet many never sit at a table and eat a meal together.

As far as the strange experiment study, as long as we are into this me me me thing, very few will last long enough to get heir kids into kindergarten let alone college.

I think the hardest decision I have ever made was to let go of my son and let my ex handle the raising of him. At each step of the process she became happier knowing I had less and less influence or chance of undermining her "plan"or envisioned way she wanted things to go.
I did it just to avoid instances like that which was stated in the OP.
I saw it as a much better scenario than the horror stories I see amongst my family and friends who have divorced.
Plus I am of the opinion that if divorced people became better friends after a divorce the last thing they should have done was marry or have a kid.
 kissmyasthma
Joined: 12/4/2009
Msg: 69
Gotta admit, it is easier to parent alone than co-parent
Posted: 7/29/2010 11:35:36 AM
Getting tired of this notion that all marriages were bad in the past and it was nothing but a trap for life. Are singles that much happier? Or is just a whole lot easier not to have to compromise?
Seems to me that based on many threads - this one included - that sharing custody isn't any easier than staying together. Sorry but we have to stop treating marriage like going steady and really have to get the notion of continuous bells and whistles or I'm off to see the divorce lawyer mindset out of it too.

Just looking at the op's opening post says it all really. It's obvious they never communicated from the get go and how are they expected to do so afterwards?
That is the beauty of a good relationship is that you're going to have some rough spots and that includes arguments but man it would be nice to get that shyiate out of the way before you bring a life into this world.

Cs, as far as needing two incomes, you're forgetting that only one was enough before, now we it seems we do more for less and our value of jobs is way out of whack.
When your life has been transformed into a continuous shopping spree it's easy to always be out of cash. Think about what we buy our kids, much of it would hardly be called a necessity.

And are you kidding about parenting styles not being affected? Nobody has time to parent anymore. Between filling our own time we over-schedule the heck out of kids yet many never sit at a table and eat a meal together.

As far as the strange experiment study, as long as we are into this me me me thing, very few will last long enough to get heir kids into kindergarten let alone college.

I think the hardest decision I have ever made was to let go of my son and let my ex handle the raising of him. At each step of the process she became happier knowing I had less and less influence or chance of undermining her "plan"or envisioned way she wanted things to go.
I did it just to avoid instances like that which was stated in the OP.
I saw it as a much better scenario than the horror stories I see amongst my family and friends who have divorced.
Plus I am of the opinion that if divorced people became better friends after a divorce the last thing they should have done was marry or have a kid but most likely couldn't resist the sexual urges long enough to see it.
 ConsciousSoul
Joined: 7/9/2008
Msg: 70
view profile
History
Gotta admit, it is easier to parent alone than co-parent
Posted: 7/29/2010 11:39:05 AM

Your specific version of the PET program may have only been around since the 70's, but a pervasive and far more permissive parenting style similar to what you propose has been around for over 50 years.


Perhaps this is where our disconnection happens: you seem to have a hard time understanding why what I advocate has NOTHING to do with the permissive parenting style.

And no, authoritative parenting has nothing to do with permissive parenting.
Bundeling them together and labelling them "permissive" so that you can get that nice 50% statistics is wishful thinking. Instead, why don't you research it for real? The researcher who came up with the criteria for the parenting styles are Baumrind, McCoby and Martin. Get on Google scholar and see for yourself. I am not offering you statistics taken out of nowhere; I am offering you what I studied in my courses and it's all backed up by decades of research in psychology.


One thing you can not argue is that parenting has been becoming more liberal than it has been in the past, this happens to correlate to the shift in parenting.

Absolutely true


They are selfish "me" driven ego maniacs fed by drivel saying their happiness is the most important thing in the world, their parents taught them that.

Assuming you are talking about SOME kids, and not generalizing to all of them, then I'd say true again. Only, some of these kids learned that through authoritarian parenting and some through permissive parenting. When raised by authoritarian parents, you disconnect with your own emotions and empathy and learn to count only your yourself to survive: you never stop being egocentric. When raised by permissive parents, you never learn to respect other people's boundaries because all your desires (not only needs) are responded to as a child, which of course is not realistic once they reach adulthood.
None of these match the authoritative parenting, which constitutes about 35% of children in USA. The method I advocate is part of the attachment parenting, which is a subset of the authoritative parenting.


I find it telling that you dismiss suicide statistics saying they aren't reliable, then say that your method reduces suicide.

They were not reliable in the 50's. They are very reliable today.


I listen to those who came before me thats how. I take the advice of parents i have seen be successful at raising well mannered and respectful children that became successful later in life, NOT the advice of some random shrink who is an "expert" in the field.

Good, since I am not a shrink. This is your choice, and as far as I am concerned, you are welcome to think that way if that's what you want. So why argue with me here then?
 itsallinthesoul
Joined: 6/26/2009
Msg: 71
Gotta admit, it is easier to parent alone than co-parent
Posted: 7/29/2010 11:57:20 AM
Kissmy, you are right....we didn't communicate well before we brought a child into the world but we didn't give up trying to find a way to communicate out of the mutual love for our child. No matter how angry I might be at her father, I always believed (as a core value) that children need two parents and what they can bring into their child's life. That is why I never gave up. That is why I never used the bias that would have likely favoured me for primary custody. Setting aside my hurt feelings because of how I perceived he had treated me was VERY difficult.

You are also right that marriage is not treated any differently than "going steady". People do run from rather than try to solve issues that arise in relationships. It is hand in hand with our consumerism mentality...don't like that 3 year old couch anymore, toss it out and buy a new one. Tired of the spouse, find a playmate on the side. Conflict resolution skills are weak in our society, or so it seems. Look at this site even, it is a virtual buffet of single people. We have too many choices and are rarely satisfied with what we have. As long as people don't recognize/acknowledge this, I don't think much will be done to solve the problems we face as a society with respect to relationships.

You are also right about this so-called "need" for two incomes. That is entirely driven by a couple's desire to have it all. Whenever someone tries that argument with me about the economy etc... I ask them why there are so many single parents raising families without any financial support, or why there are some bachelors/bachelorette's that are managing to live without a second income. It is our misplaced sense of values that leads us to believe that we have to have that nicer, bigger house, or that newer car over being home to raise our children. So many women I know work to pay the daycare bill....kinda stupid, don't ya think? Children should have a stay at home parent raising them, it matters little whether that is Mom or Dad IMO, but one of them should be taking on that role and the other should have respect/appreciation for that role and the sacrifice to career they are making. The most unnatural thing by far I have ever done is deliver my child to daycare. I was selfish to believe I could do it all on my own and not have to work at mitigating the potential damage to my children. No point in crying over spilt milk as they say, I focused on mitigating that damage to the absolute best of my ability.
 big pacific
Joined: 7/2/2009
Msg: 72
view profile
History
Gotta admit, it is easier to parent alone than co-parent
Posted: 7/29/2010 12:00:13 PM

Good, since I am not a shrink. This is your choice, and as far as I am concerned, you are welcome to think that way if that's what you want. So why argue with me here then?


Wasn't you i was referring too, i know you aren't a shrink. I've seen your posts for quite a while. I argue with you because i see you in the forums, and your posts strike me as pushing us FURTHER down the road we are already on.

I feel you take much from "experts" in child psych without doing field work. I was mentored by a leading policy writer in the early childhood development field, i've read many of the same studies and books you have, but they all treat how children FEEL, not what children will become. I work with big brothers, mentor kids since i was 18, and the kids that i see that were raised the way you prescribe tend to retain the "my feelings come first" selfish attitude that i feel is responsible for most of our problems.

The base assumption that authoritarian parenting leads to "count on only yourself to survive" is just hilarious. Setting rules, and listening and communicating with children when it is appropriate to the parent teaches that their needs don't trump the needs of the parent, that while they are respected, they don't put themselves first.

Realistically, I'm not as authoritarian and you aren't as permissive as is coming across and i'm sure we are far more similar. The HUGE difference for me is that you allow a child to dictate when they will be heard, i don't.

Just out of curiosity, and it's been awhile since i've read baumrind, didn't she posit that spanking didn't hurt kids in an authoritative parenting? In the threads i've read you in you don't advocate any spanking of any sort, how does that jive with you?
 ConsciousSoul
Joined: 7/9/2008
Msg: 73
view profile
History
Gotta admit, it is easier to parent alone than co-parent
Posted: 7/29/2010 12:36:18 PM

I argue with you because i see you in the forums, and your posts strike me as pushing us FURTHER down the road we are already on.

I can see how you would have that perception of what I am advocating. I think that until someone actually goes through the effectiveness formation, it's very difficult to see the difference between attachment parenting and permissive parenting.


The base assumption that authoritarian parenting leads to "count on only yourself to survive" is just hilarious. Setting rules, and listening and communicating with children when it is appropriate to the parent teaches that their needs don't trump the needs of the parent, that while they are respected, they don't put themselves first.

Just to be clear, the parenting I am advocating does not teach that the children's needs trumps the parent's needs. (that would be: child win, parent lose). Nor do they teach that the parent's needs trumps the children's needs (parent win, child lose). They teach that EVERYONE's needs are to be respected. (both parent and child wins, nobody lose).

About rule setting: the difference is between setting rules and setting boundaries. Boundaries MUST be set by the adult. Rules tell you what to do; boundaries defines under which conditions and limits you can do what you want to do. Attachment parenting recognizes the absolute requirement of having clear boundaries; but it also let children evolve and take decisions within these boundaries.

Baumrind's classification of parenting styles considers "Authoritarian" a parent who has LOW communication and LOW nurturance, while enforcing HIGH control and having HIGH expectations for the children.
"Permissive" parenting, according to Baumrind, shows LOW communication, LOW expectations and LOW control, but HIGH nurturance.
Authoritative parenting, finally, shows HIGH communication and HIGH nurturance, while mantaining HIGH control and HIGH expectations.
Research shows that this style has the best outcome on the long run.


Realistically, I'm not as authoritarian and you aren't as permissive as is coming across and i'm sure we are far more similar.

Yes, I believe this too! :-)


The HUGE difference for me is that you allow a child to dictate when they will be heard, i don't.

Everyone deserves to be heard when they need to be, big pacific. Not just children, Not just parents -- everyone. That's the beauty of empathy and trust in human relationships: that you know someone will be there to listen to you when you are in pain. Not when someone else decide that it's time for you to be heard. When you need it.


Just out of curiosity, and it's been awhile since i've read baumrind, didn't she post that spanking didn't hurt kids in an authoritative parenting? In the threads i've read you in you don't advocate any spanking of any sort, how does that jive with you?

Yes, Baumrind published a research article in 2001 (in august I think) about the use of what she calls "mild" spanking in authoritative parenting (that is, according to her own criteria, when the level of communication and nurtuiring is high). She argue that she couldn't find evidence that it caused long term harm in the families that use occasional mild spanking while using the authoritative style.
Here are some comments on her conclusion, from the peer review she got from other researcher in the same field:
http://www.nospank.net/straus10.htm
That study is now nearly 9 years old, and since then, many new studies and findings have shown that there are many other aspects of "harm" not measured by Baumrind's study. More recently, the work of Dr. Siegal on neuro-biological science, (see "The developing mind") has helped us understand the long term effect of eroding the security and attachment a child has with their parents.
Even if I don't agree with Baumrind's conclusions on her 2001 research, I still believe she has done an amazing job of classifying the various parenting styles and defining proper criterias to evaluate them.
 big pacific
Joined: 7/2/2009
Msg: 74
view profile
History
Gotta admit, it is easier to parent alone than co-parent
Posted: 7/29/2010 12:47:01 PM

Everyone deserves to be heard when they need to be, big pacific. Not just children, Not just parents -- everyone. That's the beauty of empathy and trust in human relationships: that you know someone will be there to listen to you when you are in pain. Not when someone else decide that it's time for you to be heard. When you need it.


Ah, see this is a fundamental difference of philosophy in general, not in parenting then. I don't believe it's ok to burden people with my issues at my whim.


Yeah, baumrind was sort of interesting in her time, i feel she steered the archtypes into what she believed, not what existed per se. She says authoritarian parents are by definition low nurture, and i don't think that is necessarily the case.
 sarniafairyboy
Joined: 6/19/2010
Msg: 75
Gotta admit, it is easier to parent alone than co-parent
Posted: 7/29/2010 12:54:23 PM
^^^^




Everyone deserves to be heard when they need to be, big pacific. Not just children, Not just parents -- everyone. That's the beauty of empathy and trust in human relationships: that you know someone will be there to listen to you when you are in pain. Not when someone else decide that it's time for you to be heard. When you need it.


Ah, see this is a fundamental difference of philosophy in general, not in parenting then. I don't believe it's ok to burden people with my issues at my whim.


yeah, interesting, nice 'theory' ...might work well in very small (one-child) families?

realistically how does this work witha large family, 5 or 6 kids, plus dad & mom, and THEY AL 'wan to be heard' at the same time?

you have a cacophony, a Tower of Babel, and then no-one is really 'heard' .

what if they all 'want to be heard' at the same time in the morning when people getting ready for work/school?

every body just has to miss work &/or school that day?

err, no response to my response about why times aren't soo much "tougher" these days? we are to just accept thattossed-off comment as 'accepted wisdom' ??

kids today have it so much tougher than the generation that had to work farms mostly with their bare hands, no machinery had to live through the Great Depression, and had to go over to Europe/Asia for 5 years & fight WW II ?
Show ALL Forums  > Single Parents  > Gotta admit, it is easier to parent alone than co-parent