NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/misc/kids/28695

Text File | 1992-11-18 | 5.5 KB | 106 lines

Newsgroups: misc.kids
Path: sparky!uunet!brunix!brunix!mhn
From: [e-mail] (Marian H. Nodine)
Subject: Re: Please Don't Spank!
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Brown University Department of Computer Science
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 16:15:53 GMT
Lines: 94

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Perry Taidi) writes:
(Concerning my statements about teaching my kids obedience and about
practicing obedience myself)
>
>I believe obediance is very negative and an even dangerous subject. Negative
>in that it stifles the difference in people and their right to think , feel
>and chose.  They are taught to depend on another persons do's and don'ts
>rather than their own. Granted that they will eventually, internalize all
>these rules, but these rules will be imposed rules never the less.

Perhaps I should clarify a bit.  I believe that you start out teaching
your kids obedience and exerting a significant amount of authority
in their lives.  During this period you teach into their prohibitive
conscience -- the part that says, "I won't do this because mommy says
so, because I will get a timeout, or a spanking, or ...".

However, there is another, far more important side to the conscience,
called the active conscience.  This is the part that says, "I won't do
this because I think it's wrong."  A parent cannot teach into the
active conscience with spanking, it just plain doesn't work.

Now, concerning raising a child, I recognize that enforcing my authority
develops only the prohibitive side of their conscience.  That is it's place.
However, as the active side of their conscience develops, because of
the instruction I give them, the need to use my authority goes away.
Thus, I view the relinnquishing of authority as a continuum almost.  It
starts from when they have no idea of the consequences of their actions,
and I exercise my authority so that they will (prohibitively) decide to
do dangerous or negative things immediately.  From about age 2 to age 18,
I (hopefully) am gradually relinquishing that authority to them, so that
by the time they are ready to leave the house they are making their own
decisions autonomously.  This relinquishing is done as my children show
responsibility, even though I may not agree with the direction their
decisions are going.  Thus far, this process seems to be moving along nicely
with my almost-five year old, who is really to me a neat kid.  My daughter
is not quite two -- hard to tell yet.

>Also, I
>don't beleive that parents know better than their children in all areas
>of life. If this was true and children had copied exactly what their parents
>told them to, their would be little evolution in human history.

I actually would expand this to say that often parents do not take the
time to understand specific situations, and therefore children get
frustrated when they have no say in situations where their parents haven't
seen all sides.  This is why we teach our children not only how to obey
authority (when/who/why) but also how to appeal to authority when that
authority is perhaps being exercised unfairly.  If my children do not
have an avenue for appeal, I would think that they would get quite
exasperated sometimes, which is not a good thing at all.

>I believe obediance is dangerous, because the child learns to follow someone
>elses reasoning (or emotions) rather than their own and this  will not  stop
>with only their parents.  they will not work on developping their own reasoning
>and they will be very much in danger of "obeying" anyone
>with higher power or might. This person can be any adult when they are
>children, and any one with with higher power when they are adults.

Again, this is why we teach our children when, who, and why to obey.  Also,
why  we teach them to appeal to authority.  Also why we instruct them
and work (much) harder on the assertive side of their consciences.
Obedience should be willing (with a good attitude) and appropriate (obeying
Hitler was not appropriate), not mindless.

>However, I see no
>relation between "caring" for other people and any notion of "obediance". I
>DO NOT obey my husband. I share my life with him. We respect each other, as
>well as love each other.

I don't obey my husband either -- I submit to him.  There is a distinction.
I respect and love my husband.  In fact, after 11 years of marriage, I
really think he is a great guy.  He respects and loves me, too.

My children care for me, even though I expect obedience from them.  Just
this morning my son woke up, came running into my room, leaped into our
bed, and said, "I love you better than any mom in the world!  You're so
pretty!"  It was really precious to me (especially since yesterday he told
me I was getting fat :-( ).

>I have chosen to care for my daughter and do it
>with as much love and patience as I possibly can, and when I fail I do not
>allow myslef to vent it on her.

What makes you think that I vent my anger on my children all the time?  I
can recall a couple of times, and have always been very sorry after I did
it.  I have apologized to my children, and tried to offer restitution.  I
have worked to try to understand what the underlying factors were in me,
and deal with those as well.  I hope they forgive me, and work hard to
make that forgiveness easy for them.  (I also model forgiveness from me
to them, and teach them how and when it is appropriate to forgive each
other).  Where is this different from what you do?

-- Misty