alb@alice.UUCP (Adam L. Buchsbaum) (08/21/84)
The attitude expressed by T. C. Wheeler is just what is causing the problem Rich is talking about. The ignorance of the whole problem of preventing kids from adopting their own views and the refusal to accept it as a real problem prevents it from being solved. For this is just as much a day to day problem as diaper rash, perhaps even worse. Diaper rash disappears when the diapers are removed; emotional and intellectual values do not disappear when the child is removed from the home environment and placed in the 'real' world.
wetcw@pyuxa.UUCP (T C Wheeler) (08/21/84)
As I said before, have some kids, do as you like with them, then report back after 15 years with the results of your experiment. My experience, and that of most of those I know, is that you will probably create a monster by using the hands-off approach. But, the biggest gripe I have with this discussion is that there are netters who do not have any children who are telling those who do how to raise their kids. They are treading on very thin ice when they presume to intrude into the affairs of the family unit. It is none of their damn business as long as there is no physical abuse involved. As far as mental abuse goes, I happen to think that leaving a child to decide for themself what to do is a far worse form of abuse than providing guidance from the family. I have three children of whom I am extremly proud. My oldest (14) has for the past two years gone out and found jobs in the neighborhood on his own and has earned nearly $1000. He washed cars, weeded gardens, mowed lawns, cleaned out garages, put Sunday papers together, and shined shoes at the railroad station. All of these jobs he got himself because of his reliability and personality. He gets up sometimes at 4:30 in the morning to do these jobs. The thing that makes me proud is that I get phone calls from people I don't even know telling me about something he did for them. My 13 year old daughter is the same kind of person. She has her jobs and is busy with them at least 5 days a week. Her reliable reputation has spread all over town and it is such that she has to turn down jobs now. The youngest (7) is at the point that he is starting to emulate his siblings. Why do I tell you about my kids and their work? It is just to show you that, not having used the hands-off approach, the kids are doing just fine, thank you. I don't have to bribe them to do things. I don't have to sit down and have a meaningfull conversation every time I want someone to carry out the garbage. I have never discussed religion with them, mainly because I have no opinions on the subject, but, all three go to church every weekend, on their own hook. The two older ones watch the news and read the paper every day and form most of their own opinions. They do these things because I told them to. They continue to do these things because they know now that they will get a better understanding of what is going on around them. I encourage them to read and observe. I tell them when they are wrong in my opinion. I mould their characters into what I feel is something that will serve them in the future. With the phone calls and remarks being made by other people, it is working quite nicely. There are those parents in our neighborhood who have used the hands- off approach. Their kids are, in my opinion, in trouble. They have no direction, are unable to form the simplest conclusion, have no concept of ethics, do not understand how to make a decision, and cannot accept any form of rejection. Their parents did not give them any early help at any of these skills. A parent has to have the ability to say NO. Disipline is not a dirty word. My kids received a healthy dose of disipline plus an occasional seat warming. They also received a healthier dose of love with nightly (to this day) hugs and kisses. They get a lot of respect for their accomplishments and they get dissaproval for their non-accomplishments. They are able to form logical conclusions and understand the consequences of their actions. I have always insisted that they be morally and ethically superior. Whether they get this through some religious teachings or through the home, I don't care. Just so it happens. Some of you say that I am wrong to try to mould my childrens character. Well, to you I say, It's none of your damn business. I have done quite well so far and I see no problems from here on out. I will continue to mould and shape as long as I have breath. My kids are well known and respected in our community, even at their tender ages. I am very very proud of them, and it has been the result of character moulding. I am one of those parents who can't wait to get home in the evening to be with my family and to share their daily adventures, trials, and tribulations. Some of the hands-off parents would seem to be just as happy if they never saw their kids except on special occasions. My kids have to earn respect. The hands-off parents seem to have it backwards and expect respect, even if they have to buy it with goodies and money. SO, for all of those who are so sure they have the ultimate answer to child rearing, but don't have any children, buzz off. Being a parent is not a textbook job. If you don't think you are moulding character with your theory of child rearing, then your nuts. Character is moulded, it does not spring full blown out of nothing. From what I read, those who are espousing the hands-off approach, would have all children be the same, in the image of the espouser. Well, maybe I don't want my children to be like you. Maybe I want my children to be like me, or Albert Schwitzer, or Grace Slick, or Princess Dianne, or Dr. Salk, what the hell business is it of yours? I am doing my damndest to make certain that my kids have all of the facalties they need to make their way once they cut the apron strings. Leaving the gathering of those abilities to function up to them alone is criminal and will surely backfire. Go ahead and play at child rearing. I can guarentee that you will find it a hell of a lot different than a bunch of claptrap theories. I am sure these so-called child rearing methods have worked for some folks, but I feel that those kids were just smarter than the parents and would have survived without them. Flames accepted as long as you stick to the subject and don't start character assasinations because you don't agree. Let's keep Hitler, red-necked conservatives, and right-winged idiot epitaths out of this discussion. They have nothing to do with it. Let's just stick to the subject or let it die right here and now. I for one am getting tired of non-parents telling parents how to raise their children. Try parenting, I'll bet you change your attitude. T. C. Wheeler
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (08/21/84)
>[from T.C. Wheeler:] >I would suggest that all of those who are currently beating the dead >horse over kids rights vs parents rights wait awhile until they have >their own set of kids then wait 15 years while they experiment then >post the results. ... I definitely agree that those pontificate on how children should be raised should be parents themselves. Everyone is an expert on how to raise kids until they have some of their own. :-) There's really no substitute for experience. >... Every kid is different. Every parent is different. >And above all, Dr Spock was wrong and even admitted as much. There >is just no way you can reason with a two-year old, at least 99% of >them. The values your child receives will be your values so >preaching teaching other values is wasted. It's true that young children learn more by example than by reasoning on their own. An awful lot of what influences them has its effect before kids reach the age of reason and they pick up on their parent's values. But I don't think this means we need to be fatalistic about the child's development. For one thing, if our own values are good and right there ought to be little problem. We teach our kids more by what we are and what we do than anything we say. Not that verbal instruction isn't important, but if such instruction is not consistent with the way a parent acts it has little effect. If that's true we need to examine our own values and their example to our children. >Let's get back to finding >out what to do about earaches, diaper rash, and the other myriad of >problems parents must face on a day-to-day basis. I'm sure most >parents don't sit around discussing the proper way to instill a >set of values on their children. It is just not the real world >of parenting. There are far too many other problems that have to >be addressed on a daily basis. The rights discussion has little >to do with what we do every day other than as back-burner >thought once in awhile. Many of us are concerned about how to instill proper values in their children. It's lot's more important than figuring out how to treat diaper rash. Adam has given some very good thoughts on that. But, Adam, you've maintained that some of us have read you and Rich in the extreme. I'm not sure that you haven't done the same with Mr. Wheeler. I do hope that most parents will give priority to thinking about the kinds of values they want their children to have. If the parents don't someone else will. What I really don't like is all the talk about parents being incompetent based on what they teach or don't teach their children. Where does such talk lead? The only place I can think of is the place where someone besides the parents see fit to do the teaching. If someone raises their child to be an immoral bigot that's a shame and a tragedy. But as soon as people go around saying that the child of a bigot should be learning other things (implying someone other than the parents should be doing the teaching) a dangerous precident is in the making. Who is going to supplant the teaching of such parents? Only the state. And once moral an ideological teaching is made a criterion by which to judge parents incompetent we are all in trouble. If the state can usurp the parental rights of a bigot, it can do it to anyone--depending on what the state sees fit to call bigotry. (Whose definition of bigotry shall we go by?). My point is that as bad as we think other parent's are, no one has the right to say that another parent's attitude is the cause of great problems in society. That is a non sequitur. We should all keep our ideals for raising our children, but we should only apply them to our *own* children. If there is any harmful bias to be worked out of our growing children it should be done by their parents, or no one. Any solution to such "attitude caused" problems that bypasses parental authority is unacceptable. Contrary to Rich's assertion, parents do have rights--rights to fulfill the child's need for parentage. Parents may abuse them but they should never be usurped (on grounds of teaching content). If parents don't excercise and protect their rights someone else will take them over. The kids need for parentage doesn't change. Someone *will* teach them. God help us if that someone becomes the state (or anyone beside the parents). If our aim here is to help people to excercise their parental rights justly, lets stop blaming each other attitude and teaching for the problems of society. I see an all-too-easy justification here for shortcutting the parent's influence on their children by declaring the parents incompetent based on the values they instill. Who will be the rightful judge of competence? -- Paul Dubuc {cbosgd,ihnp4}!cbscc!pmd The true light that enlightens every one was coming into the world... (John 1:9)
alb@alice.UUCP (Adam L. Buchsbaum) (08/22/84)
I claim that T. C. Wheeler is absolutely wrong when he says that how one rears one's child is none of anybody else's business. It most certainly is. When that child grows up, he will become an integral part of the world which we all must share. We will all feel the effect that he has upon the society. I'm exaggerating? Look at such radical groups as the KKK, Moral Majority (OK, radical and reactionary groups), etc. Why do they continue? Why don't they just die out with their generation? Because their members raise their children to believe what they do. The members of the KKK actually BELIEVE other races to be inferior. They cannot understand why others do not. Why? Because they are narrow minded and were brought up under STRONG parentage. To counter Mr. (is it in fact Mr?) Wheeler's examples, my family also has three children (of which I am the youngest), all of whom were brought up under parents who let us decide values and opinions for ourselves. The oldest (my sister) is now about to enter her fourth year of medical school. The middle (my brother) is an EXCELLENT carpenter. I'm about to enter Brown University. So you see, allowing children the right to an open mind does not create ''monsters.'' Mr. Wheeler, it's more than 15 years since my parents started being parents, and the results are in.
brianp@shark.UUCP (Brian Peterson) (08/23/84)
Paul Dubuc's article about parents' rights has some very good points.
Parents have the right to raise their kids the way they want
(barring child abuse and neglect, which we all agree is bad),
lest other people (the "state", etc) start meddling.
Since people have different ideas of what m3"right",
this implies that people have the right to screw up.
This is an important right. :-| (that's a serious face :-)
The alternative is to let people screw you over.
Until objective >proof< of what is proper turns up,
what a person thinks is right is only right for that person.
(preceding sentence applies to net.almost-anything)
Some third party might perceive some situation where something "wrong" is
happening with respect to some kid. They want to fix things for the kid.
But the kid is someone else (with the right to screw up), and might thus
have different ideas of what is right and wrong. Thus the third party
has no say. But what if the kid hasn't had the opportunity to develop good
ideas of right and wrong? That is what parents are for. They provide
"adultness" and maturity until the kid develops enough of his own.
What criteria are used for "assigning" kids to parents? (can't help but :-)
Certainly not any individual's conceptions of right and wrong.
Birth pretty much decides things, and where that fails, adoption is used.
This boils down to who has the kid first. (after conception, or adoption)
Thus showing the validity of what the birds and beasts have done for
ages, I will go back to work....
Brian Peterson {ucbvax, ihnp4, } !tektronix!shark!brianpward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward) (08/25/84)
[]
A question that has been asked, but never answered:
If the parents don't decide how to raise chidren, who does?
And who enforces it?
And how?
--
Michael Ward, NCAR/SCD
UUCP: {hplabs,nbires,brl-bmd,seismo,menlo70,stcvax}!hao!sa!ward
ARPA: hplabs!hao!sa!ward@Berkeley
BELL: 303-497-1252
USPS: POB 3000, Boulder, CO 80307colonel@gloria.UUCP (George Sicherman) (09/13/84)
[And beat him when he sneezes.] >> A question that has been asked, but never answered: >> >> If the parents don't decide how to raise chidren, who does? >> And who enforces it? >> And how? I do! And I do it by sheer personal magnetism. There are always some parents who are willing to accept my authority. "Un sot trouve toujours un plus sot qui l'admire." --Socrates -- Col. G. L. Sicherman ...seismo!rochester!rocksanne!rocksvax!sunybcs!gloria!colonel