 |
|
 |
 |
|
|
Forum
-> Parenting our children
marina
|
 Wed, Sep 15 2010, 9:30 am
| Quote: | | You can only teach that when the "punishments" are logical and related to the misbehavior. |
This is a common pop-psych myth. It's really all about consistency and not the type of punishment. Think about real life. There is nothing logical or natural about getting a ticket when speeding or parking in the wrong place. But we somehow all learn not to speed or park in the wrong place.
| |
|
| Back to top |
 0
 0
|
frumluv
|
Wed, Sep 15 2010, 9:42 am
|
Thanks for the book recommendations Marina & Daisy. My problems w/ my 7 yr old is that he talks back & likes to negotiate, all the time. I have the tendancy yell a lot, so I am hoping to learn some new techniques.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
0
|
shalhevet
|
Wed, Sep 15 2010, 9:44 am
| Ruchel wrote: | | In life, things can have very weird effects/consequences... and halevai good choices led only to good things and bad choices to bad things... |
So what? It doesn't really matter for disciplining your child that sometimes when someone speeds no one sees them or gives them a ticket. When they are little their home and parents are their entire world, and even for older children, their home is a good part of their world.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
0
|
anon
|
Wed, Sep 15 2010, 9:46 am
| marina wrote: | | Quote: | | You can only teach that when the "punishments" are logical and related to the misbehavior. |
This is a common pop-psych myth. It's really all about consistency and not the type of punishment. Think about real life. There is nothing logical or natural about getting a ticket when speeding or parking in the wrong place. But we somehow all learn not to speed or park in the wrong place. |
But do we all learn not to yell or get nasty when we're angry? Do we all learn not to start smoking? Do we all go to bed at a responsible hour? Do we all not speed when in a place where the law isn't very present?
By the way, this conversation is mute unless we have a basic agreement (which apparently we don't).
Modern "pop" child psychology is NOT about overpermissiveness. It is NOT about not being the authority figure in the home. It's simply about a DIFFERENT way of disciplining and a different way of exercising your authority. However, it gets its bad rep because most people don't know how to implement it properly (since they weren't raised this way, they were raised in the traditional way) and therefore the result is overpermissiveness. That's why you will often see me recommending parenting classes (particular the one I'm taking, Dina Friedman's) because it provides a guide to clueless but well-meaning parents on how to parent EFFECTIVELY in this modern way.
I certainly don't believe in overpermissiveness, so when I hear accusations against modern child psychology regarding kids ruling the roost, I'm kind of like "What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?"
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
0
|
Tamiri
|
Wed, Sep 15 2010, 9:47 am
| marina wrote: | | Quote: | | You can only teach that when the "punishments" are logical and related to the misbehavior. |
This is a common pop-psych myth. It's really all about consistency and not the type of punishment. Think about real life. There is nothing logical or natural about getting a ticket when speeding or parking in the wrong place. But we somehow all learn not to speed or park in the wrong place. | Marina, a parking or speeding ticket is a consequence of doing something illegal. If there were no consequences, do you really think people would hesitate to park in a no park zone, or drive 100 mph when they felt like it? We are conditioned to cause and effect. Nothing "somehow we all learn" about it.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
0
|
Ruchel
|
Wed, Sep 15 2010, 9:52 am
| shalhevet wrote: | | Ruchel wrote: | | In life, things can have very weird effects/consequences... and halevai good choices led only to good things and bad choices to bad things... |
So what? It doesn't really matter for disciplining your child that sometimes when someone speeds no one sees them or gives them a ticket. When they are little their home and parents are their entire world, and even for older children, their home is a good part of their world. |
That's why I think children need discipline, not "consequences".
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
0
|
Tamiri
|
Wed, Sep 15 2010, 9:53 am
| anon wrote: |
By the way, this conversation is mute unless we have a basic agreement (which apparently we don't).
Modern "pop" child psychology is NOT about overpermissiveness. It is NOT about not being the authority figure in the home. It's simply about a DIFFERENT way of disciplining and a different way of exercising your authority. However, it gets its bad rep because most people don't know how to implement it properly (since they weren't raised this way, they were raised in the traditional way) and therefore the result is overpermissiveness. That's why you will often see me recommending parenting classes (particular the one I'm taking, Dina Friedman's) because it provides a guide to clueless but well-meaning parents on how to parent EFFECTIVELY in this modern way.
| You must be young. I am nearing 50, and have seen quite a few DIFFERENT ways of discipline evolve. There's nothing new under the sun here, except that parents are afraid of their children. There is no "traditional" way of parenting anymore - that went out in the 1960s. We've gone through Victorian strictness (children should be seen and not heard), all the way to "my child is my friend" or "we should never damage our child's self esteem - whatever that means".
Currently we have absentee parenting and that is probably what "the experts" who write books probably need to address most - how to teach people to parent their children without the parents actually having to be there to do the job  . Since when, in Judaism, isn't the parent the authoritative figure? If not the parent - then whom? Yes, "modern" parents are learning to get over the permissiveness that the previous "modern parenting", but as I wrote, since they aren't around that much it's pretty much a mute point.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
0
|
anon
|
Wed, Sep 15 2010, 10:17 am
| Tamiri wrote: | | anon wrote: |
By the way, this conversation is mute unless we have a basic agreement (which apparently we don't).
Modern "pop" child psychology is NOT about overpermissiveness. It is NOT about not being the authority figure in the home. It's simply about a DIFFERENT way of disciplining and a different way of exercising your authority. However, it gets its bad rep because most people don't know how to implement it properly (since they weren't raised this way, they were raised in the traditional way) and therefore the result is overpermissiveness. That's why you will often see me recommending parenting classes (particular the one I'm taking, Dina Friedman's) because it provides a guide to clueless but well-meaning parents on how to parent EFFECTIVELY in this modern way.
| You must be young. I am nearing 50, and have seen quite a few DIFFERENT ways of discipline evolve. There's nothing new under the sun here, except that parents are afraid of their children. There is no "traditional" way of parenting anymore - that went out in the 1960s. We've gone through Victorian strictness (children should be seen and not heard), all the way to "my child is my friend" or "we should never damage our child's self esteem - whatever that means".
Currently we have absentee parenting and that is probably what "the experts" who write books probably need to address most - how to teach people to parent their children without the parents actually having to be there to do the job . Since when, in Judaism, isn't the parent the authoritative figure? If not the parent - then whom? Yes, "modern" parents are learning to get over the permissiveness that the previous "modern parenting", but as I wrote, since they aren't around that much it's pretty much a mute point. |
I am young, but growing up I saw a general trend of the way my friends and I were raised. It's very different than how we're raising our kids. But yes, I guess you're right about there be no traiditional method anymore.
Either way, my point remains the same. Consequences and modern parenting do not involve overpermissiveness. In practice, parents may become overpermissive. But if implemented properly, they won't. So that shouldn't be a part of the picture when debating.
Don't any of you see the beauty in consequences, in the way I described it above? My parenting soul lit on fire when I learned about it.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
0
|
Barbara
|
Wed, Sep 15 2010, 10:36 am
| anon wrote: | | Tamiri wrote: | | anon wrote: |
By the way, this conversation is mute unless we have a basic agreement (which apparently we don't).
Modern "pop" child psychology is NOT about overpermissiveness. It is NOT about not being the authority figure in the home. It's simply about a DIFFERENT way of disciplining and a different way of exercising your authority. However, it gets its bad rep because most people don't know how to implement it properly (since they weren't raised this way, they were raised in the traditional way) and therefore the result is overpermissiveness. That's why you will often see me recommending parenting classes (particular the one I'm taking, Dina Friedman's) because it provides a guide to clueless but well-meaning parents on how to parent EFFECTIVELY in this modern way.
| You must be young. I am nearing 50, and have seen quite a few DIFFERENT ways of discipline evolve. There's nothing new under the sun here, except that parents are afraid of their children. There is no "traditional" way of parenting anymore - that went out in the 1960s. We've gone through Victorian strictness (children should be seen and not heard), all the way to "my child is my friend" or "we should never damage our child's self esteem - whatever that means".
Currently we have absentee parenting and that is probably what "the experts" who write books probably need to address most - how to teach people to parent their children without the parents actually having to be there to do the job . Since when, in Judaism, isn't the parent the authoritative figure? If not the parent - then whom? Yes, "modern" parents are learning to get over the permissiveness that the previous "modern parenting", but as I wrote, since they aren't around that much it's pretty much a mute point. |
I am young, but growing up I saw a general trend of the way my friends and I were raised. It's very different than how we're raising our kids. But yes, I guess you're right about there be no traiditional method anymore.
Either way, my point remains the same. Consequences and modern parenting do not involve overpermissiveness. In practice, parents may become overpermissive. But if implemented properly, they won't. So that shouldn't be a part of the picture when debating.
Don't any of you see the beauty in consequences, in the way I described it above? My parenting soul lit on fire when I learned about it. |
I generally agree. Punishment involves an outside force imposing an unrelated adverse impact.
Do the kids learn *don't do it* or do they learn *don't do it when mom is around* The natural consequence of not eating dinner is that you'll be hungry. The natural consequence of not speaking to Ima with respect is that she's not going to go out of her way to drive you to your friend's house. The natural consequence of not doing your homework Friday afternoon is not being able to go on an outing with your friends on Sunday.
I also dislike the notion of *3 strikes and you're out* types of punishment, if that's what is being suggested. Maybe it works for some kids, but you've got to know that my kid would always make sure to get in those first two strikes. Of course, my kid also bucks up against harsh consequences, digging his heels in and taking an *I don't care* posture. Smaller consequences work better for him. You have to know your own kids.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
0
|
anon
|
Wed, Sep 15 2010, 10:45 am
| Barbara wrote: | | I also dislike the notion of *3 strikes and you're out* types of punishment, if that's what is being suggested. Maybe it works for some kids, but you've got to know that my kid would always make sure to get in those first two strikes. Of course, my kid also bucks up against harsh consequences, digging his heels in and taking an *I don't care* posture. |
 I love the determination and intelligence that makes up our children. It's entertaining to observe (at least when I'm not involved, lol)
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
0
|
marina
|
Wed, Sep 15 2010, 11:33 am
| Quote: | | Consequences and modern parenting do not involve overpermissiveness |
I don't equate modern parenting to overpermissiveness. I equate modern parenting to parents who are constantly anxious about their parenting and whether they are good enough. So many threads on this website are devoted to Am I a Horrible Mother.
| Quote: | | Do the kids learn *don't do it* or do they learn *don't do it when mom is around* The natural consequence of not eating dinner is that you'll be hungry. The natural consequence of not speaking to Ima with respect is that she's not going to go out of her way to drive you to your friend's house. The natural consequence of not doing your homework Friday afternoon is not being able to go on an outing with your friends on Sunday |
This parenting method in this book is designed to teach obedience and respect, not morality. Of course, a parent has to also teach morality, but not necessarily at the same time she is teaching obedience and respect.
If the natural consequence of not speaking to Ima with respect are that she's not going to go out of her way to drive me to my friends house, that often turns into a personal issue. Ima is offended and she's taking it out on me by refusing to drive me, why can't she just take it easy and stop being so offended at every little thing, sheesh.
In contrast, a simple, calm and consistent " this is your third offense and you lost your screen time, better luck tomorrow" becomes very routine and expected and almost automatic. No power plays, no discussions needed.
| Quote: | | I also dislike the notion of *3 strikes and you're out* types of punishment, if that's what is being suggested. Maybe it works for some kids, but you've got to know that my kid would always make sure to get in those first two strikes. Of course, my kid also bucks up against harsh consequences, digging his heels in and taking an *I don't care* posture. Smaller consequences work better for him. You have to know your own kids |
In the beginning, my 9 year old made sure to get in the first two strikes also. They get over it when they figure out the power games are over.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
0
|
anon
|
Wed, Sep 15 2010, 11:41 am
| marina wrote: | | Quote: | | Consequences and modern parenting do not involve overpermissiveness |
I don't equate modern parenting to overpermissiveness. I equate modern parenting to parents who are constantly anxious about their parenting and whether they are good enough. So many threads on this website are devoted to Am I a Horrible Mother.
|
 Well I can't argue with that, lol, as I completely fit that description. I happen to think that it's pushing me to continuously grow into a better mother and person. And I think that it's a journey that will continue for many years (G-d willing, as my childrn are young). But yes, I definitely can't argue with that equation.
However, whenever the topic of modern parenting comes up, you do suggest that it involves overpermissiveness and lack of authority figure.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
0
|
PinkFridge
|
Wed, Sep 15 2010, 11:46 am
| PinkFridge wrote: | "star seed indigo snowflake"
I get what you mean from the context, but what in the world does this mean? How would one understand this if it stood alone? |
Ok, I'm getting an idea of what this means. I googled it and got imamother, of course, and then some links about starseed indigos that I either couldn't open or didn't want to open. Still wondering what exactly it means.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
0
|
marina
|
Wed, Sep 15 2010, 11:48 am
|
It's like special angel children who can do no wrong and if you try to discipline them you will kill their creative energy forces which will in turn destroy the world as we know it and revert to primoridial chaos...
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
0
|
anon
|
Wed, Sep 15 2010, 11:52 am
| marina wrote: | | It's like special angel children who can do no wrong and if you try to discipline them you will kill their creative energy forces which will in turn destroy the world as we know it and revert to primoridial chaos... |
that's a funny comparison. Marina, while I disagree with your parenting theories, I will say that I appreciate, and am often humored by, your way with words.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
0
|
marina
|
Wed, Sep 15 2010, 11:57 am
|
thanks, nice of you to say
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
0
|
PinkFridge
|
Wed, Sep 15 2010, 11:57 am
| marina wrote: | | It's like special angel children who can do no wrong and if you try to discipline them you will kill their creative energy forces which will in turn destroy the world as we know it and revert to primoridial chaos... |
Thanks.
I used to pick up this new age freebie for the coupons and read a few things, about vibrations, the Universe, and all that. (A lot of trees died gave up their lives when they just could have written "42" and left it at that.)
Anyway, thanks for sharing. If this is working, and the proof in the pudding is, are you seeing what you were hoping for and are you kids smiling enough, kol hakavod. We can use all the tools in our arsenals we can get.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
0
|
Mommy F.
|
Wed, Sep 15 2010, 8:46 pm
I wish my library had it 
So what ages is this book good for?
Like can it apply to toddlers? preschoolers?
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
0
|
marina
|
Wed, Sep 15 2010, 10:23 pm
| Quote: | | (A lot of trees died gave up their lives when they just could have written "42" and left it at that.) |
That's a good line.
mommyF, I am sure your library has it or can order it. It is a fairly common book. You can start this with a child as young as 3-4.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
0
|
anon
|
Wed, Sep 15 2010, 10:45 pm
OH. MY. G-D. I just read reviews which described the book in greater detail. I'm horrified.
The "Piling On" method sounds particularly disgusting. What the he**??
The way the author views children is just sad, and it's even sadder to think that he's got a following. There is no way that this man raised emotionally stable children. No way, I don't care how hotsy totsy they are.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
0
|
|
Imamother may earn commission when you use our links to make a purchase.
© 2024 Imamother.com - All rights reserved
|  |
 |
|
 |
|
|
