Yikes. So here's this guy regurgitating the idea promoted by Carl Rogers that you have to unconditionally love your little poopsies no matter how they behave. I take that to mean a completely hands off approach from the way this columnist writes... Funny, Dr. Spock said the same thing in the 60s, saying that spanking and "negative reinforcement" were 'barbaric' and that it only teaches your children that you "hate them". Ironically, a few years back Doc Spock said 'Oops.' He now says,
"We have reared a generation of brats. Parents aren't firm enough with their children for fear of losing their love or incurring their resentment. This is a cruel deprivation that we professionals have imposed on mothers and fathers. Of course, we did it with the best of intentions. We didn't realize until it was too late how our know-it-all attitude was undermining the self assurance of parents."Guess the NY Times writer didn't get the memo.
Now those brats are having brats of their own, and there is a whole new generation of empty-headed people with keyboards to tell them what to do. Or more accurately, what not to do—like tell your kids No. No, you can't have everything you see. No, you can't hit the neighbor kid with a stick for no reason. No, you can't make the kitty swim in a bucket... Instead their little terrors scream and cry and their mothers whine too. They whine "Henry please, Henry don't, Henry not now..." Or they ignore their children's screaming and whining, to the detriment of every eardrum in 3 counties.
What they don't do is be consistent, be firm, and set clear boundaries, explaining why the behavior is wrong after getting the child's attention and stopping the behavior.
What people don't seem to understand is that along with the No's come a lot of Yes's. When you teach your kids to act in a sociably acceptable manner, other people don't cringe when your kids show up, they have friends, they are well-liked. Because they have self-control they are less likely to engage in self-destructive behaviors, they're responsible, they're better able to reach goals in life—a whole 'mother-load' of benefits that start with their parents' loving discipline. Saying No.
For a long time I was totally mystified why anyone would fall for these sociologist's propaganda, but now I can't help but think that people listened to these 'experts' because it was what they wanted to hear. They wanted to hear that not only were their children basically little angels in need of wings (exactly what they weren't hearing from anyone around them) but it also appealed to the selfish side of their own natures. They were tired of parenting responsibly, which requires a lot of hard work and consistency. They could opt out as parents and everything would be fine. The experts said so.
The thing is that it goes against everything that makes sense.
Even as adults our friends let us know when we're being jerks, a kind of discipline. Police officers and laws are there to keep us socially acceptable also, and to protect us from people who aren't obedient to the law.
Obedience is an integral part of what makes society work. Seems to me to deny the fact that children must obey and act in a socially acceptable manner is only destroying any chance that they will ever succeed as adults.
Maybe we should spend more time listening to common sense and Grandma than we do listening to experts... Even if they're writing for the NY Times.
You know what kind of blows my mind? That as I'm writing this, automatically the links come up for 'spanking'... and nowhere in this post have I mentioned that word... Interesting.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_v41quwzB99DShXfh5-mpHRX-79VIHWFIbQ48P1MSOlLDaTOiB1kORJ5X2RBUpsNecHMI8xKAO0ve8n2aB4191Op4wdTkWwy9Or3Z-4rTuj6gyJxo73f0UPrv9dgsyiTSMk6pIhhppNqq5VysMkRfvR=s0-d)
