View Single Post
Old 07-23-2009, 09:11 AM   #7 (permalink)
ssandra
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Mexico City
Posts: 11,168
ssandra is an amazing contributorssandra is an amazing contributorssandra is an amazing contributorssandra is an amazing contributorssandra is an amazing contributorssandra is an amazing contributorssandra is an amazing contributorssandra is an amazing contributorssandra is an amazing contributorssandra is an amazing contributorssandra is an amazing contributor
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyllya View Post
I
Parent: "Your room is messy. Clean it."
Kid: "I'll do it later."
Parent: "...It's now later. Clean your room."
Kid: "I don't feel like it."
Parent: "Clean your room OR ELSE!!!" (temper tantrum)
Kid: "No."
Parent: "Fine. BUT I'VE DONE SO MUCH FOR YOU WHY DON'T YOU APPRECIATE ME!?!?"
(The parent goes off and sulks like a child. Two nights later, there's a fire, and the kid dies because he tripped over a toy. The parents curse their leniency.)

Whereas I suppose it'd actually go something like this:
Parent: "Your room is messy to the point of being unsafe. Please clear a route to escape in an emergency.... Or I could do it for you, but I'm worried I might accidentally damage one of your toys pushing it out of the way."
(The kid picks an option and the escape route is secured. If there's a fire, he lives, and everyone is happy.)
Or it will go like this:

Parent: "Your room is messy to the point of being unsafe. Please clear a route to escape in an emergency.... Or I could do it for you, but I'm worried I might accidentally damage one of your toys pushing it out of the way."
Kid: "yeah, sure I will" (and kids being kids, sees some of his playmates outside and thinks that it will do it later... that night the same fire, kid dies, parents sad etc.)

I think that there should be a healthy balance between cohersion and non-cohersion. For example, a child should be able to have whatever hearstyle it wants, whatever clothes it wants; but should also keep their room clean (not not-messy clean, but no-left-over-food-that-will-attract-mice-and-decease-clean).

They should be tried to explain why something is better for them, yes, but a 3 year old will not understand why it cannot have candy for breakfast, lunch and diner. Or why it is important to at least try the vegetables before it declears that it doesn't like them.

For me that is what parenting is about. First setting the right example, explaining why this or that is better, and communicating with your child what they want.
If that works fine, you will raise wonderful children. But; if you child (children being children, has nothing to do with being a bad parent) doesn't care about your arguments, doesn't do what you ASK, doesn't treat others with respect etc, you have to set the bounderies. That is where children learn them.

I'm not saying that they should learn to accept life and not do whatever they want, but they should learn not to do whatever they want at the expence of other people. They have to learn not to distroy toys or proporty of other people/children, they have to learn to share.

Anyway this is my opinion. A road in the middle is better than either extreme.
ssandra is offline   Reply With Quote