Society recognizes that parenting responsibilities can be removed under certain circumstances. It is not a process undertaken lightly. For good reason, the parental instinct is almost one of ownership-- 'MY child.'
But there is a process, recognized legally and through cultural support, wherein a child can be removed from being 'your child' to someone else's.
Disturbing, or upsetting that process is inherently offensive to other parents, and to most of the rest of society.
An extreme example-- when a father abuses his children, it is acceptable, culturally, even without the mandate of law enforcement, to remove that child from the father. If you're aware that a child is being physically abused and you can't get to the police right now, you save the child, and contact the police later.
However, when the child's physical safety isn't in question, and no abuse is occurring, very few and far between are the instances when a non-involved adult knows more about the well-being of a child than a parent.
This is one of the hot buttons of parenthood: the illegitimate surrogate. It can range from a group of pedophiles establishing an internet relationship with lonely thirteen-year-old boys, to a Sunday School teacher who thinks she understands a troubled teen better than her parents, and tries to undermine their relationship "for the good of the child." It includes predators and pushy relatives, teachers and youth leaders.
A non-extreme example: last year, we went on vacation with some relatives. One afternoon, while it was raining outside, the kids were downstairs watching some television. Their aunt was controlling the channels and was trying to just find a kids' show so she could go back upstairs and be with the adults; she settled on 'Sponge-Bob Square Pants.' (The audience was a mix of her kids and ours-- six children total. Her kids were 1.5 and 3; ours were 2, 4, 6, and 8.)
My son said, "We're not allowed to watch Sponge Bob."
She replied, "Oh, it's all right this time."
I was livid.
This is a small example of illegitimate surrogacy-- where the concern of a normal, healthy guardian or parent is overridden by the desire (or concern) of a person who doesn't have a relationship with the child. In most cases, the illegitimate surrogate does not realize the damage they are doing; in most cases they don't realize how offensive they are being.
So it's imperative for parents to explain in clear, exact language what the illegitimate surrogate has done wrong. It is equally important that if that person does not amend the wrong that they've done, that they never get access to the child again.
One of the best ways to defeat illegitimate surrogates is to teach children, from the time that they are young, that you are trustworthy. This can be done by taking seriously their worries and fears; by talking with them, spending time with them. One of the most important things, we've found, is to show our kids that we do not punish, fuss, or discipline them arbitrarily. We are consistent promise keepers.
Trust is, IMO, the greatest tool in building a healthy child. It is also the greatest defense against illegitimate surrogates' selfish, shortsighted motives.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
Just out of curiosity, why aren't your kids allowed to watch Sponge-Bob?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Because it's stupid, and teaches kids that 'stupid' is okay.
They're also not allowed to use the word 'stupid.'
EDIT: For the record, they're not allowed to watch much television at all. Any show where the main characters make a habit of being disrespectful to peers, where adults are treated like villains, or where boy-girl relationships at an age younger than 16 are encouraged or seen as normal, is not allowed.
So, basically, we don't watch the Disney channel after the pre-school programs go off. Mostly we watch Discovery or Animal Planet.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Very well written, scott!
I think the most hopeful outcome, for us as parents, is that the child will then understand and even choose to follow our guidelines on their own, as they know and trust that we set guidelines out of love for them, and that there are reasons for them.
One such example for us is very like your own with the Sponge Bob episode. Except my kids were at my sister's house, until her care (probably middle school age at the time) when they turned on South Park.
My kids didn't say, "we're not allowed to see South Park"..instead they said, "We DON'T watch South Park." And when the channel wasn't changed, they got up and left the room themselves. That is the kind of thing I hope for my kids -- that they will do on their own whatever we have taught them, whether we are there or not.
(edit: I'm not saying your kids should have had that reaction - because my kids were older, and more is expected of them at that stage of life)
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
That's awesome, Farmgirl.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Because it's stupid, and teaches kids that 'stupid' is okay.
That is exactly why I wouldn't let my kid watch Barney.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
If I ever have kids I think I'll lock them in a room with a continuous loop of Carl Sagan's "Cosmos" playing.
Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
The Military channel and G4 Tech TV ftw.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Scott, I'm so glad you are raising children in my world.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Heaven help me, that first read to me as "I'm so glad you're raising my children in the world."
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester:
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Because it's stupid, and teaches kids that 'stupid' is okay.
That is exactly why I wouldn't let my kid watch Barney.
Amen.
I had one of my daughter's teachers call me the other day and try to convince me that we should send her to a different HS than the one we have decided on (after much research). I didn't mind the call; I did mind that she kept pushing even after she admitted that I had clearly done more research than she had.
And then went back to pushing the idea of sending her out of town for school, which she had brought up before. That way, of course, she might be exposed to something other than her terrible broken home. Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert: Just out of curiosity, why aren't your kids allowed to watch Sponge-Bob?
I was wondering that. It's rather funny and goofy.
Ni Hao Kai Lan is rather good. It's sort of sweet and not too brain drainingly stupid the way a lot of kid shows tend to be.
Your points make sense, Scott R. I hope when I am a parent I can build a foundation of love and trust and most importantly, not be like my own parents were.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I hope when I am a parent I can build a foundation of love and trust and most importantly, not be like my own parents were.
I hope that not being like your own parents isn't really more important to you than being a good parent.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:I hope when I am a parent I can build a foundation of love and trust and most importantly, not be like my own parents were.
I hope that not being like your own parents isn't really more important to you than being a good parent.
Being a good parent would be not being like my parents. It's rude to say, but very true. They were quite young when they had me, my mother was abused and somewhat abusive (though, she was there for me when I had cancer), my father was not very involved and for the most part my grandmother raised me.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
The lessons I took from my own upbringing included what to do and what not to do. My parents gave examples of both.
I'm sure that my kid will say the same about me.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Heaven help me, that first read to me as "I'm so glad you're raising my children in the world."
No, other than the ones I occasionally dream I've forgotten about and left behind somewhere, none of mine. *grin
(Horrible, horrible dreams. "Oh, my God. I left a baby at O'Hare on the luggage carousel in 1992. What happened??? My baby! My baby's dead!")
---
Edited to add:
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: The lessons I took from my own upbringing included what to do and what not to do. My parents gave examples of both.
I'm sure that my kid will say the same about me.
My mother sometimes commented that it was a good thing none of us had perfect parents, because then we would have the stress of trying to live up to that perfection ourselves. I found that quite sensible and encouraging.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: I left a baby at O'Hare on the luggage carousel in 1992.
MOM!
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
What an interesting topic! I'd never thought of it in those terms, Scott. It's particularly helpful to me at this point b/c I often feel like Andrew and I are alone in how we choose to parent.
For example, we attend a Mommy and Me program at our local Chabad. It's a wonderful program and I really like the other moms and kids. However, I have more and different rules for Aerin than almost all the other moms. It's especially important that I'm consistent b/c Aerin has a number of developmental delays/disorders (currently being diagnosed). We were having snack and she did "the sweep" with her Cheerios - whereby she takes her arm and sweeps it across the table, thus maximizing the total devastation. I said, "No, Aerin, you know better. Cheerios are all done." I didn't raise my voice, but I did use a firm tone. And I put the Cheerios away. Aerin barely reacted - she rarely does the sweep b/c she knows it gets food taken away. She had also had plenty to eat. One of the other moms said, "Oh, let her do it. They're only this little once. Who cares if they make a mess?" I just demurred because I didn't want to get into it, but it annoyed me on many levels.
We have a big problem with people giving Aerin food at shul. She's little and pretty and a miracle baby, so everyone wants to give her cookies and brownies and treats. And it never occurs to anyone to ask me first! What if she had a serious food allergy? I never give children food without checking with their parents first.
Another big problem is presents. There are a lot of toys we don't allow. We don't allow anything that lights up or makes (electronic) noise. We also don't allow Bratz dolls, etc. I finally just made an Amazon wish list and I try to steer people there. I wish people we barely know would stop giving us presents all together - I've tried to request that people make donations in Aerin's name, but it never works.
Sometimes, though, people are good about respecting our rules. We were at Eema and Me and Aerin was fussing because I wouldn't let her leave the room (she loves to explore - it's a very neat shul). The teacher said, "Aerin, don't cry, it's time to go to the dining room for snack." I love the teacher and feel very comfortable with her, so I said, "She can't go until she stops fussing." And the teacher said, "Of course you're exactly right. That's what I love about you." It was so nice to be supported and not told that I'm too strict or mean.
BTW, the only show we allow is Peep and the Big Wide World.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: MOM!
(You weren't the, um, fetus that had to be continually basted, were you? Because I feel really, really bad about that.)
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: The lessons I took from my own upbringing included what to do and what not to do. My parents gave examples of both.
Of course. But if your most important thing as a parent is defined by what your parents did (or didn't do), you'll end up as a twisted reflection of them.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mrs.M: One of the other moms said, "Oh, let her do it. They're only this little once. Who cares if they make a mess?" I just demurred because I didn't want to get into it, but it annoyed me on many levels.
Been there. Done that. Totally with you.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I don't dream about babies I had and lost, but occasionally (once every two years or so) dream about getting a baby that isn't mine. This whole "no sex before marriage" is pretty deeply ingrained, because I've had several dreams where I was pregnant and in tears because I couldn't imagine how.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese:
quote:Originally posted by rivka: MOM!
(You weren't the, um, fetus that had to be continually basted, were you? Because I feel really, really bad about that.)
I hope not. It might explain some of my skin issues though . . .
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:or where boy-girl relationships at an age younger than 16 are encouraged or seen as normal
Are we talking "romantic" relationships, or friendships of any kind?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Something in Scott's post really bothers me. I think the bottom line of it is that while I respect that parents relationship to their children and their responsibility for them is unique and special, I also believe that the entire community has a responsibility for its children.
For example, as a teacher I have a responsibility to my students. In an ideal world, when I fill my responsibility to my students by teaching them the course material I would be supporting the parents and their goals. But this isn't an ideal world and sometimes as a teacher I find myself at odds with what the parents think is best for their child. Many times that is because the parents are wrong. No parent is perfect.
For example, last year I was teaching sunday school to a group of teenagers. During one lesson I was making a point which came straight out of the official church material for the class, was backed by scriptural references and quotes from our modern day prophets and which I felt inspired to emphasize in class. One of the kids raised his hand and said, but that's the opposite of what my parents tell me. I didn't have any desire to undermine his parents or be an "illegitimate surrogate" for them, but as their teacher I felt I had a sacred responsibility to teach them the truth even if it contradicted what their parents wanted them to believe. I tried to temper my answer so it didn't come out as a bluntly as "well, your parents are wrong", but in the end that's what it added up to.
I suspect that they had been ScottR's kids, he'd be livid.
I don't care. I had a responsibility to these kids and I did the best I could to fill it. I respect that the parents are doing the same even if they do make mistakes. I hope they aren't so arrogantly possessive of their children that they can't appreciate the responsibilities held by other imperfect members of the community (and that they have to other's children) and the good faith efforts those people make to help, support and teach their children.
I understand Scott's point but it isn't as black and white an issue as he implies. There are many other members of the community that have a responsibility of some sort for your children that goes beyond just making sure they aren't being beaten. Just like parents, none of these people are perfect and at time they may make mistakes. When teachers, mentors and friends make mistakes because they genuinely care about your kids, they deserve to be cut the same kind of slack we cut good loving responsible parents who also make mistakes.
[ March 28, 2008, 11:42 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
CT, your nightmares give me nightmares. You are amazingly good at nightmares. You make me look like a piker.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
We love Peep! Duck is hilarious.
quote:She's little and pretty and a miracle baby, so everyone wants to give her cookies and brownies and treats. And it never occurs to anyone to ask me first! What if she had a serious food allergy? I never give children food without checking with their parents first.
:nods:
Inkling has a milk allergy-- we're very appreciative when people ask us before they hand him a cup of moo-juice.
Part of not making yourself an illegitimate surrogate is respecting the wishes of normal, healthy parents. To respect their wishes, you have to find out what they are, first. The only way to do that is ask-- I know I appreciate it when people ask what our standards are. Our best (non-family) babysitter is the one that enforces our rules despite the extra aggravation she has to go through because of it.
quote: There are a lot of toys we don't allow. We don't allow anything that lights up or makes (electronic) noise. We also don't allow Bratz dolls, etc.
Yep. We've broken a couple hearts by returning toys that weren't appropriate for our kids.
Completely off topic, what in the world were the makers of the Bratz dolls thinking? "Not only are we going to sexualize teenagers to pre-teens, but we're going to market them with a negative label, too! GENIUS!"
Unfortuantely, it's worked.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
No kidding. The next step is a set of slightly older dolls called "B*****s!".
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: [QB] No, other than the ones I occasionally dream I've forgotten about and left behind somewhere, none of mine. *grin
(Horrible, horrible dreams. "Oh, my God. I left a baby at O'Hare on the luggage carousel in 1992. What happened??? My baby! My baby's dead!")
I've had nearly the same dream, except for the luggage carousel part.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I've had nearly the same dream, except for the luggage carousel part.
It's a horrible feeling, isn't it? I find that sort of dream is the kind whose hold lingers the longest -- I still feel the guilt and fear long after my brain has cognitively acknowledged it was all only a dream.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
It really is a horrible dream. The horrible guilt and fear of having misplaced or forgotten something as precious as a baby. Really, really awful.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I think the bottom line of it is that while I respect that parents relationship to their children and their responsibility for them is unique and special, I also believe that the entire community has a responsibility for its children.
I agree, to a certain point.
quote:...sometimes as a teacher I find myself at odds with what the parents think is best for their child. Many times that is because the parents are wrong. No parent is perfect.
Nor are you. Normal, healthy parents, at least, have a long-standing, daily relationship with their child which a teacher inherently lacks.
This attitude is the essence of illegitimate surrogacy.
quote:For example, last year I was teaching sunday school to a group of teenagers. During one lesson I was making a point which came straight out of the official church material for the class, was backed by scriptural references and quotes from our modern day prophets and which I felt inspired to emphasize in class. On of the kids raised his hand and said, but that's the opposite of what my parents tell me. I didn't have any desire to undermine his parents or be an "illegitimate surrogate" for them, but as their teacher I felt I had a sacred responsibility to teach them the truth even if it contradicted what their parents wanted them to believe. I tried to temper my answer so it didn't come out as a bluntly as "well, your parents are wrong", but in the end that's what it added up to.
Did you contact the parents to explain what had happened?
I really hope you did.
quote:I suspect that they had been ScottR's kids, he'd be livid.
Every Sunday after church, the troupe and I discuss what they talked about in Sunday School. I'm very interested in what they're learning, and what they find interesting about the gospel.
I'm also aware that some Sunday School teachers with the best intentions, have not a clue in their brains as to what the gospel is about. Protestations to the contrary notwithstanding. So in the scenario that you laid out, I would point out using scripture, church manuals, and the Spirit of God why what they were taught in church was wrong.
And then I'd call their teacher and discuss the correct doctrine with them.
quote:I don't care. I had a responsibility to these kids and I did the best I could to fill it. I respect that the parents are doing the same even if they do make mistakes.
I don't respect people who willingly put their own desires and agendas above my wishes for my children's well-being.
I do not respect people who believe that they know better for my children than I do.
quote:I hope they aren't so arrogantly possessive of their children that they can't appreciate the responsibilities held by other imperfect members of the community (and that they have to other's children) and the good faith efforts those people make to help, support and teach their children.
Aha. "Arrogant."
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Rabbit: I don't mean to speak for Scott, but the way I see it, he is upset by people who assume a responsibility for someone's children when they have none, or who overstep the bounds of their legitimate responsibility. If you're a Sunday school teacher, you have a legitimate responsibility to teach the kids in your class according to the lesson manual provided.
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
Scott, do you also claim to not know better than any other parent in regard to their parenting? If I let my kids watch South Park, you'd say "he knows what's best for his child" and not believe you knew better?
While you may not respect me for it, I definitely have opinions about what's best for other children, and I think you should, too.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Nor are you. Normal, healthy parents, at least, have a long-standing, daily relationship with their child which a teacher inherently lacks.
This attitude is the essence of illegitimate surrogacy.
Scott, It depends on what issue we are discussing. If as an elementary school teacher for example, I were advising you on whether grounding your child was an appropriate punishment for your child, then I'd can see your objection.
If on the other hand, an elementary school teacher was advising you to get a reading tutor for your child or to have him evaluated for learning disabilities, the teacher may indeed know more about what your child needs than you do.
If for example I were an elementary school teacher and I'd worked carefully with a child who was struggling to read and thought that child need special help, I'd push hard to get that child the special help even if the parents objected. I would see that as part of my responsibility as a teacher.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
CT, did you leave Rivka in a handbag?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Given the size of my handbags in the early 90s, that would be a distinct possibility.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by Launchywiggin: Scott, do you also claim to not know better than any other parent in regard to their parenting? If I let my kids watch South Park, you'd say "he knows what's best for his child" and not believe you knew better?
While you may not respect me for it, I definitely have opinions about what's best for other children, and I think you should, too.
I definitely think South Park isn't a good show for kids (or adults, honestly) to watch.
Having an opinion isn't the same as acting to take responsibility for someone else's child.
We have friends who homeschool their kids. Some of them pull it off well, some of them don't. In most cases, I think the kids of the families I know would get a much better education at public school than at home.
It's not my place to decide, though, or even comment to them about it. Most of those children will grow up to be excellent, thoughtful citizens, even if they never do wind up reading Cry, the Beloved Country, or Their Eyes Were Watching God.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:If for example I were an elementary school teacher and I'd worked carefully with a child who was struggling to read and thought that child need special help, I'd push hard to get that child the special help even if the parents objected. I would see that as part of my responsibility as a teacher.
rivka pointed to a situation at her daughter's school in which a teacher apparently thinks she knows better for her daughter than the mother.
I'm inclined to trust Rivka's judgment in this matter.
Of course there are many factors involved-- do I trust the teacher as a professional? Do I trust her as a person? Am I evaluating my own competencies without bias?
We took Junebug out of school last year because she wasn't being taught math correctly. It simply does not matter what the school board said about the teacher's ability to teach; it didn't matter what the teacher's professional opinion was; it didn't matter what the principal thought or said-- we had experience that they did not with how Junebug learned, and we saw that she was not learning math from this teacher. And so we acted on our understanding, removed her from public school, and taught her ourselves. It was the right decision, and has been validated all this year by Junebug's increased ability to understand mathematics.
I do not give professionalism any credit at all. It's an overvalued piece of paper that has no relationship to my children whatsoever.
I do not allow that a teacher knows more than I do about the way my child learns. I have made sure that I know more than them; and in fact, I'm so far ahead of their understanding, they can never, ever catch up. Not that I blame them-- I've got experiences informing me that they simply cannot have.
I believe it is a parent's duty and one of their main responsibilities to understand their child better then everyone else. I take an active part of my children's lives to make sure that I live up to that responsibility.
EDIT: And I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt to any parent who says similarly.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
I'm not a big fan of establishing practices which would be prohibitively difficult to carry out if everyone actually followed them. For instance, checking with the parents of every child that visited with our house as to what tv shows their kids were allowed to watch or what video games they were allowed to play or whether or not the children are permitted to eat candy or cookies.
When we allow our children to go to someone else's home, we know their standards vary a bit one way or another from ours, but we accept that we cannot perfectly control the experiences of our children throughout their childhood and that individual variances from the experiences we would prefer that they have will not cause irreparable harm and may potentially provide teaching opportunities to them so that they better understand why we have the rules we do rather than just learn to follow the rules for the rules' sake.
The parent who is told "we're not allowed to watch that" by one of the children who are sitting down to watch a show is put into an awkward position and I can understand them deciding that just letting the child watch the show is preferable to segregating the child, sending him home, or insisting that everyone else give up an activity for which their parents do not object. If it were me, I'd probably get on the phone and talk with the parents before making a decision, but I can understand the parent who just lets it go "this one time."
All of my children who are old enough to convey themselves to a friend's house have had multiple experiences that fall outside of what we would permit in our own home regarding music, TV, or games, and we have used these experiences to educate them about why we have the standards we have and why they are different from others'. On occasion we intervene with their friends or their friends' parents when these experiences go too far beyond what we consider reasonable, but overall these situations have, I think, richened our children's appreciation for both the diversity of their friends and for the environment that we try to encourage in our own home.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Did you contact the parents to explain what had happened?
I really hope you did.
I thoughtfully and prayerful considered it at the time but since I could find no way to do that without either insulting the parent, presuming to teach the parent (something clearly outside my stewardship), or getting the kid in trouble. Remember this wasn't a class of 8 year olds, it was a class of teenagers who are prone to exaggerate what their parents say and do.
Since you posted, I've reconsidered and still can't think of anyway I could do that which was respectful to both the parents and the kid.
quote: I would point out using scripture, church manuals, and the Spirit of God why what they were taught in church was wrong.
And then I'd call their teacher and discuss the correct doctrine with them.
At which point I would have pointed to my manual and the scriptures and gospel quotes I'd used in class. I would have explained that I had prayerful prepared my lesson and was striving to fill my calling. I would have reminded you that you raised your hand to sustain me in that calling and suggested that if you felt you could no longer do that, you talk to the Bishop about it.
The part you don't seem to be getting Scott is that you aren't the only one who has a sacred responsibility toward your children.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:The parent who is told "we're not allowed to watch that" by one of the children who are sitting down to watch a show is put into an awkward position and I can understand them deciding that just letting the child watch the show is preferable to segregating the child, sending him home, or insisting that everyone else give up an activity for which their parents do not object. If it were me, I'd probably get on the phone and talk with the parents before making a decision, but I can understand the parent who just lets it go "this one time."
I can appreciate your opinion, and might agree with it, depending on the specific situation. (In my case, the families were all in one house together, her kids were in the minority both age-wise and numbers-wise, and she knew beforehand that we didn't allow Sponge Bob.)
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: The parent who is told "we're not allowed to watch that" by one of the children who are sitting down to watch a show is put into an awkward position and I can understand them deciding that just letting the child watch the show is preferable to segregating the child, sending him home, or insisting that everyone else give up an activity for which their parents do not object. If it were me, I'd probably get on the phone and talk with the parents before making a decision, but I can understand the parent who just lets it go "this one time."
*blink*
I can understand not calling the child's parents to check before every activity or snack, but when a kid tells you they're not allowed to do something and you encourage them to do it anyway you are knowingly encouraging that child to deliberately disobey their parents. That's putting yourself in a much worse position than any "awkwardness" the child has caused.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I do not give professionalism any credit at all. It's an overvalued piece of paper that has no relationship to my children whatsoever.
I do not allow that a teacher knows more than I do about the way my child learns. I have made sure that I know more than them; and in fact, I'm so far ahead of their understanding, they can never, ever catch up. Not that I blame them-- I've got experiences informing me that they simply cannot have.
You've hit everyone of my hot buttons so far in this thread Scott. I will leave now because I there is not way that I could continue a civil conversation with you.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:The part you don't seem to be getting Scott is that you aren't the only one who has a sacred responsibility toward your children.
What you don't seem to be getting is that the parents' sacred responsibility trumps the teacher's every time.
Even in the church. ESPECIALLY in the church, where the center of teaching the gospel is supposed to be the family. Church on Sunday is an organizer and a facilitator, but not a replacement and not the first location of gospel knowledge.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I can understand not calling the child's parents to check before every activity or snack, but when a kid tells you they're not allowed to do something and you encourage them to do it anyway you are knowingly encouraging that child to deliberately disobey their parents. That's putting yourself in a much worse position than any "awkwardness" the child has caused.
Like I said, *I* would have called the parents. But as a parent who has rules about what my kids can and can't watch, I'd cut some slack to the parent in that situation. This assessment seems to reflect reality as Scott seems much more upset with the adult involved than with his child.
EDIT: I don't see it as the child necessarily disobeying their parent. At least the way I think my kids would parse that situation is "this grown up is letting my do something my parents don't let me do" which means the transgression is on the part of the adult, not the child.
[ March 28, 2008, 01:26 PM: Message edited by: MattP ]
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
I agree with Scott that there any decent parent will be privy to information and observations that a teacher simply doesn't have access to. At the same time, a teacher will almost certainly possess information that parent doesn't have with regards to teaching techniques, styles of learning, and sheer volume of experience teaching children, if not your specific child.
It's a lot like going to see a doctor. You're the one who knows what hurts and what doesn't feel good, and you probably know your body better than your physician, but the doctor's the one with the expertise to tell you what all that means, and advise on a course of treatment.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Even in the church. ESPECIALLY in the church, where the center of teaching the gospel is supposed to be the family. Church on Sunday is an organizer and a facilitator, but not a replacement and not the first location of gospel knowledge.
This is really getting too complicated. Teacher says "A." Kid says "my parents say B." Teacher says, "I could be mistaken, but my understanding is 'A' and this is why." or better yet "This is what the lesson manual says (quote the lesson manual) and this is that the prophets have said (quote the prophets). Prayerfully consider for yourself what conclusion to draw from that."
Done!
The child is still welcome to go back to his parents for clarification. The parents are welcome to talk to the teacher. I don't see why a disagreement on a doctrinal issue in Sunday School has to be a point of embarrassment for the child or cause a clash over who's responsibilities are more sacred.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina:
quote:The part you don't seem to be getting Scott is that you aren't the only one who has a sacred responsibility toward your children.
What you don't seem to be getting is that the parents' sacred responsibility trumps the teacher's every time.
Even in the church. ESPECIALLY in the church, where the center of teaching the gospel is supposed to be the family. Church on Sunday is an organizer and a facilitator, but not a replacement and not the first location of gospel knowledge.
Absolutely.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
MattP: I don't see how that's complicated at all, nor do I see how what you described conflicts with what katharina said. The teacher has a responsibility to the child, and she has fulfilled it if she does what you said. But that's where the responsibility ends. I believe that's what katharina is saying.
The Rabbit is saying that parents aren't the only ones with responsibilities to their children; others are saying, in a nutshell, that parental responsibility trumps the other ones.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:...I would have pointed to my manual and the scriptures and gospel quotes I'd used in class. I would have explained that I had prayerful prepared my lesson and was striving to fill my calling. I would have reminded you that you raised your hand to sustain me in that calling and suggested that if you felt you could no longer do that, you talk to the Bishop about it.
Aha. Well, this is completely off the topic. I would have pointed out that no power or influence can or ought to be maintained [except by] persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned; By kindness, and pure knowledge..."
Oh-- did you think that D&C 121 was only for priesthood holders?
If you think the mere acceptance of a calling entitles you to all activities you decide to take within the circumference of your call, you have sorely misunderstood the doctrines relating to this portion of the gospel.
quote:The part you don't seem to be getting Scott is that you aren't the only one who has a sacred responsibility toward your children.
Are you arguing that your "sacred responsibility" gives you insight into people's children that their parents cannot have, Rabbit? Or that your "sacred responsibility" allows you to override the wishes of a normal parent?
If you are, then we can continue debating this.
If you are not, then we're probably just fussing at each other's choice of words out of mutual disdain.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: I agree with Scott that there any decent parent will be privy to information and observations that a teacher simply doesn't have access to. At the same time, a teacher will almost certainly possess information that parent doesn't have with regards to teaching techniques, styles of learning, and sheer volume of experience teaching children, if not your specific child.
It's a lot like going to see a doctor. You're the one who knows what hurts and what doesn't feel good, and you probably know your body better than your physician, but the doctor's the one with the expertise to tell you what all that means, and advise on a course of treatment.
I agree with this.
As a teacher, I had way too many cases of "my angel would never do such a thing" to believe that parents always know best. However, even when I thought the parent was wrong, I certainly did my best to respect that THEY were the parent.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: MattP: I don't see how that's complicated at all, nor do I see how what you described conflicts with what katharina said. The teacher has a responsibility to the child, and she has fulfilled it if she does what you said. But that's where the responsibility ends. I believe that's what katharina is saying.
The Rabbit is saying that parents aren't the only ones with responsibilities to their children; others are saying, in a nutshell, that parental responsibility trumps the other ones.
Then perhaps people are talking past each other here, because there seems to be a lot of unnecessary heat in this thread around this topic.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
It depends. There are many well meaning parents who will deny up and down that their child has a learning disability. As a result of their denial, the child may not get the resources they need. A teacher could have all sorts of knowledge of learning disabilities a parent might not have. A perfectly well meaning parent could think their child is being lazy and not applying themselves instead of knowing it's a problem.
How about in the extreme case of a parent who is in the KKK or is a neo-Nazi and teaches that non-whites are inferior? It isn't abusive, but it can be harmful in the long run and a case of parents being a bit... wrong.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:What you don't seem to be getting is that the parents' sacred responsibility trumps the teacher's every time.
Even in the church. ESPECIALLY in the church, where the center of teaching the gospel is supposed to be the family. Church on Sunday is an organizer and a facilitator, but not a replacement and not the first location of gospel knowledge.
I have to disagree. Not with the idea that the family should be the center of gospel teaching, but because I understand the concept of stewardship. The parent has stewardship for his children but the teacher has stewardship for teaching the Sunday school class. As a sunday school teacher my responsibility is to God and the children not to the parents. I am responsible to teach the children correct principles as long as they are in my class. There isn't any question about whose responsibility trumps whose. The responsibility of the parents is different (and certainly greater) than mine but I can't be excused from teaching correct principle in my Sunday School class or from following the inspiration I receive for teaching that class (which I am uniquely qualified to receive) because the parents disapprove.
In an ideal world, my filling my responsibility would support and help the parents in filling their responsibility and there would never be a question. But this isn't an ideal world. Both parents and teachers make mistakes. Both parent and teacher should be sustaining each other in their callings and respect each others sacred stewardship.
If as a sunday school teacher I was helping the kid do something his parents disapproved of (say covering for him so he could spend time with friends his parents disapproved of), I'd be intruding on the parents stewardship. But in the same way if the parent tries to tell me what I should or should not teach in the Sunday School class, they are intruding on my stewardship.
If a parent really objects to what I'm teaching in Sunday school, its certainly within their stewardship to go to the Bishop and discuss the issue or to pull their kids out of the class. Just as a parent who abuses his child can have his stewardship for the child revoked, if I'm a bad enough teacher I could loose my stewardship for the class.
But what I'm saying is that a teacher who is acting in good faith to fulfill their stewardship but makes mistakes along the way deserves to be cut the same slack we cut parents who are acting in good faith but make some mistakes.
As a teacher, I'd be out of line if I thought I knew more about a kid than the parents knew. But I could very well know something about the kid that his parents don't know. And I almost certainly know more about what I'm teaching than the parent knows.
I understand rivka's annoyance with an overly pushy teacher, but I hope she also appreciates having a teacher who is concerned about her daughter. I hope she is willing to listen to learn anything that teacher might know that she doesn't. In the end, of course the decision must be rivka's and I would hope that the teacher, having now voiced her concerns, will respect rivka's decision even if she disagrees with it. Just as I hope that in the end rivka cuts the pushy teacher some slack and appreciates her input.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
The situation seems obvious to me: the correct way to deal with someone else's child on a serious matter has to involve their parents, such as in Rabbit's anecdote where the kids in her class were being taught something that was clearly incorrect.
Assuming Rabbit is correct about the parents teaching their children incorrectly, why is it better to keep silent and let the ignorance continue as opposed to addressing it?
Rabbit, what is supposed to happen in this situation? If their parents are teaching them so badly about our faith in one area, it stands to reason that they're probably screwing up badly in another area, too. What happens about the next thing those parents screw up? Are the children supposed to come to you for the straight scoop?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:As a sunday school teacher my responsibility is to God and the children not to the parents. I am responsible to teach the children correct principles as long as they are in my class.
So your responsibility (and thus your authority) extends only to the limits of the bounds of your class? Isn't that a very reactive way to deal with a serious problem?
Given the limits you describe of your own authority, it really does seem like your solution to this problem is to correct these kids as long as they're in your class, and take it no further. It's a very poor solution, because I very much doubt that none of those kids ever spoke to anyone else about the time that their teacher said-despite polite phrasing-"Your parents are wrong about this."
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Not because with the idea that the family should be teaching the gospel, but because I understand the concept of stewardship.
I also understand the concept of stewardship. The parents' STILL trumps the teacher's. The basic unit of the church is the family. It isn't the Sunday School class - all those classes are auxiliaries.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I understand rivka's annoyance with an overly pushy teacher, but I hope she also appreciates having a teacher who is concerned about her daughter. I hope she is willing to listen to learn anything that teacher might know that she doesn't. In the end, of course the decision must be rivka's and I would hope that the teacher, having now voiced her concerns, will respect rivka's decision even if she disagrees with it. Just as I hope that in the end rivka cuts the pushy teacher some slack and appreciates her input.
Did I appreciate the teacher's concern and her motivation for the call? Definitely. She's a lovely person, she cares for my daughter very much, and I am very glad she has been my daughter's teacher.
Did I appreciate that even after she had expressed her concerns -- twice -- and I had explained that what she was suggesting was not an option -- twice -- AND she had admitted to not knowing as much about the situation as she had thought, that she kept pushing anyway?
Hell no.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
No katharina, I don't think you understand stewardship.
If a mother comes to me and tells me (for example), that I shouldn't teach a lesson from the manual because of her child's special issue (say she asks me not to teach a lesson on "eternal families" because their family hasn't been sealed and the child is really sensitive about it). As a teacher, I would certainly listen to her concerns and consider them. But in the end, I'm the one who has stewardship for what's taught in the class and I am the one responsible to make that decision. I am the only one who has the right to revelation from God about what should be taught in the class and she should support my decision.
Her responsibility is for her child, mine is for what is taught in the class. Hers can't trump mine -- they are different stewardships. If in the end I choose to teach the lesson, the parent still has the responsibility to decide whether or not her child should attend the class. If she I think she is a normal healthy mother, I will respect her decision and support it just as I expect her to respect my decision and support it.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I do understand stewardship just fine, and I'm starting to think that you prefer being insulting rather than granting that we have different views on this.
I do not disagree with you because you have superior information. I disagree with you because I have a different view of the role of teachers within the church, and I think that the parents' rights and responsibilities trump the teachers' every time.
The way you are acting towards me when I disagree with you is not helping your case when you say that you know better than the parents what to teach.
A normal, healthy mother, when she learns that what she considers to be wrong doctrine has been taught in Sunday School, will reinforce the correct doctrine to her child and explain that while the gospel is perfect, clearly the church and the people within it are not.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Why do you believe your stewardship is served by keeping silent about the thing with the parents teaching incorrect doctrine, Rabbit?
quote:Since you posted, I've reconsidered and still can't think of anyway I could do that which was respectful to both the parents and the kid.
To be clear, this smacks of excuse, not reason. Your stewardship includes telling a teenager, "Your parents are wrong," but not letting the parents know about this conflict...to avoid 'disrespecting them'?
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I'm a parent and this thread has given me some things to think about.
My first gut reaction was that the opening thesis and several of the parents commenting are taking everything way too seriously. But, honestly, I'm impressed by the amount of thought & effort people are evidently putting into parenting, and my initial reaction might be partially defensive.
Still. Even if I try to discount my desire to defend my comparatively lax parenting style, I think that what I'm seeing is a sort of insistence on complete, unchallenged, and omnipresent parental authority. If you are convinced that you absolutely know what is best for your child, and that you can succeed in guiding your children's behavior as desired, I guess it's a rational choice to parent your kids this way. It does not strike me as a humble or realistic attitude, however.
It does seem a bit difficult to believe that some parents have the combination of insight & competence that they claim to have. Personally, I don't think I could ever achieve that kind of confidence, but I'll admit that is partly because I'm no saint and I don't know any. I wonder if being more open to input from outside sources might be a good thing even (or especially) for people who are pretty sure they already know better.
What's a more practical consideration, in my opinion, is the effect of strict insistence on your authority. There's a widespread cultural meme that strict parenting can lead to extreme rebellion. I don't think it's always true, but I think there's a kernel of useful truth in there. That perhaps there's a threshold of rigidity in parenting, beyond which it fails to produce the desired outcome and instead is counter productive. There are clearly other factors - the same two parents can raise some of the kids just as planned, while others decide to pursue a radically different lifestyle. I do know of several examples close to me where I believe that the parents were too sure of themselves and the "right" way to do things, and it blinded them to their childs real needs & character, and the end result was misery.
Things like making sure that an illegitimate surrogate never has access to the child again seems overly rigid to me. It seems to imply a closed worldview wherein other points of view are not tolerated. Perhaps I read too much into this?
That's where I'm sitting: Half awed at the evident parenting prowess, half put off by how sure some people are of themselves, and half worried that there's some divorce between practical reality and these ideals. I know, that's three halves.
I need to digest this some more. I hope I don't give offense.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: If a mother comes to me and tells me (for example), that I shouldn't teach a lesson from the manual because of her child's special issue (say she asks me not to teach a lesson on "eternal families" because their family hasn't been sealed and the child is really sensitive about it).
But this isn't what happened. This is a straw man.
Yes, it's true that you, not the parent, have a responsibility to teach the child the gospel in that class. But the parent has the greater responsibility to teach the child, and that's what you seem to be arguing against.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:hat you can succeed in guiding your children's behavior as desired
That seems like a jump - no parent has said they are able to control their children's behavior. What they have said is that they know best what rules their children are to live under, and they don't want other adults undermining their rules.
Nobody has said anything about the children themselves undermining the rules. That's an entirely different conversation.
Posted by BandoCommando (Member # 7746) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: I agree with this.
As a teacher, I had way too many cases of "my angel would never do such a thing" to believe that parents always know best. However, even when I thought the parent was wrong, I certainly did my best to respect that THEY were the parent. [/QB]
Amen! A chorus of hallelujahs! Amen!
Will all respect to Scott R and other parents who insist that they are the experts on their child's education, I have to express my agreement with ersomniac and rivka.
When I have an issue to overcome with students (behavioral, curricular, whatever...), I'll present my understanding of the issue to the parents. I make every effort to have concrete data on what is going on. If the issues are behavioral, I demonstrate documentation of dates, times, and details of what occurred and what my response was to the behavior. If the issue is related to student learning, I have work samples, audio recordings of their playing, etc. available to demonstrate what the concern is.
Then, and here's the important part, I ask the parents what they think might be causing the issue or how they might work with me in fixing the issue.
If they have a response that I agree with, we go with that. If they have no response or if their response seems (to me) to be unsuited to what I have observed with other students in similar circumstances, I present my side. I do NOT do this by telling them what should be done with their child, as this belittles the parent's responsibilities to and knowledge of their child. Rather, I present my idea in terms of "this has worked well for other children in similar circumstances" and I am careful to leave the door wide open for input from the parents as to what does and does not apply to their own child.
This whole process can so quickly fall apart, however, if the parent is simply not interested in the opinions of anyone else who has an obligation to the education or caretaking of their child. I grant without equivocation that the parent's obligations are the greatest. I submit that the parent does not always have the benefit of the perspective of others (such as the perspective that comes from teaching hundreds of students, the perspective of being a professional in the field of education, etc.), and that it is advisable for parents -- and anyone, really -- to take these different perspectives into account in everyday interactions.
That being said, I can understand how parents can sometimes react with blindness to other's perspectives, given the enormous investment, care and concern they (very rightly) have for their children. Thus, I strive and pray for patience in all of my dealings with the so-called 'unreasonable parents'.
Regarding the statement of professionalism being represented by a mere piece of paper (I apologize if I am mis-quoting the statement that was made to this effect; I cannot remember who made comments about this):
The degree is indeed of little worth. So, too, are the experiences gained from most teacher education programs from which at least a modicum of experience, knowledge, and skills are gained in the process of earning that little piece of paper. But please do not forget to take into account the years and years of experience that many teachers have working with thousands of students in a given career. While you as a parent may know the specifics about your child, the teacher has the vantage point of knowing about general trends, about what typically works and doesn't work. When a teacher and a parent work together to prescribe the educational experience is when the student has the best outcome. If either party refuses to comply, the outcome can be disastrous.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
kat, I think we are talking past each other.
quote:A normal, healthy mother, when she learns that what she considers to be wrong doctrine has been taught in Sunday School, will reinforce the correct doctrine to her child and explain that while the gospel is perfect, clearly the church and the people within it are not.
Fully agreed. But now what should a faithful sunday school teacher do when she learns that a member of the class has been taught something they consider wrong doctrine at home?
It seems to me that you are saying supporting whatever the parents have taught, trumps my responsibility to teach correct principles. If that's not what you are saying, please clarify what you mean when you say the responsibility of the parent trumps my responsibility as a Sunday School teacher.
The way I see it the parents responsibilities to the child don't trump my responsibilities, they are different from my responsibilities. It is my responsibility (among other things) to teach the child correct principles in the Sunday School class. That responsibility is mine alone. It isn't the parents responsibility to make sure I teach correct principles -- its mine. I also feel I have a responsibility to encourage the kids in the class to honor their parents and try not to undermine parents.
But if a teenager in my sunday school class backs me against the wall and asks, so whose right the prophet or my parents, my responsibility to teach correct principles trumps my responsibility to support the parents.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
BandoCommando, I've got no problems with anything that you've said.
I'm not an education expert.
I am an expert in my children.
I've got no problem with listening to teachers' advice about my children when I trust that teacher's opinion.
When a teacher resorts to credentialism ("I've got a degree!" or "I've been called and sustained!") in order to co-opt my trust, she gets the opposite.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Scott, I respect what you're saying and agree with much of it, but like Rabbit you're losing me on the idea that the professionalism of teachers (and others) doesn't amount to anything.
Please clarify what you mean, so I'm not misunderstanding you, I really don't want to jump to conclusions.
As much as I know my kids, and as good a parent as I try to be, (admitting, of course, that often I fall short) I do recognize some people have professionalism and experience that outweighs mine. I once believed my daughter should not do something in gymnastics. I didn't think she was capable of handling the emotional burden of trying a new skill in competition, which she hadn't mastered, knowing how disappointed she would be if she fell. I was basing it on years of parenting this child and knowing how she took things when she felt like she'd let people down. Better to do a safer skill, and have her happy and content at the end of the meet than devastated, was my view. After all, this isn't the Olympics, it's recreational competitive gymnastics, and it's supposed to be fun.
The coach cornered me and told me to let her do it - and to keep a long story short, I went with his recommendation and it turned out great - even though she fell. I was looking at her with a parents' eye - and I know my child better than anyone else in the world - but I'm not a coach.. He is - and with 25 years of experience coaching young girls he knew exactly what my daughter could and could not handle better than I did.
Turns out being asked to perform the difficult move was what she wanted - she cared more that the coach trusted in her and believed in her, and he told her after she fell that at least she was brave enough to try - and that comment meant more to her than winning the gold medal would have. He knew that - he drew on his experience and his knowledge of coaching and his observations of my child and he knew - better than me - what would matter to her as a competitor.
Coaches, teachers, Sunday School leaders - they generally want the best for our kids too. They know things, and see things, and understand things we may not. It's worth listening to them, and not dismissing them as inconsequential, just because you're the parent.
Edit: Wow, y'all posted a lot of stuff since I started this one. Scott, I see you now saying that you mostly object to falling back on credentials only - and I can't say I disagree with that. Therefore, this post is largely meaningless but I'm leaving it because it took me a long time to type. Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle: The coach cornered me and told me to let her do it - and to keep a long story short, I went with his recommendation and it turned out great - even though she fell. I was looking at her with a parents' eye - and I know my child better than anyone else in the world - but I'm not a coach..
But he didn't override you on this. He discussed it with you, but it still ultimately came down to being YOUR decision as the parent, not his. You, at some point, agreed with him to let her do it.
But that was between you and him, not your and her, or him overriding you directly to her.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Belle:
I don't have a problem with what you said, either. The point is trusting the coach or teacher or whatever.
I *did* point this out on the first page--
quote:Of course there are many factors involved-- do I trust the teacher as a professional? Do I trust her as a person? Am I evaluating my own competencies without bias?
Same post as my professionalism rant-- which maybe I should have called credentialism in hindsight.
Have I explained myself?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Because it's stupid, and teaches kids that 'stupid' is okay.
They're also not allowed to use the word 'stupid.'
EDIT: For the record, they're not allowed to watch much television at all. Any show where the main characters make a habit of being disrespectful to peers, where adults are treated like villains, or where boy-girl relationships at an age younger than 16 are encouraged or seen as normal, is not allowed.
So, basically, we don't watch the Disney channel after the pre-school programs go off. Mostly we watch Discovery or Animal Planet.
Amen to that. I don't have kids, but you've pretty much nailed down part of the parenting philosophy I plan to use some day when I do have them.
I agree with whoever said they're glad you're raising kids in this world.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:When a teacher resorts to credentialism ("I've got a degree!" or "I've been called and sustained!") in order to co-opt my trust, she gets the opposite.
Scott, How is "I'm the parent" any different as an argument for why your right than "I've got a degree" or "I've been called and sustained" ?
"I spend two hours every day doing homework with my child", is a good reason to believe you know something about your child's learning styles and abilities. "I his parent", is not.
Being his parent, gives you the responsibility to make certain decisions. If what you are arguing about is the right to make those decisions and to have those decisions followed by other adults, then no one here (that I'm aware of is arguing with you).
What I've been arguing all along is that other people also have responsibilities for your child, although these responsibilities are much more limited than yours. If they try to usurp your responsibility they are in the wrong, but so are you if you try to usurp theirs.
Take Belle's example. In the end, it was Belle's right as parent to decide whether or not her daughter did the difficult skill. But if she had chosen to go against the coaches wishes, it would have been within the rights of the coach to not have her compete at all or to have her leave the team entirely. The coach has responsibilities to the team and the girls on it. He can't just surrender those responsibilities to the parents anymore than the parents can surrender their responsibilities to him.
If his argument was "she has to do the skill because I'm the Coach", then "I'm the Coach" is an inappropriate argument. If he the decision was "She can't stay on the team unless she does the skill", then "I'm the coach" is a perfectly legitimate argument because as the coach he has the right and responsibility to make that choice.
Posted by Liz B (Member # 8238) on :
quote:Have I explained myself?
Yep. I was all about to get on my high horse too.
I was all annoyed at what Scott R. said about teachers and professionalism at first. But the more I thought about it, the more I realized that it's basically my philosophy as a teacher, too. I think all of the books I recommend for kids are appropriate, but I recognize that--particularly at the ages of my students, 12-13--if the parent disagrees with me, then the parent is right. Period. There are definitely times when I have seen a particular kid with a particular book, and have said, "Hmmm. Given what I know about you and your family, you might want to pick a different book"--whereas I might have given the same book to a different student.
If it seems that a students believes something incorrect that has been taught by a parent, my response would probably be (and has been on occasion) something like--"Well, here's why some people think X." And leave it at that, or suggest that the student talk to the parent. Depends on the issue, of course!
Edited to add quote so post made sense
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
We have a phrase in our house. It's "that is not our rule."
My daughter is now almost four. We are beginning to regularly run into kids who are allowed to do things she is not allowed to do (for instance, my kids are not allowed to climb up the slides at the park, only go down.) When we see kids doing things she is not allowed to do, she will sometimes say "they can do it, why can't I?" And the response is, "That is not our rule." If it needs more expansion, "Different families have different rules. This is our rule, and you need to follow our rules because you are part of our family." It's gotten to the point where I tell her not to do something she sees someone else doing, and she asks, "That is not our rule?" And I say, "Nope. Our rule is [restate the rule]." "Okay."
It works for us so far.
I will refrain from an opinion on the whole class thing since she's not old enough that I've encountered that yet. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Rabbit, have you not gotten around to my question, or are you ignoring it?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Aha. Well, this is completely off the topic. I would have pointed out that no power or influence can or ought to be maintained [except by] persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned; By kindness, and pure knowledge..."
Oh-- did you think that D&C 121 was only for priesthood holders?
If you think the mere acceptance of a calling entitles you to all activities you decide to take within the circumference of your call, you have sorely misunderstood the doctrines relating to this portion of the gospel.
And if you think that's what I said, then you didn't read very carefully. You will note that I began by saying I'd quote the manual, the scriptures and the prophets and then tell you about my personal prayerful preparation. I think that fits what is suggest in D&C 121 pretty well.
And I never said the hypothetical parent should believe me "because I've been called and sustained", I said I would remind them that they had sustained me in this calling, which had a very different intent. When we sustain people we are covenanting to support and respect them in their calling. I have found that very often in the church people raise their hands saying they will "sustain" people in their callings, but then criticize them and tear them down. I think we need to be reminded that when we raise our hands we are covenanting to support those people as long as they are striving to faithfully serve.
If you sincerely believe that your children's Sunday School teachers "have not a clue in their brains as to what the gospel is about.", then you are dishonest when you raise your hand saying you will sustain them in their calling and really should go and talk with the Bishop about your concerns.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I'm more in MattP's camp on this one. We do have rules at home, and we do try to teach our kids correct principles at home, but when they're away from home they are going to be exposed to other families' rules and conventions, or to different teaching styles, or to different takes on things, or whatever. I welcome the chance for them to see some variety, actually. It gives them new ideas, it gives me new ideas, and usually it turns into something new and interesting to learn about.
I trust that the majority of the time, what we have taught them ourselves will be the standard they judge other things against, and that they can sort it out for themselves. We are the most careful, I think, about what situations we allow our kids into, and exert our influence there and not as much in the minute-by-minute activities they're involved in once they are there. We allow them to go to places where we know they will be safe, and then we give those in charge a fair amount of trust to not go overboard. If they end up watching Smurfs or playing Mario Party for 3 hours instead of playing with their friends, I will be disappointed but not too worried.
Of course I would be upset if my child were being exposed to things I objected to, especially if they were being told without my knowledge that it was perfectly OK. There is a definite line there. I do not think an episode of SpongeBob is going to undermine our home rules, but there are definitely shows that we don't watch anywhere for any reason, especially our kids. There are teaching and discipline styles we don't care for. And yes, there are people who think they know what's best for our kids to do and think, who don't bother consulting us about it. In those cases I am much more involved, up to removing my child from the situation and not allowing them back, and certainly helping my child sort things out afterwards.
Once again, hopefully my kids would have been taught sufficiently at home that they would be able to see right from wrong in those situations. As they get older they will be making more and more decisions on their own--like where to go for the afternoon, what classes to take at school, what show to watch, etc. I want them to be ready to make the right choices as more responsibility falls on their shoulders.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Edit Again: this seems to be along the lines of what MattP suggested. I am leaving the rest up.
Why, Rabbit, could you not respond to the kids whose parents taught them incorrectly with "why don't you research a little bit about what your parents say, and interview me a bit about what I say, form your own opinon, and present it to the class?"
This looks to me like an opportunity, rather than a dilemna.
It's definitely what I would have done with my confirmation class.
Edit: To be clear, I think simply trying to substitute one authority figure for another ("they're wrong, I'm right") will only discredit both.
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
Another thing that's been on my mind: Where do you draw the line between "stupid" (and innappropriate) and "silly" (and fun). I've seen a few episodes of Spongebob and the overwhelming vibe I got from it was "silly and fun", especially for kids. It didn't seem to promote stupidity or rebellious behavior. I bring it up because there's a WHOLE lot of TV out there which is verifiably "stupid" compared to Spongebob. And while I love Discovery/Animal planet, there's a lot to be said for finding something that the kids watch and laugh at.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I'm sorry Rakeesh, I missed your question before.
quote:Why do you believe your stewardship is served by keeping silent about the thing with the parents teaching incorrect doctrine, Rabbit?
First off, the way I understand the concept of "stewardship" is that it is a way of partitioning responsibilities. A stewardship is necessarily defined by boundaries -- things we are responsible for and things someone else is responsible for. For example, I have stewardship for my own life and my decisions. I am fully and solely responsible and accountable for what I do. My priesthood leaders have a stewardship for me that gives them the responsibility to offer me guidance and counsel, but in the end I must make my own decisions. That is my stewardship, it is not their stewardship.
It wouldn't be accurate to say my stewardship trumps their stewardship, our stewardships are distinct. They have a stewardship to counsel me, I have a stewardship to thoughtful, prayerful make the decision.
Unfortunately, not all the boundaries are exactly clear. Where is the line between a Bishop filling his responsibility to give me guidance and counsel and his trying to force me (unrighteously) to make a certain choices. (See rivka's earlier example with the teacher). I think it causes lots of problems in the world when people over step those bounds of stewardship. In fact I think Scott's intent with this thread could be to rant against those who do not respect the boundaries of stewardship he has as a parent. To that extent, I am in full agreement with Scott.
As a result, I try to be very cautious in not stepping over those bounds. In this particular case, I thought it was outside my stewardship to correct the parents.
Second, In this particular case I was dealing with a discrepancy between how the scriptures and prophets (and lesson manual) said we should behave and how this teenager claimed his parents said he should behave. I addressed it saying that I did not know what reasons the parent might have for giving different advice, recommending that he talk with his parents about it and then reiterating what was said in the scriptures and other gospel sources.
I figured that there was at least a 50/50 chance that the kid was just teacher baiting (a common practice in teenage boys) and really didn't think that telling his parents about it would be productive.
[ March 28, 2008, 04:17 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
I wasn't going to comment on the merits of SpongeBob, but since LW has brought it up... We LOVE SpongeBob. SpongeBob and his friend Patrick are the sweetest, most earnest characters and, though they sometimes go up against mean or selfish antagonists, the nice guys always finish first. It's goofy, silly, (did I mention goofy?) fun and I've never seen anything in that show that I've thought to be offensive or inappropriate for children of any age.
There are plenty of shows I don't let my kids watch, including other Nickelodeon cartoons, but Spongebob is as harmless as they come, IMHO.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Why, Rabbit, could you not respond to the kids whose parents taught them incorrectly with "why don't you research a little bit about what your parents say, and interview me a bit about what I say, form your own opinon, and present it to the class?"
Under a different circumstances, I might have done just that. Without going into the details let me just say it wasn't appropriate in this particular case.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
The Rabbit, could you specify the doctrinal point in question, the view held by the parents, and the view that you reinforced? (Since so much discussion has been expended on your handling of the situation I admit I'm very curious.)
I actually dislike Spongebob but it's just not to my taste. Too silly/loud. I don't see how it could be harmful, unless kids somehow got the idea that what they were watching was somehow related to reality. (From what I've seen the show stays distinctly detached from reality.)
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
We don't watch Spongebob because there is yelling, rudeness to friends and authority figures, and words we don't use around our kids (such as "stupid.") Or, as Ketchup Princess puts it, "Spongebob is mean."
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:The Rabbit, could you specify the doctrinal point in question, the view held by the parents, and the view that you reinforced? (Since so much discussion has been expended on your handling of the situation I admit I'm very curious.)
I'd rather not. The Card's have expressed a desire that this forum not become a site for discussing LDS doctrine. Exactly where the line is drawn isn't clear to me, I may have over stepped the bounds talking about how I understand the LDS concept of stewardship already. I'm happy to e-mail you the details if your interested.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
My kids really only watch the kids' shows on PBS, mostly because we don't get cable and don't get many more channels than PBS and ABC over the air. But I don't mind. I don't have much love for Nickelodeon or the Disney channel cartoons I've seen lately. They're so cynical, jaded, and devoid of nutritional value. Much like most of what's on TV, really. I don't want my kids wasting their time with too-easy access to that stuff.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Spongebob is bad. mmmKay.
I dispise programming that glorifies being stupid. I have the same problem with movies like Forest Gump. (I hate the fact that I enjoy the movie anyway.)
South Park, on the other hand, while it drenches itself in an ocean of puerile potty humor, does teach both tolerance and self reliance. It lampoons stupidity at every turn. If you can look past all the jokes about bodily functions, South Park is definately a show worth watching.
Just.. you know... don't try to eat anything while it's on...
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I dispise programming that glorifies being stupid.
Pshaw! Beavis and Butthead glorified stupid, as do shows like Ed, Edd and Eddy. SpongeBob glorifies earnestness and whimsy. The fact that the characters are *also* stupid is ancillary.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Spongebob is bad. mmmKay.
I dispise programming that glorifies being stupid. I have the same problem with movies like Forest Gump. (I hate the fact that I enjoy the movie anyway.)
South Park, on the other hand, while it drenches itself in an ocean of puerile potty humor, does teach both tolerance and self reliance. It lampoons stupidity at every turn. If you can look past all the jokes about bodily functions, South Park is definately a show worth watching.
Just.. you know... don't try to eat anything while it's on...
Yeah, under the disgustingness, South Park is actually very, very intelligent. Especially in the earlier seasons. It's good satire, but it can be icky. Forest Gump wasn't stupid. He was developmentally disabled. There's a difference. But I think Shawshank Redemption should have one over that movie as it was so much better than Forest Gump which was just designed to push emotional buttons.
As for Spongebob, it's really hilarious, especially the part where Spongebob strinks everyone in town and when Spongebob turned into a real sponge. It's about as funny as ABBA videos (I was cracking up over those last night. But, some of the stuff can be a bit... inappropiate.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I loathe scatalogical humor. I don't secretly think it's funny - it makes me very uncomfortable.
I love clever and funny, but South Park clever and funny is quite literally wrapped in ****. No thank you.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I loathe scatalogical humor. I don't secretly think it's funny - it makes me very uncomfortable.
I wonder how that gets determined. That stuff cracks me up, but totally squigs out my wife. There is definitely a male bias for that kind of humor which is reinforced by other males, but I know that's not the complete answer.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Kat: Cringe humor is what makes me uncomfortable. The potty humor in South Park leaves me cold.
"Oh yay, another poo joke. Can we get back to the biting social commentary, PLEASE?"
That's why I say one has to look past the potty humor.. Except for teenage boys. I'm sure that's what they watch it for.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I don't like embarassment humour. It makes me ache. Potty humor though, I can take it or leave it. I reckon it depends. Though I do not like Mr. Hanky episodes very much. ew.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It makes me uncomfortable and I think it's gross. I don't go rooting around in the toilet for drinking water either.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I don't enjoy South Parks social commentary enough to sit through the gutter humor. But that's just me.
I can respect those who have a different opinion here.
But Beavis and Butthead had no redeeming qualities. Anyone who liked it was just wrong. Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:But Beavis and Butthead had no redeeming qualities. Anyone who liked it was just wrong.
Heh heh heh. She said "butt."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
What The Rabbit said. Exactly.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
When I want biting social commentary I just come to Hatrack. I don't need it so bad that I'm willing to sift through South Park's sludge just to get a few nuggets.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I dispise programming that glorifies being stupid. I have the same problem with movies like Forest Gump. (I hate the fact that I enjoy the movie anyway.)
If its any consolation, I don't think Forest Gump glorifies stupidity. It think it tries to redefine stupidity. "Stupid is as stupid does" The show illustrates that many nominally "smart" are in practice a lot stupider than Forest Gump.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Rab: Well that's fer durn sure. But on the other hand, Gump didn't have to do anything smart to get all the riches and glories he got.
True, Jenny's poor choices made her a
<<<SPOILER FOR FOREST GUMP>>>
battered, druggie, hippie, slut who died of AIDS.
But what did Forest do to earn his fame and fortune? Mostly just had a good heart and sat there in the right place at the right time.
<<<End Spoilers>>>
It belittles the success of others by saying "Hey, This stupid guy can do the exact same thing as you if he's just as lucky as you." Being stupid is granted the same virtue as being smart and hard working.
As for South Park... Rabbit and Boots, with your politics I'm not surprised you don't like the show. You wouldn't like the show even without the potty humor.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Rabbit and Boots, with your politics I'm not surprised you don't like the show. You wouldn't like the show even without the potty humor.
No I do appeciate alot of the satire in the show. I might watch it more often if it weren't for the potty humor.
I don't watch that much TV in general so I can't guarantee I'd watch it even if I thought it was the greatest thing since Shakespeare.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:But what did Forest do to earn his fame and fortune? Mostly just had a good heart and sat there in the right place at the right time.
He made his fortune by honest hard work on a shrimping boat. I'm not sure whether to call it luck or not that he and his boat survived the Hurricane but it certainly wasn't purely luck and it definitely wasn't just sitting there and having a good heart. He took his friend (the leutenant(?) who lost his legs) who wanted to give up and die and made him actually do something with his life instead.
I think his actions saving his buddies in vietnam was genuine heroism. Perhaps he was only able to do it because he wasn't smart enough to really understand the danger, but there was also a component of genuine loyalty and love for his buddies. Given his instinct to run at the face of trouble, he could simply have run away but instead he ran back and forth carrying the bodies of each of his friends to safety. That isn't just sitting there with a good heart.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
The shrimp boat was luck. No one else could fish, so he got it all.
The war was really heroism, true. Assuming he was smart enough to understand the danger he was in.
The running across the nation? The ping pong? The football? What else did he do... I haven't seen the movie since I saw it in the theatre... None of that demanded a whit of sense or hard work. Just a fluke of physical ability. He was so dim that the Crimson Tide faithful had to hold up a sign and yell for him to stop.
Posted by BandoCommando (Member # 7746) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: The running across the nation? The ping pong? The football? What else did he do... I haven't seen the movie since I saw it in the theatre... None of that demanded a whit of sense or hard work. Just a fluke of physical ability. He was so dim that the Crimson Tide faithful had to hold up a sign and yell for him to stop.
He also flew in a rocketship to the moon, but he couldn't land on the moon because there was a problem, and his friend Lieutenant Dan helped to save Forrest and the rest of the folks on his spaceship.
...wait...that wasn't Forrest Gump?! I could've sworn that Apollo 13 was just a deleted scene on the special features disc!
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:None of that demanded a whit of sense or hard work. Just a fluke of physical ability.
He played ping pong almost every waking second, from my impressions. Seems to qualify as hard work to me.
He was physically gifted, true, and the football stuff is my least favorite part of the movie. Can't say the dude didn't have an outstanding work ethic though. Every job he did he worked extraordinarily hard at.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: Can't say the dude didn't have an outstanding work ethic though. Every job he did he worked extraordinarily hard at.
Exactly.
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
In the book version of Forest Gump there was something closer to Appollo 13, that was left out of the movie. I haven't read it, so I'm basing this entirely on my 8th grade math teacher's testement 10 years ago.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
What's this talk about Forrest Gump maybe not understanding the danger he was going into in Vietnam when he rescued (like, nearly ALL) of his buddies?
How is this even a question? He was smart enough to be afraid of childhood bullies, I think he was smart enough to be afraid of the stuff that he'd seen kill lots of friends of his.
As for the other stuff, Pix, he worked very hard at it. There are plenty of stupid lazy people, but he wasn't one of them.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: The shrimp boat was luck. No one else could fish, so he got it all.
The war was really heroism, true. Assuming he was smart enough to understand the danger he was in.
The running across the nation? The ping pong? The football? What else did he do... I haven't seen the movie since I saw it in the theatre... None of that demanded a whit of sense or hard work. Just a fluke of physical ability. He was so dim that the Crimson Tide faithful had to hold up a sign and yell for him to stop.
But remember after he earned all his money, he gave Bubba's family their cut and once Bubba Gump shrimp took off instead of just sitting around he started mowing the lawn of the high school he went to for free. He certainly was not smart, and circumstances favored him, but if you pointed him in a direction and told him where to go he kept going until told to stop.
He definitely had a good work ethic.
Posted by LargeTuna (Member # 10512) on :
This thread has taken on a strange twist!
i read the first page, and then skipped on to the 3rd page, big difference, yet there seems to be the same jolly arguing attitude Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
No, there was a lot more vitriol on the first page.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I'm just glad we all agree that when the child is in danger of his life, it's the right thing to do what we can to help.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I don't think anyone has ever said otherwise.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
In a diversion back to the original topic I think I just recognized why I was so disturbed by Scott's original post. He said.
quote:This is one of the hot buttons of parenthood: the illegitimate surrogate. It can range from a group of pedophiles establishing an internet relationship with lonely thirteen-year-old boys, to a Sunday School teacher who thinks she understands a troubled teen better than her parents, and tries to undermine their relationship "for the good of the child." It includes predators and pushy relatives, teachers and youth leaders.
He grouped over zealous teachers and pushy relatives in the same category with "pedophiles".
This is just plane wrong. That's worse than comparing a parent who occasionally spanks their toddler to one who beats the child to death. I can't see any reasonable grounds for grouping concerned teachers and relatives who might occasionally overstep their bounds with pedophiles.
You're comparing people who have a genuine concern for your children and some legitimate ethical responsibility but who make mistakes to predators and pedophiles. That is so unfair and if you really believe that they deserve to be grouped together in anyway -- you are just way way out of line.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: I don't think anyone has ever said otherwise.
Well, not in this thread at least.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Depends on what is meant by "occasionally spank". There are some people who think spanking= hitting with a paddle or a rod, so there's definetly got to be a line drawn there. But you've got a point. For the most part, both good parents and good teachers care about their students/kids. It's just that they both tend to have different degrees of exportise when it comes to them. As long as you're not talking about the sort of people who would give your children alcohol or introduce them to reefer, if it's just people who are concerned and care about a child's wellbeing, but may give a kid a forbidden book or something then to me it doesnt' seem like something to be totally alarmed about unless there are certain degrees to consider.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: [QB] Depends on what is meant by "occasionally spank". There are some people who think spanking= hitting with a paddle or a rod, so there's definetly got to be a line drawn there.
I'm not sure I get your point. Do you think grouping parents who occasionally slap their 2 years bottom with those who beat their child to death is worse than grouping concerned but meddlesome teachers with pedophiles but that the later is worse than comparing people who hit their kids with rods to those who beat their kids to death?
I know quite a few people who do indeed think the parent who sometimes slaps his kids bottom is abusive. I know countries where that is illegal. I disagree and think thats unfair, but I think the grouping Scott made was even more unfair.
Over zealous teachers are not in the least like child molesters. There is no continuum between what they do and what child molesters do.
There is a continuum between the occasional gentle spanking and the serious beating and it can be difficult to no where to draw the line (although I think a line does exist). But there is no continuum between the child predator and the pushy relative.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: I'm just glad we all agree that when the child is in danger of his life, it's the right thing to do what we can to help.
I wouldn't agree with such a vague and open-ended statement.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Rabbit,
quote:First off, the way I understand the concept of "stewardship" is that it is a way of partitioning responsibilities. A stewardship is necessarily defined by boundaries -- things we are responsible for and things someone else is responsible for. For example, I have stewardship for my own life and my decisions. I am fully and solely responsible and accountable for what I do. My priesthood leaders have a stewardship for me that gives them the responsibility to offer me guidance and counsel, but in the end I must make my own decisions. That is my stewardship, it is not their stewardship.
I can agree with this, though my own personal definition for the word 'steward' is someone who holds authority in lieu of someone else-parents for children, for example; regents for kings, that sort of thing. But I'm not going to quibble about that.
quote:Unfortunately, not all the boundaries are exactly clear. Where is the line between a Bishop filling his responsibility to give me guidance and counsel and his trying to force me (unrighteously) to make a certain choices. (See rivka's earlier example with the teacher). I think it causes lots of problems in the world when people over step those bounds of stewardship. In fact I think Scott's intent with this thread could be to rant against those who do not respect the boundaries of stewardship he has as a parent. To that extent, I am in full agreement with Scott.
I agree with this too. I'd also like to point out that initially you were, or at least gave the appearance of being, more in sympathy with the teacher than with Rivka as a parent. I think that's illuminating, because (again, speaking to what I perceived which may very well be wrong) it indicates that you are less likely to let the benefit of the doubt rest with the parent as opposed to another, non-parental concerned party.
While obviously in specifics we can examine a given situation more thoroughly, in general I think that's a pretty presumptuous, possibly even risky attitude to have.
quote:As a result, I try to be very cautious in not stepping over those bounds. In this particular case, I thought it was outside my stewardship to correct the parents.
I wasn't necessarily talking about correcting the parents, though if the situation was as cut-and-dried as you were writing about (where it came down to you being confident that you could accurately say, "Well, your parents are just wrong, that's all there is to it," I mean), it would seem to be your obligation to bring the matter to your attention.
Aren't we supposed to look out for one another? If I were so obviously, provably wrong on something so important, I'd much rather be told about it than just letting the matter lie. Obviously it would be awkward, and I might even be angry, but I would do the same for anyone else. I have in the past, in fact.
quote:Second, In this particular case I was dealing with a discrepancy between how the scriptures and prophets (and lesson manual) said we should behave and how this teenager claimed his parents said he should behave. I addressed it saying that I did not know what reasons the parent might have for giving different advice, recommending that he talk with his parents about it and then reiterating what was said in the scriptures and other gospel sources.
I see. This is actually more serious than what I was thinking before, wherein the issue under discussion was not so directly involved in the lives of the kid(s). Now, we can discuss till the cows come how about whether or not your role as teacher must sometimes put you in a position of authority over those kids. In fact, I do agree that it does.
But the fact remains that in this situation, you are not just in a position of authority, differing from the parents but still authority. You have-out of obedience to your perceived role (which I grant is sincere)-set yourself directly between parent and child.
The parent says, "Behave this way, for thus and so scriptural reasons." You say, "No, don't behave that way. I'm not sure why you were told to behave that way, but in fact the scripture supports behaving this way, not that other way."
Why shouldn't parents be upset at this intrusion if you never actually speak with those parents about it? You have, through your silence on the matter, offered yourself as a source for contrary advice and direction to the parents' will. What happens the next time the parents teach the child 'wrong'? Is that child to come to you again and get the real deal? If this happened, would you again remain silent on the matter?
quote: I figured that there was at least a 50/50 chance that the kid was just teacher baiting (a common practice in teenage boys) and really didn't think that telling his parents about it would be productive.
This is a very flimsy excuse from what I can tell. First of all, it's a common practice in teenagers, not teenage boys. Second, 50/50 is betting odds for a coin toss, and not much else. Third, if the confusion was genuine, don't you have an obligation to address it directly? If the parents are teaching their children scripturally inaccurate things, then they need to know about it or, if they already know about it and teach them wrong anyway, they need to know that it's not approved of just because they're the parents.
Finally, and most importantly, what does being 'productive' have to do with whether or not to include a child's parents in the teaching of that child?
You don't strike me as the sort of person, from your communication on Hatrack, to refrain from telling someone that they're wrong just because it wouldn't be productive. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Why now?
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I just want to point out that sometimes the Sunday school teacher who teaches doctrine you don't agree with can be a positive thing. I mean, it's unlikely your child is only ever going to be exposed to people who agree with you, so learning that other people have divergent opinions and how to handle the situations gracefully is a useful skill any child needs to know.
We have doctrinal issues with our church, and often disagree with what is taught in Sunday school to our kids. So, we talk about it every Sunday. I would bet my kids know more doctrine than many adults in our church - because it's a common Sunday afternoon talk and we discuss why we believe what we believe, and that others differ, and that it's okay to disagree on minor things so long as we agree on the major ones. It's a learning opportunity, and one we take advantage of.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:This is a very flimsy excuse from what I can tell. First of all, it's a common practice in teenagers, not teenage boys.
In my experience of teaching teenagers - 90% of the teacher-baiting comes from the males. In fact, I don't think I have ever directly experienced this coming from a girl.
I have also taught Sunday school where there was a lot of divergence between my personal beliefs and that of the teens I was teaching. I never thought I should call the parents and try to correct them, I focused on my task - which was teaching teenagers.
Of course, I'm in an independent church that has a membership from several different Protestant flavors, which is very different from the way things are done in the LDS church, from what I udnerstand. So my experience may not shed any light here.
But, as for me - I never considered contacting parents. I figured that at the high-school age level, they ought to be forming their own opinions and not relying on "that's what Mom and Dad said we believe." A high schooler should be able to articulate his/her own reasons for belief. And, I had several kids in my class whose parents didn't attend church at all.
But the main reason is I had no authority over them. If the parents have problems with church doctrine, it's up to my pastor to correct that. I'm just the high school Sunday School teacher.
Again, I don't know if Rabbit's position gave her authority over the parents in that particular instance - but if it didn't, then why would she contact them?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Rabbit: Scott didn't equate those various things -- he merely listed them. You are reading more than the mere juxtaposition would warrant. And ramping up the criticism based on your idiosyncratic reading of it, not based on any clear knowledge of what Scott intended. In other words, you might've asked a question before you, in turn, accuse him of something so horrid. No?
As for this topic: I am glad that we live in a society where a parent's rights over their children can be terminated for cause. I am not glad that the process for determining whether there is reason to terminate parental rights appears to be so flawed. We all read the news -- kids ending up dead within days or weeks of a social worker or judge's decision to keep them with their parent; and, on the opposite side, people having their children taken away over issues or behaviors that turn out to be relatively benign and even within social norms. The system seems to be applied without the needed uniformity or objectivity. There is often a great gulf of cultural misunderstanding between those making the decisions and the parents/family.
And when people rail about instances of zealotry in teachers or other care-givers, they need to also recognize that often the law requires people in those positions to act (or at least report) on even their suspicions, lest a dangerous situation be missed.
This is an extremely complex situation. It is also one that is fraught with opportunities for failure, and very few real opportunities for success. In fact, we, as a society, have a rather nebulous definition of what success means -- both for child-rearing in general, and for the case of removing parental rights for cause. In the latter case, success can't mean simply the temporary safety provided by a removal or restraining order. That's a response to a perceived emergency. The definition of success MUST include some sort of return to (or establishment of) "normalcy." Kids who were in a dangerous situation need to be in safe situations, but is that enough for us to say "good?"
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote: my own personal definition for the word 'steward' is someone who holds authority in lieu of someone else-parents for children, for example; regents for kings, that sort of thing
That's exactly it-- except in our church we refer to a stewardship as having responsibility for some part of the care/teaching of one of God's children. So we have direct responsibility over someone in lieu of God, or rather, in trust for God. He works through the people who have the stewardship to care for His children. Delegation, you might say. Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: [QB] Depends on what is meant by "occasionally spank". There are some people who think spanking= hitting with a paddle or a rod, so there's definetly got to be a line drawn there.
I'm not sure I get your point. Do you think grouping parents who occasionally slap their 2 years bottom with those who beat their child to death is worse than grouping concerned but meddlesome teachers with pedophiles but that the later is worse than comparing people who hit their kids with rods to those who beat their kids to death?
I know quite a few people who do indeed think the parent who sometimes slaps his kids bottom is abusive. I know countries where that is illegal. I disagree and think thats unfair, but I think the grouping Scott made was even more unfair.
Over zealous teachers are not in the least like child molesters. There is no continuum between what they do and what child molesters do.
There is a continuum between the occasional gentle spanking and the serious beating and it can be difficult to no where to draw the line (although I think a line does exist). But there is no continuum between the child predator and the pushy relative.
It's an extreme comparison, well meaning adults (or maybe some who might be a bit.... lax) vs pedaphiles, it's not the same thing at all. But, I still wish that hitting kids, even a tap was socially unacceptable. I just don't believe it in for any circumstance especially in light of how a child's brain developes.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
And that's your right, although there are people on this board who disagree with you.
But I'm still not sure what it has to do with the other comparison?
Posted by sylvrdragon (Member # 3332) on :
Some things in this thread have really hit a few nerves for me.
The first thought that came to mind after reading the OP was "This is the exact mentality that makes people literally afraid to interact with other people's children." I don't just mean the desire to approach a child and engage in conversation or play or even education, I mean even REACTING to a child. For instance, if I'm at a grocery store, and someone's 4-year-old comes up and kicks me, I don't know whether I should laugh at the gesture or rebuke them as I don't know what the parent would want. I know from personal experience that I can't always depend on the parent to intervene. Say I'm a food court in a mall and some 7-year-old comes up and asks me for a french fry? Any response I can think of is gonna make SOME parent unhappy. This situation, and indeed this entire subject extends farther than just STRANGERS interactions with other people's children. What about extended family members (First or second cousins, nieces, nephews, friends' kids, etc.)? I don't know about anyone else, but my family reunions are chaos. My mom is the oldest of 12. I have something like 70-80 cousins ranging from new-borns to college graduates. Some of my cousins have kids as well. Are the strict parents supposed to stay away for fear that their kids will be corrupted? Are the laid back parents supposed to stay away for fear of being lectured?
Just last week, I was driving down the road in my neighborhood when I saw two kids tossing a ball. The problem was, they were on opposite sides of the street. The kicker is, an adult (I would presume it was the authority figure) was mere feet away watching! I knew it was stupid to let kids that young play ball in the street (especially seeing as how there was an actual park literally one block away), but I can't say anything about it for fear of the parent's repercussions.
My point is, you can't lock your kids in a shell for their entire lives. At some point, other people are GOING to tell them what to do. Sometimes they won't be able to get in touch with you to check it before hand. Sometimes they won't view it as WORTH IT to get in touch with you. Most importantly, sometimes you will be WRONG. Automatically getting insulted by someone else's opinion about your child is prideful (in the negative way). That sort of pride is a by-product of stupidity. Further more, and more importantly, your kids are going to spend time around OTHER KIDS. Some of these kids will not be so strictly reigned in. They are going to tell your kids things you wouldn't approve of. I would think that everyone knows this from experience. I learned every dirty word I know (and many dirty jokes, some of which adults blush at) from kids at school, or from friends, not from television or movies.
Which brings me to my next point, which is overbearing censorship. Instead of keeping them from "stupid" characters, why don't you teach them to distinguish reality from fiction? Or better yet, teach them to consider characters, stories, and ideas objectively and reach their own conclusions so that MAYBE when they see something on TV, they'll think about before they mimic it?
MattP, scifibum, and Advice for robots nailed it pretty much on the head for me. You don't control your child with an iron fist, you educate them so that you don't HAVE to.
I know one thing, my kids aren't going to cower in fear and shock on the day they come into contact with the real world. Instead, they're going to consider it with an open mind. They're going to know which decisions are likely to be bad, and why. They're not going to be so preoccupied with changing their ingrained world view that they can't appreciate those first few years of liberation.
End rant.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Belle,
quote:I just want to point out that sometimes the Sunday school teacher who teaches doctrine you don't agree with can be a positive thing. I mean, it's unlikely your child is only ever going to be exposed to people who agree with you, so learning that other people have divergent opinions and how to handle the situations gracefully is a useful skill any child needs to know.
Of course!
quote:We have doctrinal issues with our church, and often disagree with what is taught in Sunday school to our kids. So, we talk about it every Sunday.
Hopefully this is what is happening with Rabbit's case. But since it was not deemed 'productive' to find out, hope is the only option.
quote:I have also taught Sunday school where there was a lot of divergence between my personal beliefs and that of the teens I was teaching. I never thought I should call the parents and try to correct them, I focused on my task - which was teaching teenagers.
Of course, I'm in an independent church that has a membership from several different Protestant flavors, which is very different from the way things are done in the LDS church, from what I udnerstand. So my experience may not shed any light here.
It is definitely a different experience, but not knowing the precise issue involved in Rabbit's case, I can't speak with certainty. From her phrasing, though, I am led to conclude that she does not believe there was any room for disagreement while still following the scripture on the issue.
Also note that I am only talking about speaking to the parents and 'correcting' them insofar as Rabbit is convinced that they are wrong. Just communicating what happened and what she taught them would, in my opinion, be much more appropriate.
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
I liked your post, Sylvrdragon.
Posted by sylvrdragon (Member # 3332) on :
Upon rereading it, it's a bit strong for this forum. I stick by my points, but I hope the tone doesn't prevent anyone from considering them.
Also, I realize that educating a child to that level of sophistication isn't possible right off the bat. There will be ages where you HAVE to say "Because I told you so" simply because they don't have the language to understand the real reason. Of course, this age varies from child to child, and lesson to lesson.
Ideally, though, you can get across the fundamentals such as "actions bear consequences", and "question everything" by the time they can be expected to have serious interactions with people outside of their inner circle of close family and friends. As time wears on, you elaborate more and more into those subjects. Relate it to their immediate world at first, but make them aware that the principles apply on a grander scale. That second part is important as you don't want to be stuck saying "He/she should know better!". Maybe they didn't realize that the lesson wasn't reserved for only the situation in which it was taught.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Parallel thread at slashdot, started off by a UK report: Safer Children in a Digital World.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Coming back to this, I think I can agree with the argument that parental authority shouldn't be undermined by other authority figures in a significant way without the knowledge of the parent, unless there is a legitimate concern for the actual well being of the child.
There would be two aligned sliding scales: 1. Degree of departure from parental teachings, from low to high 2. Justification for departing from parental teachings, from low to high.
I would find very little need to justify giving kids some fruit punch at a birthday party hosted at my house, even if they don't drink it at home. If a parent sends a kid to my house, and the kid has allergies or other strict dietary needs, the parent is responsible for informing me before turning over the kid. So fruit punch it is. Heck, even Sprite.
I'd feel some need to justify giving a kid Diet Coke without his parents' permission. (Um, like he's severely dehydrated and that's all I have available. Don't argue that will make it worse, caffeine can only mildly dehydrate you and Diet Coke will certainly help if you're severely dehydrated. )
Letting a kid watch a TV show designed for kids and stamped with governmental approval for kids and in my own judgment OK for kids? Requires very little justification and very little due diligence on my part. I'd probably find something else if the kids objected that they aren't supposed to watch it, but only probably.
Teaching a TEENAGER something different from what their parents teach them which I believe to be true (when their parents have consented for me to be their teacher)? Again, very low bar. It's OK in my opinion. How I define my responsibility to soften the message or follow up with the parents depends on the importance of the teaching to the child in my judgment. It's more important for younger kids who might be new to disillusionment.
Now, giving a kid money, or taking him with me on road trips, without the knowledge and consent of his parents, would require some pretty serious justification. IT wouldn't be OK for trivial reasons.
Is that a reasonable re-statement of the original thesis, even if my opinion on the particulars is different?
I think what several object to is the notion that parents are unlikely to be wrong, shouldn't be questioned, and their rules should be respected to an impractical and fastidious degree - which I'm tentatively concluding wasn't the intended notion, but it seemed to come across that way to some of us.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
There have been some interesting reactions to the original post. The one I find most interesting is that the original post implied a conservative, authoritarian style of parenting.
It did not.
Not allowing kids to watch a certain television show hardly equates to keeping them in a shell. I'm not sure what else I wrote that would cause this reaction.
In short, I haven't argued what you think I've argued.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Since there seems to be a great deal of misinterpretation going on, let me list the things that others have said that I agree with:
quote:"I spend two hours every day doing homework with my child", is a good reason to believe you know something about your child's learning styles and abilities. "I his parent", is not.
Mostly agree. Parental involvement is key.
quote:If you sincerely believe that your children's Sunday School teachers "have not a clue in their brains as to what the gospel is about.", then you are dishonest when you raise your hand saying you will sustain them in their calling and really should go and talk with the Bishop about your concerns.
Absolutely.
quote:In this particular case I was dealing with a discrepancy between how the scriptures and prophets (and lesson manual) said we should behave and how this teenager claimed his parents said he should behave. I addressed it saying that I did not know what reasons the parent might have for giving different advice, recommending that he talk with his parents about it and then reiterating what was said in the scriptures and other gospel sources.
I think that was well-handled, then. I have done similarly. (I always approach the parent afterwards, though, and let them know that the child had expressed some concern about the discrepancy.)
quote:My point is, you can't lock your kids in a shell for their entire lives. At some point, other people are GOING to tell them what to do. Sometimes they won't be able to get in touch with you to check it before hand. Sometimes they won't view it as WORTH IT to get in touch with you. Most importantly, sometimes you will be WRONG. Automatically getting insulted by someone else's opinion about your child is prideful (in the negative way).
...
You don't control your child with an iron fist, you educate them so that you don't HAVE to.
I know one thing, my kids aren't going to cower in fear and shock on the day they come into contact with the real world. Instead, they're going to consider it with an open mind. They're going to know which decisions are likely to be bad, and why. They're not going to be so preoccupied with changing their ingrained world view that they can't appreciate those first few years of liberation.
Yep. This wasn't a thread, initially about child rearing. I started it to discuss how other adults interact with your children.
There are things said here that I disagree with on some level.
quote:If they try to usurp your responsibility they are in the wrong, but so are you if you try to usurp theirs.
In practice, Rabbit is correct: for example, there's no reason a parent should be able to dictate what gets taught in a classroom, seeing as how there are more kids than hers to be concerned with. However, I really dislike the idea that a normal parent is usurping anyone's responsibility when it comes to their child; inherently, IMO, it's impossible. Their interaction may be inadvisable; it may be flat out wrong. But no one has an authority over a child except through the trust of the guardian/parent. (Please don't make me say "healthy/normal parent or guardian" every single time-- can we just make the assumption that we're not talking here about parents who abuse their kids? Like Bob, I'm mostly okay that our culture has a way to remove children from dangerous situations.)
quote:You will note that I began by saying I'd quote the manual, the scriptures and the prophets and then tell you about my personal prayerful preparation. I think that fits what is suggest in D&C 121 pretty well.
And I never said the hypothetical parent should believe me "because I've been called and sustained", I said I would remind them that they had sustained me in this calling, which had a very different intent. When we sustain people we are covenanting to support and respect them in their calling. I have found that very often in the church people raise their hands saying they will "sustain" people in their callings, but then criticize them and tear them down. I think we need to be reminded that when we raise our hands we are covenanting to support those people as long as they are striving to faithfully serve.
I'm sorry-- it still seems to me that the majority of your argument is based on credentialism. The mere phrase, "You sustained me when I was called," sets off all kinds of alarms. I do not think it's a valid point; I think it undermines everything else you've said, which, depending on the circumstance, I might agree with.
Pointing at your theorhetical diploma is meaningless to me.
quote:He grouped over zealous teachers and pushy relatives in the same category with "pedophiles".
Bob's clarification is exactly correct.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: I'm just glad we all agree that when the child is in danger of his life, it's the right thing to do what we can to help.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: I don't think anyone has ever said otherwise.
Well, not in this thread at least.
Well, we can't really examine the details, since those other threads were deleted.
However, I will point out that disagreeing with a particular course of action intended to help a child in danger of his life does not mean that one disagrees with the general principle that one should help a child in danger.
And I think you know that, Rabbit.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: In a diversion back to the original topic I think I just recognized why I was so disturbed by Scott's original post. He said.
quote:This is one of the hot buttons of parenthood: the illegitimate surrogate. It can range from a group of pedophiles establishing an internet relationship with lonely thirteen-year-old boys, to a Sunday School teacher who thinks she understands a troubled teen better than her parents, and tries to undermine their relationship "for the good of the child." It includes predators and pushy relatives, teachers and youth leaders.
He grouped over zealous teachers and pushy relatives in the same category with "pedophiles".
This is just plane wrong. That's worse than comparing a parent who occasionally spanks their toddler to one who beats the child to death. I can't see any reasonable grounds for grouping concerned teachers and relatives who might occasionally overstep their bounds with pedophiles.
You're comparing people who have a genuine concern for your children and some legitimate ethical responsibility but who make mistakes to predators and pedophiles. That is so unfair and if you really believe that they deserve to be grouped together in anyway -- you are just way way out of line.
Rabbit: First off let me say that I know it's hard to be contending with so many different people, and for trying to do that civilly, I commend you. There are arguments you have made that make some sense to me, such as Sunday School teachers and their stewardship. I won't try to rehash some of the arguments others are making at this juncture but I would like to point out that just because in one regard you are linked to detestable characters is not akin to an insult.
If we say that somebody who slaps a child across the face is making the same TYPE of mistake a parent who beats their child to death is making, it is not insinuating that the slapper is a murderer at heart.
Pedophiles often misuse the information willingly surrendered by their victims and occasionally, even often teachers do the same thing.
I suppose we could avoid any comparisons with nouns that any conversant dislikes, but that inhibits how effectively we can converse does it not?
But that's just my $0.02
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that one thing we are missing here, though Bob touched on it) is the authority of society. We have, imperfect though they are, mechanisms for removing authority of parents. We step in if a danger to a child is so immediate that a call to 911 won't suffice, otherwise our recourse to usurp parental authority is through the mechanisms that society has established. Or we suffer consequences. We can't (in an extreme example) kidnap a child because we think that we would be better parents. We might be right, but we haven't been granted that authority. If a child is in danger, the way to intervene is through the societal mechanisms that have the authority to do that.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:where adults are treated like villains
On a lighthearted note, that's like 50%. If parents listened to the children saying that the next door neighbours were actually aliens from Mars, there would be no plot! (I feel like it's okay as long as it's balanced with things where the adults are heroes, otherwise you're just learning that adults are heroes all the time and that you, as child, are invalid. Imo. What happens when it's important that your child recognize an adult is wrong- such as this example with their aunt?)
On a less lighthearted note, I agree with those who say that teachers and caregivers and other authorities with whom you leave your children do have some interest in them and thus some (limited) control as a parent figure at that point.
To be fair, all children are going to end up in a situation where they are offered things they wouldn't normally do at home, whether it's watch Spongebob or eat hard candy and junk food, or climb trees. Hopefully, they'll do what you taught them to, and refuse, but occasionally they won't or they won't be able to (in a classroom, for example). If they have questions as to why you ban such a thing you can explain to them afterwards. Hard candy rarely made an appearance at my house, but that's not to say I didn't eat it elsewhere. There was always a good reason not to, and my mother made what that reason is very clear. Eventually, we came to feel the same way.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: [QUOTE]wrong- such as this example with their aunt?)
To be fair, all children are going to end up in a situation where they are offered things they wouldn't normally do at home, whether it's watch Spongebob or eat hard candy and junk food, or climb trees. Hopefully, they'll do what you taught them to, and refuse, but occasionally they won't or they won't be able to (in a classroom, for example). If they have questions as to why you ban such a thing you can explain to them afterwards. Hard candy rarely made an appearance at my house, but that's not to say I didn't eat it elsewhere. There was always a good reason not to, and my mother made what that reason is very clear. Eventually, we came to feel the same way.
That seems to be the way we're going. I have kept my older two a bit "closer to home "(aside from being homeschooled) because of lactose intolerance ( moderately bad). I let them spend that day, and overnights, with people who know that dairy is in everything and they have to be carfeul what they feed them. A Jolly Rancher, or the like, however? Don't have them at home ( except after Halloween) but I won't complain if they get them at someone's house. TV? I try not to show it, unless it's REALLY pouring buckets, then I show something mild.The WORST I will show is Star Trek or Godzilla. I am more liberal than my kids' friends parents when it comes to viewing, so it's inlikely they'll see somehting that conflicts with my views (even if it makes me cringe). I do agree though that my husband and I are the final authority over our kids. We don't shelter them from different viewpoints (impossible for us. My DH is a personally conservative libertarian and I'm a liberal)but I would be livid if someone said I was just plain wrong. Example- My 11 year olds best freind's dad is against gay rights. I am for them.If he told Matthew; "This is what I believe" I would be OK, but if he said, "Matthew your mom is plain wrong", it would be an issue (he never would, but I was using it as an example.)
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
kmboots:
Agreed. In the first post in this thread, I said:
quote:Society recognizes that parenting responsibilities can be removed under certain circumstances. It is not a process undertaken lightly. For good reason, the parental instinct is almost one of ownership-- 'MY child.'
But there is a process, recognized legally and through cultural support, wherein a child can be removed from being 'your child' to someone else's.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Right. Maybe I phrased it ambiguously, but I don't disagree with you. My caution was against non-parents who, ignoring society's role to judge such matters, take the authority of parents unto themselves.
In other words, one does not have the authority on one's own* to usurp parental rights because one thinks that one could do better.
*barring the aforementioned "not even time to call 911" emergency.
[ March 29, 2008, 11:25 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by sylvrdragon (Member # 3332) on :
quote: Yep. This wasn't a thread, initially about child rearing. I started it to discuss how other adults interact with your children.
I realized on the way to work, after a nights sleep, that I only very vaguely touched on the actual subject. I think what set me off on the tangent was the reasons for not watching Spongebob. I think it hit on the same set of nerves generally irritated whenever I read about Jack Thompson or anything attributing behavioral anomalies to sources of media. Now, I'm not saying that one shouldn't restrict their children at ALL. Only that one can only do so much. Furthermore, I feel that their is such thing as TOO MUCH protection.
In other words, I think that where a child's direct health is not in danger, and they aren't subject to real mental trauma, I feel that preparation is a far greater tool than prevention. Censoring something because it might undermine authority, or because they might think that being stupid is OK seems a bit extreme to me. Minds aren't so fragile I think, especially when you make a point to put things into context.
I guess what I'm getting at is that I think the ideal solution, rather than get upset at everyone who accidentally steps over the line, would be to TELL your children that sometimes people will contradict your rules and they should realize that you put those rules in place with their best interest in mind.
I agree that your child's trust is a very important thing to have, but also realize that the best way to encourage that is to trust them back. Don't imagine that every instance of someone attempting (intentionally or not) to undermine you is somehow damaging the bond between you and your children. I think that bond is stronger than that.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:...rather than get upset at everyone who accidentally steps over the line...
I'm just trying to remember when this came up in the thread at all.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I feel that preparation is a far greater tool than prevention.
Okay. I don't necessarily disagree.
quote:Censoring something because it might undermine authority, or because they might think that being stupid is OK seems a bit extreme to me. Minds aren't so fragile I think, especially when you make a point to put things into context.
Censoring? Not letting kids watch Sponge Bob, Suite Life, or Drake & Josh, or whatever pre-teen stupidity is on, is censorship now?
Talk about extreme.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Not allowing people to view certain media is pretty much definitionally censorship.
Of course, when those people are your children it's also a pretty big part of your job as a parent to censor what they read, watch, and listen to.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I couldn't stand that as a kid. When I lived with my grandmother she didn't mind me watching cartoons, she just would not let me watch them on Saturday. But, when I lived with my mother she thought that shows like Jem were Satanic. It isn't. It was just a show with catchy music and girls with big colourful hair. There was nothing harmful about it. Really i think I should have been kept from watching the news. It was way worse than anything I could watch on a cartoon. All those bloody scenes, like the way they kept showing the OJ Simpson crime scene's blood again and again. I also recented being told what I could not read once I was old enough to read what I want and to tell the difference between reality and fantasy. At just what age should parents back off and allow their kids to watch, read and listen to waht music they want to? Too much "censoring" will make the things being censored more appealing for some kids. Too little will expose kids to things their young brains are not ready to process. I don't think Spongebob is nearly as bad for a kid as the news and various talk shows.
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
syn, wouldn't you have at least been in middle school by the OJ Simpson case?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I don't think Spongebob is nearly as bad for a kid as the news and various talk shows.
I'd take very long odds on a bet that Scott doesn't let his children watch the news or talk shows without review, either.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Yes, ir was it high school? Yeah, I was in high school at the time. Still, the news should totally be censored from kids and high school kids. It's so creepy the way they show horrible things like Saddam Hussein's dead sons and this man that got kidnapped back in the early 80s when I was just a kid. I think it was a bit traumatizing.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Huh. I remember staying in at morning break to watch the OJ verdict come down in Jr. High-- one of the History teachers had got a tv set up and let some of us in to watch with the teachers. I also remember that I was much more disturbed by footage of disaster victims (fires, floods, earthquakes) than anything shown during the OJ trial.
But studies have shown that kids are more disturbed by the news than by fictional violence, because they are able to figure out what's real and what's not.
Doesn't mean I want my kids watching Spongebob, though.
And I remember that my mom didn't want me to read Rosemary's Baby when I was 15 or 16. (She had never read the book, only seen the movie, which I didn't watch until a few years ago and I think is much worse than the book. Anyway...) She made me turn it back in when I checked it out from the library. Of course, at that point I was 3/4 of the way through and really wanted to finish it. So I finished it at the library after school a few days in a row. Since she had only told me I was not to bring it in the house, not that I was not to finish it at the library, I was walking a fine line. She wasn't happy but discussed it with me afterward and realized I wasn't that disturbed by it... I don't known why she let me read her Sue Grafton books and her Patricia Cornwell books with swearing and gore and didn't want me reading Rosemary's Baby.
Anyway...
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I read Mommie Dearest in Jr. High. Perhaps I was a bit too young to read that book. Also this book by President Reagan's daughter. One time when I was living over the summer with my ex stepmother and father they confescated a lot of my books.These were John Saul books and scary sort of books aimed at younger people that I had bougth with my own money. I was deeply annoyed about that. Especially since they let me watch movies like Misery and this movie about some demon chick that killed folks, Silence of the Lambs (which I fell asleep on, and my exstepmother's brother made a rather rude remark about me admiring Hannibal lector which not only was not the case, but is something for another day.) and Sleepwalkers.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
:bumped:
It seems a pertinent topic, considering the actions the CPS in Texas has taken.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
<deleted because of squeamishness around privacy issues>
[ May 23, 2008, 01:51 PM: Message edited by: dkw ]
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Now I'm curious.
Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
I didn't want to deal with teacher vs. parent issues. It's among my reasons of why I homeschool my kids.
I have noticed some other parents stepping in, because I homeschool.
I have noticed a refrain here, that others will not try to overstep the bounds of a normal parent/child relationship, as long as the parent is "normal and healthy".
The problem is the subjectivity of that assessment.
I have met a lot of people who believe that my homeschooling is proof of my family not being normal and healthy. I admit, sometimes I poke these people with a stick and tell them our school day consists of me chaining the kids in the basement and forcing them to recite Leviticus.
Or, my family size shows I must not be normal and healthy, because in their eyes a normal and healthy woman wouldn't have five children in eight years (actually, 6, just five living), and wouldn't want more. Surprisingly, I get a lot of other LDS women feeling this way towards me--some of them actually seem to be personally hurt or angered that I have a lot of kids. I honestly don't know why.
I get intervention-ed a lot. Less and less now that my children are getting older and appear fairly happy and normal.
I've noticed something else, too--that the other parents and teachers who are fine with how they are parenting/teaching their own children/students don't bother me. Some of them are my most ardent cheerleaders in my homeschooling efforts.
It's the parents whose children are doing very poorly in public school, or the teachers who lack confidence, that feel the need to question my parenting and teaching.
Often they'll say, "You homeschool?" and will start quizzing my children.
What I care about it experience. Some people seem more able to learn from their experiences, and gain wisdom; unfortunately, they aren't the ones giving uninvited advice about child rearing.
My personal policy is that I don't accept advice from anyone, teacher or parent, unless they already have good results to show for their knowledge.
We used to watch Spongebob. Also Buffy the Vampire Slayer, even when the kids were really young.
But we got rid of cable and only watch VeggieTales and Peep and Charlie and Lola now.
Getting rid of cable, including the commercials, has made an astonishing difference in my children's behavior and materialism, and in my free time. I actually get to write, quilt and work out now that I'm not glued to a TV set.
Um, not that anybody asked.
*edited to add: I'm afraid I sound really self-righteous. I try hard not to be. I don't think homeschooling or public schooling is for everyone; homeschooling is certainly right for my family.
It really irritates me when people tell me off handedly how to do the job that I do every day, all day, and will be doing for the next few decades.
I do believe I am the expert on my children. It doesn't mean I don't take them to doctors, and won't get them tutors, but it does mean I can cheerfully disregard advice I absolutely disagree with.
I had absolutely no limits on what I watched or read when I was a child; by modern standards that should mean I am well-rounded and happy, since standard philosophy is that children have to be exposed to ugly stuff in order to make them strong.
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I wonder if being more open to input from outside sources might be a good thing even (or especially) for people who are pretty sure they already know better. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)