posted
Quoted from my textbook on human growth and development:
“Authoritarian Child Rearing - Parents who use an authoritarian child-rearing style are low in acceptance and involvement, high in coercive control, and low in autonomy granting. … ‘Do it because I said so!’ is the attitude of these parents. If the child disobeys, authoritarian parents resort to force and punishment. They make decisions for their child and expect the child to accept their word in an unquestioning manner. If the child does not, authoritarian parents resort to force and punishment. Children of authoritarian parents are anxious and unhappy… Boys, especially, show high rates of anger and defiance. Girls are dependant, lacking in exploration and overwhelmed by challenging tasks. Nevertheless, because of authoritarian parents’ concern with control, children and adolescents experiencing this style do better in school and are less likely to engage in antisocial acts than those with undemanding parents.” (Infants, Children, and Adolescents, by Laura E. Berk, Fifth Edition, pg. 389).
When I started asking questions in church, the general response was, “The Bible is the word of God, and you should believe it because it is the word of God.” They were generally happy, polite and patient, but this was always the bottom line of their message. This particular attitude really turns me off to religion. Authoritarian parents have the, “Do it because I say so, stop asking for an explanation! I’m the parent, I own you!” attitude, and God really comes off as having the same attitude. And there are people completely willing to accept that God owns us; I’m not one of them.
Authoritarians are low in acceptance and involvement, high in coercive control, and low in autonomy granting. Let’s see if the Christian God meets those requirements.
Is the Christian God low in acceptance? My church believed in the concept of original sin. They believed that all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. It was drilled into my head that I could never, ever hope to be righteous or good or clean on my own. I’d have to say that’s not very accepting of God. The basic message I received was that God can never accept me as I am. The only identity I know is unworthy of Him. As an introspective child, I wondered just what part of me was wrong. It upset me a great deal that I couldn’t determine where I was flawed, and that I could never fix myself or earn the acceptance of God as I am.
Is the Christian God low on involvement? I can’t think of a time He’s been in my life. I certainly can’t prove that He has ever been involved in my life in any way. Despite having religious parents and being exposed to religion at a very young age, I have never felt that He was involved in my life.
Is the Christian God high in coercive control? Let’s define coercion: 1. To compel by force, intimidation, or authority, esp. without regard for individual desire or volition. 2. To dominate or control, esp. by exploiting fear, anxiety, etc.
Addressing the first definition – The general attitude in my church was, “Who are you to question God? When he was creating the universe, where were you? When he was taming the leviathan, where were you? How can you ever hope to compare to his power or comprehend him?” The Christian God is a master of force and intimidation, a master of commanding authority. He even tells us that our basic desires and volitions are wrong. If they weren’t wrong, we wouldn’t need the Ten Commandments. My church told me, in essence, that at my deepest core, I am flawed, imperfect, wrong, a sinner, and that caused a lot of anxiety in me as a young child. This leads us to the second definition.
He exploits the anxiety He has created in us. Christianity teaches us to be insecure, it teaches us to hate ourselves, and naturally, we become anxious and crave acceptance. And then God offers you acceptance in exchange for your obedience. God also tries to control our actions by exploiting our fear of him, as seen in the often accepted point of view, “If you don’t obey God and worship Him you will burn in Hell for eternity.”
Christianity compounds the desire for acceptance by telling you that you are imperfect, and then satisfies your desire by forgiving you, and accepting you; by telling you that you can belong. All you have to do to belong is give up your soul. Dedicate yourself to them unquestioningly. All you have to do to get into heaven is have blind faith. It’s terrible and manipulative.
Is the Christian God low on autonomy granting? I know the word “autonomy” has a lot of different meanings depending on what field you are in, but in childcare it means the child is empowered with a sense of competence and faith in the self that allows him or her to make decisions independent of a parent or other authority figure. I was taught that the Christian God did not want me to be in the world making decisions without Him. I was told that once I accept the Holy Spirit into my life, it will never leave me. An example of churches pushing this is the W.W.J.D. bracelet fad. It’s also evident in our culture whenever we see a celebrity thank God. This doesn’t mean that every person to ever thank God genuinely feels they need God, but I really feel it indicates God is a socially acceptable crutch. Basically, God wants you to be obedient and He wants you to depend on Him. He wants to be the source of your strength. And we know that Authoritarian rule breeds dependence in females especially.
My church was not fanatic. They were normal for a non-denominational Christian Church in Michigan. I’ve gone to plenty of different churches, and those core Christian methods are always there, always taught, and always damaging the youth. I think it's overt, but it must be subtle since it's so overlooked. Older people might not take the teachings to heart, but children certainly do. At least I did. And everyone pretends that nothing is happening. They act like it’s normal, like it’s good. It’s like they don’t want us to think for ourselves.
I know there’s a move to turn the Christian God into an authoritative God (one that is loving, accepting, non-judgmental, a God that patiently explains things to us, one that grants us autonomy), but there is already so much canonical scripture and dogma in place that promotes an authoritarian God… good luck keeping the fundamentalists off your back, because at its core, Christianity has an authoritarian God.
This authoritarian style of God will get you good students and citizens who are less likely to perform antisocial acts, but is it worth it? In the Dawkins thread, people are talking about science versus religion. They are addressing the long debate about proving whether or not God exists using science and logic.
I submit to you that it doesn’t matter. If the Christian God does exist, he is horribly manipulative and coercive, and you shouldn’t be following him anyway.
Posts: 247 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I'd certainly agree that the Christian god of scripture is authoritarian and coercive. No doubt about it.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
"low in acceptance and involvement, high in coercive control, and low in autonomy granting"
God became mortal, lived with us on the Earth, taught for three years, then died to pay for our sins. God gave us free will and was willing to die for that gift.
Sorry, DD, I see that as pretty high in acceptance, involvement, and autonomy granting.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm very glad that I grew up in a Christian church that taught...well, mostly the exact opposite of whatever it is you learned from your church.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The thing is, even though I didn't appreciate it as a kid, I realize now that I needed my parents rules and guidance to learn and grow.
Left to my own devices, I'd have been nothing more than a playful, noisy, selfish brat.
The things they taught me about God and why I should love Him and want to obey Him were nothing like the awful "just because" things you invoke.
Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You guys are misunderstanding the parenting styles, I believe. It's not authoritarian or not authoritarian. There are actually 4 parenting styles as identified in psychology. I found a description here (http://www.athealth.com/Practitioner/ceduc/parentingstyles.html):
quote:# Indulgent parents (also referred to as "permissive" or "nondirective") "are more responsive than they are demanding. They are nontraditional and lenient, do not require mature behavior, allow considerable self-regulation, and avoid confrontation" (Baumrind, 1991, p. 62). Indulgent parents may be further divided into two types: democratic parents, who, though lenient, are more conscientious, engaged, and committed to the child, and nondirective parents.
# Authoritarian parents are highly demanding and directive, but not responsive. "They are obedience- and status-oriented, and expect their orders to be obeyed without explanation" (Baumrind, 1991, p. 62). These parents provide well-ordered and structured environments with clearly stated rules. Authoritarian parents can be divided into two types: nonauthoritarian-directive, who are directive, but not intrusive or autocratic in their use of power, and authoritarian-directive, who are highly intrusive.
# Authoritative parents are both demanding and responsive. "They monitor and impart clear standards for their children’s conduct. They are assertive, but not intrusive and restrictive. Their disciplinary methods are supportive, rather than punitive. They want their children to be assertive as well as socially responsible, and self-regulated as well as cooperative" (Baumrind, 1991, p. 62).
# Uninvolved parents are low in both responsiveness and demandingness. In extreme cases, this parenting style might encompass both rejecting–neglecting and neglectful parents, although most parents of this type fall within the normal range.
What you guys are talking about when you say you need to be firm, set boundaries, and still be loving and involved is actually authoritative, not authoritarian. At least, authoritative is how I like to parent.
As for God...well, the way the old testament portrays him he was pretty authoritarian. The way the new testament portrays him, he is more forgiving. The way some modern Christians talk about it, he is still authoritarian. So really, it doesn't help to be mad at God for what humans say he said, says, did, does, or even is. Decide for yourself.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What Christine said. Authoritarian is a defective parenting style, but it is not the only style that employs authority. The description in the book sounds like it comes from the well established work of Eleanor Maccoby and Diana Baumrind, in the unlikely event that people are interested in following it up.
DD, You are not alone in your perspective. For an extended look at the authoritarian, self-loathing religion and why it appeals to many people, I'd recommend Erich Fromm's Escape From Freedom.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: the way the old testament portrays him he was pretty authoritarian.
I disagree. You don't get much more responsive than the deity described in the Old Testament. Additionally, people questioned Him all the time (Abraham, Moses, etc), and He provided an answer that was usually deeper than 'Cuz I said so.'
As for the New Testament God-- have you read Revelations? Talked with Ananias or his wife lately?
posted
I don't see how that relates-- if you read the book of Job in context, I think you'll agree that it does not.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, if I disagree with your interpretation, I must have read it wrong? Is it not even worth it to explain the context?
How about "Don't you touch the fruit of that tree."?
Most of the time, the Old Testament god doesn't even give that level of an explanation. "Kill your son because I said to." "Wow, all your first born children are dead because I hardened Pharoh's heart so that I had an excuse to kill them." and so on. We've had this conversation here many times. I think, as written, he's an evil deity who acts like a spoiled, immature child.
Certain sects of Christianity have explanations for this or have altered this or ignore it. Certain other ones embrace it. It sounds like DD had experiences with the latter type. edit: That doesn't mean that she is talking about the first type, which you seem to say you belong to.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:if I disagree with your interpretation, I must have read it wrong? Is it not even worth it to explain the context?
You brought up the scripture, Mr. Squicky, implying it validated your point. I said I didn't see how it related; now it's your turn to explain how it does.
You don't have to agree with my interpretation-- heavens, no! But *I'm* confused as to how you think God's complete answer to Job (he does go on for a couple chapters more...) fits your original statement. IE, that God says 'Cuz I said so,' a lot.
quote:How about "Don't you touch the fruit of that tree."?
Umm... this is even worse than the Job example, in terms of removal from context.
Here's the first time the commandment appears:
quote:Genesis Ch 2
16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: 17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Eve reiterates the same thing to the serpent when she's tempted in Ch 3.
There's the rule, and the explanation. We're not told if Adam or Eve asked "Why will we die?" Given that, I think it's a little unfair to assume that God didn't tell them.
quote:"Kill your son because I said to."
This IS a good example of when God doesn't explain one of his commandments.
I don't think it necessarily makes this God an evil deity, though. I think that everyone who progresses as near to God as Abraham had by that point, will be called upon to give back to God all the blessings that He bestowed upon them.
The explanation for the plagues on the Egyptians is there as well. It's not a nice one-- I agree with you there.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader: "low in acceptance and involvement, high in coercive control, and low in autonomy granting"
God became mortal, lived with us on the Earth, taught for three years, then died to pay for our sins. God gave us free will and was willing to die for that gift.
You're talking about Jesus, not God. Around Christmas time, the story was, "Isn't it beautiful? We don't deserve it, but Jesus died for our sins, so we can be forgiven and go to heaven." Note the part about how we don't deserve it. Part of the Christmas story for me always involved mention of how we are all sinners, we don't deserve Jesus' love, and in general how we, as people, are unworthy of his sacrifice. It was usually subtle, but it was always there.
God gave us free will and then was willing to die for it... Who demanded blood in the first place? Oh, that's right, God did. Being God, couldn't he have set up a different mechanism by which we could be saved? Don't praise Him for His (or Jesus', depending on whether or not you believe in the trinity) sacrifice when he's the sole reason one is required.
Let's address this self-loathing thing again. Authoritarian parent's use repeat insults to gain control of their children. I don't see how the Christian religion is any different.
Posts: 247 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:God gave us free will and then was willing to die for it... Who demanded blood in the first place? Oh, that's right, God did. Being God, couldn't he have set up a different mechanism by which we could be saved?
Well, Mormonism's answer to this is 'No.' But we don't believe God is classically omnipotent-- there are rules even He has to follow, that were not created by Him.
quote:Don't praise Him for His (or Jesus', depending on whether or not you believe in the trinity) sacrifice when he's the sole reason one is required.
Let's address this self-loathing thing again. Authoritarian parent's use repeat insults to gain control of their children. I don't see how the Christian religion is any different.
Hmm... maybe you haven't been exposed to other interpretations of the same material?
We are all sinners, that's true-- but tied in tightly to this, at least in my religion, is the idea that we are all children of God, and our rightful place is as heirs to His kingdom. Our actions are important to our Heavenly Father; our happiness is important to Him.
Mormonism does not have a strong emotional tie to the doctrine of original sin; we believe Christ's grace saves all children and all people who cannot understand God's commandments. While little children can commit wrong, Christ's grace covers them in mercy.
Only those people who understand God's laws, and willfully act against them, are capable of sin. They are the only ones who need repentence.
While we must necessarily be humble in order to repent, we should also be conscious of the great trust and love God has for us. The message is that Christ redeems us and we are capable of making ourselves as great as he was. It's not a doctrine of insults or non-responsiveness, by my way of thinking. It's a doctrine of sacrifice, understanding, and empowerment.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
DD, I sort of made this point to Scott and I want to emphasize it to you. You had experiences with a type of thought that is pretty prevalent in Christianity. However, there are plenty of Christian faiths that do not hold those beliefs or at least do not hold them in the same way. It's not the Christian religion as whole that hold this, but rather a significant faction inside it.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sometimes "because I said so" is not a bad answer. Sometimes, in parenting, it is shorthand for, "You are not right now capable of understanding why I need you to get out of the road before that car hits you."
I imagine that our relationship with God is similar only an infinitely larger scale. More is revealed to us as we are capabalae of understanding more.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Sometimes "because I said so" is not a bad answer. Sometimes, in parenting, it is shorthand for, "You are not right now capable of understanding why I need you to get out of the road before that car hits you."
After you get your child out of the road, you can then explain to them that they could get themselves hurt or killed by running out in front of cars. I tend to think that "because I said so" is the bottom line, but that even if our kids are too young to understand (or we *think* they are) that we should try to give them an explanation. Up front if possible, when they are out of danger if necessary.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And, again, I'll recommend checking out the work of Baumrind and Maccoby. They lay out the different parenting styles, the types of people who employ them, and their common effect on children.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Sometimes "because I said so" is not a bad answer. Sometimes, in parenting, it is shorthand for, "You are not right now capable of understanding why I need you to get out of the road before that car hits you."
I imagine that our relationship with God is similar only an infinitely larger scale. More is revealed to us as we are capabalae of understanding more.
I totally agree with this. That's my feeling as well.
quote:Originally posted by Christine: After you get your child out of the road, you can then explain to them that they could get themselves hurt or killed by running out in front of cars. I tend to think that "because I said so" is the bottom line, but that even if our kids are too young to understand (or we *think* they are) that we should try to give them an explanation. Up front if possible, when they are out of danger if necessary.
I don't totally agree with this. I see so many parents trying to explain to their unruly kids why they have to behave, while the kid ignores them and keeps misbehaving. Sometimes you just have to tell the kid to knock it off and behave or follow the rules. Especially the young ones. Maybe later, at an appropriate time you explain why.
And frankly I disagree with the definititions about parenting styles posted above. They imply certain styles are better than others, as if all kids are equal. And I certainly don't agree with that.
Posts: 1042 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Than I'd suggest checking out the research. The different styles lead to consistent results across a large majority of cases. There are obviously going to be exceptions, but they are far fewer than many people seem to believe.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
They're specifically not behaviors, though. It's not a matter of do this and don't do that, but rather of one's approach to parenting and your children.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Sometimes "because I said so" is not a bad answer. Sometimes, in parenting, it is shorthand for, "You are not right now capable of understanding why I need you to get out of the road before that car hits you."
I imagine that our relationship with God is similar only an infinitely larger scale. More is revealed to us as we are capabalae of understanding more.
I totally agree with this. That's my feeling as well.
quote:Originally posted by Christine: After you get your child out of the road, you can then explain to them that they could get themselves hurt or killed by running out in front of cars. I tend to think that "because I said so" is the bottom line, but that even if our kids are too young to understand (or we *think* they are) that we should try to give them an explanation. Up front if possible, when they are out of danger if necessary.
I don't totally agree with this. I see so many parents trying to explain to their unruly kids why they have to behave, while the kid ignores them and keeps misbehaving. Sometimes you just have to tell the kid to knock it off and behave or follow the rules. Especially the young ones. Maybe later, at an appropriate time you explain why.
And frankly I disagree with the definititions about parenting styles posted above. They imply certain styles are better than others, as if all kids are equal. And I certainly don't agree with that.
Once again, I fear you are misunderstanding. I did say, if you note, that the bottom line is "because I said so" and if all else fails, they don't get to "why?" their way out of doing what you say. Also, what you are describing is that woman going through Wal-Mart actually debating or arguing with her toddler the merits of sitting down in the shopping cart! It is a big mistake to engage in this kind of debate -- ever. Once an explanation is given, it goes back to the bottom line.
As for the four parenting styles -- I didn't come up with them. These have come out of a large body of research by the psychological community. And while some parenting METHODS are better for some kids than others, the best parenting STYLE is clearly authoritative. The others have flaws -- either because you are not sensitive to the needs of your child or you are too permissive or both. In fact, being sensitive to the different needs of your child(ren) and responding to those differences with varying types of rewards and punishments will make you, by definition, an authoritative parent.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:# Indulgent parents (also referred to as "permissive" or "nondirective") "are more responsive than they are demanding. They are nontraditional and lenient, do not require mature behavior, allow considerable self-regulation, and avoid confrontation" (Baumrind, 1991, p. 62). Indulgent parents may be further divided into two types: democratic parents, who, though lenient, are more conscientious, engaged, and committed to the child, and nondirective parents.
# Authoritarian parents are highly demanding and directive, but not responsive. "They are obedience- and status-oriented, and expect their orders to be obeyed without explanation" (Baumrind, 1991, p. 62). These parents provide well-ordered and structured environments with clearly stated rules. Authoritarian parents can be divided into two types: nonauthoritarian-directive, who are directive, but not intrusive or autocratic in their use of power, and authoritarian-directive, who are highly intrusive.
# Authoritative parents are both demanding and responsive. "They monitor and impart clear standards for their children’s conduct. They are assertive, but not intrusive and restrictive. Their disciplinary methods are supportive, rather than punitive. They want their children to be assertive as well as socially responsible, and self-regulated as well as cooperative" (Baumrind, 1991, p. 62).
# Uninvolved parents are low in both responsiveness and demandingness. In extreme cases, this parenting style might encompass both rejecting–neglecting and neglectful parents, although most parents of this type fall within the normal range.
Hmm... The following phrases connotate behaviors to me...
more responsive than they are demanding They are nontraditional and lenient do not require mature behavior allow considerable self-regulation avoid confrontation
highly demanding and directive, but not responsive These parents provide well-ordered and structured environments with clearly stated rules Authoritative parents are both demanding and responsive They monitor and impart clear standards They are assertive, but not intrusive and restrictive Their disciplinary methods are supportive, rather than punitive
No behaviors for the last group, because...well, they don't really DO anything. That's the...er...non-beauty of it.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I think it might help if you didn't view the examples as 'styles,' but as behaviors.
Some parenting behaviors ARE better than others.
While I would agree with that, I don't think what you believe are better are what I believe are better.
And again, I don't believe all children are equal across the board. Some kids are just naturally going to misbehave and act up. Some kids are going to be low key and respond to explanations and being talked to rather than just being told 'no' or 'because I said so'.
Similarly to how some people are going to respond to an authoritative God, some people are going to respond to a forgiving God.
Posts: 1042 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:And again, I don't believe all children are equal across the board. Some kids are just naturally going to misbehave and act up. Some kids are going to be low key and respond to explanations and being talked to rather than just being told 'no' or 'because I said so'.
Again, I would recommend reading up on this. You may find your assumptions challenged.
---
I think you may have wanted to make a distinction between authoritarian and forgiving, not authoritative. The authoritative style is forgiving.
The problem is that, although I can't speak to the spiritual validity of this, in a psychological context, the people who respond to an authoritarian conception of God have some serious personal weaknesses and will generally respond in a similar way to other forms of authoritarianism.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by stihl1: And again, I don't believe all children are equal across the board. Some kids are just naturally going to misbehave and act up. Some kids are going to be low key and respond to explanations and being talked to rather than just being told 'no' or 'because I said so'.
I somewhat disagree with this. I mean, of course all children are different, but "naturally going to misbehave" is a misclassification at best. I think it would be more appropriate to say that some kids are going to test boundaries more than others. These children tend to need more sensitivity, patience, and above all consistency. There is no reason to avoid explanations for ANY child but you seem to be suggesting that it's one way or the other -- you either get the cheesy sitcom talk that you used to see in shows like "Full House" or you have real discipline.
"Discipline" comes from the latin "to teach." Raising children is not just about punishing them when they are bad. You have to respond to them when they are good. You also have to show them the world and tell them about it. All these things work together in raising healthy children.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:but "naturally going to misbehave" is a misclassification at best. I think it would be more appropriate to say that some kids are going to test boundaries more than others.
I see no difference at all between the two statements.
Different kids need different things. An authoritative parent (as defined by Christine's examples) is the one with the right mindset and behaviors to be able to tell what that child needs.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The initial statement postulates some drive towards doing bad behavior. The second is about a more active, less boundary respecting behavior. In the second, this is not necessarily "bad" behavior, even if it is more challenging for the parents.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: The initial statement postulates some drive towards doing bad behavior.
That is what I meant. Not testing boundaries or more active. Bad behaviour.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: The second is about a more active, less boundary respecting behavior. In the second, this is not necessarily "bad" behavior, even if it is more challenging for the parents.
posted
C, We're talking the same language here, which is very rare for me, so I know pretty much where you are coming from (as would other people who read the research we're talking about). If I remember correctly, you're a psychologist too, right?
Anyway, it's nice to not be alone on things like this, so thanks yourself.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I majored in psychology and have one year of grad school -- but as I never actually completed a master's degree or Ph.D. I don't actually call myself a psychologist. Nevertheless, I am well-versed in this subject area. Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Frankly, I'm not really interested in becoming an authority on the subject, and only have a experiential opinion on the matter. From my experience, sometimes you just have to say 'no' and skip the explanation. And honestly, that happens more often than not with the older kids. I find that I did a lot more explaining to the kids when they were younger and had an open mind that was eager to learn and find out why not than I did with them when they were teens. Sometimes, especially with a teenager, you can't explain why or why not. And only years after, when they mature will they realize why not. Because often a teen KNOWS why or why not, yet they choose to do so anyway. It's part of exploring boundaries and understanding the world. And it's your job as a parent to tell them no and keep them from making mistakes while exploring boundaries and understanding their world. It is not your job to make them happy or for them to like you. And sometimes you can't explain why or why not. So you just tell them no and move on without the explanation.
No matter how often I tell my 14 year old that she's not an adult and capable of making decisions on her own, she will disagree. No matter how much I explain why she isn't, she will disagree. Because she wants that freedom even if she's not ready to handle it. So sometimes, you gotta say 'no' and be an authoritarian and not authoritative.
IMO the BEST parenting style incorporates all of those mentioned methods, and to pass judgement on any of them alone is wrong.
Posts: 1042 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Christine, Yeah, I should have been clearer. I'm limping towards a masters right now while working full time as a programmer, so I'm not technically one either.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
stihl, Would you agree that certain results with regards to children are prefferable to others?
If so, if one style could be consistently shown to produce the more favorable results, wouldn't it be fair to say that, in most cases, it is the better style?
Because that is basically what the researchers did.
And again, they are not methods or behaviors, but rather styles of method and behaviors.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Sometimes "because I said so" is not a bad answer. Sometimes, in parenting, it is shorthand for, "You are not right now capable of understanding why I need you to get out of the road before that car hits you."
In my particular situation, it is shorthand for "I have five of you to coordinate and control and I can't do it if you are all off running around in your own world all the time. Sometimes you have to do what Daddy says because Daddy is responsible for running the family and you are not... and it runs poorly if you don't listen and obey."
They are aware that this is the overall meaning, though they forget constantly.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
It's important to keep in mind that the results of parenting styles are culturally sensitive. Maccoby and Jacobsen later looked at the effects of the four parenting styles on non-caucasion children. The example that always stands out to me are families of Asian origin who often use an authoritarian parenting approach... with positive results.
Also.. Laura Berk's textbooks are highly popular in my field. They're well based in research and much more readable than most Child Development textbooks that I've read.
Posts: 862 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Sometimes "because I said so" is not a bad answer. Sometimes, in parenting, it is shorthand for, "You are not right now capable of understanding why I need you to get out of the road before that car hits you."
After you get your child out of the road, you can then explain to them that they could get themselves hurt or killed by running out in front of cars. I tend to think that "because I said so" is the bottom line, but that even if our kids are too young to understand (or we *think* they are) that we should try to give them an explanation. Up front if possible, when they are out of danger if necessary.
I agree. Of course if my child is in danger I will get them out of it before explaining. But for less drastic things, if I cannot come up with a reason and articulate it to my child, then maybe I need to rethink my rule.
Posts: 2711 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: stihl, Would you agree that certain results with regards to children are prefferable to others?
If so, if one style could be consistently shown to produce the more favorable results, wouldn't it be fair to say that, in most cases, it is the better style?
Because that is basically what the researchers did.
And again, they are not methods or behaviors, but rather styles of method and behaviors.
Actually, no. I say this because one set of parents could raise a kid to turn out to be (A). And another set of parents could raise a kid to turn out to be (B). Both sets of parents could be completely happy and proud of their children and how they turned out. Yet based on my value system and what I expect from my children, I could disagree with both.
I've seen a white trash family raise kids that get knocked up and have their own kids before the age of 18. While they may be completely proud because their kid has kids of their own and a job at walmart and their own trailer, I would consider myself a failure if this happened to my kids.
Conversely, if I raised my kids and they went off to college, had a nice job and started a family and lived in middle class bliss, someone with higher expectations for their children would consider me a failure.
So depending on what your values are, and what you're trying to accomplish and teach your kids, your parenting styles will vary. And what is right for some might not be right for others.
And that goes right along for what Coccinelle said above. One set of results for culture A might be preferrable to them, while results for culture B are more preferrable. And the methods for getting to those results will vary from culture to culture. IMO, the fact I was raised in a catholic household with the values of that religion play a huge part of how I think it's proper to parent now.
I see many of my teen's friends who have parents that buy them everything and treat them as equals and want to make them happy all the time. To them, my parenting style might seem authoritarian and strict. And I tell my kids all the time I don't care if they don't like my decisions or hate me for them. That might seem stubborn and uninvolved. But the fact is, that's how I was raised and after I got on my own, I understood why I was raised like that. IMO, my job is to prepare the kid for life on their own. Sucking up to them and making them happy and making sure they understand every little decision isn't necessary all the time. Sometimes yes, but sometimes no.
So for someone to come along and say that a certain parenting style always produces favorable results, I do disagree. Especially because looking around me today, I see younger adults not prepared for life's challenges, not prepared to take care of themselves, not prepared for adversity, offended and shocked and depressed when they aren't patted on the head and taken by the hand and lead around. Even when I was young I saw kids who were constantly rewarded and given everything as younger kids, who had a less strict upbringing, get on their own and falter. I don't believe I did, and I contribute that to a parent that didn't always pamper me and explain everything and give in because they wanted to feel good and wanted me to like them. I was told no, or because I said so, and it taught me lessons about life. Life is rough, your job as a parent is to prepare your kids for that.
Posts: 1042 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I submit to you that it doesn’t matter. If the Christian God does exist, he is horribly manipulative and coercive, and you shouldn’t be following him anyway.
I think letting all of his children be pretty much free to do anything they want is a pretty lame way to be manipulative and coercive.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Recommended reading: "Mazelife" by Kyoji Kobayashi, collected in Monkey Brain Sushi. Someone decides to design his own god, after a library search. (How would you expect an academic to find God?)
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
