We have a five-year-old... ...human... staying with us this week. What a truly awful child. I have never seen anything like it in my life. And I've seen horrible kids before.
We have a ten and twelve-year-old. I'm far from being a perfect dad and I was far from being a perfect child. I worry about my kids. I try to encourage them with sport and homework, learning and thinking and having fun. I can see where my parents got it right and wrong and I try to take their good points and adjust and adapt my own methods to bring up and prepare my kids for the 21st century. But I just can't seem to get it right. Sometimes I'm not spending enough time with them, sometimes I'm in the wrong when I discipline them, sometimes I just screw up. I worry I'm not the dad I should be. I just worry, full stop.
But this week, we have guests, mother and daughter. It started as bemusement which quickly became shock at what I've been seeing. "It's mine. You can't have any. I want it." That's all it says. None stop. Like pulling a string on the back of a doll. Quite simply, the five-year-old rules the roost and it stomps, screams and throws vile insults until the mother comes out with the usual half-hearted "yes darling, we'll go and buy one".
A couple of days ago I had to get involve and apply some serious discipline. It was determined to drop lego in my fish tank. I said "No". It tried again and I shouted "NO! Stay away from my fish!". It started again with the tantrums, and the mother said to me "surely it would be ok to just drop in a small piece". My reply started with "fudge off". Or thereabouts.
Anyway, the (very-wealthy-wife-of-a-banker) woman has been out all day - spa, hairdressers, make-up, botox etc and we've been looking after 'it'. This week's experience has given me a different perspective. Perhaps I am getting it right after all. There's never been any 'mine' in this house, only sharing. No tantrums, just arguments, debates and a resolution - yes or no and that's final. Go off, lark around, ride your bike or play on your laptop but first, homework. They're both doing well at school, they're both stable and well-balanced, she has dance lessons, he has tennis lessons. They do fight like cat and dog sometimes but they play and laugh and work together. Maybe I shouldn't worry quite so much as I do. Chill out dad.
You know, I tried to show it how to draw flowers this afternoon and it couldn't hold a pencil. It wouldn't put the iPad down.
I must go downstairs now and join the racket. Any experience with any horrible little rotters?
|
Bizarre, isn't it, that adults of seemingly above average intelligence can't see when they are programming their children to do that?
By coincidence I saw one in the supermarket yesterday. We're all familiar with children crying when they are thwarted, but this one had a very calculated scream - very high pitched, loud and the only thing I have ever heard like it was a demo of a rape alarm. Painfully loud, and as far from a cry of genuine distress as you could get.
I knew instinctively that the parents would give in (it was the chocolate at the check out) and they did, but they held out quite a long time - they have certainly trained their daughter to perfection.
When she got the chocolate she didn't look at all distressed, and all I could see in her expression was the satisfaction that follows a successful negotiation.
|
Reminds me of my cousin's daughter when she was that age. No discipline whatsoever and all her mum used to do was keep repeating "Stop it" over and over again with no effect and no attempt to impose any stronger form of restraint. When they came to visit us I used to have to go out after about ten minutes and leave my poor old mum stuck with them. Any longer and I'd have cracked. We didn't dare leave anything breakable lying about. If I'd behaved like that at her age my ears would have been ringing for a week.
Mercifully, despite her start she's grown up into a lovely girl, now in her late thirties with three of her own.
|
Proof perhaps that both nature and nurture play their part.
Trouble is that modern parents are scared stiff of retribution for chastising their children. None of us condone child abuse but I daresay the majority of us at one point or anther in our younger days crossed that line which provoked light chastisement and are none the worse for the experience. Today they dare not, lest the social services come a-calling. Such is my daughter's experience.
|
>> Any experience with any horrible little rotters?
More than I care to remember... two episodes stand out. One was a clean, well-dressed Arab boy of about four or five, encountered in Eurostar. The child emitted a very high-pitched shriek, like a train whistle in pitch and volume, every thirty seconds from London to Paris. It wasn't in distress or mentally ill or anything like that. It just made this hideous continuous racket which its parents didn't seem to notice. I wanted desperately to kill all three of them, but alas there are laws and I'm scared of the French fuzz.
The other was a five-year-old brought to a dinner party by its parents who like us were guests. During dinner the child walked up to the table, reached out and closed its filthy little paw on the butter, giving it a good squeeze. After waiting a few seconds for the wrath of the parents to manifest itself, I told the nipper to take his damn hand off the butter right now, and it did, looking rather surprised. The parents looked at me as if I was a murderer. And for two pins, once again, I'd have been one.
All nippers go through these phases of being wicked. They grow up to be stern disciplinarians as often as not. After all they know all the techniques of wickedness from the inside. Heh heh...
|
You are clearly doing well with your own children. Too many parents these days don't want to be involved, bothered or have time out to be with their children, who are left to their own devices with modern devices such as smart phones, tablets, games consoles etc. No wonder they play up trying to attract some attention from their elders.
Kids want to have a good level of discipline in their lives; they realise that, in the long run, it's in their own interest. It's the lack of such firm measures that causes many problems with youngsters although, to be fair, the vast majority are excellent, well behaved individuals.
|
I frequently state, loudly: have they stopped prescribing Ritalin?
Seems to have some effect (sometimes).
|
>> have they stopped prescribing Ritalin?
>> Seems to have some effect (sometimes).
Like ritalin itself in fact, inferior to proper speed. It was listed in the drugs catalogue that appeared here for a few hours yesterday. They didn't give the price though bt.
:o}
|
|
Interesting that the girl BBD describes is apparently an only child. Seems to be a common theme with the ill-behaved. Nothing like a sibling to knock off the rough corners and enforce some sharing.
|
>> Kids want to have a good level of discipline in their lives;
No they don't, that is the last thing in life they want.
>> they realise that,
>> in the long run, it's in their own interest.
Never heard such tripe. Of course kids don't realise that.
(waits for the inevitable "my cat is blacker than anyone else's black cat" reply.)
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 15 Oct 14 at 09:14
|
Children need to know where the boundaries are, whether it's an only child or a classroom full of them.
They may not want discipline but they are happier when they know what the rules are and when the discipline in their situation will kick in.
Bit like dogs I reckon
|
>> Children need to know where the boundaries are, whether it's an only child or a
>> classroom full of them.
Of course they do, they don't know where or what the boundaries are until its pointed out to them or they learn from interaction with others
>>
>> They may not want discipline but they are happier when they know what the rules
>> are and when the discipline in their situation will kick in.
Why does discipline need to kick in to point out they have exceeded a boundary? Does not make them happier at all, but it does make them informed.
>> Bit like dogs I reckon
Not at all, you don't discipline dogs. You encourage and develop and reward the behaviour you do want, not discipline the behaviour you don't.
That way you develop keen dogs always seeking to excel and please.
Bit like children I reckon.
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 15 Oct 14 at 10:03
|
>>Of course they do, they don't know where or what the boundaries are until its pointed out to them or they learn from interaction with others>>
Is that a euphemism for discipline?
|
>> >>Of course they do, they don't know where or what the boundaries are until its
>> pointed out to them or they learn from interaction with others>>
>>
>> Is that a euphemism for discipline?
No
|
No discipline = no love.
(7 very loving kids)
|
This is the most useful book on parenting.
www.amazon.com/Parenting-With-Love-Logic-Responsibility/sim/193042910X/2
The most damaging parenting styles are either
- the drill sergeant. "Do this, do that.. " leads to no choice and therefore no responsibility for actions.
- the helicopter. Constantly watching over and making excuses for little Johnny. Again effect is that no responsibility is acquired.
At the end of the day one wants happy responsible kids.
Responsibility is acquired through learning good choices. Not taught.
Last edited by: car4play on Sat 18 Oct 14 at 09:47
|
|
I expect for some here their experience of discipline has been this rather harsh and counterproductive drill sergeant approach. I can only sympathise.
|
>> (7 very loving kids)
You must have a big car then ?
;-)
|
Had a 7 seater then. But always needed two cars to go together.
They're all over 17 now. So a few can drive themselves.
|
>>
>> >> (7 very loving kids)
>>
>> You must have a big car then ?
>>
>> ;-)
Espace would be perfect. You could dump the roof box and the hearse and get one.
Last edited by: Zero on Sat 18 Oct 14 at 10:35
|
|
They're actually remarkably good on fuel too you know. Well, mine was, some months it never used any.
|
>>No discipline = no love.
Agreed.
But how the discipline is established and maintained matters very much.
|
>> >> Kids want to have a good level of discipline in their lives;
>>
>> No they don't, that is the last thing in life they want.
>>
>> >> they realise that,
>> >> in the long run, it's in their own interest.
>>
>> Never heard such tripe. Of course kids don't realise that.
Yup. Cobblers.
Not to say that they aren't happier as a result with some clear boundaries.
The problem with not having limits is that sometimes it's OK to do something (play football in the sitting room for example) and sometimes it isn't (usually after said football has just knocked something over). That is very confusing and leads to a tantrum next time they want to do it and you won't let them.
The problem with badly behaved children is usually the parents. Giving in to screaming, footstamping etc. just reinforces the behaviour. Like dog training really. It applies to adults too.
|
All five year olds are inherently selfish as indeed are all human beings. He is just exhibiting his own true feelings which you find shocking.
It's just that as we grow older and are socialised by our families we lear to hide this inherent selfishness as it tends to be counter productive to our own self interest. The child in question will inevitably learn this, he's just a little late. Probably go on to be a huge success in life
|
"I just worry"
If there is an upside to this visitation, it is that you can stop worrying about your own!
|
On the other hand...
I was walking through a village recently to reach my parked car. Young boy (6 ish) playing in the street (no traffic problems). I said "hello" as I passed. He replied with "Good afternoon". Perhaps there is hope for us yet.
|
I was recently in Brighton.
A 'gentleman' (about my age) was allowing his dog in the volleyball court, despite signs to the contrary. My grand-kids wanted to play in it as it's the only bit of sand within miles.
A group of lads had a kick-a-bout in the court, but I heard one of them shout 'stay away from those kids'. I called my grand-kids close to the edge to give the lads more space - one nodded in acknowledgement.
On the beach, a group of teenagers were generally messing around. One swore, another berated them for doing so in of my young company.
There IS hope for us yet!
|
>>"One swore, another berated them for doing so in of my young company.">>
As I said earlier with regard to discipline: " ....to be fair, the vast majority (of young people) are excellent, well behaved individuals." That was prior to some condescending, patronising comments contributed to the discussion.
However, on every website, there is always one at least such individual who thinks they know better than the rest of us...:-)
|
>> >>"One swore, another berated them for doing so in of my young company.">>
>>
>> As I said earlier with regard to discipline: " ....to be fair, the vast majority
>> (of young people) are excellent, well behaved individuals." That was prior to some condescending, patronising
>> comments contributed to the discussion.
>>
>> However, on every website, there is always one at least such individual who thinks they
>> know better than the rest of us...:-)
>>
Because you are wrong.
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 17 Oct 14 at 08:23
|
>." That was prior to some condescending,
>> >> comments contributed to the discussion.
Oh They were not "condescending" they were critical. Being a man of discipline I thought you would have known the difference.
|
Perhaps there is hope for us yet.
>>
Maybe. One has to ask though; how many of us would have ignored the child even if he had spoken first, for fear of being accused of approaching him with less than good intentions?
|
It's probably a character failing, but that was my first thought too - would no more look at a child in the street, never mind talk to it, than fly to the moon these days. If it falls over I assume its parents are going to sort it.
I may have mentioned before (can't recall) this is now enshrined in our work HR policy too - child in distress in the grounds, do NOT approach it in any way, call a number for a nominated person to deal with it.
Not been put to the test on that one yet, luckily.
What a world.
|
>> I may have mentioned before (can't recall) this is now enshrined in our work HR
>> policy too - child in distress in the grounds, do NOT approach it in any
>> way, call a number for a nominated person to deal with it.
Thou jesteth? I didn't know it had got that bad.
I had an inkling I suppose. A while back I went to fix something in the village hall while the (Ofsted regulated) play group was in there (they had reported the problem, I was the chairman of the hall committee at the time). They didn't want to let me in really, as I'm not "CRB" checked.
|
Another bit of nonsense. A CRB check is needed to be alone with kids in most situations, but with other adults who have been checked - no problem. (I do have a current one, work with Scouts from time to time).
CRB stuff is a bit like Health and Safety, bandied about by the self important to try and raise their profile.
|
"CRB stuff is a bit like Health and Safety, bandied about by the self important to try and raise their profile."
The CRB thing has got completely out of control. My wife's friend (the one with the FAS child) had to take him down to see a child psychologist in London. The psychologist, at that time had IIRC some 13 children on her books and she had to apply for separate CRB checks for every child that she saw.
IMHO, it wasn't a good thing when the PC brigade started the 'treat children like adults' sort of thing such that some dim adults have to say "please" every time they speak to a child - hence the child is confused, not knowing the difference between a request and an order. As an example I heard a mother say to her child "Will you come of the road, please, you'll get run over". When I was a youngster, my mum wouldn't have fannied about saying "please" ……. it was an order to get back on the pavement - not a request.
|
>> The CRB thing has got completely out of control. My wife's friend (the one with
>> the FAS child) had to take him down to see a child psychologist in London.
>> The psychologist, at that time had IIRC some 13 children on her books and she
>> had to apply for separate CRB checks for every child that she saw.
Thats not the case, don't know where that story came from. Nicole is a children's community nurse, with sometimes up to 200 kids on her books, some of them on the "at risk register"
She gets CRB checked annually. Clearly that the way it should be.
|
>> Thats not the case, don't know where that story came from. Nicole is a children's
>> community nurse, with sometimes up to 200 kids on her books, some of them on
>> the "at risk register"
>>
>> She gets CRB checked annually. Clearly that the way it should be.
That's certainly how it should be but whether due to H&S type excess caution or way law is read into regulations multiple certification is/was commonplace. Mrs B, who is a peripatetic supply teacher, has had to have separate certificates for each agency and when working directly for schools each school.
There may have been a recent change in the rules, possibly at same time as infrequent but regular visitors were proposed to be brought into scope of CRB checking. That was eased after a public campaign by the author Michael Rosen.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 17 Oct 14 at 10:16
|
>> >> Thats not the case, don't know where that story came from. Nicole is a
>> children's
>> >> community nurse, with sometimes up to 200 kids on her books, some of them
>> on
>> >> the "at risk register"
>> >>
>> >> She gets CRB checked annually. Clearly that the way it should be.
>>
>> That's certainly how it should be but whether due to H&S type excess caution or
>> way law is read into regulations multiple certification is/was commonplace. Mrs B, who is a
>> peripatetic supply teacher, has had to have separate certificates for each agency and when working
>> directly for schools each school.
Yes that is the case, and again exactly how it should be. Each employer/agency/supplier has to ensure that staff they use is CRB checked, and to do it themselves. Thats to ensure the Likes of Ian Huntley don't slip through the net in the way he did. But one medical professional ( I assume in this case self employed) seeing a lot of referrals does not need a separate CRB check for each.
|
|
My wife, as a self employed teacher in the UK, had to have a different CRB check for each organisation she contracted with, not for each child she worked with.
|
"to ensure the Likes of Ian Huntley don't slip through the net"
But he did, didn't he? As is increasingly the case, new laws inconvenience everyone except those they are designed to catch. More bureaucracy doesn't solve anything, it just creates more bureaucrats.
|
>> "to ensure the Likes of Ian Huntley don't slip through the net"
>>
>> But he did, didn't he? As is increasingly the case, new laws inconvenience everyone except
>> those they are designed to catch. More bureaucracy doesn't solve anything, it just creates more
>> bureaucrats.
The current set up is a response to the Bichard inquiry which followed Soham murders. Prior to that the system, such as it was, was slapdash and haphazard. n
|
The biggest issue which emerged from the Bichard inquiry was that there were 43 Forces with 43 different sets of computer systems. Therefore one area could not check directly whether anyone had come to notice in one of the other critical business areas. This resulted in manually inquiring with the other area. Aliases, transient lifestyle, poor data quality and inadequate intelligence allows known persons to slip under the radar. A vast amount of information and intelligence in different guises comes into the Police where it has to be catagorised, filed and eventually weeded in accordance with the HR and DP Acts.
It is a massive 'backroom' function akin to knitting fog.There have been, and continue to be, great steps forward to address the issues but it has been a slow process which is IT driven.
|
>> There may have been a recent change in the rules, possibly at same time as
>> infrequent but regular visitors were proposed to be brought into scope of CRB checking. That
>> was eased after a public campaign by the author Michael Rosen.
Some members of the WI here run a lunchtime craft club once a week at the village school. The children love it, they learn to knit, sew, cook etc. They are not really alone with the children, but they all have to be (well they are) CRB checked. The theory behind it is that as regular visitors they have the opportunity to build up a relationship with a child which could be continued outside school.
The members think it's a bit of a joke, but they submit to it for the sake of the children, who love the activities.
Wasn't it Michael Morpurgo, and Philip Pullman, who made an issue of it? In the case of authors, they might do regular school visits but rarely to the same class, or even school, twice and always with a teacher.
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8153251.stm
|
" they might do regular ... visits but rarely to the same class, or even school, twice and always with a teacher."
Unfortunately, similar circumstances applied to Jimmy Saville and Rolf Harris, and see how that worked out...
|
"She gets CRB checked annually. Clearly that the way it should be."
In a perfect world (where you wouldn't need them in the first place) maybe, but CRB checks do go wrong, and I can imagine how difficult it would be to get the record set straight if that had happened.
The fact that FoI requests have to be made even to get at the figures tells you all you really need to know.
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9054972/Thousands-wrongly-labelled-as-criminals.html
|
>> CRB checked annually. Clearly that the way it should be."
All a CRB check shows is that you haven't yet been caught.
|
"Thats not the case, don't know where that story came from."
Possibly because the children have been referred from different counties/boroughs/authorities?
|
>> She gets CRB checked annually. Clearly that the way it should be.
>>
One of my sergeants, just before I retired, went through his annual CRB rigmarole.
He is/was an RAF cadet instructor, (being ex-RAF); church warden; and something else which I now forget.
All three had separate CRB demands.
Not one of them would accept the fact that he 'had been' (with a certificate to prove it) CRB checked, but insisted that he 'go through' the CRB process... on 3 separate occasions.
I came to the conclusion that they were more intent on following bureaucratic rules and procedures, than they were on achieving the end game, which is 'is this fellow safe to be left with children'... bearing in mind he was a serving police sergeant at the time.
The CRB system, as well intentioned as it was has become a problem... because... people are blandly following it as their 'system' and not necessarily using their knowledge / instinct / etc to weed out those they ought to be keeping an eye on.
Just before I left London, my wife's school had a bout of parents not willing to arrange lifts for each other's kids unless those involved in the lifts had been CRB checked, FFS?
Ian Huntley would not have been picked up by a CRB check. He was known to one Force; changed his name to his mother's maiden name; worked/ lived in another Force area; was known to the first Force for an unconvicted matter (rape allegation that never went to court); other than that had no criminal history... and contrary to popular belief, the State's systems don't automatically talk to each other.
Each individual involved in the care/ welfare of children needs to use their own judgement, not hide behind an unwieldy, bureaucratic system.
Last edited by: Westpig on Sun 19 Oct 14 at 19:08
|
where the "checkee" is a police sergeant, its pretty safe to follow your instincts. Where the prospective person is not so clear cut, its tougher to follow an instinct, and if it turns out to be a bad scenario and you didn't get a CRB check done you are thrown to the wolves.
Of course if you cock it up really badly and you are a high up in the council, director of children's services say, you can always sue someone for a pot load.
|
I'd like a system whereby the fact someone has actually had a CRB check is relevant, not automatically putting someone through the process of having CRB check(s) ... and that can be easily achieved by the individual organisations if they so wish.. and would show they are actually thinking about the important subject, not just pretending or simply following 'rules' unthinkingly.
The bigger picture would be the CRB check ..AND... using your gut instinct/ common sense/ any other check you think you need to indulge in... rather than tick a check sheet and cover the CRB angle, then forget about everything else.
|
>> Of course if you cock it up really badly and you are a high up
>> in the council, director of children's services say, you can always sue someone for a
>> pot load.
........or negotiate a forty grand bribe to resign. (q.v. Rotherham & J. Thacker)
|
>> ........or negotiate a forty grand bribe to resign. (q.v. Rotherham & J. Thacker)
Well under a year's salary and not much more than notice pay. In reality, the council won.
|
>> >> ........or negotiate a forty grand bribe to resign. (q.v. Rotherham & J. Thacker)
>>
>> Well under a year's salary and not much more than notice pay. In reality, the
>> council won.
You are not serious surely?
|
>> You are not serious surely?
Absolutely I am. The reality of her position will be far more complex than what's reported. If they sacked her summarily she'd be entitled to take her case to a court or tribunal. She may win on at least some points. The case might get dragged all the way to the Supreme Court.
The cost of that would make £40k look like peanuts.
See Sharon Shoesmith and a string of other cases.
|
I've looked at this recently as (IIRC from introductory talk) I may need some level of CRB/DBS check as a CAB volunteer. I've also an interest as Mrs B has to jump through DBS hoops in connection with her teaching.
The current set up is outlined here:
www.gov.uk/disclosure-barring-service-check/overview
While an employer CAN accept a certificate issued for another post (subject to proof of ID etc) he's in firing line if anything turns out to be wrong. Given that in such circs he's likely to be named, shamed, hung out by to dry by his employer and demonised in the media it's no surprise that caution is order of day.
Mrs B's moan is that professionally she's Ms C, where C is her birth surname. The clots who set up the system seemed to assume Ms was the proper title for a woman who has been married and divorced. So if you cannot provide a 'married' surname the computer says no........
As to parents insisting school run drivers be CRB checked I'm saddened but utterly unsurprised; inevitable consequence of a media the implies there's a peado round every corner.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 19 Oct 14 at 20:36
|
>> Mrs B's moan is that professionally she's Ms C, where C is her birth surname.
>> The clots who set up the system seemed to assume Ms was the proper title
>> for a woman who has been married and divorced. So if you cannot provide a
>> 'married' surname the computer says no........
I assume 'it' wants to see Miss C?
|
>> I assume 'it' wants to see Miss C?
Exactly.
|
|
Strange how a system would be designed that a Ms would automatically be divorced. What if you came into teaching late as a divorced women? System melt down probably.
|
>> Strange how a system would be designed that a Ms would automatically be divorced. What
>> if you came into teaching late as a divorced women? System melt down probably.
That's how it appears. What was really in the designers mind is a matter of conjecture.
|
>>
>>
>> As to parents insisting school run drivers be CRB checked I'm saddened but utterly unsurprised; inevitable consequence of a media the implies there's a peado round every corner.
>>
I don't know it you follow the photography thread on Cycle Chat, but someone who was taking photographs of a church was accused of being a paedo by one of our Great British Public.
|
>> I don't know it you follow the photography thread on Cycle Chat, but someone who
>> was taking photographs of a church was accused of being a paedo by one of
>> our Great British Public.
>
Not sure I remember that one but 'I'm a Photographer Not a Terrorist' is amongst my followed groups on Facebook.
|
While I don't disagree with a sharp order in case of urgency the use of please when giving an instruction is a feature of British English which long pre-dates any form of 'PC'.
During my holiday I read a couple of Len Deighton's books looking at aspects of WW2 and events preceding. Included amongst documents he quoted was draft guidance to be issued to troops and officials in event of GB being invaded and occupied. One of the points made therein was specific mention of civilian authority in Britain, whether police, employer or whatever prefixing direct orders with please. Both parties understand the reality but the courtesy is important.
Even the most brusque of managers I worked with followed that practice, a direct JFDI type instruction only following after expressions of reluctance and in cases of non-compliance.
|
Pleas is VERY British - we say en-famille at the table "Please pass the salt".
In Spain in exactly similar circumstances it is "Pass the salt".
We also say "Thank-you" when aforesaid condiment is passed - in Spain - no expression of thanks.
I believe the logic is, that in super-family-close Spain, it is a pleasure and a duty to assist another family member and thanks or please are not needed.
|
|
It may interest you to know that there is no word for "please" in Welsh, at least not in the way in which the singular word is used as a request in English.
|
>>my mum wouldn't have fannied about saying "please" ……. it was an
>> order to get back on the pavement - not a request.
>>
That is discipline as it should be, and unfortunately is often sadly lacking.
|
>> >>my mum wouldn't have fannied about saying "please" ……. it was an
>> >> order to get back on the pavement - not a request.
>>
>> That is discipline as it should be, and unfortunately is often sadly lacking.
Rubbish. That's simply an order without respect. "You must respect what I say, always be unfailingly polite, but I don't have to be". Its the approach used by some of the lousy, ill-mannered, bullying teachers I came across in the 60s & 70s.
I *always* say please, even where in reality I am telling them what to do.
I try to teach the children that respect and courtesy are important. If it is important, it should be important to me as well.
The quoted lady took exactly the right approach; a polite, respectful order with an explanation.
|
>>
>> Rubbish. That's simply an order without respect.
There is a vast difference between teaching respect and courtesy and protecting a child.
Would you said to a toddler "Please don't touch that cooker darling", just before they touch it, or just say " NO" and then explain why?
|
>>There is a vast difference between teaching respect and courtesy and protecting a child.
I don't understand. They are two parts of raising a child, and both necessary.
There is a huge difference between ordering a child around rudely and protecting a child though.
>>Would you said to a toddler "Please don't touch that cooker darling", just before they
>>touch it
Pretty much. Probably something like "Please don't touch that cooker, its hot and you'll burn yourself". Of course, that's assuming that its not an emergency situation, which if I've been paying attention it usually won't be.
What would you do? Issue orders? Each to their own way, I guess.
|
>> >>my mum wouldn't have fannied about saying "please" ……. it was an
>> >> order to get back on the pavement - not a request.
>> >>
>>
>> That is discipline as it should be, and unfortunately is often sadly lacking.
No doubt when they asked "why" your answer would be "Because I said so"
That answer was crap when my parents gave it to me, as I child I knew it was crap, and that hasn't changed today.
There is a difference in STOP or NO or WAIT as a cry of warning, but not as orders. Children are not raw army recruits to be beaten into blind submission and rebuilt in your image.
|
>> As an example I heard a mother say to her child
>> "Will you come of the road, please, you'll get run over".
>> When I was a youngster, my mum wouldn't have fannied about saying "please" …….
>> it was an order to get back on the pavement - not a request.
>>
I always thought parents protected children from risk of " You will get run over"
My children were taught that when I said STOP they did so.
No negotiation or any of that touchy feely stuff !.
My children did sometimes get smacked and I have no regrets.
A smack was always with my right hand on a thigh.
Are they damaged for life ?
Quite a few parents seem to allow their children to scream as loud as they can when playing.
I am not against screaming with pleasure but I think an alarm scream is much more likely to be ignored.
|
>> Quite a few parents seem to allow their children to scream as loud as they
>> can when playing.
Quite right, they can scream as loud as they like when playing.
>> I am not against screaming with pleasure but I think an alarm scream is much
>> more likely to be ignored.
An alarm scream does not sound like a cry of joy
|
>>My children did sometimes get smacked and I have no regrets.
>>A smack was always with my right hand on a thigh.
>>Are they damaged for life ?
Not at all, and they learned a valuable lesson - you think hitting is ok if you do it.
>>Quite a few parents seem to allow their children to scream as loud as they can when playing.
I do, depending on environment of course. Why wouldn't you?
>>but I think an alarm scream is much more likely to be ignored.
Can't you tell the difference?
|
Just got back from town. As I thought, my last remark got the PC boys going ;-)
|
>> they learned a valuable lesson - you think hitting is ok if you do it.
That's a silly view. It assumes that children are the equals of adults in every way, and that they think that too. Actually they know damn well that they aren't equal to adults, and need guidance and to be kept in line.
Doubtless most of them survive this soppy indulgent attitude without becoming idiotically above themselves. But quite a lot move on into adult life with these ludicrous views, an unjustifiable excess of amour-propre. Haven't you come across any of those FMR?
Go on comrade, put me in my place. I'm sure I deserve it. But I won't take much notice.
|
>> - you think hitting is ok if you do it.
>> That's a silly view. It assumes that children are the equals of adults in every way, and that they think that too. Actually they know damn well that they aren't equal to adults, and need guidance and to be kept in line.
I don't mean to call you silly FMR, far from it. But I am conscious of having grown up in a different time from the majority here.
We were hit at home, but not at all often and not very hard, because our parents were intelligent folk who loved us. School of course was an entirely different matter, and physical terror was a daily reality there at times. I wasn't a good parent but one mellows with age and I am a much kinder grandparent. Even my children don't seem unduly scarred or battered by my capricious, immature behaviour.
At school everyone was in the same boat. At home though things were very variable. Most other families seemed pretty harsh and callous to me. But perhaps everyone feels that, an effect of strangeness.
|
>> We were hit at home, but not at all often and not very hard, because our parents were intelligent folk who loved us.
When I say 'hit' I mean of course spanked or slapped on the thigh or bottom, and as I said without any wish to actually cause pain.
Fortunately my parents were middle-class and progressive. The upper classes can be a bit different. A leading peer of the realm and owner of a truly beautiful great house used to be punched in the face by his choleric old brute of a father, and became something of a thug in his turn.
|
>> our work HR policy too - child in distress in the grounds, do NOT approach it in any way, call a number for a nominated person to deal with it.
I wouldn't even consider observing a rule of that sort, and I wouldn't hesitate to try to help a small child in distress in the street.
Any busybody who interfered or looked suspicious would be roundly abused just for a start. I'm good at that when in the mood.
|
|
Infants are basically little savages and need rules and boundaries.
|
BBD - your post has cheered me up. I've worked away a few days this week, come home and ended up getting stressed with the kids over several issues, plus youngest has tonsillitis.
Reading your post has adjusted my view from thinking that I've been an awful parent to thinking that perhaps I'm not that bad.
Its all to easy to get carried away with wanting to be popular rather than doing what's right
|
It's mine. You can't have any. I want it. - Manatee
