Recommended Posts

Dude, I'm just stirring the pot. :)  Simple fact is, you're dismissing one person's experience while accepting another person's experience, and discussing other (supposed) experiences compiled by people who claim to be citing something called science1.  It all looks the same from here (strangers' experiences).

1 I'm not claiming or declaiming anything about the original sites cited in the OP, I'm just saying it's a bunch of stuff put on the internet by people who are strangers to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, zil said:

Dude, I'm just stirring the pot. :) 

Then don't act surprised at the stirred pot. ;)

15 minutes ago, zil said:

Simple fact is, you're dismissing one person's experience

Actually, I'm not. Experience has it's place. It's just down the totem pole a bit further than I feel is being suggested by the, "You haven't been a parent so your views are less valid" implication.

15 minutes ago, zil said:

while accepting another person's experience

Actually, I'm not. I am not convinced of the method. I simply don't find the head-in-sand "I did it this way, me pappy did it this way, me grand-pappy did it this way, and that's good enough fer me" sort of replies useful.

15 minutes ago, zil said:

 It all looks the same from here (strangers' experiences).

I think it a bit of a stretch to imply that a professional's learned research based on studies done combined with hands on experience counts as "the same" as anyone else's experience.

Literally, what I'm dealing with is the consideration of a philosophy that is backed by extensive studies and resonates as logical to me against someone saying "My experience tells me otherwise". My point is simple. That person's experience doesn't get weighed as heavily because the ONLY thing it has going for it is that some stranger on the internet said it.

Edited by The Folk Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, zil said:

Dude, I'm just stirring the pot. :)  Simple fact is, you're dismissing one person's experience while accepting another person's experience, and discussing other (supposed) experiences compiled by people who claim to be citing something called science1.  It all looks the same from here (strangers' experiences).

1 I'm not claiming or declaiming anything about the original sites cited in the OP, I'm just saying it's a bunch of stuff put on the internet by people who are strangers to me.

Additionally, what is "scientific evidence", anyway.  Parenting is so much more than a scientific template.  Everything goes into it.  Tone, environment, culture, genetics, and the like all play a part in the development of a child.  I could try to follow the same template as you and experience different results.  

I also value the opinion of someone who has actually raised children more than those who haven't.  That doesn't mean I agree with them, but they have experienced it so we at least share the knowledge base.  For example, I saw a child of about 6 launch into a tirade in line at a fair this weekend, calling his father names.  His father ignored it until he saw me looking then told the child that isn't how they behave in public and he was going to throw him into the river if he kept it up.  He then let his kid have what he was ranting about.  I completely know what he's facing and or likely feeling in that moment, but completely disagree with how he handled it.  

My belief in which template should be used in parenting is probably unlike others.  Why?  Because my family is unlike others.  I'm different, my wife is different, and my children are different. People ask me how my children sit still in Sacrament and listen at their young age without something to entertain them.  I don't know how.  They're good kids and we've raised them well.  These are lessons and skills that will serve them well as adults.  We've adapted our parenting style to what works for us.  I do know this, though.  Kids need rules.  They need discipline.  Kids will be cruel to each other if allowed.  It is up to us to shape them.  Allowing them to believe there aren't swift and horrible consequences for some choices they may make in life is doing them a disservice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Actually, I'm not. I am not convinced of the method. I simply don't find the head-in-sand "I did it this way, me pappy did it this way, me grand-pappy did it this way, and that's good enough fer me" sort of replies useful.

2

You haven't received that from anyone here.  Your passive-aggressiveness came out when I disagreed.  In fact, I've said the opposite of what you've stated here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Grunt said:

You haven't received that from anyone here. 

Actually, the idea that parenting has been just fine in past generations was explicitly declared.

58 minutes ago, Grunt said:

Your passive-aggressiveness came out when I disagreed.  

I'm not passive-aggressive. I am aggressive. I want you to support your disagreement with more than just your say-so or I will claim it unworthy of regard -- nothing passive about it.

58 minutes ago, Grunt said:

In fact, I've said the opposite of what you've stated here.

Regardless, what you have said does not persuade.

You keep saying that you've backed up your ideas, so I've reviewed. Here's some of what you have said:

  • Kids need to learn to depend on themselves -- what's your source/logic for this? By what age? How does gentle parenting fail in teaching them this by the appropriate age?
  • Experience tells you reward/punishment produces better behaved children -- is experience your only support? Is the immediate behavior of children the only goal, or is teaching them the importance of doing things for the right reasons instead of external one, as gentle parenting suggests, valid?
  • A quote that amounts to saying "that bothers me" doesn't count as discipline - how so? Explain? Source? Definitions? I don't even necessarily disagree with you on this one, but you sure didn't support your claim with even an explanation.
  • That specific example defines the concept for you and you refuse to look past it -- This pretty much puts me into a state of considering everything else you say on the matter useless. It's like someone telling me that a quote from some random blogger who is a member of the church claims that homosexuals should be shunned proves the church is hateful. There's just so much wrong with that logic that I can't even hardly begin to address it if you don't get it in the first place.
  • Claims you understand the concept - no explanation - no backing - just a claim. If you understand the concept, prove it. Talk about it. Give me some bullet points and some explanations. You just saying you understand it again and again doesn't convince when you won't go into the details of what you understand and how it's wrong. You've given one quote that you criticize and claimed a generic "pass" on everything else.
  • More experience telling you that your approach is right.
  • Demanding that methods you consider not direct enough amount to permissive parenting -- once again -- no supporting logic, no source, just a claim. 
  • Some weird reply about the wages of sin being death that seems to have no connection to the matter at all. Want to bother to explain?
  • Respect first and foremost -- but in reply to teaching children respect implying a demand for respect from the parent -- can you support this?
  • Nothing wrong with just telling kids how it is going to be -- because they're kids - can you support this?
  • Parenting has been done correctly since Adam and Eve -- absolutely. - Can you support this?
  • Cultural and moral issues won't be solved by parenting styles -- no support.
  • etc...

So, as near as I can tell, you just keep claiming things and then claiming that you've given support but with no support other than your claims. If you really think this method is wrong or mistaken then explain it logically or with backing data and I'll listen. The experience card doesn't help. The simple "I disagree" type comments do not help. The "I'm a parent so I know" claims don't help.

Edited by The Folk Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of what people talk about the snowflake generation confuses me.  This idea that kids didn't get ribbons/medals for participation years ago is hogwash.  Back in the 1950s and 60s, all participants in many of the sports got medals.  The same held true in the 70s and 80s.  I didn't really have little kids in the 90s and later, so something must have changed in that time period.   From what I can tell, someone felt not everyone should get medals.  The current generation that didn't receive them then wouldn't be the snowflake generation, but perhaps the generation that was affected adversely from ONLY THE WINNERS being celebrated.

Now, obviously, once one got to high schools sports, normally not everyone got medals...but the REASON medals (or, more normally, ribbons) were given out to elementary age kids were two fold.

1) To encourage participation.  To get kids into sports.

2) To encourage kids to have fun, and when they get something, for some reason, even with adults, they have fun.

So...now you don't hand out ribbons/medals to any kid and what do you have...couch potatoes.  Yeah...some snowflake generation there...that's not snowflakes...that's called no one encourages the kids to exercise because they feel that they shouldn't have any incentive to the kids TO learn that sports can be fun.

In Farming and Ranching with 4A, they have a LOT of different ribbons for the kids.  There really isn't a need for THAT many ribbons, but it's the same principle...to encourage the kids.  Luckily we still have that practice (from what I've seen) or the US would be starving at this point.

I don't know where this idea that not everyone got something for participating when they were young in sports, farming, or otherwise.  Where I've been, that was never the case...OR...no one got anything (because it was simply put, too expensive and so not even the winners got anything special).  This entire...snowflake generation thing, as I said, is hogwash.  It's created by Generation X individuals who for some reason hate their elders, hate their youngsters, and are just angry at the world I think for not giving them the same ribbon when they are adults or something similar like that and want to take it out on kids.

Sure, when you get a certain age, you didn't get participation ribbons anymore, but that was because you would have hopefully learned the 2 lessons I listed above already.  If one wants to know one reason why we have the "couch potato" (rather than what I'd term the snowflake) generation today, it's because there is a LACK of acknowledging others participation as well as a lack of encouragement to do anything else.  We want to hog the entire limelight on ourselves, or those that win, instead of realizing that things are about WE, not just I.

In fact, the biggest problem today if we are going down that road isn't participation ribbons, but the lack thereof.  People want to glory on the individual, instead of seeing how EVERYONE can be a participant to the greater happiness.  It's a ME generation rather than a wanting to be special generation.  Participation encourages us to think about WE and how each individual participated and contributed.  Medals only going to the winner, which to me, for younger kids is a VERY recent phenomena...is an I generation.  I have no idea who came up with this...only the winners among the kids get a medal idea...but it's dang stupid in my opinion, and if it was practiced in part of the US at some time, made for some rather bitter kids.  Perhaps that was the start of the entire "I" generation right there...some kid in my generation got taught only the winners were special and could enjoy things...and things have gone focused on the individual instead of the group ever since.  (and it's possible some community was that self indulged in that type of attitude that this entire situation is where it came out from).

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

Yes, I agree. That's why the Gentle Parenting is so great.  Leading/teaching by example is a large part of my parenting philosophy.  For example, I taught my children to say "please and thank you" for the most part, by saying, "please and thank you," to them.   I taught them respect, but treating them with respect.  For example, the one time that my sons (two of my four sons) mouthed off to me, I gave him a death glare to make Darth Vader jealous, and said in a calm, controlled tone, "I don't treat you like that, you will not treat me like that."  I also took away their screens for a day to give them time to ponder that.  They didn't make that mistake again.  

 

One of our (my wife and I) best parenting choices was to invest in white water river running (rather than other boating like water skiing).   I liked white water rafting because it requires team work – which also requires the lessons of guiding (learning to guide – understanding the river and control or leadership of a team).  Mistakes could cause injury or even death.    We would outfit 60 for a week expedition and camping white water trip.  I could provide so many lessons and examples teaching examples.  I remember one teenager and a friend of my oldest son both of who were not sterling examples of good citizens as teenagers.   I have always required that life vests are worn at all times on the river (one of many unbreakable rules).  The teenager was unbuckling his vest because he thought it was too uncomfortable.   I turned to him a said, “keep your life vest on and tight – if this is too difficult for you we will pull over to the side and you can hike out by yourself or with anyone that wants to go with you.  You will not have another chance and if there is a problem with this or any other rule – you will not be invited ever again.  My son leaned over and said, “I told you not to mess with the rules – but the choice is yours – I won’t be getting out with you.)

Many times, I have told my children while training them to guide – that how a person was raised is most evident - from their laziness (work ethic) to responding to instructions.  I admit to prejudice but in many cases (not all) but often polite kids often are lazy and will not wear themselves out doing their part.  Some kids are two anxious and overwork themselves trying to be better than everyone else (usually raised with more physical methods).   Blending as a team to balance and keep a boat on the straight course is the most difficult thing to teach young kids (and even adults) in our society for running the river.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Actually, the idea that parenting has been just fine in past generations was explicitly declared.

I'm not passive-aggressive. I am aggressive. I want you to support your disagreement with more than just your say-so or I will claim it unworthy of regard -- nothing passive about it.

Regardless, what you have said does not persuade.

You keep saying that you've backed up your ideas, so I've reviewed. Here's some of what you have said:

  • Kids need to learn to depend on themselves -- what's your source/logic for this? By what age? How does gentle parenting fail in teaching them this by the appropriate age?
  • Experience tells you reward/punishment produces better behaved children -- is experience your only support? Is the immediate behavior of children the only goal, or is teaching them the importance of doing things for the right reasons instead of external one, as gentle parenting suggests, valid?
  • A quote that amounts to saying "that bothers me" doesn't count as discipline - how so? Explain? Source? Definitions? I don't even necessarily disagree with you on this one, but you sure didn't support your claim with even an explanation.
  • That specific example defines the concept for you and you refuse to look past it -- This pretty much puts me into a state of considering everything else you say on the matter useless. It's like someone telling me that a quote from some random blogger who is a member of the church claims that homosexuals should be shunned proves the church is hateful. There's just so much wrong with that logic that I can't even hardly begin to address it if you don't get it in the first place.
  • Claims you understand the concept - no explanation - no backing - just a claim. If you understand the concept, prove it. Talk about it. Give me some bullet points and some explanations. You just saying you understand it again and again doesn't convince when you won't go into the details of what you understand and how it's wrong. You've given one quote that you criticize and claimed a generic "pass" on everything else.
  • More experience telling you that your approach is right.
  • Demanding that methods you consider not direct enough amount to permissive parenting -- once again -- no supporting logic, no source, just a claim. 
  • Some weird reply about the wages of sin being death that seems to have no connection to the matter at all. Want to bother to explain?
  • Respect first and foremost -- but in reply to teaching children respect implying a demand for respect from the parent -- can you support this?
  • Nothing wrong with just telling kids how it is going to be -- because they're kids - can you support this?
  • Parenting has been done correctly since Adam and Eve -- absolutely. - Can you support this?
  • Cultural and moral issues won't be solved by parenting styles -- no support.
  • etc...

So, as near as I can tell, you just keep claiming things and then claiming that you've given support but with no support other than your claims. If you really think this method is wrong or mistaken then explain it logically or with backing data and I'll listen. The experience card doesn't help. The simple "I disagree" type comments do not help. The "I'm a parent so I know" claims don't help.

It wasn't explicitly declared as you stated it.  You're being dishonest and changing the narrative.  It was declared that parenting has been successful.  You couldn't refute that, so you tried to exchange parenting with culture.  Now you're saying I claimed parenting was mimicked between generations, which is something I never claimed.

Gentle parenting is nothing new.  Attachment parenting got a bad wrap so as the author YOU cited claimed, a better name was needed.  People have been laughing at it for quite some time. It likely gave us the entitled snowflakes we're dealing with now.  That's a recent occurrence, oddly occurring on similar timelines.  These are the opinions of people who have actually parented.  That's important, too.  It's easy to regurgitate the things you read online with no real understanding of the application.  That's why I value experience.  You don't have to.

The rest of your questions have answers, too.  Some of them are answered in previous links.  Others are mind-boggling, because the answers are obvious to most who have actually raised a child.  Most of your questions, though, fall in line with what I stated above.  They are a dishonest changing of the narrative.  Others are specific examples that you keep ignoring or put little emphasis on when intellectual honesty tells us the author upon which you place the weight of your argument CHOSE that example as an illustration of the mode of parenting you propose.  Now you claim to know more about what the author meant than the author itself?  That's bold.

I've given the support necessary.  Personal experience.  You don't need to like it.  You don't need to accept it.  But in a discussion about parenting styles, of which I've repeatedly claimed (regardless the number of times you've tried to change my narrative again) there are NO absolutes, everything stated is opinion.  

You have no experience upon which to form an opinion.  You talking about great ways to raise children is like me talking about the pain of childbirth.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Some of what people talk about the snowflake generation confuses me.  This idea that kids didn't get ribbons/medals for participation years ago is hogwash.  Back in the 1950s and 60s, all participants in many of the sports got medals.  The same held true in the 70s and 80s.  I didn't really have little kids in the 90s and later, so something must have changed in that time period.   From what I can tell, someone felt not everyone should get medals.  The current generation that didn't receive them then wouldn't be the snowflake generation, but perhaps the generation that was affected adversely from ONLY THE WINNERS being celebrated.

Now, obviously, once one got to high schools sports, normally not everyone got medals...but the REASON medals (or, more normally, ribbons) were given out to elementary age kids were two fold.

1) To encourage participation.  To get kids into sports.

2) To encourage kids to have fun, and when they get something, for some reason, even with adults, they have fun.

So...now you don't hand out ribbons/medals to any kid and what do you have...couch potatoes.  Yeah...some snowflake generation there...that's not snowflakes...that's called no one encourages the kids to exercise because they feel that they shouldn't have any incentive to the kids TO learn that sports can be fun.

In Farming and Ranching with 4A, they have a LOT of different ribbons for the kids.  There really isn't a need for THAT many ribbons, but it's the same principle...to encourage the kids.  Luckily we still have that practice (from what I've seen) or the US would be starving at this point.

I don't know where this idea that not everyone got something for participating when they were young in sports, farming, or otherwise.  Where I've been, that was never the case...OR...no one got anything (because it was simply put, too expensive and so not even the winners got anything special).  This entire...snowflake generation thing, as I said, is hogwash.  It's created by Generation X individuals who for some reason hate their elders, hate their youngsters, and are just angry at the world I think for not giving them the same ribbon when they are adults or something similar like that and want to take it out on kids.

Sure, when you get a certain age, you didn't get participation ribbons anymore, but that was because you would have hopefully learned the 2 lessons I listed above already.  If one wants to know one reason why we have the "couch potato" (rather than what I'd term the snowflake) generation today, it's because there is a LACK of acknowledging others participation as well as a lack of encouragement to do anything else.  We want to hog the entire limelight on ourselves, or those that win, instead of realizing that things are about WE, not just I.

In fact, the biggest problem today if we are going down that road isn't participation ribbons, but the lack thereof.  People want to glory on the individual, instead of seeing how EVERYONE can be a participant to the greater happiness.  It's a ME generation rather than a wanting to be special generation.  Participation encourages us to think about WE and how each individual participated and contributed.  Medals only going to the winner, which to me, for younger kids is a VERY recent phenomena...is an I generation.  I have no idea who came up with this...only the winners among the kids get a medal idea...but it's dang stupid in my opinion, and if it was practiced in part of the US at some time, made for some rather bitter kids.  Perhaps that was the start of the entire "I" generation right there...some kid in my generation got taught only the winners were special and could enjoy things...and things have gone focused on the individual instead of the group ever since.  (and it's possible some community was that self indulged in that type of attitude that this entire situation is where it came out from).

You think the lack of ribbons creates couch potatoes?   Odd.  My children don't sit on the couch and don't get ribbons.    Hmmmm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Grunt, you clearly have no interest in actually discussing the matter. I'm not going to talk to you further about it. Everyone else has been helpful even when disagreeing. You seem more interested in being right than in being helpful. You won't put any effort into understanding my thinking. This entire exchange has been nothing but a total waste of time. I am only lessened by the fact that I bothered to engage with you at all. That displeases me. So I am disengaging.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 

One of our (my wife and I) best parenting choices was to invest in white water river running (rather than other boating like water skiing).   I liked white water rafting because it requires team work – which also requires the lessons of guiding (learning to guide – understanding the river and control or leadership of a team).  Mistakes could cause injury or even death.    We would outfit 60 for a week expedition and camping white water trip.  I could provide so many lessons and examples teaching examples.  I remember one teenager and a friend of my oldest son both of who were not sterling examples of good citizens as teenagers.   I have always required that life vests are worn at all times on the river (one of many unbreakable rules).  The teenager was unbuckling his vest because he thought it was too uncomfortable.   I turned to him a said, “keep your life vest on and tight – if this is too difficult for you we will pull over to the side and you can hike out by yourself or with anyone that wants to go with you.  You will not have another chance and if there is a problem with this or any other rule – you will not be invited ever again.  My son leaned over and said, “I told you not to mess with the rules – but the choice is yours – I won’t be getting out with you.)

Many times, I have told my children while training them to guide – that how a person was raised is most evident - from their laziness (work ethic) to responding to instructions.  I admit to prejudice but in many cases (not all) but often polite kids often are lazy and will not wear themselves out doing their part.  Some kids are two anxious and overwork themselves trying to be better than everyone else (usually raised with more physical methods).   Blending as a team to balance and keep a boat on the straight course is the most difficult thing to teach young kids (and even adults) in our society for running the river.

 

The Traveler

Joint ownership is important.  I don't have a farm.  We have a farm.  We share in the work and share in the rewards.  Each of my young children asked for and accepted elements of the farm that they are personally responsible for.  It's rewarding to see them taking responsibility on their own.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, The Folk Prophet said:

@Grunt, you clearly have no interest in actually discussing the matter. I'm not going to talk to you further about it. Everyone else has been helpful even when disagreeing. You seem more interested in being right than in being helpful. You won't put any effort into understanding my thinking. This entire exchange has been nothing but a total waste of time. I am only lessened by the fact that I bothered to engage with you at all. That displeases me. So I am disengaging.

You keep saying I don't understand your thinking but as I've stated numerous times, that isn't true.  In fact, I've repeatedly stated I DO understand it and just provided links to establish that I've understood it for over a decade.

I think you just don't like the reality that someone disagrees with you and thinks less of your opinion on a topic because you have zero experience in it. 

Good luck.  I'll continue to respond......or not.....as needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just chiming in with my own observations on the matter of parenting. I've seen many different parenting styles work effectively and the same (or very similar) styles fail. Based on the situations I've observed the biggest obstacle to effectively managing behaviour is consistency. When parents are inconsistent in meting out discipline or when the child(ren) are in constant flux between mom's house, daycare, church, school and sometimes dad's house then the consistency is often undermined despite noble efforts on parent's and teacher's parts. 

A related point has to do with the idea of successful parenting, which may have entirely different meanings to different people. I've encountered some parents who seem to believe that the most important aspect of parenting is to provide what is needed for children to get ahead in the world, while others would focus on passing on moral teachings as more important than worldly gain. One point here being that it is interesting when I see a family that I feel is failing, but they think they are excelling because we have differing metrics of success. Perhaps, more importantly though is the idea of defining our objectives as parents so that we can measure success against them as opposed to some nebulous ill-defined idea of being a good parent and raising good kids.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, SpiritDragon said:

Just chiming in with my own observations on the matter of parenting. I've seen many different parenting styles work effectively and the same (or very similar) styles fail. Based on the situations I've observed the biggest obstacle to effectively managing behaviour is consistency. When parents are inconsistent in meting out discipline or when the child(ren) are in constant flux between mom's house, daycare, church, school and sometimes dad's house then the consistency is often undermined despite noble efforts on parent's and teacher's parts. 

A related point has to do with the idea of successful parenting, which may have entirely different meanings to different people. I've encountered some parents who seem to believe that the most important aspect of parenting is to provide what is needed for children to get ahead in the world, while others would focus on passing on moral teachings as more important than worldly gain. One point here being that it is interesting when I see a family that I feel is failing, but they think they are excelling because we have differing metrics of success. Perhaps, more importantly though is the idea of defining our objectives as parents so that we can measure success against them as opposed to some nebulous ill-defined idea of being a good parent and raising good kids.

 

Such a reasonable comment. Amazing. Someone thinking.

I find it funny that so much criticism gets thrown about when no one has, actually, spoken of their actual parenting goals directly. Because what you say is right on.

I actually try and stay away from viewing parenting as successful or not. I don't consider that useful in that, realistically, no one's parenting is "successful" in every regard. But that does not mean anyone's parenting is a failure either. The only real key to successful parenting, really, is the effort to parent well -- in my opinion. And, as you've pointed out, the expected end result can vary greatly. Moreover, if one person's goal is to raise their children as athiests and they do so, they would consider that successful...and from a certain point of view, it is. They achieved the goal they sought -- success.

But that, of course, is a different question -- which methods achieve which results better? And that, as you have pointed out, needs to be defined, result-wise, before one can state categorically that one's method is problematic.

Great post @SpiritDragon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/9/2017 at 7:21 AM, The Folk Prophet said:

Ah yes. I am who I am. There's nothing I can do about it. So why even try?

That is silly, of course.

Do you believe that Men are different from Women and individual men/women are different from other men/women?  If so, then why is it difficult to believe that they also have different approaches to raising children?  Why would you expect them to follow the same style?  Just because they're different doesn't mean they're not good.  You only try to change something if it's not good.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/9/2017 at 5:55 AM, LiterateParakeet said:

Has it though?  I mean I'm sure there are a lot of great parents out there, but some of us didn't have that privilege.  For me, a turning point was when my Seminary teacher said to our class, "You will become the same kind of parent that your parents are unless you consciously do something to change it."  That scared me to death.  My parents were abusive at the worst and neglectful at best.  I didn't want to perpetuate that behavior.  So I had to "teach" myself how to be a parent.  I did it by watching other families (perhaps that is what you were referring too?)  seeing what I liked, and what I did not like...and pondering how Heavenly Father parents us.   The result I came up with is very much like the Gentle Parenting described, though I didn't use that name because it wasn't around (to my knowledge) when my kids were young.  

Yes, it has.  Just because you didn't have great parents doesn't mean the template for good parenting does not exist nor been applied.  The Proclamation of the Family is just another one of those reminders that reinforces that template that is in existence from the beginning of time.  That is not trendy.  That is tried and true principles.  There's no need to go looking for trendy parenting.  BUILD A CLAN with gospel-centered family values.  The bigger that clan and the stronger the string that binds them, the better the chances of the children succeeding.  Your idea of "what worked for me" will become useless after you pass on.  Hopefully your children builds a tradition out of it.  But unless they're taught to respect and honor tradition, that gentle parenting flies off to the winds passing on as just another trend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Do you believe that Men are different from Women and individual men/women are different from other men/women?  If so, then why is it difficult to believe that they also have different approaches to raising children? 

Clearly, that depends on what you mean by "style". I would expect that being Christ-like, for example, is a style we should all be able to get behind and universally (as LDS) accept as proper parenting.

14 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Just because they're different doesn't mean they're not good. 

I'm not sure wherein you or anyone is interpreting my interest in the idea of Gentle Parenting as a judgement on other styles of parenting. Some serious chip-on-shoulder attitudes here -- which I suppose is not surprising when it comes to something as personal as parenting.

But good grief. I just found out about it, did some reading, liked some of the ideas, and presented it for discussion. I defend/explain why I like the ideas when they're challenged, of course, but I'm not against any other style or some sort of Gentle Parenting fanatic who's determined any other approach is evil and sinful. Why would you assume that?

17 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

You only try to change something if it's not good.

Well, this, of course, is false.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Yes, it has.  Just because you didn't have great parents doesn't mean the template for good parenting does not exist nor been applied.  The Proclamation of the Family is just another one of those reminders that reinforces that template that is in existence from the beginning of time.  That is not trendy.  That is tried and true principles.  There's no need to go looking for trendy parenting.  BUILD A CLAN with gospel-centered family values.  The bigger that clan and the stronger the string that binds them, the better the chances of the children succeeding.  Your idea of "what worked for me" will become useless after you pass on.  Hopefully your children builds a tradition out of it.  But unless they're taught to respect and honor tradition, that gentle parenting flies off to the winds passing on as just another trend.

"Trend" is a meaningless word here. It has no bearing on the matter at all. Whether something is a trend or not does not have anything to do with whether it is a good idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

"Trend" is a meaningless word here. It has no bearing on the matter at all. Whether something is a trend or not does not have anything to do with whether it is a good idea.

Trend is completely meaningful here.  Here today, gone tomorrow.  It's a trend.  This is another trendy thing come up by smart people who don't understand that families are larger than one parent/one child.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Trend is completely meaningful here.  

So when the fitness trend rose up it justifies ignoring it because it's a trend? And when fitness fades as a trend those who jumped on the bandwagon should then give up?

What does trendy or not have to do with whether being in shape is a good idea or not?

15 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

This is another trendy thing come up by smart people who don't understand that families are larger than one parent/one child.

Can we define trend here? Do you mean:

1. a general direction in which something is developing or changing.

or:

2. a fashion.

If you mean 1 then electricity was a trend. So are you suggesting that jumping on the electricity bandwagon was a mistake?

If you mean 2...well...electricity was also a trend, at one point.

Edited by The Folk Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Clearly, that depends on what you mean by "style". I would expect that being Christ-like, for example, is a style we should all be able to get behind and universally (as LDS) accept as proper parenting.

Well sure.  Except that "being Christlike" is not mentioned at all in the links you provided in the OP.  Being Christlike is the #1 requirement for ALL parents.  But each individual parent have their own path to Christian living built upon by their testimonies and experiences unique to that individual.

 

39 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I'm not sure wherein you or anyone is interpreting my interest in the idea of Gentle Parenting as a judgement on other styles of parenting. Some serious chip-on-shoulder attitudes here -- which I suppose is not surprising when it comes to something as personal as parenting.

I confessed I only read the OP and not any following comments after that.  So no, I don't think you're judging other parenting styles.  I am simply commenting on the inferiority of the articles you linked in parenting.  This is such a western thing though.  Where parenting is focused on one parent and one child instead of generations and generations of parents and children all sharing the same heritage as one family as is more common in eastern households.  So it is easier to write trendy parenting articles.  It's like what they say about beauty magazines - reading it makes you feel ugly.

 

39 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

But good grief. I just found out about it, did some reading, liked some of the ideas, and presented it for discussion. I defend/explain why I like the ideas when they're challenged, of course, but I'm not against any other style or some sort of Gentle Parenting fanatic who's determined any other approach is evil and sinful. Why would you assume that?

Good grief!  You must be talking about somebody else.  I never made any comment about YOU.  I made a comment about the articles which I found inferior.  How did it become about you???

39 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Well, this, of course, is false.

Conceded.  You can change something good to make it better.   I don't find the articles I read superior (better) especially since I believe it is built on the inferior foundation of one parent/one child without any acknowledgement of individual personalities and histories and no acknowledgment of cooperative rearing. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Well sure.  Except that "being Christlike" is not mentioned at all in the links you provided in the OP.  

Really?

"Where is the scripture that says that Jesus would hit (or spank, or swat, or pop) a child?  I posed that question on one of my posts over two years ago, and I’m still waiting for someone to take me up on it.  Show me the scripture.  Because from where I’m sitting, Jesus loved children, and was never anything but gentle, kind, and welcoming to any child he came in contact with.

"Being a Christian means lots of things to lots of people, but to me it means to love and follow Christ which translates to love, kindness and respect for ALL people.  And what better place to start than with our own children?"

"The word ‘discipline’ actually means “to teach”. Think of the stories of Jesus and his disciples (disciples being ‘those being taught’, stemming from the same root word as “discipline”). Would Jesus have been considered such a great teacher if he taught his disciples by yelling at them, sending them to another room, smacking them, ignoring them, shaming them, taking away their beloved items or making them sit on a prescribed spot or step?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • pam unfeatured this topic

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share