March 22, 2006
Why does this even need to be said?
It's so mind-bogglingly simple. Really. It is.
If you, as a parent, cannot get, say, your four-year old to do what you say without beating them with plumbing tubing or forcibly restraining them by wrapping them in sheets, you have a problem, you don't know how to parent your kid, and you need help.
If you cannot manage a young child's behavior without resorting to tools like this, the problem is you. You need help. Please, please get some.
If you cannot manage a baby without resorting to spanking and slapping, you need help. You're not doing it right, or well. No, you're not.
It's a shame that the commentor on this post is one of many who doesn't get the fact that yes, you can raise well-behaved kids with well-defined boundaries without resorting to the methods espoused by the Pearls in "To Train Up a
Dog Child." It might be easier to turn to punitive discipline, but it's so worth it to find another way. Can you imagine what Lynn Paddock feels about her discipline methods now?
If you own the Pearls' book, or the Ezzo book, please, throw it out the window (better yet, burn it) and go to Joanne'sPositive Discipline Resource Center instead.
Posted by lynx at March 22, 2006 3:56 PM
TrackBack URL for this entry:
The author of that comment visited my blog and called me wicked. If the opposite of her (in her mind) is wicked, than I proudly proclaim my wickedness :)
Posted by: COD at March 22, 2006 7:34 PM
"and go to Joanne's Positive Discipline Resource Centre instead"...or for an examination of seemingly the best theories about how knowledge grows, (a fundamentally Popperian analysis)which works superbly, you could try "Taking Children Seriously", at www.takingchildrenseriously.com
Posted by: Carlotta at March 23, 2006 6:56 AM
I want our children to grow up "without fear of authority"! I'm raising citizens of a free republic, not slaves to the government or some priest.
Posted by: Jeff Medcalf at March 23, 2006 7:47 AM
And while I'm thinking about it, what kind of sad excuse for a "Christian" doesn't realize that Christ himself abolished the Levitical Covenant for the New Covenant, with the Great Commandments? (For that matter, why is it that the "spare the rod" people are so caught up in that part of the old covenant, along with killing witches and such, but don't go a certain distance beyond the gates of town with a wooden paddle to bury their excrement? Are they just going to pick and choose what is relevant now, while proclaiming it's all still relevant?
Posted by: Jeff Medcalf at March 23, 2006 8:04 AM
Oh, no! Don't throw them out! They actually make great toilet paper in a pinch!
Posted by: Christine at March 23, 2006 8:55 AM
Minor quibble with calling it "To Train Up a Dog": no, I wouldn't treat a dog that way. As a matter of fact, there are few living things I would treat that way.
Posted by: GailV at March 24, 2006 1:39 PM
Proverbs 13:24 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
"He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes."
It's not levitical law to spare the rod, but rather a proverb. There might be something in a mitzpah, but I'll have to look at that more clearly.
I might also add that not all people who profess Jesus believe that the Law was abolished by Jesus himself. :) Admittedly, the majority do.
Posted by: susie at March 24, 2006 3:29 PM
There is at least one interpretation that holds "rod" to be the gospel itself. I.e. - raise your children in the gospel, don't beat them. Once again, all those durn biblical literalists can't realize what symbol and what's parable and what's symbol.
Posted by: queuno at March 26, 2006 11:29 PM
I have heard that the "rod" relates to the shepherd and the staff that guides the sheep. He doesn't strike the sheep, only guides them in the proper direction. So guidance is what is implied, not physical beating.
Of course, I could be off in that interpretation, but I like it:)
Posted by: Anne at April 6, 2006 9:23 AM