re: mistreatment of pets
Mary Hickcox
When I said my insecurity, I was not clinging to that it was abusive, I was just worried that it may be. I was trying to explain that it was my worries about it.
I guess Sandra I did not understand what you had said in your initial post "How bad was it? Was it a $15 chick specially bred?
One session with a psychologist costs more than the most expensive chick, I think. "-So this is why I explained that it was sad to us all so bad in that sense, I wasn't clear by what you wrote here what you were asking was so bad? Then you mentioned a psychologist so that is why I wondered if that was the advice you were giving there.
I don't understand at all from re reading the posts how you could construe what I said as not valuing my sons life or comparing it to a chicks. I was doing no such thing. My email was just in concern for what I could do to help. Admittedly I was feeling like maybe there was something more to it as my other 2 children did not mistreat animals so this is new to me. All i was trying to answer was that it was bad and sad that the chick died. I thought that was what you were asking me. The wording of your above quote just wasn't clear. Sorry for all the confusion.
I have gotten great advice all. Our doors are all open and animals roam free which normally works great. But we will re work some things in the house and help him and our animals be safe. I also loved the advice to help him see cues from the kitty or any animal that they need to have a break from us. That was very helpful today.
"We" do all love the chicks and the kitty and we were all sad. I am not sure why there is a problem with me stating that in a we manner as our entire household has to be a part of this. It effects all of us.
Also to be clear, I did not want to get mental help for my son, I was concerned after 1 person wrote me off list practically demanding that I should. So when Sandra used that word in sort of a confusing manner I was curious about others opinions.
Thank you everyone for your thoughtful ideas.
Marymama to Dylan (11), Colin (7) and Theo (3)
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I guess Sandra I did not understand what you had said in your initial post "How bad was it? Was it a $15 chick specially bred?
One session with a psychologist costs more than the most expensive chick, I think. "-So this is why I explained that it was sad to us all so bad in that sense, I wasn't clear by what you wrote here what you were asking was so bad? Then you mentioned a psychologist so that is why I wondered if that was the advice you were giving there.
I don't understand at all from re reading the posts how you could construe what I said as not valuing my sons life or comparing it to a chicks. I was doing no such thing. My email was just in concern for what I could do to help. Admittedly I was feeling like maybe there was something more to it as my other 2 children did not mistreat animals so this is new to me. All i was trying to answer was that it was bad and sad that the chick died. I thought that was what you were asking me. The wording of your above quote just wasn't clear. Sorry for all the confusion.
I have gotten great advice all. Our doors are all open and animals roam free which normally works great. But we will re work some things in the house and help him and our animals be safe. I also loved the advice to help him see cues from the kitty or any animal that they need to have a break from us. That was very helpful today.
"We" do all love the chicks and the kitty and we were all sad. I am not sure why there is a problem with me stating that in a we manner as our entire household has to be a part of this. It effects all of us.
Also to be clear, I did not want to get mental help for my son, I was concerned after 1 person wrote me off list practically demanding that I should. So when Sandra used that word in sort of a confusing manner I was curious about others opinions.
Thank you everyone for your thoughtful ideas.
Marymama to Dylan (11), Colin (7) and Theo (3)
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sandra Dodd
-=-"We" do all love the chicks and the kitty and we were all sad. I am not sure why there is a problem with me stating that in a we manner as our entire household has to be a part of this. It effects all of us.-=-
The problem of you writing in terms of "we" is that you had already separated yourself from your son in various ways, and then by saying "we" you're incorporating him back into sharing your thoughts.
Sometimes "we" is appropriate. Sometimes it's manipulative. Sometimes it's just not being clear about the idea that not all people in a family, or in any dyad, will feel the same intensity of emotion about something.
-=-Also to be clear, I did not want to get mental help for my son, I was concerned after 1 person wrote me off list practically demanding that I should. -=-
The Always Learning list doesn't exist so that people can write to posters off list practically demanding ANYthing.
The purpose is to have a group discussion, not a bunch of little side conversations. Joining this list or posting to it is not an invitation for private mail.
If anyone feels the need to write to people on the side, I'm assuming it's because they don't think their ideas would hold up in the discussion.
If people are receiving unwanted side mail, please feel free to forward it to me.
Sandra
P.S.
For anyone who finds this post a long time from now, it is one of three sets of posts that are getting separated.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AlwaysLearning/message/60316
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AlwaysLearning/message/60292
To keep something in the same archival thread, post as a response to one of the e-mails already written. "New subject" or "new post" will start a new topic.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
The problem of you writing in terms of "we" is that you had already separated yourself from your son in various ways, and then by saying "we" you're incorporating him back into sharing your thoughts.
Sometimes "we" is appropriate. Sometimes it's manipulative. Sometimes it's just not being clear about the idea that not all people in a family, or in any dyad, will feel the same intensity of emotion about something.
-=-Also to be clear, I did not want to get mental help for my son, I was concerned after 1 person wrote me off list practically demanding that I should. -=-
The Always Learning list doesn't exist so that people can write to posters off list practically demanding ANYthing.
The purpose is to have a group discussion, not a bunch of little side conversations. Joining this list or posting to it is not an invitation for private mail.
If anyone feels the need to write to people on the side, I'm assuming it's because they don't think their ideas would hold up in the discussion.
If people are receiving unwanted side mail, please feel free to forward it to me.
Sandra
P.S.
For anyone who finds this post a long time from now, it is one of three sets of posts that are getting separated.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AlwaysLearning/message/60316
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AlwaysLearning/message/60292
To keep something in the same archival thread, post as a response to one of the e-mails already written. "New subject" or "new post" will start a new topic.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Deb Lewis
***People draw the line somewhere. ***
Most people draw a line at the killing of pets. You don't need to hold a specific philosophy to find the death of a pet disturbing. Or to consider it somewhat more alarming than a broken dish or a stained carpet.
It's not about making the mom feel good. The responsibility for the whole situation, the death of one pet, mistreatment of another, mishandling of the situation and the mistreatment of the child, is entirely on the mother and father.
The situation as the mother described was questioning, stern talking, and too rough handling of the child and placing him in time out. None of that is good. An adult who mistreats a child is committing a worse offense than a child who has no understanding and mistreats an animal. Adults have the capacity to know better and a responsibility to do better. Did the child feel the mother valued the chick or kitten more in those moments than she did him? I can't know. But a child who can't yet understand about the careful treatment of other living things was probably not considering his mother's long term affection. He probably had no idea why she was going on about the chick, nor did he understand why he was being handled roughly and placed in time out. He was probably confused and distressed but not scarred from these two experiences as described by the mother.
If there is a pattern in the home that doesn't change, of the mom mistreating the child over pet issues, then that's a problem that could eventually result in a child feeling the mother values the pets above her child. That doesn't seem to be the case here according to the poster. Lots of people find ways to live with animals in their home without their children feeling the pets are more important. People find ways to have multiple children and help them all feel loved. There are ways to handle situations where a child is tormenting a sibling or repeatedly bothering a grandparent or sick person. None of those situations should be trivialized out of fear of making the child feel less loved. They can be resolved in thoughtful ways. It is not necessary to treat animals (or anyone else) with less consideration in order to bolster our children's sense of love.
This mom knew her little boy couldn't be gentle with animals and yet brought animals into the home and gave him opportunity to be alone with them. She should have avoided bringing the animals into the home for now. But there they are. So another approach is to keep the animals safe from a child who isn't ready to be handling them. How someone does that will depend on their situation, the size and layout of their home, their property, and on their resources and creativity. Don't set the child up to fail by allowing him access to the pets. He'll get older and they'll get bigger and the situation will change. And the next thing is to find better ways to handle supervised child/pet interactions and deal with problems. Talk to the child about what the pet likes or doesn't like. Talk (but don't lecture) about what can hurt or frighten the pet. If the child isn't gentle rescue the party at risk of injury. Remove the child from the situation. Not in a rough or punishing way. Don't lecture or berate him. If he cannot understand that rough handling causes pain and fear and distress to others he's not going to understand your scolding or punishment. Engage the child so he is happily away from the pets. Wait a good while before the next supervised child and pet interaction.
Deb Lewis
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Most people draw a line at the killing of pets. You don't need to hold a specific philosophy to find the death of a pet disturbing. Or to consider it somewhat more alarming than a broken dish or a stained carpet.
It's not about making the mom feel good. The responsibility for the whole situation, the death of one pet, mistreatment of another, mishandling of the situation and the mistreatment of the child, is entirely on the mother and father.
The situation as the mother described was questioning, stern talking, and too rough handling of the child and placing him in time out. None of that is good. An adult who mistreats a child is committing a worse offense than a child who has no understanding and mistreats an animal. Adults have the capacity to know better and a responsibility to do better. Did the child feel the mother valued the chick or kitten more in those moments than she did him? I can't know. But a child who can't yet understand about the careful treatment of other living things was probably not considering his mother's long term affection. He probably had no idea why she was going on about the chick, nor did he understand why he was being handled roughly and placed in time out. He was probably confused and distressed but not scarred from these two experiences as described by the mother.
If there is a pattern in the home that doesn't change, of the mom mistreating the child over pet issues, then that's a problem that could eventually result in a child feeling the mother values the pets above her child. That doesn't seem to be the case here according to the poster. Lots of people find ways to live with animals in their home without their children feeling the pets are more important. People find ways to have multiple children and help them all feel loved. There are ways to handle situations where a child is tormenting a sibling or repeatedly bothering a grandparent or sick person. None of those situations should be trivialized out of fear of making the child feel less loved. They can be resolved in thoughtful ways. It is not necessary to treat animals (or anyone else) with less consideration in order to bolster our children's sense of love.
This mom knew her little boy couldn't be gentle with animals and yet brought animals into the home and gave him opportunity to be alone with them. She should have avoided bringing the animals into the home for now. But there they are. So another approach is to keep the animals safe from a child who isn't ready to be handling them. How someone does that will depend on their situation, the size and layout of their home, their property, and on their resources and creativity. Don't set the child up to fail by allowing him access to the pets. He'll get older and they'll get bigger and the situation will change. And the next thing is to find better ways to handle supervised child/pet interactions and deal with problems. Talk to the child about what the pet likes or doesn't like. Talk (but don't lecture) about what can hurt or frighten the pet. If the child isn't gentle rescue the party at risk of injury. Remove the child from the situation. Not in a rough or punishing way. Don't lecture or berate him. If he cannot understand that rough handling causes pain and fear and distress to others he's not going to understand your scolding or punishment. Engage the child so he is happily away from the pets. Wait a good while before the next supervised child and pet interaction.
Deb Lewis
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
BRIAN POLIKOWSKY
<<<<<I don't understand at all from re reading the posts how you could construe
what I said as not valuing my sons life or comparing it to a chicks. I was
doing no such thing. My email was just in concern for what I could do to help.
Admittedly I was feeling like maybe there was something more to it as my other
2 children did not mistreat animals so this is new to me. All i was trying to
answer was that it was bad and sad that the chick died. I thought that was what
you were asking me.>>>>>>
You are still hanging on to "mistreating" after so many people have said it
normal for young children to "mishandle" animals.
Mistreatment implies that the child wants to hurt the animal. Mishandling does
not mean the child intends to hurt the animal.
I am sure everyone is sad the chick is dead. I was sad when I killed my chicks
but I did not mistreat them.
When you write and use words that imply your child is intentionally harming
animals and many people point out that
they are accidents common to young children handling animals and you still hang
on to the idea that your child IS in fact intentionally
hurting animals that is a problem.
Alex Polikowsky
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
what I said as not valuing my sons life or comparing it to a chicks. I was
doing no such thing. My email was just in concern for what I could do to help.
Admittedly I was feeling like maybe there was something more to it as my other
2 children did not mistreat animals so this is new to me. All i was trying to
answer was that it was bad and sad that the chick died. I thought that was what
you were asking me.>>>>>>
You are still hanging on to "mistreating" after so many people have said it
normal for young children to "mishandle" animals.
Mistreatment implies that the child wants to hurt the animal. Mishandling does
not mean the child intends to hurt the animal.
I am sure everyone is sad the chick is dead. I was sad when I killed my chicks
but I did not mistreat them.
When you write and use words that imply your child is intentionally harming
animals and many people point out that
they are accidents common to young children handling animals and you still hang
on to the idea that your child IS in fact intentionally
hurting animals that is a problem.
Alex Polikowsky
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
BRIAN POLIKOWSKY
I wanted to add that it is the parents responsability to keep the pets safe and
not the child.
If you cannot keep those pets safe then you should not have them.
If your chicks are free ranging outside and a racoon kills them it was your
responsability to keep them
safe from predators.
Alex Polikowsky
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
not the child.
If you cannot keep those pets safe then you should not have them.
If your chicks are free ranging outside and a racoon kills them it was your
responsability to keep them
safe from predators.
Alex Polikowsky
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sandra Dodd
-=-If your chicks are free ranging outside and a racoon kills them it was your
responsability to keep them
safe from predators.-=-
Not to say (I hope; I shouldn't be speaking for Alex) that your son was a predator.
And not to say that if a raccoon gets a chicken it is 1) abusing, 2) mistreating or 3) mishandling it.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
responsability to keep them
safe from predators.-=-
Not to say (I hope; I shouldn't be speaking for Alex) that your son was a predator.
And not to say that if a raccoon gets a chicken it is 1) abusing, 2) mistreating or 3) mishandling it.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Jenny Cyphers
***I don't understand at all from re reading the posts how you could construe
what I said as not valuing my sons life or comparing it to a chicks. I was
doing no such thing. My email was just in concern for what I could do to
help.***
I get what Sandra is saying. It's about putting the whole incident in
perspective. What is the value of a baby chick's life? What is the value of a
child's peace? If a chick's life comes at the expense of the peace of a child,
than there IS a comparison to be made. A baby chick is a baby chick is a baby
chick. A moment in a child's life where mom is so upset that it disrupts the
peace of a child is bigger than that baby chick.
That is why you wrote. You know that how you responded to your child could be
better. Life is valuable, even a baby chick's life, but animals die all the
time. It could have just as easily been killed by a kitten.
***I am not sure why there is a problem with me stating that in a we manner as
our entire household has to be a part of this. It effects all of us.***
Perhaps you don't do this, BUT there are plenty of moms who do.... "we" is often
a reference to what mom wants and implements for the entire family. The family
goes along with it, often, because there is no reason not to. After all, moms
have all the control over a young child from the moment they are born. As that
child grows and ages, they will seek independence and that never goes away. I
have seen kids go along with whatever it is their moms say because it's easier
than disagreeing or voicing another opinion.
***Also to be clear, I did not want to get mental help for my son, I was
concerned after 1 person wrote me off list practically demanding that I
should.***
Is this person someone that you have a great deal of respect for? The advice
and opinions of others, just like the life of animals, are weighted and judged.
Some opinions and advice are worth taking and some are not. Some animals are
worth saving and some are not.
I know others have given lots of stories of harming chicks accidentally. My
parents used to keep chickens. They'd bring the babies into the house and care
for them. One year, they did this and put the chicks out after what they
considered a suitable time, only to have them all get killed by other animals,
the dogs, and a snake. The chickens were in an enclosed area too, with a hen
house. Sometimes animals die, it's a sad and inevitable part of life, one that
can be avoided at times, but not always.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
what I said as not valuing my sons life or comparing it to a chicks. I was
doing no such thing. My email was just in concern for what I could do to
help.***
I get what Sandra is saying. It's about putting the whole incident in
perspective. What is the value of a baby chick's life? What is the value of a
child's peace? If a chick's life comes at the expense of the peace of a child,
than there IS a comparison to be made. A baby chick is a baby chick is a baby
chick. A moment in a child's life where mom is so upset that it disrupts the
peace of a child is bigger than that baby chick.
That is why you wrote. You know that how you responded to your child could be
better. Life is valuable, even a baby chick's life, but animals die all the
time. It could have just as easily been killed by a kitten.
***I am not sure why there is a problem with me stating that in a we manner as
our entire household has to be a part of this. It effects all of us.***
Perhaps you don't do this, BUT there are plenty of moms who do.... "we" is often
a reference to what mom wants and implements for the entire family. The family
goes along with it, often, because there is no reason not to. After all, moms
have all the control over a young child from the moment they are born. As that
child grows and ages, they will seek independence and that never goes away. I
have seen kids go along with whatever it is their moms say because it's easier
than disagreeing or voicing another opinion.
***Also to be clear, I did not want to get mental help for my son, I was
concerned after 1 person wrote me off list practically demanding that I
should.***
Is this person someone that you have a great deal of respect for? The advice
and opinions of others, just like the life of animals, are weighted and judged.
Some opinions and advice are worth taking and some are not. Some animals are
worth saving and some are not.
I know others have given lots of stories of harming chicks accidentally. My
parents used to keep chickens. They'd bring the babies into the house and care
for them. One year, they did this and put the chicks out after what they
considered a suitable time, only to have them all get killed by other animals,
the dogs, and a snake. The chickens were in an enclosed area too, with a hen
house. Sometimes animals die, it's a sad and inevitable part of life, one that
can be avoided at times, but not always.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Deb Lewis
***What is the value of a baby chick's life? What is the value of a
child's peace? If a chick's life comes at the expense of the peace of a child,
than there IS a comparison to be made.***
There are times when a child's momentary peace is not the biggest consideration. My brother used to love to bother me. If my mom had given more consideration to his peace and happiness in the moment than to my physical comfort that wouldn't have been cool.
But shaming and punishing a toddler after an event is pointless and cruel. Shame and punishment can't restore a dead chick or save future chicks. It can't help the child understand when he's not able. Being proactive remains the most effective way to help family members (and pets) be safe and happy.
Deb Lewis
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
child's peace? If a chick's life comes at the expense of the peace of a child,
than there IS a comparison to be made.***
There are times when a child's momentary peace is not the biggest consideration. My brother used to love to bother me. If my mom had given more consideration to his peace and happiness in the moment than to my physical comfort that wouldn't have been cool.
But shaming and punishing a toddler after an event is pointless and cruel. Shame and punishment can't restore a dead chick or save future chicks. It can't help the child understand when he's not able. Being proactive remains the most effective way to help family members (and pets) be safe and happy.
Deb Lewis
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Mary Hickcox
I changed it to mistreating as Sandra had said. It is so frustrating to be nitpicked for every single word used. I am trying to not be offended by some of the very judgemental things people have said but it seems nearly impossible. I have gotten some great advice and believe me I do not love my animals more then my children...how ridiculous really! But animals lives are valuable too. I also said I was rough but I did not mean physically. I did not roughly put him in time out but for us even using a time out feels like a rough type of thing. I just wanted to clarify that.
The definition of mistreat is...To treat roughly or wrongly. I stand by that as my son was not at fault but it was rough and it was wrong. I didn't say he was knowingly wrong or being rough on purpose. I also stand by the word "we", and do not feel I was separating myself from my son. My animals were here before he was and I also have other people in the house and want to meet their needs and wants ie..wanting a kitty, or dog, or whatever. I do not feel irresponsible in having them in the home although him being unattended was not a good thing. They were not locked in a room together it was outdoors, and I was not the one here. Sometimes things seem to be fine and then they are not, it cannot always be helped! Now I know and it won't happen again, that is for sure:)
Mary mama to Dylan (11), Colin (7) and Theo (3)
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
The definition of mistreat is...To treat roughly or wrongly. I stand by that as my son was not at fault but it was rough and it was wrong. I didn't say he was knowingly wrong or being rough on purpose. I also stand by the word "we", and do not feel I was separating myself from my son. My animals were here before he was and I also have other people in the house and want to meet their needs and wants ie..wanting a kitty, or dog, or whatever. I do not feel irresponsible in having them in the home although him being unattended was not a good thing. They were not locked in a room together it was outdoors, and I was not the one here. Sometimes things seem to be fine and then they are not, it cannot always be helped! Now I know and it won't happen again, that is for sure:)
Mary mama to Dylan (11), Colin (7) and Theo (3)
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sandra Dodd
-=-I changed it to mistreating as Sandra had said. -=-
-=-One tweak will help for starters, I think. I changed (just on my response, it won't change the whole topic) "abusing" to "mishandling."-=-
From: Mary Hickcox <disser420@...>
Subject: [AlwaysLearning] Child abusing pets
From: Sandra Dodd <Sandra@...>
Subject: Re: [AlwaysLearning] Child mishandling pets
When you wrote to me accidentally instead of the list, I sent it back with this note:
Subject: In case you want to post this, open one of the e-mails in that thread, and cut and paste this as a response
You didn't open one of the e-mails in the thread. You started a new topic, and called it
From: Mary Hickcox <disser420@...>
Subject: [AlwaysLearning] re: mistreatment of pets
Abuse involves intent. Meanness.
So does mistreatment.
Mishandling does not.
You still didn't understand why I wanted it changed to "mishandling." I wrote "mishandling" (which others responded to ten times) and you saw "mistreatment."
Words do matter. We're trying to help you see your child in a more compassionate way, but you're insisting on accusing him of purposely harming animals.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
-=-One tweak will help for starters, I think. I changed (just on my response, it won't change the whole topic) "abusing" to "mishandling."-=-
From: Mary Hickcox <disser420@...>
Subject: [AlwaysLearning] Child abusing pets
From: Sandra Dodd <Sandra@...>
Subject: Re: [AlwaysLearning] Child mishandling pets
When you wrote to me accidentally instead of the list, I sent it back with this note:
Subject: In case you want to post this, open one of the e-mails in that thread, and cut and paste this as a response
You didn't open one of the e-mails in the thread. You started a new topic, and called it
From: Mary Hickcox <disser420@...>
Subject: [AlwaysLearning] re: mistreatment of pets
Abuse involves intent. Meanness.
So does mistreatment.
Mishandling does not.
You still didn't understand why I wanted it changed to "mishandling." I wrote "mishandling" (which others responded to ten times) and you saw "mistreatment."
Words do matter. We're trying to help you see your child in a more compassionate way, but you're insisting on accusing him of purposely harming animals.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sandra Dodd
-=- It is so frustrating to be nitpicked for every single word used. I am trying to not be offended by some of the very judgemental things people have said but it seems nearly impossible.-=-
It is frustrating for others to feel you're not reading what they write, since you asked for help, and were offered a great deal of it, generously and freely.
Do you think we were more "judgmental" of you than you were of your child? Than you are being of your child? Do you think your feelings are hurt more than your poor son's feelings are hurt after you've treated him harshly and told a thousand strangers he's an abuser of animals?
-=- I also stand by the word "we", and do not feel I was separating myself from my son-=-
You have said he was rough and it was wrong.
You said in the same paragraph, of yourself:
"I also said I was rough but I did not mean physically. I did not roughly put him in time out but for us even using a time out feels like a rough type of thing. "
You defended your roughness. You denied roughness you had admitted. Then you went on to assure us that your child was rough and wrong.
-=- I also stand by the word "we", and do not feel I was separating myself from my son. -=-
I'm sorry you can't feel it, and that you can't see it when it's pointed out. It's visible in cut-and-paste form.
-=- I do not feel irresponsible in having them in the home although him being unattended was not a good thing.-=-
That sentence has a lot of negative words. I'm going to pick through that, and because you posted it on a list I own, you're going to let me do that without saying it's ridiculous, okay?
1) do not
2) irresponsible
3) unattended
4) not a good thing
That's all in one sentence.
You could say That making sure he is attended would be a good thing. How could the first part be turned around to be more positive?
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
It is frustrating for others to feel you're not reading what they write, since you asked for help, and were offered a great deal of it, generously and freely.
Do you think we were more "judgmental" of you than you were of your child? Than you are being of your child? Do you think your feelings are hurt more than your poor son's feelings are hurt after you've treated him harshly and told a thousand strangers he's an abuser of animals?
-=- I also stand by the word "we", and do not feel I was separating myself from my son-=-
You have said he was rough and it was wrong.
You said in the same paragraph, of yourself:
"I also said I was rough but I did not mean physically. I did not roughly put him in time out but for us even using a time out feels like a rough type of thing. "
You defended your roughness. You denied roughness you had admitted. Then you went on to assure us that your child was rough and wrong.
-=- I also stand by the word "we", and do not feel I was separating myself from my son. -=-
I'm sorry you can't feel it, and that you can't see it when it's pointed out. It's visible in cut-and-paste form.
-=- I do not feel irresponsible in having them in the home although him being unattended was not a good thing.-=-
That sentence has a lot of negative words. I'm going to pick through that, and because you posted it on a list I own, you're going to let me do that without saying it's ridiculous, okay?
1) do not
2) irresponsible
3) unattended
4) not a good thing
That's all in one sentence.
You could say That making sure he is attended would be a good thing. How could the first part be turned around to be more positive?
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
christinebgilbert
How can it be wrong, if there is no intent? If a raccoon eats a chick is it right or wrong? If your child is too little to know what he's doing, is he doing something wrong?
I think the point of looking at your words is to help you see how your perception of the situation changes the entire outcome. If you saw the dead chick and said to yourself, "Oh no, this is so sad." Then you quietly moved the chick away from your son, and made a mental note that you can not risk leaving him alone with the animals because you now realize that he isn't old enough to play gently with them -- then nothing would have changed -- the chick would still be dead, your son would still need supervision around the animals and you'd still be sad -- but your relationship with your son would be better. Maybe for you, in that moment, it wasn't possible to have that clarity, and so you came here, but now you can control how you think and talk about that incident and how you react in the future.
--Christine
I think the point of looking at your words is to help you see how your perception of the situation changes the entire outcome. If you saw the dead chick and said to yourself, "Oh no, this is so sad." Then you quietly moved the chick away from your son, and made a mental note that you can not risk leaving him alone with the animals because you now realize that he isn't old enough to play gently with them -- then nothing would have changed -- the chick would still be dead, your son would still need supervision around the animals and you'd still be sad -- but your relationship with your son would be better. Maybe for you, in that moment, it wasn't possible to have that clarity, and so you came here, but now you can control how you think and talk about that incident and how you react in the future.
--Christine
--- In [email protected], Mary Hickcox <disser420@...> wrote:
>
> I changed it to mistreating as Sandra had said. It is so frustrating to be nitpicked for every single word used. I am trying to not be offended by some of the very judgemental things people have said but it seems nearly impossible. I have gotten some great advice and believe me I do not love my animals more then my children...how ridiculous really! But animals lives are valuable too. I also said I was rough but I did not mean physically. I did not roughly put him in time out but for us even using a time out feels like a rough type of thing. I just wanted to clarify that.
> The definition of mistreat is...To treat roughly or wrongly. I stand by that as my son was not at fault but it was rough and it was wrong. I didn't say he was knowingly wrong or being rough on purpose. I also stand by the word "we", and do not feel I was separating myself from my son. My animals were here before he was and I also have other people in the house and want to meet their needs and wants ie..wanting a kitty, or dog, or whatever. I do not feel irresponsible in having them in the home although him being unattended was not a good thing. They were not locked in a room together it was outdoors, and I was not the one here. Sometimes things seem to be fine and then they are not, it cannot always be helped! Now I know and it won't happen again, that is for sure:)
>
>
>
> Mary mama to Dylan (11), Colin (7) and Theo (3)
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Joyce Fetteroll
On Mar 21, 2011, at 5:36 PM, Mary Hickcox wrote:
like inside someone. Those are the ideas it will connect to.
If it's generally used for behavior that feels purposely mean, it will
connect to other ideas in someone's head about purposely done meanness.
My feeling is mistreat is paired more with abuse (which is deliberate)
than with mishandle (which is accidental or unaware). (My dictionary
defines it as treat badly, cruelly or unfairly which feel like choices
to me.)
Rough isn't an absolute. Rough on a chick won't be at all rough on a
punching bag. And "too rough", meaning enough to hurt, requires enough
experience with the world to understand what kind of handling things
can take and an understanding of the permanence of damage or empathy
with another creature which is beyond the ability of many 3 yos.
How can your son be wrong if he isn't capable of understanding? You
judge his actions as wrong and you can arrange his world so that he
doesn't inadvertently do what you feel is wrong again. This applies to
anything a mom judges as wrong: hitting a sibling, eating pork,
wearing shoes in the house. But until he's capable of understanding,
he can't choose to do wrong. That's part of the view point shift
people are trying to help you see.
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> The definition of mistreat is...To treat roughly or wrongly. IHow do people generally use mistreat? That's the meaning it will feel
> stand by that as my son was not at fault but it was rough and it was
> wrong. I didn't say he was knowingly wrong or being rough on purpose.
like inside someone. Those are the ideas it will connect to.
If it's generally used for behavior that feels purposely mean, it will
connect to other ideas in someone's head about purposely done meanness.
My feeling is mistreat is paired more with abuse (which is deliberate)
than with mishandle (which is accidental or unaware). (My dictionary
defines it as treat badly, cruelly or unfairly which feel like choices
to me.)
Rough isn't an absolute. Rough on a chick won't be at all rough on a
punching bag. And "too rough", meaning enough to hurt, requires enough
experience with the world to understand what kind of handling things
can take and an understanding of the permanence of damage or empathy
with another creature which is beyond the ability of many 3 yos.
How can your son be wrong if he isn't capable of understanding? You
judge his actions as wrong and you can arrange his world so that he
doesn't inadvertently do what you feel is wrong again. This applies to
anything a mom judges as wrong: hitting a sibling, eating pork,
wearing shoes in the house. But until he's capable of understanding,
he can't choose to do wrong. That's part of the view point shift
people are trying to help you see.
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Joyce Fetteroll
On Mar 22, 2011, at 9:11 AM, Joyce Fetteroll wrote:
what people are saying. That's a big step in getting rid of some of
the baggage. But there's also an emotional understanding where you
feel the rightness of an idea, not just understand the rightness of an
idea. Then you'll be able to grasp what the world looks like from
inside of him and why his choices seem right to him and why he can't
grasp that they're wrong even if it's explained.
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> How can your son be wrong if he isn't capable of understanding?Some further thoughts: I think maybe you intellectually understand
what people are saying. That's a big step in getting rid of some of
the baggage. But there's also an emotional understanding where you
feel the rightness of an idea, not just understand the rightness of an
idea. Then you'll be able to grasp what the world looks like from
inside of him and why his choices seem right to him and why he can't
grasp that they're wrong even if it's explained.
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Patricia Platt
I have a true story that, I hope, may help you release yourself from your suffering. A woman in my town used to leave her sons in the care of a family who lived on a farm. It seemed like a wholesome and idyllic arrangement until a tractor tire fell over on her 3 year old son on the farm one day. His little spine was crushed, and he died in the ambulance on the way to the hospital. The mother of the toddler was shattered with grief and could never accept that the caregivers had not "killed" her son, even though they had not foreseen that the huge tire would fall and kill the boy, and even though they themselves were also clearly shattered by grief. Her bitterness and blaming did not bring her little boy back to life, of course. But they did make her toxic to herself and everyone around her. So..., be grateful that your little son is healthy and alive. Like the chick, he is very little and fragile. Cherish every day that the universe has given you to spend with your son. Believe that your son is as innocent as that chick (and chicks in pens do step on each other and break each other's necks all the time). And, although it is a platitude, remember that accidents do happen. If an adult had accidentally killed the chick (e.g., by tripping and falling when holding it), would you be able to forgive? Or would you choose to amplify everyone's suffering by blaming? Sometimes we blame others as adults because we were unfairly blamed or shamed as children. You can't change what has happened in the past, but you can reframe the situation and change your response now. Out of the darkness, light....
Namaste,
Patricia
Namaste,
Patricia
--- In [email protected], Mary Hickcox <disser420@...> wrote:
>
> I changed it to mistreating as Sandra had said. �It is so frustrating to be nitpicked for every single word used. �I am trying to not be offended by some of the very judgemental things people have said but it seems nearly impossible. �I have gotten some great advice and believe me I do not love my animals more then my children...how ridiculous really! �But animals lives are valuable too. �I also said I was rough but I did not mean physically. �I did not roughly put him in time out but for us even using a time out feels like a rough type of thing. �I just wanted to clarify that.
> The definition of mistreat is...To treat roughly or wrongly. �I stand by that as my son was not at fault but it was rough and it was wrong. �I didn't say he was knowingly wrong or being rough on purpose. �I also stand by the word "we", �and do not feel I was separating myself from my son. �My animals were here before he was and I also have other people in the house and want to meet their needs and wants ie..wanting a kitty, or dog, or whatever. �I do not feel irresponsible in having them in the home although him being unattended was not a good thing. �They were not locked in a room together it was outdoors, and I was not the one here. �Sometimes things seem to be fine and then they are not, it cannot always be helped! �Now I know and it won't happen again, that is for sure:)
>
>
>
> Mary mama to Dylan (11), Colin (7) and�Theo (3)
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
aldq75
-=- Sometimes we blame others as adults because we were unfairly blamed or shamed as children. -=-
Completely separate from the pet issue, I have been thinking about blame lately and wondering why so many adults seem blame others for their problems instead of "owning" their part in the situation. Thank you so much, Patricia, for sharing this.
Andrea Q
Completely separate from the pet issue, I have been thinking about blame lately and wondering why so many adults seem blame others for their problems instead of "owning" their part in the situation. Thank you so much, Patricia, for sharing this.
Andrea Q
--- In [email protected], "Patricia Platt" <pnplatt@...> wrote:
>
If an adult had accidentally killed the chick (e.g., by tripping and falling when holding it), would you be able to forgive? Or would you choose to amplify everyone's suffering by blaming? Sometimes we blame others as adults because we were unfairly blamed or shamed as children. You can't change what has happened in the past, but you can reframe the situation and change your response now. Out of the darkness, light....
>
> Namaste,
> Patricia