Elliot Temple

From: "Hazy_lilly" <hazy_lilly@...>


>
> *Ben is mad at Sue because she called him stupid.*
>
> Explain to Ben that Sue is mean and wrong. Explain
> that hitting her with
> the bat doesn't solve the problem. Ask Sue not to
> insult Ben anymore. If
> she does, keep her away from Ben. Compliment Ben so
> he feels better.
>
> *General form: Sue caused Ben distress.*
>
>
> I have a serious queston in regards to this situation.
> The Statement here " Explain to Ben That Sue is mean
> and wrong" sounds that it is ok to call Sue names.
> Sue could have had a reason for calling Ben stupid.
> He could of pulled her hair or he just showed up.

I was assuming that the information I gave is the entire situation. If you
add new things to the situation the answer will change. So Ben had not
done anything wrong to start. If he had, you need a new solution.


> Yes
> she did cause ben distress, but he obviously caused
> hers as well. Iwould think a parent would approach him
> and tell him that sue was angry and she hurt your
> feelings. Instead of stating that hitting her doesn't
> solve the problem how about stating it doesn't change
> what happened. It's ok to be angry but we cannot beat
> sue just because he is angry.
>
> Am i thinking still in TCS mentality of handiling the
> situation? I am really curious. I do understand that
> the example where just examples of possible answers.

The point of that one was that Sue was to blame. Ben did nothing wrong.
So, Sue is acting badly. Get rid of her if she is bothering Ben. Find
nice people. Critisize Sue's theories.

Many parents assume if there is a fight that both children did something
wrong and punish both. This never solves anything. I think they're just
too lazy to figure it out, or they weren't paying attention and don't know
what happened.

Also, making up examples of reasons for a child to hit another with a bat
is difficult because its so unrealistic. Kids don't do things for no
reason. So you're *actual* problems will be much more reasonable and
easier to solve.

> Thanks,
> Hazel

Elliot Temple

From: <Katedavislawfirm@...>


> Who's Ben? And why is Ben so much more important than Sue is in these
> "hypotheticals?" Whereas it is fine to cater to Ben's every ugly whim
and
> desire, and to avoid all "coercive behaviour" toward him, it seems to me
that
> poor little ugly stupid lice-ridden Sue is being trained well how to be a
> victim all her life. Where did this ridiculousness originate, anyway?

Ben is Olivia's child. They are both hypothetical. I was focusing on Ben
because she is Olivia's kid. Sue's problems are the domain of her own
parents.

The cooties were *not* lice they were the imaginary variety usually
prevented by "circle circle dot dot, now i have a cootie shot". Sheesh.

> Kate Davis

[email protected]

In a message dated 4/28/2002 5:58:22 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
curi@... writes:


> Sue's problems are the domain of her own
> parents.
>

Oh. I see. Remind me not to send my child to anybody who practices *this*
method of parenting, as, or so it would seem, *their* child would always
*win*.

Kate Davis


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Elliot Temple

From: <Katedavislawfirm@...>


> In a message dated 4/28/2002 5:58:22 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> curi@... writes:
>
>
> > Sue's problems are the domain of her own
> > parents.
> >
>
> Oh. I see. Remind me not to send my child to anybody who practices
*this*
> method of parenting, as, or so it would seem, *their* child would always
> *win*.

If Olivia had agreed to be responsible for Sue then she would help Sue too.
I didn't have anything about this in the scenario so I ignored it. I
didn't even give it a location. If you assume they are at Ben's house, and
that Olivia is the only adult present, and that Olivia is supposed to be
looking out for Sue, then of course she would help Sue. But if they are at
a playground and Sue's mom is there too, then Olivia doesn't need to worry
about it.

When you add information that wasn't part of the scenario you *will* change
the answers, and suddenly accuse me of neglekt and all sorts of bad things,
and I find this quite unfair of you.

[email protected]

In a message dated 4/28/2002 6:19:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
curi@... writes:


> When you add information that wasn't part of the scenario you *will* change
> the answers, and suddenly accuse me of neglekt and all sorts of bad things,
> and I find this quite unfair of you.
>

I have accused you of nothing, nor would I.

Kate Davis


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[email protected]

In a message dated 4/28/02 3:58:22 PM, curi@... writes:

<< The cooties were *not* lice they were the imaginary variety usually
prevented by "circle circle dot dot, now i have a cootie shot". Sheesh. >>

Sheesh. I knew it was just a rude insult. But telling a child "cooties
don't exist" when they do isn't very educational.

Sandra

Hazy_lilly

> situation.
> > The Statement here " Explain to Ben That Sue is
> mean
> > and wrong" sounds that it is ok to call Sue names.
> > Sue could have had a reason for calling Ben
> stupid.
> > He could of pulled her hair or he just showed up.
>
> I was assuming that the information I gave is the
> entire situation. If you
> add new things to the situation the answer will
> change. So Ben had not
> done anything wrong to start. If he had, you need a
> new solution.
>
>
> > Yes
> > she did cause ben distress, but he obviously
> caused
> > hers as well. Iwould think a parent would approach
> him
> > and tell him that sue was angry and she hurt your
> > feelings. Instead of stating that hitting her
> doesn't
> > solve the problem how about stating it doesn't
> change
> > what happened. It's ok to be angry but we cannot
> beat
> > sue just because he is angry.
> >
> > Am i thinking still in TCS mentality of handiling
> the
> > situation? I am really curious. I do understand
> that
> > the example where just examples of possible
> answers.
>
> The point of that one was that Sue was to blame.
> Ben did nothing wrong.
> So, Sue is acting badly. Get rid of her if she is
> bothering Ben. Find
> nice people. Critisize Sue's theories.



I understand that Sue is not acting appropriately,
butis it really healthy to criticise one child to
another. Is it right to teach Ben to blame others.
Wouldn't it be better to explain to a Ben that events
happen and even though we do not like it we accept it
and move on. Blame is something many adults suffer
from. I think it something that hinders society. I
also think critism is something that hinders society.
The reason I ask is because I thought the purpose of
TCS was also to produce an everloving peaceful adult
by raising them without coersion.

Hazel


>
> Many parents assume if there is a fight that both
> children did something
> wrong and punish both. This never solves anything.
> I think they're just
> too lazy to figure it out, or they weren't paying
> attention and don't know
> what happened.
>
> Also, making up examples of reasons for a child to
> hit another with a bat
> is difficult because its so unrealistic. Kids don't
> do things for no
> reason. So you're *actual* problems will be much
> more reasonable and
> easier to solve.
>
> > Thanks,
> > Hazel
>
>
>


=====
"When we make a choice we change the future" Deepak Chopra

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness
http://health.yahoo.com

Elliot Temple

From: "Hazy_lilly" <hazy_lilly@...>

>
> I understand that Sue is not acting appropriately,
> butis it really healthy to criticise one child to
> another.

Yes. Sue was wrong. It'd be unhealthy to lie (including by omission).

> Is it right to teach Ben to blame others.

When they are, in truth, to blame, then yes it is.

> Wouldn't it be better to explain to a Ben that events
> happen and even though we do not like it we accept it
> and move on.

No. Sue made a choice, and it was wrong. It'd be a lie to act like it was
fate. Also, it's a bad idea to accept bad things. TCS recommends that
people solve their problems.


> Blame is something many adults suffer
> from. I think it something that hinders society.

No. Bad theories is something many adults suffer from that hinders
society. These come from coercion. Hence TCS.

> I also think critism is something that hinders society.

How can any knowledge ever grow without criticism? It can't.

Is it OK to criticize murderers and rapists? Yes. Why? Because they are
immoral. So it must be OK to criticize other immoral people too, right?

> The reason I ask is because I thought the purpose of
> TCS was also to produce an everloving peaceful adult
> by raising them without coersion.

No, that is not the purpose. If the child would like to be an ever-hating
war-monger adult that would be eir choice. TCS parents don't try to shape
their children.

[email protected]

In a message dated 4/28/2002 2:52:36 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
curi@... writes:


> Many parents assume if there is a fight that both children did something
> wrong and punish both. This never solves anything. I think they're just
> too lazy to figure it out, or they weren't paying attention and don't know
> what happened.

This I agree with.
It is sometimes absolutely IMPOSSIBLE for the adult to figure it out though.
Sometimes there really isn't "fault" - it is just a true disagreement.
Sometimes one kid is just having a bad day and, even though it is their
"fault," they sure don't need to be punished. My personal way of handling it,
oftentimes, is to talk to the kids separately. I get to hear only one side at
a time, of course, but it just always seems to be useful to get them apart
and let each kid talk and talk. Once they get it all out, I can often say
something like, "Is there anything that you'd do differently if you could
start over?" Sometimes they're still too angry to think that way and they
say, "NO!!!" and they jump right back into justifying what they did do.
Sometimes they can say, "Yeah, I could have...." and they have some idea of a
different way to have handled whatever horrible thing it is that the other
kid did. Sometimes the kid can even go so far as to explain to ME how the
other kid was feeling and why they behaved the way they did. SOMETIMES I only
get to talk to one kid, because they leave me and go talk, themselves, to the
other kid and they resolve the problem together. Sometimes I meet with each
kid, they both are too angry to resolve the problem at that time, and I make
some kind of temporary decision myself.

Tomorrow, we are getting new chairs in our living room. One of our old chairs
is the one that I sat in and nursed all three kids -- they LOVE the chair.
They all want it moved into their room. This morning my 17 yo and my 11 yo
had a major screaming angry fight over it. I asked them to go to separate
rooms and I talked, first, to my 11 yo because she seemed most distraught.
After she "dumped" -- all her anger and frustration was out -- I said, "Well,
you BOTH really want that chair, do we have ANY possible solutions?" She
started in on "NO, I want it...." and I said, kind of in an excited tone of
voice, "Wait --- suppose there was some sort of trade off, maybe something
she could give you or do for you, that would make you willing to let her have
the chair. If there was such a thing, what might it be?" She came up with
maybe half dozen ideas. ONE was that the older kid would pay a $20 deposit
and then, when the older sister goes off to college (which is going to be in
a year or so), the chair would be hers. If there was any damage, she'd also
get to keep the $20. (This is pretty funny, considering this is a grubby old
worn-out 20-year-old chair, but what she's worried about is reasonable since
my older daughter does tend to ruin things - she writes on them, drips candle
wax on them, dribbles paint on them, etc.)

I also thought maybe I'd get the younger one some kind of cool special chair
- like one of those inflatable kid-size ones - just because she did end up
without the chair and she did really really want it so it was nice that she
was even willing to consider an alternative.

--pamS
Some of what is said here may challenge you, shock you, disturb you, or seem
harsh. But remember that people are offering it to be helpful and what feels
uncomfortable to you might be just what someone else needed to hear.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[email protected]

In a message dated 4/28/2002 3:19:29 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
curi@... writes:


> If Olivia had agreed to be responsible for Sue then she would help Sue too.
> I didn't have anything about this in the scenario so I ignored it. I
> didn't even give it a location. If you assume they are at Ben's house, and
> that Olivia is the only adult present, and that Olivia is supposed to be
> looking out for Sue, then of course she would help Sue. But if they are at
> a playground and Sue's mom is there too, then Olivia doesn't need to worry
> about it.
>

Not my kind of ethics. Not the kind I'm trying to shove down my kids'
throats, either <BEG>.

When my kid has a problem with another kid, I care about both kids and will
try to help them both. And that is true whether or not I am responsible for
the other kid or if their mom is there or not. And caring about the other
person, too, is what I want to model for my kids. Calling the other kid
names? Not worrying about the other kid? Talk about adversarial - whew - what
a way to think. I'm appalled.
--pamS
Some of what is said here may challenge you, shock you, disturb you, or seem
harsh. But remember that people are offering it to be helpful and what feels
uncomfortable to you might be just what someone else needed to hear.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hazy_lilly

--- Elliot Temple <curi@...> wrote:
> From: "Hazy_lilly" <hazy_lilly@...>
>
> >
> > I understand that Sue is not acting appropriately,
> > butis it really healthy to criticise one child to
> > another.
>
> Yes. Sue was wrong. It'd be unhealthy to lie
> (including by omission).

It is unhealthy to lie but explaining to Ben that sue
is having a mishap day is not lie. Explaining a child
that she is fustrated is acting out is not a lie.

Critisim is a destructive way and saying she is bad.
One word I do not like to put in the same sentence
with children. Ben will learn to criticize otherw
when he gets older. Critisims leads to no friendships.
No one in this world is perfect we have to except
people for who they are and the mistakes they have
made and if we can't we move on. I think this a better
solution. Of course this is my opinion. Ithink the
words your are using can be re phrased.
>
> > Is it right to teach Ben to blame others.
>
> When they are, in truth, to blame, then yes it is.

Her is thoery on blame. When we blame others we give
in to anger instead of excepting and preventing the
time there is an issue Anger builds fustration
especially in children because they are still learning
to control their feelings. Blaming others is another
way to feel better. There are better way than
blaming. It can cause a loss of self esteem
especailly if ben did something wrong because he will
blame himself. What good is blame if he can't handle
the solution.


I really thought TCS had something interesting,
unfortunately it seems that the consequences of the
issues were not thought out throughly. For every
event in our lives it leads to the outcome of an
adult.


Hazel



> > Wouldn't it be better to explain to a Ben that
> events
> > happen and even though we do not like it we accept
> it
> > and move on.
>
> No. Sue made a choice, and it was wrong. It'd be a
> lie to act like it was
> fate. Also, it's a bad idea to accept bad things.
> TCS recommends that
> people solve their problems.
>
>
> > Blame is something many adults suffer
> > from. I think it something that hinders society.
>
> No. Bad theories is something many adults suffer
> from that hinders
> society. These come from coercion. Hence TCS.
>
> > I also think critism is something that hinders
> society.
>
> How can any knowledge ever grow without criticism?
> It can't.
>
> Is it OK to criticize murderers and rapists? Yes.
> Why? Because they are
> immoral. So it must be OK to criticize other
> immoral people too, right?
>
> > The reason I ask is because I thought the purpose
> of
> > TCS was also to produce an everloving peaceful
> adult
> > by raising them without coersion.
>
> No, that is not the purpose. If the child would
> like to be an ever-hating
> war-monger adult that would be eir choice. TCS
> parents don't try to shape
> their children.
>
>


=====
"When we make a choice we change the future" Deepak Chopra

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness
http://health.yahoo.com