Jani's at the mercy of her mind

[chiggerbit]

If it means just leaving the child in peace for a few minutes, with the child's full and free consent and agreement, then nothing's wrong with it; on the contrary. More commonly, though, it means ordering the child to go her room for a period of time to be decided arbitrarily by the commanding officer, i.e. the parent. And that will tend to produce very bad habits in the child, such as repression of her own feelings, guilt, resignation, and unquestioning obedience to authority.

A child who is "throwing a tantrum"* is never doing so for no reason.

Are you a product of this style of parenting, Mac?

[Nordic]

A child who is "throwing a tantrum"* is never doing so for no reason.
]

You don't have kids, do you?

Listen, kids often throw temper tantrums because they're tired, hungry, some combination of the above. Usually you just have to ignore them when they do this, or try to get them to sleep, or get some food down their gullets.

But they will do it for almost no reason at all. It usually involves not getting their way, and their way can be anything, can be some demand that is completely unreasonable or unrealistic. Often it can involve wanting to watch something on TV, and having the parent just saying "NO".

[MacCruiskeen]

A child who is "throwing a tantrum"* is never doing so for no reason.

You don't have kids, do you?

Yes, I do. One. She's now in her teens. I can only actually remember two "tantrums" (sic) in her life, both of which took place when she was tiny. I and/or her mother were 100% responsible for both of them, as we very quickly realised, and that's why they both ended quite quickly and peacefully. (I can go into this in more detail if you want.)

Listen, kids often throw temper tantrums because they're tired, hungry, some combination of the above.

Precisely as I said. If a child "throws a temper tantrum" (sic), then it's never for no reason.

Usually you just have to ignore them when they do this, or try to get them to sleep, or get some food down their gullets.

Maybe you do, Nordic, or maybe you just think you do. But I note the routine mild brutality in the way you put it. I'm not attacking you, just pointing it out. This is normal, i.e., it's the norm. And ignoring children is a sure-fire way to anger them further, provided their spirit hasn't already been broken.

But they will do it for almost no reason at all.

No, I don't agree. I've never seen it happen. Never.

It usually involves not getting their way,

Precisely. They too are human beings. They too have their own wishes, desires and preferences, all of which should be respected, and most of which can quite easily be satisfied most of the time.

and their way can be anything, can be some demand that is completely unreasonable or unrealistic. Often it can involve wanting to watch something on TV, and having the parent just saying "NO".

I'm not of course saying that a parent should never say no, especially if and when a demand is "completely unreasonable or unrealistic". Such things happen, and then a solution has to be found. But if a parent says no (or "NO", as you put it) in such a way as to provoke a "tantrum" that can't easily be stopped, then maybe that parent should think about the way he says no (or "NO"), and whether that might not have had some role in provoking the so-called "tantrum".

Believe me, Nordic, I know children can be exasperating, and I know life in general in the Western world in the 21st century makes huge demands on an adult's time, strength, nerves and patience. Nor am I claiming to be perfect, or a perfect parent, or anything like it. But I do have very strong memories of my own childhood, which was a very typical childhood in most ways, and I swore to myself I would never put my kid(s) through some of the things I was put through, quite unnecessarily and very counterproductively (mainly by teachers). Those things were normal, i.e. they were the norm, at that time and in that place. And norms are often worth questioning and sometimes worth rejecting wholly. At least in my opinion, and at least in my experience.

- On Edit: Inserted a missing word ("way" in "sure-fire way").

[MacCruiskeen]

If it means just leaving the child in peace for a few minutes, with the child's full and free consent and agreement, then nothing's wrong with it; on the contrary. More commonly, though, it means ordering the child to go her room for a period of time to be decided arbitrarily by the commanding officer, i.e. the parent. And that will tend to produce very bad habits in the child, such as repression of her own feelings, guilt, resignation, and unquestioning obedience to authority.

A child who is "throwing a tantrum"* is never doing so for no reason.

Are you a product of this style of parenting, Mac?

Which style, chig?

[chiggerbit]

the one you are advocating for.

[MacCruiskeen]

Nope.

On Edit: I realise I should tell you a bit more but it's not easy to do so briefly. But as briefly as I can: I am the second-oldest of five kids. I grew up in the 60s and 70s on a postwar concrete council-housing estate on the edge of Glasgow. Very working-class, pretty tough, but what they used to call "decent working-class", i.e. not a hellhole. (There was a hellhole close by, a slum where I used to deliver newspapers in my early-to-late teens. But that's another story.) Most of the men in our part of town were factory workers like my dad (at that time), skilled or unskilled, and most of the women were housewives like my mum (at that time).

It was a socialist family, like most families at that time and in that place. Old Labour, and the left wing thereof. It was also a Catholic family (no contradiction there) but it would take too long for me to go into that aspect of it here.

Anyway, my parents were in general very kind and supportive and fair and warm-hearted. We were a close-knit family, but we had a lot of freedom too. (My brother and I used to disappear together with our pals, on expeditions to the woods or into the countryside, often for a whole day at a time at weekends and in the summer.) It was always clear to all five of us that our parents loved us and each other wholeheartedly, though they never made a show of it, and that they wanted us to be happy.

But they were of their time and place too, inevitably, and they used to "smack" us occasionally, for "bad behaviour", just on the arse or on the bare leg, and rarely more than two or three slaps. It used to drive me into a rage every time (you'd call it a "tantrum", I guess) and I have never forgotten the pain - which was relatively mild, but inflicted on me by my parents, whom I loved - or the sense of injustice and unfairness. (They were bigger than me! Why were they hitting me?)

I also remember the expression on my parents faces whenever they did it: they too were pained, visibly, but they clearly felt they were doing what parents ought to do. And they clearly really hated doing it.

Anyway... I was the second of five, as I say. The sister who came after me and my slightly-younger brother was "smacked" much less than we were (and we weren't "smacked" very often), and the fifth of us, my little kid brother, was never "smacked" at all. He was born in 1969, the world was changing, and my parents were changing too. Norms were being questioned, and not for no reason. The hitherto normal and allegedly necessary was being called into doubt.

Meanwhile, at school:

The Tawse



I once received nine blows from one of these, on the outstretched hand ("Hold that hand OUT, boy!"), from two separate teachers in a single day. I was twelve years old at the time. My kid brother (the one who was never "smacked" by our parents) once received six strokes of the tawse from a sadistic teacher who kept missing his hand and hitting his bare arm. He was eight at the time. It raised welts so big that he had to visit the hospital. (My dad visited the school the next day...)

It was only abolished in 1998.

[chiggerbit]

So the other one isn't srictly an Ameican phenomenon?

[Nordic]

Listen, I'm not you and haven't walked the requisite mile in your moccassins to judge you, but if, say, a kid is watching TV and you turn off the TV and he throws a tantrum ....?

You "ignore" him for the reason that you don't want to let him know that throwing a tantrum works in any way shape or form. You don't let him know the tantrum affects you, either to give him MORE attention, or to take the tantrum seriously, or as a point of negotiation.

That's why you ignore it.

Maybe you were lucky with your kid, but kids sometimes actually do act like children.

Especially when hungry, tired, young, etc.

[agitprop]

What's wrong with a time-out?

If it means just leaving the child in peace for a few minutes, with the child's full and free consent and agreement, then nothing's wrong with it;

Better still, if a child realizes the error of his ways and politely requests a time out. But what if a polite request on the part of the child, becomes a demand. How would that be handled? What would you do with a child who aggressively demands a time out? What would you, as a parent do, if your child threw a tantrum, because you refused to give them a time out? This can become a real conundrum.

[chiggerbit]

Jesus, I almost missed your edit, Mac. May I ask, Catholic school?

[MacCruiskeen]

Jesus, I almost missed your edit, Mac. May I ask, Catholic school?

Yes. But the so-called non-denominational schools (where all the Protestant kids went) used the tawse just as much if not even more. Scotch Calvinism was very hot on beating the Devil out of children. It was for the children's own good, of course. And who can deny the need for discipline?

Nowadays, funnily enough, teachers manage perfectly well (in fact much better) without it, since it's been illegalised. Maybe Scottish children have become less Evil in the meantime. (My three young nieces, for example, are clearly not evil, or so I would argue.) Or maybe there's another explanation.

In English schools, the cane was more common, and generally applied to the child's arse. The tawse or Lochgelly -- or just "the belt", as we used to call it in Glasgow -- was a specifically Scottish achievement.

[chiggerbit]

But the so-called non-denominational schools

Sorry, I don't understand. Were ALL schools church schools?

[MacCruiskeen]

But the so-called non-denominational schools

Sorry, I don't understand. Were ALL schools church schools?

No, there were non-denominational state schools. But they were de facto almost exclusively protestant, because all the catholic kids went to catholic schools and there were very few children (at that time in that place) who didn't belong to either denomination.

- Chiggerbit, I've started a new thread about children and child-raising in general. Could I ask you (and everyone else) to take this general discussion there? Because I'm digressing now too, and I really feel this thread (maybe uniquely) should stay very closely focused and on-topic.

-----------

Back on-topic, i.e. back to January Schofield.

I'll do my best to formulate that draft-letter by this time tomorrow. (Sorry, but I am really pushed for time right now and have unavoidable commitments offline. Plus it's not easy. )

[§ê¢rꆧ]

Janni has a genius IQ, and while I don't think IQ tests are an accurate measure of intelligence, it is a crude metric. Many of her problems may stem from this. A culture that does not protect and nourish its genii is unwell, and perhaps doomed.

"Genius: A word with a long and complicated history, as this
information from the OED shows. In Latin, the word usually meant "The
tutelary god or attendant spirit allotted to every person at his
birth, to govern his fortunes and determine his character, and finally
to conduct him out of the world"; in later Latin, it often meant "A
demon or spiritual being in general." A common English sense beginning
in the seventeenth century was "With reference to a nation, age, etc.:
Prevalent feeling, opinion, sentiment, or taste; distinctive
character, or spirit." Another seventeenth-century development was
"Natural ability or capacity; quality of mind; the special endowments
which fit a man for his peculiar work" (first attested in Milton's
Eikonoklastes, 1649).

Google Answers on the word 'genius'

[Perelandra]

Janni has a genius IQ, and while I don't think IQ tests are an accurate measure of intelligence, it is a crude metric. Many of her problems may stem from this. A culture that does not protect and nourish its genii is unwell, and perhaps doomed.

"Genius: A word with a long and complicated history, as this
information from the OED shows. In Latin, the word usually meant "The
tutelary god or attendant spirit allotted to every person at his
birth, to govern his fortunes and determine his character, and finally
to conduct him out of the world"; in later Latin, it often meant "A
demon or spiritual being in general." A common English sense beginning
in the seventeenth century was "With reference to a nation, age, etc.:
Prevalent feeling, opinion, sentiment, or taste; distinctive
character, or spirit." Another seventeenth-century development was
"Natural ability or capacity; quality of mind; the special endowments
which fit a man for his peculiar work" (first attested in Milton's
Eikonoklastes, 1649).

Google Answers on the word 'genius'

Thank you.