ServantofGod

Re-read the story. She didn't have the slightest trouble leaving her mother. She only wanted her mother when she wasn't pleased with me and my co-teacher, and two mothers who intervened after passing by the room and hearing her. I don't believe her trouble has anything to do with leaving her mother. I believe it has everything to do with respecting the limits someone else places on her. Particularly since two other people said this is not new for her and she was doing this routine last year as well.

I wanted to reply to each post, but this thread is moving so quickly that I can't even read that far back to reply, so I'm sorry if I miss anything I meant to discuss.

What I meant was that I can't say that the terrible behavior today is not a preview of more to come. I love my children and bring them up the best they can, but it's not enough to love them and be kind to them if I don't also teach them "the way they should go".

I also feel compelled to clarify that I'm not saying, "Well, hey,I live on ten wooded acres; we have enough switches out there to train an elementary school, let's get busy and trim the underbrush!" I'm not making a turnaround in my parenting to Pearl-style bootcamp. But I do feel like I am more doubtful than ever that you can raise great kids with 100% non-punitive measures. Negative outcomes do speak volumes. I would never, ever dream of hitting my child with a stick, a spoon, a paddle or any such thing. There are too many memories in my head that illustrate the wrongness of it. For starters, I *know* my older children take cues on how to cope with my toddler from me; I see that enough just in the things they say. Anyway...

I wasn't saying otherwise; I know this is true. But I'm also not one who thinks, "Man, a 40-minute tantrum is totally outrageous, but it surely couldn't be the parenting style." I don't know *why* this is what this child does. I came home and talked to my dh about for an hour because I want to know. I wish I could live unseen in the family for a week so I might have a better guess.

See, I don't understand this at all. This is why I can't manage the examination of every word. I don't know if you are saying the correct translation is this, or that Pearl is saying this, but it doesn't make a bit of sense to me either way. The only way it makes a bit of sense is like this:

Thou = You
shalt = must
beat = to strike
him = the subject of the command
with a rod = the implement with which to strike

The reason we have a Bible that has been translated into English is so that English-speaking people don't need to try to find some way to interpret Hebrew. The far-more-schollarly-than-I translators studied the words in Hebrew and said, "This is how it is translated - Thou shalt beat him with a rod..." Plus, if one believes that God has protected the Bible from mistranslation through Divine protection, then why would He have allowed generations of parents to be wrong about it? Shouldn't anyone be able to read a Bible and have God speak to their heart if the Bible is living, active and sharper than a two -edged sword? Millions of people depend on the Bible for guidance and it says very little in particular to raising children. Why would the few scriptures that pertain to this topic be messed up translations? Why would they be not able to be read and understood at face value? For myself, I remember first reading that, I think it was before I had kids. I actually wrote notes in my journal where I copied the scripture and said, "That's what it says!!!??? "

*I'M* not saying spank. I'd be happy to have training still work w/out spanking! I've been looking for just that.

I think it's hard to tell the difference anymore. When I first came to this board (about 4 or 5 years ago), it seemed to me that it was less permissive, more firm. A lot of the "solutions" seem to me to just be accommodation or else looking for a food allergy or SID-type problem. What I mean is that it doesn't seem like the answer is ever seen in a limit the child has to learn. I don't feel that I see as high of standards here as I did when I first came. I don't want to spot-light the particular post, but a mom posted about something her child did and I felt through the whole post that her concern was justified and the behavior was very serious. This was not a baby; it was an older child. Maybe it's that, even if someone was going to post something "firm", they don't because they're afraid it will be moderated as punitive and they will be reprimanded. I don't know. But the effect was that it seemed like everyone who responded practically said, "Keep a better eye on him. He's not mature enough." The idea of good discipline is that as they grow, you don't have to stand over them all the time. My oldest child is 9.5. She is often out of my sight for several hours and I never have concern that she's going to harm herself or destroy something or whatever. If this were not so at this age, I would be very for her future! You can't keep them at your side at all times until they move out!

I'm not saying any particular child who has food allergies or autism or whatever is just the parent making excuses, but I start to think that this is thrown out as an excuse whenever someone cannot make headway with the recommended GBD approach to some problem. My own child is off dairy and food dyes, but he still behaves badly a lot. It seems worse when he's had dairy, but I could be making excuses. I'm hoping sometime after he turns 2 his behavior will be decent enough, often enough that I can again thouroughly test dairy and see if it really DOES make a difference. My dh goes along with the no dairy program, even though he suspects there is nothing in it and ds has no issue with dairy, he's just behaving badly a lot.

I don't think this is a fair assumption of me. How could you possibly know what I would want to do?

It's an opinion he gave and which I agree with. In the story as he wrote it, I don't believe the child had a pathological fear that just materialized one day. Some bees flew past her and after that, she feared bees were in her room. It is *highly*probable that when the bees flew by, mother said with alarm, "Oh, look out! There are bees!" and maybe even, "Bees STING! Stay away from bees!" with alarm and dread. My BIL is arachnaphobic. He's irrationally terrified of spiders. No matter that he's 6'3 and could squash one with his pinky toe - he's scared to death of them. Now his 3-year-old is, too. He has picked up on his father's absolute terror of spiders. Now, ultimately, so what? I wouldn't much care; people have quirks and it wouldn't kill me if my child had an irrational fear. But I agreed with what the article said about why she most likely was afraid in the first place and also showing her how bees are wonderful was cool. But, moving on...
This is a perfect example of how I feel that this site has gone much more permissive than it once was. There is nothing unkind or outrageous about expecting a child not to constantly giggle with, touch, poke, tickle, etc. another child in class. Why even have a class if the kids can just do what they want, go where they want, touch what they want, talk, sing or stand on their head whenever? Have you read the FIVE STEPS? Where you state, "You need to..." and "then help them."? I helped her control her interactions with her cousin because she (I suppose) couldn't control them for herselves. She hated it, not because I was unkind or angry or frustrated. She hated it because it wasn't what she wanted to do. And BTW, one of the mothers who happened by the class and knew the child well did an extremely good job of being kind and reflective toward her, but it didn't make any difference, except that at least she wasn't kicking just then.


And BTW, I believe in behaviorism, at least up to a point. People do moderate their behavior based largely on what responses they get. That is why I shave my armpits and style my hair and wear lipstick.