SAH/WOH - Why?

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-18-2005
SAH/WOH - Why?
3166
Mon, 02-20-2006 - 7:41am

I am sure this has been done before but I was wondering this in light of recent posts lately.

Why did you decide to sah/woh?

Was it a choice or something expected of you?

Was your plan to sah/woh though out or impulsive? Long-term or short-term?

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Sun, 02-26-2006 - 7:34pm

Yes. That's exactly what you say. Just as it's ok for his mom to order him to hold her hand but he can't give that order to any other kid. The parents>child relationship is unique and the rules that it follows are not mirrored in other relationships. The things that are ok for an adult to do with their own child are not allowed with other adults nor may children do them with other children. The next time you see an adult jaywalker just about get hit, do you think it's acceptable tp order them to hold your hand crossing the street? If parent>child interactions ought to be able to be replicated in other realtionships in order to be acceptable, then you should be able to do just that.

Of course a child may not spank another child nor may an adult spank another adult. But that same thing applies to the other forms of discipline that have been deemed acceptable by non-spankers. If you are using acceptability in a non-parent>child context as the measure of acceptable discipline, then pretty much all discipline is unacceptable.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Sun, 02-26-2006 - 7:40pm
Of course it's not ok. This is not because it's spanking per se. It's because children are not allowed to discipline other children, adults or their parents. Some people have cited time outs as a good discipline tool. Does that mean it's acceptable for a child to order another child into a time out, or another adult including their parents? Whether it would be acceptable for children to do it to others is a pretty poor measure of acceptable discipline because it starts from the bizarre assumption that it's EVER ok for children to discipline somebody else.
iVillage Member
Registered: 01-18-2006
Sun, 02-26-2006 - 7:56pm

***I thought you dd had dysphagia and it was your son that loved bread? If I am making incorrect statements it's because I am just repeating what you have stated. I specifically asked multiple times, as did others about the bread issue and you kept coming back to them filling up on bread and not eating other food and thus you didn't have bread at the table because you didn't want a battle.***

You are right. That is my point. No bread after lunch makes our lives much easier. We already have a battle with our DD. Our DS has acid reflux disease and instead of having bread with dinner we opt for a more healthy dinner. Neither my DH or I eat bread after lunch because it is better to eat other things like vegetables. I think we are teaching our DS that eating a variety of food is better. I also think teaching that not having bread with dinner is a good option.

***Sure it is, you remove the crackers, thus she doesn't have a choice. You made the choices because you didn't want a battle.***

No again you are speaking about something you have no idea what you are speaking of. When you have a child with dysphagia get back to me. Until then you have really got it all wrong. That is the number one priority when you have a child with dysphagia. Never make food be an issue.

***I wasn't making a judgement, just repeating your posts. How would you know if I hadn't been around children with eating problems before making that judgement?***

Yes you were. You were stating that I am making the choices for our children. When in reality I am doing what I am suppose to be doing per the directions of her therapist and nutritionist.

***I was around quite often a child of a friend of mine who would die if eating the wrong food (and later did die) because of a serious food allergy. They treated him very similar to what you were doing, making the decisions for them and removing food. He was always, always sneaking food. That's how he died, it was quite tragic and my friend is just a former shell of herself.***

Well that is very sad. However I doubt her removing the food was the cause of his death. If my child had an allergy to food like that those items would not be in our home. He wouldn't be able to sneak. I have seen children with peanut allergies. They have a special table at my son's school for those children. They can't even sit at a table with any peanut products. So I guess the school is making the decisions for those children too. I am glad...safety is bettter.

***Yes, she had to conform to your demands or not go. She wasn't allowed to decide for herself if it was truly cold out for her and thus needed a coat.***

Just like your son practices because you demand that he does or he loses his lessons.

***No, her dd gets to choose if it was truly cold and thus make the connection that her coat was needed and was not just confirming to the demands of her parent.***

Nice spin. Do you really think her mother would have told her to grab her coat in the first place if it weren't necessary? I doubt it. Her child was challenging her. She allowed that challenge. The child was cold until the outing was over. That is not how we handle things. My child has no business being outside when a coat is necessary. So if there isn't a coat on, then you aren't going outside. They are just kids ya know?

***But if one of us could stay at home with him and he was willing to accept the consequences for staying at home, yes I would let him.***

Ok let's say you couldn't stay home with him. But he is insistant on being home from school because he wants to stay home. You going to let him?

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-18-2006
Sun, 02-26-2006 - 7:58pm
Mine will experience the feeling of staying home.

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-18-2006
Sun, 02-26-2006 - 8:02pm

***Exactly what I have been saying for, I don't know how many posts.***

Well since I already said it once...I didn't know you missed it.

****So why are you arguing that the county school district regulations protect you?****

Because like I said oh I don't know 200 posts ago that WE MAY be in the public school system someday. We really like the year round system here. Our entire county will be year round in the next couple of years. We may go to the public school system then.

***I suggest you read that link if you think your school is exempt from those regulations for non-public schools just because they are religious. It doesn't look like they are.***

Umm like I said at least 2 or 3 times. They are exempt. I have the handbook in front of me. They do not have to cater to the state guidelines. The only thing that the school does do like the state is an EOG test. That is for the parents that may return to public school.

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-18-2006
Sun, 02-26-2006 - 8:07pm
We won't go or he will stay home with Dad. To be honest it is never an issue. They grab their coats when we do. I really thought this was a hypothetical.

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-18-2006
Sun, 02-26-2006 - 8:12pm

***No one in their right mind would let their child experience the natural consequences of dangerous behavior. I think it would be equally irresponsible to place a child in a potentially dangerous situation relying on a child's fear of being spanked to deter him from making a bad choice.***

That hasn't been what you have been saying all along. So are you saying that using the natural consequence discipline doesn't always work? Are you saying that you might actually make a decision for your child because mom knows best? Do you really think that all parents that spank have children that really only listen out of fear of getting a spanking?

***The whole point of natural and logical consequences is to teach kids to make responsible decisions now as much as they are able, so that when they are making their own decisions later in potentially dangerous situations (drugs, sex, etc.), they will be able to make good choices.***

Sorry but I disagree. I don't think that a child learning to wear a coat outside or go and freeze will help with the whole don't smoke pot thing when he or she is 15.

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-18-2006
Sun, 02-26-2006 - 8:13pm

***There, the natural consequence is that if you run through the parking lot, you will be in a stroller or a cart until you can be trusted not to do that.***

Oh so now when you put your child in a stroller for bad behavior it is a natural consequence. But when I don't take my child to the store for not wearing her coat I am being authoritarian? So which is it?

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-18-2006
Sun, 02-26-2006 - 8:16pm

***Nobody would compare spanking to murder, but that doesn't make it right.***

Umm scroll back a few posts. She did.

***One can verbally abuse a child or an adult, and no one would call that akin to murder, either. ***

I totally agree. It wasn't me that compared them. I just asked how she got that the two were in the same category. Also how she thought that punching a child in the face was really no different than spanking. Very odd to me.

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-18-2006
Sun, 02-26-2006 - 8:23pm

***So what do you tell your child when he spanks another child, another adult, or maybe his parents? That it's okay because it's only spanking and not hitting?***

OUr children have never done that. A child doesn't have the same authority that a parent does. What are you going to do when your child maybe drinks a beer or smokes a cigarette? Mom does why can't he? (I am not saying that you drink or smoke I am using this as a hypothetical.) Don't you get to do a lot of things your kids can't do?




Edited 2/26/2006 8:28 pm ET by snoopyme

 

Pages