If my friend Andrea reads this post, she'll drop her jaw! I borrowed her book, Between Parent and Child, by Haim G. Ginott, a really, really long time ago, and finished it today. Her new looking book, definitely looks gently used from me carrying it around for the last many, many months.
Anyway, it wasn't my favorite parenting book, but I still got some good things out of it, so I thought I'd jot down a few notes.
The original book came out in 1965, but was updated in 2003, so it was kind of funny reading advice that was given back in the 60s. For example, there were lots of examples of REALLY MEAN things parents might say to children. I seriously couldn't even imagine saying things like that to a child! I couldn't imagine my parents saying things like that to me, either -- and I came over a decade later from the first printing! I'm sure people do say really mean things to kids, but I also like to hope that overall we've gotten nicer to children.
This book also seemed like the predecessor to Love and Logic, which is still currently my favorite parenting book. Both books encourage a parent to empathize with a child -- maybe not agree with them, but to try and understand their feelings. We've tried to do that with our kids, and I think it's a good thing.
I think one reason I had a hard time getting into the book was that the first part focuses on interpreting what your children say and then repeating it back to them. I thought it was a good idea, so I started trying it. I can't say it worked even once! I kept trying to interpret what my kids were saying and they'd say, "No, that's not what I meant." I finally gave up on that tactic and moved on in the book.
I really liked Appendix A at the end of the book regarding "How Children Can Be Helped." The author outlines all sorts of problems kids might have, and identifies what is normal developmental behavior and what is over the top -- i.e. where kids may benefit from some therapy. There's a section regarding "Fearful Children," and let's just say I may seriously consider help in this category for our 5 year old! Our 8 year old has grown out of his fears, but there was about a 9 month period when he was 3/4 when he would not go to bed without one of us in the room with him, and if he woke up, it was game over. He also developed a stuttering problem, which we got help for, but now I understand there was probably an underlying problem. Luckily, so far, our 3rd child seems to be not so fearful as the first two. Knock on wood.
Kind of along those lines, too, the book had some really good information on jealously between children. I wonder if our kids' fear problems somewhat stemmed from a new sibling. Each of our older kids developed some sort of problem about 6 months after having a new baby. I can't help but wonder if there's a correlation. The book suggested letting kids draw a picture of the sibling and cut it up or something, rather than hurt the baby. My kids never indicated they didn't like the new baby, but maybe it was part of their problems.
There was an entire chapter on how to talk to your kids about sex, which I appreciated, but I was also bugged by the common attitude that we should just expect our kids to have sex -- and we shouldn't freak out when we find out they do. Being a religious person, I still think we need to set the expectation to be chaste, but if our kids mess up, we shouldn't freak out (outwardly!!), but we need to be there to help them get things corrected.
I also liked (p. 109) that the author said a shy child may be helped by having outgoing friends. My 5 year old has a group of little friends and they are ALL shy! I can't help but wonder if they just rub off on one another! We've put her in a drama class with louder kids, and I do hope they'll influence her to be a little more outgoing.
I really liked, "Efficiency is the enemy of infancy" (p 169). I am so guilty of pushing efficiency in my kids (more-so as a first-time parent, luckily I've learned a little). There's a time and a place for efficiency, but kids need time to develop and grow at their own rate.
So I got some good things out of the book, but there were some things I'd just never try, but it was worth the read even if it took me so long.
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Monday, November 21, 2011
Don't be an object.
Some friends posted this on facebook -- scientific reasons to be modest!
11/22 addition: Just want to add, too, that even though this is cool research, it's NOT all about what men think about women, though. There's the entire angle of respect for ourselves, too.
I was a little confused, though, then at how men equate sex with love -- if when men see a scantily clad woman, he objectifies her, so isn't that what happens in the bedroom? Are our husbands really objectifying us, but covering it up as love? My husband reminded me of another study where men were shown porn, their frontal lobes shut down as is indicated in the video, but when the men were told about the women (if they were in school, if they had families, what they liked to do, etc.), they stopped objectifying the women. So, I'd assume that because our husbands know us as people, not as bodies, they don't objectify us, but really do equate sex with love -- as we've all been told, but find so hard to understand. If I remember/find the study he's referring to, I'll link.
11/22 addition: Just want to add, too, that even though this is cool research, it's NOT all about what men think about women, though. There's the entire angle of respect for ourselves, too.
I was a little confused, though, then at how men equate sex with love -- if when men see a scantily clad woman, he objectifies her, so isn't that what happens in the bedroom? Are our husbands really objectifying us, but covering it up as love? My husband reminded me of another study where men were shown porn, their frontal lobes shut down as is indicated in the video, but when the men were told about the women (if they were in school, if they had families, what they liked to do, etc.), they stopped objectifying the women. So, I'd assume that because our husbands know us as people, not as bodies, they don't objectify us, but really do equate sex with love -- as we've all been told, but find so hard to understand. If I remember/find the study he's referring to, I'll link.
Sunday, November 20, 2011
Nature or Nurture
I quite enjoyed this latest post from NotMolly entitled, Nature or Nurture? Particularly:
People have debated the merits of nature versus nurture in the development of traits and characteristics for quite a long time. In this situation, I’d argue that the whole negative ball of wax is a cumulative effect of nurture: how we train ourselves, and how we train those around us. . . . Small cutting remarks grow into a habit of cruelty in thought and deed. . . .
When a child is “treated” to a decade and a half of a parent stating, right in front of that tiny personage, how Mum or Daddy “can’t WAIT til the kids are back in school,” or “how great it was before kids” or “we’re turning his room into a sewing room the weekend he graduates, so he’d better have something planned!”, how on earth is that supposed to do anything but alienate the affection that ought to exist between parent and child? Would we, as reasonable adults, ever deign to waste our emotions on people who treated us this way?
When interaction with a child, time with a child, is routinely passed over in favor of “mature” pursuits, “me” time, and other semi-selfish desires, what message does that give to a formative character? What worth must they assume they have, if they are never “worth” our time and effort?
None of this is to say that a parent ought to devote every single breath of every single day catering a child; quite the opposite! Children need not be catered to at all: they deserve nurturing and mentoring, not catering. Catering connotes “serving up on a platter, satisfying every whim”, which leads to an aggrandizement of self versus the control of self and channeling of passions in productive ways. . . .
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Parental Involvement in Children's Education
I was able to read an article in my McKay Today Magazine called "Parent Involvement: The Beginning Defines the Future" by Bryan Korth. I was pleased to see the article and all the ways parents can be involved in their kids' education, both at home and at school. The ways Korth mentions:
1. Parents assisting teachers by preparing materials or filing paperwork.
2. "Classroom parents" who organize classroom events.
3. Parents who actually instruct in the classroom.
4. Communication between parent and teacher.
5. Being engaged in homework.
6. Parental support to develop strong bonds with the child.
7. Regulation: appropriate expectations and structure regarding a child's behavior.
8. Acknowledgment of the child's independent self, whereby parents avoid intruding, exploiting, or manipulating the child.
Like I said, I was pleased to see the article, but I was also kind of disappointed in the content. For one thing, I was looking for some new ways to be more involved, but as I read, I pretty much feel like we're doing every single one of those things already. I suppose the only way we could be more involved is to home-school our kids, and I'm just not going there. I felt good when I realized I help with homework books for my kindergartner's class; and I felt good that although I'm not really participating in classroom events, I am participating in the PTA (but don't get me started on that one today. I just added up my hours for the last 3 weeks and I'm looking at 20+; and I still have 2 events next week before I record my monthly hours!!! I'm good for 5-15 hours/month, but this is getting ridiculous. I oversee 12 events this year.). I also felt good that next month I will begin instructing my 3rd grader's class on art for the next 3 months. I'm no art expert, but no one had signed up for the assignment, and I used to be kind of good at art.
Another thing I was disappointed in was (oh how do I say this without being too offensive) the acknowledgement that most parents don't actually have the time to help out at the school, but if they're involved in other ways with their kids, then that's great. Now that's fine, but I'm feeling a little burdened here putting in so many hours at/for the school. I guess I just need some validation that these big school activities (book fair, carnival, reading activities, etc.) are actually worth helping out with, or I kind of just want to stop. I'm feeling like the work to carry out the activities is in no way balanced with what my kids personally get out of them. It seems like the activities are great and all, but there seem to be too few of us left/willing to be able to carry them out. The reason I've done PTA/school activities is that more people want to be in the class with their kids, and fewer want to help the PTA/school, so I thought I'd help where the help was needed most. Maybe I'm just being too nice by helping out the PTA/school and should be more selfish and get more into my kids' classes.
Anyway, it seems like there was one more thing, but I can't remember it now. If you've had experience with PTA/school activities, what do you believe is their purpose? Are the activities really valuable, or does classroom involvement outweigh the school functions? Are we holding these big activities just to show how awesome we are, or could we do without them and focus more on the classroom?
1. Parents assisting teachers by preparing materials or filing paperwork.
2. "Classroom parents" who organize classroom events.
3. Parents who actually instruct in the classroom.
4. Communication between parent and teacher.
5. Being engaged in homework.
6. Parental support to develop strong bonds with the child.
7. Regulation: appropriate expectations and structure regarding a child's behavior.
8. Acknowledgment of the child's independent self, whereby parents avoid intruding, exploiting, or manipulating the child.
Like I said, I was pleased to see the article, but I was also kind of disappointed in the content. For one thing, I was looking for some new ways to be more involved, but as I read, I pretty much feel like we're doing every single one of those things already. I suppose the only way we could be more involved is to home-school our kids, and I'm just not going there. I felt good when I realized I help with homework books for my kindergartner's class; and I felt good that although I'm not really participating in classroom events, I am participating in the PTA (but don't get me started on that one today. I just added up my hours for the last 3 weeks and I'm looking at 20+; and I still have 2 events next week before I record my monthly hours!!! I'm good for 5-15 hours/month, but this is getting ridiculous. I oversee 12 events this year.). I also felt good that next month I will begin instructing my 3rd grader's class on art for the next 3 months. I'm no art expert, but no one had signed up for the assignment, and I used to be kind of good at art.
Another thing I was disappointed in was (oh how do I say this without being too offensive) the acknowledgement that most parents don't actually have the time to help out at the school, but if they're involved in other ways with their kids, then that's great. Now that's fine, but I'm feeling a little burdened here putting in so many hours at/for the school. I guess I just need some validation that these big school activities (book fair, carnival, reading activities, etc.) are actually worth helping out with, or I kind of just want to stop. I'm feeling like the work to carry out the activities is in no way balanced with what my kids personally get out of them. It seems like the activities are great and all, but there seem to be too few of us left/willing to be able to carry them out. The reason I've done PTA/school activities is that more people want to be in the class with their kids, and fewer want to help the PTA/school, so I thought I'd help where the help was needed most. Maybe I'm just being too nice by helping out the PTA/school and should be more selfish and get more into my kids' classes.
Anyway, it seems like there was one more thing, but I can't remember it now. If you've had experience with PTA/school activities, what do you believe is their purpose? Are the activities really valuable, or does classroom involvement outweigh the school functions? Are we holding these big activities just to show how awesome we are, or could we do without them and focus more on the classroom?
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
A Virtuous Women -- more than morally virtuous
Noble Womanhood shared a bit of the intro to Queen of the Home.
I used to think that the word “virtuous” as used in these texts meant “moral,” or “pure.” While the word “virtue” is at times translated this way, and while this meaning too should define a godly woman, this is not the meaning of the word . . . . I was amazed to discover that in the original Hebrew this word is chayil—which is also translated throughout the Bible as “strength”, “ability”, “valiant”, “army”, “host”, “forces”, “riches”, “wealth”, “substance”, “power” and even “war”! No wonder such a woman is far more valuable than rubies.
The godly wife and mother is no household drudge, weak doormat, or mindless parasite. She is a mighty warrior queen who fights righteous battles at her husband’s side and reigns with him over the home and domain God has given them as they work together for Christ’s eternal Kingdom and glory.
Monday, October 31, 2011
Nurture, Provide, Protect
I recently read something inferring that the counsel in The Family: A Proclamation to the World was out-dated and highly influenced by a lot of old men who clung to old stereotypes. I tend to believe it is Divinely inspired and teaches eternal truths about family, women, and men. In support of our inherent male/female natures as reflected in the Proclamation, I recently read an interesting view from therapist, Maurice Harker.
Inside of every woman I have ever worked with these is a drive, a power, and insatiable urge to Celestialize everything. I call this blessing/curse, “Celestial Orientation”. Most of the masculine population has mocked it for years, but I fear that we will be punished for doing so. You hear this drive coming from women when you hear them say things like, “Why can’t we all just get along?” Or, “Why can’t week keep our home clean and beautiful like a temple?” In most cases, and unless otherwise “burned”, women tend to give others the benefit of the doubt. They tend to assume everyone is going to be kind and everyone is going to play fair, and it is often a surprise to them when this does not happen.
I will use a story that I often use in therapy to help a woman understand what is going on inside her [when things go wrong]. . . .
Pretend you . . . are a pioneer woman, and you are crossing the plains, all by yourself (other than your children) in a covered hand cart wagon. The journey is tough. . .but you are whistling a happy tune and making the best of it.
Out of no where, a half dozen Indian warriors on horse back come riding out of a near by valley and proceed to circle your little wagon. You have a little anxiety at first but then you do what any woman would do in the situation, and you greet them kindly in hopes of making new friends! How kind of the local tribe to send out a welcoming party! After greeting them with smiles, waves and pleasant chatter (Celestial interaction style), you are surprised to see them retaining their stone faced expressions.
The Indians sternly tell you, “Actually, we are here to rape you and take your children for our slaves.” Awkward!
So then you try a Terrestrial intervention. It occurs to you that these men have women and children at home and may have some unmet needs. “I have a little bit of extra flour and a few extra blankets we made in our quilting group back home. Perhaps I could give you those and you could take them back to your families and we could go on our merry way. Yes?”
The Indians look at each other, shake their heads and begin closing in. “Lady, we are here to rape you and take your children for our slaves.” Double awkward!
At this time, the female brain starts to go through something that is almost like a ripping sensation. 1000 miles per hour she tries to come up with alternatives. She remembers she has a shot gun in the wagon, but she also remembers these men probably have women and children back at home. She seeks for a way out, but eventually, the dark persistence of the men forces her to make a decision. She decides to use the gun on the Indians.
Ask the smoke clears, she finds 6 dead Indians on the ground and her children are safe. Then, she does what most women would do, she drops the gun, falls to the ground and bursts into tears; tears of guilt. And every day for many years to come, she is going to feel guilt, “Did I really have to kill those Indians? Maybe if I had listened to the Spirit more closely, I could have found a better way.”
We all know that a man in the same story would have skipped the first two interventions, killed the Indians, put six notches on the side of his wagon, and six scalps hanging from the back.
We learn in the Family Proclamation that women are designed to nurture. We learn that men are designed to provide and protect.
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
A Mormon Woman's View on Womanhood
Steph over at Diapers and Divinity wrote a great post on feminism, rights, and roles (and other things). I quite enjoyed it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
