Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Did you bother to read my whole post? I fully agree that it does not always pay to do things the way everyone else does them. Most would look at me an my family as being way on the fringe doing things way different than most of America. My point was not concerning being different, but the reason for doing it. If your reason is simply to be different, then that is an what's the point?
I did, and my question goes directly to your final question.
What is *wrong* with being different to be different? How it is that being different "just because" is undesirable?
I ask this because in order to explore, research, and consider the decision to be different, you start out by questioning the things that are expected. You start out by saying, "What if I did it differently? Is there a different way?"
So you start off being different because it's different, and then if you are responsible you research the differences and pick what works best. But it all starts with the desire to question the conformity. That is, to me, the question that is being asked.
I am different not because I want to be, but because I am not the same. I am different because I am different.
I think some people get the opinion stuck in their head that if they don't allow pacifiers or use cloth diapers that they are better parents. It is the start of hyperparenting. The problem is that many of these parents forget that babies need to suck, some more then others and a pacifier is SOOTHING or that kids need a lot of calories and not feeding them any fat or sugar is HARMFUL to their development.
TV, that is debatable but I STILL remember things I learned on Sesame Street, School House Rock, etc. I LOVED watching TV as a child and now I MIGHT watch an hour/month of TV.
Although it is widely believed that you need to have something to suck on, or that if you do not give an infant a pacifer, they will suck their thumb or fingers, it is not true. When a baby cries, they are asking for something. It is sad that we just stick a pacifer in their mouth, often even when they have spit it out, crying or not, and ignore their need. That need is often to just be comforted but now that baby swings and carseats have taken over, we have forgotten how to do that.
My real problem with things like pacifers is the way that society excepts a child over their first birthday, running around with one in their mouth. What happens when they are getting to this age, is developing bad habits for comforting themselves.
For one thing, I know him so I have a basis for my concern. But the bottom line is that he refuses to show his child any kids programs, not because they are bad for her but because HE wants to be different. When I asked him why he was against it, he didn't have a valid reason other than "I'm just not going to". Okay, but why? "Naaaah." He doesn't even know why he's saying it. In as much as he thinks he is being innovative, he is subscribing to that "TV is the devil, don't eat red meat because it causes bunyons" mentality.
I almost brought the medical issues in response to another post. It's along the same lines and I have no doubt that if he heard about Jenny McCarthy, he'd follow suit just off of her one victory, because it goes against the grain.
This sounds like a great response that I might use against someone who wants to argue with me about my parenting decisions. I do not owe them an answer and I do not care about what they think. I have done my research so back off. What a strong individual. You should be proud and supportive.
My real problem with things like pacifers is the way that society excepts a child over their first birthday, running around with one in their mouth. What happens when they are getting to this age, is developing bad habits for comforting themselves.
Right on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by scarmig
I did, and my question goes directly to your final question.
What is *wrong* with being different to be different? How it is that being different "just because" is undesirable?
I ask this because in order to explore, research, and consider the decision to be different, you start out by questioning the things that are expected. You start out by saying, "What if I did it differently? Is there a different way?"
So you start off being different because it's different, and then if you are responsible you research the differences and pick what works best. But it all starts with the desire to question the conformity. That is, to me, the question that is being asked.
I am different not because I want to be, but because I am not the same. I am different because I am different.
All of that makes absolute sense and I actually live by that, but it is not applicable here. No one is condemning the desire to be different, questioning conformity or exploring alternatives. It is the intent or motivation behind it that is in question. There are people who actually resist and condemn just for the sake of being contrary, because doing so somehow creates the illusion of being innovative, original, unique - some kind of pioneer. It is all about them and nothing but. They clueless, but hey, they're different.
Anyways, I'm gonna pack it in and leave you all to continue the discussion if you care to. Thanks for all the input and eat your veggies.
All of the non-conformists who I know do the "weird" things that they do because it is in line with their beliefs, morals and ethics. I think that from the outside it may look like they are just trying to be different when in actuality they are just trying to live their life in the way that makes the most sense to them.
I am one of those kooky non-conformists. When I had my child I chose to follow my instincts rather then follow the advice of other parents or authors of parenting books. I got some flack from a couple of people early on about the "strange" things that I was doing so I ended up doing a ton of research only to find that the "weird" things that I was doing were actually beneficial and very good for my child.
Parenting books are often based on the authors opinions and experiences and are not always backed by scientific research. In fact many popular mainstream parenting books condemn things that research shows to be positive. Every parent gets to decide how to raise their child. That is one of the beautiful things about parenting. We all get to do what we feel is best. We all make mistakes and learn a ton along the way.
You know, my parents were really really bad examples. I did not learn much from them and was terrified that I would now know how to parent. I went online and research and researched, including various cultural beliefs.
One thing that ran crazy through America is the fact that parents want to follow trends, to fit in and be like everyone else. How confusing and unstable for a child whose parents chooses to follow the trends and switches parenting styles everything Dr. Phil says something different?
In the end, I had my DD, my first child. I lay in the hospital waiting out my 3-5 days required to stay there. I had my baby late at night and was there the entire following day. The next morning, in walks 3 doctors and 5 nurses. They had their morning coffee and just watched my baby and me. I was terrified that I had been too strong willed against the nurses and now they were coming back at me about something. Then everyone left except my main nurse. I asked her what was going on and if everything was ok. She laughs me off and says everyone left to discuss my returing home because there was nothing more they could do for me. They were only in the room to watch our amazing connection, they had never seen anything like it.
You know what this was caused by? A very non-conformist idea that babies only cry because they have exhausted all other means of communication and are to the point of begging for their needs. I believed you could watch your child and know their need, food, diaper change, burp, ect by the movements they made, the expressions ont their faces. I guarantee you that our three children were three kids who nearly never cried. They only cried when they got hurt, never for their needs. Everyone thought I was nuts when I talked as a first time pregnant woman but when they saw our childern, one, then two, and then three, all come into the world as the absolutely more content babies anyone had ever seen, they changed their minds.
Those doctors and nurse had reserved ideas about our no-conformist nature leading to the day our child entered the world, but later they took notes as to help educate future mothers. To think that I made a decision to only impact my family, to have it turn around and impact so many others, its kind of odd but still makes me feel reassured that I'm doing something right.
Last edited by flik_becky; 07-28-2009 at 12:23 PM..
I did, and my question goes directly to your final question.
What is *wrong* with being different to be different? How it is that being different "just because" is undesirable?
Okay, I just re-read my posts to be sure... I never said that it was "wrong" to be different just to be different. I would argue that it is immature to be different just to be different. But the attitude that I am talking about is not reflected by your description of you and your choices. You may seek different paths and different ways because of your uniqueness, but so does everyone else. Everyone is an individual and has different life experiences that shape and mould who they are. You affirm that you seek different ways by being informed and then determining what is best for you.
Now there are those who do things differently just to stick out, just so they can say they are different. In reality, they aren't any better than those who dumbly follow the rest of the masses like Lemmings, doing the same thing because "if so many others are doing it, it must be right!" Not so. This attitude is prevalent in our voting process. I wish I had a dollar for every time I heard the phrase "I can't vote for him/her because they will never win." How about voting for the best person instead of simply trying to identify yourself with the winner? I can respect someone who lives on the fringe for a purpose (ex. vegatarians, environmentalists, libertarians, etc.) I have no respect for someone that makes a major life decision without seeking to educate themselves on which is the best course to take for them. Both sides (conformists and non-conformists) have their independant thinking leaders and the mindless followers.
Ugh. My DH has a little streak of "I'm-going-to-buck-the-trend-just-to-challenge-your-beliefs." I think being true to yourself is fantastic, and I think teaching children to be true to themselves is fantastic.
But if you're going to really "buck" and be loud about it - I think you ought to be able to defend your choices. For instance, there's a lot of lively debate about vaccination, and generally those who oppose have given it a lot of thought. So OK - maybe I disagree, but you're at least THINKING. We can debate.
IMO, If you're going to really go against the grain on generally basic stuff like teaching your children to read or teaching them their colors wrong, you owe it to their future selves to have a reason.
Although it is widely believed that you need to have something to suck on, or that if you do not give an infant a pacifer, they will suck their thumb or fingers, it is not true. When a baby cries, they are asking for something. It is sad that we just stick a pacifer in their mouth, often even when they have spit it out, crying or not, and ignore their need. That need is often to just be comforted but now that baby swings and carseats have taken over, we have forgotten how to do that.
My real problem with things like pacifers is the way that society excepts a child over their first birthday, running around with one in their mouth. What happens when they are getting to this age, is developing bad habits for comforting themselves.
Um, whatever. My kids all had pacifiers. By age one they only had them to sleep. They all gave them up on their own. They are all in high school and none of them continue to use a pacifier. I nursed all my kids, had NO issues with "nipple confusion". They are all well adjusted, don't need their pacifiers to get to sleep any longer. I think what is really wrong is when parents judge other parents for wanting to give something to their child that other parents deem wrong for some silly reason. There is nothing wrong with a child using a pacifier. When my babies cried I tried a pacifier. If they didn't want that, they spit it out and I went on to the next thing. It didn't take long to figure out what their cries meant and sometimes they wanted their pacifier and to be left alone.
For one thing, I know him so I have a basis for my concern. But the bottom line is that he refuses to show his child any kids programs, not because they are bad for her but because HE wants to be different. When I asked him why he was against it, he didn't have a valid reason other than "I'm just not going to". Okay, but why? "Naaaah." He doesn't even know why he's saying it. In as much as he thinks he is being innovative, he is subscribing to that "TV is the devil, don't eat red meat because it causes bunyons" mentality.
Why is this any of your business? Perhaps he doesn't want to get into the discussion because he suspects that you'll be critical, and given the tone of your original post, that would appear to be perfectly plausible. Frankly, I don't understand why you think you are entitled to any explanation at all.
Last edited by formercalifornian; 07-28-2009 at 09:30 PM..
I agree with many of the other posters here: I just don't see what's wrong with this man not wanting his child to watch TV. I can't imagine any possible negative from not allowing TV, so it's not like there's any ethical debate like there would be about vaccinations or something similar that does have a broader personal and social impact. It's not a particularly non-conformist view to try to restrict or even eliminate TV altogether. I know many parents who attempt to do that, and it's not because they want to be "different."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Who died and left you in charge?
