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.
For what it's worth, I put a "granny chain" made of twine on the stems so they could hang from her neck or hang from the corner of a dresser etc, sort of like how I hang our keys from a lanyard on a nail and now I never lose them.
She's a six year old girl, who already stands out because she wears glasses, and you put TWINE on them? Dang, dude. She's a little kid and the real thing will cost you five bucks at Walmart.
You keep the keys to your car on a piece of twine that all your friends can see?
You could perhaps take this method a step further, keep the glasses safer, but keep it fun and light-hearted. Help her select a cute little "fanny pack" or runner's waist pouch (they are tiny but stretch to hold several things).
She could keep her glasses case in her waist pouch, and whenever she needs to take her glasses off, the "safe place" is right there around her waist.
I like that idea, very much. Yes, the aim with the "granny string" was, indeed, to provide a means by which she'd have the TOOLS or MEANS to be responsible. I have no problem with that. Your post makes a lot of sense, unlike--well, here we go:
Well first, to the one griping about it being twine: I had twine laying around the house, and used what I had. Besides, big deal, so what if it was twine. It beats losing the things. We'll be at the store soon enough for the real thing, it's not a medical crises. Anyway:
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714
LOL. Thats ridiculous. Than you would tell the all the rules once, and be done with it. It would not be an 18+ year job.
Hey OP, a reality check, parenting isn't saying it once, its saying it a hundred thousands times. Its not showing them once, its showing them a hundred thousand times.
Let me say this quickly: I take my parenting tips from a renowned expert named John Rosemond. I may possibly be skewing his advice somewhat without intent, but the idea anyway is to basically stick the principles he teaches. They basically are: your marriage comes first BEFORE your child, you have the right to parent with a "because I said so" mantra (in fact many of his books are entitled that), a child is to do as their parents say (so long as their parents aren't telling them to pose for molesters etc) and that it is to be a parent-lead home most emphatically, a child should be potty-trained by age 2 not allowed to learn "when they tell you they're ready," no co-sleeping (who cares that other countries do it) or other "attachment parenting" practices, and that--here we go--a child's job is to do what their parents say and to seek to please them in everything they do. I will expand on that a bit later, but I will say this quickly--my wording "their job is to make me happy" was not the best wording perhaps, because my happiness should not be dependent on them, nor should my love for them be dependent on their obedience (it isn't, I couldn't stay mad at her forever even the first time she lost them and we had to buy them anew). My happiness or lack thereof isn't based solely on them. However, they are supposed to aim to be obedient & to please me. Again, I will expand on that a bit later.
Regarding the whole "say it 100,000 times"--I've heard that before, and I think it's ridiculous. This places all the responsibility on the speaker to say something over and over and over and over and over and over--and ignores the fact that such wouldn't be necessary if the listener actually PAID ATTENTION to what the speaker (parent) is saying. As they used to say "you LOOK at me when I'm talking to you." You are putting responsibility on the listener to actually LISTEN to you, to pay attention, to ignore that TV program or whatever the would-be listener is fascinated with. Your parents are speaking, your teacher is speaking--listen. I'm known to get my son's attention about something even when the TV is on & strongly scold him if he keeps trying to peep around me to see what's on TV, I refuse to turn it off, I expect him to listen to me and NOT the television because I'm the father and that's just what you're supposed to do.
My kids are expected to control their impulses. Thus, for the longest time, I've kept candy & such at a level where they can easily get to it, but they were told--you do not EVER help yourself to it without asking. If you do, you're in trouble. I backed it up, too. Even at age 2, I STILL expected them to control themselves. They knew, because if I entered the room, even the 2 year old, if he had his hand in the candy dish, immediately withdrew it. (Understand--with medications etc, those WERE and still ARE kept well out of reach, given the obvious dangers.) Don't tell me it's too much to ask. "They're just kids"---phooey on that!
Pardon me for bragging, but we're always getting compliments when eating out "wow, your kids are so well behaved, I've got grandkids and they'd be running all over the place or making a scene." My reply: "thank you, they are that way because I expect them to be." Children rise to the level of expectations you set for them. It's not like I'm asking for a 6-month old to cook lasagna from scratch.
It's called teaching them to deal with life. To wit: the world isn't obligated to hide everything from view just because people desire what they don't have. Thus, a woman isn't obligated to cover up from head-to-toe in 95'F weather just because I find women attractive and become tempted (I've never strayed, mind you). I'm going to see attractive women in tank-tops and in bikinis at the lake & pool, fine that I like what I see perhaps, but I cannot do anything more & they're not obligated to burn up in long-sleeves because of any of it. Those who can afford a 2013 Lexus or BMW aren't obligated to drive a 1997 Ford Taurus with holes in the roof so that I'm not tempted to take it from them. I have to learn to control myself and be content with my own car. The "candy dish" example is the 2-year old child version of that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714
She doesn't have a job, she is SIX. Her "job" is to be SIX.
Her "job" is to do as her parents tell her to, whatever they tell her to, whether she likes it or not. Period. That doesn't mean a parent has the right to be MEAN, you understand, but the child isn't allowed to stray just because they don't like it or agree with it.
It's called a "benevolent dictatorship," which is to say that you absolutely MUST do what they say, BUT "they" have your long-term best interests in mind with most of what they are doing, it is ultimately for your own good. Yes, some of it may be for the parents' own good, but so what--when those children were born, my own life didn't end. My own interests didn't end. They didn't become irrelevant the minute the children arrived. They only became reorganized, because obviously you must provide for your kids while they're here and less than 18. So if there is a means to make parenting easier, so long as it isn't harmful to the child, so what if it's easier?
But even better--this also is for their own good. She has to learn how to keep up with stuff as she gets older. If someone is always doing everything for her, what motivation will she have to learn how to do so herself? It's similar to how John Rosemond says parents shouldn't help their kids with their homework for the most part, the homework is the CHILD'S responsibility, it isn't the adult's responsibility to all but do it for them so the child gets a good grade. The child must earn that good grade themselves. The parent's job is to provide a suitable environment for homework and to help them out of big log-jams only and to give them pointers, not to stop their own life and sit down for hours doing all of it with them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714
By the way, I am going to assume the bolded part was to be funny, because if not, someone should call child services. Your children are not supposed to make YOU happy. YOU are supposed to provide for them, provide a SAFE, NURTURING home with realistic expectation and consistency with the goal of raising responsible, productive, capable ADULTS.
I recently received a letter from a grandmother who told me that her 14-year-old grandson is afraid of his single mother.
When told this by her ex-husband, who was concerned, Mom said, “He’d better be!”
Mind you, the grandmother was not concerned in the least. She celebrated the fact, proudly reporting that her grandson is well-mannered, respectful, does well in school, performs chores willingly (even when he doesn’t want to) and has “above average” social skills.
In all likelihood — and I base this conjecture on many years of professional experience — the boy’s fear of his mother concerns his father because the overwhelming majority of today’s dads are trying to be their kids’ best buddies. They think that good parents try to please their children. The boy’s mother understands just the opposite: good children try to please their parents. She is spot on.
And more:
My mother [Rosemond's] never yelled, spanked or even threatened to spank. In other words, I was not terrified of my mother. But I was afraid of her.
The question is, why? The answer is that she conducted herself as if she was in complete control at all times. She acted like exercising authority over me was the most natural thing she’d ever done. She made it clear that she was not there to be my friend, playmate, go-fer or fixer. She expected me to entertain myself, do for myself and fix my own problems (although she did fix those I was incapable of fixing). She was not, as are all too many of today’s moms (and dads), a vending machine to be taken for granted and disrespected when it doesn’t produce on demand.
By the time I was 3, Mom had created and was enforcing an emotional and physical boundary between her and me. Mom was a part-time job for my mother.
There you have it. Understand--this isn't a quote from some nutty cult where 13 year olds are sent off to have babies by a 46 year-old, it's by a licensed child psychologist who writes & sells books and is paid to speak all over the country. I don't just robotic-ally do what he says, you understand (for one if I did we'd have no TV at all), but his principles really speak to me. Everyone else can have their Dr. Sears.
One quote I remember from him is that you don't do for a child what they are capable of doing for themselves. The question becomes: can a 6 year-old, given aids like a "granny chain," be capable of keeping up with glasses? Given my other observations, especially how she can tell you where her favorite DVD is just like that, is "yes." If she in fact is NOT capable, then that is where I would be wrong. I don't have a problem doing for our children what they are truly NOT capable of doing, that's fine, but if they're capable, then my job is done once I've shown them how (and check periodically to see they still get it). Doing what they have been taught is THEIR job.
^^^
THAT is the most sensible thing you've written in this post. You are giving her an actual WAY to exercise responsibility. You could perhaps take this method a step further, keep the glasses safer, but keep it fun and light-hearted. Help her select a cute little "fanny pack" or runner's waist pouch (they are tiny but stretch to hold several things).
She could keep her glasses case in her waist pouch, and whenever she needs to take her glasses off, the "safe place" is right there around her waist.
When my 6-year old (he's now 27) got glasses, we had a silly little mantra/rhyme that we would frequently say about his glasses:
"On the face, or in the case, never any other place!"
We also borrowed from Dr Seuss:
"Would you keep them with a fox? Would you keep them in a box? Would you leave them on a train? Would you leave them in the rain?" etc.
Great advice here. It makes the parents partners in the problem, not merely authoritarians. Children need to learn rules, but they also need the tools to be successful and Kayanne has offered some. When the glasses are where they are supposed to be, offer praise. If they aren't, express disappointment, and insist your child help with the search.
I still think the OP is expecting too much from a 6 yr old overall though. And, if he is a proponent of Rosemond, where does the "swatting" for disobedience fit in? And, I loathe people who leave temptations out specifically to trap young children.
OP if you have it all figured out and seem to know better than the posters here, then why post the thread at all?
I suppose I was venting & also I was curious how other parents did it, especially any advice along the lines of helping their KIDS successfully keep up with their glasses & accept that responsibility themselves. The lady mentioning the fanny pack gizmo had a good idea I could see myself doing. THEY would be the ones responsible but YOU the parent are giving them the guidance & tools to be able to do so. That makes sense to me.
^^^
THAT is the most sensible thing you've written in this post. You are giving her an actual WAY to exercise responsibility. You could perhaps take this method a step further, keep the glasses safer, but keep it fun and light-hearted. Help her select a cute little "fanny pack" or runner's waist pouch (they are tiny but stretch to hold several things).
She could keep her glasses case in her waist pouch, and whenever she needs to take her glasses off, the "safe place" is right there around her waist.
When my 6-year old (he's now 27) got glasses, we had a silly little mantra/rhyme that we would frequently say about his glasses: "On the face, or in the case, never any other place!"
We also borrowed from Dr Seuss: "Would you keep them with a fox? Would you keep them in a box? Would you leave them on a train? Would you leave them in the rain?" etc.
Great ideas.
For all of you parents that are saying things like, "She's only six, of course she will lose or break a few pair of glasses". Our daughter got her first glasses at age seven. Her glasses were always on her face, on her night stand when she slept or in her glasses case (on the very rare times she would need to remove them during the day---example, to wash her face or during swimming lessons).
DD was a typical kid but never even once did she lose or break her glasses so it can be done.
For all of you parents that are saying things like, "She's only six, of course she will lose or break a few pair of glasses".
I said that because of the OP's attitude toward his children and his style of parenting which was evident from his first post.
He later revealed he's a follower of a person and a child rearing philosophy I'm not a fan of. (And that revelation came as no surprise to me.) The whole "candy dish" style of parenting has been discussed on other threads. I thought it was horrid then and I think it's horrid now.
Some little kids can keep track of their glasses, some can't. (Good on your's if she could.) Every child is different. I don't think the OP appreciates that. He's got his book and he's sticking to it, regardless of the individuality of his own child. IMO that's a recipe for disaster and heartache. I'm much more concerned for the small child than I am the OP.
Last edited by DewDropInn; 05-24-2013 at 09:53 AM..
For what it's worth, at this point this episode is long forgotten. Our 6 year old has done well since, and is doing well in school as usual, and gets a bowl of ice cream as usual upon returning home & my seeing the good marks in her folder. We've gone back to laughing, giggling, playing--all is great. She is such a darling little sweet girl and such a blessing.
I want to keep this shorter, but a few observations. It is my general observation that the difference between a 6 or 7 year-old who can keep up with important things like glasses vs one that can't--most time the difference in my observation is the parent, not the child. The parent who EXPECTS their child to be able to (and yes helps out in appropriate ways that aren't tantamount to just doing it for them) most-times their child will be able to. The parent who excuses their child from the expectation because, well, they're JUST a child, most-times their child is unable to because the parent is doing it for them all of the time anyway, thinking that's how it's supposed to be, that to do otherwise is to be a lazy parent. I'm sure there are exceptions, of course, but in general that's how I've observed it over the years. And I am NOT attacking any parents personally, just saying that's how it seems to work in terms of the CONCEPTS.
But you know this whole "every child is different," frankly, a lot of times I think it's used as an excuse for not expecting children to assimilate somewhat within the household in a healthy manner. Me: I think most reasonable expectations, and of course they have to be reasonable, should apply to ALL children, regardless of individuality. At the same time, to a certain extent anyway, individuality should be allowed for.
It's about finding the right balance between the two. You want each child's uniqueness to be allowed to shine through & blossom, you want to appreciate each child for their uniqueness. At the same time, there must be structure & order, and a child can't ever get the idea that they can use their "uniqueness" to get out of what are reasonable expectations for them & to receive preferential treatment.
Thus, for instance, our 4 year old, lately this year he's not into swimming at the pool or lake as he had been just last year. The rest of us 3 still are. At home, we have a pool. While we 3 are in it, he is for the most part allowed to do other things, like the swings. This accounts for his individuality. However, as my wife & I both want him to learn how to swim, we still make him come in the pool for a few minutes for teaching of that. We expect BOTH of them to have at least SOME competency in the water, although we don't expect them both to have the same LEVEL of it. Thus he's made to come in the pool for those few minutes. Also, if we feel like going to the lake, his dissenting vote doesn't change our plans. We're still going.
Also, I think of how I was raised, not to photocopy it, but as guidance. For instance, I was pretty much expected to eat whatever was cooked or else go hungry. I hated cabbage & lima beans, for one, but if she cooked them, so be it. I liked green beans & mashed potatoes, I readily ate lots of those. If on a given occasion all 4 were cooked, was I allowed to just eat the green beans & mashed potatoes? No, I was expected to eat all 4. However, my mother did allow me to eat MORE of what I liked and LESS of what I didn't like, so long as I ate at least SOME of ALL of it.
Also, I hated cheese, and this one dish called for it--however, she would leave a corner of it cheese-free just for me. I appreciated that. The thing was, though, that was easy, it wasn't like she was being compelled to make something different altogether. That 1 step showed that my interests were valid ones, but without it hijacking the whole house or making things a huge hassle. I try to remember that concept with my own.
Also, I naturally slept fewer hours than everyone else, I might be ready to get up by 7:30 and the rest by 9 come morning. However, for that 7:30 - 9 period, I was to stay in my room & be quiet. I was basically expected to assimilate with the rest of the household's 9 am get-up time in terms of I couldn't go running all over the house as if everyone else was also up.
As for the candy dish thing--again, it's not about entrapment, it's about teaching self control. It's the equivalent of an adult understanding that there are enticing things (and men/women etc) out there that you can't just help yourself to, and the world isn't obligated to hide it from your view, you're obligated to control yourself. (I have said that a woman dressing provocatively has no business getting mad if a man STARES a bit, but she isn't obligated to cover up head-to-toe either, and regardless it still wouldn't make it okay for a man to make a pass at her or harass her all over everywhere after being told "no" 8013 times.) There are going to be people with better clothes than you, better cars than you, better houses than you, a larger pool or yard than you, taking better vacations than you. You are going to have to deal with that. That you are tempted by the sweeter fruits doesn't allow you to take it & claim you just couldn't help yourself. Making a child leave accessible candy alone is a way of teaching that early. It's also about giving respect to the adults who shouldn't have to live like a prisoner in their own home, hiding everything, because of kids who don't control their impulses. It's the ADULTS' house.
Besides, the candy is only in a small corner in 1 spot, it's not like it's loitered all over every inch of the house. Heck, growing up, my parents had loaded & unlocked guns in their bedroom closet at ground level, I was just expected to stay out of there. If I had failed to do so & something happened, it wouldn't have been my parents getting the blame for being reckless, it would've been ME for not controlling myself & staying out of a room I had been clearly told to stay out of. We don't take it that far (no loaded and unlocked guns here) but I still agree with the concept in the overall sense.
He later revealed he's a follower of a person and a child rearing philosophy I'm not a fan of. (And that revelation came as no surprise to me.) The whole "candy dish" style of parenting has been discussed on other threads. I thought it was horrid then and I think it's horrid now.
When raising my kids, I did read some of John Rosemond's material. He seemed fairly common-sensical in many ways, from what I recall. (Regrettably, I read some books that were FAR more disturbing than John Rosemond. Ever heard of Michael Pearl? Google him.) But the problem with any of these book writers/experts, is they have to present their concepts as being the "right" way, a way that is "sure to work," otherwise people will buy someone else's book, and they will no longer be considered "the expert."
The truth is John Rosemond, Dr Spock, your pediatrician, whoever.....they all have some good ideas based on (hopefully) their experiences and various research. But parenting has never been "one size fits all." These book writers aren't going to say, "Here's some things to try, but if your child doesn't respond to this type of training, go buy my competitor's book, or just use your gut instinct."
I did find Rosemond to be a bit idealistic. Sure, we all WANT our children to be perfectly obedient, first time, every time. But clinging to those ideals, thinking "Well the book said when I say/do 'abc' then the child should 'xyz'," and getting frustrated/angry with your children when they don't meet those ideals, is definitely a recipe for disaster. I know how easy it is for kids to "push our hot buttons" and get us so angry we could sting 'em up by their toes. I don't miss those days!! But if I had to do it all over again, I'd be less dictatorial. Firm, sure, but not to the point of being mean and angry.
My three-year old knows that there are only 3 acceptable places in the house to put his glasses - the kitchen counter, his dresser, and the bathroom counter. If I find them anywhere else that is not on his head, he gets a timeout. He's been able to consistently follow this since he was 2 1/2 (and I got tired of broken glasses because he'd put them on the floor and his older sister wouldn't see them and stepped on them - twice). If he starts wrestling or something and needs to take them off, he has to stop play momentarily to go put them up and then go back to playing.
If we are out in public and he needs to take them off, he can hand them to me, or he can ask me where he can put them.
Can you do something like that for your daughter?
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.
Google him.) But the problem with any of these book writers/experts, is they have to present their concepts as being the "right" way, a way that is "sure to work," otherwise people will buy someone else's book, and they will no longer be considered "the expert."
