Dh grew up with xmas underwear. When I came into the family and spent the holidays with his family, his siblings, in their 30's and 40's would announce and hold up their xmas underwear with excitement as the grandkids (our kids and their cousins) would look on with interest. I was so confused that first year. :laugh:

Sure, but no one here is advocating not addressing the inappropriate social behavior, or refusing to teach better social skills. The difference of opinion doesn't revolve around whether or not to modify the behavior, it's in how to modify the behavior.

For those who think respect and manners are of paramount importance, it's interesting to hear rationalizations for how this apparently is expected to exist in one direction. That's what.

I think herein lies the real gist of the problem. I don't consider the behavior as explained in the OP to have been rude. Socially inappropriate, yes, but not with the intent I associate with rudeness. I recognize this is a subjective association, which is probably why such a simple sounding question elicits so many different opinions. Understood and agreed. I think children are entitled to the same, and for me that includes respecting wishes when asked. I agree. I don't agree with stopping festivities however, as I think that unjustly puts negative attention on the child. I think a quiet, private reminder would be sufficient to correct the behavior and prevent it in the future, and really, that's the goal, right? To encourage a different reply in the future? I think this is an admirable goal, and one that can be accomplished in such a way that is considerate to a child.

It's been years since I've used it. I recall it's biblical stuff being really easy to omit. Mostly, I'm just bumping this for you.

Very simply: If a child isn't allowed to express frustration or disappointment in his own home without being punished for it, it is unethical to knowingly place the child in that position when he may not yet have the necessary skills to avoid punishment. It's a simple answer to your question in bold because your question was surrounded by a very simplified summary. You're simplifying it for whatever reason. For example, no one has suggested intent any differently from the OP. Such a summary isn't helpful or cooperative, it's condescending. For my part, I think it's unethical because if you were to replace the child in this scenario with another adult, I think you'd get a different response in general: "If a wife isn't allowed to express frustration or disappointment in her own home without being punished for it, it is unethical for her husband to knowingly place her in that position when she may not have the resources to avoid punishment." "If a civilian isn't allowed to express frustration or disappointment in his government without being punished for it, it is unethical for the law to knowingly place him in that position when he does not have the resources to avoid punishment." For my part, I don't think the ethics change because a child is dependent upon the parent and generally naturally disposed to being compliant and supportive of the parent. If anything, I think that's taking advantage of their natural vulnerabilities. And I damn well don't accept that "in authority over" ... stuff that functions as justification for what otherwise amounts to "might makes right" behavior. That's not to say I think a child should not be expected to learn appropriate social skills (like knowing how to bite his tongue or be polite even when disappointed). But then, no one here suggested such a thing. For me, it's the idea of using punishment to condition a child to not express negative feelings when placed in a situation that could not avoid it that strikes me as being inappropriate. And so unkind. And immature. And frankly, it suggests neediness to me. Please note, I'm talking about the general idea, not the OP specifically.

Worries. I collect worries. I've still got some from when I was 8 years old.

I didn't really use logic when thinking about Santa. I was told, I believed. But this is the same kind of questions that helped me out of my religious belief. If there really was a Jesus, wouldn't all the xians, even the homeless xians, get their prayers answered?

^^^ Word

I think in general this is a good point. I can't imagine a huffy comment and dismissing an unwanted gift at 11 years old is that big of a deal, though. I think this kind of reaction would be modified simply by the virtue of time. As kids mature, so do their reactions. Who's acting as though you or other posters are evil monsters? I see people responding to arguments, which are impersonal by their very nature. Nor do I think anyone is responding because of a redress for rudeness. That's terribly inaccurate and misleading. It's these kinds of accusations that derail the conversation. Let's stick to the comments made, not feelings or intent assumed. Your implication that children who are not immediately punished for rude behavior results in "so many kids" being rude and thoughtless is problematic. For one thing, "rude and thoughtless" is completely subjective. In this discussion with one very specific behavior to explore, there exists no consensus. Even among those who agree with each other, there's likely to be differences between general behaviors that are considered rude or thoughtless. For another thing, that's a comment that relies on confirmation bias, which is again utterly useless unless conversing with people who share the same bias. It completely ignores the many variables that have been shown to be more directly related to social and emotional well-being, such as the opportunity to discuss and explore feelings and thoughts in an open and safe environment, rather than being repressed for the sake of maintaining a desired look of respect. Did they know the child's parent specifically disregarded his wishes? Do they think a child's wishes ought to be respected? It sounds like they've learned instead to attribute character by virtue of a very limited example of behaviors. In the same way, you assumed others attributed character to you by virtue of your limited behavior posting here. I think that approach is problematic, as it relies on unwarranted assumptions rather than information, and seems to increase feelings of frustration and defensiveness. I disagree with this. While discipline, teaching, and consequences are practical, humans also learn by observation, experience, experiments, and very generally,through the laws of cause and effect. This is where TW's comment comes in - the effect of these causes (discipline for expressing negative emotion) suggests more than one lesson (rude comments won't be tolerated in public / gotta keep mom's ego stroked or she freaks out / don't piss me off or I'll make you wish you hadn't).

I think this is really so important. I don't think anyone suggests a child shouldn't be allowed to communicate their emotions or feelings with their parents (and I realize you're not suggesting this), but I think the method of that communication is what's getting the attention. But TW, I'm with you. As our kids get older, we really are given the opportunity to ignore the delivery, and instead focus on the issue. Then, at a later time, a more emotionally neutral time or practically convenient time, one might revisit the style of communication, offering alternatives and the values of such alternatives. But in the moment, sometimes we learn to bite our tongues and ignore the delivery in order to address the need as it happens. I don't think 11 years old is too young to start this. I think it shows respect of the child, something I think we all agree is valuable.

I don't understand how one might assume from the comment that the child needs to "calm down." No one is asking you to apologize, just explain your comment. Why is the onus on the child to be obedient, respectful, and deferential to adults, and why are adults exempt from courtesy, or showing respect? I find the whole idea of holding authority over someone as justification to be exempt from accountability to be rather deceitful, and deferential to hypocrisy and abuse.

You can condition a child to respond to their own thoughts positively and negatively. Absolutely. In another thread, we talked about this conditioning, using such examples as brushing teeth and doing homework without protest. So I disagree. You can train a child to feel gratitude. You can also train a child to feel guilt when not feeling sufficient gratitude, or perhaps more accurately, for "making" someone else feel bad.

Perhaps you're confusing a lack of public discipline with approval. I can't recall any post that suggested the child's behavior was admirable and ought to be repeated. The contention is in setting up the scenario, and then punishing for a natural response - expression of disappointment. The further possibility is that the child was judged (if not by the OP, then by others here) for a thought-crime - lack of gratitude. That's outrageous to me. So much for freedom to think what one wants. That you call a public, socially inappropriate expression of disappointment "rude" is a judgment of the behavior. Where I differ with you is not in the inappropriateness of the behavior, but in the idea that only a child's behavior can be judged, and never the adults. I disagree with the idea, and challenge it. The OP's behavior ought to be judged in the same way her child's behavior was judged - in context, depending upon intent, depending on outcome, depending on known alternatives, depending on maturity, and other variables that are taken into consideration whenever behavior is judged. Why are adults held above accountability? What makes adults impervious to judgement when they are involved with children? The hypocrisy in this is offensive to me. Your comment about your faith being your motivator is irrelevant. It's a useless comment because it can't be supported in any way as it all rests on your personal assurances and no objective information from which to draw. You might as well appeal to your belief in Blardeck to provide adequate hooledorks. Judging the behavior doesn't need to appeal to any beliefs. We can judge it using actual information. In any case, if one should be kind, even to those who persecute or hate you (where does this even come from?), then why not to a child? Why not be kind enough to a child to not subject him to public shame for an act of immaturity? Why not be kind enough to discuss with him his feelings, your feelings, and remind him of the socially appropriate response, and why it's valuable, in private?

I was once told by a school behaviorist that "little monsters grow up to be big monsters." I think that sums up this mentality - kids who are not respectful and grateful to authority become deviants in society, and that's why we can't have nice things. Interestingly, this idea has no legs, as evidence doesn't conform to this argument and actually supports other theories (such as children who are given the room to express their feelings, even negative ones, turn out to be more well-rounded emotionally and socially than those raised in a repressive environment). So no, Cat, it doesn't play out, but it is conventional wisdom. A cursory look at history of reactions to social deviance will illustrate how society has moved on from this idea, and how this idea was for many generations the standard. Society evolves, however. Women are no longer conditioned in the same measure to be grateful to be housewives. Children are no longer conditioned in the same measure to keep silent when others abuse them. Minorities are no longer conditioned in the same measure to be grateful to be included in the periphery of society, relegated to positions of service. But obviously, there are those who maintain these old standards, believing the conventional argument despite evidence to the contrary.

It's neither silly nor a straw man. You've drawn a line, so presumably you appreciate the value in judgement in some measure. I'm asking why that judgement must be reserved when it comes to holding the adult accountable. That's beyond accountability for reasons that are not based on logic or reason, but based on power and control. Kindness and gentility aren't a matter of faith, as clearly these virtues are valued by those who don't share your faith, and those who do are statistically no different. Assuming you're a xian, you likely deviate measurably from the bible in these matters as well (assuming you don't advocate for slavery, genocide, or human trafficking). But kindness and gentility are reserved under certain circumstances when it comes to the feelings of a child, circumstances we don't refer to when dealing with other adults. I find that curious. The OP mentioned she rolled her eyes when people suggested she was disrespectful. There seems to be a blind spot when it comes to kindness and gentility when it comes to kids who fail to be convenient. I find that rather hypocritical when the argument is in teaching the value of respect.

It is my opinion that this conditioning teaches one to be grateful for, respect, and empathize with power and authority. I suspect this is on purpose, but I don't agree with it for reasons you articulate and more.

Why? Why are children exempt from respect? Why are adults exempt from accountability? Would this count if someone tried to sell a child drugs, or convince her to let them touch her underpants? If there's a line that can be drawn, why should that line be exempt from judgment?

Fear of losing control, it would appear. Fear of watching a child disregard orders, fear of watching a child lose respect and fail to comply within expectations of the parent, it might seem. I think that's what frightens parents more than many are aware - watching a child grow into an autonomous person who does not behave within the emotional comfort zone of the parent. BTDT, it's a frightening place. In my experience, a socially inappropriate response to a perceived injustice (justifiable perception on the child's part, imo) wouldn't be a concern for this fear, but people have different comfort zones. Instead, it would be an opportunity to teach a child how to respond when caught off guard, how to respond gratefully in spite of a perceived injustice, how to sympathize with the offender (in this case the parent), with the purpose of learning how to resolve conflict (internally as well as among two people). It would also be an opportunity to apologize to the child for disregarding their wishes, as those wishes were completely valid.

edited to delete reply

According to the link, "they" are the members of Oberlin, "properly seen as an outlier, not a reflection of what most campuses are like," featured in "an outlying story about a small number of students plucked by the tabloid most adept at trolling its readers from the stream of campus news. There are dissenters at the school. And students at many campuses often complain about food in overwrought ways." I think the story the Atlantic picks up on fuels an anti-progressive bias in general (calling the school "ultra-liberal," identified as Lena Dunham's college), as "cultural appropriation" is the new buzzword used by the "PC Police," "Social Justice Warriors," or those who were once called "Bleeding Heart Liberals." It's a crafty version of the ever popular "kids these days" whine.

In the state of Virginia, where this event takes place, local ministers are invited to personally invite Jesus to attend board meetings (even thought this is illegal), and a half hour drive away, another school leads kids to personally invite Jesus to get involved in their new school (again, illegal). To argue that Jesus is the only god assumed to be real, good, and in some way functionally effective by representatives of our [secular by design] government, but his supposed birthday, recognized by the federal and every state government, is something people have to pretend doesn't exist, is nonsensical.

Understood, and agreed. My point is we don't ALL raise our kids with the same measure of conditioning. The Duggars take it to astronomical proportions. Then when it backfires, they kick it into high gear. Refer to Josh's "therapy" for example. My point is that we can see this trend very, very clearly. If this note were written by another mother, I'd roll my eyes with the rest of them, but because it comes from Michelle Duggar, I conclude its meaning and intent are different - in conformity with the rest of this trend of behavior.

In your opinion, the assignment was proselytizing/promoting islam, but to legitimately understand culture, history, politics, or literature (in English anyway), requires biblical literacy? How is one proselytizing while the other is simply educating? What's the difference?

I think we're all invited to hear their message, and ideally they want us to accept it. They make no bones about evangelizing, and they don't hide using their children as a platform for their preaching. "We hope somehow the story of our journey — the good times and the difficult times — cause you to see the kindness of God and learn that He can bring you through anything." You might have missed my earlier comment, but I recognize that I am reading this note in the context of a notable trend. In and of itself, the comment is neutral. I'm drawing my conclusions from various examples that, I would argue, paint a pretty clear picture, most especially as they articulate these very things, albeit in a more positive way than I do.