Jill Duggar Dillard is pregnant.

[Slartibartfast]

I know people twist things to get what they want out of it.  I've always seen these verses as the rod of discipline (the Bible also talks about the rod of pride, which is not a literal rod).  Some people don't discipline their children at all.  I believe, if we love them, we are to discipline them and train them in the way they should go.  Jesus lovingly did this.

 

 I have extended family members that believe in spanking older children.  It's not for me, but I don't think they are being abusive.  However,  I don't know anyone who takes these verses to mean they should beat their children, or spank babies with spatulas/rulers.

 

 

The same word is used to describe a  shepherd's crook in the bits talking about shepherds. The crooks are used to guide. It is also the same word  used in "Thy rod and thy staff they comfort me" 

[Dory]

I 'borrowed' the Bill Gothard stuff from my mom's book shelves after all this just to re-read through it and re-get a sense of what was being taught to my parents so I could better understand what was being shoved down us kids throats.

 

 

[Guest]

The same word is used to describe a  shepherd's crook in the bits talking about shepherds. The crooks are used to guide. It is also the same word  used in "Thy rod and thy staff, they comfort me." 

 

Right.  The shepherd guides the sheep with his staff.  He doesn't beat them with it. 

[Mrs Mungo]

I haven't changed my mind on the topic that not all corporally punishing parents must be abusing their kids.

Did anyone make that claim in this thread? I saw no such claim.

[Rosie_0801]

Did anyone make that claim in this thread? I saw no such claim.

 

Maybe she's doing hyperbole again. 

[Guest]

I understand that's your interpretation. The Pearls, et al, believe differently. Does that make sense? They don't believe they're doing anything wrong by encouraging parents to do what they believe is taking a strong, biblical approach to parenting. Ultimately, it doesn't matter to me how you read and interpret your scriptures, you don't need to try and convince me any more than they do. I'm just pointing out that the claim Jesus would never endorse that is an opinion, and a rather modern one at that. Looking back at history will give you an idea of just how differently discipline was addressed with children, perfectly justified by self-identified Christians. 

 

I'm just responding to you when you say something to me.  It sounds like you are trying to convince me of something.   :p   I'm secure in my ways... don't need to convince anyone of anything.   :)

[Seasider]

Fortunately most parents using the bible as parenting source material are not physical or emotional abusers.

Disagree.

 

People have often convoluted Scripture to justify abuse.

[albeto.]

It also can and does lead to greater freedom as illustrated by Wilberforce and others. There have been all sorts of different mechanics in the past to oppress people. Religion is far from the only one. Some people can and will use excuse to justify their actions.

 

You have said in the past that you want to see religion eliminated, correct?

 

I completely agree with you that religion is not the origin, or the greatest tool of oppression. It's merely a natural development of the kind of cause and effect thinking humans evolved with. My personal opinion is that religion is like selling a cure after having convinced someone they are diseased. It's freeing only after having been convinced you are in some way otherwise hopelessly bound. In other words, it's not necessary, and yes, I believe it is often used in malignant ways. This thread is an example of such a way. If a baby isn't understood to be "sinning," if a person isn't believed to be under some threat of eternal punishment, being trained to obey God's authority without question wouldn't be an issue. The Pearls advocate this child raising technique for the purpose of instilling biblical obedience, among other things, but this is of course of primary importance if one believes an eternity of being burned alive is at stake. It doesn't matter what I think though. If the Duggars believe a form of this ideology (and if they are followers of Gothard, they likely do), the chances are fairly good that this is the kind of philosophy that will inspire the undercurrent of their relationship with their children. Biblical obedience is of paramount importance because without it one risks eternal damnation. Obviously obedience is helpful outside the context of hell, but it takes on a different kind of urgency inside that context, and physical means are justified when approaching it in this old fashioned biblical way. 

[Slartibartfast]

I completely agree with you that religion is not the origin, or the greatest tool of oppression. It's merely a natural development of the kind of cause and effect thinking humans evolved with. My personal opinion is that religion is like selling a cure after having convinced someone they are diseased. It's freeing only after having been convinced you are in some way otherwise hopelessly bound. In other words, it's not necessary, and yes, I believe it is often used in malignant ways. This thread is an example of such a way. If a baby isn't understood to be "sinning," if a person isn't believed to be under some threat of eternal punishment, being trained to obey God's authority without question wouldn't be an issue. The Pearls advocate this child raising technique for the purpose of instilling biblical obedience, among other things, but this is of course of primary importance if one believes an eternity of being burned alive is at stake. It doesn't matter what I think though. If the Duggars believe a form of this ideology (and if they are followers of Gothard, they likely do), the chances are fairly good that this is the kind of philosophy that will inspire the undercurrent of their relationship with their children. Biblical obedience is of paramount importance because without it one risks eternal damnation. Obviously obedience is helpful outside the context of hell, but it takes on a different kind of urgency inside that context, and physical means are justified when approaching it in this old fashioned biblical way. 

 

Religion does not teach that babies can sin or complete obedience is required to avoid  damnation and neither does the Bible. People teach that and many many religious people do not agree with those people.

[albeto.]

I'm just responding to you when you say something to me.  It sounds like you are trying to convince me of something.   :p   I'm secure in my ways... don't need to convince anyone of anything.   :)

 

Oh no, I'm not trying to convince you of anything. Just adding my two cents to the conversation with regard to the idea that Jesus couldn't possibly be understood to condone this kind of action. I think that's an historically modern take on this. That's all. But I've said that, and you've responded. It's all good. 

 

:)

[albeto.]

Religion does not teach that babies can sin or complete obedience is required to avoid  damnation and neither does the Bible. People teach that and many many religious people do not agree with those people.

 

People teach that because they believe the bible does say this very thing. They even use bible verses and themes to support it. I understand the bible also says the opposite. So you're right. But you're also wrong.  :p

 

;)

[Slartibartfast]

Oh no, I'm not trying to convince you of anything. Just adding my two cents to the conversation with regard to the idea that Jesus couldn't possibly be understood to condone this kind of action. I think that's an historically modern take on this. That's all. But I've said that, and you've responded. It's all good. 

 

:)

 

Historically people believed many things that are not actually in the Bible.

[mommaduck]

Right.  The shepherd guides the sheep with his staff.  He doesn't beat them with it. 

 

And yet, some churches and groups have taught that it is used by the shepherd to actually break a wandering lambs back legs so that they can carry them back to the fold and they won't wander, putting the shepherd and others in danger, again. Gothard and company are great at lying and making stories up. You should hear his marital advice (blood and all).

[Guest]

King James Bible Ephesians 6:4
And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.

 

King James Bible Colossians 3:21

Fathers, provoke not your children to anger, lest they be discouraged.

 

Albeto, the Bible is pretty clear on this.  

[Guest]

And yet, some churches and groups have taught that it is used by the shepherd to actually break a wandering lambs back legs so that they can carry them back to the fold and they won't wander, putting the shepherd and others in danger, again. Gothard and company are great at lying and making stories up. You should hear his marital advice (blood and all).

 

Oh, my.  This thread sure is leaving me speechless a lot.

[ktgrok]

And yet, some churches and groups have taught that it is used by the shepherd to actually break a wandering lambs back legs so that they can carry them back to the fold and they won't wander, putting the shepherd and others in danger, again. Gothard and company are great at lying and making stories up. You should hear his marital advice (blood and all).

 

 

Blood? dear heavens.

[mommaduck]

Historically people believed many things that are not actually in the Bible.

 

Sometimes with good reason and sometimes with absolutely horrid reason. Even those that hold to sola scriptura can have their own form of tradition and bad interpretation. 

[mommaduck]

Blood? dear heavens.

 

He's obsessed with a woman's cycle and a man's p3n1$ (trying to help keep out spammers)

[albeto.]

King James Bible Ephesians 6:4

And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.

 

King James Bible Colossians 3:21

Fathers, provoke not your children to anger, lest they be discouraged.

 

Albeto, the Bible is pretty clear on this.  

 

Perhaps you'd like if we take this to the ask a REAL Christian thread? I hate to be the derailment of this one, and this seems to fit pretty well in that context, as I see it anyway: You're suggesting the REAL Christian faith promotes XYZ, and I'm suggesting it also promotes ABC. The fact that XYZ and ABC are exclusive of one another doesn't negate the support found in the bible and in the historical community of the faithful of either, or both. 

[albeto.]

And yet, some churches and groups have taught that it is used by the shepherd to actually break a wandering lambs back legs so that they can carry them back to the fold and they won't wander, putting the shepherd and others in danger, again. Gothard and company are great at lying and making stories up. You should hear his marital advice (blood and all).

 

This was my instruction as well. The lamb with the broken leg (the obstinate sinner) would be lovingly carried back home by the shepherd, but the bone wouldn't be any less broken, or painful. All for the greater good. 

[Dory]

And yet, some churches and groups have taught that it is used by the shepherd to actually break a wandering lambs back legs so that they can carry them back to the fold and they won't wander, putting the shepherd and others in danger, again. Gothard and company are great at lying and making stories up. You should hear his marital advice (blood and all).

 

I've heard that one a LOT. I've always wondered if the people saying that have ever actually had sheep. No sane shepherd is going to damage the legs of a lamb. Not to mention, if they are breaking lambs legs, I'm not sure how they would ever have an unblemished lamb left for sacrificing.

 

Really, lambs will simply follow a shepherd that they trust.

[Dory]

See, and I've never heard that one in my life! Maybe it is denominational?

 

Maybe more regional then denominational. I've heard it in a Baptist church, an Evangelical Free church, and a Pentecostal church.

[mommaduck]

I heard it in more than one denomination...in more than one region. All were affected by Gothard and the like.

[albeto.]

Could be regional.

 

Could be you just didn't come across it. Plenty others have. I did in the Catholic faith. It was a part of the property gospel I was taught coming into the faith as an adult. 

 

ETA: I might add that as far as my experience went, this was not a popular belief in the RCC. I was taken in by a small but very devout community casually known as "Charismatic Catholics," if that means anything to anyone. 

[Lang Syne Boardie]

How bout... hitting a baby is abuse.

Of course! I was trying to be very specific in order to be entirely understood by arctic mama, I hoped, by answering the topic exactly.

[Mrs Mungo]

Of course! I was trying to be very specific in order to be entirely understood by arctic mama, I hoped, by answering the topic exactly.

Apparently, it was still possible to misinterpret it to: all parents who use corporal punishment are abusive. So, I don't blame you for your attempt at extreme specificity and clarity. ;)

[Magnolia Rain]

😥

 

You don't really know what you are defending because you admit that you haven't read any of it.

 

Babywise is by Ferber. (Eta: Sorry, Ezzo! Corrected down thread) I don't agree with their advice, but I wouldn't necessarily call it abusive (although some of it can be risky, even dangerous). We are talking about the Pearls. Totally different groups of people.

 

From the books:

The Pearls recommend whipping infants only a few months old on their bare skin. They describe whipping their own 4 month old daughter (p.9). They recommend whipping the bare skin of “every child†(p.2) for “Christians and non-Christians†(p.5) and for “every transgression†(p.1). Parents who don’t whip their babies into complete submission are portrayed as indifferent, lazy, careless and neglectful (p.19) and are “creating a Nazi†(p.45).

On p.60 they recommend whipping babies who cannot sleep and are crying, and to never allow them “to get up.†On p.61 they recommend whipping a 12 month old girl for crying. On p.79 they recommend whipping a 7 month old for screaming.

On p.65 co-author Debi Pearl whips the bare leg of a 15 month old she is babysitting, 10 separate times, for not playing with something she tells him to play with. On p.56 Debi Pearl hits a 2 year old so hard “a karate chop like wheeze came from somewhere deep inside.â€

On p.44 they say not to let the child’s crying while being hit to “cause you to lighten up on the intensity or duration of the spanking.†On p.59 they recommend whipping a 3 year old until he is “totally broken.â€

On p.55 the Pearls say a mother should hit her child if he cries for her.

On p.46 the Pearls say that if a child does obey before being whipped, whip them anyway. And “if you have to sit on him to spank him, then do not hesitate. And hold him there until he is surrendered. Prove that you are bigger, tougher.†“Defeat him totally.†On p.80 they recommend giving a child having a tantrum “a swift forceful spanking.†On the same page they say to whip small children on their bare skin until they stop screaming. “Don’t be bullied. Give him more of the same.†They say to continue whipping until their crying turns into a “wounded, submissive whimper.â€

On p.47 they recommend their various whips, including “a belt or larger tree branch†to hit children.

The Pearls recommend pulling a nursing infant’s hair (p.7), and describe tripping their non-swimming toddler so she falls into deep water (p.67). They recommend ignoring an infant’s bumped head when he falls to the floor, and ignoring skinned knees (p.86). They also say “if your child is roughed-up by peers, rejoice.†(p.81) And on p.103 the Pearls say if children lose their shoes, “let them go without until they (the children) can make the money to buy more.â€

- See more at: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2013/04/some-quotes-from-michael-pearl.html#sthash.lAearWzG.dpuf

[Shahrazad]

I don't know too many who do, but the parents in my life who advocate that do so because they feel very, very strongly that they don't want hands associated with anything but hugging.

 

Of course, they're probably just abusive monsters.

 

You said it, not me. :)

 

 

The knee jerk jumps to the worst case scenario on these topics warrants a bit of snark. It isn't so black and white. Throwing around the term abuse is cases where it isn't warranted is damaging to dealing with situations of real abuse appropriately. It always seems to me like a boy-who-cried-a wolf issue.

 

Not every parent who uses these techniques or even is familiar with the teaching is an abuser. I firmly believe that clear thinking adults have the ability to glean what is useful, spit out the bones, and implement what works best for their family and should be allowed to do so without being judged as harming their children de facto. Jumping to abuse and name calling doesn't sit well with me, when anyone does it.

 

I feel strongly the accusation needs to be saved for cases that truly warrant it, and plenty of parents in these circles loves and care for their children whole doing what they believe is best. I don't think there is enough evidence to warrant all physical punishment or child training techniques as abuse, that's all I am saying. That doesn't mean some cannot use these techniques to cause excess physical harm to their children, but I don't think it is fair to imply that all of them do. That's going too far in my opinion.

 

Any parent who ABUSES their kids is, in fact, an ABUSER. Hitting your infant with anything and hitting a child with objects = abuse. But I guess as long as they're being 'loved' and 'cared for'. I mean, it isn't real abuse like when you see the "welfare mamas with kids from a bunch of different fathers" yelling at their kids to come along so they can buy soda and sweets with their food stamps, am I right *wink wink*? <please note sarcasm>. Personally, I would argue that causing physical harm, excess or no, to your baby/infant is going too far. 

 

 

That's how it was explained to me. But there was more to it than that. And most moms I know who advocate that sort of discipline don't use it on small infants. It tends to be picking them up and redirecting them back to an appropriate spot or activity. Swats and such are saved for older children who are intentionally disobeying in an area they have just been verbally corrected in. 14-18 months seems more common.

 

I've never read anything by the Pearls or Gothard, so this is my assessment of real life families who have. They are good parents who love their kids, and their older and adult children are healthy and thriving. Likening this automatically to abuse is like saying all children who are latchkey kids are neglected, or all kids who were ever spanked are abused. While abuse definitely can happen in those subcategories, I think calling it default or typical is just not nuanced enough for reality.

 

This is an area I believe good and loving parents can feel differently, and should be able to do so without criticism that they haven't warranted. That's all.

Interesting. I'm an adult but if my husband  decided to use a wooden spoon, spatula, or plumbing wire to 'discipline' me, he'd get a beat down and likely some pepper spray in the eyes for good measure. Most (sane) people would consider such a method of a man 'disciplining' his wife to be abhorrent, abusive, and indefensible. Yet, when a grown adult does it to a 1 year old, who has no means to defend themselves or even coherently voice their pain or objection, we're all good! And you still get to keep your title of 'good and loving parent'. That seems like a pretty sweet deal!

 

[Shahrazad]

 

Edited for some clarity.

I love my friends and family. They just believe differently on child rearing than is common on this board. I have friends who go way too far the other direction and I love them, too. I can't say I enjoy their offspring overly much, though. Rude children drive me nuts and patient, respectful children are a pleasure to be around.

I just don't particular care how the parents got there. They all love their kids, and try to do right by them.

 

Ends justify the means, then? Even if they've got to beat them into line, as long as they're well behaved and don't annoy you, it was all worth it. I have a new suggestion though, as someone who has often worried about inconveniencing others with my children's behavior. How about instead of beating my kids into submission so that someone like you finds them polite, patient, and respectful, I just grab some plumbing wire and have a go at the judgmental, know-it-all mom who finds my spirited (though IMO they're still pretty polite), non-abused children a problem and would prefer a rougher approach as long as it yields 'little angels'.
 

What I meant was that whatever the advice, I am not comfortable automatically judging a family that says they have read or used it because the implementation might be vastly different. Just like lots of families say they're classical, but the spectrum of that and the real day to day usage can look very different. Child training has many different flavors and each family is unique, too. I haven't lived with the Duggars or read any books by them, and accusing them of abuse in a dearth of physical evidence isn't something I'm okay with.

I am also hugely opposed to family beds with older children and extended nursing beyond about age three. It grosses me out, bothers me deeply, and I think it is an extremely harmful set of practices. But I'm not going to say that everyone claiming they do those things or variants of them is an abuser, either. That just goes too far for my comfort.

Is that a more cogent explanation?

 

 

Extended nursing - I can't help my reaction to it on a gut level. Sorry. Grosses me out. But that's why I wouldn't call it abuse - just because I think it's wrong and it bothers me deeply doesn't mean it would be fair to claim it was inherently damaging. Even if I think I could make a case for why nursing an eight year old could be abusive in the wrong circumstance or implementation, it might make sense in a survival situation with no potable water. That's neither here or there, I was just trying to give another example but it's not analogous.

 

I really, really, hope you're a troll and just writing as some sort of satire on extremism. So, nursing beyond age 3 and family beds with older children are comparable in your eyes to these abusive situations your set on defending? And after bending over backwards to defend said abusive behaviors, you then top it off with a judgmental sentence on extended breastfeeding and extended co-sleeping (neither of which is shown to be remotely harmful in the long run and which is not anything like abuse unless you're a pervert)? Something grosses me out here, but it is not ebf or ecs.
 

Maybe she's doing hyperbole again. 

 
I <3 you.

 

[Shahrazad]

1) Your post referenced family beds with older kids (common in most non-western cultures btw) and nursing past THREE.

2) The word troll DOES get thrown around a lot here...when you're posting on the thread. Maybe consider why that is.

[Lang Syne Boardie]

I gave my thoughts over the last few pages. You can do with them whatever you like. The term troll gets tossed around an awful lot here, though, given that I'm not actually engaged in any remotely trolling behavior or responses. That's kind of annoying after I spent an afternoon trying to discuss and explain this topic. You can disagree without calling me a troll.

And the cosleeping and nursing was beside the point, those were just meant to illustrate a point. Debating those topics requires a new thread. I can't help my kneejerk to family beds and nursing eight year olds, though.

Eight year olds?

[Guest]

I'm in the process of weaning my almost two-year-old.  I don't really want to, but I'm doing it because of responses like that.  I would probably wait until next summer if people wouldn't think I was a freak.  He still sleeps in our bed and will for awhile.  Oldest ds did until three.  Child number two and three did until one.  We aren't freaks, really.

[Mrs Mungo]

Eight year olds?

It is just part of the ever changing landscape that comes with lots of backtracking.

[Mrs Mungo]

Yeah, I start getting skeeves out by three years old.

 

As for trolling, I'll start a spinoff on that one.

Do you know what trolling means? It is causing disruption on an internet board for attention. Starting a s/o thread to discuss it sort of illustrates the point.

[Slartibartfast]

I'm in the process of weaning my almost two-year-old.  I don't really want to, but I'm doing it because of responses like that.  I would probably wait until next summer if people wouldn't think I was a freak.  He still sleeps in our bed and will for awhile.  Oldest ds did until three.  Child number two and three did until one.  We aren't freaks, really.

 

Nurse your baby as long as you both want. People mouthing off but having no clue what they are talking about shouldn't have anything to do with anything.

[SemiSweet]

When I was a Christian my church advocated the church version of Babywise, Growing Kids God's Way by Ezzo. It was pretty similar to what I've read here. All the families with little ones were involved and they all carried hitting instruments in their purses. It was the first chink in the armor that lead me to atheism. The ways the bible can be twisted and turned to support just about anything really came to light in the parenting aspect. I actually attended one of the classes, left feeling like the worst parent in the world (I was and still am very attachment minded) and subsequently had the most awful day with my toddler as I tried to grow him gods way. Luckily it only lasted one day. The parents I know that advocate these parenting methods, do in fact, hit their infants. There is no question to me that that is abuse and I'm glad everyday that I didn't fall for it. Obedience and politeness are not my end goals of parenting.

 

Someone up thread mentioned how the Pearls kids did as adults, I don't know about them but I do know that Ezzo ended up not having a relationship with 2 of his 3 kids. Not good enough odds for me to take that risk.

[Lang Syne Boardie]

Yeah, when I originally posited the example of abuse, and why I don't call preferences or differences of opinion on something necessarily abuse, I was thinking that while I don't like extended nursing and can't handle it, I'm not classifying a three year old nursing in the same boat as an eight year old, and an eight year old might not be sexually abused in that fashion if it is, say, a survival situation with potable water issues.

 

That my thought process, and why I then decided it probably needed a caveat as a bad example. I couldn't think of anything entirely analogous to the discussion at hand.

This.

 

This right here is the moment when I get off the fence about whether you are naive, poorly educated, or a troll. My money is now 100% on troll.

 

Nobody here (please God) is going to now start chatting with you about breast feeding, sexual abuse, and apocalypse scenarios.

 

Everybody off the bus. Last stop.

[Rosie_0801]

Nurse your baby as long as you both want. People mouthing off but having no clue what they are talking about shouldn't have anything to do with anything.

 

Yeah. And you won't have to hear their opinion if you don't provide them with the information.

[Seasider]

Nurse your baby as long as you both want. People mouthing off but having no clue what they are talking about shouldn't have anything to do with anything.

(((Jinnah)))

[catz]

I gave my thoughts over the last few pages. You can do with them whatever you like. The term troll gets tossed around an awful lot here, though, given that I'm not actually engaged in any remotely trolling behavior or responses. That's kind of annoying after I spent an afternoon trying to discuss and explain this topic. You can disagree without calling me a troll.

 

And the cosleeping and nursing was beside the point, those were just meant to illustrate a point. Debating those topics requires a new thread. I can't help my kneejerk to family beds and nursing eight year olds, though.

 

The reason you get called a troll is because you "kneejerk" in an obviously controversial and aggressive way.  Family beds and nursing beyond age 3 is extremely harmful and grosses you out.  You'd rather set yourself on fire than send your child to school.  Mother Theresa and Hitler could have a happy marriage.  ETA - all 3 of those are example from the last 24-48 hours.  Then when called on it, you act like everyone else is attacking you. That is what a troll does.

[Shahrazad]

Sorry, I forgot. Your oldest is, what 7? 8?  I stand, corrected, you clearly already have all the answers on how to raise children well and to come out polite, well-behaved, and of course, not to be freaks who cling to their parents or crawl into bed with mommy and daddy. It isn't like they have another 10+ years till adulthood or anything.

[Slartibartfast]

I am interested in discussing Apocalypse scenarios. I only want to do it in this thread though just to keep the deleted posts conveniently located in one thread. 

[DawnM]

There were deleted posts?

 

See what happens when you go to the beach for the weekend?  

 

Sigh.

 

 

I am interested in discussing Apocalypse scenarios. I only want to do it in this thread though just to keep the deleted posts conveniently located in one thread. 

 

[Slartibartfast]

Kids going to school =

 

 

[Slartibartfast]

There were deleted posts?

 

See what happens when you go to the beach for the weekend?  

 

Sigh.

 

 

Not yet

[Mrs Mungo]

The reason you get called a troll is because you "kneejerk" in an obviously controversial and aggressive way. Family beds and nursing beyond age 3 is extremely harmful and grosses you out. You'd rather set yourself on fire than send your child to school. Mother Theresa and Hitler could have a happy marriage. ETA - all 3 of those are example from the last 24-48 hours. Then when called on it, you act like everyone else is attacking you. That is what a troll does.

Exactly, thank you! And this has been your MO practically from day 1 on the forum.

[GWOB]

I'm just here for the comments. *pops popcorn*

[Shahrazad]

Not yet

Winter is Deletions are coming.

[Rosie_0801]

What does that even matter? I'm in the trenches of raising a bunch of children as best I can, trying to educate them, be faithful to our beliefs, and not traumatize them for life. I absolutely am going to ask parents of happy, healthy children how they did it, and the ones who have adult children with whom they are close and have a good relationship are treasure troves.

 

That's part of learning. I'm not going to assume I've arrived, and I am going to ask questions and try to figure out the best way to proceed for my family.

 

White hat thinking is useful. Black hat thinking is useful too.

 

I don't understand why you involve yourself in these sorts of conversations when you don't want to believe in what people have to say about what can go wrong. 

[Mrs Mungo]

Kids going to school =

 

 

New thread question: does overly authoritarian parenting and extreme favoritism among children *always* lead to self-immolation? Maybe it isn't always so bad, if people pick and choose which bits work for them.