|
The basic point I'm trying to get across is to avoid telling children what to do without any discussion. Giving a reason is a step in the right direction, even if it's as simple as that. Some people here seem to think I am saying children need veto power of their parents, but that was never my intention. I think a lot of parents are more threatened when their sense of power is challenged rather than because they fear for the safety of a rebellious child, but it could go either way.
Parents do need solid reasons for imposing restrictions. I don't believe in rules for the sake of rules. It makes no sense. I would take away many of this country's laws if I could. Explaining motivation to a child gives the parent a chance to review his own actions and see if they hold up to reality.
Consider a scenario where a child doesn't end up a complete deviant but hates his parents. He doesn't do drugs or have a string or broken relationships with women, but he hates his parents because they never talked to him. They always tried to limit his freedoms without any sayso from him, up unto his college years at the points where he came home for the summer. He hates going back there and being around them. Is that what people want? It's really a terrible situation.
Again, I am not targeting all parents. If any one person here gets offended, then it must be hitting close to home. I accepted that possibility when I first posted, but I don't see why it has to by that way. I'm not letting ineffective parents get off scott free either. I don't plan on having children though. Unlike most of the world, I can admit I won't be a good parent and not suffer under the delusion that I will be. The world has too many people anyways.
I do think there should be parenting classes. I highly encourage a standard system to be developed. Winging it isn't always the best solution when a person's future is at stake.
|