Bad owners make for bad outcomes, but so do bad caregivers

Today Jennifer posted about a tough case concerning euthanizing a pit bull.

The details of the issue are over there. I happen to agree with her that yes, that particularly pit bull should be put down because of the extreme aggression he showed towards that boy. A dog who mauls the face of a 4-year-old is probably not going to be rehabilitated and in the mean time is a threat to those who would even attempt.

Is it the dog's fault? No. Does it still need to happen? Yes.

That being said... let's go into exactly WHO is at fault here.

It's certainly not the boy, who is too young to fully understand why what he did was dangerous.

It's not the dog, who followed a mixture of instincts and training.

Everyone KNOWS by now to blame the owner for lack of training, bad socialization, being a horrible human being, etc. They're certainly to blame for the dog's behavior.

However, in this particular instance there is someone else who is at fault.

There's the parents, for not at least somewhat teaching the child how to deal with pets, though given how little he was who knows how much of it would stick yet. However, their fault pales in comparison to...

WHAT THE HELL KIND OF MORON TAKES A CHILD SHE'S BABYSITTING INTO A YARD WITH A DOG (CHAINED OR NO) WHO KILLED ONE OF HER DOGS THE WEEK BEFORE?!?!?!?!

This is obviously a rather extreme example of negligence but I see a much more subtle form of her assumptions on a continuing basis.

There is no such thing as a completely child-safe dog.

Let me repeat that:

There is no such thing as a completely child-safe dog.

I don't care how wonderful Muffin is with children. Muffin has a bad day, is in pain, is exhausted, or someone finds her particular button to push and Muffin is just as capable of biting a child as any other dog.

Let me give you an example.

The Boy is now crawling around the house. We still have two dogs, Jayne and Zoe. Jayne is 130 lbs of Staffordshire/ Rottweiler mix and Zoe is 55 lbs of Rottweiler/ Coonhound mix. Both of them are generally good with kids, our kids, other people's kids, doesn't matter. They've repeatedly shown the ability to handle everything from toddler on up.

Zoe spoils the boy. She lets him crawl on her, hug her, pull her tail, treat her like an obstacle course... she takes all of it. Unless he pulls her ears. Then it's game over. She runs off.

Jayne, having figured out early that baby hands mean poking and prodding, generally avoids the boy. He's not mean about it, he'd just rather not be within reach of those hands. He either moves, or, if he's on his doggie bed, will give a nice loud single bark which never fails to make the baby stop his forward progress (and also ends in screaming on the baby's part, but that just means it's effective).

Sometimes though when either dog tries to escape the kiddo gets it in his head to follow and continue his pestering. This is where things get hairy.

Half the time the dogs will run to me for protection. The other half is when the growling starts.

It's my job as the caregiver to make sure the growling never happens. The dogs have already clearly defined their boundaries for the boy, it's my job to make sure he respects them. Why?

Because I'm the adult damnit.

I'm slowly teaching the kiddo what not to do around dogs, but he's little and doesn't have experience or impulse control. Every moment he spends around the dogs needs to be supervised. That will last until he's old enough to have gotten enough experience with THESE dogs to understand what is okay and what isn't okay.

Notice I make a differentiation between these dogs and other dogs. That's because I don't know anyone else's dogs well enough to leave my child anywhere near unsupervised while he's around them.

It's also my responsibility to teach my children enough about how to deal with strange animals so they don't do something stupid that gets them injured.

Over the summer I heard Jayne barking really intensely in the back yard. I went out to see what was happening.

I found a group of boys throwing rocks at him from the other side of the fence.

It's a testament to Jayne's extreme laziness and inability to jump even a 4 foot fence that these boys were unscathed. Well, that's before I lit into them about how dangerous and cruel what they were doing was, and how with any other dog it might get them killed.

Jayne was still wagging his tail, God bless 'em. If he'd been another dog with a lower pain tolerance and capable of jumping the fence he'd already have been put down.

(I never caught them doing it again, and I watched for it to happen.)

So what could have prevented this mauling in the first place?

1. Training and socializing the dog properly.
2. Training the child properly to deal with unfamiliar animals, i.e. don't approach dogs you don't know without the owner handling the introduction.
3. Properly supervising the child in case their impulse control and judgment skills are not adequate.

If any one of these had happened no one would be debating whether or not to euthanize the dog, and that poor boy wouldn't be scarred for life at 4 years old.

It's not the dog's fault or the boy's fault, but they're both suffering for the stupidity of those in charge of them.

Mel

Back from British Columbia

We got in last night around 1am; driving home between two storm lines, that dropped a few inches in front of us, and a few inches behind us.

Pretty much we got through just in time. Any later we'd have been stuck in Washington overnight (I am not driving through a twisty and steep pass, on chains, at night, if I can avoid it).

Thankfully, the Snoqualmie pass was clear when we went through it (the storm behind us dropped a few inches, requiring chainup), but the last three hours were spent driving in blowing pellet snow and ice, with little visibility and obscured roads.

At least the predicted 5" didn't happen. It's more like 3" out there. Of course, the snow is supposed to start up again later today, and continue through Saturday.

The visit with the girls went generally well, though because of a scheduling screwup, we only got one full day with them; the other two days spent with the court ordered family therapist, doing her evaluation for the custody report; and we only got to spend a couple hours each day with them.

No, we were not happy about this; but at least that part of the court BS is over and done with.

Since I know everyone is going to ask, the girls are alright. They're dealing with this a lot better than we are.

Child Custody Update

The reason things have been so quiet here this week, is because Mel has been either readying to travel to, or been in, Canada since Tuesday (while I recover from pneumonia and can't really travel), for the expedited child custody hearing.

Said hearing occurred this morning. We were hoping for a speedy resolution. Unfortunately, we won't be getting that.

Although both parties attorneys were ready to proceed on the filings, the judge decided the case was too complex, and had too many issues to handle in expedited session, and remanded us over for a full hearing, date to be determined; pending the completion of full child welfare and custodial reports on both households.

Those are going to take at least a couple months; perhaps as early as Christmas, which would allow for a court date in February, perhaps a bit later, moving the hearing date a bit later.

This wasn't unexpected. We figured that a full trial was a probability, but we were hoping the judge would return the children to us until then; unfortunately, the judge decided to maintain status quo until the full hearing (although we were able to make visitation arrangements for Thanksgiving and Christmas).

So, it looks like for now, the kids are going to be in Canada at least another three months, maybe a bit more; and we're going to have to go through ANOTHER full hearing, and all that entails.

We've TEMPORARILY Lost Our Children

Copied from the Guncounter thread, mostly because I just don't have the heart to rehash it this morning.

Never let your case be argued before a judge at 3:30pm the Friday before a long weekend.

Mel went to court today to stop enforcement of a fraudulently obtained order from 2006 issued by a Canadian court, to surrender the children to their biological father.

This order was obtained by their father by alleging custodial kidnapping. He deliberately did not serve notice of the hearing for the order to Mel, and the order was obtained ex parte. Further, there had been no judgement of custody at the time, and the residential agreement in place had not been violated, so there was no valid cause for the original order to be issued.

We went to U.S. federal court and won on this very issue. The 9th circuit declared that there had been no parental misconduct, no custodial violation had occurred, that there was no kidnapping, and that no valid custodial agreement was in place.

We went into court today with clear evidence this order was obtained fraudulently, including a federal court ruling from the 9th circuit that it was invalid; and that enforcing the order was not in the best interest of the children (which according to the UCCJEA, federal law, and Idaho state law is supposed to be the highest authority in all matters regarding children).

We also went in with evidence Mels ex committed perjury, which he admitted to on the stand. That he has effectively abandoned the children, that he has made no attempt at contacting them in over two years...

That doesn't help when the judge refuses to hear arguments or accept evidence.

The judge decided that she had to enforce this fraudulent order on its face, because she didn't have authority to do otherwise (which is not true), and literally would not hear any arguments or evidence to the contrary. She heard the opposing councils argument, and accepted his cites, and then not just ignored ours, but refused to enter them into evidence.

The judge acknowledge that what she was doing was not in the best interests of the children, but that she didn't believe she had the authority to do otherwise. She also refused to ensure access provisions for the children, as there is now no residential agreement, no custodial determination, and no access agreement in place. Again, she said she did not have the authority.

It was clear she wanted to get out of there as soon as possible. She even told opposing council "just write the order and I'll sign it".

We asked for an emergency stay so we could appeal, and she refused to hear the request, stating again she didn't believe she had the authority.

Shortly after I publish this post we will be taking the kids to the police station to surrender them to Mels ex husband.

Now the fight moves to Canada.

We turned over the kids at 5:30 yesterday.

I'm already attempting to move heaven and earth in order to get something filed in Canada NOW.

I already know what the bulk of the comments will be, so there's two things we need:

1. a place to stay along the I-5 corridor in northern Washington for the court appearances, preferably for both me and Chris as he can work anywhere there's an internet connection.


2. a place to stash my firearms in northern Washington before I cross the border.

Thanks,

Mel

Our Old Friend Pertussis Is Back Again

IM conversation from earlier:

Mel: pertussis outbreak in CA now 

Chris: Fucking Jenny Fucking McCarthy 

Mel: don't forget to get a booster at your next appointment 

Mel: and me too 

Chris: I swear, she should be forced to do a year in prison for every child who gets sick because they weren't vaccinated.

I'm having a hard time disagreeing with that sentiment.

I took Daughter the Older to her new pediatrician this week, one part well-child checkup and one part "please make sure she has the right vaccinations for public school".  I was also a little worried about the new pertussis outbreak in Kootenai and Bonner Counties.

Currently Kootenai and Bonner Counties are experiencing a resurgence of pertussis.  This is due almost entirely to idiots not vaccinating their children.  There's a large contingent of the very religious here (one of my favorite games is Name That Sect!  played at Wal-Mart every time I go) but also a large contingent of "omg everyone is out to make my child autistic!"

Ignoring the absolute stupidity of that statement and the fully discredited, fraudulent, and criminal study behind it, I have a problem with the entire idea. Just the thought that "I'd rather have my baby be dead from a disease we eradicated decades ago than be autistic" makes my head hurt.

It's not just YOUR baby, MORON.  The most susceptible aren't even of vaccination age.  Newborns in hospitals  are dying from something we managed to mostly kill off generations ago.  All because you're afraid it's a conspiracy to make your kid different (the definition of autistic being so loose these days).

THERE IS NO AUTISM EPIDEMIC.

The "skyrocketing" rate of autism isn't because there are lots of new cases; it's a combination of autism awareness programs resulting in more, and earlier, legitimate diagnoses, and the 1994 redefinition of autism from a PROFOUND AND TOTAL DISABILITY, to anything falling into the "autism spectrum"... which includes anyone more than slightly socially awkward or with communications difficulties... Like a lot of geeks for example.

This isn't to deny the real pain and hardship that families with profoundly autistic children go through... It's hard as hell... But that's not what we're talking about here; at least not for the most part.

In the mean time, do me a favor, and keep your unvaccinated kids the hell away from mine.

And yes, the kiddo's vaccinations were up to snuff.  However, when I asked the doc if our kid would be okay with the pertussis outbreak, she said "yes, but when was the last time YOU got a booster?"

Yeah, adults can still get pertussis too, and almost as bad.  Nevermind if you deal with (or live with) the very young.

Something to think about.

Mel

It's Amazing How Good Phone Cameras Are Now...

And phone camcorders even more so:



Taken with a Droid X and not futzed with in any way. Remember to switch it to 720p.

Five Rules for Good Behavior

So Jay G had some random woman make a stroppy comment about his parenting choices when he was taking care of a tantrumy child (if that wasn't a word, it is now) on a recent public outing with his family.

Firstly, I applaud Jay for not turning around and unleashing his full intellect, wit, and frustrations on said woman, thereby reducing her to tears... Having grown up among the self righteous Massachusetts liberal asses myself (Jay and I grew up about 40 miles apart, but otherwise nearly identical towns), I doubt I would have had the strength not to do so.

That sort of comment, of course, isn't intended to be any kind of genuine advice, or even criticism. It's called "assumption of moral superiority", and it's ALWAYS about the commenters ego, not about your actions.

Also, as far as I'm concerned, Jay was doing exactly the right thing with his child. You do not indulge tantrums. A tantrum is violent attention seeking, and granting that attention simply provokes more tantrums. If a tantrum continues beyond the first reproach, the proper response is to isolate the child from all interaction until they figure out no-one is listening to them.

That's exactly what he was doing.

Which brings me to what I wanted to talk about: How to raise well behaved kids.

It's not particularly complicated, and there is no secret; it just requires iron will, and absolute commitment... and the younger you start, the better off you will be.

We have, and have had since infancy, a zero tolerance policy for bad behavior of any kind. As a consequence, our kids are the most well behaved I've ever seen; and the many readers here who have visited with my family will confirm it for you.

They have literally NEVER, acted up in public (and only rarely in private), since they were old enough to understand the policy (about 2 years old).

The policy is simple, but VERY strict. There are no exceptions to it without special circumstances or reason, ever.

There's five rules for you to follow...
...but really, there's just the one... the rest are just details of how to do it

Here it is:

1. Under no circumstances, will bad behavior result in you getting what you want. Ever.
   
   Until they are old enough to develop an independent moral and ethical sense; kids are selfish, greedy, self interested, self centered little sociopaths.
   
   The development of this moral sense is different for every child of course. For most it starts around 5 years old and is sufficiently developed sometime between ten and thirteen... but only with proper parental reinforcement. Without proper parenting, the moral sense will be week, will develop late, or may not develop at all.
   
   Until their moral sense is developed (presuming it ever does), you can expect a child to behave just as they are; selfish, greedy, self interested, self centered little sociopaths.
   
   If a kid thinks good behavior will get them what they want, they will behave well. If they think bad behavior will get them what they want, they will behave badly.
   
   If bad behavior is EVER tolerated, or worse, rewarded; they will learn that bad behavior can get them what they want, when other behaviors do not. They will then use that against you.
   
   Therefore, you must NEVER reward, or tolerate, bad behavior.
   
2. Actions have consequences. Always.
   
   So does inaction; because it's just another action (the choice not to do what you were supposed to).
   
   You cannot get out of the consequences of your actions (or inaction), no matter how sorry you feel, no matter how you argue, no matter what you do.
   
   If you didn't want to be punished, you shouldn't have done wrong in the first place. It doesn't matter that you fixed it, or made up for it, you still have to take the consequences of what you did.
   
   We treat our children with respect, tell them why things are how they are, and what they did wrong, why it's wrong, and why they are being punished; but barring exceptional circumstances, we NEVER let them out of the consequences of their actions.
   
   Of course, we recognize that kids will be kids. Their balloon pops, and they are going to cry. Kids get upset about stuff like that, and that's fine. What's not fine is a tantrum, and trying to force or manipulate your parents into getting you another balloon.
   
3. You can't punish someone if they don't know what they're doing is wrong
   "The Law" in families isn't like common law, where "ignorance of the law is no defense".
   
   Kids need to have clearly defined, consistent, realistic, and logical rules to live by. You need to thoroughly explain those rules, the reasoning behind them, and the punishment for violating them, before you can expect to hold a kid accountable to them.
   
   Of course, those rules are going to change over time and as circumstances change; and you'll need to talk about that as well. Rules are not "fire and forget".
   
   And remember where I said "realistic"? Yeah, that's rather important.
   
   There's a basic principle of leadership that applies here: Never give an order you KNOW cannot, or absolutely will not, be obeyed.
   
   You have to be realistic about the standards of behavior you can hold your kids to, and you have to teach them what those standards are before you do.
   
   You can expect a 10 year old to properly behave in a nice restaurant past 8pm. You can't expect that of a six year old. You can expect a six year old to behave in a movie theater, but not a three year old.
   
   If you set rules your kids can't follow, it's going to screw them up... and not just a little bit, it's going to screw them up bad. They'll end up having serious problems with rules, and authority, and a worldview that sees things as arbitrary and out of their control.
   
   If you don't communicate those rules effectively, and the reasoning behind them, that is just as bad. No, you don't need to explain the complexities of life to a three year old, but she needs to know "if you touch this, it might break, and it's very expensive" etc...
   
   You need to set appropriate standards of behavior, both in public and in private; and in general a sense of the appropriate (and the inappropriate).
   
   Our kids know that we do not tolerate whining, cheating, lying, stealing, hitting (except in self defense, or defense of others), weaseling, nagging, yelling, screaming (except in emergencies, or while playing outside), tantrums, fits, attention seeking, acting out, interrupting people who are speaking unless it's important, creating a public disturbance, manipulation, blackmail, soliciting bribes or any other sort of dishonest, dishonorable, or inappropriate behavior; under any circumstances, for any reason.
   
   On the other hand, they also know that they can have as much healthy attention they want, whenever they want it, just by asking, or for that matter just coming up for a hug; whether in public or in private. They also know they can always ask questions or try to make an explanation for their behavior, so long as it's not a manipulation, or in an attempt to evade punishment or break the rules by doing so.
   
   You need to make sure your kids can fit the rules and standards into their world view, so they can make good decisions using their own logic and moral sense, rather than just by rote memorization of your arbitrary rules.
   
   The flip side of that of course, is that they can't get out of being punished by saying "you didn't tell me that was against the rules", if what they did was clearly wrong, by all the logic, morals, and ethics you have taught them so far.
   
   Remember, the goal here is not to create obedient children necessarily (though that can be a helpful and useful thing), but to create healthy, independent, well adjusted, and well behaved children.
   
4. When it comes to"crime and punishment" we treat our children like convicts in a prison.
   
   This is that zero tolerance policy I was talking about.
   
   No matter what it is, even if you earn it or deserve it, or it's yours and you aren't getting it, or it's yours and someone else took it away from you when they weren't supposed to etc... if you whine, cry, scream, or otherwise behave badly inappropriately, either at home or in public; you don't get it.
   
   Ever.
   
   Not just after you end your tantrum, whatever it is you were throwing the tantrum over, you will NEVER, ever, get whatever it is that you wanted.
   
   In fact, if your behavior was bad enough, you will literally never be allowed to have that thing, or do that thing etc... (whatever it was that you wanted) again; even if it's years later, and you have been well behaved... Unless you can argue your case to us and we officially rescind your punishment.
   
   For example, our daughters are NEVER allowed to have stickers, or paints (even washables), in our house ever again, even under supervision; because of an incident with a book of stickers, a wooden coffee table, some paints, and our living room.
   
   We MAY decide to relent when they hit their teen years. Maybe.
   
   
   
   We try to be fair, but we don't try to make punishments infinitely proportional. In fact, we don't try to be proportional at all.
   
   Proportionality, just results in kids testing to see how much they can get away with, for how little downside.
   
   Punishment is total.
   
   You misbehave, it doesn't matter to what degree (beyond the trivial anyway); you don't get what you wanted, plus you get a punishment on top of that, end of story.
   
   Of course, as I said above, your children need to learn what is appropriate behavior and what isn't. You can't just punish them arbitrarily if they didn't know any better. That hurts and confuses them, and actually undermines everything else you try to do, because they won't understand that punishments are part of the consequences for improper actions.
   
   Just as in the adult world, the rule of law should prevail (most of the time).
   
   Your first offense or first warning, I temporarily take something away from you. Do it again, or after I warned you not to, and I take it away permanently. First warning, you go to your room for a few minutes, second and it's the rest of the day with no dinner. If I explicitly tell you not to do something, or that a particular behavior is not allowed (or not allowed at a specific time, or place, or situation) and you do it anyway, full punishment.
   
   That said, we do try to be fair, and not to dole out punishments that are TOO severe; and we try to make sure that our punishments are consequential and punitive, not vengeful.
   
   By that I mean that a punishment should be a directly relatable consequence to an action; plus an additional negative incentive on top (the actual "punishment" bit) to reinforce proper behavior, and ensure that the downside to an inappropriate action is never outweighed by the upside.
   
   It is ABSOLUTELY critical however that punishment should never be emotional vengeance, or motivated out of anger, or hurt, or fear, or frustration. That hurts you, and it hurts your kids.
   
   Sometimes, when your kids do something that scares the hell out of you... runs out into the street, or sticks their hand into the fire or something... The first response is to lash out emotionally, and punish them harshly and severely... and you can't do that. Oh, they DEFINITELY need to be punished severely, but you can't do it out of the emotion. You need to calm down, and be logical, and deliberative, and explain to your child how wrong what they did was, and why, and THEN give them their severe punishment.
   
   And you MUST, always, sit with your kids and talk to them about consequences and punishments. They need to understand what they are doing is wrong, why, and what the consequences are; and that its not just you arbitrarily setting conditions on a whim.
   
   If you do this, then they'll develop a finely tuned sense of right and wrong all on their own; and you won't need to explicitly tell them for every possible situation or behavior what brings punishment and what doesn't. They'll learn what's right and what's wrong, and they'll know better... and they won't be able to get out of punishment by saying they didn't.
   
   If you don't do this, your kids sense of right and wrong WILL be screwed up. God knows, you don't want them to develop their moral sense from their teachers, or their cultural influences... or just as a way to avoid punishment.
   
   Also, like convicts, I allow them to argue their case, ONCE. Maybe I was wrong, or being too harsh; or maybe there were mitigating circumstances I didn't know about.
   
   In fact, whether they want to argue the case or not, for anything nontrivial; I insist on an explanation of their behavior. If they refuse, they are punished more severely.
   
   If they tell me the truth, and express genuine remorse, I MAY lighten the punishment (or in fact not include any real punitive element at all). If they lie, or their argument isn't any good, or instead of remorse it's clear they are just trying to get out of punishment; their punishment is made worse, for lying to me, and trying to weasel out of it.
   
   And when I say "lighten", I mean lighten, not eliminate. There are ALWAYS consequences to actions.
   
   We may go so far as to reduce the actual "punishment" portion to nothing, but we don't ever let them get out of consequences entirely; and we always talk about why they are being punished, why their punishment is what it is etc...
   
   Also, we are ALWAYS, consistent. Consistency is aboslutely critical to forming a kids world view, and moral and ethical sense. They have to understand that there are rules, and if you follow them one set of outcomes will happen, and if you don't another set will happen, and why.
   
   That doesn't mean the same offense always gets the same punishment; in fact if you repeat the same bad behavior, you are punished more severely the next time. But the same degree of offense always gets the same degree of punishment (unless we think they're testing limits again, in which case they get SEVERE punishment, and we tell them why).
   
   For consistency, we always increase the severity of punishments the same way (remember, total, not proportional); and set punishments that are appropriately severe to each child, for each offense.
   
   Note, that doesn't mean that they necessarily get the same punishment; they just get the same DEGREE of punishment. After all, what is a severe punishment to one kid (say, sending them to their room) might be a minor inconvenience to another (who prefers to read alone anyway).
   
   And it is VERY important, that you reinforce that what they did was WRONG, and that doing the wrong thing is shameful. If the infraction was private, then their shame should be private; but if their behavior was in public, then it is important not only that they experience shame, but that they do so publicly.
   
   Kids shouldn't be ashamed of their bodies, or their speech, or being in public, or any other thing that is just part of being a person. They SHOULD be ashamed of bad behavior. They should be afraid of being shamed. They should be afraid of being humiliated for bad behavior in public.
   
   
   Never underestimate the power, and the importance, of shame, and of public humiliation; especially once a childs moral sense has developed. Moral wrongs, and bad behavior, should ALWAYS be strongly associated with shame; and if public, with humiliation.
   
   That doesn't mean YOU should publicly shame or humiliate your child further however. They should feel shameful and humiliated all by themselves, because they should know what they did is wrong and shameful. If you pile on top of that by publicly shaming and humiliating them further, you are being emotionally vengeful; and that hurts both you, and them.
   

   An aside: Shame is important. Shame is healthy. Shame is what keeps people behaving properly, even when their morals and ethics are weak, or are overwhelmed by their desires.
   
   Humiliation is equally important, when our shame is public. There is nothing wrong with being humiliated when you do wrong in public; in fact it is crucial to a civil society. The root of humiliation is humility, "the state of being humble". We should all be humbled both by ourselves and by those around us, when we behave badly in public. 

   This is in NO WAY saying that you should deliberately shame or humiliate your kids... that's just wrong, and harmful... But you shouldn't try to eliminate shame or humiliation from their lives either. If you've done your job, they SHOULD be ashamed of themselves when they do wrong, and they should feel humiliated when they do it in front of others. That means they have a proper appreciation for moral consequence.  

   Without shame and humiliation... well, you get the rude, crude, and uncivil public world we have today frankly.
   
   The psychologists and philosophers who have been saying otherwise for the last hundred or so years have done more to damage our world than anyone else; and I mean that with no hyperbole. They have been, and are continuing to, destroy western civilization.

   Finally, we don't let them "game the system". Any game playing or manipulation, it's automatically the most severe punishment for any given offense, PLUS the most severe punishment for lying and playing games with us.
   
5. Bad behavior will not get you attention.
   
   If a kid is throwing a tantrum, they are either trying to get you to give in on something (and therefore be rewarded for bad behavior), trying to test or punish you, or they are just looking for attention.
   
   All of these are absolutely unacceptable, and consequences must be set appropriately; but for attention seeking that can be quite difficult, because to an attention seeker even punishment is "rewarding bad behavior"; because they didn't really want whatever it was they were theoretically throwing the fit about, what they really wanted was the attention.
   
   Of course, as we said above, bad behavior NEVER gets you what you want, under any circumstances.
   
   So, if what they want is attention, be it positive or negative, they can't be allowed to get any.
   
   So... That's actually pretty simple to deal with; though it can be the biggest pain, frustration, and irritation we face as parents. Simple isn't easy.
   
   If you throw a tantrum, or engage in attention seeking behavior; you get isolation, not attention.
   
   If after first reproach, you continue your behavior, you are immediately isolated from everyone around you.
   
   You cannot interact with anyone, for any reason except emergencies, or biological needs. You cannot continue the activities you were involved in, or wanted to continue.
   
   If you are attempting to get out of something you are forced to continue against your will. Even if it is just sitting there and sulking, you don't get out of it; but no one will interact with you . You will sit there in shame and humiliation, and isolation.
   
   You WILL NOT get what you want. No matter what. We WILL NOT GIVE IN.
   

I'm going to cheat a bit and put in wht I'd call rule five and a half...

5-1/2. Always say "I Love You", and always acknowledge good

On this one point, I will relent from my strict discipline. I NEVER, EVER, under any circumstances, no matter how bad what they did was; deny my children a hug, or fail to respond to "I love you" with "I love you too".

Whether they say something or not, I will ALWAYS tell them "I love you" before they leave my sight.

Yes, it softens the blow; but children are sometimes frightened by their parents anger or by their punishments; and you should ALWAYS reassure your children that you love them, whenever they ask, even if it seems silly or inappropriate at that moment.

However, it's not going to mean I go easy on you, or let you get out of your punishment; and if you abuse that, I WILL notice; and you WILL be punished worse, for abusing my trust and love.

Also, never take it for granted when your kid does the right thing. I'm not saying be one of those idiots who praise their child for every little thing they do; but when your child makes the right choice, does the right thing, does well... Acknowledge it, and praise them, and let them know you appreciate it. And tell them that you love them.

On the flip side of that, when they make the wrong choice, or do the wrong thing, even if it isn't bad behavior or suitable for punishment, it's just the wrong choice... Tell them... and talk with them about why they made that choice and why it's wrong... And tell them you love them.

I firmly believe that you can never say "I love you" too much, when it is meant sincerely every time (and not just some rote phrase).

It takes just a second, but it means the world.

Like I said above, what it all comes down to, really, is that first rule...

Under no circumstances, will bad behavior get you what you want. Ever.

I am a firm believer in the tremendous motivating power of self interest.

You may think kids are unsophisticated, but if there's one thing they understand, it's self interest. They want what they want, when they want it; and they will generally do their damndest to get it.

If a kid thinks that behaving badly will get for them what they want, then they will behave badly. And if you give in, just once, they will remember, and use that against you again. This is why you must NEVER, EVER, under any circumstances, reward, or even tolerate, bad behavior.

If that means making one kid sit in the bathroom stall for two hours, while the other kid gets to eat dinner and watch the movie, so be it

An aside: It really IS a lot easier with two, because you can play that off against each other. Don't believe anyone who tells you you should never do that, it's just psychotwaddle.

No, you shouldn't play favorites, or make comparisons between your kids "Oh he's so much better at that, why aren't you" or that sort of thing; that WILL cause harm, and not do anyone any good. But when it comes to behavior, pointing out that he didn't get the ice cream but his brother did, and it was because of his behavior? Oh yeah, that's not only just fine, it's NECESSARY.

Kids are STRONGLY motivated by self interest, envy, resentment, and a sense of entitlement. If their sibling is getting something and they aren't, they figure out right quick not to do the thing that caused that .

Believe me, if they know that you are serious, and that you won't relent and can't be manipulated out of it, that only happens once.

I am meaner, sneakier, more evil, and FAR more PATIENT than my children are. I can and will wait out my children... and happily laugh at them as they get more and more frustrated. The humiliation is part of the teaching process doncha know.

I bring an ebook reader in the form of my iPhone with me wherever we go. I can wait, and read, and be perfectly fine with it. If I miss a movie, so what. I have a well behaved kid. That's rather a lot more important.

We never reward bad behavior. We never fail to punish it. We never let them out of the consequences of their actions. We always make sure they understand what those consequences are and why. We always follow through.

When the girls refused to clean their room for over a week, we took everything they owned that wasn't cleaned and put away properly, including much of their clothing (except their school clothes) and basically all of their toys; packed them all up into garbage bags, and made the girls go with us while we donated them to goodwill. Then, we didn't replace what was given away. They lived without toys, or their favorite clothes, until such time as we naturally bought replacements.

Again, that only happened once.

A couple years ago, one of the girls opened her big birthday gift early, then tried to put it back and pretend it was unopened.

The goodwill had a good day with all her birthday presents; and it only happened once.

Does all this mean we have meek and repressed children? Not in the slightest. Our kids are headstrong, and curious, and sociable, and a handful both physically and intellectually; and we wouldn't have it any other way.

But they NEVER misbehave in public, and rarely do so in private in more than a trivial way (the biggest issue is STILL, cleaning up their room... and it probably will be until they start dating).

I realize this may be hard for other parents to believe, but it's simply the truth. Our children NEVER misbehave in public. We have daughters who are six and eight years old; and the last time either of them misbehaved in public more than a sniffles worth, was when they were three, and four, respectively.

Sure, they may get a little grumpy, or whiny (what six year old doesn't get a little whiny), but it never gets beyond that... Even when we've really gone beyond what they could be expected to handle, and had them out way past their bed times in restaurants etc... Where they tired and a bit grumpy, and restive? Absolutely, they're six and eight, that's part of life. But they didn't throw fits.

And are they absolutely obedient? Of course not. They're kids.

Good behavior is about making the right decisions, and behaving appropriately; and that's what they do...

Most of the time anyway....

This works, AND it's just the right thing to do, but it isn't perfect, or easy

Ok, this isn't some miracle "cure" for badly behaved children.

Obviously, it's always better if your kids never develop the bad behaviors in the first place. This will turn out best if you start from as young as they understand it (around 2 or so), and keep going through their entire life under your care. The later you start, the harder it's going to be.

If you've believed the bull foisted on most parents for decades, and let your kids run roughshod all over you for years... This will work, but it's going to take a LOOOONG time to modify your kids behavior; and it's going to HURT, both you, and your kids, while you're going through it.

Also, if you EVER relent for even a second, they are going to try and push you off your spot, or wait you out. You have to be absolutely committed.

And believe me, even if you've been rock solid from day one, they are going to test you... that's just part of growing up. They're going to seek out limits and boundaries, and you need to set them appropriately. Then, as they grow, they are going to push and test those boundaries. That's life.

If it gets bad, or if they've already developed the habits of bad behavior, and haven't developed morals or ethics... Well, you're in for trouble (especially if they are teenagers).

They are going to test you, badly. They are going to try to hurt you. They are going to figure out when it's most important for you to do something you want to do, and they are going to throw the worlds biggest fit right at that moment, just to see what you do about it.

...And you have to do it. You have to be consistent and utterly committed. You have to apply the rules, no matter how inconvenient or painful it is for you.

And they know that, and they'll make sure that it WILL be painful for you. They will do it when you have a big meeting, or for your anniversary dinner, or for that play you've been waiting years to see. Because they KNOW that's when you'll be most likely to give in.

You have to do it anyway. Remember what I said about absolute commitment?

Of course, at that point, disrupting you and punishing you will be their goal, and once again, we NEVER allow bad behavior to be rewarded, or go unpunished; and they must NEVER get what they want.

So if they want to disrupt you, don't let them. Find a babysitter who will follow your rules for the kids (which can be damn hard. Usually it ends up having to be family or close friends); and go do whatever it was they were trying to disrupt.

Don't let their bad behavior be rewarded, even if that reward is attention or disruption. Frustrating them in their desires is INFINITELY more effective than any simple punishment. So long as you can show them they will never win, and you will never give in, then it will turn out right.

This sounds more like punishing the parents sometimes...

Well... Yeah. Or rather yes and no.

If you do it right, your kids wont push you that hard, and make it punishing to you.

But if they do, to be honest, punishing your kids should be harder on you than it is on them; you just need to be tougher than they are.

If it isn't hard on you, either your kids are perfect and never need any kind of discipline, consequences, or punishment enforced on them (never happen in this life); or you're probably not doing it right, and your kids are really the ones in charge, taking advantage of you, and manipulating you to think otherwise...

...Well, either that, or you don't really give a damn about your kids. If that's the case, send them to live with someone who does, or to boarding school or something; just get them away from you, so you don't screw them up any more than they already are.

Harsh? Hell yes. Do I mean every damn word? Hell yes.

Being a parent is hard. It hurts. It's a lot of work. It's a lot of sacrifice.

So what.

That's all part of the job. If you weren't ready for it, you shouldn't have done it in the first place.

If your kids behavior is important to you (and in a greater sense, their morals and their ethics), then it has to be more important to you than whatever else it is that you want to do in your life.

This is, amazingly, a controversial idea, but YOUR KIDS ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN YOUR JOB, YOUR HOBBIES, YOUR INTERESTS, YOUR DESIRES, AND YOUR OWN PERSONAL SATISFACTION.

Yes, you may have to sacrifice. Yes, you may have to miss out on things. Yes, you may have to be disappointed and frustrated.

Sorry, that's being a parent...

...but establishing, maintaining, communicating, and enforcing standards of behavior works; and if you haven't let the kids get too bad in the first place, it usually works pretty quickly...

...and as a side benefit, once it's working, your kids will let you get back to those things you want to do.

See, virtue has practical rewards too, not just moral ones.

The hard cases...

So I keep saying "this works"... what about when it doesn't?

Well, even if it doesn't work, it's the right thing to do and you should do it anyway. Your kids might not end up more well behaved, but they'll at least know that their behavior is wrong; and you'll be able to sleep better at night.

It SHOULD work, most of the time... it just gets a LOT harder in some cases.

First thing, if you live in a state where severe discipline is treated like child abuse... Well, that's going to make things hard. And I'm not even talking about spanking; in some states any kind of physical restraint can be considered abuse, including just locking your child in their room.

The fact is, if a kid doesn't have a strong moral compass, and a sense of what is appropriate and what isn't, by the time they are about 12 or 13; you're going to have a very hard time instilling that into them.

The sad fact is, in todays America, if a kid simply decides not to listen to you, or obey you, or respect you, or do the right thing when they're a teenager... there is effectively nothing you can do anymore to stop them, except deny them funding or transportation. The best you can do is not help them destroy themselves.

Again, that doesn't mean you shouldn't try... but if they've been allowed to go this far without discipline, morals, or ethic... expect to fail.

Do it anyway because it's the right thing to do... but expect to fail; and maybe later, when they smarten up, they'll remember the lessons and come around right on their own.

Also, this is going to be VERY hard with "problem children": some kids with some types of learning disabilities, kids who have psychological or psychiatric problems, autistic kids, or children who have been abused or neglected for a long time.

Again, you should do it anyway, just because it's the right thing to do (for that matter I think it's how you should treat adults who behave the same way)... but it's going to be hard, and painful.

It WILL work... it just won't work as well, or as fast, or without MUCH more difficulty, and much more pain.

Also, you might have to modify your approach. Every kid is different, and everyones psychology is different; but you only change the implementation. You can't ever compromise on the principles of it.

Never reward bad behavior. Never allow someone to escape the consequences of their actions. Always be just, and consistent, but not proportional. Always let them know you love them.

The real "secret" to all this though...

Is that it's not just how you should deal with children...

Mel and the Girls Vs. Mass Culture: Bridal Edition

As most of our readers know our friends JohnOC and Myrrh are getting married this coming April.

I've been asked to be the acting Matron of Honor (vs. the actual Matron of Honor) a job which entails keeping Myrrh from getting too anxious, helping with decisions, and constantly saying "just because you're not making this difficult doesn't mean you're doing something wrong."

The only way Myrrh could be farther from being a Bridezilla is if she decided to get married in a nightgown. Seriously.

So the vast majority of preparations are done, documented, and deposited. In fact, once we visit with the florist today only 3 decisions will be left: menu (catering is already arranged), favors, and flower girl dresses.

Dear sweet Lord, the flower girl dresses.

In fact, clothing as a whole has been a bit of a bumpy ride.

Oh, the guys are easy. All the men will be in kilts, either bought or rented. John already has his (bought during OUR wedding planning actually), Chris's will be ordered soon, and the other two will be rented.

The wedding dress is already hanging in a closet. Due to serendipitous circumstances, Myrrh came across exactly what she wanted (modest and pretty) in her size, with perfect fit, never touched or tried on, and way under her budget. Of course she bought it already.

In fact, the odds of finding a modest dress were so low that math itself argued against the odds.

This isn't some ridiculous definition of "modest" either. Modest in this case meant something she'd be comfortable wearing in a Catholic church for an afternoon wedding instead of the equivalent of a cocktail dress with a train. In other words, something with sleeves that kept the *ahem* girls where they were supposed to be.

Contemporary wedding dresses are evidently allergic to sleeves and any neckline that doesn't require a plunging backless strapless bra.

But I digress.

After the dress was bought we brought our attention to bridesmaid dresses. Once again the goal being to dress like we were attending a Catholic ceremony instead of a club.

Finding a bridesmaid dress that is suitable for a church should not be difficult. Yet it is. Between strapless, spaghetti strap, halters, and OMG plunging necklines we determined the entire purpose of a bridesmaid dress is to pick up a groomsman.

2 of the 3 groomsmen are married or engaged. 2 of the 3 bridesmaids are married, and the third is a lesbian. Picking up the groomsmen wasn't a consideration.

Fortunately between the LDS and Catholics there seems to be a thriving niche market for form-fitting, pretty, and church-acceptable bridesmaid dresses out there and by looking at retailers tapping that market we were able to find bridesmaid dresses that fit our needs. It was a tedious, frustrating process but we managed it.

That leaves us with flower girl dresses for my daughters, who at the time of the wedding will be 6 and 8.

You'd think this would be easy, right? WRONG.

Yesterday after attending the cake testing and ordering the cake, Myrrh and I decided to drop by David's Bridal to pick something up and look at flower girl dresses.

We left in absolute shock.

Evidently everything I've written about wedding dresses and bridesmaid dresses applies to flower girl dresses. Sleeveless, spaghetti straps, halter tops (wtf?) attempts at creating cleavage (!!!!!!!) and my personal favorite, mini-bride syndrome.

A few of the worst offenders:





The last one really gets me. Picking up groomsmen I somewhat get, but who is my 6-year-old going to pick up with this one? A Kindergartener?

Yeah, I know. That's what I get for looking at David's. But David's isn't the only offender. These dresses are all over the place, at every wedding site across the country. Why would so many designers make so many of them if people weren't buying them?!?!?!?

So I thought that like before, I'd take a different tack and maybe hunt down some confirmation or first holy communion dresses instead. They'd be white, pretty, and suitable for church, right?

Wrong.



WTF, over?

What are all these people smoking anyway? Why are they dressing little girls like women? What happened sleeves, high necklines, and foofy skirts? Why would I dress my little girls to show more skin and (attempts at) cleavage than the bride for godsake?

Who in their right mind dresses little girls up as pedo-bait, or anything other than little girls?

What the hell are we thinking as a culture anyway?

I for one refuse to have any part in this. If I have to search every inch of the internet, if I have to visit every shop in the Valley, if I have to buy the fabric and sew it myself my girls will attend the wedding looking like what they are: little girls. Not little brides. Not little women. Little girls.

Why the hell do I have to buck the trend just to be a responsible parent?

Mel

Five Dangerous Things You Should Let Your Kids Do

Actually, I think there's a lot more than five; but here's a good start:

The Extracurricular Options of Kindergarteners These Days...

When it was announced by the Diocese of Phoenix last year that this year's school schedule would be changed to include early dismissal every Wednesday, the first reaction of the kids' school was to ask all of the extracurricular activity providers to "see what they could do" about filling up the 1.5 hours between dismissal and regular pick-up time.

And wow, they really came through for the parents.

Last week, daughter the older came home with the list of after-school programs. The options for Kindergarteners are almost endless; chess, dance, sports, art, something for everyone all on Wednesday afternoons.

We signed her up for the local Daisy Troop (the precursor to Brownies and Girl Scouts) in part because I like the variety of activities and because the troop leaders are a mom and a grandmother of two of the girls in her class, so I know the adults in charge. But when she brought home another flyer today, I almost regretted our decision.

This is one of the options given.

The site doesn't give near enough information. Every Wednesday for 8 weeks for $110 for the "MAD SCIENCE Enrichment Program". Among the activities listed for K-2nd grade:

• Watts-Up: Learn about electricity, it's properties and it's role in natural phenomena. Make indoor lighting while conducting hair-raising experiments with our electro-static generator...
• Magnetic Magic: Investigate the powers and daily uses of magnets. Test for electro magnetic fields and then use what you have learned to build your own electro magnet...
• Optical Illusions: Build your own periscope while learning about optics, reflection, and sight. Watch celebrity images change before your very eyes! Seeing is not always believing...
• Lights... Color... Action!: Uncover the hidden components in ordinary light and build your own Newton's color wheel to prove it. Attend a spectacular chemical energy display!
• Slime!: Explore the exciting world of polymers, the chemical reactions we use to create them and the inner workings of silly putty. Transform two regular liquids into batch of your very own slime...
• Sonic Sounds: Discover sound, sound waves and the way household items can be used to create amazing movie effects. Use our multi-effects processor to alter the sound of your voice, with lots of cool special effects...
• Tantalizing Taste: Experiment with taste sensations. Use lifesaver testing to compare your sense of smell and taste. Carbonate and taste your very own soda pop and take the "Mad Science" taste challenge...

And my personal favorite:

• Harnessing heat: Change the states of matter & witness a mini rocket launch while learning the properties of heat.

I didn't study a lot of this stuff until high school!

If they'd had these kinds of after school programs at my schools growing up, I might have had a bit more interest in science...

Mel

And a great silence covered the land...

... punctuated only by the joyous weeping of parents in their suddenly quiet and mess free houses...

Yes folks, the first day of school is here.

Or at least it is for the schools of the Diocese of Phoenix, where our girls go to school (Amazingly enough, at a 4 million person metro area and 20% catholic population we don't qualify for an archdiocese; we're part of the archdiocese of Santa Fe, population 72 thousand. And yet, there are towns of 30,000 in Italy that have an archbishop, or even a cardinal... Funny that).

In particular, this is our older girls first day of "real" school, she's just starting kindergarten today; and our younger girls first day of any kind of school period, she's starting the two year pre-school program.

Through a quirk of dates and policies; Girl the youngers birthday is a few weeks too late to have let her start pre-school last year while her sister was in pre-kindergarten. She'll be 4 in less than a month; while Girl the older will be six 2/3 the way through her Kindergarten year.

I grew up most of a year younger than all the kids I went to school with because my birthday was a month before the end of the school year; Girl the older will be right in the middle, and Girl the younger will be most of a year older than her schoolmates.

Honestly though, that's not a bad thing. For one thing she's been soaking up noggin, her sisters schooling, and our own efforts at education very well. She's a lot further along with things than most three year olds (or four year olds for that matter); in fact she can even read a lot of basic words and she knows her letters and numbers very well. Plus, she's only recently become consistent enough with her potty training to be able to make it through the day without accidents; and that's kind of important.

Girls the older is herself raring to go to kindergarten, mostly because she gets to wear a UNIFORM YAY!!!! No seriously, I can't describe to you the enthusiasm she has for wearing the uniform. It's a mark of big girl pride.

What's really funny though, is that both girls are REALLY tall (as in 95th percentile tall) for their ages. They look more like a second grader and a kindergartner respectively; and compared to the rest of their class... Well, I hope it doesn't get them teased; but it IS kind of funny to look at all these little tiny 3 year olds, and then there's our girl who looks like she could take them all on in a steel cage match and emerge victorious.

With Girl the older, it's almost as bad; though she at least isn't the tallest in her class, there's actually one girl and one boy taller. Actually the taller boy is kinda freakishly tall; as in 9 year old tall not 5 year old tall.

Anyway, we're really happy the kids are finally both in school. Last year was a bit rough on Girl the younger without her playmate all day; and we're glad to be getting them both into the routine, the discipline, and the GOOD educational experience (rather than the unfortunately typically poor public school experience. Trust me on this one, we couldn't do a better job homeschooling than this school does unless we BOTH made it our full time job. They're one of the best primary schools in the state, and in the top 10% of the nation)

Mel's not quite sure what to do with herself though. She started a flexible hours part time job a couple weeks ago to give her something to do, but she's not really happy with it. She may look for a more traditional mothers hours job (the school has full day kindergarten and preschool, with before and afterschool care and enrichment programs); if for nothing else, just to get the social interaction from people who aren't either kindergarten/preschool parents, parish members, or our existing friends (most of whom were my friends before we met, because most of her old friends no longer live in the area).

Happy birthday honey

It was our older girls fifth birthday yesterday, and this was her big present; her first big girl bike.

Oh she has another little girl bike at grandmas, it's about half the size and is really made for toddlers, something she most emphatically is not (she's taller than the first graders, and some of the second graders).

Happy birthday baby, we love you.

Next year though, one of these:

Scatology

Unc is going through the fun of potty training, and so are we.

Our youngest was 3 in September; and she was making progress on peeing in the potty for a while, but then she completely backslid. Oh she'll still sometimes go to pee in the potty, but most of the time she's perfectly happy to have that warm relief in her pullups.

Thing is, she just doesnt want to give up her diaper. She likes being able to crap in her pants whenever she wants to, and doesnt want to have to go potty.

I can sympathize I suppose; taking bathroom breaks when you REALLLY want to figure out Blues next clue must be a real inconvenience.

What she's coming up against though, is pre-school. She wants to go to pre-school next year like her sister (who'll actually be in Kindergarten next year), and she can't go if she's not potty trained.

You can see it like a little war inside her head "Donwanna use the potty... wanna go school like big girl, like my sister... but donwanna stop my diaper"

She's waking up dry most of the time these days; and if she wanted to use it, she'd have the control, she just doesn't want to. As far as she's concerned, things are jsut fine the way they are thank you very much, and ooops, I jsut crapped my pants, isn't that funny mommy.

On the one hand it's hilarious; on the other hand pullups are expensive, changing her all the time is a PITA, and of course there's the pre-school issue.

Ahh the perils and adventures of being a suburban dad

The 20 things I know about Kids

So here's my new workout plan: Chasing little girls around, and over, my couch for two hours.

A remarkable effective form of excercise. I don't know if I'm burning any fat, but it certainly tires you out.

So here I am, 15 years of living on my own or with other adults, and all of a sudden I've got a ready made family. Mel is still worried that I'll freak out or something, but that's not gonna happen. It certainly is a change though.

Of course it's not like I haven't dealt with kids a lot. I mostly raised my younger brother, and being the oldest of over 40 first cousins, and a couple hundred second cousins (some far younger than me, some far older), and their kids... lets just say I've changed a lot of diapers in my time.

But this is different. This is MY family.

So what have I learned over the years about parenting?

1. Establish limits and boundaries: This is part of giving a kid a framework for their life. Set what is absolutely off limits, what are their soft and hard boundaries; both in space, and in behavior. Make them clear, and easy to see and understand. If possible, associate them with something physical in their lives.
   
   Have multiple categories of limits and boundries i.e. this is acceptable in this limit, this plus this in this other limit etc... and within the tightest of these allow them almsot anything... within reason... to let their minds work.
   
   
2. Be tough but fair: Don't make arbitrary and capricious decisions. Give kids a set of rules, and guidelines, and follow them, so they know where they stand. If they go outside the rules, discipline them. At first just use a normal word, then a STRONG statement. If the kid is well behaved by nature that's usually enough. If not, then physically stop them from doing what they were doing and talk with them. Finally punishment. Very important, when you make a decision or a rule, stick by it.
   
   
3. Consistency: It's alright to be flexible about the rules, limits, and boundaries, but kids need to have consistency. That includes consistent bed and meal times, consistent play rules, consistent punishments. If the parent isn't consistent it leaves the kid without that framework we talked about. Again, when you make a decision or a rule, stick by it.
   
   
4. Be Flexible: Okay so now that I've told you to set limits, and stick by your decisions and be consistent, I'm going to tell you not to... actually no, I'm jsut going to say, BE FLEXIBLE. Sometimes rules dont work in all situations. Sometimes kids try to follow the rules and jsut can't. Sometimes you jsut HAVE to let them have icecream instead of soup, because they just kinda need it. You're a parent, not a robot. You can't be perfect, and neither can your kids, so why try; worse, why make them try?
   
   
5. Be patient: Kids arent generally little adults. Sometimes they don't remember things. Sometimes their impulses get the best of them. Sometimes they dont really understand what you are trying to tell them. They may want to please you (in fact that's generally their main goal), but not really know how; especially if you haven't established boundaries and limits, and you haven't been consistent. You have to be patient, and don't get angry unless it's very much warranted.
   
   
6. Kids want to please you: As I said about patientce above, as a primary caregiver, parent and authority figure; a kids main goal in life is generally going to be to please you. This sounds great, but because kids AREN'T little adults, and they frequently don't understand what it is we want, it can have some odd results. When they do somethign that they think is going to please you, and it makes you angry, (or worse sad or disappointed) instead, that kid is going to be crushed, or maybe even scared. They don't understand what's going on, and they don't know why you aren't happy with them. In this situation, you just need to go bac to the things above.
   
   
7. Kids will test you: Kids are always pushing. Pushing on their limits and boundaries, pushing the rules, pushing against discipline, and pushing you. They want to see what they can get away with, when; They want to test their environment. Most of all, they want to test their parents. Kids really are little scientists, always experimenting with things, and what's a better experiment than a living breathing person that has authority over them?
   
   Of coure this is frustrating, and can make you angry pretty easily. You KNOW they understand the rules, you KNOW they remember them, and you KNOW they broke them on purpose, what the heck do you do?
   
   BE TOUGH, FAIR, CONSISTENT, FLEXIBLE AND PATIENT
   
   Easiser said than done I know.
   
   
8. Don't over commit: Yourself OR your kids. Kids don't need to be scheduled every minute of every day. They need flexibility and space jsut as much as you do. Don't fill up their time, or yours, just because you dont know what else to do, or to keep them occupied, or because you're afraid they'll miss something. Kids will occupy themselves and I'm sure you can always find something to do. Hell, if you get them used to always being scheduled and always ahving an activity provided for them, they'll forget HOW to occupy themselves.
   
   
9. Have fun: Kids are fun, yeah they are work, but they are also VERY VERY fun. Not to mention the continuation of our species. Let yourself have fun with them, and maybe you wont be so drained, or pissed off at the end of the day.
   
   
10. Don't be so damn scared of everything: The world is a lot safer than television would lead you to believe. There aren't kidnappers around every corner. Everything gives you cancer including the air, and giving your kids organic apples isn't going to change that. Puppies arent going to bite your kids faces off. Flashing lights aren't going to give your kids seizures. THe wrogn toys arent going to make them get into a second tier state school.
    
    Lighten up, the human race has survived and thrived this long without specially designed, everything prooof, everything safe, all natural, organic, everything free wonderwidgets, and so will your kid.
    

Okay so that's the philosophy, lets get down to some specifics. If you want to stay sane, and kee your house in one piece, theres some basic rules to follow, and to make your kids follow (again with reference to the points above).

1. One toy or activity at a time: If you don't do this, your kids will run your life ragged and leave you no time for anything. Also if you dont do this, you'll be conditioning them for a short attention span. They get to play with one toy at a time, or do one thing at a time, and they need to put that toy away in the proper place before they get the next one, or move to the next activity.
   
   Some people say this stifles creativity, but I say that's bull. What it does is puts a little limit in their life that will help establish patterns and habits to serve them well for the rest of their life.
   
   
2. Clean up after every toy or activity before moving to the next one: Again, if you don't do this, you will never be able to have time for anything. Teach your kids that before they can go to the next thing, they need to clean up, put away, close up, whatever they were doing, and put it back in it's place; THEN they need to clean up themselves. Again, we're establishing patterns for later life.
   
   
3. Establish a play space: There is one exception to rule one and two. If you establish a special play space for them; where the only thing they do is play, and the toys stay in that space; you can let them play without limits. There, they can play with as much as they want, whenever they want. Just don't let them live in that play space, it's another activity that they can only do one at a time just like the others; and all the normal rules apply once they are done playing.
   
   
4. Meal time is for eating: You HAVE to teach kids that when it's time to eat, we stop playing, put away toys and activities, clean up after ourselves, and then we sit down to eat. We don't run around, we don't play, we eat. We can and should talk, but it's best that you teach kids from an early age to not talk when there is food in their mouths.
   
   Personally I recommend that you teach kids not to watch TV while eating, unless it's a special treat; but it's so much a part of American culture, and so many of us do it ourselves, that may not be possible.
   
   
5. Meals are a rule just like any other: When you feed your kids, they have to eat. It's a rule jsut like the other rules. They don't get the option of not eating, or of eating only what they feel like, without punishment (even if it's only mild punishment).
   
   Of course in order for this to work, you have to serve them food they can eat, in the proper portions. My grandmother used to force me to eat far more than I should, and foods that I was allergic to, because damnit there was food and I was going to eat it. Obviously that does more harm than good, but that's not what we are talking about. Mealtime is when kids do most of their testing. They are trying to see how much you will cave in to them; or they are just using it as an easy way to be contrary and take control over their own lives.
   
   Sorry folks, it may seem mean, but don't let them. You're the parent, and you're feeding them what you think they should eat. The kid eats what you think they should eat, or they don't eat at all.
   
   Now, here's where being flexible is important. Sometimes kids don't show any indication of being sick, until it comes down to meal time. Then they won't want to eat, or they'll just pick at their food. It may look like sulking, but sometimes it's jsut that they don't feel well. You need to figure out what it is before taking any action, or your not only going to have a sick kid, but one that's upset because they made mommy mad and it wasn't really their fault.
   
   
6. Don't buy toys that make noise: Yeah, kids love them. They also love making you mad with them. It's another one of those tests. Just do yourself a favor and either don't buy them at all, or buy ones that can be easily turned off. If you MUST buy them, don't buy the ones that make repetitive noises, that sing long songs, or that will stop and restart the noise from the beginning every time the toy is activated.
   
   
7. Don't buy toys with small pieces: Never mind the choking hazards, you'll be down on your knees in the carpet looking for the pieces that they flushed down the toilet until you're ready to chuck the whole thing out the window. Kids LOVE small pieces, because they can hide them places... you know, like their little sisters noses. Oh and of course when the small pieces are lost because THEY threw them out the car window, or fed them to Mr. Kitty, they will cry and cry, and cry, until you get them a new one.
   
   
8. Don't buy toys that permanently stain: Again, kids love them. Markers, crayons, paints... oh yeah, they do. But don't buy them; or if you do, make it a rule that is ABSOLUTELY enforced that they can only be used when you're with them; AND that they can only be used in a special place (probably not their play space) that gets cleaned up right away/ ALWAYS stick to this rule.
   
   
9. Don't buy toys that they can eat: I really don't need to go into this one do I
   
   
10. Don't buy toys that make it easy for them to break the rules: If you do, all you are doing is inviting them to do so; and confusing them. The rule says don't throw the ball in the house, but you buy them a kooshball and don't let them take it outside... what does that say to them?
    

More on "Double Standard and Magic Numbers"

There have been a couple of comments on the original post, both here and on the NoR that I wantes to talk about.

"I think there is and SHOULD be a double-standard. Girls are much more vulnerable sexually. As for age of consent, for girls (sans marriage) I’d suggest 25 Removing the parents ability to charge statutory rape would be a HUGE mistake."

...

"So, if you would have fathered a child @ 13, what is your responsibility? Who would have paid the child support? You can't assume an abortion.

Is it reasonable to saddle someone who cannot legally work and cannot contract with the financial responsibility of raising a child? Or are the grandparents saddled with that financial burden?

I'm glad that you personally didn't get into this situation. That's very lucky and good for you. It's a poor guide for policy."
...

"It’s only in western society that sex has become set as being something which is age restricted (some others in Asia are starting to follow suit) and only relatively recently.

The best (physically) age range for a woman to bear children is between roughly age 15 and 30, for men that’s I think a few years later.

So physiologically there’s nothing wrong with it at all, and it’s only our societies which have somehow decided that someone isn’t able to decide for themselves until they’re 18 (or 21 in the US) (and getting ever older) that determine that it’s “wrong”.
Instead we use all kinds of medical techniques to ensure that people who are well over the age where they can normally get children do indeed get pregnant and have somewhat healthy offspring (I think it was this year that a 70+ year old woman delivered a baby).

What I have a problem with in this instance is not the fact that the boy was 14, or the woman 25, but the fact that the woman was in a position of trust and power over the boy and may have abused that trust and power."

...

Here's the thing... I have no problem with the age difference issue, so long as there is absolutely no co-ercion or a power relationship.

The problem I have with the situation, and I mentioned it but only for a second in my original post; is entirely the abuse of authority issue. I didn’t address that because I think the main question here is about the age difference issue, but let me clarify:

Coercion is NEVER acceptable, whether it is physical or because of a power relationship. Someone placed in a non-sexual power relationship over someone else should NEVER have sexual relations with that person.

You dont have sex with your employees or your employer, and you dont have sex with people in your chain of command; unless one of those factors is going to change immediately.

Now as to the “25 for girls”... when do we stop? Why do we expect parental authority, or parental responsiblity, or individual irresponsibility to extend for so long? Why do we ALLOW IT?

I believe that everyone is, and should be, responsible for themselves, as soon as they are capable of being so. I was on my own at 16, living in my own apartment, paying my own bills, and making my own decisions. The only reason why at least 50% and more like 80% of all 16 year olds “can’t” do the same thing, is because we don’t make them.

“But what about the innocence of childhood? Why can’t we just let kids be kids?”

Do you really think that a 14 year old is a kid anymore? We don’t let them be Kids, we turn them into confused adults with adult bodies and concerns and issues, but no adult responsibilities or accountabilities… and we expect them to end up healthy and well adjusted afterwards?

We have developed into a society that keeps everyone morally and practically children for as long as possible (well into their 30’s if one works the system right); and yet makes them sexually adults as EARLY as possible.

...and it’s entirely arbitrary and capricious.

Doesnt anyone else find this not only absurd, but in fact harmful and disgusting?

Double Standards, and Magic Numbers

A friend of mine on the NoR asks the question:

"There is a very pretty young teacher who has been brought up on rape charges for having sex with a 14 year old male student.

We’ve kidded about this at home saying something like, “there is only one word to describe the boy in this case.... LUCKY.”

Some have argued (not necessary here) that if we don’t prosecute the woman in this story that we’re giving the appearance of a double-standard, ie, one set of rules that pertains to young men and sex with an adult female and one for girls with an adult male.

What’s your take?"

Actually I think this is a very important question, that touches on some aspects of our society that are in conflict: Liberty, Responsibility, and Protection

Remember, when our average lifespan was 40, people were frequently married off by 13 or 14. Even as recently as the 1930s it was common to be married by 16. It was only with the era of victorian morality, followed soon after by the rise of compulsory schooling ending at 18, that teenagers became viewed as unable to marry or to be sexually active.

I have had a student teacher physical relationship. I was 16 she was a 23 year old student music teacher; and I was in no way used, abused, taken advantage of or pressured. It was a very satisfying relationship both physically and emotionally, on both our parts; and I am very glad it happened.

That said, I have known 16 year olds who did not have the emotional maturity for such an experience; and clearly Susan Smith’s chosen victim did not for example. Hell, I've known 30 year olds who aren't mature enough for sex.

Additionally there is the matter of abuse of trust of the parents, and the potential for coercion in a power relationship.

Most folks in this country would probably agree that a 14, or at least a 16 year old boy who was in this situation was indeed lucky; but most of those same folks would want to string up a male teacher who had the same experiences with a 16 year old girl... and CERTAINLY a 14 year old.

Why is that?

Why is there a double standard there, and why is 16, or 18, or any other age OK?

I have a real issue with what Fran Poretto calls “Magic Numbers” in our society. At 18 (or 16, or 14) it is magically OK to have sex, while at 17 and 364 days it isnt? At 18 it is ok to sign a contract, but at 17.99 it isnt? At 21 it is OK to drink, but at 20.99 it isn’t?

I became sexually active at 13, and I don’t regret it. I was ready to do so, and I appreciated it, and the risks and rewards of it. I don’t regret becoming sexually active so early at all, but I do regret my sexual morality during the follwing five years, which was somewhat indescriminate. The thing is, I needed to make those mistakes on my own; and I'm glad I made them when I was young.

I also know folks who had a similar age experience, who believe it severely damaged them emotionally, and in their sexual/mental health and approach to relationships.

Every person is different. To my mind, it’s not something we can just say hard and fast “this is ok, and this isn’t”.

Of course the problem then becomes subjectivity of standards, and the unequal application of law. The law can be neither arbitrary nor capricious; and still be fair and constitutional.

So here’s what I think from a real world standpoint:

1. Under 13 is always child abuse no matter what. You have to draw a bottom line and this is where I put mine.

2. 13-15 should be evaluated on a case by case basis; but complaints of statutory rape or abuse must either arise from a judgement that the minor wasn’t competent to make the decision to have sex, or from a direct complaint by the minor themselves. Parents should not be able to make claims of statutory rape or abuse without the co-operation of the minor. I believe this should be the case even though there may be the suspicion of co-ercion. Now if there is clear proof of co-ercion that is another matter entirely, and is a case for rape, not statutory rape.

3. 16 and over should never be considered statutory rape or abuse unless the minor has been judged incompetent to make the decision to have sex.

Yes I realize that leaves many who are not ready for those decisions unprotected by the law; but I do not believe it is the laws job to protect everyone from everything. At 16 you should be able to make most of your own decisions; even if they are stupid ones.