# So I need some help settling a family dispute.



## capnjim (Aug 19, 2011)

Yes, its true...I am asking a bunch of random strangers to help out with a family dispute.
For me..its a no brainer, only one right answer.

But, to be fair to my surly 16 yr old son, I just thought I would ask you fine folks your opinion.

Here is the problem:

My wife downloaded a bunch of old pictures from a digital camera on to our computer with the intention of printing them out.
Some of them are several years old.
My 16 yr old boy saw them and freaked out and insisted we delete them.

We don't have many pics of him at all as he is severely camera shy and had been all his life.
My wife and I argue that we have a right to these photos as they are memories....

We will not be sharing these pics with anyone, but we feel its our right to have a few pics of him that we can enjoy in our later years.
What say you.....keep the pics so we have something to reminisce over in our golden years, or, listen to the little shit and delete them.................
Otherwise, the only few pics I have of him are when he catches fish.
But. there was at least 4-5 years with no pics at all.
Its kind of sad...but I wish I had more pictures of him.
here is the only picture I have of him in the last two years.
This one was taken a few weeks ago.
You can even see in my avatar, a picture of him last year, nice fish, but no face.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

Keep the pics and tell him tough luck. One of the problems with today's parents is that kids either get to run the show or expect that the household is a democracy. 
The pics are your property.


----------



## keto (May 23, 2006)

And in 20 or 25 years he'll likely regret not having them. Make sure you have a copy he can't delete somewhere.


----------



## boyscout (Feb 14, 2009)

Quietly make a backup copy or two before you delete the pictures. One day, when he stops being sixteen, he will almost certainly appreciate it. His wife, his kids, his grand-kids, they will probably appreciate it too.


----------



## garrettdavis275 (May 30, 2014)

I'm badly cameraphobic too (so I know where he's coming from) and I say you keep them. Memories are more important.


----------



## Adcandour (Apr 21, 2013)

d) all of the above.


----------



## Lincoln (Jun 2, 2008)

You gotta keep them. He'll grow up someday and be thankful to have them


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

He's 16 and he knows damned well that when he finally brings a 'special other' friend home that mom or maybe dad will drag the old pics out. "Here's little Johnny at 7 when he ran bare assed into the lake". Print them out and put them in an album somewhere. They might or might not be appreciated down the roads but at least printed pictures are always able to be seen by you until you're done with them.
Further down the road he might or might not appreciate them. I know that there are pics of me that I would gladly destroy.....it's a good thing that my sister has them some where. When they become his he can do with them what ever he wants.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

One year around grade four or so, my school pictures were terrible. One Sunday my Dad was away and I feigned sickness and didn't go to church with Mom. While she was gone, I took all those pictures and burned them. Unfortunately, there were a couple around that I missed. 

While I understand how your son may feel but being a Dad, I would want some pictures of my son as you do and as a Dad, you have the right to your pictures and memories that go hand in hand with them. I would pour those feelings out to your son and perhaps even agree to let him destroy one or two of the worse ones (in his mind).


----------



## johnnyshaka (Nov 2, 2014)

Go fishing more often.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Keep them.

Tell him you deleted them.

He's 16. He may think he's an adult, but he's still a kid.

He'll thank you someday.


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

I'll add my voice to the chorus.

Keep the pictures. Some day the boy will mature and get over himself, maybe even wish he had photos of himself to share with his own progeny. I wish I had pictures of my parents and grandparents in their youth.

Nice fish, by the way.

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## JBFairthorne (Oct 11, 2014)

Keep them. They're YOUR property. He has no say in the matter. End of discussion. DO NOT lie to him and tell him you deleted them. If he asks, tell him it's none of his business what you do with YOUR property. Save them (a couple times) to a disc and tuck it away (preferably in 2 different spots). NEVER do the "show the gf" thing out of respect for your son's feelings.


----------



## amagras (Apr 22, 2015)

Two words: Google Drive


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

1) Let him know how many times there were pictures you thought you'd never want to see again from your younger days that you were glad still existed when you got older. You might want to bring up the topic of Fort Mac residents who have no family photos anymore. If he wants to tuck them away, fine. But people's needs change as they get older and things they may have considered a challenge or threat at one age are cherished at another. Sixteen is a good age to learn that one will not be 16 forever. You may even live to be 36 one day. Heck, even Roger Daltrey, who proclaimed "Hope I die before I get old" is 72 right now.

2) Let HIM draft a contract that lays out the conditions under which said photos may be used, viewed, shared, etc., and sign it. At least part of this kerfuffle hinges on implied mistrust. Contracts exist for clarifying expectations between people.


----------



## cboutilier (Jan 12, 2016)

Man, that's a serious fish. I'd want that framed on my wall, the hell with destroying them.


----------



## fredyfreeloader (Dec 11, 2010)

Keep them, there will come a time when he will show interest in how he has changed over the years. 
I wish there were pictures of me when I was young, as far as I know there are two, one when I was 6/7 years old and one when I was 16/17 years old. Camera shy, no, just nobody bothered with pictures way back then.


----------



## Merlin (Feb 23, 2009)

Keep them.

Don't make any show of deleting them while making secret copies, don't negotiate. 

If your kid whines, just quote the sage advice of the Rolling Stones.


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

If you keep them, keep them in a format that will be around in 20+ years. Right now I'm trying to recover pics that are on an SD card that crashed. I have slides but no slide projector and some 8mm film but no movie projector. Just remember that you are keeping the pics for yourself and that's about it.


----------



## Steve6D (May 9, 2016)

Tell him when he starts paying the bills in your household, he can start having a say as to what goes on in said household.

Keep the photos. Tell him you've kept the photos. Tell him that, while you understand that he wants you to delete them, you don't care. As someone else mentioned, leave the photo album to him when you leave this earthly plane and he can do as he sees fit...


----------



## Steve6D (May 9, 2016)

mhammer said:


> 2) Let HIM draft a contract that lays out the conditions under which said photos may be used, viewed, shared, etc., and sign it. At least part of this kerfuffle hinges on implied mistrust. Contracts exist for clarifying expectations between people.


I have two thoughts on this:

First, that's probably one of the worst ideas I've ever heard. Any parent who would allow their child to dictate the terms for _anything _in the home is someone who probably shouldn't have kids. Harsh? Sure; don't care.

Second, the kid's 16. He can't sign a binding contract. 

Seriously, if I allowed my daughter to decide what would and wouldn't happen in our home I would've been buried in My Little Pony figurines and my living room walls would've been pink with Hanson posters all over them...


----------



## Steve6D (May 9, 2016)

Electraglide said:


> If you keep them, keep them in a format that will be around in 20+ years.


How do we know what format that will be?

20 years ago, my digital camera used a Camedia memory card (it was an Olympus). Good luck finding one of those cards today, or even a card reader which accommodates it. Also, 20 years ago I was using 3-1/2" discs in my computer. I honestly can't remember the last time I saw one of those.

Instead, print them out, and print copies. If he manages to get a hold of them, you have backups. A printed photo is the only format which you could guarantee (saving loss or destruction) will be around in 2036...


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

keto said:


> And in 20 or 25 years he'll likely regret not having them. Make sure you have a copy he can't delete somewhere.


i agree. theres photographic gaps in my life that I now regret as well. deleting is permanent, I wouldnt do it.
But he has a right to his own privacy as well. if he doesnt want those pics shown to anyone, put on walls, albums etc i think thats fair.

Do they bring up bad memories? was he fat, teased, insecure etc?
makes me wonder if theres something underlying this that maybe should be discussed. (i dont mean here, but in your home).

a contract? lol...ok. that seems like something used in a loveless climate of extreme mistrust/poor communication. respect and understanding is all thats required. if your word or your sons arent as good as a bond, then thats the problem right there.


----------



## Steve6D (May 9, 2016)

Diablo said:


> But he has a right to his own privacy as well.


Years ago, my daughter insisted that we give a locking door knob to her room, demanding her "privacy".

I told her she was lucky she had a door...


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

Steve6D said:


> Years ago, my daughter insisted that we give a locking door knob to her room, demanding her "privacy".
> 
> I told her she was lucky she had a door...


i dont think theyre the same thing at all.
i do think every human deserves *some * basic right to privacy. try to remove it all, and I think you'll just force him/her to go further underground.
do you have privacy locks on your washrooms? we do. and always will.
Id allow a lock on the bedroom door if only used when shes home. If she locked it when shes out, id remove it. if she thinks its an apartment and im her landlord, she can start paying rent too. But i get why she might not want to be walked in on when masturbating, getting dressed etc. They made movies about that sort of thing ie American Pie.

pick your battles. kid doesnt want his pics shown publicly during an awkward insecure stage in his life. fine. why force the issue, other than as an act of authority? better to try to understand why it bothers him so much.

again, I wouldnt delete them, or even keep them anywhere he can delete them himself. but if it bothers him, I wouldnt taunt him with it.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

n


Steve6D said:


> I have two thoughts on this:
> 
> First, that's probably one of the worst ideas I've ever heard. Any parent who would allow their child to dictate the terms for _anything _in the home is someone who probably shouldn't have kids. Harsh? Sure; don't care.
> 
> ...


Au contraire. What's frequently missing from many kids' upbringing is the opportunity to reflect on what* their* priorities are. It's crucial for forging an identity. I am not talking about a petulant bonehead Ramones-like "I wanna" or "I don' wanna". I'm talking about the kid being obliged to work out ALL the terms, explicate them clearly, and think about the implications. If they don't do all of that, and if the terms are wholly unreasonable, then there is no contract between parent and child. Besides, it's a _good_ thing for a kid to learn that their parents can be bound by an honorable agreement. It's good for parent-child relationships to know that your folks are willing to give credence to your needs when they are based on thoughtfulness and reflection. Conversely, it is lousy for parent-child relations when "the rules" are laid down by parents in spite of the child's expressed wishes, or to their total neglect. We have reams of research demonstrating that outcomes are pretty crappy when that sort of thing happens.

I should also add that I so no problem in providing a challenge function to this "contract". That is, asking the kid why they are insisting on this or that clause, and what it will provide them. Everything we kow about development says it's good for kids to stop and think about why their priorities are their priorities, and not simply have a list of superficial likes and dislikes.


----------



## Adcandour (Apr 21, 2013)

Steve6D said:


> Tell him when he starts paying the bills in your household, he can start having a say as to what goes on in said household.
> 
> Keep the photos. Tell him you've kept the photos. Tell him that, while you understand that he wants you to delete them, you don't care. As someone else mentioned, leave the photo album to him when you leave this earthly plane and he can do as he sees fit...


I think that's how you create murderers. I'm not sure though.


----------



## Steve6D (May 9, 2016)

Diablo said:


> If she locked it when shes out, id remove it. if she thinks its an apartment and im her landlord, she can start paying rent too. But i get why she might not want to be walked in on when masturbating, getting dressed etc. They made movies about that sort of thing ie American Pie.


I have this thing on the end of my arm called a "hand". When I wanted to get my daughter's attention when her door was shut, I would close my hand into a fist and do what we refer to as "knock".

It worked surprisingly well. My daughter understood that we wouldn't just barge into her room. She had her privacy...



> pick your battles. kid doesnt want his pics shown publicly during an awkward insecure stage in his life. fine. why force the issue, other than as an act of authority? better to try to understand why it bothers him so much.


The OP has been clear that he doesn't want to display them, but he also doesn't want to delete them. That should be the fair compromise. Instead, the kid wants them deleted.

Sorry, Junior...



> again, I wouldnt delete them, or even keep them anywhere he can delete them himself. but if it bothers him, I wouldnt taunt him with it.


Did I suggest that he be taunted?

What I suggested is that a 16 year old kid doesn't get to make the rules...


----------



## ZeroGravity (Mar 25, 2016)

I like to remind my (getting less) surly teenager that our household is not a democracy rather it is a "benevolent dictatorship" of which either mom or dad is the dictator (depending on the situation). He has a say that will be taken into consideration but by no means is it automatic that it will go that way and mom and/or dad always has the final say. We also make it pretty clear that we do accommodate him and that we would never do anything to publicly embarrass him.


----------



## Steve6D (May 9, 2016)

mhammer said:


> n
> Au contraire. What's frequently missing from many kids' upbringing is the opportunity to reflect on what* their* priorities are. It's crucial for forging an identity. I am not talking about a petulant bonehead Ramones-like "I wanna" or "I don' wanna". I'm talking about the kid being obliged to work out ALL the terms, explicate them clearly, and think about the implications. If they don't do all of that, and if the terms are wholly unreasonable, then there is no contract between parent and child. Besides, it's a _good_ thing for a kid to learn that their parents can be bound by an honorable agreement. It's good for parent-child relationships to know that your folks are willing to give credence to your needs when they are based on thoughtfulness and reflection. Conversely, it is lousy for parent-child relations when "the rules" are laid down by parents in spite of the child's expressed wishes, or to their total neglect. We have reams of research demonstrating that outcomes are pretty crappy when that sort of thing happens.
> 
> I should also add that I so no problem in providing a challenge function to this "contract". That is, asking the kid why they are insisting on this or that clause, and what it will provide them. Everything we kow about development says it's good for kids to stop and think about why their priorities are their priorities, and not simply have a list of superficial likes and dislikes.


My wife and I raised my daughter in a manner which helped her become the successful 30 year old woman she is today.

That manner of raising her didn't include "contracts". It included letting her know that Mom and Dad made the rules. Why? Because they're Mom and Dad. Our daughter, if she followed our rules, understood that she would be clothed, fed, housed and cared for in every possible way. Sure, she pushed back sometimes, but she always eventually realized that her role was not to make the rules and, by doing so, she would have a pretty enjoyable life.

A parent who will bow to the whims of their children is a bad parent. The child can "express" his or her wishes all they want. If they run counter to what the parents know to be best, then they will always be just "wishes"...


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

mhammer said:


> n
> Au contraire. What's frequently missing from many kids' upbringing is the opportunity to reflect on what* their* priorities are. It's crucial for forging an identity. I am not talking about a petulant bonehead Ramones-like "I wanna" or "I don' wanna". I'm talking about the kid being obliged to work out ALL the terms, explicate them clearly, and think about the implications. If they don't do all of that, and if the terms are wholly unreasonable, then there is no contract between parent and child. Besides, it's a _good_ thing for a kid to learn that their parents can be bound by an honorable agreement. It's good for parent-child relationships to know that your folks are willing to give credence to your needs when they are based on thoughtfulness and reflection. Conversely, it is lousy for parent-child relations when "the rules" are laid down by parents in spite of the child's expressed wishes, or to their total neglect. We have reams of research demonstrating that outcomes are pretty crappy when that sort of thing happens.
> 
> I should also add that I so no problem in providing a challenge function to this "contract". That is, asking the kid why they are insisting on this or that clause, and what it will provide them. Everything we kow about development says it's good for kids to stop and think about why their priorities are their priorities, and not simply have a list of superficial likes and dislikes.


Sounds like a lot of physcology book crap to me.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

Steve6D said:


> I have this thing on the end of my arm called a "hand". When I wanted to get my daughter's attention when her door was shut, I would close my hand into a fist and do what we refer to as "knock".
> 
> It worked surprisingly well. My daughter understood that we wouldn't just barge into her room. She had her privacy...
> 
> ...


were probably not that far apart in positions actually, youre just more of a hardass about it.

So, curious, if she understood you would always knock, why do you think she wanted the lock?


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

Tell him you'll delete them and then don't. That's what I did with my ex's. No regrets here.


----------



## JBFairthorne (Oct 11, 2014)

High/Deaf said:


> Tell him you'll delete them and then don't. That's what I did with my ex's. No regrets here.


So lie to them because you don't want to have any conflict or enforce your rights regarding your own property? What does that teach them? I'm honest with my kids. At the very least, they deserve the truth.

This IS NOT a jab at you, but I'm constantly surprised by "parents'" actions while with their children and often say to myself, what lesson are they teaching their kids right now?

The guy rushing to take a parking place from someone who has been waiting for it. What is he teaching his kids in the backseat?

The family I saw riding their bikes down our street, on the wrong side of the road but near the middle, not stopping for stop signs. What are they teaching their kids right then?

I mean, I'm not talking about crackheads here. I'm talking about apparently sensible, responsible people acting in a way (in front of the kids) that they probably would prefer their kids didn't behave. You're teaching your kids something every moment. Every now and then it's worthwhile to stop and think about just WHAT you're teaching them.


----------



## ZeroGravity (Mar 25, 2016)

At the risk of sounding like an old curmudgeon, parenting has swung from my octogenarian parents approach of "don't question me or you get the back of my hand" to "I'll just give in because arguing is hard". Parenting is tough work, and means making tough decision, and sometimes having to deal with hurt feelings. I feel there are now a couple generations of the soccer-festival, don't say no it'll damage their self-esteem, parents that just aren't equipped to deal with the hardship of saying no to their kids. It's easier to give in than deal with it, or they are of the generation that is so absorbed in themselves that they can't be bothered to make the effort to discipline their kids, because drawing a line and enforcing consequences takes effort.


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

JBFairthorne said:


> So lie to them because you don't want to have any conflict or enforce your rights regarding your own property? What does that teach them? I'm honest with my kids. At the very least, they deserve the truth.


I guess I shoulda put a smiley or winky face at the end of my post. 

I do not condone treating our children like we treat our ex's.

__________
edited: to the OP's original question, I would keep the photos and explain that some day, he will be glad you did. I think we all know this - and know how teenagers are. Teenage vanity only lasts so long.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Steve6D said:


> My wife and I raised my daughter in a manner which helped her become the successful 30 year old woman she is today.
> 
> That manner of raising her didn't include "contracts". It included letting her know that Mom and Dad made the rules. Why? Because they're Mom and Dad. Our daughter, if she followed our rules, understood that she would be clothed, fed, housed and cared for in every possible way. Sure, she pushed back sometimes, but she always eventually realized that her role was not to make the rules and, by doing so, she would have a pretty enjoyable life.
> 
> A parent who will bow to the whims of their children is a bad parent. The child can "express" his or her wishes all they want. If they run counter to what the parents know to be best, then they will always be just "wishes"...


You are confusing laissez-faire and parental negligence with negotiated rules. Rules are VERY important. Kids _want_ rules because like anyone, they desire clarity about the world and what to expect in it. But they can't just come from out of the sky. Whether one is dealing with a 16 year-old, an employee, a customer, or a diplomatic delegation, rules are always more likely to be adhered to and complied with when they appear to the other party to be exactly the sort of rules *they* would set if it were all up to them. What you aim for is "Makes sense to me" on the other party's part. And the surest way to achieve that is to engage them in the construction and establishment of the rules such that they reflect on the purpose of the rules and how the rules are logically connected to the purpose. Not only does that give them a vested interest in making sure the rules are followed by all parties (including themselves), but it also increases the likelihood that they will comprehend the rules.

Comprehension is crucial. Most rules are intended to be transferable across situations and contexts and be an expression of some higher-order abstract concept. If I tell a kid to not cross at the lights until the "walk" symbol is flashing, tat's good but I have not conveyed the higher-order principle that will instruct them on what to do when the light is out of order or when there is no light or when they need to cross at somewhere other than an intersection. I fully understand that "Do this", "Don't do that" is more appropriate when dealing with a 4 year-old who is not yet up to the task of drawing more abstract inferences. But you'd be pleasantly surprised by the "inner philosopher" and logician you can appeal to in elementary school kids when you pitch it right. There is also a comforting and maturity-encouraging tacit message when a child is encouraged to think about the underlying purpose and concept of a rule. It says "You have a role to play in making sure things run well. YOU are capable of being an independent grownup person. You may not be all the way there yet, but it's coming." If one desires maturity from one's kids, they need to know that it can be expected from them and that they are capable of it.

So, rules are great. But "My house, my rules" tends to result in kids who have a hard time thinking for themselves, because as far as they know, the rules always come from somewhere else, and not from their own accruing common sense and wisdom. And if there is no real value added by acquiring common sense, why bother acquiring it, right?

"physcology book crap"? Nah. Empirically supported.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

ZeroGravity said:


> At the risk of sounding like an old curmudgeon, parenting has swung from my octogenarian parents approach of "don't question me or you get the back of my hand" to "I'll just give in because arguing is hard". Parenting is tough work, and means making tough decision, and sometimes having to deal with hurt feelings. I feel there are now a couple generations of the soccer-festival, don't say no it'll damage their self-esteem, parents that just aren't equipped to deal with the hardship of saying no to their kids. It's easier to give in than deal with it, or they are of the generation that is so absorbed in themselves that they can't be bothered to make the effort to discipline their kids, because drawing a line and enforcing consequences takes effort.


its essential to be able to say no...but the days of saying "NO....because I SAID SO..." are over. Thats as lazy parenting as the slackers you describe. And what does it teach the kid? to be walked all over by someone else?
im trying to raise a future adult, not someones lapdog.
so reason and mutual respect must be used.


----------



## Guitar101 (Jan 19, 2011)

Electraglide said:


> If you keep them, keep them in a format that will be around in 20+ years. Right now I'm trying to recover pics that are on an SD card that crashed. I have slides but no slide projector and some 8mm film but no movie projector. Just remember that you are keeping the pics for yourself and that's about it.


Try Costco. They will convert your slides. I'm taking some in myself. I don't know if they do 8mm film.


----------



## Lincoln (Jun 2, 2008)

That's always been a source of conflict between the wife & I. She will tell the kids little white lies just because it's easier, while I will tell them the truth and explain to them why it is so. Fast forward 20 years, the kids will lie to her, they play it straight with me. And yes, kids absorb everything you do and reflect it back at you.

Back to the pictures, I think it's important that you explain to the kid that those pictures are precious memories of someone very special. Someone you loved with all your heart & soul at the stage in their lives when those "awkward" pictures were taken, and someone you loved every moment of their life that came before that, and will love every moment of their life that is yet to come. Tell him he will never have to look at or see those pictures ever again. Tell him you cannot destroy those pictures. Tell him he may not understand why right now, but someday he will.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

mhammer said:


> So, rules are great. But "My house, my rules" tends to result in kids who have a hard time thinking for themselves, because as far as they know, the rules always come from somewhere else, and not from their own accruing common sense and wisdom. And if there is no real value added by acquiring common sense, why bother acquiring it, right?
> 
> "physcology book crap"? Nah. Empirically supported.


Go to most jobs and try to negotiate your own rules. Go join the military and see how much say you get in modifying the rules. Its nice to let your kids feel like they're contributing in some small "Physcology book crap" way. But you're better off preparing them for the real world.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

Diablo said:


> its essential to be able to say no...but the days of saying "NO....because I SAID SO..." are over. Thats as lazy parenting as the slackers you describe.


Of course you can always give it your best to explain why your decisions are what they are but in the end when you come up against a child that isn't listening because he can only see his point of view then sometime all you got is "Because I said so". One of things I remember about being a kid was how I knew it all and didn't need some old fogie telling me.


----------



## ZeroGravity (Mar 25, 2016)

guitarman2 said:


> Of course you can always give it your best to explain why your decisions are what they are but in the end when you come up against a child that isn't listening because he can only see his point of view then sometime all you got is "Because I said so". One of things I remember about being a kid was how I knew it all and didn't need some old fogie telling me.


I agree that they are deserving of a rational explanation, but as you say, they are not necessarily rational beings and sometimes you need the finality of "because I said so".


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

guitarman2 said:


> Go to most jobs and try to negotiate your own rules. Go join the military and see how much say you get in modifying the rules. Its nice to let your kids feel like they're contributing in some small "Physcology book crap" way. But you're better off preparing them for the real world.


And "the real world" entails learning how to negotiate with others and reach acceptable compromises, whether with spouses, their own kids, with neighbours, with coworkers, with employees. It is a skill, and if one has zero practice at it, it is unlikely to ever _become_ a skill.

Child-rearing is not a matter of dumping onto them the things one resents in one's own life, or imposing the sorts of controls one never had oneself. It is a matter of providing every available learning opportunity for skills that will be valuable the rest of one's life. ALWAYS consider that every reaction you have towards your child/ren presents a learning opportunity. They can either further entrench a habit that does them and everybody else no earthly good, or they can learn something useful.

Is "because I said so" necessary sometimes? Sure. But think of it as an I.O.U.; "because I said so...for now...with justification to follow".


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

mhammer said:


> And "the real world" entails learning how to negotiate with others and reach acceptable compromises, whether with spouses, their own kids, with neighbours, with coworkers, with employees. It is a skill, and if one has zero practice at it, it is unlikely to ever _become_ a skill.


Negotiating skills is great to develop with peers. When it comes to authority it should be minimal and rare. The job of authority is to already have rules in place. Yes its great to teach kids why these rules exist but more times than not they will need to abide by these rules at a faster rate than which they can learn why. So its not necessarily lazy to simply state "Because I said so", but many instances may call for brevity.
I've been around a while and I really get sick to death of this child theology that puts power in to their hands long before they're ready simply so the person can call themselves evolved, educated and smart. Too many junk child physcology books written out there that think they got a new spin on how we should be raising kids. What we now have is an age of children that are not afraid of anything. Children that think the world revolves around them. Basically a generation of Narcissists.
And I'm not talking about the hardcore gangsters. How bout the university students raping unconcious female students and saying it isn't their fault or the rich kid that mows down a family while drunk and his rich father gets him off. Affluenza. Bet their parents were ever so careful not to usurp authority harshly on them.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

guitarman2 said:


> Of course you can always give it your best to explain why your decisions are what they are but in the end when you come up against a child that isn't listening because he can only see his point of view then sometime all you got is "Because I said so". *One of things I remember about being a kid was how I knew it all and didn't need some old fogie telling me*.


maybe because the old fogies never did a good job of explaining to you why things had to be the way they were?


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

Diablo said:


> maybe because the old fogies never did a good job of explaining to you why things had to be the way they were?


I am pretty insightful of how I used to be and the reason for most of my mistakes. I remember many a time where I was positive I knew much more than the older wiser individuals close to me. A couple of them teachers that I look back on now and say "sunofa bitch you were absolutely right".
Some of my mistakes its only blind luck, divine intervention or a bit of both that I'm not dead. And its exactly this type of wisdom we try to impart on our young love ones. And for the most part they think we're just telling horror stories in order to control them.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

guitarman2 said:


> I am pretty insightful of how I used to be and the reason for most of my mistakes. I remember many a time where I was positive I knew much more than the older wiser individuals close to me. A couple of them teachers that I look back on now and say "sunofa bitch you were absolutely right".
> Some of my mistakes its only blind luck, divine intervention or a bit of both that I'm not dead. And its exactly this type of wisdom we try to impart on our young love ones. And for the most part they think we're just telling horror stories in order to control them.


I think thats very typical, and im sure weve all been there. my point was, its easy to discredit and ignore someone wisdom if that person didnt effectively communicate it to you in the first place.
for example, theres a difference between saying "buy stock in Dollarama because Im smarter than you" and "Buy stock in Dollarama because their profit is increasing more than expected, the decline in the economy makes them almost recession proof, and theyre consistently outperforming competitors like Walmart, and plannign expansion into new countries.". Who are you more likely to listen to? who do you want your kid to listen to when they get older?
someone said earlier something about not getting a say in things in the military....well, i hope im not raising my kid to be an automaton silently, unquestioningly and mindlessly marching in rank and file. is that really what we aspire for our kids to be? I hope im preparing her for more in life than that.


----------



## Steve6D (May 9, 2016)

Diablo said:


> were probably not that far apart in positions actually, youre just more of a hardass about it.


I'm a parent, not a pal...



> So, curious, if she understood you would always knock, why do you think she wanted the lock?


I know exactly why: because some of her friends convinced her that she could never have privacy if she couldn't lock her bedroom door. That's the sole reason. That's where the "You're lucky you've got a door" part came in. I told her, with door-removal implements in hand, if she thought not being able to lock her door meant she had no privacy, I would be happy to show her what not having privacy _really _looked like.

That was pretty much the last of the discussion on that topic...


----------



## Steve6D (May 9, 2016)

I'm curious: Of those who are suggesting that parents should have "contracts" with their kids, or that the children's wishes should be considered or any of that other silly nonsense; how many have actually _raised_ children?


----------



## vadsy (Dec 2, 2010)

Yay, just when the bickering settles in one thread we have another one delivering. 

I'm a young parent and raising children right now,.. please teach me.


----------



## Steve6D (May 9, 2016)

mhammer said:


> You are confusing laissez-faire and parental negligence with negotiated rules. Rules are VERY important. Kids _want_ rules because like anyone, they desire clarity about the world and what to expect in it. But they can't just come from out of the sky.


They don't. They come from the parents.

I absolutely agreet that kids both need and want rules.

My child had them...



> But "My house, my rules" tends to result in kids who have a hard time thinking for themselves, because as far as they know, the rules always come from somewhere else, and not from their own accruing common sense and wisdom. And if there is no real value added by acquiring common sense, why bother acquiring it, right?


Sorry, but that's a load of crap.

My Grandparents were brought up in a "my house, my rules" environment. My parents were and my brother and I were. We've all done pretty well for ourselves and have made our own decisions *when it was appropriate to do so. *

It's not appropriate for a 16 year old child to make up the rules. It's not. My daughter wanted to get a job when she was 16. Her grades were not good, though, so I shut down that idea in a hurry. I told her if she wanted to get a job she'd have to bring her grades up. She "countered" that with she would work on getting her grades up while she had the job.

Yeah, not so much.

I stand by my belief that a parent who'll "negotiate" rules with their child is a poor excuse for a parent. A parent isn't a friend. A parent isn't an employer, and a parent isn't an associate. A parent is a parent.

And, if someone wants to be a parent, they'd damn sure better act like one...


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

Diablo said:


> well, i hope im not raising my kid to be an automaton silently, unquestioningly and mindlessly marching in rank and file. is that really what we aspire for our kids to be? I hope im preparing her for more in life than that.


Well theres that end of the extreme then theres the other end where the kids question and challenge everything. You know, the ones that can never seem to hold a job. So there's a fine balancing act in there. But no one will ever be able to convince me that letting your children know that you are completely in charge and that they don't get to negotiate a contract.
Whether your child is 2 or 12 sometimes they don't fully understand until they get themselves in to a situation where they really regret their decision. As a parent its our job to head off those lessons that can have hard or maybe even fatal consequences. A 2 year old needs to be told and probably 80% of the situations they're not going to be able to understand even if you tried to explain it to them.
Same with a 12 year old. Being older the situations are more complex and most likely 80% of the situations they aren't going to understand why you're telling them no. Some here think that a "because I say so", is harmful. I happen to think its necessary.
If you allow your self to get on the same level with your child so your child sees you as an equal, the child just lost a parent.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

You're still not getting the difference between what you're thinking of and what I'm describing.
Like yourself' I don't think you put "power" in the hands of children. I'm as loud a complainer of what I like to refer to as "the adolo-centric society" (a society predicated on the purchase power, and consequently whims and priorities, of adolescents) as anyone.

What one *does* saddle them with is responsibility, and the responsibility of making, and learning how to make, good defensible choices. Negotiating is not just about persuading others and getting your way. It is about finding what can work for both parties without betraying their needs, and dignity.

All of that is easily distinguished, both in style and developmental outcomes, from negligent and laissez-faire parents, both of which are empirically demonstrated to produce kids who are less sure of themselves and more susceptible to peer pressure as a result.

And yes, as of two weeks from now I will have a 30 year-old and a 20 year-old, both great thoughtful kids any parent would be proud to have as their own. I have a doctorate in lifespan development, and taught adolescent development for 3 years, among other things. I'm just telling you what study after study after study in the field has found. and why they found it. It's not hooey. It is empirically demonstrated. Once in a while you get the odd interesting exception. For instance, while strict authoritarian ("Because I said so") parents tend to produce poor child outcomes amongst most kids studied, some studies find an exception in children of east Asian (primarily Korean) parents, because culturally such authoritarianism is viewed as an expression of love, and not just power (i.e., I don't require an explanation because I accept that your rule is intended to be in my best interests). When viewed as _only_ an expression of power, it don't work so good.


----------



## Steve6D (May 9, 2016)

What utter nonsense.

Suggesting that a parent might betray a child's dignity by not allowing the child to "negotiate is... well, it's stupid. There's just no other word to describe it...


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

mhammer said:


> It is about finding what can work for both parties without betraying their needs, and dignity.


If I can't find what works for all concerned I'd not be a competent father. There are certain perspectives that parents see that their children won't most likely see until they reach adult hood and have experienced life. Sometimes it takes those children till that age to fully understand. Then again I realize every child is different. Maybe you raised an "Alex P Keaton" type kid so don't have any frame of reference for the typical child.
As far as the dignity goes I think the love will take care of that. Its impossible to get through life with out feeling like your dignity has taken a rap so those can be good lessons. 
Those parents that do everything in there power to make sure their children never feel like their dignity has been violated are known as "helicopter parents" and that has its own set of damages.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Steve6D said:


> What utter nonsense.
> 
> Suggesting that a parent might betray a child's dignity by not allowing the child to "negotiate is... well, it's stupid. There's just no other word to describe it...


Count to ten, take a deep breath, and take a few steps back...please. I think you'll see we're on much the same page.

Being able to negotiate in the manner I described is a _skill_ to be acquired, and a damn handy one at that. If you can't do it every time, that is_ n_ot a measure of one's competence as a parent. If you NEVER give your child an opportunity to learn how to do it, well then it _becomes_ a measure of one's competence as a parent.

If you want the kid to know how throw a ball, you gotta play catch in the back yard a bit, right? Same goes for interpersonal and judgment skills.

I'll bet the "homework assignment" of having to draw up a detailed contract, and rationale, for the conditions under which the pics may be viewed, will come out of the blue for this kid, and be a very tough task. I'll bet having to respond to calm rational parental queries of "Well, what about in this situation? Or that situation? What sorts of timelines are we talking about?" will prompt a lot of thinking terrain this kid has never previously ventured into. My suggestion was intended to make this _harder _for the kid, not easier. "Because I said so" may not be what the kid wants, but is actually easier for the kid because they don't have to think. You _want_ them to think about their priorities and about others' priorities. Makes 'em better human beings. Makes 'em better friends, better partners, better parents, better coworkers, better citizens.


----------



## JBFairthorne (Oct 11, 2014)

Steve6D said:


> What utter nonsense.
> 
> Suggesting that a parent might betray a child's dignity by not allowing the child to "negotiate is... well, it's stupid. There's just no other word to describe it...


Yeah, there IS another word to describe it...and you already used it. Nonsense. Using the word stupid right after is clearly an effort to incite conflict...which appears to be your agenda based on a review of your somewhat rude posts. Either you want to be a part of this community or you want to create conflict within this community (which seems to self-moderate quite well). Which is it? Seriously, maybe taking cheap shots at one another is the norm where you come from, maybe it isn't...but here, it's generally just not acceptable OR tolerated.

You'll notice that I DIDN'T take a cheap shot at you despite your having deserved it.


----------



## Adcandour (Apr 21, 2013)

3 generations of "my house, my rules" method of raising children? F me...

I'm sure that method of raising children increases the odds of being close-minded with a disposition for getting frustrated easily. 

The only study I can cite is this thread.


----------



## Adcandour (Apr 21, 2013)

JBFairthorne said:


> You'll notice that I DIDN'T take a cheap shot at you despite your having deserved it.


I wasn't raised right, so I took it.

3 generations of getting your corn flakes shat in...by your parents. there's lots of fodder here.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

Steve6D said:


> *I'm a parent, not a pal...*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


re: bolded, its sad to me when ppl see things as so black and white.
but whatever.


----------



## Distortion (Sep 16, 2015)

Keep the pictures but I see you have already violated your part of the bargain and have posted his picture on the net for millions of people to view.


----------



## Adcandour (Apr 21, 2013)

Distortion said:


> Keep the pictures but I see you have already violated your part of the bargain and have posted his picture on the net for millions of people to view.


I didn't wanna say, but I was scratching my head a bit.


----------



## Steve6D (May 9, 2016)

mhammer said:


> Yeah, there IS another word to describe it...and you already used it. Nonsense. Using the word stupid right after is clearly an effort to incite conflict...which appears to be your agenda based on a review of your somewhat rude posts. Either you want to be a part of this community or you want to create conflict within this community (which seems to self-moderate quite well). Which is it? Seriously, maybe taking cheap shots at one another is the norm where you come from, maybe it isn't...but here, it's generally just not acceptable OR tolerated.
> 
> You'll notice that I DIDN'T take a cheap shot at you despite your having deserved it.


Sometimes, things are just stupid. I don't have a predisposition to sugar coat things. Is it nonsense? Sure, it is. But not all nonsense is stupid. Sometimes it's just silly. 

The "dignity" comment was not silly, and it didn't stop at being nonsense...


----------



## Steve6D (May 9, 2016)

adcandour said:


> 3 generations of "my house, my rules" method of raising children? F me...
> 
> I'm sure that method of raising children increases the odds of being close-minded with a disposition for getting frustrated easily.
> 
> The only study I can cite is this thread.


Actually, it resulted in just the opposite. I don't, for a second, believe you would understand how...


----------



## Steve6D (May 9, 2016)

adcandour said:


> I wasn't raised right, so I took it.
> 
> 3 generations of getting your corn flakes shat in...by your parents. there's lots of fodder here.


Well, you've just admitted to not being raised right, in the same post in which you take issue with how I was raised.

So, yeah, you _weren't_ raised right.

Accordingly, I'll give tour posts on child rearing the consideration they're due...


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

Delete


----------



## Adcandour (Apr 21, 2013)

You're hopeless, but I enjoy you. I really do.

Anyway, how does a guy who worked for Taylor manage to disregard posts by someone who's ACTUALLY worked in the field and has a relevant doctorate? It takes some REAL special upbringing to think you're above _that_...

mandelbaum...mandelbaum...mandelbaum


----------



## Steve6D (May 9, 2016)

adcandour said:


> You're hopeless, but I enjoy you. I really do.


Why? Because I don't think a child should be given the power of negotiation over a parent?

Because I think a parent needs to be a parent instead of a pal?

Parents being parents have served me and my family well for generations...



> Anyway, how does a guy who worked for Taylor manage to disregard posts by someone who's ACTUALLY worked in the field and has a relevant doctorate? It takes some REAL special upbringing to think you're above _that_...


I honestly have no idea what you're talking about.

A doctorate in what?


----------



## Adcandour (Apr 21, 2013)

Steve6D said:


> Why? Because I don't think a child should be given the power of negotiation over a parent?
> 
> Because I think a parent needs to be a parent instead of a pal?
> 
> ...



No, because you love cyber-confrontation and resort to childish comments. You're no better than me. It was only a matter of time before you cracked. Textbook.

The parents/pal thing is sad, but it's your thing. I could care less. There's a happy-medium - if you can't see it, then I hope your wife was able to fix it to spare future generations 

Your upbringing may be responsible for a dozen or so headshakes aimed directly at your posts.

Re-read mhammer's post where he describes his credentials. Maybe you missed it, or maybe he added it later.


----------



## JBFairthorne (Oct 11, 2014)

adcandour said:


> You're hopeless, but I enjoy you. I really do.
> 
> Anyway, how does a guy who worked for Taylor manage to disregard posts by someone who's ACTUALLY worked in the field and has a relevant doctorate? It takes some REAL special upbringing to think you're above _that_...
> 
> mandelbaum...mandelbaum...mandelbaum


Hopeless, yup. Do I enjoy him though? Nope. I'm SO glad this forum is so vastly different from similar American forums.

It's interesting how someone's demeanor and attitude can immediately make you "turn them off" even though their core message might be one you would entertain had it come from someone who wasn't a jerk. (Yes, I'm reluctant to say even that, but sometimes a jerk is just a jerk.)


----------



## Steve6D (May 9, 2016)

adcandour said:


> Re-read mhammer's post where he describes his credentials. Maybe you missed it, or maybe he added it later.


Oh, I read them.

What's lost on me is why he apparently thinks my previous employment at Taylor is relevant to the discussion:

*"...how does a guy who worked for Taylor manage to disregard posts by someone who's ACTUALLY worked in the field and has a relevant doctorate?"*

What does Taylor have to do with anything? Why not question how a professional photographer could question such posts? Or someone who wears a size 13 shoe?

I disregard his posts because my experience as a parent indicates that what he says cannot be universally applied. I disregard them because of the blanket dismissal of my experiences as, somehow, wrong. Yet, somehow, they've worked fine.

I've never encountered a legitimate child psychologist or developmental specialist who insists that being a "friend" instead of a "parent" is the way to go.

When I was a kid, Mom would put dinner out and call us to the table. If we didn't like what she made, we had a choice: eat or go hungry. Many of my peers _were _allowed to "demand" something else and, to this day, that trait follows them. They're demanding and inflexible and, for the most part, impossible to be around...


----------



## Steve6D (May 9, 2016)

adcandour said:


> No, because you love cyber-confrontation and resort to childish comments. You're no better than me. It was only a matter of time before you cracked. Textbook.


I've hardly cracked. 

You're not nearly that good...


----------



## butterknucket (Feb 5, 2006)

Keep the pictures.


----------



## greco (Jul 15, 2007)

Steve6D said:


> I've never encountered a child psychologist or developmental specialist who insists that being a "friend" instead of a "parent" is the way to go.


You have now. 

Please let me introduce you to Dr. M. Hammer, Psychologist 
(I'm not kidding..I am totally sincere with this).

_I'm not going to comment on mhammer's views re: _
"who insists that being a "friend" instead of a "parent" is the way to go."
That is for him to discuss with you.


----------



## Steve6D (May 9, 2016)

JBFairthorne said:


> Hopeless, yup. Do I enjoy him though? Nope. I'm SO glad this forum is so vastly different from similar American forums.
> 
> It's interesting how someone's demeanor and attitude can immediately make you "turn them off" even though their core message might be one you would entertain had it come from someone who wasn't a jerk. (Yes, I'm reluctant to say even that, but sometimes a jerk is just a jerk.)


Oh, are we resorting to personal attacks now?


----------



## Steve6D (May 9, 2016)

greco said:


> You have now.
> 
> Please let me introduce you to Dr. M. Hammer, Psychologist
> (I'm not kidding..I am totally sincere with this).
> ...


Well, here's the thing: I'm almost 54 years old. I've been a father since the age of 23. My daughter is a remarkably well adjusted woman. She was raised as I and my wife were raised, and how are parents were raised. When my wife was pregnant, we read all sorts of books on child rearing. We wanted to do it the right way. _Every single one of them _spoke of the need for a parent to be a parent _first_. Period.

So, you'll forgive me if I'm not willing to throw 30 years of my own experience out the window because some random psychologist on a Canadian guitar forum tells me something different.

If the way I raised my daughter was wrong, I would love for someone to explain how she turned out as well as she did. I can tell you this: It had nothing to do with her parents deciding to be friends instead of parents...


----------



## Lincoln (Jun 2, 2008)

Looks like we can add to that list of things that are taboo to talk about........ politics, religion, and child development


----------



## Adcandour (Apr 21, 2013)

Steve6D said:


> I've hardly cracked.
> 
> You're not nearly that good...


I wasn't claiming I cracked you at all. You cracked when you had your mini-tantrum( you know...the kind a well-raised adult has...).

Not much else to say, but I'm sure you'll find something. You love this.


----------



## Steve6D (May 9, 2016)

adcandour said:


> I wasn't claiming I cracked you at all. You cracked when you had your mini-tantrum( you know...the kind a well-raised adult has...).
> 
> Not much else to say, but I'm sure you'll find something. You love this.


I'll have to ask you to point that out, because it doesn't exist.

Unless you believe that someone defending his opinion qualifies as "cracking"...


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

Steve6D said:


> I'll have to ask you to point that out, because it doesn't exist.
> 
> Unless you believe that someone defending his opinion qualifies as "cracking"...


I stated my opinions as well. And I stated my disagreement with mhammers opinions. And I tend to be straight forward and blunt. But you seem to take it a level further. The way I read your text its as if you're spitting your words. As much as I feel mhammer is a bit misguided in his opinion he certainly deserves the respect of a calm intelligent discussion. He's been around here a while and he's long proven he's no moron. I'll bet if we took the heat of this discussion down a few notches (my self included) we might find that there are a lot of things about this subject we do agree on. 
It seems as if mhammer is saying his strategy with rearing children is being their friend as has been stated in some other posts but I don't think he actually said that. 
I've got my ideas on what raising a child is and mhammers got his. I doubt he's totally wrong and I doubt I'm totally right.


----------



## Guitar101 (Jan 19, 2011)

Many, many years ago my wife and I took a evening psychology class at a local college. The topic of child rearing came up and our psychology teacher explained how she handled her child when he had a temper tantrum. I looked at my wife with a puzzled look and said "our kids don't have temper tantrums".


----------



## Adcandour (Apr 21, 2013)

Guitar101 said:


> Many, many years ago my wife and I took a evening psychology class at a local college. The topic of child rearing came up and our psychology teacher explained how she handled her child when he had a temper tantrum. I looked at my wife with a puzzled look and said "our kids don't have temper tantrums".


Ours doesn't either, but it's an epidemic from what I've witnessed. Once, my son tried to do what that Cailou (sp.?) cartoon character would pull on his parents, but we shined a light on the behaviour, showed him how ridiculous it looked to us, and he never did it again. We also never put that stupid show on again.


----------



## Steve6D (May 9, 2016)

guitarman2 said:


> I stated my opinions as well. And I stated my disagreement with mhammers opinions. And I tend to be straight forward and blunt. But you seem to take it a level further. The way I read your text its as if you're spitting your words. As much as I feel mhammer is a bit misguided in his opinion he certainly deserves the respect of a calm intelligent discussion. He's been around here a while and he's long proven he's no moron. I'll bet if we took the heat of this discussion down a few notches (my self included) we might find that there are a lot of things about this subject we do agree on.
> It seems as if mhammer is saying his strategy with rearing children is being their friend as has been stated in some other posts but I don't think he actually said that.
> I've got my ideas on what raising a child is and mhammers got his. I doubt he's totally wrong and I doubt I'm totally right.


I appreciate your comments.

I don't think I'm "spitting" my words at all. You might revisit that, however, with the cretin who decided to start lobbing personal attacks. Frankly, I get the very distinct impression that some folks here don't like when someone else is willing to defend their opinion or position. They much prefer that someone just agree with them. While mhammer may not be totally wrong, he, and no one else, has been able to demonstrate where my approach is wrong at all. Instead, it only garnered such intellectual nuggets as "three generations of having your corn flakes shat upon" or some nonsense like that. Yeah, that's real heady stuff and certainly suggests the poster is interested in an actual conversation...


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

Steve6D said:


> I don't think I'm "spitting" my words at all.


All I meant was thats what it seemed like. I'm sure I'm not the only one that perceived that.




Steve6D said:


> You might revisit that, however, with the cretin who decided to start lobbing personal attacks.


You see, this is the kind of thing I was talking about when I mentioned we should take it down a notch. Please don't say "well he started it".




Steve6D said:


> Frankly, I get the very distinct impression that some folks here don't like when someone else is willing to defend their opinion or position. They much prefer that someone just agree with them.


Sure we can do that. Since the subject is about rearing children lets start acting like adults.




Steve6D said:


> While mhammer may not be totally wrong, he, and no one else, has been able to demonstrate where my approach is wrong at all.


So you're good with mhammer and my self admitting that maybe we're not completely right as long as you can maintain that you are completely infallible? Hmm doesn't seem like a healthy discussion. Maybe this is why mhammer has apparently dropped out of this converstation. He's smarter than all of us.


----------



## Steve6D (May 9, 2016)

guitarman2 said:


> You see, this is the kind of thing I was talking about when I mentioned we should take it down a notch. Please don't say "well he started it".


Is there a problem with pointing out when and why the train went off the rails?



> So you're good with mhammer and my self admitting that maybe we're not completely right as long as you can maintain that you are completely infallible? Hmm doesn't seem like a healthy discussion.


Not at all; you're assumption is incorrect. 

I see no reason to declare that my position is incorrect simply because you and he have. That wouldn't make any sense. However, if my approach to raising a child is wrong, and someone can demonstrate how (keeping in mind that my kid turned out just fine), I would love to see it and would be open to considering it. But I'm not going to say "I'm not right" just because you do.

If someone thinks I'm wrong, well, show me how. I'm an adult; I can handle that. But, you have to be prepared to also show how my parents, and their parents before them, were wrong...


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

I'm seeing quotes that are attributed to me which I have absolutely no recollection of ever saying, and certainly weren't part of this thread. Are these dug up from some past thread from long ago?

I'm not going to club anyone over the head with credentials. That's a pissing contest I can never win, and wouldn't want to anyway (certainly not on the day that Jerome Bruner's obituary appeared; brilliant brilliant guy at whose feet I worship). I mention my qualifications just to note that I'm not turning to popular paperbacks or people Oprah has on, or pulling stuff out of my hindquarters, but to the actual research literature. I am assuming that peer-reviewed empirical research in mainstream journals has _some_ credibility. Or is behavioural science gonna get the same treatment here as climate science gets from some quarters?

And while I deeply appreciate guitarman2's gentlemanly spirit and support here (really....tip o' the hat for fair play here), I think we're still not syncing up. I don't think one should be your child's "pal". Indeed, when I used to teach university I would make a point of NOT being my students' pal, because I knew sooner or later I would have to pull rank, and there are few things as hurtful as the sense of betrayal one feels when a pal turns into "boss". I never wanted to put them through that. So like they say: friendly but not too familiar.

Treated as capable and legitimate equal is not the same as "pal". It means that if *I* have to explain and defend my actions, then *you* have to explain and defend them also. It means your obligation to be rational, thoughtful, and considerate is the same as mine, and you don't get excused from that obligation just because you're a legal minor.

Many folks think that teens don't give a rat's hiney about what their parents think. But in fact, teens DO consult their parents when they perceive the parent to have some degree of authoritativeness and expertise on some matter. They certainly won't ask them what music to listen to (the idiots),or what to wear, but they will ask them about some big choices, like work, school, money, and occasionally relationships. They have to view the parent as someone who thinks things through, as someone who is willing to consider the teen's context, and as someone who will consistently act and recommend in the teen's best interests...even when the recommendation goes against what the teen prefers. And one of the ways to get to that is to have those conversations where, as parent, you ask the child to state their case (as in the hypothetical "contract" discussed), defend it, and state your own case in similar fashion. Kids feel closer to their parents when they have a sense of what matters most in life to the parent (assuming it is something meaningful and not just money, a hot car, and tight abs). And its good for them to grow up knowing that their parents believe in something, and that believing in something is normal and valuable.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Steve6D said:


> you have to be prepared to also show how my parents, and their parents before them, were wrong...


When I turn to research, the research indicates what is more or most likely to occur. If 75% of kids raised in a certain way have low self-esteem, but only 25% of kids raised another way have low self-esteem, it means that, all things considered, the one way has a better outcome than the other. But it also means that kids raised in the lesser way can still turn out great, and that not every kid raised in the generally better way is gonna be perfect. Those exceptions can happen for reasons we don't understand, or reasons we do understand but didn't measure so we can't statistically control for. This is no different than the epidemiological studies we base disease risk or pharmaceutical success on. Drug X has an 80% remission rate compared to only 20% for drug Y, we say "Drug X is a much better gamble than drug Y". But realistically, some folks on drug X are gonna die, and some kids raised by abusive negligent unfit parents grow up to be great people you only wish you could be. The exceptions DO happen, but they do not trump the general patterns observed.

I highlighted a bizarre exception earlier on, where Korean kids in North America with ultra-strict parents came out much better than one would have predicted for "regular"Caucasian kids with similarly ultra-strict parents.. That's not a recommendation that one should either be a) Korean, or b) ultra-strict. It just simply illustrates that sometimes things come out differently than what normally occurs.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Are we done with the name calling on this one? For the regulars, use the report function thats what it is for. Kurt and I cannot read through every thread. We all know that total agreement on many subjects is impossible. Raising kids and how each person does it is about as bad as politics and religion. Make your statement and let others make theirs.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Well, if anyone's in the mood for name-calling, folks can call me Mark.


----------



## Jamdog (Mar 9, 2016)

Steve6D, do you ever talk about guitars?


----------



## johnnyshaka (Nov 2, 2014)

mhammer said:


> Well, if anyone's in the mood for name-calling, folks can call me Mark.


Hey Marky Mark, where's the funky bunch?! ^)@#


----------



## Chitmo (Sep 2, 2013)

capnjim said:


> Yes, its true...I am asking a bunch of random strangers to help out with a family dispute.
> For me..its a no brainer, only one right answer.
> 
> But, to be fair to my surly 16 yr old son, I just thought I would ask you fine folks your opinion.
> ...


Keep them and explain that real life sucks......despite the everyone is special, noboday fails, we all get a medal for trying our best BS the hipters teach them in public school.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Where's the funky bunch? They all got detentions and had to stay after school.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Steve6D said:


> I appreciate your comments.
> 
> I don't think I'm "spitting" my words at all. You might revisit that, however, with the cretin who decided to start lobbing personal attacks. Frankly, I get the very distinct impression that some folks here don't like when someone else is willing to defend their opinion or position. They much prefer that someone just agree with them. While mhammer may not be totally wrong, _he, and no one else, has been able to demonstrate where my approach is wrong at all_. Instead, it only garnered such intellectual nuggets as "three generations of having your corn flakes shat upon" or some nonsense like that. Yeah, that's real heady stuff and certainly suggests the poster is interested in an actual conversation...


This is where you are going beyond what can be accomplished here. Because they are opinions. There is no way to "prove" you are wrong the same way as you cannot prove anyone else is wrong. Its the same in most things in life. You don't have to believe you are wrong, but you have to let others think you are. That's life. I can tell you how I did it with my two, who are both grown and on their own now. I did some things right and somethings wrong, but I did it all with the best of intentions. I don't believe in the friend approach, I have seen it fail miserably in many cases including my current wife's kids. I made the rules in my house and my rules were the only rules. I had three tones, when I reached tone number three people moved. When I read my birthday cards and Xmas cards from my kids and the tears come to my eyes from what they have written, I know I must have did something right. I never raised a hand to them either, neither did my parents.

It is my firm belief that children need a leader, a teacher and a lawmaker. By the time I got involved with Marnie's kids it was too late. They were already beyond the point of control. They would actually laugh at me when I tried to lay down some rules. I threw them both out before they were 20, they are getting it now.


----------



## Adcandour (Apr 21, 2013)

I'm proof that there's a happy medium. It's important to note that there's different ways of being a 'friend' too. I think that's part of the conflict here.


----------



## johnnyshaka (Nov 2, 2014)

mhammer said:


> Where's the funky bunch? They all got detentions and had to stay after school.


Oh that funky bunch always getting in trouble. Wah wah waaaah.


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

Steve6D said:


> How do we know what format that will be?
> 
> 20 years ago, my digital camera used a Camedia memory card (it was an Olympus). Good luck finding one of those cards today, or even a card reader which accommodates it. Also, 20 years ago I was using 3-1/2" discs in my computer. I honestly can't remember the last time I saw one of those.
> 
> Instead, print them out, and print copies. If he manages to get a hold of them, you have backups. A printed photo is the only format which you could guarantee (saving loss or destruction) will be around in 2036...


That's why I said in an earlier post to print them out. I have pics from the mid 1800's including some of dead babies. There is one pic of my grand mother at a year with 3 of my great uncles.....the youngest one died at 3 weeks.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

Steve6D said:


> Is there a problem with pointing out when and why the train went off the rails?


Its irrelevant. The discussion has gotten to a point where there's no point in " he said, she said" Child rearing 101.



Steve6D said:


> Not at all; you're assumption is incorrect.
> 
> I see no reason to declare that my position is incorrect simply because you and he have.


I really don't think you're reading my posts. First of all mhammer never declared he was wrong, partially wrong, etc. I spoke for him hypothetically. Because in the end none of us are totally right. Not one of us. And now I know you're probably not going to be able to digest this Steve6D but you're not totally right either. And this was the angle where I was trying to bring us closer to common ground. The more I read mhammers posts the more I see we're not so far apart. And for the differences there are, well I'm not going to insult him over that. Differences is what makes this world


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

Steve6D said:


> What I suggested is that a 16 year old kid doesn't get to make the rules...


At 16 I was going to school and working and paying my mom rent, so was my younger brother.....Vets pensions didn't pay much back then. I paid my own bills and even helped out with my kid when I could. I would suggest that a 16 year old boy or girl is quite capable of helping to make the rules.


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

High/Deaf said:


> Tell him you'll delete them and then don't. That's what I did with my ex's. No regrets here.


You didn't delete your ex's or the questionable pictures?


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

Guitar101 said:


> Try Costco. They will convert your slides. I'm taking some in myself. I don't know if they do 8mm film.


There's too many. The box I have is about 12"x24"x24". There are quite a few of old girlfriends and wives too.


----------



## Adcandour (Apr 21, 2013)

Electraglide said:


> You didn't delete your ex's or the questionable pictures?


If you're getting at what I think you're getting at...let the PMs rain.


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

Steve6D said:


> I'm curious: Of those who are suggesting that parents should have "contracts" with their kids, or that the children's wishes should be considered or any of that other silly nonsense; how many have actually _raised_ children?


I believe that a child's wishes should be considered. I was raised that way and so were my two brothers and sister. My son is going to be 36 this year and doing good. I helped raise my adoptive daughters the same way and am doing the same with the grand daughters when they are here. There all doing well.


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

vadsy said:


> Yay, just when the bickering settles in one thread we have another one delivering.
> 
> I'm a young parent and raising children right now,.. please teach me.


If by the end of the day there's no blood and everyone is still breathing then you're probably doing ok.


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

mhammer said:


> Where's the funky bunch? They all got detentions and had to stay after school.


Who's the funky bunch?


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

adcandour said:


> If you're getting at what I think you're getting at...let the PMs rain.


Nah, just post here.


----------



## ZeroGravity (Mar 25, 2016)

mhammer said:


> Well, if anyone's in the mood for name-calling, folks can call me Mark.


I'd rather call you MC. da da da da can't touch this


----------



## Steve6D (May 9, 2016)

JBFairthorne said:


> So, congratulations , you're the first (and only) person here on my ignore list.


Oh... The horror...


----------



## Steve6D (May 9, 2016)

mhammer said:


> Treated as capable and legitimate equal is not the same as "pal". It means that if *I* have to explain and defend my actions, then *you* have to explain and defend them also. It means your obligation to be rational, thoughtful, and considerate is the same as mine, and you don't get excused from that obligation just because you're a legal minor.


I want to make sure I understand: Are you saying that you believe that a parent should engage a child as an equal?


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

Steve6D said:


> I want to make sure I understand: Are you saying that you believe that a parent should engage a child as an equal?


Why not. You should probably try it some time though I would treat a child as an equal instead of 'engage'. You engage a rival or the enemy. Among other things it makes the kids feel appreciated and you don't have to make a fist and pound on the door. A lot of times the door isn't closed and if it is a lite tap is all that's needed. You pound on the door and threaten to remove it etc. you could open the door and find the window open and the room empty.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Steve6D said:


> I want to make sure I understand: Are you saying that you believe that a parent should engage a child as an equal?


Whenever feasible, and where the child stands to learn something important from doing so. But "equal", as I've said before, means _equal responsibilities_ not equal privileges.


----------



## Steve6D (May 9, 2016)

Electraglide said:


> Why not.


Not that the question was posed to you, but because they're not "equals", for starters. Someone needs to make the rules. Someone in the family needs to be the final say; the authority. Someone needs to be the one who, when responsibility for a decision needs to be assigned, takes that responsibility. 

You would allow that to fall to the child?



> You should probably try it some time though I would treat a child as an equal instead of 'engage'. You engage a rival or the enemy.


Semantics.

And you're wrong. "Engage" can be applied in many instances, and not just with regards to confrontation.

Here, you have to scroll down to #5 before you'll find anything having to do with an "enemy": engage - definition of engage in English from the Oxford dictionary



> Among other things it makes the kids feel appreciated


If a parent can't make their child feel appreciated that person shouldn't be a parent. Seriously, if the only way you can show your child that he or she is appreciated is to allow them to decide the rules, you're a bad parent.

There are reasons children are allowed to do some things and not allowed to do others. At what point do you decide that a child is no longer an equal? When my daughter was 10, I was 34. I could have a beer if I wanted. I could own a gun. I could drive a car. Should she have been permitted to do the same? Should she have been allowed to vote? Should she have been permitted to work 40 hours a week if that's what she wanted to do?

You say a child should be treated as an equal. There are countless examples where that would be not only unwise, but downright dangerous. So, I ask you: Where's the line, and how do you justify having a line? If a child is truly an "equal", a line should be unnecessary, shouldn't it?



> and you don't have to make a fist and pound on the door. A lot of times the door isn't closed and if it is a lite tap is all that's needed.


I defy you to show me where I said "pound on the door". I believe I said "knock", which is not at all unusual. And, the way my daughter played her stereo sometimes, a lite [sic] tap would've never gotten the job done...



> You pound on the door and threaten to remove it etc. you could open the door and find the window open and the room empty.


Well, gosh... See, that never happened.

It never happened because we were able to show my daughter that she was loved and appreciated while, at the same time, instilling in her a healthy respect and appreciation for her parents. That was the last kid that ever would've wanted to leave home. And, again, she's a wonderfully successful 30 year old woman. It's clear to me (and to her) that the way she was raised played a _very _large role in that. 

I seriously couldn't give a rat's ass if _you _think that's the case.

I would like to know what the OP decided to do...


----------



## Steve6D (May 9, 2016)

mhammer said:


> Whenever feasible, and where the child stands to learn something important from doing so. But "equal", as I've said before, means _equal responsibilities_ not equal privileges.


How do you justify allowing the child to shoulder responsibility while _not _allowing the child to enjoy the privilege of having done so?

As a father, it was my responsibility to provide my child with food, clothing, shelter, yadayadayada. In no way, shape or form should my daughter have been expected to supply those things. This goes back to the question: At what point do the responsibilities _stop _falling on the child? That point _has _to exist...


----------



## Steve6D (May 9, 2016)

Jamdog said:


> Steve6D, do you ever talk about guitars?


In the appropriate sub-forums, yes.

Thanks for asking...


----------



## Jamdog (Mar 9, 2016)

Steve6D said:


> In the appropriate sub-forums, yes.
> 
> Thanks for asking...


Are there any post of yours that are not confrontational?


----------



## Steve6D (May 9, 2016)

guitarman2 said:


> And now I know you're probably not going to be able to digest this Steve6D but you're not totally right either.


Well, knowing my daughter as I do, I can say this without hesitation: There's not a single thing I would change in how she was raised. Not a single thing. I could not be happier with how my daughter turned out. I've never claimed to be "completely right", but no one has been able to show where I did anything wrong, either...


----------



## Steve6D (May 9, 2016)

Electraglide said:


> At 16 I was going to school and working and paying my mom rent, so was my younger brother.....Vets pensions didn't pay much back then. I paid my own bills and even helped out with my kid when I could. I would suggest that a 16 year old boy or girl is quite capable of helping to make the rules.


You "helped out" with your kid?

How gallant of you.

I would submit that a 16 year old who "helps out" with his kid might have a somewhat skewed view of what the rules actually are.

Additionally, I would take issue with a parent who charges a child rent. How old was your younger brother? 15? 12? What did he do to raise money for rent? How much rent did the two of you pay?

You're an anomaly and far from being the rule. I don't know of any parent who charges their kids rent. Chores? Sure; comes with the territory. Rent? No...


----------



## Steve6D (May 9, 2016)

GuitarsCanada said:


> You don't have to believe you are wrong, but you have to let others think you are.


Um... What?

I don't think I've come close to doing that...



> That's life. I can tell you how I did it with my two, who are both grown and on their own now. I did some things right and somethings wrong, but I did it all with the best of intentions. I don't believe in the friend approach, I have seen it fail miserably in many cases including my current wife's kids. I made the rules in my house and my rules were the only rules. I had three tones, when I reached tone number three people moved. When I read my birthday cards and Xmas cards from my kids and the tears come to my eyes from what they have written, I know I must have did something right. I never raised a hand to them either, neither did my parents.
> 
> It is my firm belief that children need a leader, a teacher and a lawmaker.


Yet, I take that same approach and I'm getting vilified for it...


----------



## vadsy (Dec 2, 2010)

Yikes, this is still going and I haven't been taking any notes.


----------



## Steve6D (May 9, 2016)

Electraglide said:


> I believe that a child's wishes should be considered.


That's miles (or, for you guys, kilometers) away from the children being "equals", which is being wildly supported here as the way to go...


----------



## Steve6D (May 9, 2016)

Jamdog said:


> Are there any post of yours that are not confrontational?


Yes.

Perhaps you could go look. They're not hidden.

Thanks for asking...


----------



## Steve6D (May 9, 2016)

Okay, I have a long drive today. I'm out...


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

As George Costanza would have said: you yada-yada-ed over the best part! And you're reading waaaayyyy too much into what I've said. "_Whenever feasible_", "_where the child stands to learn something important_". Of course one has a parental duty to provide "the necessaries of life"...and more.

There is a concept in child development, derived from the thinking of theorist Lev Vygotsky, referred to as "scaffolding". Normally, we think of scaffolding as something around a building to support workers, finishing or repairing the structure. In human cognitive/social development, scaffolding refers to the furnishing of relatively low risk situations to push the envelope a bit and stretch the child's understanding and skills. A perfect example would be the 5 year-old who "helps" making their birthday cake by pouring the batter into the baking pan. The parent has reduced their own "risk" by mixing the wet and dry ingredients without making a bloody mess in the kitchen. The child participates in a "grownup" task they are not fully ready for, by having a low-risk component assigned to them. Their participation-credit gives them a sense of self-efficacy (I could do this...all of this) that motivates them to want to learn more and master more components. They're not thrown into the deep end of the pool; they just get nudged into slightly deeper water than they've been in.

"Where feasible" means that if they want to exercise a given choice, they now have the obligation to think about it in terms of all the associated responsibilities. When our older son was in Grade 1, we gave him an allowance. I'd go with him the toy section of the department store in the next town over, where he'd want to spend it, and I would let him. He'd say he wanted toy X, and I'd point to the price tags, noting that actually he could have two of toy Y, and a whole bunch of toy Z for the same price as toy X. But he would have to wait and save up a while longer before the next spending binge, so he needed to think about what he wanted the most and what would make him the happiest until he could afford the next trip. Now which of those was the "best" purchase for him? He was nudged to think about and weigh his priorities. That's scaffolding in action.

And in general, no scaffolding, no progress.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Electraglide said:


> Who's the funky bunch?


Trust me, the punch line is not worth the time spent on understanding it.


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

Steve6D said:


> You "helped out" with your kid?
> 
> How gallant of you.
> 
> ...


Let's see, that was the year my dad died....1965. My younger brother is 1 1/2 years younger than me. I worked at a tie mill on the week ends among other things....so did he. He also worked pumping gas. We both paid $25 a month. Why was the rent charged? To help keep a roof over our heads....why do you think. As far as helping out with my kid.....you figure I should have just said. "Wham, Bam, Thank you Mam." My view was, I helped start this child so I should help. Back then if I had been 18 I would have been married. As far as being far from the rule, where and when I grew up it was more the norm.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Steve6D said:


> Um... What?
> 
> I don't think I've come close to doing that...
> 
> ...


Difference is I don't claim that my way was any better than someone else way. I was 24 when my first was born, what did I know? I was just a kid myself. I made plenty of mistakes, you seem to have made none and good for you. It is absolutely impossible to answer the questions that you ask. How is anyone supposed to analyze 20 years of what went on in your house and try and tell you that you have done something wrong? It's a ludicrous question and even more ludicrous to try and answer. If we could all go back again with the knowledge gained from 50 years of life I am sure we would all change a few things. Saying that you would not change one thing is crazy. Of course you would. To say that you would not would be to infer that you are perfect and nobody is.

This particular topic cannot be debated on an equal basis. You cannot compare your situation to anyone else's there are far too many variables to consider. Your financial situation, the other parents views and or input or lack of input. The environment you and the kids were in. Sisters, brothers, how many. Grandparents? What was the input?. Hundreds of variables that could have gone into the final outcome of the child. It is IMPOSSIBLE to debate that here.

How many times have we used the phrase with kids or people that don't have kids "wait to you have kids, then you will understand". that's because you have to live it to understand it. Same as telling a 17 year old, "wait until you are 30 and you will understand". That's because there really is no other way to understand some things until you have lived through them.

I never bothered to try and discuss adult concepts with children. I introduced my kids to things when I felt they were old enough to understand the concepts. I let them be kids up until I thought it was time for them to be introduced to life's more complex issues. But that's me. Frankly I don't care what anyone else did because I don't have to live with the outcome. Everyone is free to choose for themselves how to raise their kids. Who know's what the right way is? If there was a proven perfect method a lot of book sellers, TV shows and Family counselors would be out of jobs.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Electraglide said:


> Let's see, that was the year my dad died....1965. My younger brother is 1 1/2 years younger than me. I worked at a tie mill on the week ends among other things....so did he. He also worked pumping gas. We both paid $25 a month. Why was the rent charged? To help keep a roof over our heads....why do you think. As far as helping out with my kid.....you figure I should have just said. "Wham, Bam, Thank you Mam." My view was, I helped start this child so I should help. Back then if I had been 18 I would have been married. As far as being far from the rule, where and when I grew up it was more the norm.


Exactly, as I just wrote above. Every situation is different and you CANNOT compare them. Not on a internet forum.


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

GuitarsCanada said:


> Same as telling a 17 year old, "wait until you are 30 and you will understand". That's because there really is no other way to understand some things until you have lived through them.


And there's the perfect answer to the original question (substitute 17 for 16 though). 

/thread?


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

High/Deaf said:


> And there's the perfect answer to the original question (substitute 17 for 16 though).
> 
> /thread?


Yes, that is the way I would answer that as well. That's one thing I picked up from my Father, take lot's of pictures. Time goes by way too fast. My Father was into gadgets. Had the Super 8 when they first came out. I have those on DVD now and it's great to have them. I had the video cameras rolling all through my two growing up, and the camera. They love that stuff now.


----------



## Steve6D (May 9, 2016)

Electraglide said:


> As far as helping out with my kid.....you figure I should have just said. "Wham, Bam, Thank you Mam." My view was, I helped start this child so I should help.


Well, yeah.

But it came across as though you were trying to say you were doing something special. Personally, I think a father should do more than "help out" with his child.

But that's me...


----------

