Good Advice

I just read an article in a section of the newspaper called Weekend. In it readers were given a choice of various methods to handle conflicts. In a scenario about conflicts with teenagers the correct answer was to punish them for not doing chores by withdrawing privileges.

The last sentence in the answer might well resonate with LSF readers. In it Fran Walfish, family and child psychotherapist and author of "The Self-Aware Parent" says: "The best way for kids to learn is to experience a consequence that stings harshly for a short period of time in order to motivate them to keep trying."

I wonder if that is unintentional good advice among the psychobabble we usually hear of if she is a secret spanko?

Possibly. More than likely, it was kind of a Freudian slip and she'll say she was misquoted or she phrased her answer poorly. Otherwise she'd be drummed out of the shrink's and therapist's guild right quick.

What...is she trying to say punish them...I am shocked. To recommend a parent actually teach their child discipline today and not say the parent is ruining the child for a life time is rare and so refreshing.

No doubt if she is actually recommending punishment today, some will say she was abused as a child and has mental problems or has a fetish and seeks to fill her own desires.

I wonder if the time is coming for the social aspect of our society to change back to a more parent /child relationship in families rather then having the parents trying to be their kids best friend?

After all science theories are like clothing fashions in many ways. One's clothing can only get so short or so long before the clothes revert back to the previous styles. Perhaps Ms Walfish is a start to the pendulum swing...don't know and it will likely take a decade or so before one sees any results if it is the start.

One can hope either way on the swing of the pendulum, but eventually it will come to a reasonable balance that all can live happily with.

Here is the full text for that answer in the Weekend article to put it in context:

Scenario two

MaryAnn is weary of the daily arguments with her two teenagers. She finds herself constantly haranguing her kids to put their dinner dishes in the dishwasher and clean their bedrooms. But her dictatorial approach is stressing her out and making her children all the more defiant. Her husband is of little help; he says he doesn't want to get in the middle of any squabbles involving her and the kids. Should she:

A. Dangle cash incentives. Set up a structure in which the kids are paid for doing designated chores.

B. Tell them she wants them to enjoy the things they value, such as cellphones, computers and iPods. But she expects them to pull their weight to keep those privileges.

C. Tell the kids about self-reliance and how they need to develop it before going away to college and living on their own.

The best strategy: B. Here, negotiation focuses on the potential consequences for the kids' failure to live up to their end of the bargain. "She should be very specific about which jobs she expects," says Fran Walfish, family and child psychotherapist and author of The Self-Aware Parent. "If they fail to do their chores that day, they lose all electronic privileges on the next day. Return the electronics the following day and begin again. The best way for kids to learn is to experience a consequence that stings harshly for a short period of time in order to motivate them to keep trying."

You notice that nowadays many "experts" on child rearing are changing their mind about punishments being effective. However to be politically correct they are not calling them "punsihments", even thaugh that is what they are, but instead are calling them the more neutral term "consequences". Sometimes they even use it as a verb, "You should consequence them" which I think is hilarious.

I noticed the above comment by Fran Walfish as she is almost, but not quite, recommending spanking. If challenged she could say that in using the word "sting" she was speaking figuretively rather than literally.

Well, I'd say that not being spanked is one privilege that could be withdrawn.

Ah - that makes more sense. She means that the consequence should sting, not their bottoms.

The first time I heard the word "consequence" used as a verb (as in "He'll be consequenced at home") was on the Sopranos - season 1 or 2 when their son AJ was acting up at school. It seemed odd then - and clearly a euphemism for "punished", but punished has too many negative connotations to use in regards to kids.

Goodgulf

Well, consequences in Soprano world, verb or noun could be a lot more serious than a few swats on the butt...

Best American export ever in my opinion, The Sopranos! Never forget the Junior sponsored assassination attempt that went wrong when TS is strolling back to his car, all sleepy eyed, with the orange juice in his hand.

Kind of off-topic, but since you brought it up, I can highly recommend the HBO series, "The Wire" and the AMC series "Breaking Bad" (the final episodes will air this fall). Both quite superlative with fully-realized characters, compelling plotlines, and wonderful writing and dialog.

The Wire is excellent but a bit too violent. I have the DVD's for the second series but have never watched the first.