Go To Your Room
More PC nonsense from people who have never had half-decent parents.
As a child, I was sent to my room on a regular basis for various breaches of the unwritten parental code. So regularly that I had to develop a coping strategy for the parental "time out".
I did and it was reading. Everything.
Being sent to my room meant that I had uninterrupted silent periods that could not be filled with anything other than sleeping, or doing more homework which meant more reading.
The net result was that I was the best reader at my primary school, years ahead in reading age to other children. I read out every book that my mother would bring home so she'd have to go back to the library for more. She was a little dim not to realise that I actually enjoyed being sent to my room, well perhaps she wasn't and realised from being a primary school teacher that my reading was getting more advanced than it ever would otherwise, so developed more stupid reasons to send me to my room.
So now the PC twits are suggesting that locking your kids in the room is bad for them? I deny such PC nonsense vehemently. I didn't need to be physically locked in the room because once I had worked out that being in my room need not be a sentence, but enjoyable, the last place I wanted to be was out in the living room with shitty parents volatile enough probably at that point to belt the crap out of you with that polythene pipe.
I took the safe haven of the room every time.
Sue Bradford, you know the woman who is known to have created such balanced genius offspring from her parental methods, has got her knickers in a knot again.
Well Sue if your kids had spent more time in their rooms disciplined with solid study time surrounded by a rich library of books then perhaps you would have seen a better result than you have.
Being sent to your room is preferable than being smacked as a child. While I support the anti-smacking legislation on the basis that parents are generally too dumb in NZ to know what is a "smack" and an outright belting, I draw the line at concluding being sent to your room, or even locked in it is child abuse or abusive behaviour especially if surrounded solely by a rich collection of child and teenage literature.
As a child, I was sent to my room on a regular basis for various breaches of the unwritten parental code. So regularly that I had to develop a coping strategy for the parental "time out".
I did and it was reading. Everything.
Being sent to my room meant that I had uninterrupted silent periods that could not be filled with anything other than sleeping, or doing more homework which meant more reading.
The net result was that I was the best reader at my primary school, years ahead in reading age to other children. I read out every book that my mother would bring home so she'd have to go back to the library for more. She was a little dim not to realise that I actually enjoyed being sent to my room, well perhaps she wasn't and realised from being a primary school teacher that my reading was getting more advanced than it ever would otherwise, so developed more stupid reasons to send me to my room.
So now the PC twits are suggesting that locking your kids in the room is bad for them? I deny such PC nonsense vehemently. I didn't need to be physically locked in the room because once I had worked out that being in my room need not be a sentence, but enjoyable, the last place I wanted to be was out in the living room with shitty parents volatile enough probably at that point to belt the crap out of you with that polythene pipe.
I took the safe haven of the room every time.
Sue Bradford, you know the woman who is known to have created such balanced genius offspring from her parental methods, has got her knickers in a knot again.
Well Sue if your kids had spent more time in their rooms disciplined with solid study time surrounded by a rich library of books then perhaps you would have seen a better result than you have.
Being sent to your room is preferable than being smacked as a child. While I support the anti-smacking legislation on the basis that parents are generally too dumb in NZ to know what is a "smack" and an outright belting, I draw the line at concluding being sent to your room, or even locked in it is child abuse or abusive behaviour especially if surrounded solely by a rich collection of child and teenage literature.
posted by Cactus Kate at 2:33 PM
11 Comments:
I wonder how many now locked in a prison cell for criminal behavior would be there if they had been locked in their room till they behaved when they were children.
Children have to learn sometime that misbehavior has consequences. Better sooner than later I would have thought.
Mrs T
I laughed at the apparent consequences mentally of locking a child in a "small" room.
I now live in a hotel room not much bigger than my bedroom!
Yep - not clear what the downside of time out in your bedroom is: Lego, books, computer, tv : sounds idyllic. Far worse things can be done to children than being sent to their rooms: being humiliated, undermined & belittled is far worse.
Sue Bradford is a hateful little communist with a far too over inflated opinion of herself.
The most laughable part of her career was when she was the president of the unemployed workers union. What were they going to do? Withhold their labour?!
CK your Mother was and probably still is a lot smarter than you give her credit for
Look how you might end up
Ray
Unbelievable. As an anti-smacking supporter it makes me a bit ill now that I look back and realise some of the comments about Sue Bradford were probably correct.
I guess that's how it works though. Only the absolute fringe nutjobs (or moneyed-up lobbyists) have enough gumption to make change under the modern political system. So I guess if you look behind any legislation you'll find a mentalist or two.
I have children. 2 boys 5 & 3.
They, and particularly he older one are getting to know the insides of their rooms, regularly, when they misbehave.
Nigel speaks sense. Sue odesn't.
'go-to-your-room' is good so long as you don't have to share it with a sibling. Our kids (and myself) never had that prob but some of their mates did...
I loved being sent to my room. It meant I avoided the everlasting psychological trauma associated with getting a smack, and it was where all my toys were. Having to stand in the corner was a far far more effective form of punishment; no toys, no joy.
I think there is a huge difference between sending a child to a room, and locking a child in a room.
Locking the child in the room implies that the child is incapable of accepting the punishment by themselves. And I really believe that any punishment that a child cannot comprehend and accept on some level is never going to have any positive longterm affect on the behaviour of that child.
If your child has so little respect for you and your discipline that it becomes necessary to install a lock for time-out, then I suggest that the behavioural problems of your child lie somewhat deeper.
Unless the lock is suggested merely for the purposes of psychological intimidation. Which I think is pretty fucked up, assuming we're talking about fairly young children here.
Just what are Sue Bradford's qualifications? And why does she spend her life telling parents what to do?
Nigel Latta advice consists of telling parents that they are brilliant some of the time, okay most of the time, and shite a little bit of the time. And that's doing a good job as a parent - so don't worry and trust your instincts.
And he also defends "Go to your room" or "Go play outside" as acceptable because the alternative is the kids winding you up so much you resort to belting the crap out of them. As Bradford admits to doing to her kids.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home