Peaceful parenting Pamphlet

[Zaccheus]

Hello everyone! I had this idea the other day that I could create a pamphlet that I could print out and anonymously distribute throughout my community. I have created a rough draft and was wondering what you guys think? The problem is the paper needed to print the paper fully requires an 8x14 piece of paper. My librarian had a stack and was able to provide me with some. 

 

If you guys live in apartment complexes this could be easily dispensed and I was even thinking of going to the local churches to post a couple as well. 

 

Unfortunately it is not allowing me to attach the file but I can certainly send it to you through email. Send me your email address through message and i'll send it over!

Or email me at [email protected]

[TheHomeless]

send it to [email protected] I would love to take a look at it!

[Tyne]

Please send me one, too. [email protected]

 

Thank you!

[Zaccheus]

Finally was able to find time to convert it into a PDF format. Here it is for anyone interested. Would love to hear all your feedback, thank you!

 

-Zaccheus

Peaceful parenting pamphlet.pdf

[A4E]

Absolutely awesome.

[Artist707]

Awesome thx

[Koroviev]

Really great work, love it!

[MysterionMuffles]

omg may I mass print this?!

I would change "a short education" to the word introduction.

 

"Conversely, it teaches them to avoid being seen when doing certain activities." Maybe change to: "it teaches them to avoid being caught 'misbehaving.'"

 

"Shown to have poor school results and are more unmotivated." ; "Shown to have poor academic performance and lack of motivation."

 

"Shown as adults physical to express aggression, physical abuse and an inclination towards criminal behavior." ; "Known to express aggression, physical abuse, and criminal behaviour as adults."

 

 

Hope you consider my syntax corrections, but other than that, nice concision!

[Zaccheus]

Yes. You certainly may mass print these out; that's what they're for!

Ah! Thank you very much for your feedback by the way. Whenever i've got the time i'll make some changes. I do like the way "It teaches them to avoid being caught 'Misbehaving'" sounds, it's more fluid.

[MysterionMuffles]

I am a fellow writer  

 

and so randomly like doing edits for people

[brucethecollie]

SO fantastic, thank you!

[Torero]

Excellent work, man!

 

Inspiring to see your ethical activism having its honest heart in peaceful parenting and moral thinking.

[laowai]

Maybe you should include an example of what happens to a society who solely practice peaceful parenting. The ancient Mayans didn't believe in disciplining their children and look at where their civilization ended up. As soon as unfavorable drought conditions affected them they just gave up on life. If you don't instill within your children discipline they don't end up being able to confront the harsh realities of life. The odd smack to give a child boundaries and a sense of responsibility for the consequences of their own actions never hurt me. Just my two cents.

[dsayers]

Maybe you should include an example of what happens to a society who solely practice peaceful parenting.

 

All men are mortals. Socrates was a man. You don't have to have met Socrates (or even face the reality that you can't meet him) to take those claims, smack them together with rational thought, and come up with the conclusion that Socrates was mortal. Tie a woman up to a chair at the table of a candlelight dinner and you will achieve the opposite of endearing her. Abduct the child of a man and threaten that man with harm to the child if he doesn't give you a job and you will achieve the opposite of job security. Simply put, coercion achieves the opposite of your stated goal.

 

The ancient Mayans didn't believe in disciplining their children and look at where their civilization ended up.

 

The Aztecs breathed air and look at where their civilization ended up. Are you now prepared to hold your breath?

 

If you don't instill within your children discipline they don't end up being able to confront the harsh realities of life. The odd smack to give a child boundaries and a sense of responsibility for the consequences of their own actions never hurt me.

 

You mean harsh realities like there are people out there willing to assault them "for their own good"? The problem with the word discipline is it assumes that the person wielding it is absolutely right. To hold that position, you would have to demonstrate how simply by reproducing, humans fundamentally change in such a way that they no longer have the capacity for error. Saying "never hurt me" is insufficient for providing this case.

 

For that matter, I reject your claim that it never hurt you. You've grown up normalizing the assault of defenseless, dependent, not-there-by-choice children. Seems harmful to me. We've seen here that you are able to hold competing beliefs without cognitive dissonance. And when it is pointed out to you, rather than welcoming the correction and using it as an opportunity for self-knowledge, you lash out at the observer, who had no part in the formulation of those beliefs. Seems very harmful to me.

[Kurtis]

 Would love to hear all your feedback, thank you!

 

 

Hi Zaccheus, thanks again for your work!

 

I just received some feedback from some friends of mine regarding the pamphlet.  This couple had wanted something that they could use in their efforts to communicate peaceful parenting to some neighbours.  The feedback they (my friends) offered was that it would be more useful to have a pamphlet that was more concise.  Like some real attention grabbing bullets, using powerful but short facts, and then have links to more detailed info if the reader wanted.  The problem they said was that the people that hit their kids are often of lower IQ and would not make it through that pamphlet.  Anybody that is interested in the details and will read through it all is already somebody who is at or on their way to peaceful parenting.  What this couple was looking for was something that could be used to hopefully spark that moment of insight or interest that would initiate a parent to begin questioning their cycles of violence that they were involved in.

 

Perhaps an intro version of the pamphlet could be made up?  

[Koroviev]

Hi Zaccheus, thanks again for your work!

 

I just received some feedback from some friends of mine regarding the pamphlet.  This couple had wanted something that they could use in their efforts to communicate peaceful parenting to some neighbours.  The feedback they (my friends) offered was that it would be more useful to have a pamphlet that was more concise.  Like some real attention grabbing bullets, using powerful but short facts, and then have links to more detailed info if the reader wanted.  The problem they said was that the people that hit their kids are often of lower IQ and would not make it through that pamphlet.  Anybody that is interested in the details and will read through it all is already somebody who is at or on their way to peaceful parenting.  What this couple was looking for was something that could be used to hopefully spark that moment of insight or interest that would initiate a parent to begin questioning their cycles of violence that they were involved in.

 

Perhaps an intro version of the pamphlet could be made up?  

 

Maybe something like a 1 page flyer?

[Darknecrosforte]

Pretty soon, we're going to have to downgrade the argument to a single image or logo. I can start brainstorming one of those.

[laowai]

 

All men are mortals. Socrates was a man. You don't have to have met Socrates (or even face the reality that you can't meet him) to take those claims, smack them together with rational thought, and come up with the conclusion that Socrates was mortal. Tie a woman up to a chair at the table of a candlelight dinner and you will achieve the opposite of endearing her. Abduct the child of a man and threaten that man with harm to the child if he doesn't give you a job and you will achieve the opposite of job security. Simply put, coercion achieves the opposite of your stated goal.

 

 

 

The Aztecs breathed air and look at where their civilization ended up. Are you now prepared to hold your breath?

 

 

 

You mean harsh realities like there are people out there willing to assault them "for their own good"? The problem with the word discipline is it assumes that the person wielding it is absolutely right. To hold that position, you would have to demonstrate how simply by reproducing, humans fundamentally change in such a way that they no longer have the capacity for error. Saying "never hurt me" is insufficient for providing this case.

 

For that matter, I reject your claim that it never hurt you. You've grown up normalizing the assault of defenseless, dependent, not-there-by-choice children. Seems harmful to me. We've seen here that you are able to hold competing beliefs without cognitive dissonance. And when it is pointed out to you, rather than welcoming the correction and using it as an opportunity for self-knowledge, you lash out at the observer, who had no part in the formulation of those beliefs. Seems very harmful to me.

Last time I checked what separated the West from the rest was our culture. Culture based on protestant work ethic and strict discipline. Why do you think the British created the most expansive Empire or that America managed to end up in the position it did today. It wasn't  from mollycoddling their children.

 

Why do you think girls grow up and end up in lower paid less technical jobs than men? Could it be because they were mollycoddled their whole lives while boys were taught to grit their teeth and toughen up. 

 

By making stupid correlations you again try and de-rail an argument. Never have I endorsed the assault of anyone. Aztecs were not the Maya, just lump a whole group of people together, near enough is good enough, right. 

 

What I find harmful is making mountains out of molehills and distorting peoples words.

 

I am all for peaceful parenting and I do not endorse violent parents who smack their kids unnecessarily and in anger. But what I find is people who don't discipline their kids or teach them boundaries; something that is usually the result of trying to implement peaceful parenting, ends up creating parents who lash out and smack their child violently when they get frustrated by their unruly kids. I see this countless times. All I am saying is mild smacking teaches a child boundaries and that there are negative consequences to negative actions.

 

It doesn't seem to matter what I say on here, I am criticized if I do and criticized if I don't.

[Torero]

"Don't you want your 14 year old to assault you? Then stop assaulting him and other children first." ?

[Darknecrosforte]

I have recently begun serving as a "big brother" at my local church where I help our college freshman males learn basic skills such as shorthand note-taking, how to read scientific journals, etc. As we continued on to ethics and female nature, the revelation of a pertinent situation got me thinking of a logo.

 

Nearly every student I have spoken to who ended up going to the local university rather than the far one that they really wanted, the parent had universally expressed concern that the student would actually never return if they went away. I think this may be a decent way to approach incentivizing rationality. Something along the lines of "Don't be part of the first generation of people to deliberately be kept from their grandchildren by the parents". Can anyone think of a better way to convey this?

[dsayers]

By making stupid correlations

Your entire post was nothing but correlations. Whereas I had explained chain of causality. Which you would know if you had tried to address anything that was said instead of just repeating yourself.

 

usually the result of trying to implement peaceful parenting, ends up creating parents who lash out and smack their child violently when they get frustrated by their unruly kids.

It's the other way around. "Unruly kids" (subjective nature which I already addressed aside) behave the way they do as a result of being assaulted, same as the tied up woman in my example once she's free and the employer in my example once his child is free (notice the explanation of chain of causality rather than just correlation?). Here, your use of the word "create" absolves the abuser of responsibility. Even though we have the scientific evidence that a person has to dissociate just to be able to physically harm another human being, particularly one that cannot fight back.

 

Instead of muddling this dedicated thread with all the common myths that have been debunked so many times that anybody who was genuinely curious as to what the truth was could find them, why don't you try to find them? Or stop talking like you know something that you haven't arrived at by way of sound methodology?

[laowai]

It's always the other way around with you. I am talking from my own personal experience with looking after peaceful parented children on a regular basis. I am talking about reality instead of an ideal hypothetical situation. I doubt you have ever looked after children for an extended period of time- yet you champion peaceful parenting. Anyway I give up- I was never interested in being attacked for simply stating one observation from personal experience. If you disagree with me that's fine.

[Darknecrosforte]

After carefully observing this exchange, it is clear that one side is much more emotionally invested in trying to appear correct, instead of substantiating a claim that a little bit of deliberate violation of the non-aggression principle is necessary. I completely understand what is meant when saying most parents will screw up the execution of peaceful parenting. It's almost the exact same thing when trying to help someone diet and exercise. They do something wrong, blame the program, and then quit. 

 

The flaws of the argument of "enforcing discipline" are missing the key element required for justifiable punishment: the contract.

When you take the time to fully explain the terms, have the child repeat the terms back to you, and then ask if they agree to respect the agreement, THEN you can WITHDRAW BENEFIT (leaving the restaurant, returning the toy, no more going to movie theaters, etc.). This accomplishes all the objectives without introducing the negative aspects of punishment. THIS is where noob-ass peaceful parents fail. It takes foresight to predict these agreement talks, as well.

Laowai seems like an asshole, but I can see he IS on our side... just taking the easy route with the use of love taps on kids... I can tell he cares about the overall mission of world peace and thinks practicality excuses the use of violence... not cool, but now that informing has occurred, cut that shit out.

[dsayers]

I am talking from my own personal experience

This is a rejection of your own capacity for error as a human. You've been offered nearly limitless scientific data to the contrary, and you're choosing to ignore it.

 

If you disagree with me that's fine.

Except that we're not talking about matters of opinion here. It is true that violence is the only thing you can achieve with violence that you cannot achieve without violence. It is true that violence achieves the opposite of your goals. This explains which came first in the scenario of defenseless child behaving in a way that a parent would brutalize over. Your explanation is predicated on "parent is automatically right." Which I challenged you on earlier when I asked how a human being fundamentally changes that after reproducing, they no longer possess the capacity for error. You have yet to even acknowledge this crater of a hole in your theory.

 

So let me ask you this. Are you normalizing child abuse because you were abused or because you abuse children in your care? It's sort of a trick question since you have to not process childhood trauma to come to the conclusion that tormenting defenseless, dependent prisoners is beneficial to them. I was asking because if you're abusing children, we need to do something about that.

[Mister Mister]

I am all for peaceful parenting and I do not endorse violent parents who smack their kids unnecessarily and in anger. But what I find is people who don't discipline their kids or teach them boundaries; something that is usually the result of trying to implement peaceful parenting, ends up creating parents who lash out and smack their child violently when they get frustrated by their unruly kids. I see this countless times. All I am saying is mild smacking teaches a child boundaries and that there are negative consequences to negative actions.

 

It doesn't seem to matter what I say on here, I am criticized if I do and criticized if I don't.

I think it is true, that some parents who don't use force on their kids, tend to be overly permissive, or verbally manipulative.  And spanking can mean a lot of different things, everything from grabbing a kid by the arm bending him over, taking your belt off, and wailing on him until you leave marks, to explaining to him why what he did was "wrong", and giving a smack with an open hand over his closed butt.  And one is by FAR more harmful than the other.  But the approach is the same, you are imposing violent consequences on a child rather than explaining right and wrong.  It assumes that the parents know the difference between right and wrong in the first place.  And it conditions a child to obedience, or avoiding getting caught, rather than internalizing values and understanding real world consequences.  Does that make sense?

 

"It doesn't seem to matter what I say on here, I am criticized if I do and criticized if I don't."  I don't know what you mean by this.  This is a philosophy forum.  If you make a claim people disagree with, they will bring criticisms to you.  Criticized if you don't what??? I really don't understand.

[laowai]

As I said in another post I have never hit a child in my life. I don't know why now I am being falsely accused like this by someone whom I daresay has never spent much time around children.

 

I agree smacking is not ideal in many situations. But I also think what is not ideal are children who can't confide in their own parents because the parents are always criticizing them and verbally yelling at them as a form of discipline. So many 'peaceful parents' I come across don't seem to realize it is not acceptable to talk to your child in a negative harsh tone and degrading manner- which I find the majority of them I have come into contact do.

 

But I'll never have kids- already too many people in the world- so what do I care.There is no incentive for me as a man these days to commit to having a child- everything in society is working against me in that regards.

[dsayers]

I agree smacking is not ideal in many situations.

Saying "not ideal" is saying "is an option." Consider a rapist. This is somebody that accepts taking another person's body without their consent. A rapist might try to woo their target to fit in. But because just taking what they want is an option, they'll only try so hard. Likewise, a parent who thinks assault is an option is going to try that much less to find a way of convincing their children.

 

Also, I don't get the whole "I've seen parents yell and that's harsh, so I think assault is okay sometimes."

[laowai]

You keep using loaded language that implies wrongness when I am trying to argue that this behavior might not be wrong.

 

Your dealing with something that has no fixed answer.

 

Your misinterpretation of my words even after I spell it out to you, your needless insulting and patronizing of me, not to mention your questionable logic, are beyond anything I should have to endure here. 

 

I am talking about the difference between a child being subjected to a smack with a wooden spoon- whose affects last a few hours at most; to a child living with domineering verbally abusive parents 24/7. 

 

Bringing rape into this argument is stooping very low.

[dsayers]

I am talking about the difference between a child being subjected to a smack with a wooden spoon- whose affects last a few hours at most

So when Hitler was beaten into a coma, the effects were over with once he came out of the coma, is that it?

 

Bringing rape into this argument is stooping very low.

I pointed out the effects of believing aggression is an option after YOU "brought into this" aggression being an option. If this finds you ill at ease, then perhaps you should revise your aggression is an options stance rather than concluding without consideration that the problem lies in me for meeting you at the standard YOU put forth.

[laowai]

So when Hitler was beaten into a coma, the effects were over with once he came out of the coma, is that it?

 

I pointed out the effects of believing aggression is an option after YOU "brought into this" aggression being an option. If this finds you ill at ease, then perhaps you should revise your aggression is an options stance rather than concluding without consideration that the problem lies in me for meeting you at the standard YOU put forth.

See your conforming to Godwin's law quite predictably there haha.

 

 

A study found that youngsters smacked up to the age of six did better at school and were more optimistic about their lives than those never hit by their parents.

They were also more likely to undertake voluntary work and keener to attend university, experts discovered.

The research, conducted in the United States, is likely to anger children’s rights campaigners who have unsuccessfully fought to ban smacking in Britain.

The research questioned 179 teenagers about how often they were smacked as children and how old they were when they were last spanked.

Their answers were then compared with information they gave about their behaviour that could have been affected by smacking. This included negative effects such as anti-social behaviour, early sexual activity, violence and depression, as well as positives such as academic success and ambitions.

Those who had been smacked up to the age of six performed better in almost all the positive categories and no worse in the negatives than those never punished physically.

However, Parents Outloud, the pressure group, welcomed the research, saying parents should not be criminalised for mild smacking.

Its spokeswoman, Margaret Morrissey, said: “It is very difficult to explain verbally to a young child why something they have done is wrong.

“A light tap is often the most effective way of teaching them not to do something that is dangerous or hurtful to other people – it is a preventive measure.

“While anything more than a light tap is definitely wrong, parents should be allowed the freedom to discipline their children without the fear that they will be reported to police.”

Aric Sigman, a psychologist and author of The Spoilt Generation: Why Restoring Authority will Make our Children and Society Happier, told the Sunday Times: “The idea that smacking and violence are on a continuum is a bizarre and fetishised view of what punishment or smacking is for most parents.

 

“If it’s done judiciously by a parent who is normally affectionate and sensitive to their child, our society should not be up in arms about that. Parents should be trusted to distinguish this from a punch in the face.”

 

source http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/6926823/Smacked-children-more-successful-later-in-life-study-finds.html

 

 

I’m sure this will probably shock and offend many attachment parenting advocates, but with all the hype about co-sleeping and baby wearing out there, I think it’s important to share my story about how attachment parenting nearly ruined my life.

Sure, after 6 years or so, I’ve restored my sanity (more or less) and my back has recovered after extensive rehabilitation, but I blame this “peaceful” parenting style for stealing years of my life via sleep deprivation and pain as well as imprinting me with an unattainable expectation that a good parent must be an ‘attached’ parent. I also think the AP community deserves a smack on the wrist for unabashedly treating any other style of parenting with scorn.

 

source http://holisticsquid.com/why-we-ditched-attachment-parenting/

 

This concept is a filthy one in the fragile biosphere of modern parenting. Parents who fear discipline also tend to eschew scoring in sports and awards that single out achievement of any kind. This is moderately tolerable in preschool, but when it bleeds into later grades and especially high school, it is downright dangerous. How on earth are modern moppets to survive if they can't get a handle on the real emotional marketplace that makes up life outside the nest? Your boss won't care if he steps on your piggy toes and hurts your feelings by firing you for poor performance and absenteeism. There are no gold medals for almost first in the Olympics, Kelly Slater didn't share his 11th world title with Owen Wright and Adriano De Souza, and I'm pretty certain Mark Zuckerberg doesn't send Twitter's Jack Dorsey a check each year because Zuck earned a little too much and frankly that's unfair.

In the future, when the parenting collective insists on nut free zones, scoreless athletics, and holiday-free childhoods, do the one thing that might run counter to your lone wolf individualism: Start a coalition! Beneath sensible button-ups and shift dresses you might be surprised to find an analytical army of rugged individuals ready to wage war against groupthinking nut haters everywhere.

 

source https://reason.com/archives/2012/04/29/why-i-mock-attachment-parenting-and-the

[Kurtis]

I am talking about the difference between a child being subjected to a smack with a wooden spoon- whose affects last a few hours at most; to a child living with domineering verbally abusive parents 24/7. 

 

 

That's a nice opinion that you have, care to back it up with some logic, evidence, or research?

 

My step father was often "smacked" with a wooden spoon by his mother. He then grew into a man who hit children in the head with his hands and threw them around.

 

These parents that you continually bring up as examples of peaceful parents, ARE NOT PEACEFUL PARENTS. Peaceful does not include verbal or emotional abuse. Please stop saying you have all this experience with peaceful parented children, because based off of your own descriptions, you do not.

 

As others have pointed out, peaceful parenting is based off of win win negotiating. This is not some unachievable ideal, so please stop saying that also.

 

You lament that people here are not open to your logic. Yet all I see is a person who is emotionally invested in defending violence against children. You have not brought any counter arguments to the masses of evidence that Stef has compiled here in his podcasts and videos, guest interviews, and books, that demonstrate how detrimental violence is for children.

 

Instead you claim to know some parents who abuse their children in non physical ways and therefore we need to hit children.

The idea that hitting children is good, is a very extraordinary claim and requires some proof. Especially when you have ignored the evidence that proves the opposite.

 

As dsayers mentioned, this was a dedicated post for a listener's project. It would have been preferable for you to initiate your own post in the peaceful parenting section, where you could attempt to disprove peaceful parenting and prove that hitting children is good.

[laowai]

That's a nice opinion that you have, care to back it up with some logic, evidence, or research?

 

My step father was often "smacked" with a wooden spoon by his mother. He then grew into a man who hit children in the head with his hands and threw them around.

 

These parents that you continually bring up as examples of peaceful parents, ARE NOT PEACEFUL PARENTS. Peaceful does not include verbal or emotional abuse. Please stop saying you have all this experience with peaceful parented children, because based off of your own descriptions, you do not.

 

As others have pointed out, peaceful parenting is based off of win win negotiating. This is not some unachievable ideal, so please stop saying that also.

 

You lament that people here are not open to your logic. Yet all I see is a person who is emotionally invested in defending violence against children. You have not brought any counter arguments to the masses of evidence that Stef has compiled here in his podcasts and videos, guest interviews, and books, that demonstrate how detrimental violence is for children.

 

Instead you claim to know some parents who abuse their children in non physical ways and therefore we need to hit children.

The idea that hitting children is good, is a very extraordinary claim and requires some proof. Especially when you have ignored the evidence that proves the opposite.

 

As dsayers mentioned, this was a dedicated post for a listener's project. It would have been preferable for you to initiate your own post in the peaceful parenting section, where you could attempt to disprove peaceful parenting and prove that hitting children is good.

How is assuming parents can't discern between a responsible smack and violence any different to feminists who subscribe to the notion that all men need to go to 'consent class' because they are all potential rapists; despite the majority of men knowing what is right and wrong when it comes to consent. 

[Kurtis]

How is assuming parents can't discern between a responsible smack and violence any different to feminists who subscribe to the notion that all men need to go to 'consent class' because they are all potential rapists; despite the majority of men knowing what is right and wrong when it comes to consent.

 

Because a "responsible smack" IS violence, "potential" rape is not.

[dsayers]

I wish I had the power to make the mental connection for people that not seeing "responsible smack" as a contradiction in terms is a product of that same level of IRresponsibility.

[Zaccheus]

Hi Zaccheus, thanks again for your work!

 

I just received some feedback from some friends of mine regarding the pamphlet. This couple had wanted something that they could use in their efforts to communicate peaceful parenting to some neighbours. The feedback they (my friends) offered was that it would be more useful to have a pamphlet that was more concise. Like some real attention grabbing bullets, using powerful but short facts, and then have links to more detailed info if the reader wanted. The problem they said was that the people that hit their kids are often of lower IQ and would not make it through that pamphlet. Anybody that is interested in the details and will read through it all is already somebody who is at or on their way to peaceful parenting. What this couple was looking for was something that could be used to hopefully spark that moment of insight or interest that would initiate a parent to begin questioning their cycles of violence that they were involved in.

 

Perhaps an intro version of the pamphlet could be made up?

When creating the pamphlet I definitely had that in mind. It was just a little frightening; there's a lot of important information on the subject and I was unsure of where to begin. What would grab the common person's interest? What would encourage them to continue reading throughout the entire pamphlet?

 

An intro to an intro pamphlet? Haha. "Peaceful parenting. It's good for the soul homie." Followed by a giant peace sign!

I'll put some thought into it! Thank you so much for your feedback and your friend's feedback!

Maybe you should include an example of what happens to a society who solely practice peaceful parenting. The ancient Mayans didn't believe in disciplining their children and look at where their civilization ended up. As soon as unfavorable drought conditions affected them they just gave up on life. If you don't instill within your children discipline they don't end up being able to confront the harsh realities of life. The odd smack to give a child boundaries and a sense of responsibility for the consequences of their own actions never hurt me. Just my two cents.

I understand where you're coming from. I heard that raising a child without a structure in a household is far worse than physically abusing the child. This doesn't effectively prepare the child for the outside world or to help them understand right from wrong. There's this dichotomy in people's minds that it's either you HAVE to discipline them with physical measures or you just let the child do whatever he or she pleases. Of course, allowing them to do whatever they desire doesn't teach them any boundaries and especially doesn't teach them what's of most importance: Empathy. Peaceful parenting is treating the child sort of like a rational adult that has stumbled upon the unknown. We guide them, patiently. How would we feel if we had no control over our environment and surroundings and weren't particularly verbally fluent? Once we can empathize with the child that that is very frustrating, that's just one step! Learning peaceful parenting for me was just like being introduced to Austrian economics for the first time. It was such a bizarre idea in contrast to popular belief. Y'know?