Children Have Rights - Anny Morele - Parenting Book

[Roberto]

Has anyone read this book?, I am on chapter 13 find it quite interesting. The author was Inspired by Ayn Rand work. I am in the part about sharing, I never thought that in addition to tell my son to share if he feels like it that he needs to think about not accepting things from other person that "shared" with him through coercion. But it makes sense.

 

[Roberto]

From the book Children Have Rights, section on "Leverages":

 

"For instance, let’s say your 10-year-old boy is supposed to do the dishes, but he walks up to you and says he has done most of the dishes but won’t do the pancake griddle because it’s too “hard” to clean, which it obviously isn’t, and you know it. You know that he is simply trying to pawn off the “hard” cleaning onto you or someone else. When you become the Happy Oak Tree and point this out with the facts and he still won’t clean the griddle, then you can use your Leverage. In a calm and content voice, you might say something like, “OK, Bradley, I get it. You don’t want to do your job. I suppose you can go ahead and find somebody else to take you to your football practice, because it ain’t going to be me, darling. I’m beginning to think that it might be too ‘hard’ to do that. I think I might read a book or something instead. Thanks for giving me some free time later.” After you say that, walk away calmly, because the situation is done for you. Do not attempt any more conversation on the griddle. Just contently say you’re not interested. This calm but firm use of Leverage brings most children around within a little bit."

Morele, Anny (2015-12-18). Children Have Rights (Kindle Locations 1264-1265).  . Kindle Edition.

 

Just this passage has started more than one conversation and not everybody agrees with the approach, it seems too harsh for some and right for others. I think freedom and responsibility go hand in hand., if you did agree freely on washing the dishes you have assumed responsibility. What are your thoughts?

 

 

[neeeel]

Its not clear that he did "freely agree on washing the dishes". hes supposed to do the dishes, sure, but what does that mean? 

theres no attempt, from what I can see, to find out why he doesnt want to do the dishes. She even says to refuse to talk about it any more .Its basically, do the dishes or else, I will take away something you like. Which might be fine, depending on the context and cirumstances, but stinks of coercion to me. 

 

Its just a made up scenario, so we cant know whats gone on before or after, but it would be a great chance to talk to your son about doing things we dont like, find out what he thinks about that, negotiate, see if others can swap chores, any number of possibilities, instead, you just force him to do the dishes.

[Will Torbald]

Thanks for sharing, it's a interesting idea. In this hyper-specific example it is easy to get caught in the details of the pancake or the soccer match. The general idea however is more like this: The subordinate must fulfill his duties. If he wishes to lower his burden, the master may lower his burden on the dependent party instead as a means of obtaining compliance.

 

The approach of "if you're not working then I won't either" is fair, to me, only if both parties are equal in power. The child is dependent and has no leverage on the mother. It is not a fair bargain because the mother has nothing to lose, while the child is subservient. Insteadof creating a relationship of equals it creates a master-slave mentality in the child.

[neeeel]

Thanks for sharing, it's a interesting idea. In this hyper-specific example it is easy to get caught in the details of the pancake or the soccer match. The general idea however is more like this: The subordinate must fulfill his duties. If he wishes to lower his burden, the master may lower his burden on the dependent party instead as a means of obtaining compliance.

 

The approach of "if you're not working then I won't either" is fair, to me, only if both parties are equal in power. The child is dependent and has no leverage on the mother. It is not a fair bargain because the mother has nothing to lose, while the child is subservient. Insteadof creating a relationship of equals it creates a master-slave mentality in the child.

 

I think this gets across much clearer, the feeling I had that the mum in the example wasnt being fair or peaceful.

[Roberto]

It does sound harsh when the passage is taken by itself. This is under the premise that the need to work as a team in the household has been discussed and understood by both, and this is a job that the 10 year old has freely chose and has been doing for a while. I agree that before using leverages you can gently remind the boy that responsibility means that when doing a job they themselves chose they cant push the hard parts onto somebody else, because the mother does lose something by having to finish the work of somebody else that she was not expecting to do. And she can also discuss this unfair inconvenience before using her leverages.

[Will Torbald]

It does sound harsh when the passage is taken by itself. This is under the premise that the need to work as a team in the household has been discussed and understood by both, and this is a job that the 10 year old has freely chose and has been doing for a while. I agree that before using leverages you can gently remind the boy that responsibility means that when doing a job they themselves chose they cant push the hard parts onto somebody else, because the mother does lose something by having to finish the work of somebody else that she was not expecting to do. And she can also discuss this unfair inconvenience before using her leverages.

 

What two minutes the mother could have lost on washing the last dishes is not comparable to the loss of parental care.

[Roberto]

just to add to the continuation on that paragraph on the book:

 

"As Oak Trees, we will use one or more of those Leverages occasionally to ensure that our free children understand that there are responsibilities that come along with freedom that are unbreakable, that our love is NOT unconditional – the same way we hold our friends’ and family’s feet to the fire. We love life and we are self-full, but we can only be that way if nobody walks over us, including our dear children"

Morele, Anny (2015-12-18). Children Have Rights (Kindle Locations 1270-1273).  . Kindle Edition.

[Will Torbald]

just to add to the continuation on that paragraph on the book:

 

"As Oak Trees, we will use one or more of those Leverages occasionally to ensure that our free children understand that there are responsibilities that come along with freedom that are unbreakable, that our love is NOT unconditional – the same way we hold our friends’ and family’s feet to the fire. We love life and we are self-full, but we can only be that way if nobody walks over us, including our dear children"

 

Morele, Anny (2015-12-18). Children Have Rights (Kindle Locations 1270-1273). . Kindle Edition.

Like I said, I would agree with this if children were true equals like a friend or a relative, but they are not. They are tiny slaves to large masters and it's unfair to keep them to the same standard used on equal others. I may be wrong, and I only am an older brother, not a father, but I don't like crossing the streams when it comes to people. Some are above, some are equal, and some are below.

[Roberto]

Like I said, I would agree with this if children were true equals like a friend or a relative, but they are not. They are tiny slaves to large masters and it's unfair to keep them to the same standard used on equal others. I may be wrong, and I only am an older brother, not a father, but I don't like crossing the streams when it comes to people. Some are above, some are equal, and some are below.

 

I think the book points that out: that in our current society children don't have the same rights, however it illustrates how we can raise our children free and with equal rights. I think this passage was about letting them be free and at the same time responsible for their actions.

[Will Torbald]

I think the book points that out: that in our current society children don't have the same rights, however it illustrates how we can raise our children free and with equal rights. I think this passage was about letting them be free and at the same time responsible for their actions.

 

Children can't have the same rights as adults and be a special moral class at the same time. They are not functionally equal, so they shouldn't be treated like tiny adults. It's a gradient process as they grow up that they are to be integrated into having the same rights and responsibilities. But it makes to no sense to think that if you treat them like equals they will be equals. It's magical thinking.

[algernon]

Has anyone read this book?, I am on chapter 13 find it quite interesting. The author was Inspired by Ayn Rand work. I am in the part about sharing, I never thought that in addition to tell my son to share if he feels like it that he needs to think about not accepting things from other person that "shared" with him through coercion. But it makes sense.

 

 

 

I absolutely hate this "share" thing parents do. I can't stand it when the force their kids to "share" and when the remove things from their kids with their brute strength.

 

I came to the logical conclusion of peaceful parenting through universally applying my knowledge of illegitimate authority. Once you realize what the state does through force is immoral, you have to apply it to all aspect of your life and remain consistent.

 

If you give a child a toy, that is THEIR toy, if you believe in property ownership (which most people don't), you have no right to force them to "share", it's theft. Taking the toy is not "teaching them to share" as most parents would believe.

 

If my two year old wants to play with a toy another child is playing with, I will try and help her negotiate with the other child for the toy, if they refuse that is their right. If their parent comes along and tries to remove the toy and give it to my daughter I ask them not to do that.

 

I've had many people comment surprisingly "You're negotiating with a two year old?" and some said it even mockingly. Yes two year olds can negotiate, not only that they also remember things well. I'll occasionally ask her for something like a sip of her juice and she'll say "no!", then I remind her "I gave you a sip of my drink, you like it when I share with you, don't you want to share with me?", she'll think about it and usually let me have a sip. Sometimes not, which is perfectly fine.

 

I still have this cringe moment when she tells us no if we ask her to do something, not because I care she's saying no, but because as a child I would get in trouble for telling my parents no. How dare a child have a preference and say... NO. Of course children are adaptable and we would just reword NO into something else, like "I don't want to", which to illogical parents is some how different than no. But alas, it was just NO that was the bad word.

[Des]

Its not clear that he did "freely agree on washing the dishes". hes supposed to do the dishes, sure, but what does that mean? 

theres no attempt, from what I can see, to find out why he doesnt want to do the dishes. She even says to refuse to talk about it any more .Its basically, do the dishes or else, I will take away something you like. Which might be fine, depending on the context and cirumstances, but stinks of coercion to me. 

 

Its just a made up scenario, so we cant know whats gone on before or after, but it would be a great chance to talk to your son about doing things we dont like, find out what he thinks about that, negotiate, see if others can swap chores, any number of possibilities, instead, you just force him to do the dishes.

Yes, supposed to needs a clear meaning. Dictionary definition of coercion refers to threats, which are not specifically limited to threats of aggression, but I would expect in this forum we use the narrower definition (a non-aggressive threat doesn't meet the standard I would expect us to use here).

 

From a podcast I listened to earlier this year, I picked up the tip of explaining the natural emotional consequence of the child's decision. To work from this example: "We have a deal, as a family: I do things for you and others, and you do things for me and others. We each already know what we do for each other, and I am sure that this time you are just trying to escape this thing you do, and pass it over to me (correct me if I am wrong about that, we can go look at the griddle and discuss it if you choose). Now because that is what I am thinking you are doing, I am feeling cheated (say what you actually feel, if it just gives you the giggles even though you have some concern that the child may pick up a habit of laziness, then mention the actual concern and emotion). So now if I feel that way, I might not feel so delighted to do the things I do for you. If this is the way you feel about doing things to help me, you are not expecting me to be like a machine and still feel the same way about doing things which help you, are you?

 

The above is more explanatory and more connected, and more open to further discussion around the emotional issues inside the conflict. Is it about a (rational) fear that the child may become lazy to his own detriment as adult, or about feeling personally cheated, or ??

[AccuTron]

What struck me is the lack of explaining HOW to clean the griddle.  Some things, not just in the kitchen, are a bitch to clean or maintain...UNLESS you know technique.  Such as rinse with a stiff brush, then soak with detergent for so many minutes, then use that brush again.  Or why is the griddle a pain to begin with, did someone go too light on non-stick oil?  It would've made more sense for the Oak to stand next to the child and explain step by step as the griddle gets cleaned by the child.  For one thing, the child doesn't feel alone in the task, which is probably part of the problem.   He also learns that there IS a solution, which he probably doesn't know.

[Roberto]

I found this on the authors facebook page on children rights:

 

"Human rights don't depend on anything, except the fact that humans have a rational capacity. Whether they can implement that rationality at any particular moment doesn't remove their rights"

[Des]

I found this on the authors facebook page on children rights:

 

"Human rights don't depend on anything, except the fact that humans have a rational capacity. Whether they can implement that rationality at any particular moment doesn't remove their rights"

Would you accept that, or ask for a reasoned proof of that statement?