Purposeful Ramblings Through My Mind

Is the Christian Right really interpreting the Bible as literally as they claim?

I haven't had a chance to read the whole thing yet - it's somewhat dense - but it does support my long-held, but poorly-referenced, view that the Literalists aren't reading their Bibles as thoroughly as they ought.

This is a very specific critique, of an article that claims all aspects of Dobson's child-rearing methods, and the philosophy behind them, to be child abuse. While I'm no big fan of Dobson, I think this article goes too far in its rather blanket condemnation. So, I offer a point-by-point critique of this article: http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2004/12/monstrous-james-dobson-further.html

First, a Dobson quote: "Some kids can be crushed with nothing more than a stern look; others seem to require strong and even painful disciplinary measures to make a vivid impression."

Now, a quote from the article: "This could not possibly be clearer: the explicit goal is to crush the child so that he will always be obedient to the parent."

Actually, that's not what Dobson says. He says that some children can be crushed with a look, but does not put that forth as the goal; rather, the goal that is implied by the rest of the passage implies that making a vivid impression is the goal. (The question of whether the intended impression is more vivid than really necessary is still open, however, and my opinion is that most of Dobson's methods are too harsh.)

"Whatever the parent says must be followed -- whether it is irrational, whether it is completely unjustified, whether it is directly opposed to the child's actual needs, whether it can be defended on any grounds or not. Whatever the parent says or demands, the child must obey. And to ensure this unthinking, unquestioning obedience, pain is required."

This is the quote which tells me that the author is probably not a parent. I have two points to make. The first is that young children are not developed enough to be able to judge the requests of adults. At three, my child is not usually aware enough of her surroundings to be as safe as she could be, and my job is to set limits for her. For example: I need to know that when we're walking to school on a busy street, she's going to be holding onto the stroller the whole way. I can't hold her hand and push the stroller at the same time, so I've trained her to hold the stroller and stay close. Is this unthinking obedience? Absolutely. Is it necessary? Absolutely. The result of her letting go of the stroller could be getting lost, getting hit by a car, getting separated from me in the crowd of people by the bus stop, etc, etc, and though I can explain it to her, she's only three - she forgets, she gets distracted, and I have to know that when I call her, she will come with no questions asked. She is not qualified to judge my demands. If a parent's demands are unreasonably harsh, hopefully someone in authority will note the signs of that and inform CAS; but most of the time, it is reasonable for me to expect that she will obey me, and it is reasonable for me to enforce this. (I do not agree with Dobson's methods of enforcing it; on that, the author and I are in agreement.) This brings me to point #2; enforcing my expectations is reasonable, and it is good parenting. A parent who doesn't do this is doing their child no favours. Now, as my child grows, I will expect and encourage her to make her own decisions, to think about what I am asking and why, and to develop the ability to police her own actions. That's called developing a conscience. A child who understands parental authority at the age of three is well on her way to developing a functional conscience.

Now, the next paragraph: "The great tragedy, of course, is that in one way or another, most parents believe this as much as Dobson does, and they raise their children accordingly. Usually, they are not so explicit about it, but the principle is identical. Also note, as I have also stressed repeatedly in my many entries concerning this subject, that undoubtedly the most common forms of child abuse do not involve physical mistreatment at all: most of it is psychological -- using, for example, the unstated threat of the withdrawal of the parent's love if the child does not do as he is told, that is if the child does not follow orders."

The thing is, Dobson has the right principle, which he has taken to an unhealthy extreme. Let's take a look at the example: the unstated threat of the withdrawal of the parent's love. Now, I am not ever going to withdraw my love from my children, but I can and do withdraw my attention, temporarily, in response to behaviour that I don't want to see. For example, I will give my daughter a time-out when she is actively disobeying me. I have said to her things like, "I'll play with you when you're being nice," "We'll leave the store until you stop crying," "We're going to sit in the car if you're going to throw a tantrum." This is classic behavioral conditioning: take away something the child wants (attention) and give it back when they are doing what you want them to do; reward the good behaviour with positive attention and withdraw all attention, positive and negative, when they are behaving badly. Is it possible the child thinks his parents don't love him anymore when he is in time-out? Yes, it's possible. That's why I generally follow a time-out with a request for an apology from the child and a brief cuddle when the time-out is over. This is a matter of degree. A time-out that goes on too long can be abusive. But a time-out done correctly is not inherently abusive. There are some who argue the same about spankings, and I have a measure of agreement for them; while I don't spank and don't believe it to be necessary, I also think there are ways to spank that are not necessarily abusive.

Again, there's an age factor here. It's very, very important that my three-year-old obey me without too much argument. That's because most of my requirements for her behaviour are about her safety or well-being, or those of her younger sister, or simple household management. I should not have to convince her to stop running around the house when the baby's on the floor playing. When she's six or seven, my requirements for instant obedience will be starting to shift. I'll be giving her some choices: "You can do your homework right now, or you can do it after supper. Which would you prefer?" If she chooses after supper, I'm going to expect obedience when after supper arrives and I ask her to get out her schoolwork. By the time she's a teenager, there will be more choices but there will still be expectations, things on which I expect obedience, and consequences if it isn't forthcoming.

Bottom line: I do expect that my child will obey, and I will enforce obedience. I will not use corporal punishment to do so, and my expectations and consequences will develop as my child grows. In and of itself, there is no abuse in that. There is no slippery slope towards abuse. There is a reasonable expectation that my reasonable demands will be met with obedience from my children. I decide what is reasonable, because I am the adult and qualified to do so. If another adult thinks my demands are abusive, there are authorities they can go to who will evaluate that. But it will be a long time before my small children are qualified to decide that on their own, or decide to disobey because of it.