Re: T.v for babies.
- From: Ericka Kammerer <eek@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 09:38:04 -0500
P. Tierney wrote:
"dragonlady" <mehouck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:mehouck-3835EC.18022405122005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
You may not think they are lousy parents, but you clearly believe that they are making a bad choice.
Is it a problem that one might believe such a thing, or that one chooses to state it publically? If it's the former, then it is at times clearly an unrealistic expectation, would I could expand upon. If it's the latter, however, then I can't say much about that.
Well, that's the difference between morality and etiquette. Morality is what you expect of yourself, inside your head. If no one else can tell what's inside your head, there is no etiquette transgression. So, it's rude to call someone else a bad parent, but if you just believe it and don't say anything, then it's a moral transgression if you subscribe to a morality that says you shouldn't be making those sorts of judgements.
Because of the language you use.
"Come on, now, I managed without one."
is a whole lot different from,
"I never found one necessary."
That sounds fine. But typical follow-up questions, such as....
-- Why wasn't it necessary for your kids? -- If your kids acted differently, would your philosophy change? -- Even if you didn't find it necessary, why wouldn't you use it anyway, just like any other toy? What do you have against them?
..... often drag attempts at politeness and concealment of one's true/complete parenting philosophy out anyway.
You're missing the point. It's not an issue of having to hide your parenting philosophy. It's an issue of not being disparaging of others' parenting philosophies. So, I could say that DVDs in the car were not necessary for my kids because they were able to amuse themselves without one, that even if they had a hard time I'd still prefer not to use one, and that I don't think it's a good idea for kids to have too much screen time. Others may still disagree with those statements, but they are not rude in the way that the following are:
- It's just lazy parenting to plop your kids in front of a DVD (because not everyone who plops their kids in front of a DVD are lazy). - Everybody managed before without them (because some *didn't* manage well before without them). - DVDs in the car turn kids into zombies/kids with no imagination (because obviously there are kids who turn out just fine with DVDs in the car).
....etc...
Those sorts of statements are just unnecessarily incendiary. They fairly directly imply negative things about others who make different choices from the speaker. See, right here I could say "It ain't rocket science..." which would rudely imply that those who made such statements were stupid. I could say that people who do that are arrogant, which is again unnecessarily rude and incendiary, especially since most people who make such statements probably do so without realizing how they come across and without intending disrespect to others' different choices. I can still make my point that I think such statements are inappropriate without maligning the character of everyone else who's ever said something like that. I think that's a line worth observing.
Best wishes, Ericka .
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: T.v for babies.
- From: P. Tierney
- Re: T.v for babies.
- References:
- T.v for babies.
- From: newmama
- Re: T.v for babies.
- From: MsLiz
- Re: T.v for babies.
- From: enigma
- Re: T.v for babies.
- From: MsLiz
- Re: T.v for babies.
- From: dragonlady
- Re: T.v for babies.
- From: MsLiz
- Re: T.v for babies.
- From: dragonlady
- Re: T.v for babies.
- From: MsLiz
- Re: T.v for babies.
- From: dragonlady
- Re: T.v for babies.
- From: P. Tierney
- T.v for babies.
- Prev by Date: Re: birthday party favors
- Next by Date: Re: birthday party favors
- Previous by thread: Re: T.v for babies.
- Next by thread: Re: T.v for babies.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|