Sitting still for up to an hour without whinging at me... I can see the benefits to this.
However, I also bought Liebling some games for my DS so I get some quiet time (for working or when he has to be still/quiet). As an adult, sitting still for an hour with nothing to do is very difficult - heck, I invigilated a half-hour test today and was bored out my brain! By all means teach children appropriate behaviour, but IMO provide some stimulation for them while they're sitting still: a book, video, computer game, drawing/writing material... children can sit fairly still and fairly quietly without having to learn how to switch off from life. And without pain too.
Certainly not something I'd do. My kids are generally well behaved in public and provided I have a couple of toys and/or books, they can sit reasonably quietly, but personally I wouldn't have that expectation that they would sit still for one hour at a young age. To me it would be entirely age appropriate that they would want to move. Don't they all have ants in their pants when they're toddlers?
This is a hard call, I'm all for people having the right to parent as they choose providing it doesn't jeopardise the physical or mental health and safety of their children so technically my response should be "it's up to her". But I find her technique hard to swallow.
Last edited by AndiE; April 27th, 2011 at 09:56 AM.
: fixed typo
I find the whole "tool of correction" the hardest to take, and it says she uses it on them. I'm not a legal expert by any means but at what point is using a implement to hit a child blurring across the lines of child abuse. It is easy to say each to their own style of parenting but we have to remember their are children being affected. What if the said implement started leaving marks, how hard is the implement used. The fact that she has blogged this is most disturbing and you could see the 18 month old distressed I just don't see how her technique should be OK.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks