I once cut a small artery above my left elbow right before I left work (We were young and just fucking around) Cant remember my exact age, probably late 16 early 17. I took my undershirt off and tied it around my arm to try to slow the bleeding while I drove home. The blood goes threw the shirt, and is all over the inside car door, seatbelt and created a puddle on my pants in the creases because they were those Dickies work pants that are water resistant. When I got out of the car I heard the blood splat on the ground so I figured it was to much. Went inside tied yarn tightly above it and wrapped an old shirt again around it to replace that one as I didn’t have any superglue. I spent the hours of 330am-630am crawling in circles around the house with 2 bottles of resolve, paper towels and wet rags in a bucket trying to clean blood drops off the carpets and floors from when I walked in. The entire time dropping more blood in a near endless cleanup chain with only one thought on my mind. My mother is going to fucking kill me for getting blood on her carpets. At 630 (they open at 7), dizzy as all get out from lack of sleep and blood loss I got back in my car to drive to the clinic just hoping no one pulled me over or I passed out driving. I got there with a blood soaked rag wrapped around my arm and the lady handed me a 2 page clipboard to fill out and I remember staring at her with an expression that clearly said, can’t I fill this out while he stitches my arm? Of course not, so 5 minutes later I hand her a clip board mostly free of blood and paperwork that says I have no insurance.
The clinic doctor was great. Told him I had no insurance and couldn’t afford anesthetic and asked if he could just do it without. He cleaned it a bit, poked me with a needle of some kind and put in 7 or so stitches. Then marked it down as a consult or something, so I wasn’t charged with any of the items he needed/used. (Like $40 for the visit)
I’ll always remember that guy.
Moral/point of the story though… If you are less afraid of bleeding to death than you are to ask your parents for help, your parents might be abusive as opposed to strict.
That is nowhere near the border. If your kid rather bleeds out than facing you because they got some blood on the carpet you’re far in abusive territory
The problem is it’s often difficult to admit you had abusive parents, and abusive parents love to describe themselves as just strict. So yeah it’s kinda a euphemism
Yeah. And a lot of parental abuse happens in gray areas and with good intentions. Sure you have obvious cases, and they’re common enough I’d suspect most people know someone or another who was a victim to one. But there’s a hell of a lot of parents projecting their fears, traumas, or other issues relating to their kids onto them hard enough to fuck them up.
Yeah, it’s a thing. Word usage varies. One range of the various usages of strict is adhering to, or enforcing adherence to, a set of rules. It can also mean that part of “strict” is enforcing discipline to maintain those rules.
Taken to its extreme, it edges into authoritarian behaviors. But the usual, more typical usage would be far less extreme.
As an example, ever hear of a strict vegetarian? That just means that don’t deviate from the diet. That’s it.
The problem comes in when the usage of it as unnecessary, arbitrary, and cruel enforcement of rules for their own sake takes over. There are plenty of abusive people that would call themselves strict, despite violating boundaries and social mores in the process, which means they’re just pretending.
But there is a difference between a kid being tightly supervised and abuse. There’s an even bigger difference for having expectations for a kid’s behavior and activity and abuse. Both of those are strict, but not abuse.
The key to that difference is usually in how boundaries are handled. You also get different outcomes, and if the methodology being used isn’t adjusted to the individual kid, it’s often going to feel abusive no matter what the intent is.
Not all kids are going to respond the same way to any parenting methodology. Twins can even respond differently. So you absolutely have to be ready to adjust what you’re strict about and how that’s applied if you want to stay in line with the right balance of structure, support, and freedom. What one kid thrives with, the next may utterly reject and be harmed in the attempt.
Being strict about not playing with fire is a good thing. Being strict about never going near a campfire is, at best neutral, and could be bad when taken to an extreme. Being strict about never going camping is bad.
Strict only means keeping rules in place. It doesn’t mean you can’t be flexible, that you can’t adjust rules as the kid ages and matures. It definitely doesn’t mean the rules have to be arbitrary and can’t be explained and discussed.
You think being strict about a kid not using racial slurs is a bad thing?
Or making them see a doctor regularly and as needed?
Or that they bathe?
The list of things that can’t be negotiable is very long if you go into detail.
The list of things that can’t be negotiable at a given level of age and maturity isn’t short either.
Strict doesn’t have to be done badly at all. It’s just that uncompromising strictness is the opposite end of a slider from utter laissez faire. Which has just as many flaws.
There’s a reason that authoritative is the usual recommended goal; it’s being strict when necessary, and loose when not. But “strict” is part of that. Strict is making sure that there’s a reliable structure a kid can build a foundation of self on. It’s the walls of the sandbox and the sheet of material under out that keeps weeds from poking through.
The sandbox of development is the freedom to play within those boundaries. It doesn’t have to mean all noes, or all have tos.
Strict is, “you’ll do your homework because it’s part of the process of learning. When do you want to do it, and what can I do to help?”
Abusive is “you’ll do your homework or I’ll beat your ass”, and then beating their ass as the first and only option.
There’s a difference between strict and abusive.
I once cut a small artery above my left elbow right before I left work (We were young and just fucking around) Cant remember my exact age, probably late 16 early 17. I took my undershirt off and tied it around my arm to try to slow the bleeding while I drove home. The blood goes threw the shirt, and is all over the inside car door, seatbelt and created a puddle on my pants in the creases because they were those Dickies work pants that are water resistant. When I got out of the car I heard the blood splat on the ground so I figured it was to much. Went inside tied yarn tightly above it and wrapped an old shirt again around it to replace that one as I didn’t have any superglue. I spent the hours of 330am-630am crawling in circles around the house with 2 bottles of resolve, paper towels and wet rags in a bucket trying to clean blood drops off the carpets and floors from when I walked in. The entire time dropping more blood in a near endless cleanup chain with only one thought on my mind. My mother is going to fucking kill me for getting blood on her carpets. At 630 (they open at 7), dizzy as all get out from lack of sleep and blood loss I got back in my car to drive to the clinic just hoping no one pulled me over or I passed out driving. I got there with a blood soaked rag wrapped around my arm and the lady handed me a 2 page clipboard to fill out and I remember staring at her with an expression that clearly said, can’t I fill this out while he stitches my arm? Of course not, so 5 minutes later I hand her a clip board mostly free of blood and paperwork that says I have no insurance.
The clinic doctor was great. Told him I had no insurance and couldn’t afford anesthetic and asked if he could just do it without. He cleaned it a bit, poked me with a needle of some kind and put in 7 or so stitches. Then marked it down as a consult or something, so I wasn’t charged with any of the items he needed/used. (Like $40 for the visit)
I’ll always remember that guy. Moral/point of the story though… If you are less afraid of bleeding to death than you are to ask your parents for help, your parents might be abusive as opposed to strict.
That’s a perfect example of where it isn’t strict, it’s abuse. Or at least right on the border.
Also, damn. I’m sorry you went through that. I’m just glad you found a doc that handled things right.
That is nowhere near the border. If your kid rather bleeds out than facing you because they got some blood on the carpet you’re far in abusive territory
This post is starting to make me think people say “strict” strictly as a euphemism.
What I think it means: The parents never bend the rules for their kids.
What it apparently means: The parents have anger problems.
The problem is it’s often difficult to admit you had abusive parents, and abusive parents love to describe themselves as just strict. So yeah it’s kinda a euphemism
Also, when you are raised with abuse then it is hard to recognize abuse.
Oof, that’s a sobering realization.
Yeah. And a lot of parental abuse happens in gray areas and with good intentions. Sure you have obvious cases, and they’re common enough I’d suspect most people know someone or another who was a victim to one. But there’s a hell of a lot of parents projecting their fears, traumas, or other issues relating to their kids onto them hard enough to fuck them up.
Yeah, it’s a thing. Word usage varies. One range of the various usages of strict is adhering to, or enforcing adherence to, a set of rules. It can also mean that part of “strict” is enforcing discipline to maintain those rules.
Taken to its extreme, it edges into authoritarian behaviors. But the usual, more typical usage would be far less extreme.
As an example, ever hear of a strict vegetarian? That just means that don’t deviate from the diet. That’s it.
The problem comes in when the usage of it as unnecessary, arbitrary, and cruel enforcement of rules for their own sake takes over. There are plenty of abusive people that would call themselves strict, despite violating boundaries and social mores in the process, which means they’re just pretending.
But there is a difference between a kid being tightly supervised and abuse. There’s an even bigger difference for having expectations for a kid’s behavior and activity and abuse. Both of those are strict, but not abuse.
The key to that difference is usually in how boundaries are handled. You also get different outcomes, and if the methodology being used isn’t adjusted to the individual kid, it’s often going to feel abusive no matter what the intent is.
Not all kids are going to respond the same way to any parenting methodology. Twins can even respond differently. So you absolutely have to be ready to adjust what you’re strict about and how that’s applied if you want to stay in line with the right balance of structure, support, and freedom. What one kid thrives with, the next may utterly reject and be harmed in the attempt.
Your own judgement.
Both are dumb as shit
Strict is bad enough.
Strict is only “bad” when the structure is bad.
Being strict about not playing with fire is a good thing. Being strict about never going near a campfire is, at best neutral, and could be bad when taken to an extreme. Being strict about never going camping is bad.
Strict only means keeping rules in place. It doesn’t mean you can’t be flexible, that you can’t adjust rules as the kid ages and matures. It definitely doesn’t mean the rules have to be arbitrary and can’t be explained and discussed.
You think being strict about a kid not using racial slurs is a bad thing?
Or making them see a doctor regularly and as needed?
Or that they bathe?
The list of things that can’t be negotiable is very long if you go into detail.
The list of things that can’t be negotiable at a given level of age and maturity isn’t short either.
Strict doesn’t have to be done badly at all. It’s just that uncompromising strictness is the opposite end of a slider from utter laissez faire. Which has just as many flaws.
There’s a reason that authoritative is the usual recommended goal; it’s being strict when necessary, and loose when not. But “strict” is part of that. Strict is making sure that there’s a reliable structure a kid can build a foundation of self on. It’s the walls of the sandbox and the sheet of material under out that keeps weeds from poking through.
The sandbox of development is the freedom to play within those boundaries. It doesn’t have to mean all noes, or all have tos.
Strict is, “you’ll do your homework because it’s part of the process of learning. When do you want to do it, and what can I do to help?”
Abusive is “you’ll do your homework or I’ll beat your ass”, and then beating their ass as the first and only option.
Being strict with a few select things is fine. Being a strict parent is not. That means being strict with everything.
Well, no, it doesn’t mean that. That is one meaning out of a solid eight or nine, depending on what dictionary you use.
Also, seems like you’re being pretty strict about what it and isn’t strict. If you’re that inflexible about that, what else are you inflexible about?
Yes it does mean that. People who call themselves strict parents are happy to have power over their children in everything.
No idea why you try to change the topic. I am inflexible about a lot of things. About hitting children for example, shouldnt do that.
About politics. Shouldnt be a fascist.
About human rights. Shouldnt be questioned.
There is a difference between strict and abusive.
That’s literally what I said originally