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.
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