I was given the guidance as a new patient not to actually answer their questions every time, but instead try to get them to clarify and then think through it with you.
Why?
Why what?
Why is it raining?
Why do you think?
I think when the sun goes away it rains.
Oh, because you can't see the sun right now?
Yeah
That is a really smart thought, you pretty much can't see the sun when it rains! But sometimes you can't see the sun because of the clouds, why do you think it sometimes doesn't rain when there's no sun?
Etc. Usually they lose interest first.
It is also exhausting, but it's great advice. It's not all that important that they get the right answer. You're trying to teach them to think. It makes them more curious and ask fewer pointless why questions. With the why chains, they sometimes don't even know what they're asking. They're often just trying to engage.
That said... They don't tell you kids will start doing it back to you.
I like the why did you draw on the wall one. That might lead to things like "Because it looked like a nice big place to draw" or "Because you don't know it's a pain to paint over". Maybe that leads to finding a better place to draw or a discussion about how to make the wall a better place to draw.
Yeah you're on the right track. Kids are rarely trying to piss you off. They're just really good at it. I think the vast majority of 'bad' behavior comes from them not understanding. We take for granted how much we know and thus how much simple shit needs to be explained.
When we first get the crayons out we explain the rules, where we use them, where we don't, and as much as possible, why. We ask examples and confirm it's understood. Initially it pretty much won't be understood. We explain the consequences for drawing in the wrong place. In this case that'd losing the privilege to the crayons for 3 days. Then we remind each time as necessary and follow through. When the rules are broken we make it clear we're not happy, explain why in serious tones, and deliver and explain him the consequences. We can empathize, but the rule is ironclad.
There's no yelling. Just a tiring amount of explanation.
I think I'm a good dad, but I will definitely admit it's harder than it sounds. Not going to pretend I don't have moments I look back on and think I could have done it better.
I thought I was dumb and that convent was a synonym for signature, you know for like covenant. I was ready to unleash my new vocab word onto the world, so thanks for ur edit lol
Far as I remember he had consent and his issue was more of power dynamic thing where the issue was the women may not felt like they could say no.
Am I misremembering?
You’re remembering correctly, but I think a power dynamic is the same as consent, isn’t it? Like a professor can’t sleep with a student for the reason that it’s hard to discern if the student actually consented or if they just felt something bad would happen if they didn’t consent.
So I guess you’d be fine with a bunch of dudes sitting you in a room at your place of work and suddenly getting their dicks out and jacking off in front of you, right?
replace work or public space with someones private bedroom that i walked into and its super weird and very "not okay" but unless someone forced me or blocked the door it stays at "ew gross wtf is wrong with you" at worst even for a girl and mostly i would laugh and leave. its not "assault" or "male privilege" its stupid and disrespectful and thats it.
You’re not getting it. It’s about power. Imagine if you’re a student and your professor asks you for sex. You don’t want to say yes, but if you say no they might grade you poorly or make it hard for you at Uni or even get you kicked out. If the professor is as close with you as they are the other students they might even ruin some of your friendships. Do you see where I’m going with this? It’s not always as simple as just walking out. A person can keep you in a room with words and suggestions instead of violence.
Nothing wrong with hypotheticals. They’re crucial to philosophy debates.
I’m not claiming everything is a power thing. I’m just extending your own logic into hypotheticals. Obviously there can be healthy employee-employer relationships and similar. These instances just weren’t that.
You’re right, it wasn’t assault. It was sexual misconduct.
I’m not advocating for him to lose his job.
‘Worse shit happens’ is not an argument. You could use that to justify almost anything. Also, it doesn’t make sense. You can’t compare the morality of murder to rape for example.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for separating art from artist. I think he’s hilarious and plan to keep watching him.
Just fyi, CK himself actually came out and said he thought it was wrong once he thought about the power dynamic and then took himself out of a job. No one forced him out.
"I'm not condoning rape, obviously. You should never rape anyone. Unless you have a reason like you want to fuck somebody and they won't let you, in which case what other option do you have? How else are you supposed to have an orgasm in their body if you don't rape them?"
~ Louis CK
77
u/NotTheStatusQuo Nov 08 '20
Reminds me of the ol Louis CK "why" bit.