Child Training & Daddies?

[A2JC4life]

In the "old days," most child training books/articles were written to fathers, because it was understood that the fathers were the primary trainers, with the mamas assisting them. Nowadays, it's the other way around.

Biblically, the daddies should be the primary trainers, as the responsibility is specifically given to them, and we should be backing them up. They should not be backing US up.

Here's the question: What does this LOOK like in practical terms? What exactly is the difference?

 

[LadyFlynt]

You quoted from somewhere (I've seen that recently but can't remember where), could you please post the source?

1. I don't believe in cultural relativism...however, you can understand how some of the culture can play a role here. Father's used to work at home or take their sons with them...that doesn't happen for the most part today and is rarely possible. Thus, father's have lost a great deal of time with their sons. Now, even in the best of circumstances (ie, homeschooling), sons are mostly with their mothers.

2. Practical terms today: Family altars/devotions are VERY important. Making the most of what spare time is available to fathers and sons. Mothers keeping fathers up on what is happening with their sons so issues can be addressed. Making use of Godly material (Literature is discussed by my husband and myself together). Sometimes my husband DOES call on my advice...because I was raised with brothers and a father...he was by a divorced female and his father was absent, extended family was ruled by the females (matriarchial...men were to shut up and sit down)...so there are times where he calls on my assistance for himself, but there is much he can pull looking back on what he was lacking and he can use that to make certain it is NOT lacking in our home.

3. Physical activity...I cannot tell you how important this is. My husband and sons mow grass together...here and for MIL, who cannot do it herself. They will also eventually go hunting together, father will teach sons woodworking eventually, etc. There is a bonding in this as well a learning character and integrity...many things are taught or caught by men and boys through actions rather than just words...words mean nada without action.



Do you mind if I move this to the Family Forum so that the men can assist in answering. I really believe it would be good to get their input on this one.

 

[A2JC4life]

It wasn't a quote, exactly. I, too, have seen the sentiment somewhere recently, but I don't know where, either! I just typed the concept in my own words, though.

Please feel free to move the thread. I only posted here because the other child training thread is what prompted the thought in my mind. To clarify a bit, though: I'm not just thinking of sons.

 

[LadyFlynt]

True...it's not just sons...#2 can apply to all children and #3 can apply to girls as well. Daddies having discussions with daughters is VERY important.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I think the term "back-up" needs definition.

My DW spends a good deal more time in the presence of our children than I do. She is the on-the-spot disciplinarian, and I think this is a role that many, many mothers for centuries have found themselves, primarily at the youngest ages, perhaps less so as the children get older.

She starts training them in obedience from the time they are nursing. When they hit 1.5-2 yrs, and start throwing a tantrum, they start getting the rod. Now, if I'm around, I will make on-the-spot corrections, and discipline if I have to. And we try hard to be on the "same sheet of music" so that the children don't get mixed-signals from each of us. We try to have consistency.

But in all truth--when I have to do a paddle, the children know that they do not want to get a paddle from daddy, because it is usually more "memorable" than from mommy. Not that mommy does her discipline with a feather-duster, or anything like that. But she has her way, and I mine. And I'm fine with that. If she calls me in, it is usually because she has reached a place where she 1) doesn't want to snap, 2) has too much going on right then to do justice where it is due, 3) may have already paddled one several times. The dear child knows it has graduated to a new threat level.

This, to my mind, is not so much "backing-up" as teaching a kind of "chain of command" principle, and gradations of wrath. When I'm at home, if I see one stamping the feet or flouncing, I act immediately to eliminate that behavior. My DW, will occasionally tune out certain "lesser forms" of that behavior if she has half a dozen plates spinning in the air, praying that 1) dear child will wise up and back out of that mode on its own, or more likely 2) child escalates to "intolerable" / "can't ignore it" and something has to be done. I am the HEAD disciplinarian in our home. I'm just not the PRIMARY disciplinarian, during most of our dear children's young lives.

We have a system. We have a fair degree of harmony in the house, In my humble opinion. Usually, by age 3-4 we have achieved a certain degree of docility/compliance in each of our children, so far. And they are a joy when they so want to please.

 

[LadyFlynt]

Sounds like our home...

 

[A2JC4life]

Originally posted by Contra_Mundum
I am the HEAD disciplinarian in our home. I'm just not the PRIMARY disciplinarian, during most of our dear children's young lives.

I like this line; I think it summarizes the issue/concept well. I'm interested, though, in hearing what this looks like in other households, as well. Is the distinction just a matter of mom's being in submission to dad, or is there more to it than that?

I think we're doing okay, but we've never really had many good examples around to observe; we have always been in the position of having to BE the examples. (Most of the men we know in person are not really acting as the heads of their households. )This is an unnerving combination! I just want to "virtually" observe some of your homes. :bigsmile:

 

[bfrank]

I would agree with most of what Rev. Buchanan said. I would argue though that dads are not only head disciplinarians but primary disciplinarians as well.

It is true that mom spends a good deal more time with the children in our industrialized society. However that being said, when dad steps up and assumes his role as head of the family, the primary discipline starts and stops with him. Moms role at that point would be to reinforce that which dad enforces. If dad is taking care of his primary responsibility, providing headship for the family, mom will only need to provide assistance in while dad is away. There will be a reverence for dad in dad's absence. However, if dad is working 14-16 hour days...well that is a different thread.

I believe this all stems from the created order and the way that the Lord created males and females. Men are ordained by God to be His representative on earth. Females are ordained to help. Men are given the authority. Perhaps the reason children respond so differently to discipline, when dad gives it rather than mom, is not only that it is more "memorable", but that they also recognize dad's authoritative position. Kids obviously have a different response to dad than to mom.

Mom on the other hand is able to provide the nurture and care that dad cannot. Not that dad cannot provide love, for he most certainly can and should. However, there is a different response by children to mom in this regard.

When the child falls and skins his knee...who does he cry out for? This is the beauty of the family as ordained by God, male and female each with their particular role and place of expertise.

As has been stated, sadly, the feminization of America and of the Church has greatly weakened the family institution.

 

[A2JC4life]

Isn't it amazing that children recognize these distinctions innately? In our household, Dad is actually the one with the more tender, compassionate personality, but you're right - when Ariel gets hurt she cries for me (even if Daddy is HOLDING her <we need a little bug-eyed smiley here>). And even though my discipline is quite firm, she responds much more readily to his, apparently just because he's Daddy.