Yesterday I went to the Royal Alexandra Theatre to see The Secret Garden, a musical adaptation of the book by the same name. I never did read the book so I had no illusions to shatter and no image to compare the performance to. Today I took Elli to Silver City to see Gnomeo and Juliet, a 3D movie about a war between two warring factions of garden gnomes and the star crossed lovers who belong to each of the warring factions. I thought it was interesting to compare the two experiences. It should be noted first thing that I enjoyed both performances but one definitely beat out the other in terms of overall bang for the buck.
The Secret Garden of course takes place in a theatre which requires about a 30 minute commute to get to. We then had to wait 30 minutes after arriving for the show to actually begin. Strangely the architect who designed the theatre seems to have operated on the assumption that people are generally all about 5 foot 4 inches tall. Wendy, who is considerably shorter than me, had her knees directly up against the seats in front of her and I ended up with my knees being a good two inches longer than the seats could accommodate. Initially I tried just shoving my knees up on top of the seat ahead of me with my legs in a normal-ish sort of pose but whenever the people ahead of me moved the seat crushed my shins pretty badly. Thankfully I was on an aisle seat so I was able to watch the show by turning my lower half sideways while keeping my upper half straight; I couldn't see the rightmost part of the stage but I had a good view of 90% of the show. Had I not been so lucky I basically would have had to tuck my feet right under my butt while resting my knees on the seat ahead of me... realistically I would have either just left or perhaps stood in the aisle if the ushers would let me.
The performance was really well sung and acted and the emotion conveyed was tremendous; I think the actors did a wonderful job. However, the plot left a lot to be desired. At intermission I commented that every single scene so far had introduced a new and interesting plot element so I wondered how exactly they were going to wrap everything up in the time alloted. It turns out the answer to that is to simply have a final scene where a character outlines the plot and everything resolves itself in a neat package in 2 minutes. It is a testament to the actors that despite the ridiculous deus ex machina ending that the emotion and strength of their performances really made it shine. Hell, I even got misty eyed even as I bemoaned the trainwreck of a denouement.
Gnomeo and Juliet was another story entirely. Clearly a war between garden gnomes designed to appeal to children isn't going to stick too closely to the double suicide ending of the Shakespeare version but it did use the essential and timeless elements of lovers trapped on either side of a war they cannot control. The element of confusion and conflicting loyalties between family and romance was well done, especially since the movie made quite substantial use of slapstick comedy. It is difficult to create an emotionally gripping tale while having your characters go through all kinds of 'this is like real people, except they are garden gnomes!' type comedy scenes but overall they managed to keep me both very amused and wrapped up in the fate of G&J at the same time. G&J also had two gems: Patrick Stewart playing an animate statue of Shakespeare doing commentary on the plot of G&J and a tremendous scene with an internet ad for the lawn tractor - you must see it to believe it. Unsurprisingly the movie theatre had big, comfortable seats and is a two minute walk away from my house.
It quite amazes me the comparison between the experiences. The Royal Alexandra theatre costs 6 times as much, requires 90 minutes of commuting/prep time instead of 10 and has wretchedly uncomfortable surroundings, up to and including not being able to see parts of the performance. The show, while tremendously well acted, was honestly not as good for me even though it was targetted at adults and the movie was targetted moreso at children. The musical is sold out far ahead of time and the venue was absolutely packed to the brim which is in part why there was so much time devoted to getting seated and getting out again. The movie theatre was running at maybe 1/10 capacity even though it was showing a great kids movie during march break. I must be missing something here, but I sure don't know what it is...
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Monday, March 14, 2011
The dangers of CFCs
This weekend Elli and I went to the Ontario Science Centre. We visited a number of interesting exhibits and had a good time but there were a few that really illustrated how science exhibits need regular updating or they risk delivering entirely the wrong message.
The particular one I have issues with is the exhibit about CFCs and ozone depletion. The exhibit ended with a note that Canada was planning on eliminating CFC usage by 1995 so I think we can peg its creation time at around 1990 without going too far wrong. The exhibit talked about the size of the ozone hole, talked about the future of the earth where the ozone layer was very much depleted and deplored the 'current' use of CFCs in refrigeration. The trouble with all this is that the problem is being presented as a current issue when CFCs are really a solved problem. The ozone hole over the Antarctic is not gone, but it is no longer growing and there is good reason to think that since CFCs have been mostly eliminated the ozone hole will shrink and go away. These developments are pretty important in understanding CFCs and ozone depletion of course - the exhibit very much makes it sound like finding ways to eliminate CFCs is a real, current environmental hot topic rather than a success story. We have not yet repaired the damage done by our use of CFCs but we have successfully turned a major threat and environmental mess into a story of how the entire world can change its ways when confronted with an environmental necessity.
There was also an exhibit on global warming that looked like it dated from around the same time as the CFC one. Again, knowing the history of the global warming debate is useful but it is pretty unprofessional to have data on something that changes so quickly be 20 years out of date. The models that were being used then are hopelessly out of date (or simply wrong) and much of the projections and 'what if' scenarios described are just as much incorrect. There is also a lot of extreme alarmism in the exhibit that you can still find in the current media but which just isn't well supported by the science. Global warming is a reality but apocalyptic predictions aren't supported by strong evidence.
Of course there were lots of things in the Science Centre that I heartily approved of. A giant lifesize exhibit of a replica of the heart of a blue whale was tremendous and very exciting for Elli - crawling around inside the whale's heart was a ton of fun for her and gave her an idea of just how immense whales are that other measures simply would not accomplish. A fan blowing air straight up keeping a ball supported on the column of air (Video here) is a wonderful illustration of complex scientific ideas that have important real world implications. When intending to portray contentious scientific ideas it is critical that information be kept relatively up to date. Obviously the Science Centre isn't going to be able to maintain constantly changing exhibits to be completely current with the cutting edge of science but when talking about things like global warming or the ozone layer having exhibits 20 years old is really dropping the ball on educating the average person.
The particular one I have issues with is the exhibit about CFCs and ozone depletion. The exhibit ended with a note that Canada was planning on eliminating CFC usage by 1995 so I think we can peg its creation time at around 1990 without going too far wrong. The exhibit talked about the size of the ozone hole, talked about the future of the earth where the ozone layer was very much depleted and deplored the 'current' use of CFCs in refrigeration. The trouble with all this is that the problem is being presented as a current issue when CFCs are really a solved problem. The ozone hole over the Antarctic is not gone, but it is no longer growing and there is good reason to think that since CFCs have been mostly eliminated the ozone hole will shrink and go away. These developments are pretty important in understanding CFCs and ozone depletion of course - the exhibit very much makes it sound like finding ways to eliminate CFCs is a real, current environmental hot topic rather than a success story. We have not yet repaired the damage done by our use of CFCs but we have successfully turned a major threat and environmental mess into a story of how the entire world can change its ways when confronted with an environmental necessity.
There was also an exhibit on global warming that looked like it dated from around the same time as the CFC one. Again, knowing the history of the global warming debate is useful but it is pretty unprofessional to have data on something that changes so quickly be 20 years out of date. The models that were being used then are hopelessly out of date (or simply wrong) and much of the projections and 'what if' scenarios described are just as much incorrect. There is also a lot of extreme alarmism in the exhibit that you can still find in the current media but which just isn't well supported by the science. Global warming is a reality but apocalyptic predictions aren't supported by strong evidence.
Of course there were lots of things in the Science Centre that I heartily approved of. A giant lifesize exhibit of a replica of the heart of a blue whale was tremendous and very exciting for Elli - crawling around inside the whale's heart was a ton of fun for her and gave her an idea of just how immense whales are that other measures simply would not accomplish. A fan blowing air straight up keeping a ball supported on the column of air (Video here) is a wonderful illustration of complex scientific ideas that have important real world implications. When intending to portray contentious scientific ideas it is critical that information be kept relatively up to date. Obviously the Science Centre isn't going to be able to maintain constantly changing exhibits to be completely current with the cutting edge of science but when talking about things like global warming or the ozone layer having exhibits 20 years old is really dropping the ball on educating the average person.
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Hope springs eternal
http://www.georgerrmartin.com/if-update.htmlGeorge RR Martin is the writer behind the greatest fantasy series ever, A Song of Ice and Fire. His latest book has been due for years now and legions of rabidly loyal fans have spent the past few years raging across the internet demanding the next installment. And all the rest of the installments, as fast as possible please.
George RR has set a publication date in a way that seems pretty solid. I wonder how many fantasy nerds are going to book off the previous week from work to finish rereading the series just in time for the new book? Thankfully my boss is pretty easygoing and I suspect I won't have a problem timing it just right.
Friday, March 11, 2011
Surveys
I generally respect a scientific analysis much more than random hunches. Normally that is on the basis of two things: Proper data collection and proper data analysis. Tonight I got a phone call from a phone survey company and it illustrated the extreme weakness of the data collection for anyone who relies on such surveys. The interviewer asked me all kinds of questions like:
"How would you go about looking for government services if you needed assistance for an aging relative?"
While I tried to answer "I would go to Google and type 'Government Canada Old Age Service'" they didn't seem especially interested in that answer. The interviewer wanted yet more data about which other ways I would look for answers... as if there was anything useful I could do after fully investigating the result of my Google search.
"Why have you not done more to Green your home in the past year?"
Well, it is complicated. First, I live in a condo. I can't just start tearing out the walls to put in more insulation, I have no control over the type of heating used and since I already made real efforts to maximize my recycling and reusing I don't know how I *could* do a lot more. Since the interviewer never asked what sort of home I lived in the information they got is pretty near useless and they don't have the option to enter more random data to make my answers make sense. Some people probably answer "It costs too much" or whatever but I can't see how they make the answers usefully correspond to the actual reasons.
"What is your household yearly income?"
Do you want income as reported to the government counting Wendy's stipend as zero (which it is for tax purposes), or how much money we had coming in? Do we subtract tuition, do we count appreciation of investments or the increase in value of the condo over the year? I gave a random answer but honestly there is no reason to think people are going to respond using the same sorts of rules I did. Never mind the fact that people regularly misreport their income depending on who they are talking to, we don't even know what the correct answer is. I can't even tell if I was lying or not!
"The Canadian government is against the UN resolution making access to water and sanitation a basic human right. Do you agree with this stance?"
How the heck should I know? What exactly does this resolution say? It is clear that Canada tries to make sure all its citizens have access to water and sanitation so there must be something more to this but I can't exactly take an hour off to read up on the complexities of this situation. Does adopting this resolution mean that countries with cruddy infrastructure are committing human rights violations? Does it mean I can sue the government if they don't supply me with proper sanitation for my shack in the wilderness? I have no idea! I guess I answer something in the middle of the spectrum of answers allowed and move on.
The trouble with all these things is that my answers are uninformed (about the UN!), wildly inconsistent with other reports (income reporting), not useful (Greening my condo), or incomplete (finding government services). The interviewer also did not speak English as a first language so I had all kinds of difficulty interpreting options for answers and I probably ended up giving flat out incorrect answers due to challenges with translation. Now this data is going to be used to make government decisions, supply data to environmental organizations and develop models of living conditions based on location. All of that is just going to be incorrect, and that is with a cooperative subject! There are plenty of people who end up just taking the first option for their answer instead of getting the right one and probably a few who give wildly incorrect responses for their own amusement. Any time you see studies being quoted that talk about surveys done interviewing 2,000 people with particular confidence intervals you have to wonder if the data is any good at all; are we really just guessing at these things?
Of course I don't have a better solution. Presumably phone data gives you some interesting information, primarily what sorts of things patient, bored, polite people say when they want to get off the phone. It seems sort of like democracy... pretty wretched from nearly any perspective but everything else is even worse.
"How would you go about looking for government services if you needed assistance for an aging relative?"
While I tried to answer "I would go to Google and type 'Government Canada Old Age Service'" they didn't seem especially interested in that answer. The interviewer wanted yet more data about which other ways I would look for answers... as if there was anything useful I could do after fully investigating the result of my Google search.
"Why have you not done more to Green your home in the past year?"
Well, it is complicated. First, I live in a condo. I can't just start tearing out the walls to put in more insulation, I have no control over the type of heating used and since I already made real efforts to maximize my recycling and reusing I don't know how I *could* do a lot more. Since the interviewer never asked what sort of home I lived in the information they got is pretty near useless and they don't have the option to enter more random data to make my answers make sense. Some people probably answer "It costs too much" or whatever but I can't see how they make the answers usefully correspond to the actual reasons.
"What is your household yearly income?"
Do you want income as reported to the government counting Wendy's stipend as zero (which it is for tax purposes), or how much money we had coming in? Do we subtract tuition, do we count appreciation of investments or the increase in value of the condo over the year? I gave a random answer but honestly there is no reason to think people are going to respond using the same sorts of rules I did. Never mind the fact that people regularly misreport their income depending on who they are talking to, we don't even know what the correct answer is. I can't even tell if I was lying or not!
"The Canadian government is against the UN resolution making access to water and sanitation a basic human right. Do you agree with this stance?"
How the heck should I know? What exactly does this resolution say? It is clear that Canada tries to make sure all its citizens have access to water and sanitation so there must be something more to this but I can't exactly take an hour off to read up on the complexities of this situation. Does adopting this resolution mean that countries with cruddy infrastructure are committing human rights violations? Does it mean I can sue the government if they don't supply me with proper sanitation for my shack in the wilderness? I have no idea! I guess I answer something in the middle of the spectrum of answers allowed and move on.
The trouble with all these things is that my answers are uninformed (about the UN!), wildly inconsistent with other reports (income reporting), not useful (Greening my condo), or incomplete (finding government services). The interviewer also did not speak English as a first language so I had all kinds of difficulty interpreting options for answers and I probably ended up giving flat out incorrect answers due to challenges with translation. Now this data is going to be used to make government decisions, supply data to environmental organizations and develop models of living conditions based on location. All of that is just going to be incorrect, and that is with a cooperative subject! There are plenty of people who end up just taking the first option for their answer instead of getting the right one and probably a few who give wildly incorrect responses for their own amusement. Any time you see studies being quoted that talk about surveys done interviewing 2,000 people with particular confidence intervals you have to wonder if the data is any good at all; are we really just guessing at these things?
Of course I don't have a better solution. Presumably phone data gives you some interesting information, primarily what sorts of things patient, bored, polite people say when they want to get off the phone. It seems sort of like democracy... pretty wretched from nearly any perspective but everything else is even worse.
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Buying stuff
This last weekend, as previously mentioned, I went up to the cottage belonging to Worried. During the trip it became apparent that much of the equipment at the cottage was not particularly suited to me due to my somewhat boat-sized feet. I tried to go snowshoeing but the snowshoes would not wrap around the back of my shoes so I had to just jam my feet forward really hard, put a ton of torque on the forward straps and hope for the best. I did a bit of wandering around like that and it worked, but not well. I certainly couldn't move quickly and the front of the snowshoes sank deep into the snow due to the very uneven weight distribution - better than just shoes for moving through deep snow but not ideal. I also ended up remembering that I don't actually find snowshoeing all that fun anyway; it isn't bad but it isn't particularly compelling either. The story as far as cross country skiing goes is similar but since that requires special shoes I couldn't hack together a solution and just sat out.None of this bothered me. Cross country skiing, much like snowshoeing, is fine but not that interesting. I am perfectly happy to wander around in my boots and I don't need special equipment. At the end of the weekend though Worried asked me if I would mind going to MEC (Mountain Equipment Coop) and buying snowshoes, ski boots and any other equipment that goes along with those on her dime. She was obviously somewhat flustered and embarassed that I had to sit out activities due to equipment restrictions despite my insistence that I was perfectly content with the situation as it was. The two of us sit pretty far apart in the universe of "How much stuff do you want to own?" and similarly far apart in "How prepared do you need to be to be comfortable?" I generally am averse to getting anything new and much prefer to just continue to use things until they become very broken indeed. My favourite jacket is a jacket my father gave me 15 years ago or so and when he gave it to me it was quite used. The jacket is worn and the inside of the pockets is tearing out but I fully intend to get another 15 years out of it.
It's still good, It's still good! - Homer Simpson, re: Flying pig.
It is very much like my Christmas presents conundrums. Other people like to get things and buy things and I don't. It isn't one sided as I am just as happy to get no presents in return but I am pretty weird as far as this goes. Worried really wants to acquire new things for the cottage and is fine with spending quite a bit of money on equipment that will be used 0-1 times a year for half an hour while I find that quite ridiculous. Clearly it is her money to spend and yet I don't particularly want to be part of the stuff acquiring engine even when someone else is paying when that stuff is being bought almost exclusively for my use. I am unsure how to proceed. I don't want to offend, and the gesture to buy things just so I can use them is appreciated, but I don't really want to spend the money in ways that I find superfluous.
The really silly thing is that I will probably get more use out of the current crop of non fitting snowshoes that any new ones. Trying to go snowshoeing in inappropriately sized gear without falling down or any other such shenanigans is a challenge I find interesting - snowshoeing in proper gear much less so. I suppose I can be reasonably accused of being quite silly in that regard.
Monday, March 7, 2011
Bad Weather
This last weekend I went up to the cottage with the family, my inlaws and some friends. In the days leading up to the trip we checked the weather and found that the weekend was going to be full of rain with perhaps a dash of snow at the end. We grumbled and groused about how we were going to be kept inside all weekend and fussed that we had picked the worst possible weekend to try to be in the outdoors and far away.
True to prediction it rained all the way up north. On Saturday the rain got more serious and we only got outside when Elli decided that she was going to go out and wander around in her rubber boots and adults were needed to go out with her. After a very short trip outside Wendy came back in to report that the road was incredibly slippery, covered in a 4 centimeter layer of ice and then coated on top by a slick of water from the constant rain. Not only that but Elli had had a fall with the first step she took onto the road.
"Nobody could walk on that road without falling down."
Now I, as a certified man, can't let such a challenge go by. Were I to not rush out immediately and walk, run and slide around on a road deemed impossible I would be forever stamped a sissy-boy and would be unable to show my face in public henceforth. The question is not whether I will go out and challenge this insurmountable obstacle (I will), nor whether Wendy understands that I will do this (she understands) but rather did she decide to phrase it that way just to get me to do it or not? She knows that telling me that a thing cannot be done is the surest way to convince me to do it but it is not clear whether she uses that fact to manipulate my foolish, primitive man-brain or not. Regardless, the thing must be attempted.
I wandered out onto the road and was quite amazed at how well it lived up to its billing. I did not fall but I can certainly attest to the fact that the road was a very smooth, thick slick of ice covered with a fresh layer of water and was treacherous in the extreme. I can also attest to the fact that I ran up and down the road, feet slipping and sliding every which way, trying ski poles, downhill sliding, and running in place to see where the greatest thrill and danger might lie. After a few minutes of wandering around looking rather silly we decided to go for a walk in the rain. We all wandered out into the forest and had a good long hike through slushy snow while the rain continued to fall. Luckily the paths were groomed by local snowmobile enthusiasts (aka those damn kids and their infernal machines) and we actually managed to avoid submerging ourselves significantly. After awhile we wandered back home and Elli got treated to hot chocolate. Though I do try to curtain her intake of sweets I think the tradition of a warm, sweet drink after exercise in the cold and rain is a tradition with little enough risk.
By the end of the weekend the snow had come down in significant amounts, leaving the roads very safe and solid and the world a wonderland of laden branches and hidden treasures. Despite the 'bad weather' we enjoyed the outdoors very much and I think many of us could benefit from remembering that lesson. The weather, like most things, is only as bad as we let it be. Believing that a rainstorm is an opportunity rather than an obstacle seems like a recipe for happier living.
True to prediction it rained all the way up north. On Saturday the rain got more serious and we only got outside when Elli decided that she was going to go out and wander around in her rubber boots and adults were needed to go out with her. After a very short trip outside Wendy came back in to report that the road was incredibly slippery, covered in a 4 centimeter layer of ice and then coated on top by a slick of water from the constant rain. Not only that but Elli had had a fall with the first step she took onto the road.
"Nobody could walk on that road without falling down."
Now I, as a certified man, can't let such a challenge go by. Were I to not rush out immediately and walk, run and slide around on a road deemed impossible I would be forever stamped a sissy-boy and would be unable to show my face in public henceforth. The question is not whether I will go out and challenge this insurmountable obstacle (I will), nor whether Wendy understands that I will do this (she understands) but rather did she decide to phrase it that way just to get me to do it or not? She knows that telling me that a thing cannot be done is the surest way to convince me to do it but it is not clear whether she uses that fact to manipulate my foolish, primitive man-brain or not. Regardless, the thing must be attempted.
I wandered out onto the road and was quite amazed at how well it lived up to its billing. I did not fall but I can certainly attest to the fact that the road was a very smooth, thick slick of ice covered with a fresh layer of water and was treacherous in the extreme. I can also attest to the fact that I ran up and down the road, feet slipping and sliding every which way, trying ski poles, downhill sliding, and running in place to see where the greatest thrill and danger might lie. After a few minutes of wandering around looking rather silly we decided to go for a walk in the rain. We all wandered out into the forest and had a good long hike through slushy snow while the rain continued to fall. Luckily the paths were groomed by local snowmobile enthusiasts (aka those damn kids and their infernal machines) and we actually managed to avoid submerging ourselves significantly. After awhile we wandered back home and Elli got treated to hot chocolate. Though I do try to curtain her intake of sweets I think the tradition of a warm, sweet drink after exercise in the cold and rain is a tradition with little enough risk.
By the end of the weekend the snow had come down in significant amounts, leaving the roads very safe and solid and the world a wonderland of laden branches and hidden treasures. Despite the 'bad weather' we enjoyed the outdoors very much and I think many of us could benefit from remembering that lesson. The weather, like most things, is only as bad as we let it be. Believing that a rainstorm is an opportunity rather than an obstacle seems like a recipe for happier living.
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
I am going to kick you
Elli and I had a bit of a fight at her school today. We had differing opinions on how the rest of the day was going to go. She felt that it was going to go like "Elli stands in a corner pouting until Daddy agrees to stay at school all night" and I felt it was going to go like "We go home now".
I forcefully sat Elli down to get her outside things on and she declared "I am going to kick you!" and pulled her leg back to boot me in the chest. This is the sort of thing that you can respond to in a number of ways. I chose to grab her leg with one hand fairly hard and hold it exactly where it was and say "No, you are not." I then held her leg there for about 10 seconds or so without letting her move and then let go. She collapsed in tears, allowed herself to be clothed and we left the school. 2 minutes later she was as happy as anything and we had a perfectly nice walk home.
How to respond to that sort of aggression is really a tricky thing. I was physically forcing her to sit down and remove her inside shoes so I can't complain that she went the "might makes right" route first. On the other hand, she was being unreasonable and we simply can't sit at school until a tired, hungry little person decides it is time to go. I am the parent and I have the responsibility to make the necessary things happen even if it isn't fun for her or me. I have watched different parents take different routes when their child tries to strike them and while I am pretty sure some of them are terrible I don't claim to know what is best. Some of them just let the kid strike them and ask them not to; I think that is terrible. Sending the impression that assault is something you tolerate strikes me as a disastrous message. I have heard of parents telling their children "Don't hit me there honey, if you have to hit me, hit me on the arm or something" which is right out. Decades ago the answer would have been for me to give her a slap or a spanking but those options are not so much tolerated now - I am actually concerned that doing that in a school might get me in legal trouble, if I was so inclined. I have also seen parents who just dodge their children's attacks - or try to, at any rate; sometimes they just take it and act as if it was nothing regardless of whether or not it hurt.
My technique is obviously designed to send the message that she is both not allowed and utterly unable to assault me. I can hold her such that she cannot hurt me with fairly minimal effort and although it certainly isn't comfortable for her I expect that the greater part of the aggravation for her is that she is simply dominated by something she cannot fight. Being totally helpless is *not* a pleasant situation for most people (though they like to play the role of helpless for a thrill sometimes) and this is especially true for people who really like to have their situation under control. The message I want to send to her is that it is totally unacceptable to strike someone and that she will not be allowed to do so. I wish I could send that message without physical force but that isn't feasible. Much like putting people in prison it is a technique that is terrible but has no real alternative that doesn't make things even worse.
I forcefully sat Elli down to get her outside things on and she declared "I am going to kick you!" and pulled her leg back to boot me in the chest. This is the sort of thing that you can respond to in a number of ways. I chose to grab her leg with one hand fairly hard and hold it exactly where it was and say "No, you are not." I then held her leg there for about 10 seconds or so without letting her move and then let go. She collapsed in tears, allowed herself to be clothed and we left the school. 2 minutes later she was as happy as anything and we had a perfectly nice walk home.
How to respond to that sort of aggression is really a tricky thing. I was physically forcing her to sit down and remove her inside shoes so I can't complain that she went the "might makes right" route first. On the other hand, she was being unreasonable and we simply can't sit at school until a tired, hungry little person decides it is time to go. I am the parent and I have the responsibility to make the necessary things happen even if it isn't fun for her or me. I have watched different parents take different routes when their child tries to strike them and while I am pretty sure some of them are terrible I don't claim to know what is best. Some of them just let the kid strike them and ask them not to; I think that is terrible. Sending the impression that assault is something you tolerate strikes me as a disastrous message. I have heard of parents telling their children "Don't hit me there honey, if you have to hit me, hit me on the arm or something" which is right out. Decades ago the answer would have been for me to give her a slap or a spanking but those options are not so much tolerated now - I am actually concerned that doing that in a school might get me in legal trouble, if I was so inclined. I have also seen parents who just dodge their children's attacks - or try to, at any rate; sometimes they just take it and act as if it was nothing regardless of whether or not it hurt.
My technique is obviously designed to send the message that she is both not allowed and utterly unable to assault me. I can hold her such that she cannot hurt me with fairly minimal effort and although it certainly isn't comfortable for her I expect that the greater part of the aggravation for her is that she is simply dominated by something she cannot fight. Being totally helpless is *not* a pleasant situation for most people (though they like to play the role of helpless for a thrill sometimes) and this is especially true for people who really like to have their situation under control. The message I want to send to her is that it is totally unacceptable to strike someone and that she will not be allowed to do so. I wish I could send that message without physical force but that isn't feasible. Much like putting people in prison it is a technique that is terrible but has no real alternative that doesn't make things even worse.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)