The issue Khazan discusses in “No Spanking, No Time-Out, No Problems”, parents need to change their own behavior, before wanting to change their child’s behavior. Khazan confronts the issue of punishment along with behavior using a persuasive writing style to share her thoughts on punishment: “Punishment might make you feel better, but it won’t change the kid’s behavior” (Khazan 25). Khazan presents a child psychologist, Alan Kazdin’s to speak on parenting interventions. Along with parenting intervention, Khazan utilizes her interview with Kazdin, presenting a more of an understanding towards the issue of punishment. Utilizing Kazdin’s parenting interventions, he uses examples to prove that; punishment should not be used to fix negative behavior.
She thought I was kidding.” The author reflects an example of children developing stress about future instances connecting parent’s presentation of negative consequences to the child’s actions. There are various statements of aggression as punishment are made throughout Diaz’s text, as shown when the author says “he expected our individual attention when you were getting your ass whupped. You couldn’t look him in the eye either—that wasn’t allowed.” Rules that were not expressed verbally to keep Junot Diaz’s father from having negative reactions are also implemented by their mother, who appears to be submissive to their father’s say while attempting to vouch for her children’s wellbeing the best she
this takes the role of free association in a child. When talked about free association, one name clearly comes to our mind- Signmund Freud. She got an opportunity to meet Freud and this meeting inspried her to write her first paper which was on Development of a child. However, her theories counter argued Signmund Freud and Anna frueds Theories. When Anna frued has said that children could not be psychoanalysed, Klein disagreed.
Olga Khazan uses mostly pathos throughout her article to connect with the readers and parents. Olga Khazan makes a bold statement about not discipling children because when people disciplining children it can cause issues with humanity’s morals. One way she supports these issues by showing different parenting approaches “Things that parents model very often influence how children behave as children and adults.” (Khazan).
Charles Baxter’s “Gryphon” provides an interesting look at standardized education and the way society views those who deviate from it. Baxter shows this through how the narrator Tommy views his new substitute, Miss Ferenczi. The character Miss Ferenczi tries to revolt against the clinical and strict standards of society and positively impact the morality and ethicality of herself, Tommy, and the fourth graders. While some readers may think that Miss Ferenczi is either morally inept or somewhat delusional, she proves herself to be a person who cares to teach the children how to love learning. Miss Ferenczi continuously revolts against the clinically strict standards of education to teach the children the wonder of learning through her fantastic
Also, going through all these struggles as a family they tend to forget that in such situations it is important to let the people around you feel that they are loved and not alone. Furthermore, Families get lost in the process because it is a big change to the whole family, so in order to keep the family’s standards they should go through family therapy to be able to know how to deal in this hard situation and get over it
And That’s Okay,” that the stigma of kids being able to grow up and be whatever they want to is wrong and hurts the kids instead. She summarizes this by quoting Daniel Kahneman as he says that “Success = Talent + Luck. Great success = A little more talent + A Lot of Luck.” Kid’s books usually show the main character being anything they want which shouldn’t be ingrained into kids. Most of the time there is a minimal role played in their own success which causes “overly-ambitious goals … [to] be harmful” (Reischer). Everyone’s destiny doesn’t reflect their internal qualities, Reischer uses her own experience, data, and word choice to explain how society affects kids.
The American experience is often corrupted and hard to achieve: this corruption is based on how loyalty, family dynamics, and the presence or absence of role models in life. Loyalty is a subject often betrayed in literature, as it shows a characters’ vulnerability, as they are unable to keep themselves content enough to stay with their families they have promised and dedicated their lives to, no matter for how long or to who. Rose considers this vulnerability, and chooses to repel from her instinct to leave. She believes that if something isn’t working, they should try to fix it before they abandon everything they once viewed as irreplaceable, “Don’t you think I ever wanted other things? Don’t you think I had dreams and hopes?
She had a preconceived idea of Jay’s abilities, which led her to her harsh treatment of Jay. Laura’s management skills are not viable solutions especially since she isn’t giving an unbiased effort. These actions are apparent in the teachings of Jay when she presumed Jay had a lack of competence. As an educator she would not self-reflect or consider Kathleen’s perspectives as valuable. Throughout the text, there are instances where Laura could have had a differentiated instruction to accommodate for the capabilities of all her students yet she ostracized certain students such as Jay instead.
Think of it as a parent telling their child to clean their room but when they do they are punished for doing it wrong. It is as if we are told to be ourselves but only to a certain extent.This is also another reason why people are less creative because they are trying so hard to fit the mold that they can forget what makes us, us. Also if we are always conforming to fit into the mold and not embracing the creativity we all have, this keeps us caring about what society thinks. Therefore this leading to the ignorance of said creativity and then we are right back in the “system”. In an article by “McGraff” on teenink.com it talks about how being yourself can spark creativity and if society is putting limits on how much a person can be themselves then it also limits creativity.