Up Close with John Rosemond: Q. and A. on Spanking, ADHD and more
Rosemond gave us plently of time to pick his brain on parenting topics and he even responded to a few follow-ups by e-mail. And time for Rosemond is a hot commodity during his traveling season -- an 8-month season in which he'll make more than 200 appearances at 125 locations.
If you prefer, use the quick links to jump to a topic that interests you the most (the question you select will be at the top of your page).
Quick List of Topics:
• Common Sense Parenting
• Parents being Psychologists
• Leadership Approach to Counseling
• Relationships versus Discipline
• Societal Trends in Parenting
• Self-esteem in Children
• Negative or Positive reinforcement
• Appropriate Spanking
• Government's Involvement
• Myths Associated with ADHD
• Rosemond's Mission
• Media Consumption
• Ritalin
• Curing ADHD
• Driving Age Laws
• Christian Values
• Rosemond's Interest in Counseling
• Future Books
• Rosemond and Politics
• Parenting Experts Quiz
Question: You write about using a common sense approach to parenting. How is parenting common sense?
Answer: I think human beings know how to be parents like I think it is obvious that all of God's creations know how to be parents. We knew how to be parents before there were people like me telling people how to be parents. What distinguishes me from the pack is that I go around the country. I got these bona fides. I'm a psychologist. I've written all of these books. I tell people that they need to stop listening to people like me and unless they stop listening to people like me they will never regain their common sense parenting. I think our common sense has been swamped by a tidal wave of "psychobabble" over the last 40 years.
What do you mean by "psychobabble"? Are parents also trying to be psychologists?
I think parents are thinking psychologically about their children. Children do something and parents interpret their behavior. They try to understand it instead of just responding to it. Children are simple, they are not complicated. But we have made something that's simple into something that is complicated. We have made a process that is not through the heart but something that is now done through the head. An intellectual approach to parenting doesn't work. I was talking with a parent yesterday. This parent was telling me that their daughter started throwing up at preschool and crying. That the preschool people are all concerned that she needs to see a psychiatrist and all this stuff. (This parent) is sitting down with her daughter, talking to her, trying to understand and trying to help her daughter understand. I said... 'Look, in the first place does your daughter have to go to school? Yes she does. I said well that should be the first message. If you don't feel good about going to school, that's all right. But in the final analysis, you have to go to school.' Instead of giving that message to her child, she is leading her child to conclude intuitively that if she gets sick and acts out enough that maybe mommy will not make me go to school.
I would imagine in this situation that it is natural for a parent to think I need to get help outside of what this parent is doing.
That is the immediate assumption here and even if the parent understands it is not physical. The parent takes the child to a doctor, and the doctor says there is nothing wrong. And the child keeps throwing up. Then the parent starts applying psychological interpretation to the behavior. The psychological interpretation always implies that the mother is doing something wrong. And so the mother handles the situation with a lot of anxiety and a lot of guilt and ends up not handling the situation in an authoritative way at all. I keep telling parents 'look, parenting is leadership; it is leadership of the child. And the leadership of the child is much easier to affect than the leadership of adult.' There is no reason why we should be having all of these problems with children today. We are having these problems because we have lost touch of the fact that parenting is leadership. Today's parents, unfortunately, instead of being leaders of their children, instead of stressing leadership with their children, are stressing relationship with their children. When you put relationship in front of leadership, you nullify leadership and you bring forth the worst in a child.
How do you interact with parents these days?
I take a very leadership approach to counseling with parents. I tell parents 'look, you don't have your head on straight about this. Let us help you get your head on straight about this.' This parent I counseled yesterday over the phone, she called me, she was all distraught, she was distressed, she was crying. And 20 minutes later, she was fine and she was laughing and (she realized) how foolishly she had approached this whole thing. It's just a combination on my part of a lack of tact and sense of humor and I get parents to realize (about themselves) that I (the parent) am my own worst enemy here. And I am my child's worst enemy here. I have a knack of getting people to laugh about this stuff.
As seen in your writings and in your speaking style, you don't seem to hold much back?
My belief, and I would tell people this when I was in private practice, if you have to see me more than 3 times, I'm not doing my job or you're not following my instructions - one or the other. And if I'm not doing my job with you, we need to stop. And if you are not following my instructions, we need to stop. So I'll see you three times. And people were very, very relieved at that -- which I wasn't going to hang them up in any type of long term, expensive process.
This is a result of parents being seduced by this whole relationship model of child-rearing. For a number reasons, we demonized traditional parenting in the 1960s and the 1970s and very successfully so. We persuaded the American parent that we should not raise children the way they used to be raised. That traditional child rearing was damaging to children psychologically and that if we wanted to raise what I call 'Utopian Children,' that we needed to follow this new model. This new model is this touchy-feely, why can't we all get along, model. This model emphasized democracy in the parent-child relationship, it emphasized equity and parents were persuaded. The leading parenting experts of the day told parents 'you should not tell your children what to do.' You should never say to your children 'this is my decision, it stands, I'm sorry if you do not like it, but it is not going to change.' The traditional approach was regarded as disrespectful to children and could again, cause psychological problems. So what I call a psychological 'boogey-man' was installed in the heads of parents. And this is the way psychology sells itself to American parents. They install 'psychological boogey men' into parents' heads...if you do this, this horrible outcome will result...all the prohibitions if you will, involve this: If you do what your grandparents or your parents did, a horrible psychological outcome will result.
My generation (Rosemond is 58) believed itself to be anointed to usher in a brave new world. And we believed that we had been established as a generation to cure all of the nation's ills and therefore all of the world's ills - that anything that smacked of tradition had to go. This is referred to as a paradigm shift by sociologists. And a culture wide paradigm shift occurred during the 1960s and early 1970s. And it changed all of our institutions, all of our values, all of our assumptions and it changed how we raised children. It changed how we educate children, it changed marriage in America. The 'Utopian marriage' became the open marriage where you get married but it is really just false oaths because you are free to have sex with whomever you please. And your spouse is supposed to tolerate this. The 'Utopian family' became democratic family. And the 'Utopian' child rearing was self-esteem based child rearing where the child's feelings are regarded as holy and parents are not do anything to disturb the child's holy feelings state. And all of this was completely antithetical to assumptions based on the Biblical values that had prevailed in America before this time.
We became in the 1960s a secular society. We shifted from society whose values that were predicated on a Biblical basis to a society whose values were progressive. Well, the times (had) changed, and our values needed to change. Homosexuality was bad at one time. But the times have changed, so homosexuality is, if not good, is at least neutral. You are supposed to regard it as that. And I'm just using that as one relatively stunning example. Everything changed in America. In order to have a first hand appreciation of this, you had to be born in the early 1950s and achieve some sort of state of cultural consciousness by the time we entered the 1960s. It was probably Kennedy's assassination that kicked if off. Kennedy's administration was wrapped in this mythical aura. It was the new Camelot, his wife was Guinevere, and he was King Arthur. When he was assassinated, it was like this almost fulfilled some utopian mythical prediction -- the holy king being brought down by the forces of evil.
So does this mean parents simply want to give their children a voice like the parents had in the 1960s?
One of the things we began to believe was that all opinions were equal. Instead of the traditional assumption that everyone has the right to their own opinions, the new assumption is that all opinions are equal. And along with this came this implicit sort of message that the child's opinions and feelings were just as legitimate as an adult's opinions and feelings. We stopped disciplining the way children think...the way children feel. I keep telling people, look children need to be disciplined in their behaviors. But children also need to be disciplined in their thinking, in their feelings. And when you do that, just as you tell your child what you are doing is not appropriate, it is also appropriate to say to a child the way you are expressing your feelings at this time, this place, is not appropriate. (The parent should say...) '...I won't tolerate it. Go to your room and get control of yourself.' It is perfectly legitimate to say to a child 'well it is an interesting point of view, but you are wrong, and here's why you're wrong.' People won't talk to children like this anymore. We are so hesitant to tell a child he's wrong. Why not? We tell a child what he has done is wrong. Why can't we tell a child what he is thinking is wrong. Why can't we tell a child that his feelings at this point in time are off the mark?
(For example,) you know that wailing over the loss of a matchbox car is not appropriate. That this display of emotion is to be reserved for events that merit this kind of drama - whatever they may be, but certainly not the loss of a matchbox car. But we have given free reign to the child's thoughts, the child's feelings. And we are ending up with a generation that can't think critically as a consequence. And they themselves believe they have a right to feel any way they want to feel. Go ahead - but it is very self destructive.
Self-esteem is something that we should not be emphasizing at all. The literal meaning of the word is worship of the self. This is a concept that is antithetical to the traditional objective of child-rearing...to raise a child who is respectful of other people; a child who should esteem others. We have shifted in 50 years from other-esteem to self-esteem. High self-esteem leads to all sorts of pathological behaviors. The research has indicated this clearly. Psychologists don't pay any attention to this research because if we acknowledge it, then we have to acknowledge that we have been wrong for over 50 years.
So self-esteem isn't important?
I don't think we should be talking about it. I think we should be talking about raising children who are respectful of other people. You develop self esteem by people doing things for you. You develop respect by doing things for other people. Or you develop self-esteem by doing things for yourself - making A's on tests, things like that. The two processes are completely different.
Which is more important: Negative or Positive reinforcement?
I think giving positive messages to people is important in certain situations in context. I think there's a time and place for a negative message for a person, including a child. I think we should tell children the truth. If they haven't done something properly we need to tell them. If they haven't performed up to a reasonable level of expectations, they need to know that. It is important that we understand the time and place of both negative and positive comments made to children; that we use them judiciously. That when we use a negative comment, it is not destructive and it be supported. There is a way to do this.
When is it appropriate to spank a child?
I don't know. If I put into a situation with the child and the child engaged in an outrageous behavior, I might, hence, say, for this child, at this age, at this moment, a spanking is appropriate. I hesitate to define that because; I can't define that situation across the board for every child and every parent. There's a proper way to spank, there is an improper way to spank. So it's not just what is the child doing...If I say to this parent that spanking in this situation is appropriate, is the parent going to spank appropriately. People ask me these questions about spanking as if they could be answered in a simplistic fashion.
If that was the case, you probably wouldn't have written a book on it?
And I have changed my position some since the book was written. One of my grandchildren was two years old when I was drying him off after a bath. I had dried him off and I was asking him to step into his underwear and apparently his parents (in these situations) laid him on his back and slipped his underwear on. And I was saying pick your leg up and step into your underwear. And in the manner of a 2-year-old, he hauls off, screams and slaps me across the face, because I was not cooperating. I was not doing things the way his parents did and I was asking him to do something his parents never asked him to do. But he slapped me across the face and I immediately just reached behind him and whacked him as hard as I could on his rear-end. And I told him, he's two years old and he's an intelligent human being. When he calmed down, I said he 'will never slap me again, Patrick.' His parents reported two weeks later that he had stopped hitting them. and he had stopped hitting his older brother. I never told his parents I spanked him. I figured they would go off the wall or something. In that situation, I trusted myself to spank him properly and also to follow up on the spanking appropriately. I did not deliver the spanking out of anger. It was simply what I felt to be an appropriate response, the most appropriate response, to him slapping me in that situation at his age. For me to say to another parent: If your child slaps you across your face, you should spank him, I can't. I do not know what kind of spanking that parent is going to give. I do not believe in spanking (spanking in a blanket sense without knowing context of the situation).
Should you not ever have to get to that point with a child?
I do not advocate it. I am simply saying this - that a myth has developed about spanking that is not supported by the research. There is no good evidence that children who are spanked occasionally by responsible loving parents are damaged psychologically. There's no evidence of that whatsoever. There is no evidence that spankings lead to later pathological behavior. I believe that the government should stay out of this. And there are people in this country and the world that want the governments of the world to step in on this. I say no, no, no.
How does government get involved in this?
By passing anti-spanking laws like they have in many Scandinavian countries, which have not solved any problems. It just opens the door for government interference in parenting matters.
Give us your thoughts on ADHD. You believe there are myths associated with ADHD?
The diagnostic behaviors quite simply describe a toddler. The reason that we are dealing with so many children school-age who are exhibiting these behaviors is because we are no longer in America -- by the way we have been parenting children since the 1970s -- curing toddlerhood. So we have children who are not maturing emotionally and intellectually because we are not disciplining their feelings state. Toddlers have bi-polar disorder. Toddlers have oppositional defiance disorder. Toddlers have attention-deficit disorder. Those three, I quote, 'disorders,' are normal to toddlers. My first grade class had 50 kids and was taught by one teacher. None of those 50 kids came to school with ADD, ODD or bipolar disorder. Because back then, toddlerhood was cured by the time a child was three. Toddlerhood is a very pathological state. One of the things I say to my audience is this, that 'God in his infinite mercy and grace in recognition of the fact that children are very pathological has distinguished us from the rest of his creation by not allowing human beings to grow to full size in one or two years.' It doesn't happen anywhere else. I believe one reason for that is you just could not deal with a 165-pound, 5-foot 10-inch toddler. This toddler would put you in the hospital.
What is your overall mission these days?
My mission is to reach out to those parents who will listen, who are ready to accept that the parenting model they have embraced is the cause of all of their troubles (and to) help point them in the right direction. If I could just get people pointed in the right direction. It says in scripture that, and I'm paraphrasing a little bit.... 'All of God's plan is written on our hearts.' I believe if I can point people back in the right direction, they will get back in touch with their parenting hearts. But it requires that people stop thinking psychologically and 'un-entangle' themselves from the psychological model of child rearing that we embraced in the 1960s.
Why is media consumption becoming such a problem for parents and children?
The amount of on-screen time. It's no longer television anymore. It's TV, video games and computers. Most kids these days are spending five to six hours a day on screen. And the problem is, the television screen, as does the video screen; it flickers constantly. It turns you into a passive observer. And I believe and a lot of research has (pointed to this), that this has the effect of shortening a child's attention span. The research is admittedly contradictory where this is concerned. But here's what's not arguable:
That today's children have considerably shorter attention spans than did kids in the early 1950s. This is going on all over America. You could not teach 50 children with one teacher in a classroom (like you could in the 1950s) if you had kids with considerably shorter attention spans.
Should kids be taking drugs (like Ritalin) for ADHD?
There is no such thing as having ADHD. It is not a biological condition. It is not a disease. It is a lifestyle condition. It is a developmental condition. And I absolutely know from much personal and professional experience that the behaviors we call ADHD can be corrected, cured, by parents without the assistance of psychologists (or drugs) in a matter of 3-6 months. It is not rocket science. If you understood that this is just extended toddlerhood - that's the first step to dealing with it.
Tell me more about what is required to cure ADHD?
It requires a lifestyle change in the family. One of the things I tell parents who are dealing with this type of child is you have to get the child off, completely off, video games, TV, Internet, computers.
Is that realistic? From a societal point of view, is it realistic to set aside technology and handle it in reasonable doses. It is coming at children from everywhere now.
Hugh, there are people your age who grew up without TV, computers and video games. And you can't tell who they are unless they tell you. They are competent fully functional human beings.
A child goes to school, sees cell phones, the child sees video games, and friends have video games. It is just in so many more places than it used to be everywhere you go.
Are you implying that parents should submit to peer pressure?
No, I am just wondering if it is really realistic?
I know plenty of parents who are raising kids this way. And you know what they testify to me - they have very few discipline problems with their children - very few. Their children are fully socialized, well-adjusted kids. I have never heard a parent say: John, I took my kid off television, video games, etc., and my kid's a wild child. I can't control him. Never have I heard this. I'm not saying that TV is the cause of behavior problems, is the sole cause, but what I am saying: If you want to raise a kid who is calm, attentive, respectful, easy going obedient child - one consideration I would throw out to you is: Do not get that kid hooked on electronic media. And I know people who have teenagers who bring home assignments from school saying your child needs to get on the Internet and research this, and the parents just send back a note saying my child's not allowed on the Internet...We don't have a home computer and I'm not taking him to the library to get on a computer there. And the school will accommodate the child. They have to accommodate the child. And the kid graduates from high school at the top of his or her class.
(Rosemond goes on to talk about driving age laws).
Another thing I say to parents, if someone said, here is a jar of peanut butter and if you feed this jar to your child, there is a 1 in 10,000 chance your child will be seriously damaged by this peanut butter. Would you feed the peanut butter to the child? Parents go 'no!' Would you feed it to your child if the chances were 1 in 100,000? Parents again say 'no.' Then why are you letting your child drive a car? And you know what people say, people 'say 16 is the driving law, John.' But 16 was established when there were not many cars on the road, when cars were not fast and powerful, and the only times children were driving was to go on errands to help their parents with something. They were not driving recreationally in the 30s. They were taking the family pick-up truck into town and picking up 20 pounds of feed. I just look at today's parents and I go 'What are you thinking!' They think that just because it is legal, you should let your child do it.
What would the driving age be today if you could set it?
It wouldn't be an age. It would be a high school diploma and after one year of service. I am a strong advocate of one year of mandatory service. Military, Peace Corps., Domestic Corps., Salvation Army -- I don't care which one -- just some service to your fellow man. And then, you get a driver's license after you have shed a little bit of your self--centeredness. And in Europe, you don't see kids behind the wheels of cars. I drove around Italy for 3 weeks and never once did I see a kid behind the wheel of a car.
I can tolerate something without agreeing with it.
You used to be an atheist, however you converted to Christianity. Why?
Because I saw the light. I saw the truth and the truth has set me free. The only way one can be truly free is to accept the truth, (and) make that the truth.
When did your interests in counseling parents develop? How and why did you embark on this career?
I was drifting in college...using drugs, playing in a rock band that often opened for REO Speedwagon, enjoying the celebrity of being a campus rock star and flunking out of school.
I was rescued in my junior year by a psychology professor who saw potential in me. He became my advisor, acted in "loco parentis" for several years and helped me get a scholarship to graduate school. The professors in grad school inspired me as well.
(Rosemond earned his masters in psychology from Western Illinois University in 1971. While Rosemond put aside the bad habits of his college days, he can still carry a tune and you can listen to his rock n' roll music at www.bobotunes.com).
How much longer do you expect to be traveling around giving talks?
Until I can no longer handle it physically, but I feel like I'm 40. And my blood pressure is that of a 30-year-old female, so I'm in this for a good while longer, I think.
What subjects do the four future books you are working on pertain to?
The ADD scam, "psychobabble" in parenting, toilet training, and the myths of public education.
Nope, my wife won't even consider it.
How would you describe the effect, or influence, of your message in the world of parenting?
I think I'm having a large positive effect, but I still think things in child rearing and the American family and America are going to get a lot worse. We haven't hit bottom yet, and we won't wake up until we do.
For more on John Rosemond, visit his Web site at www.rosemond.com.
Take the ArcaMax Publishing free Parenting Experts interactive quiz and see if you can identify which comments were made by Rosemond.
Editor's Note from ArcaMax: Click here to share your comments on this story. ArcaMax is publishing reader comments in a feedback section with this feature.
Copyright 2006 ArcaMax PublishingKeywords:
Comments