posted
A few days ago this book was bought to my attention. I read the book online, and discussons on me. It bothers me deeply. I am not being anti-Christian, but the concept of spanking BOTHERS me deeply. Perhaps because when I lived with my mother she would often employ the belt to discipline me, mostly over things that were stupid. I am still trying to figure out if I should confront her on this, and wondering if this constitutes as abuse when other people I know have had things much worse happen to them. This fellow Michael Pearl and his wife Debi Pearl state that in order to properly bring up children they must be trained. This means starting when they are infants they have to be conditions and this is done by employing a switch, or a branch or quarter inch piping. One thing they seem to do is show a child an object, then hit, no, spank the child for trying to touch it in order to train them to leave the object alone. This bothers me deeply for some reason, particularly since they start this at the age of 4 months and advocate pulling a baby's hair to stop them from biting their mother's breast while breast feeding. There seems to be quite a few peopel who follow their practices and state that their children turn out to become fine disciplined people and very God-fearing. This bothers me because they say good things like spend time with your children, be their friends and care for them, but then they turn around and tell parents to break their child's will and bend them into submission. Am I the one who is warped and seeing things the wrong way? Also, to folks out there who are Jewish, what is the translation of "Rod" in the Talmud? And just how am I wrong for believing it is wrong to hit a child under any circumstance? The concept bothers me deeply and fills me with rage, and yet there is a different between abuse and spanking, as James Dobson pointed out, but isn't there a better way? I want to become a parent. I do not want to hit my children. I do not understand the difference between hitting and spanking because to me, there is no difference... Isn't there some other way? This is getting a bit long, but on one of the Pearl's newsletters, Michael Pearl talked about how his wife was baby sitting an 11 month old child who was crying to be let outside. He proceeded to hit the child two times with a switch after telling him to stop crying. Of course the child did not, so he hit the child two more times, then proceeded to show him some coins and stuff after he had broken his will a bit. Am I reading too much into things, or is this just wrong? There has to be some other way to deal with a child besides hitting them for doing something any child would do!
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do the means justify the ends, you mean? Or are you asking whether this technique can be used effectively?
If the latter, the answer is yes: yes, beating your children and breaking their spirits can produce obedient, disciplined children without many externally obvious mental problems.
Whether this is the most effective or efficient method to produce such children, or whether obedience and discipline are inherently virtuous, are separate conversations.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think there is a fair clear line between spanking and abuse. If a parent choose to put a child over their knee with a quick swat, while I probably won't, I don't see that as a horrible thing. What you describe in the first paragraph I would define as abuse.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Spanking can be a useful tool amongst many other methods used to correct a childs behaviour. I have two children and my oldest has probably had less than five spankings in her six years of life. My youngest gets a pop on the bottom at least once a week because none of the other methods of discipline get her attention.
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am with you, Syn. I don't believe in hitting children, since it models behavior you don't want them to imitate. I believe in time-outs for bad behavior. It seems to work really well to give the reward of my attention and time to good behavior, while ignoring and leaving children with no attention in a playpen (or in their room when they're older) when they act in ways I don't want rewarded with attention (either positive or negative attention). I believe in removing dangerous or delicate objects from a child's reach, in physically picking up a toddler and carrying them to a safe environment if they do things that endanger themselves.
But different methods work best with different children, and parents are right to use what works for them. As long as there are no injuries, or bruises, to the child, I don't think there's any legal grounds for action.
I think everyone who has found a method that works for one child, thinks they have THE answer for all of child rearing. I think they're mistaken. Love, patience, and good example are much the best child-rearing tools, but I think different strategies in general work best for different kids. I always want my child to know I'm on his or her side, and I would cry if I had to deliberately hit or hurt children.
The worst I do to my cats is blowing a puff of air into their faces if they deliberately scratch me to get my attention. (It's human abuse to draw blood, so they have to be taught not to do that, and they hate it when I puff air in their faces.)
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:A few years ago, Lynn Paddock sought Christian advice on how to discipline her growing brood of adopted children. Paddock -- a Johnston County mother accused of murdering Sean, her 4-year-old adopted son, and beating two other adopted children -- surfed the Internet, said her attorney, Michael Reece. She found literature by an evangelical minister and his wife who recommended using plumbing supply lines to spank misbehaving children.
Paddock ordered Michael and Debi Pearl's books and started spanking her adopted children as suggested. After Sean, the youngest of Paddock's six adopted children, died last month, his older sister and brother told investigators about Paddock's spankings.
Sean's 9-year-old brother was beaten so badly he limped, a prosecutor said. Bruises marred Sean's backside, too, doctors found.
Sean died after being wrapped so tightly in blankets he suffocated. That, too, was a form of punishment, Johnston County Sheriff Steve Bizzell said.
The Pearls' advice from their Web site: A swift whack with the plastic tubing would sting but not bruise. Give 10 licks at a time, more if the child resists. Be careful about using it in front of others -- even at church; nosy neighbors might call social workers. Save hands for nurturing, not disciplining. Heed the warning, taken from Proverbs in the Old Testament, that sparing the rod will spoil the child.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Do the means justify the ends, you mean? Or are you asking whether this technique can be used effectively?
If the latter, the answer is yes: yes, beating your children and breaking their spirits can produce obedient, disciplined children without many externally obvious mental problems.
Whether this is the most effective or efficient method to produce such children, or whether obedience and discipline are inherently virtuous, are separate conversations.
No way I'd want to use a method like that on a child. The way he descibes it, he'll hit a child if he or she shows "defiance" or anger and will be pleased with them if they are just happy and content on the surface. it seems like it would teach them to repress their anger and rage. I know I have that problem. I can't confront a person I'm angry at, but i sure can go off if I spill something or can't find my keys and cell phone and punch a wall or something. That really concerns me. I have to do something about that...
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
4 months? That seems way too young for physical discipline.
Also, apparently there is an entire chapter on how to hit your kid so it doesn't leave a mark.
To me, at first glance, this author seems like the type of Christian that seizes on a handful of Bible verses and carrys them to extremes. Like the Phelps church.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:A few years ago, Lynn Paddock sought Christian advice on how to discipline her growing brood of adopted children. Paddock -- a Johnston County mother accused of murdering Sean, her 4-year-old adopted son, and beating two other adopted children -- surfed the Internet, said her attorney, Michael Reece. She found literature by an evangelical minister and his wife who recommended using plumbing supply lines to spank misbehaving children.
Paddock ordered Michael and Debi Pearl's books and started spanking her adopted children as suggested. After Sean, the youngest of Paddock's six adopted children, died last month, his older sister and brother told investigators about Paddock's spankings.
Sean's 9-year-old brother was beaten so badly he limped, a prosecutor said. Bruises marred Sean's backside, too, doctors found.
Sean died after being wrapped so tightly in blankets he suffocated. That, too, was a form of punishment, Johnston County Sheriff Steve Bizzell said.
The Pearls' advice from their Web site: A swift whack with the plastic tubing would sting but not bruise. Give 10 licks at a time, more if the child resists. Be careful about using it in front of others -- even at church; nosy neighbors might call social workers. Save hands for nurturing, not disciplining. Heed the warning, taken from Proverbs in the Old Testament, that sparing the rod will spoil the child.
I don't think the Pearls Advocate using a blanket, but, first of all, those children were adopted, people should not use corporal punishment on adopted children, especially children who have been adopted at an older age and have probably already had their share of abuse and neglect whether they were adopted from the state or internationally. It's people like that who are the reason why Russia seems to be trying to make their adoption rules stricter, or at least drag their feet at renewing the licences of US adoption agencies... Plus, there were some scandals also involving the Ukraine. I think there is something SERIOUSLY WRONG WITH THE PEARLS, it is unkind to point this out, but it's not just their child rearing methods that anger me, but their stance on the abuse of women does too! They are peddling such unhealthy advise. I thought Dobson was bad when he suggested that a mother should have grabbed her child by the scruff of the neck to squeeze a muscle there to inflict pain on her son, but these people are so much worse! Most people do not have subtlty. They cannot tell the difference between a child that is troubled and a child that is just being bad. So they'll be desparate and use the switch or the belt or a branch or piping often because they can't switch gears to something else. I'd rather just listen to someone like Sears or the Nannies than listen to these people. I just can't think of a reason why a child should be hit with a branch and other objects! Plus, there is that pattern from the past to consider. Why would i want to pass something like that down?
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
(Anne Kate, I'm with you on the use of time-outs -- although Sophie seems determined to subvert them. Lately, she's been enjoying them, to the extent that she's actually asked for longer time-outs more than a few times.)
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's as THT said, different strategies for different kids.
My brother and I would probably both be dead or in jail if not for spankings, because we simply didn't respond to anything else.
My parents tried timeouts for a while, and I literally laughed in their faces. I could entertain myself for days. Especially when they sent me to my room. You know, the room full of books, toys, and movies? But even if I had to sit in the corner, quiet and still for XX minutes that wouldn't do anything to me.
They probably should've spanked me more. I never did learn when to keep my mouth shut.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The point of spanking is to connect an unpleasant result with an incorrect action. Timeouts, scoldings, punishments of all types seek that same goal.
I personally was spanked once in my entire life, though I was certainly gripped by the hair, ear, or firmly held by my parents when they were telling me off.
My parents much prefered to simply deny my access to things I thought were important if I was bad. They could be merciful, but if I crosssed a very fine line they punish me extendedly and made it stick.
I am as hesitant to say spanking does not work at all as I am to say there is any punishment that works across the board for everyone.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Man, those people make me angry. I believe in respecting peopel's beliefs, but if it's something dangerous, something that hurts another person even as they swear up and down it's helpful, then it has to be brought to the light and examined and challenged no matter what.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think, just from what little you quoted, these people are sick and do a dis-service to children and those of us who believe that spanking is necessary and effective as a last resort. (or as a first resort in cases of danger)
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, there's a huge difference between a swift pat on the bottom and what ya'll are saying these people recommend. That's definitely abuse.
I don't have children, but my brother and his wife would use swift pats on the bottom when their boys were younger. I don't know how effective it was, because I just wasn't around enough, but it certainly wasn't painful--more of an attention getting device. I expect that I'll use a combination of methods. I'm not opposed to that kind of spanking, but if time-outs work, I see no reason not to use those instead. Consistency is key, and I imagine that would be the hard part.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:One thing they seem to do is show a child an object, then hit, no, spank the child for trying to touch it in order to train them to leave the object alone. This bothers me deeply for some reason
Probably because they're using physical violence and pain to negatively condition a child in a manner that resembles dog training.
It's also pretty capricious and confusing to the child in a way which mirrors the deficiencies of most negative reinforcement and punishment methods of authoritarian parenting, whether or not they involve physical pain as a conditioner.
quote:The concept bothers me deeply and fills me with rage, and yet there is a different between abuse and spanking, as James Dobson pointed out, but isn't there a better way? I want to become a parent. I do not want to hit my children. I do not understand the difference between hitting and spanking because to me, there is no difference... Isn't there some other way?
Umm, yes. The APA and the american association of pediatrics have long concluded that spanking and other forms of pain-based discipline are essentially crutches that have better alternatives, so they advise not spanking. People who say that spanking is 'necessary,' 'preferable,' or 'integral' to parenting are simply misinformed. There's other methods which avoid the pitfalls of spanking and just produce better results overall.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was never "spanked"- or, indeed, subjected to a "time out" unless I was very annoying, which probably only happened two or three times in my life and usually meant bath and bed without dinner. I remember on those occaisions feeling hugely bad for myself.
Personally, I think that there are so many ways of ensuring a child do at least the ballpark area of what you want them to do that spanking should be a real form of last resort.
I think children grow used to the "last resort" whatever that is. If it's spanking, nothing but a good couple of blows means anything. If it's a raised voice, it's the same thing. Obviously this doesn't apply to every child, however, I do believe that "the last resort" is respected by many children, whatever it is as established by the parents.
This stems solely from my experience, though.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't rule out spanking as a form of discipline, because some kids may not respond to any other form.
Keep in mind that ANY form of discipline, taken to its extreme, is unhealthy.
I'm of the opinion that far more necessary than corrective discipline is guidance: that is, knowing your child well enough that you can head off behaviors before they occur. (Things like supplying your two year old with a favorite toy as soon as you enter the grocery store to prevent a tantrum because you can't afford to buy her the candy you KNOW she'll ask for.)
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Samp, Could you point me to the APA statement on spanking that you are drawing your description from? The bit about it being essentially a crutch doesn't fit with my understanding of their position, but I could definitely be out of date. Thanks.
edit: I did a Google search, but I couldn't find anything more recent than one from 2001, which didn't contain language to that effect.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't rule out spanking as a form of discipline, because some kids may not respond to any other form.
I won't write it off as impossible, but I'm honestly not sure to what extent that this idea is backed up.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I maintain that the first and most knowledgeable expert on a child is an involved, engaged, parent.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Pearls state that they are. They do give good advice about fishing with their children, teaching them to do chores and the like and enjoying their kids. My problem is that it's interposed with breaking their will and hitting them over "acts of defiance" What's that supposed to mean? They are the parent. Parents have power over their children by virtue of being the parent. I don't see how a child can undermine your authority. They seem to support the idea of calmly and cooly administering disipline in the form of swift hard blows with a blunt object depending on age. It creeps me out deeply.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
OTOH, I think advice on how to wallop your child repeatedly without leaving marks, not to mention the idea of repeatedly spanking a not-yet-one-year-old, is horrifying.
Yeah, it says not to spare the rod. Firstly, most of Mishlei (Proverbs) is at least partly metaphorical. Even if you consider it to be absolutely literal, that does not mean spanking a child at every opportunity!
There is a line between thinking that an occasional spank is a useful tool among many in a parent's disciplinary arsenal (along with a Look, and several Talks ), and thinking it is the answer to every disciplinary situation. And these folks are WAY over that line.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Synesthesia: Children do not respect the authority of their parents by instinct. That authority is gained by demonstrating that the parent is rightfully in charge, as the child does not know what is best for them all the time.
It comes from showing children the folly of trusting their undeveloped sense of reason exclusively. People by nature are to some degree rebelious.
Its why teenagers are so rebelious. They are coming close to adulthood and the independance that comes with it, and they think they have learned enough to fly solo.
I am no exagerating when I say that a child that does not learn to submit to his/her parents will could die.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: They seem to support the idea of calmly and cooly administering disipline in the form of swift hard blows with a blunt object depending on age.
Well, calm and cool IS miles ahead of hitting a child in anger.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Synesthesia: Children do not respect the authority of their parents by instinct. That authority is gained by demonstrating that the parent is rightfully in charge, as the child does not know what is best for them all the time.
It comes from showing children the folly of trusting their undeveloped sense of reason exclusively. People by nature are to some degree rebelious.
Its why teenagers are so rebelious. They are coming close to adulthood and the independance that comes with it, and they think they have learned enough to fly solo.
I am no exagerating when I say that a child that does not learn to submit to his/her parents will could die.
It's true that a child needs boundaries and discipline, and to obey their parents, but they also need a foundation of love and trust and not just authority. I'd want a child of mine to have enough rebellion in them to challenge something that isn't right, even if it's me with enough love and trust in me to know I want to do what is best for them, even if it means punishing them by taking away something that is precious to them, but not their free will... I don't think breaking a child's spirit is remotely helpful to them. I want to find a way to give them a foundation of reason and self control and be a good example to them so they have something to draw on. I'm not sure if hitting in anger or calmly hitting them will give them that. I also want them to learn compassion, not might makes right, not imposing your will on another person because to me, it's evil most of the time, even if it is for their on good. There has to be some sort of middle ground, some way to find a balance between giving a child structure and allowing them to be themselves without turning into wild weeds that will act like jerks and be a pain in the butt of society like a patch of ice on an unshoveled sidewalk.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
I agree with your estimation on these folks-- I find what you've reported here to be disturbing. Essentially, if you're going to swat your kids as a form of discipline, then you should do it in a way that IF someone did find out about it, you would not be ashamed to stand before them and give your reasons why.
The secrecy thing bothers me quite a bit. It introduces an element of false persecution sense that I think can be very dangerous to parents who are not committed to being engaged and involved with their children. Something along the lines of, "I spank my children in secret...what else can I do to them in secret?"
I know-- paranoia mea. But I'm wary of secrets and secret keeping. Any time someone says, "Do X to keep people from knowing X," I want to vomit.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
You should see what they have to say about domestic violence... It's beyond unhealthy... They have a whole book about the role of women tons of women swear by.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, calm and cool IS miles ahead of hitting a child in anger.
I'm not sure it is. I'd rather have a parent strike me once, out of anger, than calmly and expressionlessly deal out pain like they might with dinner plates.
The anger would be there, just hidden. I think that's worse, not better.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem is that when striking a child in anger, it is almost never once -- and it is much too easy for it to get out of control. If the anger is "still there, just hidden," then it is still striking in anger.
OTOH, if a parent has made a conscious decision, not driven by anger, that a spanking is necessary -- and again, I absolutely do not think this should be frequent or extensive -- it is far less likely to escalate. Unless one goes in with the notion of inflicting pain without leaving marks. Which I already mentioned disturbs me greatly.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
When I was a kid I looked through a book my dad had called The Christian Family. It had *one* chapter on children, and its only point was that children must obey -- nothing about loving them, nothing about not abusing them.
It did have an inspiring story. One morning the author's wife, flustered and hurried, knocked over the OJ into the pancake mix. She was rushed, so they had orangey pancakes, and the kids were griping about it. So the dad yelled at them (spanked? I don't remember) and scared them so much that the little boy, not just ceasing his grumbling, not just eating the things, smiled and said, "They're wonderful!"
The author seemed almost moved to tears by the beautiful story of how he terrorized his little boy into lying to make his parents feel better. He knew it was a lesson that would shape his son for years to come. On that I am sure he was absolutely right. Posts: 544 | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with Rivka that calm and composed is much better then angry.
I hope I never find it neccesary to spank my children, but I had a friend whose father used corporeal punishment alot. He would sit down with him and say, do you know why I am going to punish you? Do you know I am doing this because I love you and I want to help you?
That to me is much better then, "Why would you do that *WHACK*, go to your room!"
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: What's that supposed to mean? They are the parent. Parents have power over their children by virtue of being the parent. I don't see how a child can undermine your authority.
Watch a couple episodes of Nanny 911 or Supernanny. Really, it's not that hard for children to undermine their parents' authority.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I agree with Rivka that calm and composed is much better then angry.
I hope I never find it neccesary to spank my children, but I had a friend whose father used corporeal punishment alot. He would sit down with him and say, do you know why I am going to punish you? Do you know I am doing this because I love you and I want to help you?
That to me is much better then, "Why would you do that *WHACK*, go to your room!"
That's what my uncle would do when I lived with him. He'd explain why he was hitting me with a belt It still hurt though.
The parents are still the parents though... They still have the upper hand and power, and that's why those nannies put them on their show to teach them that.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I should start a TV show about a couple of clueless hippy parents and their troublesome children called "Drainpipes and Stockinged Feet."
Posts: 4753 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:The Pearls' advice from their Web site: A swift whack with the plastic tubing would sting but not bruise. Give 10 licks at a time, more if the child resists. Be careful about using it in front of others -- even at church; nosy neighbors might call social workers.
Any punishment that is too harsh to be doled out in public is probably too harsh to be justified at all. Also, it is worth pointing out that in NC, it is a crime to not report suspected child abuse.
Anybody who has enough experience to offer advice on how to inflict pain on a person without leaving a visible mark should be considered mentally ill and a danger to society.
BlackBlade, I am concerned by your blanket statements. You seem to think that kids can't possibly have the experience and judgement necessary to control their own lives until they are legally adults. People mature at different rates. I have known 13 year olds who were almost fully prepared to live independently. Certainly by the time most kids are teenagers, they have enough experience that they can often make better judgments than their parents. You should be more careful about dismissing somebody's opinions based on a perceived lack of experience. From what I've seen, that attitude causes more problems for parents than any actual mistakes that the kid makes.
Posts: 145 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Anybody who has enough experience to offer advice on how to inflict pain on a person without leaving a visible mark should be considered mentally ill and a danger to society.
Every child over the age of seven knows how to inflict physical pain without leaving much of a mark.
But I get your point.
quote:Certainly by the time most kids are teenagers, they have enough experience that they can often make better judgments than their parents.
You don't happen to work for a credit card company, do you?
quote:Any punishment that is too harsh to be doled out in public is probably too harsh to be justified at all.
I don't agree with this.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:my brother and his wife would use swift pats on the bottom when their boys were younger. I don't know how effective it was, because I just wasn't around enough, but it certainly wasn't painful--more of an attention getting device.
That's how we were spanked as kids. And it wasn't spur of the moment either. My dad would sit down, and we had to lean over and get spanked. The prospect of getting spanked was terrifying to me, but the spanks never hurt. I'd say the way they used it was effective without nearing abuse or the breaking of spirits. Time outs happened a lot more often, spanking was more of the "last resort" to which Teshi referred.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: BlackBlade, I am concerned by your blanket statements. You seem to think that kids can't possibly have the experience and judgement necessary to control their own lives until they are legally adults. People mature at different rates. I have known 13 year olds who were almost fully prepared to live independently. Certainly by the time most kids are teenagers, they have enough experience that they can often make better judgments than their parents. You should be more careful about dismissing somebody's opinions based on a perceived lack of experience. From what I've seen, that attitude causes more problems for parents than any actual mistakes that the kid makes.
Don't worry I agree with pretty much your entire post. I stated quite a bit earlier I do not think there is a magic bullet punishment that takes care of every human being. My comments on keeping children, to a degree, submissive was directly mostly at children, it should taper off in their teenage years. Just because I believe that you should instill a strong sense of trust in a parent's judgement does not mean I do not believe in mercy, or providing opportunities for your children to make their own decisions for good or ill.
But I am very much opposed to parenting where they use the "buddy model" rather then the "parent model."
I know I will be extremely affectionate with my future children, I will be their friend, but I will still be their parent.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I am no exagerating when I say that a child that does not learn to submit to his/her parents will could die.
That seems like an awful way of putting that sentiment to me. Are you trying to say that children should learn to trust their parents judgement or is it really submission that you think is the important part here?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: (Anne Kate, I'm with you on the use of time-outs -- although Sophie seems determined to subvert them. Lately, she's been enjoying them, to the extent that she's actually asked for longer time-outs more than a few times.)
We use time-out as discipline but NOT punishment. The point of a time-out is to have a time to cool off and reach a state where you can change your behavior. It's not a bad thing to take a time-out and even Mama and Abba take them once in a while. When Ems wants a longer time-out, that's fine with us. Occasionally she has even "put herself" on time-out when she needs to calm down, and that is exactly what we want.
Punishment in our house is an extension of logical consequences of an act. If you color on the walls, you clean it up. If you hit your sister, you don't get to play with her for a while. If you throw your toy, it gets taken away. Things like that.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
My mother would repeatedly hit me with a baseball bat. She was always careful to explain why she thought it was for my own good. I do not, unfortunately, think it implanted respect for or trust of authority in me.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
My mom was a slapper. I was slapped and most of the time I deserved it. I was very frightened that I would do the same when I had my own children. I was especially scared when I inherited two step-daughters that I would be tempted to slap them. Much to my pleasant surprise I have not even been tempted. I have worked long and hard on my temper because I come from a family of screamers and slappers. I think I'm conquering it. But, I hope I do the same with my own blood. My step-daughters are not mine (their mother is very active in their lives and my husband and I have discussed my role in discipline and it has worked thus far) and I hope I have the same control over my own children.
My husband says he is not against spanking as an attention getting device. He has also told me that he quit spanking his youngest daughter rather early because it was simply ineffective. He found other forms of punishment that worked better.
It sounds to me as if the Pearls are more interested in control than character development. Discipline is to teach control over oneself...eventually. Merely bending the will of the child to meet that of the parent could only produce severe rebelliousness in the future...or just break the will of the child. But, maybe that is what some fundementalists want...
Posts: 1735 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't advocate severe beatings for children, but whole generations of people grew up being spanked or hit with belts or switches, and we don't have a whole world of crazed, mentally disturbed, violent maniacs. Clearly, corporal punishment doesn't directly lead to horribly maladjusted children.
Some times, children are too young to make informed decisions, understand the reasons you may give them, or simply aren't influenced by time outs. I used to love going to my room, but a spanking set me straight real quick.
I think, short of abuse, erring on the side of giving a few extra spankings and raising a well-behaved child is much better than erring on the side of ineffective discipline, and raising a child who doesn't respect authority or boundaries.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I dont' want to take the risk of raising a child who could be damaged by that form of discipline without knowing it or a person with a spank fetish. I don't want any child of mine spending a large chunk of their lives someplace like that, if they want to do that, it won't be my fault, that's for sure.
It's interesting the way the Pearls wrote a 4 part essay about children jumping ship into the world. I wonder why they would want to do that.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
The secrecy thing bothers me quite a bit. It introduces an element of false persecution sense that I think can be very dangerous to parents who are not committed to being engaged and involved with their children. Something along the lines of, "I spank my children in secret...what else can I do to them in secret?"
Scott, it's interesting that you used the phrase "false persecution sense" because after I read the intial posts in this thread and got to thinking about the Pearls (whom I hadn't heard of before), persecution complex was what came to my mind as well. So, paranoia mea too!
Posts: 3149 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Tom, isn't it great that kids always defy our expectations? I admire them so much for that.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
), and thinking it is the answer to every disciplinary situation. And these folks are WAY over that line.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
