I'm seeing a lot of frustrating things these days regarding parenting. In the news, and even in everyday people's opinions, I am seeing a growing blame on the media and advertising for lack of good eating habits in children. I also see these things blamed for lack of good behavior in children. This is absurd.
If you are feeling lazy and don't want to read all of this, now is the time to scroll down and read the last paragraph.
Back in the day, it wasn't considered even remotely damaging to hit a child if he or she were misbehaving, especially in public. This kind of parenting was even encouraged! But now if a parent was seen smacking a kid throwing a temper tantrum, everyone in a ten mile radius would be on the phone with DYFUS.
Why is this? Well basically most people are inclined, when they become parents, to follow the way their parents raised them. And this is pretty much the rule unless there was something that the now parent disagreed with when they were being raised. That something is often using spanking, smacking, and hitting as a form of punishment for bad behavior. Each generation has slowly become less and less brutal with their children until you hardly ever hear of a child being smacked unless they are in a bad situation regarding their parents.
A lot of people view this as progress, but is it really? Because many now-a-days parents even regard any form of punishment as useless and damaging, it is becoming harder and harder to find an acceptable way of diciplining your children. Some believe that things like grounding and denying privilages still work, but it is hard to maintain consistency in those kind of punishments.
Now, it seems, there is less and less belief that children even listen to their parents and that they are more easily swayed by advertising icons and the media. But really this is not true. No matter how many hours of TV a child will watch, the parent will still be a constant presence in their life. This means that the parent really does have a strong influence over the child.
So here's the thing, kids do listen to their parents, and parents should take responsibility of their job. They should dicipline their children, and not expect the TV to do it for them. Moreover, they should not get angry when the TV doesn't do their job for them.
In response to last year's news where Cookie Monster from Sesame Street had to sing a song entitled, "Cookies are a sometimes food," Scott Kurtz, author of PVPonline, responded with "Parenting isn't a sometimes job." And I think that really sums up everything. But what are your opinions? I recognize that I, myself, am not yet a parent so I cannot really speak from a first-hand perspective. I would also like to take this chance to say that I do not condone the beating of children, but I do see the power of a good spanking, especially when the child is young.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:That something is often using spanking, smacking, and hitting as a form of punishment for bad behavior. Each generation has slowly become less and less brutal with their children until you hardly ever hear of a child being smacked unless they are in a bad situation regarding their parents.
A lot of people view this as progress, but is it really?
Yes.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
So, Altariel, I take it you experienced the benefits of smacking? Or do you long to have been backhanded more in public?
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I shudder to think of how much more obnoxious I might be had I not taken some serious beatdowns as a kid.
I don't think it's a coincidence that during the course of my lifetime I've seen kids behave noticeably worse when in public.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Ya, I'm with JT... Spare the Rod and Spoil the Child.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Well, you can make the same statement about women, you know. Pain is kind of a universal language. No sense in keeping the love just for children.
Posted by no. 6 (Member # 7753) on :
I disagree with that completely.
When we took our boy off of sugared and high fructose drinks recently, he complained at first, but quickly complied with our wishes, with no "beat-downs" needed. He has never needed such correction, and I believe that because we demonstrated the respect for him that he deserves, he has reciprocated.
Violence breeds violence. When you beat kids, you just show them that violence is a valid way to get what you want.
And that's a horrible lesson.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:That something is often using spanking, smacking, and hitting as a form of punishment for bad behavior. Each generation has slowly become less and less brutal with their children until you hardly ever hear of a child being smacked unless they are in a bad situation regarding their parents.
A lot of people view this as progress, but is it really?
I have yet to be convinced that the pendulum hasn't overswung.
Posted by Fyfe (Member # 937) on :
My parents decided when I was two that they would reserve corporal punishment for occasions on which we had been very, very, very naughty indeed, and even then it would only consist of one or two smacks on the bottom. So I grew up almost entirely without corporal punishment.
I obviously can't speak to how I turned out generally (I'd like to think well, but who wouldn't?); however, my sisters and I were exceptionally well-mannered well-behaved children. I'm not being vain, seriously: waitresses were constantly commenting on it, and sometimes random strangers gave us money in fast food restaurants and told my parents what polite good kids they had.
I would be extremely reluctant to believe that the decline in children's manners (if indeed it is taking place; I've seen dozens of well-mannered children) is related to decreased corporal punishment. I think it just has to do with parents instilling their children with a sense of respect (or not).
And, naturally, no child is polite 100% of the time.
Jen
Posted by no. 6 (Member # 7753) on :
Lack of politeness does not warrent violence.
My child is a paragon of politness most of the time, and when he is not, we correct him verbally.
This is sufficient. Corporal punishment is not the answer: consistency is.
Corporal punishment is for the lazy.
Posted by Goody Scrivener (Member # 6742) on :
I was a kid who was spanked and beaten as punishment. I separate the two because to me, spanking is with a hand or maybe a lightweight "tool" that causes pain but leaves no physical marks, and beating always used an implement of some form and left welts, bruises, cuts or worse. I especially remember the time that my mother backhanded me across the nape of my neck, allegedly for talking back to her (I don't honestly recall what the cause was, just the effect), and ending up face first into the kitchen faucet with two broken teeth that didn't get seen for days. And despite Mom's insistence to this day that she took me to the dentist the same night, I have classmates that remember me in school unwilling to participate because it was painful to open my mouth and expose the nerves in those teeth to air.
I know that I avoid corporal punishment (thank you, Fyfe! I could NOT remember that term) as much as possible specifically as a result of the way my parents punished my sibs and me. Because my punishments of my kids are verbal or withholding of possessions or priveleges, physical contact is a sign of just how completely and totally pissed off I truly am, and almost always it's because we've graduated through several stages in a very short time. When I grab or slap, they get wise PDQ and immediately do a hermit crab - shut up, emotionally pull into themselves, and do everything they can to not antagonize me any more than they already have.
I can probably count on one hand the number of times I've had to do this with either child. And the elder Goodlet is now 13.
As for these other kids acting up and being obnoxious in public, I really don't know the answer. Maybe their parents are even less willing than I am to resort to physical means and so they think that it's never going to happen. Maybe they're spanked (or worse) on a regular basis and so it just doesn't mean as much to them when it does happen. All I know is that I count myself extremely fortunate that my kids learned early that Mom's Word Is Law.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
I need a lot more details on exactl what is being punished and how. With my dog, we sometimes have to use negative feedback (spraying him with a water bottle) despite the fact that our training course is supposed to be only positive feedback. Sometimes, what he is doing is so serious and dangerous, he has to learn it as an absolute no (for example, digging and wiggling into places he shouldn't get to and chewing cords). With kids, my husband and I are planning to use time outs a lot and when we teach nursery at church (3 and under), we find this works really well.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Off-topic: "Cookies Are a Sometimes Food" is a fine song. And actually Hootie the Owl sings it. And Cookie Monster eats cookies at the end of it. Just sayin'.
Posted by no. 6 (Member # 7753) on :
A dog is not a human being, and has no capacity for language. You must correct an animal using Pavlovian techniques, as the animal cannot understand.
If the rest of you are salving your guilt over coporal punishment by trying to say that it's okay sometimes, think again.
I can forgive past mistakes done out of momentary passion, but I would not label it "okay".
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
Is it possible that different people learn differently? I've worked with kids a lot, and I'e had to punish kids a lot (never physically), and one of the things I noticed was that what really worked for one kid would completely backfire for another. Now, as I said, this isn't speaking of phyiscally touching them in any way, but I'd imagine that could be applied as well.
As a kid, I was spanked maybe 4 or 5 times. I'll tell you, it wasn't the pain that I hated and that made me do all I could (most of the time) to avoid those spankings. It was the fact that I knew my parents didn't do it on a whim, so when they did, it meant that I did something really very bad. I figure that the reason we punish kids is that they know when they've crossed the line. When I got spanked, I knew that I had just crossed a really big, scary line that I did not want to cross again. And this worked, I think, because my parents only used corporal punishment rarely and in the most severe cases. And I could tell they hated doing it. It was not a pleasant experience for either party. So that's my two cents.
But, ya know, as I said in the beginning, what worked for me very likely will not work for someone else.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
The "trick" to discipline is not the type correction, it is how consistently it is applied. If a behavior will sometimes get a smack and sometimes get no reaction at all and sometimes get the outcome the kid wants (giving in), he will end up a brat. If a behavior constistently gets a reaction that kid doesn't want, the kid will stop doing it.
Children want to be able to make predictions and trust their judgements about the world. When they can't do that, they end up insecure and behave badly. Kids love limits and rules if they can depend on them.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I can remember being spanked ONCE as a child and I was 4, but my parents never beat me. Sure they man handled me, such as gripping me strongly as they took me aside to say their piece to me if I was being immature.
But to this day I can remember VERY keenly the punishments they prefered. They prefered mental punishment. If you play it right you can get your kids to punish themselves almost EVERY time. The best example I can think of is:
It was my turn to do the dishes but being a child I didnt want to. I argued with my dad and my mom about it after my father realized I was going to be unreasonable he said, "Fine, Ill do the dishes."
My reaction was that of sheer horror. I knew that my father worked very long hours at a job he did not enjoy. I admired him alot. At that moment I insisted that I be allowed to do the dishes and my father responded, "No, I don't even want you to touch MY dishes."
Now I was overcome with guilt, and just wanted to start crying but I didnt want to in front of my father so I fled downstairs. The next time my turn to do the dishes rolled around I was adament about doing them that time.
I remember reading a Calvin and Hobbes where Calvin breaks his fathers binoculars and his father initially screams at him and then see's that Calvin is crying (I had never serious crying in a comic before) and Calvin says, "Ok dad, lets pretend I already feel bad about it, and you don't need to rub it in anymore."
then Calvin in the next strip says, "I felt like I was going to throw up all afternoon!"
My parents could recognize this feeling in me and they could tell if I had punished myself enough, or if they needed to make up the difference. I love the way my parents raised me, I just hope I am clever enough to emulate it.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Hitting children is a sign of bad parenting. Not because it may be inherently wrong, but because it should be unnecessary. A child who is taught to respect his parents will without violence, and child who is not thus taught will never respect his parents.
Finally, there are children with conditions that must be treated: one cannot beat ADHD out of a child, nor any of the other illnesses which are so destructive. Sometimes one cannot even medicate, but one can always do something to improve the situation, although it will never be ideal (situations never are, and certainly not in family life.)
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I agree with Scott (edit: and kmboots) that lack of consistency is the problem, not lack of corporal punishment. I know parents who use “time outs” and similar types of punishment to excellent effect and have very well-behaved kids. I know (and have witnessed in public) far more parents who threaten time-outs but don’t follow through. Their kids don’t take the threats particularly seriously and continue to act up. I’m talking about a 5 minute parental monologue along the lines of: “Do you want a time-out? You’re going to get a time-out. If you do that one more time you’re having a time-out. What did I just say about doing that again – you’re going to get a time . . . stop that right now or you’re going to get a time-out. Do you want a time-out?” etc.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:If the rest of you are salving your guilt over coporal punishment by trying to say that it's okay sometimes, think again.
I can forgive past mistakes done out of momentary passion, but I would not label it "okay".
I think alsost exactly the opposite.
I think that striking a child in anger is a far worse thing than calm corproal punishment.
Posted by DaisyMae (Member # 9722) on :
As a mother of two small children I do feel I have some experience in this field.
I think it is possible to raise a well-mannered respectful child with little physical discipline. I reserve spanks for situations when my children are doing something immediately dangerous or extremely naughty, so that they get the message that they need to stop NOW. But I'm not railing on the kids. One quick swat is enough to do it. In no way do I consider this child abuse. It's more the surpise of it that gets to them than the pain. I'm not trying to inflict a lot of pain.
Children learn by reinforcement. I'm a firm believer that more than punishing bad behavior (though it, of course, must be done) there is a greater need to reward good behavior. It's too easy to forget all the good, obedient things kids do and tell them good job or give them a marshmellow for being nice to brother etc. It takes a higher degree of vigilance, which is why I think it doesn't happen enough. I would consider my children very well behaved for their ages. I would like to think this is one of the major reasons why.
The problem with swatting (as I like to put it) is that if the child is being very obstinant or disobedient a certain frustration can arise in the parent making it difficult to restrain yourself from swatting harder than you meant to. Heaven knows my own fanny got tanned in this way. My mom would just cry and say, "I didn't mean to spank you so hard, you just made me so angry!" This is why I tend to use the thump method. If there is a disobedient action going on I ask you to stop, you get a warning in which I tell you what the consequence will be if you don't stop(in this case a thump), I count to three and if you have not complied I flick your head. No matter how angry one gets, you can't ever thump so hard that you felt like you really hurt your child.
Bottom line, parents need to be in control. I don't care if Cookie Monster glorifies the consumption of sugar laden pastries. I said only one cookie, and that's after you finish your sandwich! Cookie Monster isn't here to enforce that one.
My opinion is that striking a child is the laziest form of discipline. It happens because parents don't want to go to all the trouble of using rewards and bargaining with chips that will be motivating to a child. They just want them to stop/shut up/clean up whatever RIGHT NOW.
If you're doing it right, parenting should be by far the hardest job you've ever had. But I think that the idea that you can raise a child without EVER using any form of physical discipline is ridiculous. I daresay that most people who would oppose me don't have any kids.
[ September 15, 2006, 06:50 PM: Message edited by: DaisyMae ]
Posted by no. 6 (Member # 7753) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:If the rest of you are salving your guilt over coporal punishment by trying to say that it's okay sometimes, think again.
I can forgive past mistakes done out of momentary passion, but I would not label it "okay".
I think alsost exactly the opposite.
I think that striking a child in anger is a far worse thing than calm corproal punishment.
I don't believe that there is "calm corporal punishment". This is a failure of reason, and a mirror of violence.
I will say this though: I can forgive your past mistake of thinking that it was okay. I'm pretty forgiving.
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
I concur with Daisy Mae Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Can you forgive somebody for diagreeing with you?
Posted by no. 6 (Member # 7753) on :
But of course. I always have with you... Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Posted by no. 6 (Member # 7753) on :
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: I know (and have witnessed in public) far more parents who threaten time-outs but don’t follow through. Their kids don’t take the threats particularly seriously and continue to act up. I’m talking about a 5 minute parental monologue along the lines of: “Do you want a time-out? You’re going to get a time-out. If you do that one more time you’re having a time-out. What did I just say about doing that again – you’re going to get a time . . . stop that right now or you’re going to get a time-out. Do you want a time-out?” etc.
That used to drive me crazy when I was running the children's ministry program. Do parent's honestlsy not get that it is far, far easier in the long run to make the effort to be consistent early so later, you will only have to say things once.
And no I don't have kids. I was the oldest of six, though, have a ton of well-behaved nieces and nephews, was an school librarian in an inner city school and ran a religious ed program with over 100 kids. Most of whom I could correct with a raised eyebrow.
Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
Personally, one of the major problems is the fact that in general, parents have grown lazy. There's nothing I hate hearing most than, "Just wait till your father comes home." WTF, mate. Can't the mother deliver her swift justice without the father and assume her position as mother instead of passing the baton to someone else? It irks me even more when even the father will try to do the same exact thing. Blaming it on others instead of assuming responsibility and realizing that parenting is not a part-time job.
EDIT: We were actually discussing the topic in class the other day. It's a little sad how some parents will say, "Ok, let's hear you opinion about the matter," to a 10 year old child. Give me a break, a 10 year-old does not have a right to such an opinion. It's what the parent says and that's that.
Posted by no. 6 (Member # 7753) on :
I agree, it's consistancy that's the key. And that means a united front with the parents.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dr Strangelove: Is it possible that different people learn differently? I've worked with kids a lot, and I'e had to punish kids a lot (never physically), and one of the things I noticed was that what really worked for one kid would completely backfire for another.
Finally, someone with some sense.
-o-
People who throw out absolutes about non-abusive parenting techniques are people with very limited bases for comparison. What your child responded to (if you have even had a child) is not indicative of how all kids respond. Anybody who believes they know the way to raise all children is fooling him- or herself.
I thought I knew a lot about parenting. Then I had kids. I have learned a lot since then.
-o-
Altáriël, just so you know, I have seen surveys that indicate that the majority of US parents spank (which is not to say that they spank exclusively or all the time, only that there are times when they will do so). I know the perception is otherwise, but that's basically a popular-culture-driven misconception. So I doubt that people will call DSF if they see someone spank a child. Also, I can tell you from multiple training courses I have taken on child abuse and parenting--I wonder how many parenting courses the experts in this thread have taken--that no legal entity in the US considers spanking to be child abuse. A good rule of thumb is that if you bruise a child, you have gone too far. If you leave a mark that lasts for several days, then you have a serious, serious problem.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I was never once abused or beaten as a child, but I was spanked plenty. You know what, I deserved it almost every time. Spanking speaks clearly to a child. It sends an immediate, firm lesson.
I was pretty well-behaved most of the time, but sometimes I was a real little shit, and I think it was right that I got a smack on the butt now and then. I think I'm a better person as an adult because my parents didn't let me run around like a maniac and act like a jerk.
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
quote: I don't believe that there is "calm corporal punishment".
I am going to have to disagree with you quite soundly there. Almost I take offense at it, but not quite. You see, as I said, my parents did use corporal punishment, and they never did it in any way but calmly. One particular day I remember: I had been lying to my mom and cheating on my math tests (homeschooled I was). She found out around 11 and got really upset, but didn't spank me or anything. She cried, which made me feel really bad, but she said she was going to wait for my dad to get home. She of course called him and told him, so he had at least half of the day to stew it over. He came home and gave me some hard spankings. He did not do this in a fit of rage. He did it very calmly, though I could see that it made him sad to have to do it. To imply that he did do it anything but calmly I take as something resembling a slight on my father. My dad is the freakin coolest guy ever. I've seen him express his anger once in 18 years, and that was kicking a trashcan over. It's really kind of crazy how he is always calm cool and collected. It really irks me to have you imply that his punishment of me was anything but a rational logical decision that it was best. I know, there are a lot of people out there who do not operate by the same rules as my dad, but you made a generilzation which made me actually go to the "Full Reply Form".
(just kidding about the mad face. Just a bit annoyed)
Edit: What's so bad about waiting until the Father comes home? In my house, my mom and my dad did not have the same roles as parents. Part of my dads role was "the serious punisher". When we did something that deserved my dad's attention, we knew we'd really screwed up. Are you telling me that was a faulty strategy of my parents? Because it seemed to work pretty decent on me.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I think sometimes a spanking is necessary. I don't have any kids, but I firmly believe that a little spanking doesn't hurt a child, and can be a very useful method of discipline, which doesn't teach a child to love violence or anything of the kind.
Young children don't get to debate and bargain everything. No crossing the street by yourself mean NO. It doesn't mean you get to pretend to cross the street a couple times to see if you can get mom and dad to give you a present for being good.
There were times when I was a child that I did things just to get a rise out of my parents. I did things I knew I wasn't supposed to, and did them intentionally. I was testing my limits, seeing what I could get away with. I think all kids do that. A spanking says, "That's your limit, and there's no debate."
Some limits are like that, and I don't think the kid needs to be bribed to be good, or some sort of compromise met. Sometimes you do what you're told, because you're told to, and if you don't you get a spanking.
Posted by no. 6 (Member # 7753) on :
Thanks Ela, and Icky: I'm Erik. You know that I do have a child.
This is not a generality: Violence is a failure of reason. Always.
Oops. I guess it is a generalization. But it is true.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Violence is a failure of reason. Always.
[nitpick] I seriously doubt that you really belive that.
There are all kinds of violence. Chopping vegetables is violence. Surgery is violence. [/nitpick]
Posted by no. 6 (Member # 7753) on :
Surgery is not violence. It is healing.
Unless it's torture. Then it's violence.
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
I don't really want to debate this. I've already said my piece. But I'm going to take a few liberties with your statement before I leave.
Could I say "The use of force is a failure of reason"? We seem to be using the two terms interchangably - my parents using force to punish me, you describing that as violence.
And could I also say "The use of force is a result of the failure of reason"? Because I can agree with that. My parents used force as a direct result of me being a complete idiot. My parents are not guilty of the failure of reason. I am.
Yes, I know, I butchered your statement, but at least now I can say I agree with it, in the context of corporal punishment. You're still making huge generalizations that don't make much sense.
Edit: Right mph
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Surgery is not violence. It is healing.
It is both. It is cutting open a human being, rending their flesh.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Having a child does not make you an expert on children and childrearing. At best, it makes you an expert on your child.
quote:Violence is a failure of reason. Always.
Little children are not always capable of reason.
Posted by no. 6 (Member # 7753) on :
My generaliztion is true beyond just this subject.
Violence begat violence.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Errr, if it's not true for this subject, then it cannot be generalized. People are disagreeing with that statement in this context. If it is indefensible at this level, it is also not true as a generalization.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: Having a child does not make you an expert on children and childrearing. At best, it makes you an expert on your child.
quote:Violence is a failure of reason. Always.
Little children are not always capable of reason.
Sorry for double posting.
Both statements are so true. Children are not just short adults. There was some interesting discussion on the teenage brain thread as well as Scott R's spaceship boy thread about the way a child's brain is different than an adults, and how it can affect their ability to reason.
Posted by no. 6 (Member # 7753) on :
It's not indefensable at this level.
Are you reading my post above. It goes beyond this. It's always true in human situations.
You are blind who don't see it.
Sorry to sound so Buddhist, but there it is.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I think the biggest issue here is that many people don't see a line between spanking and beating. There is a difference, and it's a BIG difference. Spanking a child is not the same as socking a child in the face or causing severe physical trauma. Spanking is not the same as hitting.
When I was in third grade, I went to a summer school for gifted children. It was my one and only experience with the public school system. We wanted to put on "The Elephant's Child" for a play. But we had to change "spanking" in the story to "scolding" because one parent decided that spanking promoted child abuse. To me, that's absurd.
-pH
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Could you be more condescending, #6?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I agree with mph. Pretty much everything he posted in this thread.
You know, Erik, the fact that you and I disagree on whether spanking is ever appropriate does not bother me a whit. The insulting, patronising, I-know-better-than-you-and-no-matter-what-you-say-I-am-absolutely-right attitude you are displaying absolutely disgusts me.
You have ONE child. You are an expert on that child. You are not an expert on any of my children. And given the difference in what works on each of my three kids (one of whom has almost never needed anything beyond mild verbal reminders, and one whose attention sometimes simply cannot be held by anything short of a swat on the bottom), as well as the fact that the methods I use have been arrived at based partly on consulting with a therapist and a pediatrician, I believe I'll just dismiss your pompous rantings in this thread.
Posted by no. 6 (Member # 7753) on :
I agree completely. But I also think that violence is never, ever right. And perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned forgiveness.
For that I apologize, but my position remains.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I don't think 6 means to be condescending (that means you talk down to people.)
But I do think he's dangerously wrong =(
Pix
Posted by no. 6 (Member # 7753) on :
Thank you Pix. That's the most enlightened thing I've heard today.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I agree with mph. Pretty much everything he posted in this thread.
It makes me smile, how many times you and I can say this about each other. Posted by no. 6 (Member # 7753) on :
Hey, for what its worth, Porter, I usually agree with you too.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
.sigged
Posted by foundling (Member # 6348) on :
There are an awful lot of very good parents in this forum. There really are. There are alot of people who are doing there best to raise thier kids to be good human beings and doing a wonderful job of it. I think of people like Ela, Belle, ScottR, Icarus, Vash(cant remember your Hatrack name, sorry)Porter and Bev, and many others who have been talking about their kids on here for years. Erik, I didnt know you had kids, but I'm sure you're a great dad. Anyways, there seems to be a preponderance of amazing parents on this forum. Just wanted to point that out. That no matter how you all are raising your kids, most of you seem to be doing it right.
edit: I left out Rivka, who I think of as an amazing mom, and Papa Moose and Mama Squirrel, who should be allowed to populate an entire planet all on thier own!
Posted by no. 6 (Member # 7753) on :
They do seem to be doing that. I again apologize for (in my usual unconscious way) being condescending.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:I agree with mph. Pretty much everything he posted in this thread.
It makes me smile, how many times you and I can say this about each other.
Yup. Although some of that is because I stay out of the gun control threads. Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
I don't disagree with you (no. 6) that violence leads to violence. I do disagree with you on the assertions that spanking is violence, and that violence is never, ever right. Could you back those statements up?
Edit: and a smiley for good measure Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by no. 6: They do seem to be doing that. I again apologize for (in my usual unconscious way) being condescending.
To be clear, my anger at you was not because you disagree with me, but because I found you insulting and condescending. I appreciate the apology.
Posted by theCrowsWife (Member # 8302) on :
quote:Originally posted by no. 6: Surgery is not violence. It is healing.
Unless it's torture. Then it's violence.
But, whether it's torture or healing, the action is the same: using a really sharp knife to cut someone. The difference is the intent, whether to hurt or help. I can't reconcile this belief with
quote:I don't believe that there is "calm corporal punishment". This is a failure of reason, and a mirror of violence.
Hitting a child is an action in the same way that cutting someone open is an action. Surgery is often violent and painful, yet we approve of it because it might lead to greater good. How is this different from spanking a child who doesn't respond to other forms of discipline?
You already differentiate between different motivations for the same actions in the surgery example; why does that not apply to the subject of childrearing?
--Mel
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
If a parent can honestly, without bs, hit their children and know that they are doing it to out of a motivation to help their children, and not because they're angry and upset, then I am right with you, Crowswife. However, my experience is that this is rarely the case. I am not saying that it can't be, nor am I saying anyone on this thread is anything less than a good parent when they spank their children. I don't know their children or their family. I can only speak from my experience.
I can't see the first page in this thread, but I think a vital point that I haven't seen discussed is that pain, in and of itself, teaches nothing unless it's paired with an effective means of communication that helps the child, or person, understand why what they did wrong was wrong. I firmly believe that pain isn't usually the best way of communicating right and wrong. So, I would further add the caveat to what can be good spanking to the above 'right attitude' that of 'right communication'.
For what it's worth, I got spanked quite frequently when I was a child.
My main objection to this thread is the assertion at the beginning of this thread that spanking, 'smacking' for the love of christ, pain is some kind of automatic fix-it for the problems of children or society. This seems to me to take a rather cavalier attitude towards suffering that I find distasteful and, further, gives an automatic out for anyone inflicting pain on their children. This point has already been addressed to some degree, but I just wanted to chime in with my two cents here.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I don't think I disagree with any of that, Storm Saxon.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Good. Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by foundling: Vash(cant remember your Hatrack name, sorry)
Here and very flattered to be included in that list.
I haven't posted lately, mostly because I've been busy. I haven't posted in meaningful threads in a long time, because I just can't see it accomplishing anything other than losing face with people whose respect I care about (and think I have) but with whom I violently disagree (pun intended). This is one of those threads.
But I think something is not being said here, though Doc Strange touched on it. If it was said elsewhere and I missed it, I apologize-- I have merely skimmed.
As strongly as most pacifists believe that violence is always wrong, I believe that violence is sometimes right and necessary. I think children can learn something positive from corporal punishment (which I *do* try to avoid and specifically try to make it as calm and reasoned as possible). I think children can learn that justice and goodness sometimes means that the strong intervene, violently, on behalf of the weak. To that end, corporal punishment is generally reserved in this household (I try to be consistent on this and mostly do a good job) for one circumstance-- physically attacking others.
When someone (and it's almost exclusively my oldest two) takes it upon themselves to kick, punch, push or shove their brother or sister, I stand them up and ask them what the rule is. They respond and then they receive one open handed swat on the rear. You may say they learn violence from this. I say they *will* learn violence from somewhere (more on that later). But there is also more than the child being punished. The other 4 children are learning, too. They are learning that there is an attacker and a victim-- what violence is justifiable and what is not. I refuse to believe that children are not smart enough to tell the difference between punishment and an attack. They are learning that the role of authority is to intervene and prevent that from happening, violently if necessary. They are learning that an important part of authority is meeting out justice and seeing to it that violent attackers in our society are met and stopped, force for force. The offender is learning that if they violate the rules against using force, that rule will not protect them, either (that those who live by the sword will also die by it). I believe these are important-- I'll even say essential-- lessons.
It's a violent world. Even now, for all our comfort, a substantial number of people live under threat. Certainly the majority throughout history have. More importantly, history has shown that the only thing that will stop attempts at violent take over and mayhem is violent opposition. Non-violent resistance is fine for people with consciences, but when dealing with a psychopath, physically subduing him is the only option... unless you are willing to let his murderous spree continue until he directs it inwards. For this reason, we arm our police forces, even in countries where they aren't allowed firearms.
I believe that G. K. Chesterton was dead on about a lot of things, but I think he was possibly the most right when he said that violence is "not the best way of settling differences, it's the only way of preventing their being settled for you." Or, as John Stuart Mill put it, violence "is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things... the person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight-- nothing which is more important than his own personal safety-- is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." I will teach my children this. I think you should teach yours this, whether by use of corporal punishment or not. To see the impact of these lessons, one need look no further than United flight 93, five years ago. When you are on board a plane with people intent on using it as a suicide weapon, peaceful resistance costs lives. They knew what had to be done. They were steeled to the task. I dare say it's because they were taught, growing up, that all evil needs to succeed is for good men to do nothing.
[ September 16, 2006, 12:29 AM: Message edited by: Jim-Me ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Jim, I would argue that if you stop one of your kids from attacking another and then impose some form of punishment you've already taught them that the strong should intervene on behalf of the weak, and the fact that the particular punishment you choose is physical is not necessary to that lesson.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: The offender is learning that if they violate the rules against using force, that rule will not protect them, either (that those who live by the sword will also die by it).
It is necessary to this one.
Edited to add: it is also necessary to teaching them that there *is* a time and place for violence, which is a major part of my point. Apologies for not making it clear I intended that lesson as well.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I'd like to get a few things straight terminology-wise, and then make an argument regarding "conditioning" theory and what it might have to say about corporal punishment of children.
Terms:
Positive reward -- this is use of a reward contingent upon a behavior.
Negative reward -- this is withholding a reward when the behavior is emitted.
Positive punishment -- this is use of a noxious stimulus (= painful) when a behavior is emitted.
Negative punishment -- this is removal or "withholding" of punishment when a behavior is emitted.
Extinction -- this is an attempt to reduce the frequency of a behavior through with-holding of positive reinforcers, or by breaking the contingency between behavior and reward (i.e., random reinforcers can also extinguish a behavior under certain conditions).
Now, with that under our belts, we have to a make a giant leap into the realm of cognition. Basically, while "behaviorist" models of human (and especially child) behavior were common in the lat 19th and early-to-mid 20th centuries, people began to notice things that weren't easily explainable by the history of rewards and punishments that an individual human experienced. For one thing, extinguishing behaviors is often much harder than simple behavior theory would predict -- in fact, sometimes it seems just plain impossible to extinguish a behavior using systems of reinforcement and punishment. There's a huge primacy effect -- the thing you learn first sticks...which is completely counter to all the current theories of learning.
In short, while there are still people who use Pavlovian or Operant conditioning models for human behavior, the number of such people among practitioners is dwindling...for good reason.
Cognitive theorists have a better time dealing with maturational effects during the human lifespan, and a lot of research effort has gone into figuring exactly what human minds are capable of comprehending at different states of development.
Okay, so where does that leave us with respect to corporal punishment. The simple answer is that there is NO SIMPLE ANSWER. The personality of the individual (child in this case) has a lot to do with how the punishment is perceived. The "system" of rewards and punishments in the environment (the parents, siblings, etc.) also has a big effect, but it's not so straight-forward as to indicate that every kid who is beaten will turn out to be a sociopath, or that a single spanking may or may not be "too much."
I would like to be counted among those who believe that consistency is important. I would also like to be counted among those who think that the early patterns established (through consistency or lack thereof) are doubly (if not triply) important.
Here's some points to ponder:
A) Random reinforcement leads to "superstitious" behavior in animals. In humans, it goes by different names -- like neurosis perhaps, or even worse. It is the illogical belief that a behavior will be rewarded despite solid evidence to the contrary.
B) Paradoxical reinforcement is very real in humans. Social interaction is reinforcing in humans (and in many animals). "Attention seeking" behaviors are not always the ones the parents desire, but if they work to get "attention" (even if that attention is a punishment), then there's a reinforcing aspect to it all. It's at least a partial explanation for persistence of tantrums.
C) From a child's mental point of view, inconsistency is a lot like randomness. It's also a lot like a variable interval/variable time schedule. If they can't figure out when they'll get "reinforced" for a behavior they've already acquired, they will generally keep emitting that behavior for a lot longer time (with greater persistence) than if they were used to reinforcement every single time. It's a lot easier to extinguish a behavior that's been on a 1:1 behavior to reinforcement regimen than one that's been reinforced "at random" after it was initially established.
4) Humans are capable of one-trial learning. Kids form hypotheses about how the world works. If they think there's a connection between behavior A and reinforcer B, then there is...for them. Breaking that connection can be awfully tough if you are inconsistent or random in your delivery of rewards and punishments.
Here's the deal with corporal punishment. The problem with using it a lot is that it becomes associated with too much stuff -- and the association is not under the parent's direct control. Wait more than a few seconds to deliver the "swat" and you have no clue what a toddler is thinking of when you hit him. You might try to communicate that the punishment is for reaching toward the hot burner on the stove, but the child might have just at that moment become fascinate by the fishtank, or the door bell, or any of a million other things.
Because the punishment (of a swat) is such a salient stimulus, it is GOING to drive learning. It's going to do a great job. The problem is, having the child know what it was they did wrong.
So...the best advice really IS to avoid it except in serious situations, and use it sparingly so that the association is to a small but important set of "things I did." If you use it at all.
Is it possible to get the same message across through positive reinforcement only, or by withholding rewards (e.g., time out) when wrong behaviors are emitted. YES...but it takes longer and requires more patience. Sometimes that's just not an option.
And some kids don't respond well or learn under those conditions. Some children will learn a "no-no" based on hearing a harsh tone once from their parents. Some children wouldn't learn it even if you use corporal punishment.
Blanket statements like "no child should EVER be spanked" aren't really based on theories of learning or cognition, really... It comes from suppositions and some research that shows children's aggression towards other kids tends to rise immediately after they are hit.
What's really internalized and what the long-term consequences are of infrequent spanking used mainly for the startle effect (i.e., not incredibly painful)...there isn't really good data on it. Anyone who claims there is should pony up with the research. Let's look at it and see what it really says.
Conversely, anyone (and I don't really see anyone here saying this) who says that frequent spankings and beatings are excellent child-rearing techniques should likewise pony up.
This stuff about "how things used to be" is a load of nonsense. It means nothing. How one was personally raised means nothing (case studies are interesting but not very informative for general policy setting, imho. They make for great cautionary tales, but there's no database of replications to draw solid conclusions from).
In summary: there's nothing definitive that should be said at the extremes of this debate. The more toward either pole one's position on this is, the less data and theory there is to support it.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Ouch - Bob's post makes my head hurt. I comfort myself knowing my three kids are past all of this, and any mistakes I made in raising them, are my mistakes alone, and not much now can be down by looking back and regretting.
While as a parent I did ocassionally deliver corporal punishment, I don't think I was the right person to do so. By that I mean, I find it very difficult to deliver corporal punishment "as a calm and reasoned person" (to quote Jim-Me). I'm too emotional to be dealing out physical punishment.
Some people can, some people can't. I realize I have a temper, and because of MYSELF, I probably should not use that discipline option.
I've grown a lot as a parent. Many things I would do differently if I had it to do over. But I wouldn't begin to tell other parents they should or shouldn't use a specific means of discipline, because they have a different personality and will come across differently with it than I would.
FG
Posted by theCrowsWife (Member # 8302) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: If a parent can honestly, without bs, hit their children and know that they are doing it to out of a motivation to help their children, and not because they're angry and upset, then I am right with you, Crowswife. However, my experience is that this is rarely the case. I am not saying that it can't be, nor am I saying anyone on this thread is anything less than a good parent when they spank their children. I don't know their children or their family. I can only speak from my experience.
I'm not advocating corporal punishment so much as taking issue with the statement that it is always, in all circumstances, wrong.
So I pretty much agree with you
--Mel
Posted by theresa51282 (Member # 8037) on :
I have a lot of well behaved kids in my toddler class(2-3). I have nine kids in the class and the centers policy is towards using positive reinforcemennts and natural consequences (no corporal punishment or time outs instead the consequence relates to the action, if a child hits they can't go back to playing until they can work it out with the hit child, if a child throws food on the ground they are done eating and have to throw away their plate) The idea is that the kids most of the time aren't trying to misbehave, they simply lack the skills necessary to consistently act how adults want them to. The approach tries to help kids learn the problem solving skills and language skills they need so they can use more adult manners of resolving issues instead of tantrums and hitting. The thing is, I was really skeptical when I started but it works. The kids do mess up but they do a great job of fixing their mistakes and still listen to teachers as well as anyone could expect a 2-3 year old to behave.
Also interesting to me is that parents who have switched over to this method at home almost always report improvements in behavior over the time-out or punishment method. I really do think that too many people in the public believe that kids should act like adults and be punished when they don't. Kids often do things like hit because they don't have the language skills to explain that they were still using that toy and were not ready to let someone else have it. It takes months and months of practice saying, I was using that toy, you can have a turn when I am done for a two year old to have the skills to resolve conflict that way. Punishing them does nothing to speed up this process and does not achieve the goal of teaching them problem solving skills. Instead it teaches them to either relinquish their toys to the agressor to avoid punishiment or to hit them without being caught, not desirable behavior at all.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Great post, Bob.
I am not an "advocate" of corporal punishment either; I just disagree that it is always wrong.
Daycare centers virtually never use corporal punishment, with good reason. But, in my experience, daycare centers are not the ones who are the primary influence on those kids' behavior, and in many cases they rely on the parents to deal with behavior they cannot deal with.
Maybe it's my math background, but I don't consider anecdotal evidence to be evidence in favor of absolute statements. I do, however, find anecdotal evidence to be useful as evidence against absolute statements. It's the whole deductive reasoning/counterexample thing.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
#6:
I've decided that, given your statements, I must have no idea what the word "violence" means to you, because otherwise your statements just don't make sense.
Would would please explain what you mean by violence?
The following is a list of acts that I believe are justified at times. They all are violent to one degree or another:
Killing an animal so you can eat it
Killing an animal so you can wear it
Killing an animal (like a rabid dog) because it's dangerous
Killing an animal (like a mosquito) because it's a pest
Killing a tree so that you can build a house
Cutting a piece of lumber to build a house
Cutting somebody's throat open to perform a tracheotomy
cutting open somebody's abdomen and cutting out a tumor
going to war and killing the enemy to defend your country
going to war to defend other people
physically attacking somebody who is trying to harm me or someone else
physically interposing my body in the doorway, therefore denying entrance to somebody who wants to harm my family
the police putting a criminal in handcuffs and forcing him to go do jail/court/prison
calling the police to get them to physically restrain somebody who's causing problem
Posted by Kaylee (Member # 8362) on :
I don't have kids. However, I probably would try not to use corporal punishment. I remember being spanked as a kid. Once, I was spanked for closing my bedroom door too hard. I think it was one of the last times I was ever spanked. I was maybe 12 or so. I remember it extremely vividly. To this day, when my dad touches me, I often remember that incident. I wish my parents hadn't spanked me, because I think it might have contributed to my dislike of being touched.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Oh, and for what it's worth, I do not want to use corporal punishment like my parents did. It was degrading, and I think it did a lot to harm my relationship with my father.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I agree entirely with that sentiment, mph.
EDIT: changed "statement" to "sentiment."
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Which one?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I mean, I agree with it as it applies to me. I wouldn't presume to comment on your relationship with your father. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Posted by citadel (Member # 8367) on :
quote: My opinion is that striking a child is the laziest form of discipline. It happens because parents don't want to go to all the trouble of using rewards and bargaining with chips that will be motivating to a child. They just want them to stop/shut up/clean up whatever RIGHT NOW.
This has been my experience. I spanked as a child and everytime (with one exception) it was done out of anger/fury or misunderstanding.
quote: pain, in and of itself, teaches nothing unless it's paired with an effective means of communication that helps the child, or person, understand why what they did wrong was wrong. I firmly believe that pain isn't usually the best way of communicating right and wrong. So, I would further add the caveat to what can be good spanking to the above 'right attitude' that of 'right communication'.
Good point. Toddlers may have no idea what to link the pain to unless there communication.
I don't like spanking. I think there is a better way in most circumstances.
Thanks Bob for a great post.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus:
Maybe it's my math background, but I don't consider anecdotal evidence to be evidence in favor of absolute statements. I do, however, find anecdotal evidence to be useful as evidence against absolute statements. It's the whole deductive reasoning/counterexample thing.
This is what I was trying to get at. There are several people in the Hatrack community that have either directly described being abused by their parents or have alluded to it. If violence truly begat violence then these people would all be abusing their kids the same way. Since they say they are not, they're either all liars and child abusers or #6 is wrong in stating in such absolute terms that violence begats violence.
I also don't agree with describing corporal punishment as violence. Unfortunately I've seen it used as violence when parents lose their tempers, but I've also seen it used as a form of correction. I was spanked as a kid, but never abused. I don't know if I will spank my kids or not. I'm leaning towards not but there will be a plan in place whatever we choose. Consistancy is the key, and that requires a plan.
Posted by Sharpie (Member # 482) on :
While you are coming up with your plan, make sure to cover what to do when your child:
- Takes all the eggs out of the fridge and smashes them on the floor. Let's make the child 15 months for this one. - Uses a marshmallow from Lucky Charms to make a fake tooth to tape on a note to the Tooth Fairy, asking for a dollar. The child is, oh, seven. - Eats the recipe in home ec. I don't mean the food. I mean the paper recipe. The kid is eleven. - Tells the Sunday School teacher that she used to have a brother named Tommy, but he was murdered. There was no such sibling, but the teacher believes the kid. The kid is five. - Makes up words that are not swears -- mothermucker and bodgammit -- and uses them at dinner with your spouse's parents. "Whaaaaat? They are not swears!" The child is nine.
Also, be sure to cover what you do when five dollars is missing from the kitchen table but neither of your two children has any idea where it went. Big honest eyes here. What do you do the second and third time this event occurs?
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Here's the deal with corporal punishment. The problem with using it a lot is that it becomes associated with too much stuff -- and the association is not under the parent's direct control. Wait more than a few seconds to deliver the "swat" and you have no clue what a toddler is thinking of when you hit him. You might try to communicate that the punishment is for reaching toward the hot burner on the stove, but the child might have just at that moment become fascinate by the fishtank, or the door bell, or any of a million other things.
Because the punishment (of a swat) is such a salient stimulus, it is GOING to drive learning. It's going to do a great job. The problem is, having the child know what it was they did wrong.
I understand basically what you're saying here Bob_Scopatz, and it makes sense, but if it's true, doesn't it logically follow that NO type of punishment would be effective at a child that age?
If the child is too young to be able to make the mental connection with reaching for a hot burner and spanking, isn't the connection between reaching for a hot burner and a time out the same difficulty? I'm not sure, but I would be tempted to think that a long-term punishment, like a time out or a lecture on the dangers of whatever, would be even more confusing to the child.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow:
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Here's the deal with corporal punishment. The problem with using it a lot is that it becomes associated with too much stuff -- and the association is not under the parent's direct control. Wait more than a few seconds to deliver the "swat" and you have no clue what a toddler is thinking of when you hit him. You might try to communicate that the punishment is for reaching toward the hot burner on the stove, but the child might have just at that moment become fascinate by the fishtank, or the door bell, or any of a million other things.
Because the punishment (of a swat) is such a salient stimulus, it is GOING to drive learning. It's going to do a great job. The problem is, having the child know what it was they did wrong.
I understand basically what you're saying here Bob_Scopatz, and it makes sense, but if it's true, doesn't it logically follow that NO type of punishment would be effective at a child that age?
If the child is too young to be able to make the mental connection with reaching for a hot burner and spanking, isn't the connection between reaching for a hot burner and a time out the same difficulty? I'm not sure, but I would be tempted to think that a long-term punishment, like a time out or a lecture on the dangers of whatever, would be even more confusing to the child.
Immediacy is key. You see a child reaching for the stove and yell out a warning -- the kid'll get that message. We're not talking the need for millisecond reaction times. Catching the child "in the act" and yelling or swatting is going to be effective. So, no, I wouldn't say that "no punishment is going to be effective.
A long-term punishment might be even more confusing to a child. A lecture and time out may not work for some things at some ages. Certainly before the kid understands spoken language very well, a lecture isn't very effective...
There are definite maturational stages to consider, for sure.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Thanks for the clarification. That makes more sense to me now.
I think I've heard about the various maturational stages, and what a child can understand or reason at each one. Do you know if they're widely agreed upon, or is this another area where one "expert" will say a five year old can understand complex reasoning and another "expert" will claim that it isn't until 10 that a child moves beyond basic discipline-avoidance behavior?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I think there's a lot of disagreement. Piaget was the acknowledged expert for many decades, but his sort of case study work (he observed his daughter for the most part and wrote her up as the universal pattern for all human children) has been supplanted by research into cognitive development.
There are many other folks out there with theories and stages -- Klaus Riegel is the one I studied most and I suspect he's pretty dated by now. I much prefer actual research to the theory-based approaches. As you might expect, however, the research always lags (significantly) behind the theories.
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
I'm curious, we've used "clicker training" to great success with our dog, which is straight-up operant conditioning as far as I understand it (you link the sound of the click to the promise of a treat, and then click at the exact moment the dog does the desired behavior, following with a treat as soon as you can). Does anyone ever try to use this type of "training" on small children, who are too young to be able to reason yet?
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Does that include shock collars, because I'm not sure they make those for kids Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
LOL, I think the folks who advocate clicker training would faint at the thought of shock collars.
I'm just curious about how many of the lessons we've learned from raising our cunning, exuberant dog would translate over to a cunning, exuberant 2 year old child. Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Yes! There's a famous case of either Operant or Pavlovian conditioning used on a child by one of the old-time behaviorists. I've forgotten the exact particulars, but I recall they used shock or loud noises as a noxious stimulus (as well as rewards, iirc). Anyway, this could all be apocryphal but the story goes that the kid turned into a neurotic mess.
At any rate, Operant conditioning works on humans, especially young ones. But...as with anything in animal behavior and training, the smarter the "animal," the better trained the person doing the training should be. And I'm pretty sure that Child Protective Services would have some things to say about click-training a child.
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
Haha, that's true, we'd probably be getting some interesting calls from schoolteachers if our kids started drooling whenever anyone snapped their fingers. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:But I also think that violence is never, ever right.
You couldn't be more wrong. There are times when violence is the only right thing to do.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I've never met a non-violent person who could not (at least in theory) be driven to violence under extreme circumstances. But, in the meantime, their refusal to use violence in "normal circumstances" means that the world is a more pleasant place overall.
On the other hand, I've rarely met a non-military- (or law-enforcement)-trained person who advocates use of violence as a proper response who didn't tend to overuse it (at least in theoretical settings) -- basically getting to the point of deadly force long before it was actually THE ONLY OPTION.
From a life-philosophy point of view, I much prefer those who swear off violence and must be driven to it to those who advocate violence and can't seem to stop themselves.
Professionals (such as military or law enforcement) who have the proper training generally (but not always) have a good grounding in how to de-escalate, manage situations, and keep them from becoming violent if possible. But among the average Joe, I'd have to say such knowledge and perspective is sorely lacking.
We aren't that far removed from the days when social slights were cause for a duel. I think the number of situations in which violence is the only correct response is vanishingly small. And, in reality, with a bit of foresight (sometimes by people who were our leaders in the past) the whole thing could've been avoided entirely -- so...even the times when NOW violence becomes almost mandatory were not really inevitable if we take a long-enough view of the situation.
Having said that... if someone is threatening your life or the life of a loved one and you get the opportunity to stop them, you should do it, even if it means taking violent action.
That has nothing to do with child-rearing though. I can't really come up with a good scenario (short of my child has become a sociopathic murderer intent on wiping out the family) in which violent action by a parent toward a child is the only right option.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I don't know that there would be a parent-child situation in which violence was the only correct response, but I think that violence is often avaiable among a host of right options.
I was speaking generally, not about parenting in particular. Furthermore, I'm not advocating increasing the list of offenses for which violence is the only response in general, I'm speaking against the-rather silly, in my opinion-idea that violence is always wrong.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:On the other hand, I've rarely met a non-military- (or law-enforcement)-trained person who advocates use of violence as a proper response who didn't tend to overuse it (at least in theoretical settings) -- basically getting to the point of deadly force long before it was actually THE ONLY OPTION.
Could you clarify that? It kinda sounds like you are saying that people who don't describe themselves as pacifists are almost always thugs.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I can't really come up with a good scenario (short of my child has become a sociopathic murderer intent on wiping out the family) in which violent action by a parent toward a child is the only right option.
Violently yanking your child out of the way of a car that is about to hit them.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Icarus, I read him as referring to those who are "[eager to] advocate use of violence," as in "perseverate on it in normal conversation and presentation of self to the world." [i.e., as opposed to just "willing to use violence"] But that's just my read, of course.
---
Edited to add: That is, I was reading him as comparing extremes, and then remarking on which extreme he was more comfortable erring towards in trying to balance a middle course. But I think I'll just shut up now and let him speak for himself. (I'm just feeling chatty today. That, combined with a tummy trouble that keeps me home, has made me rather run off at the mouth.)
[ September 16, 2006, 07:44 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Would you advocate violence as a response to making too much noise in a public library? Of course not, right?
Say I go into my local library, find a table near the back, and pull my CD player and some external speakers out of my backpack, and start rocking out.
A librarian might come by and ask me to stop.
Say I ignore this directive?
They might ask me to leave.
What if I still ignore them?
They might have a police officer come to escort me out.
If I ignore him, he might quite likely try to eject me against my wishes. If I resist his efforts, there is a good likelihood I will get arrested, and the more strenuously I resist this arrest, the more violently I will be treated.
-o-
Pacifism is only workable, I believe, when either there is a system in place to do your violence for you, or when you are fortunate enough to never be severely tested in your resolve. I don't play my boombox in the library, and I follow society's rules, and I don't get my ass kicked by the cops. I am never violent, because I am lucky enough to live in a society where most of the people around me are never violent either, and where there is a system of law in place to protect my rights and my family for me.
-o-
Whether you acknowledge it or not, the only reason you can parent at all is because you are bigger and smarter. All parenting is quietly based on an unacknowledged coersion, and you can only fool yourself that it is otherwise if your children never test its limits. All other strategies only work if your children play along.
Take any parenting situation you want and I'll play what-if with you. Sooner or later, you will run out of options, if I continue to ask you what you will do if your strategies don't work. At that point, you will have to decide if you use coersion or if you will be one of those parents whose children scream and run the household, and who are powerless to stop it because they don't know what to do.
I think many children can be parented without ever being spanked. Possibly most; I am undecided. I think your goal as a parent should be to never spank, because if you spank in anger, it's too hard to trust yourself to know if you're spanking because there is no alternative, or because you are angry.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: Icarus, I read him as referring to those who are "[eager to] advocate use of violence," as in "perseverate on it in normal conversation and presentation of self to the world." [i.e., as opposed to just "willing to use violence"] But that's just my read, of course.
But then that's a non-statement isn't it? People who are eager to use violence are inclined to use it when it shouldn't be used? Is that a meaningful dichotomy?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:Could you clarify that? It kinda sounds like you are saying that people who don't describe themselves as pacifists are almost always thugs.
That wasn't my intention. CT is exactly right and said better than I even tried to.
I don't really count people who discuss violence within the context of a discussion ON violence, btw. I'm talking about people who bring this stuff up as a point in every-day conversation. Like "man, if someone did that to me, they'd be dead meat" (or whatever).
I'm probably still not being clear. Sorry. We're heading out the door. I'll try to respond later.
MPH: I think the scenario of "violently yanking an arm" is a stretch.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:I can't really come up with a good scenario (short of my child has become a sociopathic murderer intent on wiping out the family) in which violent action by a parent toward a child is the only right option.
I agree that resorting to "violence" (and I'm not big on how one side of the debate has chosen the terms, btw) first is wrong. I think, however, that "violence" could become the "only" right option when all other options have proven ineffectual, and when curbing a behavior is important enough that it's worth going to that extreme (i.e., some fights are just not worth picking).
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Pacifism is only workable, I believe, when either there is a system in place to do your violence for you, or when you are fortunate enough to never be severely tested in your resolve.
There are two more possibilities: when you work successfully to arrange events so that you are never severely tested in your resolve; or when you have no particular resolve.
That said, you'd have to be a pretty amazing parent to manage the third option all the time, and the FOURTH option pretty much sticks you right in the "lousy parent" category.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Okay.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The only reason I nitpick about that is that I'm a quasi-pacifist, and I think the ONLY practical way for me to achieve that in my life without either hypocritically foisting my violence-dealing off onto someone else or being willing to completely sacrifice my other principles is to work as hard as I possibly can to predict and prevent situations which can only be satisfactorily resolved through violence.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
*nod*
Sounds like a good parenting approach and a good life approach. I grok that.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
I have spanked my child twice. I hated it both times. I really don't like doing anything that I know will make my daughter unhappy, but I felt it was necessary.
I understand and respect the idea that violence only begets violence, and in 99.9% of cases I discipline with firm words, time-outs, deprival of priveliges, and the like.
However... The first time I spanked my child, she had intentionally grabbed ahold of my hair and yanked during a temper tantrum; the second, she struck me repeatedly across the face as I was trying to explain to her why she shouldn't be doing what she was doing.
There comes a point when one recognizes that "We don't hit people because it's wrong and it hurts people and we wouldn't want other people to behave like that towards us and there are better ways to resolve our problems and feelings" may be, in an immediate sense, an idea that isn't going to penetrate. And until a state comes where the child *can* understand that, the parent may have to settle for "We don't hit people because it isn't some kind of rule preventing bigger people from hitting back, it's forbearance."
I suppose the most important thing is never to discipline, especially using corporal punishment, out of mere anger. And it's easy to judge other people's parenting from a distance; I've seen both parents who were so frustratingly controlling that I had to restrain myself from comment (do you have to dictate what your nine-year-old is doing every moment they're in a pizza restaurant?) and others that were so lax I worried for the child's safety, let alone their manners.
I guess it's a cliche to say it, but parenting is both more wonderful and more difficult than anyone could have explained to me. And to those [without children] who think they'd be perfect parents who would bring up perfect children who would tremendously respect their brand of firm-yet-fair discipline, I can only say... Have you ever tried to be completely consistent in anything for eighteen years? Can you be as patient and reasonable when you are running on four hours sleep and fighting the flu as when you've just come back from a relaxing weekend? Have you ever had something destroyed, patiently explained to its destroyer how it should be handled- and then had the replacement destroyed by the same person in the same manner?
Parents do the best they can. I think most of them, when you come down to it, do a pretty good job. It's something of a miracle.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Maybe I missed something on the second page, but I really don't think spanking falls into the "violence" category.
-pH
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
I don't think you should really hit your kids, but it should definitley only be used when they do something physical, like hitting someone, or like sterling said, yanking down a chair in a temper tantrum.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: Maybe I missed something on the second page, but I really don't think spanking falls into the "violence" category.
-pH
From a parent's point of view, no, I don't think it is, either. But a child- especially a young child- may understand that only in hindsight.
"If I hurt someone else, I may be hurt in return" may be the starting place. Hopefully, it will never be the ending place with regard to the child's own impressions of discipline. Since the goal is not to instill "I'm afraid to inflict violence on others", but "using violence to get what I want, or when I don't get what I want, is wrong."
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I see what you're saying. And I do think that corporal punishment can be useful. The thing is, we learn "right" and "wrong" sort of on a ladder, and doing right (or avoiding wrong) to avoid punishment or gain reward is the first rung of that ladder.
Plus, there are some kids who don't see being sent to their rooms as a punishment.
-pH
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Isn't discipline, by definition, doing something to the child which they don't like? Obviously you shouldn't beat your child, but beating is really just taking a spanking to a damaging extreme.
By the same measure, giving your child a time out, or grounding them is an acceptable punishment, but locking them in a closet all day is abusive.
I don't think it's a good idea to teach children violence as an answer to problems, but I think it's kind of arbitrary to say that spanking a child is wrong, because it hurts them, but punishing them some other way, hurting the child emotionally, is less damaging.
The point of a punishment is that the child doesn't like it, there's no such thing as a kind punishment.
Posted by sweetbaboo (Member # 8845) on :
My two cents is that it doesn't make much sense for to me to hit a child in order to teach them to not hit.
*smack* "don't hit"?? Doesn't seem logical.
I subscribe to the one swat as a last resort but never when I'm at my wits end (which rarely happens) methodology myself. I love Parenting with Love and Logic by Jim Fay and Foster Cline. IIRC, they teach to only use swats in life threatening situations (running into the street and the like). They also teach that consequences should always be logical and related to real life. I would highly recommend their book /philosphy at least as a starting point.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I don't think spanking is the same as hitting, either. Like I said, spanking a child is not the same as socking him/her in the jaw.
-pH
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Hitting them teaches them to hit. Time-out teaches them to kidnap people. Removing television or other toys teaches them to steal things. Witholding dessert teaches them to steal food.
Needless to say, I don't agree. Or at least, I don't think it's quite that simple. Posted by sweetbaboo (Member # 8845) on :
quote: I don't think spanking is the same as hitting, either. Like I said, spanking a child is not the same as socking him/her in the jaw.
I guess when I think of a swat, I think of an open handed "hit" on the bum. How do you define it?
(FWIW, if I were to think of a "hit" in a general context, I would think of it the way you described pH but I also view a spanking as a type of hitting)
Posted by sweetbaboo (Member # 8845) on :
Agreed Icarus, like many things, it's not that simple.
Edit: (Sorry for the double post)
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by sweetbaboo:
quote: I don't think spanking is the same as hitting, either. Like I said, spanking a child is not the same as socking him/her in the jaw.
I guess when I think of a swat, I think of an open handed "hit" on the bum. How do you define it?
(FWIW, if I were to think of a "hit" in a general context, I would think of it the way you described pH but I also view a spanking as a type of hitting)
Yeah, I see it more as a "swat." But I feel like words like "hitting" have too much of a malicious connotation, just like "violence."
-pH
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by sweetbaboo: *smack* "don't hit"?? Doesn't seem logical.
On the other hand "if you hit, you will be hit" is perfectly logical, moral, and consistent.
Posted by sweetbaboo (Member # 8845) on :
Jim-Me, you know, I can see your point. I guess in my mind it's like saying, "don't smoke" and lighting up at the same time.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
But you know, if you think of it that way, then how do you account for the prison system? Like, you hold someone against his/her will and are convicted and sent to jail...where you are held against your will.
-pH
Posted by sweetbaboo (Member # 8845) on :
Hmmm. To be honest, I hadn't thought of that pH.
I just try to base consequences for my children on logical consequences that are real life. Getting hit (when you hit) is a real life consequence, as is going to jail if you hold someone against their will. I guess I choose to take a different "logical" stance in the consequence department. (Notice I did say things such as, "My two cents" and "in my mind".)
When I was young I bit my aunt's finger. She bit me back. I just think there are other ways (that I choose) to teach my young children. I am not trying to say that my way is the only way, just that it's one way and I try not to choose corporal punnishment when I can think of another effective way to teach the same principle.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:MPH: I think the scenario of "violently yanking an arm" is a stretch.
Why? In what way is it a stretch?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I really don't think spanking falls into the "violence" category.
Huh. I guess there are quite a few people who have a much more narrow definition of the word "violence" than how I understand the word.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:MPH: I think the scenario of "violently yanking an arm" is a stretch.
Why? In what way is it a stretch?
In that the arm is stretched.
Sheesh! I'm losing my touch.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
sweetbaboo, I am also a fan of Love&Logic (and Jim Fay -- less so of Foster Kline, whose "holding therapy" techniques are so controversial). However, I consider their methods part of my "bag of tricks," and not the whole of it.
(My kids are good and sick of, "What were the choices" and "That is so sad!" )
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by sweetbaboo: Jim-Me, you know, I can see your point. I guess in my mind it's like saying, "don't smoke" and lighting up at the same time.
My parents sometimes said, "I'm an adult, so I get to do this. You're my child, so you get to do what I say." It didn't seem fair at the time, but life isn't fair. As an adult, it makes perfect sense to me. My parents had wine with dinner, and I didn't get any. My parents drove a car and I couldn't. My parents got to spank me when I threw a shoe at my little brother.
I think you can teach valuable lessons to a child without having to act the way you expect the child to act. You should set a good example, but discipline is discipline. It isn't an example of how to act, it's a consequence that the child receives when they don't act as they should.
Posted by sweetbaboo (Member # 8845) on :
Agreed MightyCow. The life of an adult and the life of a child are different. Wherever possible, I personally choose to live in a way and by the rules that I expect my children to live. Especially in discipline I try to be treated the way I would prefer to be treated, which is with dignity and as fairly/consistently as possible. I'm not perfect as an adult and I still have many consequences/times that I learn things in a diffcult manner...being corrected isn't usually a "fun" thing for anyone.
I'm not saying that a swat/spank isn't needed once in awhile. I'm saying, that's my parenting philosophy and it works for me (most of the time )
Rivka, I haven't ventured out into Cline's stuff so much (and I don't think that I will). I got really into Love and Logic with my oldest and have just continued with it through the rest. My "middle child" is giving me fits and I was thinking that it's time to pull that book out again. Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
You know, for me, spanking was never, ever painful. I was spanked as a child, but never hard enough to hurt me. It was the humiliation that was the punishment, not the pain.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:...when you work successfully to arrange events so that you are never severely tested in your resolve...
This is generally-I'd say virtually always-impossible in the long-run without, as Icarus points out, someone else doing the violence for you.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: when you work successfully to arrange events so that you are never severely tested in your resolve; or when you have no particular resolve.
That said, you'd have to be a pretty amazing parent to manage the third option all the time, and the FOURTH option pretty much sticks you right in the "lousy parent" category.
Rakeesh, I think you do Tom a disservice by leaving out the fullness of his quote.
Managing the third is possible when you are soley and merely responsible for yourself. It is not the pacifist's responsibility to keep others from fighting, merely to avoid the fight, avoid being the cause of the fight, and avoid situations where things they *would* fight for are threatened (I hope that doesn't come off as snark, because I am being sincere).
As Tom points out, parenting brings a wrench into the mix. It does so by your becoming at least partially responsible for events you cannot control... namely the actions and attitudes of your children.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Also, I can't help but wonder if Godwin was a pacifist. Hitler really is the ultimate and definitive answer to the idea that no one should have to fight and that *your* reason has failed if you are fighting.
That's why I chose the generic "psychopath" in my first post. There was a Salon article about Columbine and either Harris or Klebold's diary entries (I forget which one). The kid in question was positively crowing about how badly he had duped everyone into thinking he was caring, and even pentitent at times, but that he really wanted to kill them all. You cannot deal with someone like that peacefully unless you think not using violence, personally, is more important than not only your own life, but the lives of *all* others who are threatened.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
ok... one more.. (can you tell this is something I care about?)
I just figured out a good way to state what really bothers me about intense pacifism. It denies victimhood. Someone earlier said that "all violence was a failure of reason" and someone else correctly responded that it wasn't necessarily a failure on the part of both parties.
But it goes deeper than that. Tom, I applaud you for taking the effort to avoid placing yourself in a situation that requires a violent response. That is a wise, good, and sound way to conduct yourself. If everyone did it, then there would be no violence.
The problem with true pacifism is precisely what Rakeesh pointed out (I didn't mean to entirely disagree with you, there). At some level, there are things beyond your control that can place you in a situation where violence is the only response. Going back to United 93, those people did NOT fail in any way to be brought to where they were. They did NOTHING to bring that fate upon themselves. But a true, thorough pacifist is in the unenviable position of having to say what they did was wrong. That they failed somehow because they were forced to fight, not for their lives, but for the lives of others. If you can't find fault with their actions (and I put forth to you that you can't) then you cannot say, universally, that violence is always wrong.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I always swore up and down that I would never spank my child. (I was spanked only for breaking safety rules, only by one parent, and I remember each instance. Yes, it worked for me; I stopped doing those things. It did not work on my brother.)
However, there has now been an instance where my almost-2.5-year-old child, in a temper tantrum, repeatedly kicked, smacked, and finally, when restrained, bit me, and nothing else worked to stop her. Finally, I said, "If you do not stop hurting Mommy, Mommy is going to spank you so you know what it feels like to be hurt by someone. 1. 2, stop now. 3." And I gave her a fairly gentle spank on the bum. The screaming continued, but the hurting me stopped. And it was enough to shock her into listening to me and to get her into her calm-down routine.
So yes, I now think it's a reasonable choice as a last resort in some circumstances.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
*nod*
Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
quote:While you are coming up with your plan, make sure to cover what to do when your child:
- Takes all the eggs out of the fridge and smashes them on the floor. Let's make the child 15 months for this one.
The child should be required to clean up as much of the mess as he can. It might be useful to show him the brownie mix that you can't use to make him any brownies because you have no eggs.
quote: Uses a marshmallow from Lucky Charms to make a fake tooth to tape on a note to the Tooth Fairy, asking for a dollar. The child is, oh, seven.
Leave a fake dollar under his pillow with a note from the Tooth Fairy: "I'm not that stupid."
quote: Eats the recipe in home ec. I don't mean the food. I mean the paper recipe. The kid is eleven.
Some form of classroom humiliation is called for. Definitely don't let him use any cooking implements, as he has shown that he is not mature enough to handle them. Require him to participate in the activity without his recipe, then give him a terrible grade.
quote: Tells the Sunday School teacher that she used to have a brother named Tommy, but he was murdered. There was no such sibling, but the teacher believes the kid. The kid is five.
When you have the kid alone, start talking about Tommy as if he were real and really had been murdered. Talk about how sad you are that he was killed and how much you miss him, since he was such a good kid. This will probably freak her out, since she knows she made Tommy up.
quote: Makes up words that are not swears -- mothermucker and bodgammit -- and uses them at dinner with your spouse's parents. "Whaaaaat? They are not swears!" The child is nine.
Explain that making up fake swear words is an equivalent offense to using actual ones, since the effect is still to shock people. Punishment should probably be some form of social ostracism.
quote:Also, be sure to cover what you do when five dollars is missing from the kitchen table but neither of your two children has any idea where it went. Big honest eyes here. What do you do the second and third time this event occurs?
Think of a way to catch whoever is doing it. Until you've caught the thief, don't leave money lying around.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Jim & Tom,
If I've done Tom a disservice by segmenting his sentence, I apologize. To clarify, I was again speaking about pacifism in general and not as it applies to parenting in particular.
For example, I believe that the idea that pacifism can work for an individual if they sufficiently arrange their lives to the point where violence will be unnecessary, is nearly always impossible unless they live that life in a society who does the violence on their behalf when necessary (or, for those who think it's not necessary, "do violence on their behalf sometimes").
Pacifism generally does not work, for example, if you live in a society with zero protection from any predators aside from one's self. Not unless all of those other people are also predators, or one is willing to acquiesce whenever force is applied against them.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Rakeesh,
All I meant was that Tom's complete thought, as well as his follow up post, seemed to cede your point...
I didn't mean a disservice as in "causing offence" but as in "overlooking the fact that I don't think he'd argue with you." No worries, bud. As I later posted, you did hit the problem with pacifism squarely on the head.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Yup. Although some of that is because I stay out of the gun control threads. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)