A few days ago this book was bought to my attention. I read the book online, and discussons on me. It bothers me deeply. I am not being anti-Christian, but the concept of spanking BOTHERS me deeply. Perhaps because when I lived with my mother she would often employ the belt to discipline me, mostly over things that were stupid. I am still trying to figure out if I should confront her on this, and wondering if this constitutes as abuse when other people I know have had things much worse happen to them. This fellow Michael Pearl and his wife Debi Pearl state that in order to properly bring up children they must be trained. This means starting when they are infants they have to be conditions and this is done by employing a switch, or a branch or quarter inch piping. One thing they seem to do is show a child an object, then hit, no, spank the child for trying to touch it in order to train them to leave the object alone. This bothers me deeply for some reason, particularly since they start this at the age of 4 months and advocate pulling a baby's hair to stop them from biting their mother's breast while breast feeding. There seems to be quite a few peopel who follow their practices and state that their children turn out to become fine disciplined people and very God-fearing. This bothers me because they say good things like spend time with your children, be their friends and care for them, but then they turn around and tell parents to break their child's will and bend them into submission. Am I the one who is warped and seeing things the wrong way? Also, to folks out there who are Jewish, what is the translation of "Rod" in the Talmud? And just how am I wrong for believing it is wrong to hit a child under any circumstance? The concept bothers me deeply and fills me with rage, and yet there is a different between abuse and spanking, as James Dobson pointed out, but isn't there a better way? I want to become a parent. I do not want to hit my children. I do not understand the difference between hitting and spanking because to me, there is no difference... Isn't there some other way? This is getting a bit long, but on one of the Pearl's newsletters, Michael Pearl talked about how his wife was baby sitting an 11 month old child who was crying to be let outside. He proceeded to hit the child two times with a switch after telling him to stop crying. Of course the child did not, so he hit the child two more times, then proceeded to show him some coins and stuff after he had broken his will a bit. Am I reading too much into things, or is this just wrong? There has to be some other way to deal with a child besides hitting them for doing something any child would do!
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Do the means justify the ends, you mean? Or are you asking whether this technique can be used effectively?
If the latter, the answer is yes: yes, beating your children and breaking their spirits can produce obedient, disciplined children without many externally obvious mental problems.
Whether this is the most effective or efficient method to produce such children, or whether obedience and discipline are inherently virtuous, are separate conversations.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
I think there is a fair clear line between spanking and abuse. If a parent choose to put a child over their knee with a quick swat, while I probably won't, I don't see that as a horrible thing. What you describe in the first paragraph I would define as abuse.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
Spanking can be a useful tool amongst many other methods used to correct a childs behaviour. I have two children and my oldest has probably had less than five spankings in her six years of life. My youngest gets a pop on the bottom at least once a week because none of the other methods of discipline get her attention.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I am with you, Syn. I don't believe in hitting children, since it models behavior you don't want them to imitate. I believe in time-outs for bad behavior. It seems to work really well to give the reward of my attention and time to good behavior, while ignoring and leaving children with no attention in a playpen (or in their room when they're older) when they act in ways I don't want rewarded with attention (either positive or negative attention). I believe in removing dangerous or delicate objects from a child's reach, in physically picking up a toddler and carrying them to a safe environment if they do things that endanger themselves.
But different methods work best with different children, and parents are right to use what works for them. As long as there are no injuries, or bruises, to the child, I don't think there's any legal grounds for action.
I think everyone who has found a method that works for one child, thinks they have THE answer for all of child rearing. I think they're mistaken. Love, patience, and good example are much the best child-rearing tools, but I think different strategies in general work best for different kids. I always want my child to know I'm on his or her side, and I would cry if I had to deliberately hit or hurt children.
The worst I do to my cats is blowing a puff of air into their faces if they deliberately scratch me to get my attention. (It's human abuse to draw blood, so they have to be taught not to do that, and they hate it when I puff air in their faces.)
Posted by Krankykat (Member # 2410) on :
quote:A few years ago, Lynn Paddock sought Christian advice on how to discipline her growing brood of adopted children. Paddock -- a Johnston County mother accused of murdering Sean, her 4-year-old adopted son, and beating two other adopted children -- surfed the Internet, said her attorney, Michael Reece. She found literature by an evangelical minister and his wife who recommended using plumbing supply lines to spank misbehaving children.
Paddock ordered Michael and Debi Pearl's books and started spanking her adopted children as suggested. After Sean, the youngest of Paddock's six adopted children, died last month, his older sister and brother told investigators about Paddock's spankings.
Sean's 9-year-old brother was beaten so badly he limped, a prosecutor said. Bruises marred Sean's backside, too, doctors found.
Sean died after being wrapped so tightly in blankets he suffocated. That, too, was a form of punishment, Johnston County Sheriff Steve Bizzell said.
The Pearls' advice from their Web site: A swift whack with the plastic tubing would sting but not bruise. Give 10 licks at a time, more if the child resists. Be careful about using it in front of others -- even at church; nosy neighbors might call social workers. Save hands for nurturing, not disciplining. Heed the warning, taken from Proverbs in the Old Testament, that sparing the rod will spoil the child.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Do the means justify the ends, you mean? Or are you asking whether this technique can be used effectively?
If the latter, the answer is yes: yes, beating your children and breaking their spirits can produce obedient, disciplined children without many externally obvious mental problems.
Whether this is the most effective or efficient method to produce such children, or whether obedience and discipline are inherently virtuous, are separate conversations.
No way I'd want to use a method like that on a child. The way he descibes it, he'll hit a child if he or she shows "defiance" or anger and will be pleased with them if they are just happy and content on the surface. it seems like it would teach them to repress their anger and rage. I know I have that problem. I can't confront a person I'm angry at, but i sure can go off if I spill something or can't find my keys and cell phone and punch a wall or something. That really concerns me. I have to do something about that...
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
4 months? That seems way too young for physical discipline.
Also, apparently there is an entire chapter on how to hit your kid so it doesn't leave a mark.
To me, at first glance, this author seems like the type of Christian that seizes on a handful of Bible verses and carrys them to extremes. Like the Phelps church.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Krankykat:
quote:A few years ago, Lynn Paddock sought Christian advice on how to discipline her growing brood of adopted children. Paddock -- a Johnston County mother accused of murdering Sean, her 4-year-old adopted son, and beating two other adopted children -- surfed the Internet, said her attorney, Michael Reece. She found literature by an evangelical minister and his wife who recommended using plumbing supply lines to spank misbehaving children.
Paddock ordered Michael and Debi Pearl's books and started spanking her adopted children as suggested. After Sean, the youngest of Paddock's six adopted children, died last month, his older sister and brother told investigators about Paddock's spankings.
Sean's 9-year-old brother was beaten so badly he limped, a prosecutor said. Bruises marred Sean's backside, too, doctors found.
Sean died after being wrapped so tightly in blankets he suffocated. That, too, was a form of punishment, Johnston County Sheriff Steve Bizzell said.
The Pearls' advice from their Web site: A swift whack with the plastic tubing would sting but not bruise. Give 10 licks at a time, more if the child resists. Be careful about using it in front of others -- even at church; nosy neighbors might call social workers. Save hands for nurturing, not disciplining. Heed the warning, taken from Proverbs in the Old Testament, that sparing the rod will spoil the child.
I don't think the Pearls Advocate using a blanket, but, first of all, those children were adopted, people should not use corporal punishment on adopted children, especially children who have been adopted at an older age and have probably already had their share of abuse and neglect whether they were adopted from the state or internationally. It's people like that who are the reason why Russia seems to be trying to make their adoption rules stricter, or at least drag their feet at renewing the licences of US adoption agencies... Plus, there were some scandals also involving the Ukraine. I think there is something SERIOUSLY WRONG WITH THE PEARLS, it is unkind to point this out, but it's not just their child rearing methods that anger me, but their stance on the abuse of women does too! They are peddling such unhealthy advise. I thought Dobson was bad when he suggested that a mother should have grabbed her child by the scruff of the neck to squeeze a muscle there to inflict pain on her son, but these people are so much worse! Most people do not have subtlty. They cannot tell the difference between a child that is troubled and a child that is just being bad. So they'll be desparate and use the switch or the belt or a branch or piping often because they can't switch gears to something else. I'd rather just listen to someone like Sears or the Nannies than listen to these people. I just can't think of a reason why a child should be hit with a branch and other objects! Plus, there is that pattern from the past to consider. Why would i want to pass something like that down?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
(Anne Kate, I'm with you on the use of time-outs -- although Sophie seems determined to subvert them. Lately, she's been enjoying them, to the extent that she's actually asked for longer time-outs more than a few times.)
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Tom, isn't it great that kids always defy our expectations? I admire them so much for that.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I think it's as THT said, different strategies for different kids.
My brother and I would probably both be dead or in jail if not for spankings, because we simply didn't respond to anything else.
My parents tried timeouts for a while, and I literally laughed in their faces. I could entertain myself for days. Especially when they sent me to my room. You know, the room full of books, toys, and movies? But even if I had to sit in the corner, quiet and still for XX minutes that wouldn't do anything to me.
They probably should've spanked me more. I never did learn when to keep my mouth shut.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
The point of spanking is to connect an unpleasant result with an incorrect action. Timeouts, scoldings, punishments of all types seek that same goal.
I personally was spanked once in my entire life, though I was certainly gripped by the hair, ear, or firmly held by my parents when they were telling me off.
My parents much prefered to simply deny my access to things I thought were important if I was bad. They could be merciful, but if I crosssed a very fine line they punish me extendedly and made it stick.
I am as hesitant to say spanking does not work at all as I am to say there is any punishment that works across the board for everyone.
Posted by anti_maven (Member # 9789) on :
Thanks for the link Synesthesia, it led me on a fascinating and highly disturbing trail.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
You should see their website...
Man, those people make me angry. I believe in respecting peopel's beliefs, but if it's something dangerous, something that hurts another person even as they swear up and down it's helpful, then it has to be brought to the light and examined and challenged no matter what.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I think, just from what little you quoted, these people are sick and do a dis-service to children and those of us who believe that spanking is necessary and effective as a last resort. (or as a first resort in cases of danger)
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Yeah, there's a huge difference between a swift pat on the bottom and what ya'll are saying these people recommend. That's definitely abuse.
I don't have children, but my brother and his wife would use swift pats on the bottom when their boys were younger. I don't know how effective it was, because I just wasn't around enough, but it certainly wasn't painful--more of an attention getting device. I expect that I'll use a combination of methods. I'm not opposed to that kind of spanking, but if time-outs work, I see no reason not to use those instead. Consistency is key, and I imagine that would be the hard part.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:One thing they seem to do is show a child an object, then hit, no, spank the child for trying to touch it in order to train them to leave the object alone. This bothers me deeply for some reason
Probably because they're using physical violence and pain to negatively condition a child in a manner that resembles dog training.
It's also pretty capricious and confusing to the child in a way which mirrors the deficiencies of most negative reinforcement and punishment methods of authoritarian parenting, whether or not they involve physical pain as a conditioner.
quote:The concept bothers me deeply and fills me with rage, and yet there is a different between abuse and spanking, as James Dobson pointed out, but isn't there a better way? I want to become a parent. I do not want to hit my children. I do not understand the difference between hitting and spanking because to me, there is no difference... Isn't there some other way?
Umm, yes. The APA and the american association of pediatrics have long concluded that spanking and other forms of pain-based discipline are essentially crutches that have better alternatives, so they advise not spanking. People who say that spanking is 'necessary,' 'preferable,' or 'integral' to parenting are simply misinformed. There's other methods which avoid the pitfalls of spanking and just produce better results overall.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I was never "spanked"- or, indeed, subjected to a "time out" unless I was very annoying, which probably only happened two or three times in my life and usually meant bath and bed without dinner. I remember on those occaisions feeling hugely bad for myself.
Personally, I think that there are so many ways of ensuring a child do at least the ballpark area of what you want them to do that spanking should be a real form of last resort.
I think children grow used to the "last resort" whatever that is. If it's spanking, nothing but a good couple of blows means anything. If it's a raised voice, it's the same thing. Obviously this doesn't apply to every child, however, I do believe that "the last resort" is respected by many children, whatever it is as established by the parents.
This stems solely from my experience, though.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I don't rule out spanking as a form of discipline, because some kids may not respond to any other form.
Keep in mind that ANY form of discipline, taken to its extreme, is unhealthy.
I'm of the opinion that far more necessary than corrective discipline is guidance: that is, knowing your child well enough that you can head off behaviors before they occur. (Things like supplying your two year old with a favorite toy as soon as you enter the grocery store to prevent a tantrum because you can't afford to buy her the candy you KNOW she'll ask for.)
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Samp, Could you point me to the APA statement on spanking that you are drawing your description from? The bit about it being essentially a crutch doesn't fit with my understanding of their position, but I could definitely be out of date. Thanks.
edit: I did a Google search, but I couldn't find anything more recent than one from 2001, which didn't contain language to that effect.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I don't rule out spanking as a form of discipline, because some kids may not respond to any other form.
I won't write it off as impossible, but I'm honestly not sure to what extent that this idea is backed up.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I maintain that the first and most knowledgeable expert on a child is an involved, engaged, parent.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
The Pearls state that they are. They do give good advice about fishing with their children, teaching them to do chores and the like and enjoying their kids. My problem is that it's interposed with breaking their will and hitting them over "acts of defiance" What's that supposed to mean? They are the parent. Parents have power over their children by virtue of being the parent. I don't see how a child can undermine your authority. They seem to support the idea of calmly and cooly administering disipline in the form of swift hard blows with a blunt object depending on age. It creeps me out deeply.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I agree with Scott and JT.
OTOH, I think advice on how to wallop your child repeatedly without leaving marks, not to mention the idea of repeatedly spanking a not-yet-one-year-old, is horrifying.
Yeah, it says not to spare the rod. Firstly, most of Mishlei (Proverbs) is at least partly metaphorical. Even if you consider it to be absolutely literal, that does not mean spanking a child at every opportunity!
There is a line between thinking that an occasional spank is a useful tool among many in a parent's disciplinary arsenal (along with a Look, and several Talks ), and thinking it is the answer to every disciplinary situation. And these folks are WAY over that line.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Synesthesia: Children do not respect the authority of their parents by instinct. That authority is gained by demonstrating that the parent is rightfully in charge, as the child does not know what is best for them all the time.
It comes from showing children the folly of trusting their undeveloped sense of reason exclusively. People by nature are to some degree rebelious.
Its why teenagers are so rebelious. They are coming close to adulthood and the independance that comes with it, and they think they have learned enough to fly solo.
I am no exagerating when I say that a child that does not learn to submit to his/her parents will could die.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: They seem to support the idea of calmly and cooly administering disipline in the form of swift hard blows with a blunt object depending on age.
Well, calm and cool IS miles ahead of hitting a child in anger.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Synesthesia: Children do not respect the authority of their parents by instinct. That authority is gained by demonstrating that the parent is rightfully in charge, as the child does not know what is best for them all the time.
It comes from showing children the folly of trusting their undeveloped sense of reason exclusively. People by nature are to some degree rebelious.
Its why teenagers are so rebelious. They are coming close to adulthood and the independance that comes with it, and they think they have learned enough to fly solo.
I am no exagerating when I say that a child that does not learn to submit to his/her parents will could die.
It's true that a child needs boundaries and discipline, and to obey their parents, but they also need a foundation of love and trust and not just authority. I'd want a child of mine to have enough rebellion in them to challenge something that isn't right, even if it's me with enough love and trust in me to know I want to do what is best for them, even if it means punishing them by taking away something that is precious to them, but not their free will... I don't think breaking a child's spirit is remotely helpful to them. I want to find a way to give them a foundation of reason and self control and be a good example to them so they have something to draw on. I'm not sure if hitting in anger or calmly hitting them will give them that. I also want them to learn compassion, not might makes right, not imposing your will on another person because to me, it's evil most of the time, even if it is for their on good. There has to be some sort of middle ground, some way to find a balance between giving a child structure and allowing them to be themselves without turning into wild weeds that will act like jerks and be a pain in the butt of society like a patch of ice on an unshoveled sidewalk.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Synesthesia:
I agree with your estimation on these folks-- I find what you've reported here to be disturbing. Essentially, if you're going to swat your kids as a form of discipline, then you should do it in a way that IF someone did find out about it, you would not be ashamed to stand before them and give your reasons why.
The secrecy thing bothers me quite a bit. It introduces an element of false persecution sense that I think can be very dangerous to parents who are not committed to being engaged and involved with their children. Something along the lines of, "I spank my children in secret...what else can I do to them in secret?"
I know-- paranoia mea. But I'm wary of secrets and secret keeping. Any time someone says, "Do X to keep people from knowing X," I want to vomit.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
You should see what they have to say about domestic violence... It's beyond unhealthy... They have a whole book about the role of women tons of women swear by.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:Well, calm and cool IS miles ahead of hitting a child in anger.
I'm not sure it is. I'd rather have a parent strike me once, out of anger, than calmly and expressionlessly deal out pain like they might with dinner plates.
The anger would be there, just hidden. I think that's worse, not better.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
The problem is that when striking a child in anger, it is almost never once -- and it is much too easy for it to get out of control. If the anger is "still there, just hidden," then it is still striking in anger.
OTOH, if a parent has made a conscious decision, not driven by anger, that a spanking is necessary -- and again, I absolutely do not think this should be frequent or extensive -- it is far less likely to escalate. Unless one goes in with the notion of inflicting pain without leaving marks. Which I already mentioned disturbs me greatly.
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
When I was a kid I looked through a book my dad had called The Christian Family. It had *one* chapter on children, and its only point was that children must obey -- nothing about loving them, nothing about not abusing them.
It did have an inspiring story. One morning the author's wife, flustered and hurried, knocked over the OJ into the pancake mix. She was rushed, so they had orangey pancakes, and the kids were griping about it. So the dad yelled at them (spanked? I don't remember) and scared them so much that the little boy, not just ceasing his grumbling, not just eating the things, smiled and said, "They're wonderful!"
The author seemed almost moved to tears by the beautiful story of how he terrorized his little boy into lying to make his parents feel better. He knew it was a lesson that would shape his son for years to come. On that I am sure he was absolutely right. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I agree with Rivka that calm and composed is much better then angry.
I hope I never find it neccesary to spank my children, but I had a friend whose father used corporeal punishment alot. He would sit down with him and say, do you know why I am going to punish you? Do you know I am doing this because I love you and I want to help you?
That to me is much better then, "Why would you do that *WHACK*, go to your room!"
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: What's that supposed to mean? They are the parent. Parents have power over their children by virtue of being the parent. I don't see how a child can undermine your authority.
Watch a couple episodes of Nanny 911 or Supernanny. Really, it's not that hard for children to undermine their parents' authority.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Nuh-UH! Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I agree with Rivka that calm and composed is much better then angry.
I hope I never find it neccesary to spank my children, but I had a friend whose father used corporeal punishment alot. He would sit down with him and say, do you know why I am going to punish you? Do you know I am doing this because I love you and I want to help you?
That to me is much better then, "Why would you do that *WHACK*, go to your room!"
That's what my uncle would do when I lived with him. He'd explain why he was hitting me with a belt It still hurt though.
The parents are still the parents though... They still have the upper hand and power, and that's why those nannies put them on their show to teach them that.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
I should start a TV show about a couple of clueless hippy parents and their troublesome children called "Drainpipes and Stockinged Feet."
Posted by NotMe (Member # 10470) on :
quote:The Pearls' advice from their Web site: A swift whack with the plastic tubing would sting but not bruise. Give 10 licks at a time, more if the child resists. Be careful about using it in front of others -- even at church; nosy neighbors might call social workers.
Any punishment that is too harsh to be doled out in public is probably too harsh to be justified at all. Also, it is worth pointing out that in NC, it is a crime to not report suspected child abuse.
Anybody who has enough experience to offer advice on how to inflict pain on a person without leaving a visible mark should be considered mentally ill and a danger to society.
BlackBlade, I am concerned by your blanket statements. You seem to think that kids can't possibly have the experience and judgement necessary to control their own lives until they are legally adults. People mature at different rates. I have known 13 year olds who were almost fully prepared to live independently. Certainly by the time most kids are teenagers, they have enough experience that they can often make better judgments than their parents. You should be more careful about dismissing somebody's opinions based on a perceived lack of experience. From what I've seen, that attitude causes more problems for parents than any actual mistakes that the kid makes.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Anybody who has enough experience to offer advice on how to inflict pain on a person without leaving a visible mark should be considered mentally ill and a danger to society.
Every child over the age of seven knows how to inflict physical pain without leaving much of a mark.
But I get your point.
quote:Certainly by the time most kids are teenagers, they have enough experience that they can often make better judgments than their parents.
You don't happen to work for a credit card company, do you?
quote:Any punishment that is too harsh to be doled out in public is probably too harsh to be justified at all.
I don't agree with this.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:my brother and his wife would use swift pats on the bottom when their boys were younger. I don't know how effective it was, because I just wasn't around enough, but it certainly wasn't painful--more of an attention getting device.
That's how we were spanked as kids. And it wasn't spur of the moment either. My dad would sit down, and we had to lean over and get spanked. The prospect of getting spanked was terrifying to me, but the spanks never hurt. I'd say the way they used it was effective without nearing abuse or the breaking of spirits. Time outs happened a lot more often, spanking was more of the "last resort" to which Teshi referred.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote: BlackBlade, I am concerned by your blanket statements. You seem to think that kids can't possibly have the experience and judgement necessary to control their own lives until they are legally adults. People mature at different rates. I have known 13 year olds who were almost fully prepared to live independently. Certainly by the time most kids are teenagers, they have enough experience that they can often make better judgments than their parents. You should be more careful about dismissing somebody's opinions based on a perceived lack of experience. From what I've seen, that attitude causes more problems for parents than any actual mistakes that the kid makes.
Don't worry I agree with pretty much your entire post. I stated quite a bit earlier I do not think there is a magic bullet punishment that takes care of every human being. My comments on keeping children, to a degree, submissive was directly mostly at children, it should taper off in their teenage years. Just because I believe that you should instill a strong sense of trust in a parent's judgement does not mean I do not believe in mercy, or providing opportunities for your children to make their own decisions for good or ill.
But I am very much opposed to parenting where they use the "buddy model" rather then the "parent model."
I know I will be extremely affectionate with my future children, I will be their friend, but I will still be their parent.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I am no exagerating when I say that a child that does not learn to submit to his/her parents will could die.
That seems like an awful way of putting that sentiment to me. Are you trying to say that children should learn to trust their parents judgement or is it really submission that you think is the important part here?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: (Anne Kate, I'm with you on the use of time-outs -- although Sophie seems determined to subvert them. Lately, she's been enjoying them, to the extent that she's actually asked for longer time-outs more than a few times.)
We use time-out as discipline but NOT punishment. The point of a time-out is to have a time to cool off and reach a state where you can change your behavior. It's not a bad thing to take a time-out and even Mama and Abba take them once in a while. When Ems wants a longer time-out, that's fine with us. Occasionally she has even "put herself" on time-out when she needs to calm down, and that is exactly what we want.
Punishment in our house is an extension of logical consequences of an act. If you color on the walls, you clean it up. If you hit your sister, you don't get to play with her for a while. If you throw your toy, it gets taken away. Things like that.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
My mother would repeatedly hit me with a baseball bat. She was always careful to explain why she thought it was for my own good. I do not, unfortunately, think it implanted respect for or trust of authority in me.
Posted by aretee (Member # 1743) on :
My mom was a slapper. I was slapped and most of the time I deserved it. I was very frightened that I would do the same when I had my own children. I was especially scared when I inherited two step-daughters that I would be tempted to slap them. Much to my pleasant surprise I have not even been tempted. I have worked long and hard on my temper because I come from a family of screamers and slappers. I think I'm conquering it. But, I hope I do the same with my own blood. My step-daughters are not mine (their mother is very active in their lives and my husband and I have discussed my role in discipline and it has worked thus far) and I hope I have the same control over my own children.
My husband says he is not against spanking as an attention getting device. He has also told me that he quit spanking his youngest daughter rather early because it was simply ineffective. He found other forms of punishment that worked better.
It sounds to me as if the Pearls are more interested in control than character development. Discipline is to teach control over oneself...eventually. Merely bending the will of the child to meet that of the parent could only produce severe rebelliousness in the future...or just break the will of the child. But, maybe that is what some fundementalists want...
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Is that a joke or are you being ironic and facitious? :?:
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I don't advocate severe beatings for children, but whole generations of people grew up being spanked or hit with belts or switches, and we don't have a whole world of crazed, mentally disturbed, violent maniacs. Clearly, corporal punishment doesn't directly lead to horribly maladjusted children.
Some times, children are too young to make informed decisions, understand the reasons you may give them, or simply aren't influenced by time outs. I used to love going to my room, but a spanking set me straight real quick.
I think, short of abuse, erring on the side of giving a few extra spankings and raising a well-behaved child is much better than erring on the side of ineffective discipline, and raising a child who doesn't respect authority or boundaries.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I dont' want to take the risk of raising a child who could be damaged by that form of discipline without knowing it or a person with a spank fetish. I don't want any child of mine spending a large chunk of their lives someplace like that, if they want to do that, it won't be my fault, that's for sure.
It's interesting the way the Pearls wrote a 4 part essay about children jumping ship into the world. I wonder why they would want to do that.
Posted by Uprooted (Member # 8353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
The secrecy thing bothers me quite a bit. It introduces an element of false persecution sense that I think can be very dangerous to parents who are not committed to being engaged and involved with their children. Something along the lines of, "I spank my children in secret...what else can I do to them in secret?"
Scott, it's interesting that you used the phrase "false persecution sense" because after I read the intial posts in this thread and got to thinking about the Pearls (whom I hadn't heard of before), persecution complex was what came to my mind as well. So, paranoia mea too!
Posted by NotMe (Member # 10470) on :
quote:You don't happen to work for a credit card company, do you?
Nope. And financial decisions are usually the last ones that kids learn to handle. But I've known far too many parents (mine included) who think they know how and when a kid should study for a given class, even when the parents know literally nothing about the subject.
Not everybody who has kids learns how to be a parent. I hang out with social workers often enough to know how bad some people are. But even fairly normal adults can be very inept when it comes to empathizing with kids, and some even go as far as to suggest that empathy is not necessary to discipline kids.
This goes back to something in the intro to Ender's Game. Kids don't think of themselves as kids in the same way that adults tend to think about kids. Lots of adults think of kids as being less genuine people than adults, and that taints their actions with condescension.
People who use excessively harsh punishment seem to forget that they are supposed to be helping the kid. You can't just say after the fact that "it was for his own good." That is usually a lie. You have to ask yourself beforehand what course of action is best for the kid.
Next month a friend of mine will become an Eagle Scout. When he was 11 and joined our troop, he was a lying troublemaker and often seemed to be a kleptomaniac. He's still wild, but is worthy of being an Eagle Scout. Over the years, the adults in our troop have all pretty much abandoned him as a lost cause. It has been up to the scouts to handle him and make him into a better person. In the past few months, as he wrapped up his Eagle project and his last merit badges, the adults around him have been forced to re-evaluate him. Without ever inflicting physical pain, his friends and peers have raised him to be a better man than his elders ever expected. If a bunch of kids can accomplish this in my troop and troops all over the world, why do some adults still think that spanking and beating is their last resort? It is never the only option for disciplining a person who can think for himself.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
ketchupqueen:
I like your method of discipline; can I put you on the spot to provide an example for me?
Ideally, how would you discipline a child that has a problem with screaming and whining? Say this child is around...urmmm...four years old, and that the problem has been existent since age two.
Thanks.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:I am no exagerating when I say that a child that does not learn to submit to his/her parents will could die.
That seems like an awful way of putting that sentiment to me. Are you trying to say that children should learn to trust their parents judgement or is it really submission that you think is the important part here?
I mean that if a child does not submit to a parents rule to say, "Don't go off alone down the street without telling me," they could end up dead in many different ways.
I believe children must first learn to submit to their parents before the wisdom of the best parents rules can become apparent to them.
[ May 16, 2007, 03:54 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:But I've known far too many parents (mine included) who think they know how and when a kid should study for a given class, even when the parents know literally nothing about the subject.
I'm not sure why you think one has to do with another; subject matter knowledge doesn't mean much when talking about studying habits or methods.
Knowing when and how your child learns best is important to their education. For example, my son cannot study on an empty stomach. So he gets a snack when he gets home, and then goes to study.
WHAT he's studying doesn't matter; I can't diagram a sentence to save my life, but I still know that for him, in order to diagram a sentence correctly, he needs something in his belly.
Posted by NotMe (Member # 10470) on :
quote:I believe children must first learn to submit to their parents before the wisdom of the best parents rules can become apparent to them.
If a kid is too young to have developed a trust for the parents' advice, then the parents should still be supervising the kid directly. We can teach young kids to have faith in Jesus, so we ought to be able to teach them to have faith in their parent's judgement. Even when a young kid decides to disobey his parents, he will be afraid regardless of whether he knows why his parents made that rule.
You can't demand authority and expect to get respect, too. Parents have to earn respect just like everybody else. If you raise a child to respect authority for authority's sake, you will raise a child incapable of making an objective decision.
quote:Knowing when and how your child learns best is important to their education. For example, my son cannot study on an empty stomach. So he gets a snack when he gets home, and then goes to study.
That's a good example of what most parents are good at. But my parents still haven't learned that flash cards don't help with abstract math. And few parents pay attention to my education like my parents have. Most parents assume that their kids are getting a good education, because they'd rather not think about the alternatives. Yesterday, I was hired to tutor a girl who is nearly flunking her high school math class. Her father didn't even know the teacher's name. That's Negligent.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by NotMe:
quote:I believe children must first learn to submit to their parents before the wisdom of the best parents rules can become apparent to them.
If a kid is too young to have developed a trust for the parents' advice, then the parents should still be supervising the kid directly. We can teach young kids to have faith in Jesus, so we ought to be able to teach them to have faith in their parent's judgement. Even when a young kid decides to disobey his parents, he will be afraid regardless of whether he knows why his parents made that rule.
You can't demand authority and expect to get respect, too. Parents have to earn respect just like everybody else. If you raise a child to respect authority for authority's sake, you will raise a child incapable of making an objective decision.
Forgive me but I am not entirely sure what you are trying to say. I am having trouble comprehending what the point you are trying to get across is.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Encouraging submission is a generally poor way of ensuring compliance. What often gets taught is avoiding getting caught, not obedience. Trust (coupled with a desire not to let the parents down) is a much more effective way of doing this.
quote:I mean that if a child does not submit to a parents rule to say, "Don't go off alone down the street without telling me,"
Submission qua submission is not necessary for compliance to this rule. Trusting the parents works even better.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I believe children must first learn to submit to their parents before the wisdom of the best parents rules can become apparent to them.
I disagree.
When we tell the kids not to do something, we give them the reason why. I believe that reasoning with children, even when they're almost too young to understand your reasons, leads them to trust you.
I cannot emphasize the importance of parent-child trust enough. It is almost synonymous, I think, with love.
Now, my kids may choose not to believe my reasons; and they may question my reasons more than many other children do for their parents. But I have faith ( ) that reasoning with them will build them up in a way that strict authoritarianism can't.
I should note that some things aren't up for discussion. And whether they agree or not, they still have to follow the family rules.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote: I should note that some things aren't up for discussion. And whether they agree or not, they still have to follow the family rules
But this is asking them to trust you and the wisdom of your decision will one day make sense to them.
That is all I am saying, many rules seem stupid until you've either observed them for some time, (such as trying new things can be good for you) or they are disobeyed (don't touch a stove that is on).
Your children learn to trust you at the first because you are good to them, and they see the example you set is good.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
As a Christian and a parent, I have nothing good to say about the Pearls'. I have read quite a bit by and about them over the years and have come to the conclusion that they are truly evil- I'm n ot using that word lightly, I mean evil in the real sense of the word. I think they're perverting the word of God, and in a way that hangs a the proverbial millstone about their necks. They make me ill. I also don't see a differnce between spanking and hitting. It disturbs me that we have a seperate word for hitting our children, as if it's somehow not hitting.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
"Ideally, how would you discipline a child that has a problem with screaming and whining? Say this child is around...urmmm...four years old, and that the problem has been existent since age two."
Depends on what it's about, and where it takes place. It took a great deal of time and annoying sacrifice, but my kids learned fairly early that screaming or acting up in a store, restaurant or theater to get something would swiftly result in our completely leaving the premises so that they got nothing at all. Annoying for me -- I missed a lot of movies, and walked away from a lot of good meals -- but it worked, eventually.
Our first son was (is) asthmatic and we literally couldn't punish him in any dramatic way; he'd have an attack and back we'd go to the ER. We were forced to reason with him from an extremely early age. He turned out to be extremely polite, so we treated the second son the same way. Parents of two or more children are laughing at this point... Let's say we could have standed to whack the second kid a few times, but it's a little late now and he's turning out fine anyway.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Just a note from the previous page...
In California (I don't know about other states) if you're going to spank, you had best do it in private because the anti-spanking people will call CPS and tell them you were BEATING your kids.
The anti-spanking people out here are militant and don't care what's best for the kids, so long as they're not spanked.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Just a note from the previous page...
In California (I don't know about other states) if you're going to spank, you had best do it in private because the anti-spanking people will call CPS and tell them you were BEATING your kids.
The anti-spanking people out here are militant and don't care what's best for the kids, so long as they're not spanked.
I'm moving to California, now when I playfully spank my wife I can counter sue those people for slander and libel when child services arrive.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: The anti-spanking people out here are militant and don't care what's best for the kids, so long as they're not spanked.
If you believe that hitting is always wrong, you can never see a spanking as "best for the kids".
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
That doesn't justify them lying to the CPS.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
That's too subjective to say they're lying. One person's slap may truly be another person's beating.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Discipline is such a strange thing. With four kids, I've had to learn that what works with one doesn't work with the others. You have to tailor the discipline to each child, for it to be effective.
Now, of course, you have to explain why you're doing what you're doing. (And naturally, I'm talking about kids old enough to understand basic reasoning and "get" what you're doing).
For example, the most effective means of discipline with my son is suspension of his Xbox privileges. If he misbehaves at school or gets in trouble with us, he can't play XBox for a certain period of time, usually a day. It works tremendously well. He understands that video games are a privilege, not a right, and he loves playing them so losing that opportunity matters to him.
If I tried to employ the same discipline on any of the girls they'd just shrug and go on their way. They don't care about being able to play Xbox or not. If, however, I took away my 14 year old's iPod for a couple days, that would get her attention. Or, say, didn't let the 9 year old go to gymnastics practice it would impact her. I use whatever works for the child.
I have to say the idea of hitting a child with objects - pipes, no less, makes me sick.
quote:When we tell the kids not to do something, we give them the reason why. I believe that reasoning with children, even when they're almost too young to understand your reasons, leads them to trust you.
I cannot emphasize the importance of parent-child trust enough. It is almost synonymous, I think, with love.
Now, my kids may choose not to believe my reasons; and they may question my reasons more than many other children do for their parents. But I have faith ( ) that reasoning with them will build them up in a way that strict authoritarianism can't.
I should note that some things aren't up for discussion. And whether they agree or not, they still have to follow the family rules.
I could have written this. It's exactly the way we do things. I have to say, one of the most rewarding moments of my life was when my 14 year old came to me once and said "Now I understand why you are so strongly against us spending the night at other people's houses." She had read a report of a girl who was sexually abused at a spend-the-night party. She never liked the rule about not being able to spend the night, but when she got old enough and mature enough to understand the reasons I'd given her all through the years, she got it and told me she appreciated us for our concern. She actually said, "I can see now you only wanted to keep us safe. At least I can tell you care."
All the foot-stomping, whining, and carrying on that took place whenever I refused to give in on our rules was definitely worth it to hear her say that.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The way Pixiest raised the comparison implies to me they are lying about the details in order to involve CPS.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Further, CPS is trigger happy out here. I have heard from more than one friend who are good parents, yet have had CPS called on them.
Once they get their foot in the door, they will be after you till you get a lawyer. They will continue to harass you for years.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I have to say, one of the most rewarding moments of my life was when my 14 year old came to me once and said "Now I understand why you are so strongly against us spending the night at other people's houses."
That is wonderful. Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
It is Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: ketchupqueen:
I like your method of discipline; can I put you on the spot to provide an example for me?
Ideally, how would you discipline a child that has a problem with screaming and whining? Say this child is around...urmmm...four years old, and that the problem has been existent since age two.
Thanks.
Screaming and whining are not effective forms of communication. Therefore, the child does not get when she wants by screaming or whining (we have this problem ourselves occasionally.)
While it's hard, we've found that the best thing to do for screaming and whining is to ignore it. Sometimes this means remove the screaming child from the place where you are at (if it will bother others) and then ignore the screaming (strapping into a carseat and just driving around the block until it stops can help.) At home, we walk out of the room. If she follows, we leave again. We make it clear we are not leaving her, just ignoring her-- "I can't understand you when you yell and I don't like to be around it. I'm going to leave now until the yelling stops." Then walk out. And never, ever, ever give in to screaming or whining requests until they are rephrased appropriately.
Now, some kids take longer to outgrow this phase than others; my brother had screaming fits until he was 5. But he did eventually outgrow it, and in the meantime they got less and less frequent (as our daughter's are) until he outgrew them. Most kids, though, learn faster than that, especially if after they calm down you tell them, "When you are that upset, ________ is one way you might try expressing your feelings instead of screaming." The goal here is to let them know that it's okay to be upset and frustrated when things don't go your way, but you don't get your way through terrorism and you sometimes need to calm down before talking to people.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
*Takes notes*
That is such a good approach.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
quote:Originally posted by NotMe: why do some adults still think that spanking and beating is their last resort? It is never the only option for disciplining a person who can think for himself.
You're contradicting yourself here. No, it's never the only option. It is what you say, a last resort. It is something for when all other avenues fail. No one here has argued that it's the only option.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:some kids take longer to outgrow this phase than others;
:sigh:
It IS getting better. We've been doing a variation of your technique for two years now...
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:Further, CPS is trigger happy out here. I have heard from more than one friend who are good parents, yet have had CPS called on them.
Once they get their foot in the door, they will be after you till you get a lawyer. They will continue to harass you for years.
This has not been true in my experience. CPS is understaffed and overworked. If they deem a situation not to be a threat, they don't keep bothering you unless there's another call.
Posted by Hitoshi (Member # 8218) on :
I think spanking sparingly over something serious when the child is young would be ok, but I'd prefer not to. I'd much rather find alternatives that teach them to behave without hurting them. I think child abuse, and any excuses (biblical or otherwise) to defend are quite disgusting.
The idea of hitting a small child with any hard object just makes shivers run down my spine. I'd much rather force the child to take a time-out with no toys, or give them extra chores, or give them a punishment befitting the deed (making a mess is cleaning, etc.), something unenjoyable but not painful.
That, and they make it sound as though you need to train them like a dog, and that idea bothers me quite a bit.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amanecer:
quote:Further, CPS is trigger happy out here. I have heard from more than one friend who are good parents, yet have had CPS called on them.
Once they get their foot in the door, they will be after you till you get a lawyer. They will continue to harass you for years.
This has not been true in my experience. CPS is understaffed and overworked. If they deem a situation not to be a threat, they don't keep bothering you unless there's another call.
Agreed. Moreover, I was told that having on file that a complaint had been dismissed as obviously being unsubstantiated nonsense was actually something of a protection against future complaints. I was also told that an open-handed swat on the bottom was perfectly legal.
Posted by martha (Member # 141) on :
I don't have time to read this whole thread, but I wanted to share my two cents.
Beating children, spanking children, and otherwise causing pain to children as a means of punishment teaches them that adults have all the power. As other people have mentioned here, you may end up with cowed, obedient children and young adults, or you may end up with sneaky, resentful, rebellious children who think that causing pain is a good way to get what they want.
Children are people and deserve respect. If you show them respect and make every effort not to cause pain, they will do the same for you.
I don't mean spoil the kid and give him everything he wants, I mean give him reasons for your decisions. Instead of "because I'm the grownup and I said so," use "because ice cream isn't very good for you," or "because the dentist makes sure your teeth stay healthy."
Let the child know that his desires are valid. You may think that it's no big deal that the tennis ball is stuck on the roof, but make sure the child sees that you understand it's a major tragedy in his world.
One way to show a child that his desires are valid and important is the offer choices. Offer a choice of milk or orange juice, of biking or swimming, of this sweater or that one. Decision-making is an important skill (unless your child plans to grow up doing what everyone tells him), and kids should start by making small decisions before they grow up and have to make big ones. If they make bad choices, let them live with the consequences, but there's no need to add your own punishment on top of that. If the kid makes himself sick by eating all the Halloween chocolate, then he has to suffer through being sick; there's no need to punish him additionally (physically or otherwise).
Working as a teacher, I've found that if you give children reasons, and choices, and you respect what's important to them, then you will have very, very few situations where you feel the need to punish them. I once had a parent tell me, "If my daughter doesn't listen to you, just count to three." I responded that I'd never had a problem with the daughter not listening to me, because I always tried to listen to her when she had something to say.
[Sorry, I got off-topic a little. I guess I had this rant sitting around in my head today. I got all these ideas from a book called _How To Talk So Kids Will Listen and Listen So Kids Will Talk_, which I think should be required reading for all expectant parents.]
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Yeah, why can't people do stuff like that? It makes more sense to me than just hitting a child. Like if a kid whined among the Pearls or something they'd just employ a couple of swift wacks, but suppose the child really had a problem besides, "I want more caaaaaaaaaake and you won't let me have any.?" Then what? Their method doesn't encourage much creativity. Like the mother basically, in my view flogged the child 10 licks every day for seven days for lying. I don't see how that's helpful...
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:I have to say, one of the most rewarding moments of my life was when my 14 year old came to me once and said "Now I understand why you are so strongly against us spending the night at other people's houses."
That is wonderful.
It is. My oldest is finally "getting" why we put our foot down certain things.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I thought for a while about the propriety of saying this aloud, but I have to admit that I was not thrilled by the idea of a kid, upon hearing of an isolated rape, coming to her parents and saying "Now I understand why you're protecting me."
The problem I have with this -- and the reason I'd be unhappy if it happened with Sophie -- is that there's danger in everything. If I refused to let Sophie play in the yard, she could eventually stumble across an article about a girl killed in her backyard; if I refused to let her cross the street, she could find all kinds of articles about teenagers killed crossing the street.
Sure, there are things I won't let Sophie do (and, looking to the future, don't intend to let her do) because, on balance, I feel they're more dangerous than they are rewarding. But if she came to me with a comment like the one you've mentioned, Belle, I'd actually be more likely to teach her some basic statistical analysis.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I'm a big believer in natural consequences. If you forget your dance shoes, like my oldest did last week, for rehearsal, then you have to be on the stage in front of everyone dancing barefoot.
I'm not going to go home and get your shoes for you. I don't bail out my kids. If they make mistakes, they deal with the consequences.
I don't take forgotten homework to school, I don't bring you your dance shoes, or your grips if you're a gymnast, or wash clothes for you if you forgot and it's now past your bedtime. You have to accept the grade you get for no homework, explain to the coaches why you don't have your grips when it's time to workout bars, and go to school in clothes that need washing. Tough. Learn to deal, because when you're out on your own no one is going to bail you out.
My kids are all extremely responsible, for the most part, and don't complain or whine for things that I see a lot of other kids doing. By no means are they perfect, and I would never let them deal with consequences if they would harm them seriously in any way of course, but it does help. I've gotten tons of compliments on how mature my oldest is and how responsible she is from parents that hire her to babysit. She learned that she had to accept responsibility for her choices from an early age, and it has made her a reliable, responsible young adult.
Just last Monday a parent of one of my daughters' teammates brought her daughter's grips for her, because she didn't want her to be embarrassed by not having them. Had it been mine, she'd have suffered the embarrassment. And I bet she would have been less likely to forgot her grips again. What incentive does this young girl have to learn to remember her own equipment, when she knows Mom will always just go home and get them for her if she forgets?
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Sorry for the double post, but Tom what are you trying to say? I'm not being snarky, I genuinely don't understand your criticism.
I think what I taught her does say a lot about statistics - because statistically, many young people are abused by relatives, and friends and relatives of their friends. I have seen what sexual abuse does to a person, and to a family, and there is very little I will not do to protect my children from it. The rule about no spending the night in other people's houses is universal, by the way - it applies to my son as well as my daughters.
They are all limited to a very few places where they're allowed to sleep if one of us is not there. The parents must be known to us..as in we've spent time with them and know them well, there can be no unmarried persons of the opposite gender in the house. If a girl has a brother, then my daughter can't spend the night with them. There can be no alcohol in the house.
My daughter used to think this was unnecessary restrictive, as many of her friends houses did not meet our criteria. She would constantly have to turn down invitations to parties because either I didn't know the family, or there was an older brother, etc. She didn't get it, because she thought I was over-reacting. Now she doesn't think I am.
And, I should note that a friend of mine who is a therapist told me she recommends every parent do the same - because she's counselled many victims of sexual abuse who were abused in a friend's home and she's also treated sexual offenders who targeted the friends of their daughters in such situations. So, I don't think my caution is unwarranted.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I don't think so either... The way things are nowadays... *shudder* I'd be afraid to send a child of mine on a camping trip with strangers. It's sad that things are like that though...
Posted by martha (Member # 141) on :
Belle, I think it's wonderful that you let your kids live with the consequences of their actions instead of inventing artificial "consequences."
About the sleepover thing: I think it's a legitimate rule with good reasoning behind it. At some point, one does have to draw a line about how much risk one is willing to take (learning to drive is extremely risky, but people let their sixteen-year-olds do it all the time).
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:As other people have mentioned here, you may end up with cowed, obedient children and young adults, or you may end up with sneaky, resentful, rebellious children who think that causing pain is a good way to get what they want.
Or you may end up with normal children who relate to the world within normal parameters.
Or any variant in between.
Again, spanking can be a tool the same way time outs can. It depends on the child (and the parent) for its effectiveness.
quote:I'd be afraid to send a child of mine on a camping trip with strangers. It's sad that things are like that though...
Well...that's why you have to get to know the children your children know, and know their parents.
Each family needs to make their own decisions about their comfort level with family and strangers. Strangers can be a danger, but statistically, a child is more likely to face abuse from someone they know-- a family member, a friend, a trusted authority figure. Like Belle, we've chosen to not allow sleepovers.
Mostly.
Understanding that, and our reasons for it, doesn't take into account all the other things we do to build our childrens' defenses against physical, emotional, and sexual abuse. It's not just that we forbid them to spend the night at a friend's house-- that's not much protection when you stop to think it over-- but that we teach them to be aware of their surroundings, and to take ownership of their own actions, and bodies.
We teach them how to be safe, and what to do when they haven't been safe, and what to do if circumstances get out of their control. We teach them to trust us, and give them reasons to believe what we teach them.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:What incentive does this young girl have to learn to remember her own equipment, when she knows Mom will always just go home and get them for her if she forgets?
Well, if Mom goes up and gives her an embarrassingly Mom-like embrace and kiss out there on the gym floor in front of all her friends...
She might learn the same thing.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
I don't think Belle's rule in unreasonable at all. We have the same one. There is ONE person that Matthew is allowed to overnight with, and we have known them for 14 years and they are like family. But they have boys, so even Livvie can't stay there. I also agree with not rescuing kids. Kids really only forget things once that way.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by romanylass: I don't think Belle's rule in unreasonable at all. We have the same one. There is ONE person that Matthew is allowed to overnight with, and we have known them for 14 years and they are like family. But they have boys, so even Livvie can't stay there. I also agree with not rescuing kids. Kids really only forget things once that way.
Oh I dunno about that, I forgot VERY important things for school all the way until I was graduated, my parents almost ALWAYS let me live with the consequences of it. It was not until I was an adult that I started devising ways to prevent myself from forgetting things, but I still do it quite often.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Interesting thing about those folks... I think they do stuff like that because they are threatened. They fear that if they are not strict with their children, if they do not break their wills, control every aspect of their lives, homeschool them to isolate them from the world that their children will turn away from their religion they were born into and their souls will be lost. So they believe in putting them in line with this strict form of discipline from an early age so they are used to it, so it's their way of life. But it's interesting the way that fellow mentioned how bad he feels employing such techiniques on his granddaughter. If it's right to do that, then why would he feel so bad doing that?
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Tom, isn't it great that kids always defy our expectations? I admire them so much for that.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
), and thinking it is the answer to every disciplinary situation. And these folks are WAY over that line.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)