Combining this with what I see on a Page like Jesus Daily, and the weird belief they sell to (mostly young) people, accepting Jesus as the Saviour is 'free', i.e. no longer religion needed, no law of love, and even this strong conviction, life on earth is soon over and Jesus will come to take them to heaven, I wonder how this influences society in the USA. As it surely is not a small thing, there are millions and millions of people involved.
Having people give up on inner values, stopping to teach some basics for life, is it demoralizing society, or is this new belief - born and for the major part found in the USA - a result of a demoralized society and is it desperation?
Every 5 hours a child dies from child abuse in the USA, the highest rate in western industrialized countries. Spanking, beating up children in schools is still common practice. The economic costs of child abuse are 1% of the GDP (94 billion dollars, WHO)
What is the USA doing to the next generation, the future of the country? Which party is using those kids, to tell them what to vote and what to support?
I think it's scary. But maybe I am wrong. What's your opinion?
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
It seems a bit like a modern mystery play but with lots more horror and hate.
I'm honestly surprised, looking at the pictures, that non-religious people (especially teens) would find it anything other than hysterically funny.
And anyone, religious or not, who sent a child younger than about eleven or so to something as creepy as that - live action smashed up bodies and suicide - should probably be done for child abuse.
Posted by GinetteB (Member # 12390) on :
Oh yes, I agree with it being child abuse, those Hell Houses. And I would say, younger than 16. Or just completely forbid things like this.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
And, now Bob Dylan is in my head thank you very much.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
In reference to the last picture of the slideshow, if that is heaven I don't want to go. I'd rather hang out with those two Gwar knock-offs.
Ginette, it would be really really difficult with the first defense being religious freedom. But California did just outlaw 'pray the gay away' camps on minors, so we seem to have room to protect children from their immediate culture.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:“Jesus was so controversial that they killed him,” he said. “You can’t have an impact without a collision.”
Sure, but JC's message was love and understanding, and his audience was Romans, who enslaved people and crucified them if they tried to run to freedom.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bella Bee: And anyone, religious or not, who sent a child younger than about eleven or so to something as creepy as that - live action smashed up bodies and suicide - should probably be done for child abuse.
Really? So you're also suggesting that parents that let their kids read Stephen King or R.L. Stine, or watch the Friday the 13th movies are culpable for child abuse?
Hell Houses are idiotic, IMO. And despite their claims, I suspect extremely ineffective. But calling them child abuse is way over the top.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Presumably an easy line could be drawn between "letting" your kids go and "forcing" your kids to go when making that determination.
Posted by DustinDopps (Member # 12640) on :
I spank my kids and I'm far from a child abuser. To equate the two is ignorant and bigoted on your part, Ginette.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Presumably an easy line could be drawn between "letting" your kids go and "forcing" your kids to go when making that determination.
Even so. Forcing a child to view something disgusting and distasteful is not child abuse, and claiming it as such lessens the meaning of abuse.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
I think intentionally traumatizing your kids is emotional child abuse. If you know something will make them really scared and you force them to do it, even though it's not actually necessary for them to go through it, it's emotional abuse. Which is not, perhaps, the most serious kind of abuse. Still abusive behavior, though.
My parents slapped me to stop me doing dangerous things when I was too young to understand reasoned argument. They also allowed me to watch Aliens at the age of six because I wanted to. They were not abusive.
There's a difference between giving your kids the freedom to make their own mistakes, and keeping them safe from harming themselves accidentally, and forcing them to experience something you actively hope will make them fearful long term when you could be teaching them about the good parts of your religion.
IMO, obviously.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by DustinDopps: I spank my kids and I'm far from a child abuser. To equate the two is ignorant and bigoted on your part, Ginette.
Forcing a small child to go to a hell house as a lesson which causes them emotional trauma -is- abusive behavior. That happens, most likely a very small percent of the time. But to call some one harsh names like "bigoted" and "ignorant" when you disagree with them is truly and utterly uncalled for (not to mention against the TOS).
And just because -you- spanking your children doesn't make you a child abuser (I spank my kids too) doesn't mean that some abusers don't also spank their children as well. Had Ginette said something to the effect of "-all- parents who bring their children to hell houses are abusive" (which she clearly did not) then you might have a leg to stand on, but then only one leg, as you still are going too far with the name calling regardless.
quote:Originally posted by Bella Bee: I think intentionally traumatizing your kids is emotional child abuse. If you know something will make them really scared and you force them to do it, even though it's not actually necessary for them to go through it, it's emotional abuse. Which is not, perhaps, the most serious kind of abuse. Still abusive behavior, though.
Seconded.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Intentionally traumatizing your kids with a Hell House sort of thing, even if you excuse it to yourself as being part of a system of scaring them into following the correct tenets of the correct religion or whatever, is somewhat of an abusive act and a pattern of such things would be indicative of an abusive parent. It in and of itself is not sufficient to make a parent abusive. But I'd call anyone who sends their kids to a hell house to 'demonstrate god's love' through base, traumatic, emotional scare tactics is, to be frank, both a piss-poor parent and a piss-poor christian, so I don't care too terribly much for them strenuously objecting to people noting how it seems abusive to put them through a bigoted, homophobic, purposefully traumatizing indoctrination machine. Anyway.
quote:Originally posted by DustinDopps: I spank my kids and I'm far from a child abuser. To equate the two is ignorant and bigoted on your part, Ginette.
Quit hittin' your kids.
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: And just because -you- spanking your children doesn't make you a child abuser (I spank my kids too)
You too, there's better ways
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Intentionally traumatizing your kids with a Hell House sort of thing, even if you excuse it to yourself as being part of a system of scaring them into following the correct tenets of the correct religion or whatever, is somewhat of an abusive act and a pattern of such things would be indicative of an abusive parent. It in and of itself is not sufficient to make a parent abusive.
I would agree with that.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Samp: without knowing any circumstance, offense, other techniques used -before- a spanking is administered, frequency, amount or force used or number of spanks, or even asking, I am fairly comfortable saying this:
Kick rocks.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I don't have to know any specifics, unless that specific is you pulling out some amazing proof that you know better than the American Academy of Pediatrics and can produce data showing that corporal punishment should be approved of as a preferable accompaniment to parenting, as opposed to a problematic parenting discipline technique which is best removed from parenting, by anyone who intends to make themselves a better parent as opposed to remaining reliant on a crutch which causes more problems than it solves.
But you are very welcome to provide this information.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Nah, I'm good with kick rocks.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Allow me to clarify. I am not advocating spanking as a parenting tool, I am simply utterly disinterested in unasked for parenting advice from someone who shows zero interest in and has zero knowledge of the circumstances surrounding discipline of my children.
You simply have no idea what you are talking about and are disdainful of relieving your utter ignorance of my situation.
If you would like to have an actual conversation about it, I'm willing, but just high handedly offering parenting instruction, with an absolute, generalized catch all only deserves one reply:
Kick rocks.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:who shows zero interest in
- zero interest in your parenting methods would result in zero posts about parenting methods - in actuality I am very activist and openly involved in telling people not to hit their kids whenever the subject of people hitting their kids comes up
quote:and has zero knowledge of the circumstances surrounding discipline of my children.
- knows you use spanking as a parental tool - this makes it not 'zero knowledge' - knows parenting is better off without spanking, period - can back that up based off the findings of people who know what they are talking about - so will say 'don't spank your kids' to anyone who brings up that they spank their kids, for whatever reason or with whatever precautions they would like to assure me are used to make sure that they are doing it 'properly.'
quote:You simply have no idea what you are talking about
- see above
quote:just high handedly offering parenting instruction, with an absolute, generalized catch all
- I can offer absolute generalized catch-alls to many things related to parenting instruction, like "don't sell your children into slavery" — it being a catchall doesn't make it not true; one really should not sell their children into slavery
quote:
In closing, here is an entirely unassociated picture of Dwight Schrute Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Knowing that I use spanking as a tool does not give you any insight into the "circumstances surrounding the discipline of my children".
Knowing that an event has happened doesn't give any information about its circumstances.
And while not all catch alls are useless, as some are brain numblingly obvious (see your example), when it comes to real complex issues which effect individuals who react differently in specific circumstances, black and white generalities aren't rarely worth the hot air used to form them.
But, if you do want to discuss the particulars which have caused me to use spanking, well and effectively, we can.
As long as you insist that you are qualified to make this determination from arm chair cyber space with utterly no information other then what some MDs say about absolutely everyone, my response stays the same.
Rocks, kick them.
In closing, here is an entirely unassociated picture of Dwight Shultz Posted by DustinDopps (Member # 12640) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: [QB] But to call some one harsh names like "bigoted" and "ignorant" when you disagree with them is truly and utterly uncalled for (not to mention against the TOS)...
Had Ginette said something to the effect of "-all- parents who bring their children to hell houses are abusive" (which she clearly did not) then you might have a leg to stand on, but then only one leg, as you still are going too far with the name calling regardless. /QB]
I apologize - to Ginette specifically - if it sounded like I was calling names. I meant those words literally, not as any sort of condescending epithet. This quote in particular is what I was responding to:
---- "Every 5 hours a child dies from child abuse in the USA, the highest rate in western industrialized countries. Spanking, beating up children in schools is still common practice. The economic costs of child abuse are 1% of the GDP (94 billion dollars, WHO)" ----
This quote includes spanking in the same context as child abuse and beating up children. I contend that anyone who considers spanking the same as these things is ignorant, because they don't understand spanking as a disciplinary tool. They assume I am beating my kids or hitting them harshly in anger. Since ignorance is a lack of knowledge, and since they don't know how or why I spank, the word 'ignorance' is appropriate.
In the same way, I used the word bigot literally: "a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion." Spanking is (no matter how many links other people post citing "studies") a viable parenting tool. It is also legal where I live. Ginette's quote appears to show that she (by using the WHO quote as an example) is intolerant of my beliefs. That is bigotry.
Again - I wasn't trying to call names, and my word choice could have been better. If I offended anyone, please accept my apology. But my point still stands.
I understand that some people have been scarred for life by overzealous parents. I know that spanking - when done in anger - can be the same as child abuse. But lumping "parent who spanks" in the same group as "child abuser" is offensive to me.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Presumably an easy line could be drawn between "letting" your kids go and "forcing" your kids to go when making that determination.
Even so. Forcing a child to view something disgusting and distasteful is not child abuse, and claiming it as such lessens the meaning of abuse.
Well, I was under the impression that the houses were meant to be frightening rather than just distasteful. Even if I separate out the religious aspect, there probably is legislation that could be applied. i.e. if we were talking about a safe, but terrifying roller coaster
In fact, I think the word "abuse" has already been applied pretty often to things like bullying, for example, "half of all Canadian adults have been bullied and 30 per cent think that the abuse had a lasting impact on their lives."* In other words, if child-on-child bullying is described as abuse, I'm comfortable with it also being used to describe adult-on-child bullying.
(Although in fairness, I'd probably like to see a pattern of forcing your children into frightening situations rather than a single incident)
DustinDopps: Thank you for the clarification.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by DustinDopps: ... I used the word bigot literally: "a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion."
I don't think you've applied the definition correctly. You demonstrated that the other poster is intolerant of "your" belief. You also have to demonstrate that they are intolerant of *any* differing beliefs.
i.e. Using your application, anyone that disagrees with even one single belief, say the KKK's doctrine of racial superiority would be a "bigot"
Posted by DustinDopps (Member # 12640) on :
I disagree, Mucus. Ginette's comment wasn't directed at me - it was a condemnation of the idea of spanking (or at least that's how it reads to me).
Thinking that spanking is a poor choice for parenting is an opinion. Thinking that people who spank their kids are abusers is applying an opinion to a group and is thus bigotry.
But we all use language a bit differently, so it might mean something different to you and that's fine.
Posted by GinetteB (Member # 12390) on :
In Europe, we have a European Convention protecting the rights of children. Spanking is forbidden. It has not so much to do with considering spanking a reasonable disciplinary tool, as well as with this: . no parent can be 100% sure every spanking is justified, as a parent can misjudge a situation, - it opens the door to use spanking as an outlet for the parents anger, - if a child learns to obey by spanking, how do you get the child to obey others than the parents? So, then you'd have to give fx the school permission to spank them too, increasing the above dangers
So that was my perspective as a European. Take it for what you think it is worth, but don't call me names please. It is my right to call spanking abuse; by calling spanking abuse, I am by no means judging the PERSON who spanks, as I assume you do it to the best of your conscience. This might just not be good enough for the childs sake.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I'm in no way pro-spanking, but this: "no parent can be 100% sure every spanking is justified, as a parent can misjudge a situation," seems like a really foolish argument against. Parents can't discipline their children unless they're 100% sure? Parenting just took a big hit on that one.
Hobbes Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Most parents who take/send their kids to these things have no idea what they're getting into. They tend to be marketed as "Haunted House with a Christian theme," and people assume that means they'll be more family-friendly and less scary than a regular haunted house, maybe with a "when you're scared remember that God is always with you" message at the end.
They've gotten enough negative publicity in the last decade or so that the bait-and-switch is less effective, but it still works, so they're still doing it. It's an "outreach" program to get people who wouldn't come and listen to the message otherwise.
Posted by GinetteB (Member # 12390) on :
Hobbes, a child can defend itself against a verbal accusation. But not against spanking. In my opinion, spanking is not ok, but spanking without reason is devastating for a child. And it destroys this 'disciplinary tool', as the kid can't make sense out of it anymore.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Knowing that I use spanking as a tool does not give you any insight into the "circumstances surrounding the discipline of my children".
You should really read what you just wrote here. Can you spot the giant error? The huge, practically unmissable error?
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by DustinDopps: Thinking that spanking is a poor choice for parenting is an opinion. Thinking that people who spank their kids are abusers is applying an opinion to a group and is thus bigotry.
"I think that the KKK is racist and hateful."
There. I applied an opinion to a group. According to your *very stupid* definition of bigotry, I am now a bigot.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:Hobbes, a child can defend itself against a verbal accusation. But not against spanking. In my opinion, spanking is not ok, but spanking without reason is devastating for a child. And it destroys this 'disciplinary tool', as the kid can't make sense out of it anymore.
I'm having difficulty seeing how this relates to what I said. I'm not pro-spanking so if you're just trying to convince me it's wrong... job well done I guess. But the original quote was saying that the problem with spanking is you can't be 100% sure you know exactly what happened. That has nothing to do with spanking, that has to do with life.
It's an argument against the death penalty. Not a great one (there plenty of better arguments) but spanking... I mean every form of discipline has consequences right? Otherwise it's pretty terrible discipline.
Hobbes Posted by GinetteB (Member # 12390) on :
Yes, always sad people can't make a distinction between action and actor. Causes a lot of unnecessary hate in the world.
Posted by GinetteB (Member # 12390) on :
...just in case I need to explain: Incidentally doing something harmful to others, doesn't make someone a bad person. Continually doing a lot of harm to others doesn't make someone a bad person either: This person is sick and needs treatment, so in fact they deserve your pity and mercy as they surely have a miserable life.
Posted by GinetteB (Member # 12390) on :
Sorry Hobbes, but I just don't get your point. Seriously trying though, maybe it's a misunderstanding? Do I have to read your comment like: People who spank their kids, always talk first with the kid. Then, if it's clear the kid deserves punishment in the form of spanking, it gets spanked.' Is that what you mean? Well, I would hope - if someone uses spanking - it is done like this. But I am afraid not Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
That's not what Hobbes is saying. He's saying that if uncertainty is an argument against spanking then it's an argument against any discipline at all.
Posted by DustinDopps (Member # 12640) on :
quote:People who spank their kids, always talk first with the kid. Then, if it's clear the kid deserves punishment in the form of spanking, it gets spanked.' Is that what you mean? Well, I would hope - if someone uses spanking - it is done like this. But I am afraid not [/QB]
That's the point I was trying to make. This is exactly how spanking works in my household. If one of my children is doing something they shouldn't be, they get a warning first. "I'm going to spank you if you keep doing that." If they continue to do it, I explain that their decision to disobey is resulting in a spanking.
In other words, by the time they get a spanking, they know that it is a direct result of their decision to continue misbehaving.
I swat them hard enough so they feel it, but not usually hard enough that they cry. Then I hug them, reassure them that I love them, and say something like "I don't like spanking you, but it's my job as your dad to make sure you grow up knowing right from wrong. Today you chose to do something wrong so I had to punish you. Hopefully in the future you'll make better decisions."
Consider it like this: the first time you burn your hand on a hot oven or pan, you learn a lesson. It hurts a bit, but it teaches you to be more careful in the future. It is a negative reinforcement. Spankings, for me at least, serve the same purpose. They are a brief, momentary pain that teaches my kids that there is a consequence for every bad decision they make.
It is worlds away from beatings or abuse.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Knowing that I use spanking as a tool does not give you any insight into the "circumstances surrounding the discipline of my children".
If you tell me that you spank your kids, this does give me insight into an element of your parenting methods. Namely, that it includes corporal punishment. That you use the deliberate infliction of pain on a child as a punishment tool. For a person who adamantly believes that people should never use the deliberate infliction of pain on a child as a punishment tool, this already qualifies a guaranteed answer to an announcement that you hit your kids, namely that I think you should not do that.
Since you enjoy digging yourself holes, let me give you a pointer: if you're going to dismiss someone and tell them to kick rocks, leave it at that. Dismiss them and quit diving in (especially don't do this while assuring the other party how much you don't care about their posts you're still responding to).
Repeatedly engaging while catchphrasing "i have no desire to engage you" at the end of your posts is a great non-starter.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Parkour:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Knowing that I use spanking as a tool does not give you any insight into the "circumstances surrounding the discipline of my children".
You should really read what you just wrote here. Can you spot the giant error? The huge, practically unmissable error?
quote:Circumstances 1. a condition, detail, part, or attribute, with respect to time, place, manner,agent, etc., that accompanies, determines, or modifies a fact or event; a modifying or influencing factor: Do not judge his behavior without considering every circumstance.
2. Usually, circumstances. the existing conditions or state of affairs surrounding and affecting an agent: Circumstances permitting, we sail on Monday.
Derp!
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Samp:
I would think you would be at least passing familiar with if-then statements. If you want to have a real conversation, I'm happy to participate. If you continue to judge without any knowledge beyond the bare bone facts, then there is nothing to talk about.
You can be "right" all by yourself.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Knowing that someone intentionally inflicts pain on their children as a method of punishment is the only relevant information necessary to qualify my individual, currently provided opinion: that if you do that, you shouldn't do that. It even comes attached with links to the pediatric sciences talking about, specifically, why you shouldn't do that.
You are welcome to provide your individual story as to why you, like every other spanking parent, have justified the practice to yourself, how careful and 'properly' you apply pain discipline, or maybe even how it happened to you and but of course you turned out fine. But my position is that there is no 'proper' way to hit a child, only less wrong ways to hit a child. The caveats and anecdote people throw at that are irrelevant. One could only make a case that they are not irrelevant, which I would consider, but I won't weight them higher than, say, the informed scientific opinion of the AAP. Or you could ask me why I think there are no proper ways to intentionally inflict pain onto a child as punishment, if I haven't gotten around to it anyway.
Either way, I'm not right all by myself, I'm right with a qualified scientific opinion and I'll take any opportunity to soapbox 'don't hit your kids' because people should not hit their kids, no matter how Lovingly and no matter their Good Intentions.
And yes, I will soapbox every single time someone will talk about that they hit their kids.
Posted by GinetteB (Member # 12390) on :
Well Matt, that is surely not what Hobbes meant, as I didn't use the argument of uncertainty in ITSELF. I was talking about the DANGER spanking is used without talking first and unjustified, as then it is devastating (and abuse,imo). While other disciplinary measures like 'go to your room' without talking first are not devastating, as the child can refuse when it feels it is unfair - or come out of it's room a little later to discuss - anyway, it is not forced into a situation where it is powerless.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
People who spank:
Do you believe that spanking has unique benefit that can only be obtained through spanking? Or merely that there is so little harm in it that it's not necessary to consider alternatives?
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Ginette, Matt was absolutley right. You now seem to be backing away from your argument. Which is fine by me, since I didn't think it was a good one, but you did make it. Here's the quote:
quote:In Europe, we have a European Convention protecting the rights of children. Spanking is forbidden. It has not so much to do with considering spanking a reasonable disciplinary tool, as well as with this: . no parent can be 100% sure every spanking is justified, as a parent can misjudge a situation, - it opens the door to use spanking as an outlet for the parents anger, - if a child learns to obey by spanking, how do you get the child to obey others than the parents? So, then you'd have to give fx the school permission to spank them too, increasing the above dangers
You provided a list in which the items weren't connected, thus they clearly weren't a series of steps, but rather individual arguments. This is made clear by the ending statement: "increasing the above dangers". If you don't think that uncertainty is a good argument against spanking, then we're in agreement and we can just move on, but that's the point I was making.
Hobbes Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: People who spank:
Do you believe that spanking has unique benefit that can only be obtained through spanking? Or merely that there is so little harm in it that it's not necessary to consider alternatives?
Our bodies have developed pain as a warning system that **something is wrong, danger danger**...it is the foundation structure for the hard wiring of the human body. When a child can not understand intellectually the concepts, and therefore will not stop damaging/dangerous behavior, they can understand the temporary twinge of pain from their body and they learn from it.
As to how I spank: I only spank under one circumstance, if one of the children intentionally hurts the other, after being warned, and it was first hand witnessed. Then it is one smack to a clothed, diapered bottom, accompanied by a time out and an explanation of why. After the time out, another explanation, a request for an apology (both to the parent and the injured party) and then an acceptance of the the apology and a hug and reassurance.
My children are a year and half apart. And my older son (who is now 3) was intentionally hurting my younger daughter. We were not spanking at that juncture, just using time outs. So we used time outs, but the smart little bugger knew how to manipulate the system too easily, and he kept hurting her. He would smile and laugh in time out and have a "sorry" ready once the time was up. It was a game to him. He knew he could get away with it. So we tried to remove toys or privileges, but that was like punishing the girl too and left them both crying and upset.
It took a few deep conversations with my wife, who is very anti-spanking, to convince her of the need.
So, after a warning that he would get spanked and get a time out for hurting his sister, I spank my son...once. He cries, and is put into time out. And it works. He doesn't hurt her much anymore. Mostly the warning is enough. I haven't had to spank in at least four months.
Often times I will come into a room where the girl is crying and the boy took off with a guilty look. I never punish him for that, only ask him if he hurt her and warn. Because sometimes babies just hurt themselves and you need to see with your own two eyes and not just assume the worst and punish. I have seen this happen where she hurt self (at times intentionally) and the boy had nothing to do with it, but still takes off as if he did.
The girl is starting to get a bit violent, and we have been using time outs, which have been effective. As long as they remain so, there will be no spanking.
Spanking CAN be a Bad Thing™ and should only be used carefully and never in anger or to excess. But it is bloody well effective if used properly, no matter what some neck beard MDs have to say about it.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:But it is bloody well effective if used properly, no matter what some neck beard MDs have to say about it.
This is pretty much a straightforward demonstration of arrogant and aggressive ignorance. Have you even looked at what the "neck beard MDs" are saying in regards to spanking? Do you understand the argument of the AAP at all, or what it is based upon? Or are you going to sit here and just assume you know better?
I'm happy to read the -first and only- thing you have included in the conversation beyond stating that the AAP is against it.
As to arrogant and aggressive ignorance...I'm start to feel a bit aggressive, but it has nothing to do with ignorance.
How many times did I have to implicitly invite you to discuss this before you agreed to do so? And even then I went first and before adding nearly anything to the conversation you start talking shmack about me?
You might consider checking your attitude.
Posted by GinetteB (Member # 12390) on :
Hobbes: No. I am not backing away from my argument. If you insist on giving it a name and comparing it to the death penalty, then do that. If you then decide, it's not valid, fine with me. I see a clear difference, yet I can't see an opening to make you see this difference, as you don't take my explanation into account. And, I don't think it's very relevant for the discussion whether we agree or not. Besides, I am not here to improve my debating skills. Just wanted to hear different opinions from different perspectives. So, let's just leave it at that Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Stone Wolf, my concern is about your son in the long term. I know he is only 3 now, but is he really learning that harming his sister is wrong? The impulse is still there. There is a reason he is doing it, and spanking is not getting at that reason. Most 3 year olds do not have the impulse to harm their siblings. Have you talked to your pediatrician about it? I am assuming he will be entering pre-school or kindergarten sooner than later, and they don't spank there. What happens if the violent impulses continue there?
Now, I am not opposed to spanking. I have been fortunate that time outs have been working for my 3 year old. My wife and I have discussed it, and agreed neither of us a philosophically opposed to spanking. We have just not had the need yet. As a teacher I know that every child is different, and every child needs a different type of discipline.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Bella Bee: And anyone, religious or not, who sent a child younger than about eleven or so to something as creepy as that - live action smashed up bodies and suicide - should probably be done for child abuse.
Really? So you're also suggesting that parents that let their kids read Stephen King or R.L. Stine, or watch the Friday the 13th movies are culpable for child abuse?
Hell Houses are idiotic, IMO. And despite their claims, I suspect extremely ineffective. But calling them child abuse is way over the top.
While I oppose most censorship, I find a flaw in your logic. I firmly believe that most children that can comprehend Stephen King or even R.L. Stine have a firm grasp of fact vs. fiction. I think Hell Houses could truly be harmful because children at a much lower level are still exposed to them.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bella Bee:
My parents slapped me to stop me doing dangerous things when I was too young to understand reasoned argument.
This to me is a reasonable example of spanking. When the young child is doing something that is harmful to themselves.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Most 3 year olds do not have the impulse to harm their siblings.
What do you mean, "impulse?"
Three year olds have enough experience with their bodies to understand pain, and how to inflict it by pinching, pulling, scratching, or slapping. They have developed enough of an ego to want things outside of immediate needs. And most of them have figured out that physical coercion is a way to get what they want.
Spanking may be useful for some child somewhere. I personally think it is entirely overused and ineffective, given the other disciplinary tactics available to us. But I allow there may be some kids who just don't react to anything else. (I
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
There are a few flawed assumptions here -- as well as a much broader spectrum of the use of spanking as discipline. For the most part, reasonable spankings only work on young children. Why? Because it isn't about the application of pain. If you're inflicting pain with a young child, you're applying the concept incorrectly. That's why spanking with "reasonable force" is still legal, both federally and in every state of the Union.
Spanking was effective with both of my children when they were younger, even though I barely touched them. It was the ritualized punishment act that was effective. It was the "you've broken the rules, now you're getting a spanking". This becomes a deterrent that provokes a Pavlovian response. Yes, this lost its effectivity around the age of five or six. About the same time you're able to begin reasoning with a child, they stop fearing a spanking that doesn't hurt. But before they have a strong grasp of logical reasoning, it's effective as heck.
Now, the application of spanking as a pain deterrent is a different story. That could be considered abuse, though the supreme court found that it was neither cruel or unusual. In fact, it's still allowed in many schools in the US. Anecdotally, my cousin was quite the problem child and only reformed after being sent to a private school in Mississippi that practiced caning.
Would I use "pain spanking" on my kids? No way. But if it's moderate and doesn't cause medical issues? I can think of worse legal punishments that can be used as deterrents.
I would have much preferred spankings growing up than a punishment my step-father called "sitting on the chair". From the moment we awoke until the moment we went to bed, we were forced to sit at the kitchen table and "think about what (we) done". No books, no talking, no resting our head on the table. We could get up for bathroom breaks and school only. We had to ask for any drinks or meals. This got pretty excruciating during the summer when school was out. Especially since the minimum punishment was about a week. I'd much have preferred a few bruises or a sore bottom.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Most 3 year olds do not have the impulse to harm their siblings.
What do you mean, "impulse?"
Three year olds have enough experience with their bodies to understand pain, and how to inflict it by pinching, pulling, scratching, or slapping. They have developed enough of an ego to want things outside of immediate needs. And most of them have figured out that physical coercion is a way to get what they want.
Spanking may be useful for some child somewhere. I personally think it is entirely overused and ineffective, given the other disciplinary tactics available to us. But I allow there may be some kids who just don't react to anything else.
Of course, the real parenting lesson is to figure out how your child will behave prior to needing discipline, so as to head off problem behavior before it becomes necessary to dole out punishment of any kind.
Know your child.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I'm happy to read the -first and only- thing you have included in the conversation beyond stating that the AAP is against it.
You have evidently not been paying attention to my posts. This is not even the first time I've given you that link.
quote:As to arrogant and aggressive ignorance...I'm start to feel a bit aggressive, but it has nothing to do with ignorance.
Yeah, it does. I'm calling you out on it. You said "But it is bloody well effective if used properly, no matter what some neck beard MDs have to say about it." Like, literally. That quote is like what people say when they're trying to parody ignorance. Complete with an image denigration of those doctors as just all being a bunch of neckbeards.
You might as well have said "I don't care what a bunch of them fancy-pants city "doctors" with their "pediatric sciences" think about me swattin' my kid"
I am right to call you on that, as I am right to note that I asked you:
Do you understand the argument of the AAP at all, or what it is based upon?
The answer (or nonanswer, in your case), obviously, was a resounding no. Or if not, you have gone to great pains to make it seem that way.
Asking me to check my attitude is a distraction from you really testifying here and now to how you need to check your ignorance. I can absolutely make a straightforward and respectful (repeat) case for abandoning spanking as a parenting tool but it is better to ask that you read, understand, and acknowledge the expert advice of pediatric doctors and scientists, as opposed to me. I am a layman. You are a layman. They are experts. They make an excellent case for it.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
My 2-year-old has plenty of impulse to harm her siblings. She uses her head very effectively as a blunt object when she wants to get her way. She knows very well she's causing pain.
I don't think spanking should be used very much at all. It's effective when you can keep it as the ultimate punishment. Then even the threat of it can deter bad behavior. But I very, very rarely even mention spanking when I'm threatening discipline. A calm count to three, followed by a time out, usually works just fine. My kids have to be doing something blatantly harmful right in front of me and refuse to quit even after several warnings if I'm going to spank them. That's not often at all.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Let me note that Samprimary's link is actually pretty good. The latter 1/3 is typical professional condescension toward laymen (read: parents) which I find problematic personally. Then again the intended audience of the piece are other pediatricians; not parents.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Samp:
I must have missed the first one, but it is not okay to expect me to read and comment on a link you put up immediately. I do not have a job where I can sit at my computer and surf the web when there is down time.
I said I'd read it, I will read it. I will also comment. When I have time.
And I asked you to check your attitude because it was starting to get in the way of the discussion, for me.
What I said was not aggressive ignorance, it was clearly stating that spanking worked to solve a problem for me and mine, quite well, when other things failed. And it did. We went from daily problems to not having a single incident in over 3 months, which is quite a long time when talking about a 3 year old.
Posted by DustinDopps (Member # 12640) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: People who spank:
Do you believe that spanking has unique benefit that can only be obtained through spanking? Or merely that there is so little harm in it that it's not necessary to consider alternatives?
Yes, I think it does have a unique benefit. A clever child can turn almost any punishment into a "win" for themselves. If they are grounded from video games, they can still entertain themselves with books or music. Or they can whine until their parents relent and un-ground them. If they are given a time out, they can use the time to think about how wrong Mom and Dad are and feel righteous indignation. If they are verbally scolded, they can "tune out" what the parent is saying.
A swat is an immediate, effective, unavoidable punishment for misbehavior. There is no ambiguity and no argument.
It doesn't work, however, if it is just a threatened punishment that is never acted on. I see too many parents use a spanking as a threat, but the kid knows it won't actually happen so they continue to scream in the store or throw a tantrum in church or whatever.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Dustin, the win in spanking is it is over quickly and relatively easily. Also, I wouldn't call the kid who uses tune out to brood clever. The clever kid is the one who acts contrite do they get out faster. I have spanked my kid twice and I am not convinced of its benefits. Once was when she ran away at target and hid in clothes racks and didnt come when I called her. I think the baby leash I bought her and threatened her with was much more effective as a deterent. Second time spanked was the cliched running into the street. Spent weeks attempting to explain why it was ok for us to spank her but not ok for her to spank others. The repeated talks about danger and cars I think made more of an impact. With my baby, I am tempted by spanking because her temperament is so different but then I imagine her look of bein betrayed and the inevitable screaming afterwards and think I just need to be more patient and more creative with her.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Upon a quick reading I have no bones to pick with what the MDs say.
quote:Although spanking may immediately reduce or stop an undesired behavior, its effectiveness decreases with subsequent use.
quote:Thus, at best, spanking is only effective when used in selective infrequent situations.
Seems as if I am following the guidelines pretty much spot on.
I am against spanking as the primary form of discipline for children. Spanking certainly can be misused and have negative effects, and should always be an ultimate punishment for serious and dangerous behavior, and always coupled with calm communication and kind reassurance.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Yes, I think it does have a unique benefit. A clever child can turn almost any punishment into a "win" for themselves. If they are grounded from video games, they can still entertain themselves with books or music. Or they can whine until their parents relent and un-ground them. If they are given a time out, they can use the time to think about how wrong Mom and Dad are and feel righteous indignation. If they are verbally scolded, they can "tune out" what the parent is saying.
If they are grounded or sent to their rooms, *enjoying themselves* would seem to be defeating the purpose, so maybe don't let them read books or listen to music-tell them they may only read textbooks or do chores or something. If they're whining, the parent can and should show more discipline than the small child and handle that. If they are feeling indignant but not showing it (a crafty child indeed), explain to them clearly and simply what they did wrong, why they are being punished, and how they can avoid it in the future.
So on and so forth. Now I expect you'll reject this assertion because it sounds bad, but all of these examples are cases of the child outwitting, out waiting, outnerving, or sneaking past their parent. That doesn't mean those methods don't work, it means the parent should show more wit, nerve, and discipline than the small child. Easier said than done when it's 24/7, of course, but that's the game.
It's strange to me how advocates for corporal punishment who suggest spanking is a tool do so often in a way that suggests or outright states that it's the only tool that will work. We've seen a bit of that in this discussion. Eventually, so the argument goes, the calculus of parenting is such that a problem will present for which spanking is the only solution.
Strange, there is basically never a single path to anything when it comes to dealing with people.
Posted by DustinDopps (Member # 12640) on :
Scholarette - I don't mind that the duration of the spanking is brief. I'm not trying to teach my children that bad decisions have long-lasting consequences (although they often do, of course).
I'd much rather have a short, "intense" punishment than a long-lasting one. It gets the point across quickly and decisively.
And in some ways, spanking is more of a shaming punishment than a physical one. As someone else said, it is a punishment ritual. If things escalate to spanking, the kid knows they did something really bad and will concentrate on it as the spanking looms.
I remember from being a kid that hearing "I'm going to spank you when we get home" was terribly effective because I had the whole ride home to dwell on what I had done and what I should have done differently. It wasn't fear, necessarily, but more that I was ashamed of upsetting my parents in a stupid way.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
So as a kid, you weren't afraid of being spanked. 'Just wait till your father gets home' with it's implied corporal punishment wasn't a statement that instilled some fear. Just to be clear, that's what you're saying.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by DustinDopps: ... I'm not trying to teach my children that bad decisions have long-lasting consequences
Indeed, people spend too much time dwelling on the long-term consequences of their actions.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
By context, I suspect that DD meant:
"I'm not trying to teach my children that bad decisions have long-lasting consequences"... with spanking.
Posted by DustinDopps (Member # 12640) on :
Indeed.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I'm a bit surprised that Samp has had so little to say in this thread lately.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Anything in particular you want me to comment on?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
I think Sam pretty much summed it up last page with "Don't hit your kids."
If you're curious what he has to say now, just refer back to that.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I can, though, comment on this.
quote:Originally posted by DustinDopps: Consider it like this: the first time you burn your hand on a hot oven or pan, you learn a lesson. It hurts a bit, but it teaches you to be more careful in the future. It is a negative reinforcement. Spankings, for me at least, serve the same purpose.
They do not serve the same purpose, not even remotely, unless for some reason you are an inanimate object that occasionally has hot surfaces, as opposed to a human being that necessarily acts as a behavioral model and caretaker. One which is modeling violence as a means of discouraging unwanted behavior. That the person who loves you also hits you. That you deserve pain.
A stove does not model behavior when it burns a hand. It is an object in the house. You are not an object. You are a human being. You model behavior. When you hit a child, you are modeling many things that you do not intend, and that you think you can get around by being 'patient' and 'loving.' All for the sake of a parenting punishment tool which is strictly inferior to nonspanking options.
When you spank a kid as a punishment you are using a parenting crutch, something that elicits compliance very easily in the visceral sense, that tricks parents into thinking it is either a
1. necessary parenting tool, or a
2. preferable parenting tool.
Once one accepts that it is neither of these is true, what is the honest reasoning by which one continues to excuse the practice of corporal punishment? The act is hopefully distasteful to any parent, and most parents will tell themselves "it hurts me to have to hit my kids, but, ..."
What happens when you remove the 'but' part? What's left to justify sticking with a practice that is normally always described as a necessary if distasteful act? All you have left is a distasteful act with non-distasteful, better options available. What's left as an argument to keep hitting your kids? Convenience? Learning new methods so that you don't have to hit your kids is too hard? It's the way your dad did it, so you refuse to accept new models? Bible says its okay so go nuts?
Parents who hit their kids aren't doing so out of malice or neglect. They are not necessarily being abusive (though many, professing a God-approved method, are horrifically abusive and promote abuse as normal and godly). They just don't know any better, they're following a tradition in an age where it has been debunked. They have three options: remain ignorant and convince themselves they still have to hit their kids; realize they don't have to hit their kids but continue to do so because they are too lazy to figure out how to be a better parent, or work to being a better parent by eschewing violent acts as a parenting tool.
Only one of these is a path that does not require immediate and persistent condemnation.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Dan: I'm really surprised to see you promoting such a lack of interaction...on a discussion board.
Samp: Considering how much kerfuffle you made when I didn't instantly read and comment on your link previously, I'm disappointed that you have yet to comment on anything I've had to say, providing yet another link and utterly sticking to this mindset of "spanking is just plain bad and you are just too lazy/stupid to change" without ever addressing my actual situation or comments.
In my case, spanking was necessary because I tried the other techniques and my baby girl was still getting her head sat on. Not only that, it solved the problem, which has never come up again. Posted by DustinDopps (Member # 12640) on :
Samp: Your opinion has been clearly heard. Spanking is either evil or stupid. Those of us who spank on purpose are either lazy or not smart enough to be "enlightened."
But please, tell me how any form of punishment is viable under your system of logic.
A Time Out tells the child: "I do not want to be around you when you make mistakes. You deserve to be isolated."
Grounding tells the child: "I have the power to deprive you of something you enjoy. Because you did something I did not want you to do, I am using my power and taking away the thing you love. Too bad."
Yelling at a kid tells them: "You make Daddy so angry!!! I can't control myself because you make life so hard!!!"
EVERY form of punishment can be construed in a negative light, just as you have done with spanking. You don't take the time to understand how it works because you are already dead-set against it.
My children know they are loved and they tell me often. They also get compliments almost daily when we are at restaurants, at the store, walking around the mall, etc. I have FIVE kids and I can take them out by myself with no problem because they have been raised with discipline. (Not to say they are perfect, of course - they still act up, but not too often.)
The proof is in the pudding, as they say. You can make all sorts of blanket statements that make you feel like your opinion is the only *right* one, but I'll take my well-behaved, awesome kids over your pithy comments any day of the week.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
The problem with the "I spanked and I have good kids" argument is that we don't know what would have happened if you had not spanked. It really ist a controlled experiment. Or comparing kids who we're spanked to kids who are bad to a kid that was spanked and is good. There is selection bias.
I have noticed a lot of parents seem to think you have no other choice but to spank, but they eliminate a lot of options because they are the adults, ie boss. For example, a couple I know fight over getting their kid ready for school. One parent has discovered if she just takes a few minutes to cuddle, all the fights in the morning go away. The other parent argues that they shouldnt coddle the kid and they need to make sure the kid understands who is in charge. He says spank if she misbehaves in getting ready. So, they have a solution which takes the same amount of time but one doesn't think it is a solution because the kid gets what she wants.
Yes, all punishments can be twisted to be wrong but I think the spanking takes less twist. Of course, my husband and I try to make punishments natural consequences versus us as parents enforcing them. We also try to encourage good behavior and through that eliminate bad behavior. For example, my daughter dwaddles in the morning. So, we give rewards/praise/attention when she is not dwaddling and as much as possible ignore the bad. Our focus is on encouraging the behavior we like, not punishing bad. We also do rcis when the kiddo's behavior is out of line. We come at it from the idea that if she is to the point where we need punishment, something else is out of line. Approaching it like a work issue with the root cause investigation helps us get to some interesting solutions, like rearranging schedule or more outdoor time. We try to avoid meltdowns, not punish the kids after it. This is not the same as giving in to the kids or making them the boss. Their are still standArds and expectations, we just get to the good behavior less by totalitarian rule.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Here's the thing: no one, not even Samprimary, is saying 'you cannot raise children to be happy, healthy, productive, disciplined, and loving if you spank them'.
Children can be happy and joyful and so on under excellent conditions, or terrible conditions, or average conditions. There are children growing up in the sort of desperate, grinding poverty, violence, and want that people in America have difficulty imagining-that I have difficulty imagining.
More than a few of them will manage to be healthy, hardworking, lovely peoole whom will enrich the world for having been there. But none of that means that their childhoods are thus validated! It's tough to overstate how frustrating and overused 'I spank my kids, and they're great' is given all of that. It's not actually an argument. If I am stricken with cancer and survive, I may have learned a great deal from the experience and even be a better person for it-that doesn't equate to a prescription, and if I study hard and utilize natural talent and grow into a hugely successful musician, that also doesn't mean everyone who likes a good tune should go busking.
'I spanked my kids and they're great' is not an argument, it's a way to avoid making or respending to an argument. Anecdotes are generally crappy arguments, which is almost entirely what the people complaining about how mean Samprimary is being are using. What *is* a good argument is a reference to carefully monitored scientific research conducted by experts and reviewed with eyes looking to poke holes by other experts, but let's watch just how little that gets talked about.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:A Time Out tells the child: "I do not want to be around you when you make mistakes. You deserve to be isolated."
Grounding tells the child: "I have the power to deprive you of something you enjoy. Because you did something I did not want you to do, I am using my power and taking away the thing you love. Too bad."
No, this is the spanker justification for such things.
For me, metering privileges according to responsibilities and separation based on unacceptable behavior are easily explained in terms of natural consequences with analogs in the adult world.
"If you keep screaming while we're having dinner, you will have to go to your room. When you act in ways that are disruptive to others, they won't want you to be around them. When you grow up people just won't be your friend. For tonight you're going to have to leave the room until you are ready to act politely at the table."
"Video games are privilege that you earn by finishing your homework, just like daddy can't watch TV until he finishes his work. Since you didn't turn your homework in this week you haven't earned video game time this weekend."
Spanking, on the other hand - "You were bad so I'm going to hit you. Just like how mommy gets punched the police officer if she drives over the speed limit."
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by DustinDopps: Samp: Your opinion has been clearly heard. Spanking is either evil or stupid. Those of us who spank on purpose are either lazy or not smart enough to be "enlightened."
But please, tell me how any form of punishment is viable under your system of logic.
Easiest question of the week. The answer is that all of the listed non-spanking punishments do not model violence and the intentional infliction of pain as a method of resolution. To children. By hitting them. You can strain to model any punishment as negative. You can model hitting children as hitting children.
quote:You don't take the time to understand how it works because you are already dead-set against it.
When you are arguing against someone who has pediatric science backing him up, don't tell them that they just simply don't understand how 'it works.' You have to first establish that it works in the sense that it is claimed to work (in effect, that it is necessary or preferable to not spanking).
Which, I might add, you didn't even touch. Which are you arguing? Are you saying that spanking is either necessary or preferable? Which one?
quote:The proof is in the pudding, as they say. You can make all sorts of blanket statements that make you feel like your opinion is the only *right* one, but I'll take my well-behaved, awesome kids over your pithy comments any day of the week.
By "the proof is in the pudding" you apparently mean "the nonproof is in my own anecdote, as opposed to actual data." SEE ALSO: the "and I turned out fine" argument.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Here's the thing: no one, not even Samprimary, is saying 'you cannot raise children to be happy, healthy, productive, disciplined, and loving if you spank them'.
Yup. Just look at that third link I provided. I'm absolutely positive parents using that model are more than likely to describe their children as Happy and Well-Behaved Proof of How Awesome it is to Whip your Kids into Submission. Is it proof that justifies their (exceedingly barbaric) method? No. But gut and anecdote is the fallback. Always.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I've yet to hear anyone even address the "I tried everything else and it didn't work and spanking did." argument.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I said that often other options are eliminated by parents who spank that would work and gave an example. I do not know enough details of your situation, but there probably was an option you did not consider.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I'm trying to not sound snippy, but did you read the post where I described my situation? And if not, why comment?
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I did read the post but when I say my husband and I do an rci on bad behavior, I mean a full blown root cause investigation with trees and all that. We look at every circumstance that could affect the kids behavior, from time of day to tv shows to friends played with. Your son hit your daughter. Time outs and taking privileges didn't fix. That tells me the obvious stuff. It doesn't tell me spanking only solution. Maybe the kid needed to Be put down for a nap an hour earlier. Maye he needed to not play with whatever friend. Maybe he needed some one non one time with parent. I don't know enough details to say for certain but from what you said, I cannot conclude you tried everything and only spanking worked.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
It's very difficult to get a three year old to articulate their feelings.
And mostly he didn't -hit- his sister, he would sit on her head and bounce. We tried to get him to understand that it wasn't play for her, and when she cried, she wasn't having fun, he needed to stop. But he didn't get it.
He did however understand that when he hurts her, daddy gave him a spanking and a time out.
I do not plan to carry spanking into his adolescence. Once I can explain things to him like, "You can suffocate your sister doing that, and it's not all fun and games." then I will, and not spank. But for now, when it comes to the important, life endangering, too young to get it, already been warned kinda things, he'll get a swot on the bum, a time out and an explanation, and I seriously doubt he will carry any emotional baggage from it into his adult life.
I'm really not sure what to say about getting all CSI on bad behavior...I mean, I applaud your thoroughness and all, but golly, I mean they are kids, barbarous, uncivilized, heathens, just as happy to draw in cat droppings as chalk. Don't get me wrong, I love my little troglodytes, but I don't have to investigate why he thought it was hilarious to jump up and down on someone's head.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I did read the post but when I say my husband and I do an rci on bad behavior, I mean a full blown root cause investigation with trees and all that. We look at every circumstance that could affect the kids behavior, from time of day to tv shows to friends played with. Your son hit your daughter. Time outs and taking privileges didn't fix. That tells me the obvious stuff. It doesn't tell me spanking only solution. Maybe the kid needed to Be put down for a nap an hour earlier. Maye he needed to not play with whatever friend. Maybe he needed some one non one time with parent. I don't know enough details to say for certain but from what you said, I cannot conclude you tried everything and only spanking worked.
This to me, in broad terms, could be considered the difference between trying to find the answers to two questions. The first being, "Why is this child behaving this way, and how might that behavior be changed?" and the second being, "Why isn't this child doing what they're told, and how can they be made to obey?"
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
If you know why te kid is bouncing on head, you can prevent in the future. If there is an unmet need, you can find a way to meet it. I also do positive reinforcement very strongly. In this case, you see your son playing properly with his sister, you praise him. Ex "good job, I line how you are playing so nice with your sister. That is why we expect from you." when you see negative behavior, you go back to this praise. "that isn't the way we play. Remember how nicely you were playing earlier. That is how we play." this can be tricky sometimes when the positive behavior is brief so you have to be ready and catch the moment. An yes, you are rewarding a child for simply not making trouble. They may not deserve it for something so minor, but I'd it eliminates negative behavior, giving a bunch of extra hugs and attention so much nicer than spanking and yelling. All the responses you listed to your kids misbehaving we're punitive. All the lovely ways to modify behavior non punitively are still out there.
Posted by DustinDopps (Member # 12640) on :
I'm not using "I spank my kids and they're great" as an argument to convince anyone.
I'm saying "I spank my kids and they're great, so I personally see the effectiveness of this discipline method. Your opinion is valid for you, but it contradicts my own experience and thus has less validity for me. If you think I am somehow immoral for spanking, feel free to think you are superior. I don't care."
It's the same feeling I have about my religious beliefs. You might think I'm an idiot for believing in God, but I don't care: I've seen what I've seen and don't need to prove it to you. You can show me 10,000 scientists who say that God doesn't exist, but I know otherwise.
It makes me infuriating to argue with, I admit, because I don't rely on the same "data" and "studies" that you do. And I know that makes you think less of me, but again, I don't care. :-)
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I'm not using "I spank my kids and they're great" as an argument to convince anyone.
Except, y'know, you did attempt to use it as an argument to persuade-that it was reasonable to simply ignore any amount of research that contradicts what you conclude about your own personal experience-because of course that's an infallible way to reach good conclusions, and if after you look into your memories and like what you see, you know you're doing the least bad thing.
The way to not use the 'I spank my kids and they're great' argument is to not use it. You can't expect to have it both ways.
quote:I'm saying "I spank my kids and they're great, so I personally see the effectiveness of this discipline method. Your opinion is valid for you, but it contradicts my own experience and thus has less validity for me. If you think I am somehow immoral for spanking, feel free to think you are superior. I don't care."
Except clearly you do, having gone to some effort to defend corporal punishment as an effective and moral tool of parenting. I'm really not sure if you actually believe you don't care, or simply wish others to think you don't care if they think they're superior in this matter.
quote:It's the same feeling I have about my religious beliefs. You might think I'm an idiot for believing in God, but I don't care: I've seen what I've seen and don't need to prove it to you. You can show me 10,000 scientists who say that God doesn't exist, but I know otherwise.
Wait a second, weren't you the same guy who once claimed to have 'studied science' or some such rot to such an extent you could reject it in sweeping terms? If so, such a man would surely know scientists are hardly in the habit of claiming science demonstrates God exists-using science to debunk various wack-a-doo religious claims about history or reality not being the same thing.
But you already knew that, I'm sure.
quote:It makes me infuriating to argue with, I admit, because I don't rely on the same "data" and "studies" that you do. And I know that makes you think less of me, but again, I don't care. :-)
An important distinction: you're not an 'infuriating' person to argue with. I can see how it would appeal to your vanity, couched in all appropriate religious 'modesty', to think you've got them thar agnostics and atheists seething at your intransigence (godliness), but I expect that more often those that don't find you irritating and amusing simply find you pitiable, but I doubt many are infuriated. You're a dying breed. Time and the passage of generations will handle the sort of attitude you're espousing-not with regards to corporal punishment (though that will happen too), but with your vanity couched as modesty as shown by a reliance on your own simple personal experience, which you regard as as valid a study as anything any group of scientists who make studying children their jobs and their lives. Some like me hold that sort of false modesty and prideful ignorance in contempt, but hardly everyone.
But in general, people don't get infuriated at those who disagree with them if time is showing them to be losing-and I definitely don't want to hear any 'oh so it's just what's popular' from you, though that would be funny.
Posted by DustinDopps (Member # 12640) on :
Rakeesh - oh so it's just what's popular :-)
You and I will never agree about Science vs. Faith and that's fine. At least we both know where we stand. But to try to dissect my word choice and imply that I am all about 'false modesty' and 'vanity' and 'holier-than-thou' is pretty arrogant on your part.
I'm not posting here to convince anyone that I'm better than them. Do you really think saying "I spank my kids" is a moral statement? If anything, I know that many people here will think *less* of me for it. Instead of trying to persuade anyone to agree with me, I'm trying to show that the statement "Spanking = Abuse" doesn't apply to my situation - or to most people I know who spank their kids.
If you want to continue to attack me personally, feel free, but I won't respond to it anymore.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:You and I will never agree about Science vs. Faith and that's fine.
Well, the important thing is that when someone uses Faith as a shield for being testably wrong about something, you're called on it. Which is what starts to look like what's happening here and which is central. You advanced arguments, but then reverted to a non-argument and a "I know what works for ME."
But you really aren't actually making a statement. Does faith in God ultimately have something to do with you spanking your kids? Is it leveraged as some reason why you 'get' to ignore science or reasoned arguments against hitting your kids? Where ultimately do you stand on the issue of the necessity of spanking? You never really responded to the question of if it were a vital or preferential tool for childrearing, only really that you want to make sure we know that you think (on faith, no less) that it's definitely not abuse.
Well?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by DustinDopps: If you want to continue to attack me personally, feel free, but I won't respond to it anymore.
Doesn't help.
Posted by vegimo (Member # 12618) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: What *is* a good argument is a reference to carefully monitored scientific research conducted by experts and reviewed with eyes looking to poke holes by other experts, but let's watch just how little that gets talked about.
So... the science doesn't matter until you think it agrees with you.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I agreed with Samp's MDs...
I've said from the very beginning that spanking is dangerous, and must be used with a deft hand.
But, when used properly...
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: So... the science doesn't matter until you think it agrees with you.
It is indeed strange, possibly even convenient, that the consensus of scientific study is perhaps valuable and interesting but nonetheless not relevant to the unique (heh), particularly complicated situations that one is living with...
Until a study is found that agrees with you. THEN, suddenly, here is science that asks questions that are relevant. They weren't before-they didn't quite get it right. How do we know? Because we knew the answer to start with, and they were getting it wrong!
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
It is indeed strange, possibly even hypocritical, that one might specifically call for the opposition to provide clinical evidence, and then when furnished with it, completely ignore it and focus solely on attacking the credibility of a "theoretical poster".
*Yawn*
Predictably boring.
[ November 06, 2012, 07:39 PM: Message edited by: Stone_Wolf_ ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I was speaking to Matt with respect to vegimo and Dustin, not to you. I can see why you interpreted it the way you did, but now that I've clarified myself I'll continue not posting to you-except to say that our arrangement is still in place, and ask that if you can't restrain yourself on your own that you remember that.
Posted by vegimo (Member # 12618) on :
Wait, what? You were talking about me? I provided the study you asked for. What specifically were you saying about me?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
That's strange, as Matt was talking to me, and you quoted him.
Here I thought the game you had set up was talk as much trash as you can get away with by referring to "one" instead of "you". But hey, since you came out from behind the veil, I'll do the same.
I don't believe you for a second.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by vegimo: Wait, what? You were talking about me? I provided the study you asked for. What specifically were you saying about me?
There's some confusion here. Samprimary is the one who has most often asked for evidence beyond anecdote, not me. Second, I was replying to Matt about you and Dustin regarding the attitude that studies didn't matter, unless they confirmed a bias. But if you were only offering because it was asked, I misunderstood.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Stone_Wolf: Rakeesh has indicated he wasn't talking to you. That's what he is saying right now, so please leave him be.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
BlackBlade: Rakeesh is lying. But for you I'll move his and my shots at each other back behind the veil, not that that is fooling anyone.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
In accordance with my policies I'll be good and just give you a timeout
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
As the primary care giver of two rambunctious small children, I'd love a time out!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:You and I will never agree about Science vs. Faith and that's fine.
Well, the important thing is that when someone uses Faith as a shield for being testably wrong about something, you're called on it. Which is what starts to look like what's happening here and which is central. You advanced arguments, but then reverted to a non-argument and a "I know what works for ME."
But you really aren't actually making a statement. Does faith in God ultimately have something to do with you spanking your kids? Is it leveraged as some reason why you 'get' to ignore science or reasoned arguments against hitting your kids? Where ultimately do you stand on the issue of the necessity of spanking? You never really responded to the question of if it were a vital or preferential tool for childrearing, only really that you want to make sure we know that you think (on faith, no less) that it's definitely not abuse.
Well?
Just thought I'd ask again for an answer to this.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Stone Wolf, my concern is about your son in the long term. I know he is only 3 now, but is he really learning that harming his sister is wrong? The impulse is still there. There is a reason he is doing it, and spanking is not getting at that reason. Most 3 year olds do not have the impulse to harm their siblings. Have you talked to your pediatrician about it? I am assuming he will be entering pre-school or kindergarten sooner than later, and they don't spank there. What happens if the violent impulses continue there?
Now, I am not opposed to spanking. I have been fortunate that time outs have been working for my 3 year old. My wife and I have discussed it, and agreed neither of us a philosophically opposed to spanking. We have just not had the need yet. As a teacher I know that every child is different, and every child needs a different type of discipline.
Sorry I didn't offer a more direct reply sooner...Liam, my son, is a kind and loving lad, but very rambunctious, and can get rough without the intent of hurting. When my daughter Winter was a bit younger, their rough housing got dangerous, mostly with my son sitting on my daughter's head. While there was a bit of slappy hands when the girl stole a toy he was playing with, the vast majority of the problem was the sitting on head/chest while playing.
So, it isn't really an impulse to harm her, just more a lack of understanding that it was hurting her. That and a bit of not caring, as she would cry, and he knew what that meant.
As to when he is about to go to school, he will be old enough to understand the explanation and no longer require a type of punishment that transcends communication. Also, hopefully, he will have learned from the spankings and (continue) to not do it.
Posted by DustinDopps (Member # 12640) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Just thought I'd ask again for an answer to this. [/QB]
I actually responded to the question of preference earlier in the conversation, so I felt no need to go over it again.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I actually have no desire to punish anyone. Corrective actions, yes but punishing doesn't mean much to me. I believe in behavior modification and appropriate behavior. I am a reform not a punishment person. Just something I realized reading posts.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Interesting delineation...I could go for that.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by DustinDopps:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Just thought I'd ask again for an answer to this.
I actually responded to the question of preference earlier in the conversation, so I felt no need to go over it again. [/QB]
may i ask where it is? I'm not seeing it.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by DustinDopps:
quote:Originally posted by MattP: People who spank:
Do you believe that spanking has unique benefit that can only be obtained through spanking? Or merely that there is so little harm in it that it's not necessary to consider alternatives?
Yes, I think it does have a unique benefit. A clever child can turn almost any punishment into a "win" for themselves. If they are grounded from video games, they can still entertain themselves with books or music. Or they can whine until their parents relent and un-ground them. If they are given a time out, they can use the time to think about how wrong Mom and Dad are and feel righteous indignation. If they are verbally scolded, they can "tune out" what the parent is saying.
A swat is an immediate, effective, unavoidable punishment for misbehavior. There is no ambiguity and no argument.
It doesn't work, however, if it is just a threatened punishment that is never acted on. I see too many parents use a spanking as a threat, but the kid knows it won't actually happen so they continue to scream in the store or throw a tantrum in church or whatever.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
That's an answer to the question of unique benefit vs. lack of necessity to consider alternatives. It's ambiguous as to whether or not in his worldview it's a necessary component to childrearing (because he literally cannot envision a way to keep a clever child from using other punishments as a "win") or just preferable.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
"Unique benefit that can -only- be obtained through spanking" basically equates to "vital/necessary parenting tool" by my reading of it. Of course I in no way speak for Dustin.
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Anything in particular you want me to comment on?
And yes, there is: I quoted the study you furnished and say I -am- following those guidelines. And have you reviewed and will you comment on the the study vegimo linked to.
From my point of view, spanking has a very limited way it can be used properly, and a huge (read majority) way it can be misused. Therefore it must be used carefully and with forethought.
You seem to be coming from the place that "It's just plain wrong, no matter what, and if you disagree you are lazy and ignorant."
It seems to me you are being more close minded and absolute about this and should release your death grip just a tad.
Please comment.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Stone-wolf, there was a multi year study that showed that a lot of people who in year one used spanking rarely in like year three were using primary form of discipline. That is one reason to recommend avoiding spanking. It is a rare parent who can limit it throughout their kids childhood.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Linky?
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I didnt save link when I read it a right now, my google search needs refining because what I am getting is not what I want. I'll try again later.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Also, this is not saying you will become abusive, just that the tend goes that way. If you think about it, it makes sense. Spanking worked for you. Next time there is an issue, there will be a temptation to skip ahead to spanking because it worked. Over time that temptation could easily become habit. Again, not saying you individually but any general parent:
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Thanks, I didn't think you were singling me out.
My wife and I discussed and agreed, that spanking is a special correction only for violence or truly dangerous activities.
And time outs still work great, heck, most of the time a warning works.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Sorry, I cannot come up with a defining word. I get hundreds of spanking and effects on childhood, mental health, aggression, etc.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
S'okay, I get what you are saying. Spanking is a powerful tool that can be misused very easily. I for one don't think that that means it should be outright banned, just -used properly-.
I'd love to see more stuff out there about -how- to use it properly, and what to avoid, instead of fearing that it will be used improperly to the extent of instantly assuming a knee jerk attitude that all spanking is a Bad Thing™.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
* blink *
You can call something a bad thing without it being a 'knee jerk attitide.' Most people agree with me that spanking is a bad thing, but necessary. I claim that it is a bad thing, and unnecessary, so I don't accept excuses for its use and tell people they should move beyond the practice. If "don't hit your kids" is a knee jerk attitude, I'm a knee jerk, and a knee jerk attitude is a good thing. I'll take it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Some might argue, in fact, that 'here are studies by experts scrutinized by other experts that conclude that only in the very best cases, which are far less common than people think, should spanking be used-and even then, it carries significant risks and long-term conseques' is the *opposite* of 'knee-jerk'.
In fact, more than a few people have.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
What makes it an knee jerk reaction is not *caring* if it is used properly or not, judging it as wrong *no matter the circumstance*.
And hey, if you are comfortable being a knee jerk, then that's between you and whatever God you choose to believe in.
Also, you specifically asked me what I wanted you to comment on, and when I answered you ignored me.
To anyone who else who may claim backing by studies of experts, you don't get to have that legitimacy without addressing the studies of experts who disagree.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: What makes it an knee jerk reaction is not *caring* if it is used properly or not, judging it as wrong *no matter the circumstance*.
Ok, so then my position is not a knee jerk response, because it addresses the issue of if there is a "proper" way to intentionally inflict pain on a child as a means of punishment, and advances the argument that no, no there is no 'proper' way.
There are other things that are wrong no matter the circumstance. Saying something is categorically wrong no matter the act is not 'knee jerk,' otherwise it's a knee jerk response to say that, oh, slavery is always wrong, and I don't care about your argument that slavery can be used "properly."
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
The clinical evidence -you provided- basically says there is a way to spank properly!
And I -can- think of a good way to implement slavery: Convicted murderers have to do hard labor and the wages they receive go to the families of the people they murdered. Easy peasy.
And you -still- haven't addressed the things you invited me to ask you to address.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I'll get to the rest later but
quote:And I -can- think of a good way to implement slavery: Convicted murderers have to do hard labor and the wages they receive go to the families of the people they murdered. Easy peasy.
ew, no
1. immoral
2. unconstitutional
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
not effective
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
How is that immoral? Murderers have taken the life away from the family of the person who they killed, the least they could do is make up for their lost income.
As to unconstitutional, who cares, we were talking about morality, not legality.
Kwea, not effective at what?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:ew, no
1. immoral
2. unconstitutional
It would also not really be slavery. Close, with similarities, but not quite the real enchilada.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I'll get to the rest later but
quote:And I -can- think of a good way to implement slavery: Convicted murderers have to do hard labor and the wages they receive go to the families of the people they murdered. Easy peasy.
ew, no
1. immoral
2. unconstitutional
How is that unconstitutional? It sounds like something that is explicitly made constitutional by the 13th Amendment. The South has a flourishing prison slave labor economy going on, which yeah, I think is ridiculously immoral (and bad for the economy), but it is currently perfectly legal.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
For clarification...are you saying current work gangs are immoral, that murder's wages going to their victim's family is immoral or both?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote: Forced labor occurs when an individual is forced to work against his or her will, under threat of violence or other punishment, with restrictions on their freedom. [8] It is also used to describe all types of slavery and may also include institutions not commonly classified as slavery, such as serfdom, conscription and penal labor.
Hmmm, guess that quote didn't say what I thought it said when I read it on my phone.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I'll get to the rest later but
quote:And I -can- think of a good way to implement slavery: Convicted murderers have to do hard labor and the wages they receive go to the families of the people they murdered. Easy peasy.
ew, no
1. immoral
2. unconstitutional
How is that unconstitutional? It sounds like something that is explicitly made constitutional by the 13th Amendment. The South has a flourishing prison slave labor economy going on, which yeah, I think is ridiculously immoral (and bad for the economy), but it is currently perfectly legal.
the prisoners are not being FORCED to work and their earned wages/productivity is not being used as restitution to family members of victims. They are given, strictly speaking, the option of employment for piecemeal wages.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: The clinical evidence -you provided- basically says there is a way to spank properly!
And I -can- think of a good way to implement slavery: Convicted murderers have to do hard labor and the wages they receive go to the families of the people they murdered. Easy peasy.
And you -still- haven't addressed the things you invited me to ask you to address.
Anyway as for the rest of this: the clinical evidence i provided talked explicitly about how problematic the punishment method is. It is saying "there are ways in which a parent can spank in which the chance for negative effects is minimized" and puts this alongside a specific and clear recommendation that parents do not spank.
This is saying: not spanking is a superior parenting option. this is why we recommend not spanking.
If there is nothing explicitly to recommend spanking as a necessary or preferable utility for parenting, there is nothing that validates intentionally inflicting pain on a child. There are excuses and explanations for why it happens anyway. That's it. Still doesn't mean you should do it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:If there is nothing explicitly to recommend spanking as a necessary or preferable utility for parenting, there is nothing that validates intentionally inflicting pain on a child. There are excuses and explanations for why it happens anyway. That's it. Still doesn't mean you should do it.
Put another way: 'best case' doesn't equal good or advisable. Sometimes, and according to these experts this is one such time, it means 'least bad'.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Maybe ...Says one set of expert's study...you have yet to address the other set if expert's study that disagrees.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Ok. That is a dissenting minority opinion by Lazalere which was registered well before the american psychological association and the american pediatric association summed up metadata and research aggregate on spanking and concluded no good reason to recommend it as either a necessary or preferable incorporated aspect of parenting and led the APA to come out specifically AGAINST spanking. Using data far in excess of the studies he trended towards critique of, which in general showed all the trends you avoid any risk of if everyone takes my advice and stops hitting their kids.
In sum, incorporating his critique:
quote:Gershoff says all of the studies on physical punishment have some shortcomings. “Unfortunately, all research on parent discipline is going to be correlational because we can’t randomly assign kids to parents for an experiment. But I don’t think we have to disregard all research that has been done,” she says. “I can just about count on one hand the studies that have found anything positive about physical punishment and hundreds that have been negative.”
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Specifically can you comment on this:
quote:In addition to being the first scientific review that directly compared child outcomes of physical discipline with alternative discipline tactics, the Larzelere-Kuhn review also overcame two common problems in prior reviews of physical discipline. First, previous summaries of scientific studies did not distinguish between the outcomes of overly severe discipline and nonabusive physical discipline, but grouped them together. Second, previous reviews have failed to solve the chicken-and-the-egg problem as to whether severe misbehavior causes physical discipline or vice versa. The strongest scientific evidence against customary physical punishment in previous reviews was that spanking is associated with later behavior problems, such as aggression.6 But so is every type of corrective discipline.7,8 If spanking should be banned based on its association with subsequent aggression, then hospitals should be banned because their patients die at a higher rate than people residing elsewhere.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote: If spanking should be banned based on its association with subsequent aggression, then hospitals should be banned because their patients die at a higher rate than people residing elsewhere.
I should hopefully not have to comment on how massively shoddy this reasoning is.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:The strongest scientific evidence against customary physical punishment in previous reviews was that spanking is associated with later behavior problems, such as aggression.6 But so is every type of corrective discipline.7,8
You missed this part, in your quote and your reasoning.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Do you honestly think that the science shows that "spanking has identical associations with later behavior problems as any other sort of corrective discipline" or do you not know what is necessary to make your argument meaningful in terms of preferencing physical punishment?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
It isn't my argument, but see those little numbers after the quote, they point at studies...which might have some bearing on this.
quote:7 Larzelere, R. E., Ferrer, E., & Kuhn, B. R. (2006, October). Longitudinal causal inferences given selection biases and regression artifacts. Paper presented at the 6th annual Winemiller Conference on Statistics in the Social Sciences. Columbia, MO. Larzelere, R. E., & Smith, G. L. (2000, August). Controlled longitudinal effects of five disciplinary tactics on antisocial behavior. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washington, DC. 8Straus’s (2001) “landmark” studies provided stronger evidence against customary physical discipline because they adjusted statistically for pre-existing differences in child outcomes. However, Larzelere et al. (2006)7 showed that the statistical adjustment was only partially successful, so that every corrective discipline by parents was still associated with detrimental outcomes even after that adjustment. Ritalin and taking children to visit psychotherapist also appeared detrimental when analyzed statistically in that manner. Straus, M. A. (2001). Beating the devil out of ‘sthem: Corporal punishment in American families and its effects on children (2nd ed.). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
So tell me what the bearing is? You're pointing at studies while not really telling me what point you are advancing for your cause, and I can only point out that the APA reviewed all available data and came to the conclusion that doesn't posit a preferable way to include spanking in punishment.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Okay, here is my point.
Telling relative strangers to "stop hitting their kids" is just worst kind of high handed bossiness. It gets even worse when you say things like you don't need to hear the circumstances, because of a study.
Even assuming that your intentions are as pure as the driven snow, your attitude and tactics are so horribly off putting and imperious that I can't imagine you are really furthering the cause you are trying to further.
Your claim of such moral authority essentially comes down to one thing, a study by experts. When presented by another study by experts your reply is basically, your experts are wrong, and mine are right, the end.
And your opinion is so binary you can not accept that some parents actually use spanking in a way that is effective and minimizes potential damage which even your precious study agrees can be beneficial.
Other then someone's religion, their politics, and their marriages, I can't imagine a more personal and important topic then raising children. And for you to just march up, unasked and arrogantly command people to stop using an effective technique with the judgmental attitude of some crusader protecting our children from abuse is too much.
Even if you are right the majority of the time that spanking shouldn't be used, you are still wrong to be so abrasively pushy, because it doesn't convince anyone and because you are utterly and completely wrong in a minority of cases.
I don't know if you have kids or not, but I can tell you one thing beyond a shadow of doubt, when approaching a sensitive subject like this, forceful condemnation is not the way to go about getting results.
[ November 12, 2012, 11:59 PM: Message edited by: Stone_Wolf_ ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Your point is .. a tone argument? I thought you wanted to discuss the issue of competing studies, which I am addressing pointedly. Do you want to go back to the issue of studies, or do you want to shift this directly to the issue of my tone? Because I would prefer we wrap up what the quotes in question are supposed to be showing me in terms of things you think I have to acknowledge, before we discuss how you feel you have to be addressed in order to pay attention to data that exists independent of your feelings.
quote:and because you are utterly and completely wrong in a minority of cases.
I challenge that this has at all been established.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Does your study delineate between abusive/excessive spankings and appropriate ones as vegimo's does?
It doesn't matter if your study has more data if it's more wrong data.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Erm, I don't have "a study." I have metadata and aggregate conclusions by people who have gone over all the studies. Larzelere has criticized some studies — probably rightfully — over being used too broadly against spanking practices and by saying that the studies have been applied too broadly given that they do not differentiate between harsher and more regulated forms of punishment.
Specifically what was at issue is that if two groups are compared against each other — one which is completely absent of any physical punishment, the other of which includes all physically punished children, ranging between kids who are spanked infrequently and with the whole gamut of 'proper spanking' techniques often advocated all the way to practically or literally criminally physically abused children, of course the latter group is going to test worse in terms of aggression. Certain researchers like Straus, et al have only had their positions bolstered when studies come out that control for these effects and make sure that "proper spanking" is tested against nonspanking.
What Lazerlere & co did is important to science, especially the science of spanking. I do not detract from his criticisms. The thing is, though, is that we aren't weighing one study against another. We're not saying "ah, you have a study which says one thing! here is a study which we found that contradicts those findings!" — to wit, at no point here has it been established that there's a prominent group of studies from which it can be accurately be depicted that there's a type of spanking that can be used with enough data indicating a methodologically determined "safe" range of spanking practices.
quote:Some people believe that all forms of spanking should be banned. Others disagree. But researchers from both sides of the debate agree on the following points:
• Babies shouldn’t be spanked.
• Spanking children has been linked with all sorts of behavior problems, including increased aggression and poor emotional regulation. It’s even been linked with slower mental development.
• Spanking children older than 5 or 6 is a bad idea. Research suggests that older kids are especially susceptible to the negative effects of spanking. They are more likely to become antisocial or distressed. They are also more likely to develop negative relationships with their parents.
• Spanking isn't more effective than non-physical punishments that include reasoning. Current studies suggest that spanking--even the most restrained and careful use of spanking-- is no more effective than disciplinary tactics that combine non-physical punishments with reasoning. When spanking is used as the primary disciplinary method, it is clearly less effective than the alternatives.
• Emotions matter. Research suggests that spankings are most detrimental when parents are angry, cold, or insensitive.
All that has been established so far is that some ways of spanking children are potentially less problematic to the extent of possibly being almost as good as other forms of discipline. "possibly almost maybe not problematic" is not sufficient reasoning to justify using intentionally inflicting pain on a child, in my egregiously non-humble opinion.
If you would like to submit a paper/study/metadata conclusion establishing a 'safe range' of spanking I could of course consider it. I'm not particularly inclined to believe there will be a better aggregate conclusion than the APA/APA's recommendations against spanking, though.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
First off, if you did pay attention to circumstances instead of being so stuck in a black and white view of things you would already know that I agree with most of your bullet points.
But let's take it out of the theoretical and put you in my parental shoes for a minute:
Your otherwise kind and loving two and a half year old keeps sitting on your one year old daughter's head and chest, and roughly shoving her to the floor. You have tried explaining it to him, tried time outs, tried removal of privileges. Nothing is working.
What do you do?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
O
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
P.S. My wife and I talked it over and decided to try spanking...one swat with an explanation and a time out.
And it worked!
Spanking worked when other forms failed.
It is not theory that causes me to think what I do, it was necessity and results.
Had other forms of discipline worked, then the least desirable option would not have been tapped.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
Stone wolf discovers the "immediate short term compliance" aspect of spanking. Good job bro!
You totally showed all those pediatricians.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: P.S. My wife and I talked it over and decided to try spanking...one swat with an explanation and a time out.
And it worked!
Spanking worked when other forms failed.
It is not theory that causes me to think what I do, it was necessity and results.
Had other forms of discipline worked, then the least desirable option would not have been tapped.
Honest question: can you describe for me what, given your understanding of reasoning and pediatric study methods available to us, the limitations of your experiment are?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Fracking non parents...I'm not proving a theorem here, I'm keeping my children safe!
This isn't some lab, these are real little people in danger of suffocating because they lack the understanding that some playing is dangerous!
So let's hear it, what would you do in my shoes? Would you risk a tiny chance of emotional issues in the future to prevent the very likely chance of a tiny casket?
Have some kids and then we can talk.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Honest question: can you describe for me what, given your understanding of reasoning and pediatric study methods available to us, the limitations of your experiment are?
Step 1: Start from the assumption that spankings can be divided into two categories: excessive/bad and managed/effective.
Step 2: The study turns out what is put in, and pre-existing idea is confirmed!
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
"Fracking non parents" is a non-sequitur. I'm a fracking parent, six times over, and I agree with them.
Let's suppose spanking didn't work, but you decided to try waterboarding and, sure enough, it corrected their behavior immediately. Well hey, it's just simulates drowning and the alternative is a "likely chance of a tiny casket." How do you determine when that sort of logic stops justifying an otherwise harmful behavior on your part?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Water boarding, really?
quote:How do you determine when that sort of logic stops justifying an otherwise harmful behavior on your part?
Uh, sanity? And I don't for a second stipulate that a single controlled swat on a diapered and clothed bottom is "otherwise harmful behavior".
Only one person has ever answered my question of what to do instead of spanking, and it was scholarette with a suggestion of a root cause investigation. So let's hear it you supposed child raising experts, what is the better choice? Because this isn't just a theoretical discussion on the internet on this end.
As to non parents, it's simple, you have more respect from me then these bachelors who feel they have the right to lecture me from a place of utter ignorance beyond some research on the internet. It's much like the difference between battle planning and battle. I don't care that they have a PHD from West Point, none of them has been in a real fight (from what little I know of their real lives).
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: "Fracking non parents" is a non-sequitur. I'm a fracking parent, six times over, and I agree with them.
Let's suppose spanking didn't work, but you decided to try waterboarding and, sure enough, it corrected their behavior immediately. Well hey, it's just simulates drowning and the alternative is a "likely chance of a tiny casket." How do you determine when that sort of logic stops justifying an otherwise harmful behavior on your part?
In this context, it's more than simply a non-sequitur, really. That sort of line is only ever arbitrary anyway. Almost no one, or at least very few people, in the Western world would dispute a non-parent's right to criticize, say, arranged marriages or parental tracking of female children away from professional or independent-geared education. Fewer but still not very many would dispute a non-parent's right and status to criticize, say, no dating of any kind before a child turns 18. So on and so forth.
As for your question, we've seen in this thread (though with only a few people participating overall, much less on each side, it's hardly a good sample) that the answer is: you deny the question is even relevant. Dustin rejected first the notion that the question of whether or not corporal punishment was a good parenting tool was anything but absurd, putting the entire weight of whether to even consider the matter on the other side. Then when presented with sources about as professional, experienced, and knowledgeable as it gets (APA), denied without looking that such studies had relevant insight into his particular circumstances.
The only evidence presented that wasn't purely anecdotal-worthlessly anecdotal, even, and we saw that in how cavalierly he was willing to reject other anecdotal evidence-was a study linked by vegimo. Even there, the assumption that some kinds of corporal punishment were good and effective parenting techniques was overt.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I might well have thought that the delineation between parent and non-parent was arbitrary myself...before I had kids. Just as a fully trained yet untested cadet, might feel about battle hardened vets.
And I have no problem with non-parents criticizing spanking, in general. Where I draw the line is unasked for advice in the form of a command with no interest in any specifics, simply the platitude, that spanking is wrong like slavery and anyone who says otherwise is ignorant and lazy.
Samp might get a bit of traction with his theories on intolerance of bigotry, that by creating a hostile environment for the intolerant he helps make intolerance unacceptable. But that is a discussion of adult behaviors. Not of children, and not of parents who love their children very much and are doing the very best they can. Some tact is required. Some modicum of an empathetic approach.
He and those like him have a bit more wiggle room as they have walked in the shoes of bigots, and chosen to not be bigoted. But being a parent is a whole other world which changes your life in very unexpected ways and is not simply open to outsiders bullying what they think is right without some effort at understanding.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Before I propose alternative methods can we shore up whether or not you are still insisting I provide my (non-parent) advice or if you think my (non-parent) advice is invalid? If you think my non-parent advice is invalid, do I have to propose my standpoint to parents and have them vet them for you? Because I am more than welcome to do so.
besides that, I consider your distinction as irrelevant as rakeesh described.
quote:But that is a discussion of adult behaviors. Not of children, and not of parents who love their children very much and are doing the very best they can.
This is a discussion about adult behaviors too. The parents who love their children are adults. The parent who decides to hit their child is an adult and it is the adult's behavior at issue here.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Your attitude of arrogant command is extra unacceptable as a non-parent (to me). Suggesting alternatives to spanking with a reasoned argument as to why they are superior is not a problem whether you have raised children or not.
Sure, this is a discussion of adult behaviors, but my point was this isn't -only a discussion of adult behaviors-. Had my child responded favorably to more recommended methods of behavior correction and stopped being a danger to my other child, I would not have escalated to a more drastic form of correction.
That's my point, that you might have a leg to stand on when it comes to "beating up on bigots for the good of all" but when it comes to parenting, it is more reactionary to utterly fluid and highly nuanced situations, and taking such a strong black and white view, flat out rejecting all further data just speaks to your lack of real life experience dealing with children.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
You used no positive reinforcement methods so you haven't tried anything. You also could just keep the kids separate. That is what I did when I brought home the dogs and they didn't know what to do with baby. Actually i still do tht with dogs. Sometimes my two kids have to play in separate rooms if they are not playing right.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: You used no positive reinforcement methods so you haven't tried anything. You also could just keep the kids separate. That is what I did when I brought home the dogs and they didn't know what to do with baby. Actually i still do tht with dogs. Sometimes my two kids have to play in separate rooms if they are not playing right.
I think many people forget this aspect of child rearing, or even just child-watching. I know I have at times, looking out for cousins as I've done a lot of for...man, I always forget. Children of cousins are second cousins? Anyway, I'm not sure how much your opinion counts for, being a parent but reaching a dubious conclusion.
I've seen parents forget it too, of course-forgetting that they actually do have control over a child in ways that aren't analogous to dealing with other people, or even older children. As you say, if a given behavior is problematic, the child can be totally removed from it in the short term. Of course then there are also plenty of people who are also very mindful of the extent of their control, to dismaying results.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Children of your cousins are cousins once removed. You are in different generations. Second cousins share a great grandparent.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
We use positive reinforcement all the time! That isn't effective once a problem is upon you, but very good for preventing problems. I'd hate to even consider the difficulties we would be facing if we didn't use positive reinforcement.
Oh, and physically separating them has logistical problems, but worked for short term but offered no permanent solution.
[ November 15, 2012, 12:04 AM: Message edited by: Stone_Wolf_ ]
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Attack from behind the veil:
I never said anyone's opinion was invalid for any reason, which you well know. Man it is easy to lie and manipulate when you know you have admin enforced immunity.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Positive is more tricky once you have a problem, but there are still ways to do it. When I taught, I was only allowed positive feedback and a lot of the kids were monsters. Sometimes it gets very very tricky, but years of practice helps.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
The other question is why Good kid behavin in this way? Unless the answer is the kid is missing on the joys off spankings,you have masked the problem, not resolved.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: Positive is more tricky once you have a problem, but there are still ways to do it. When I taught, I was only allowed positive feedback and a lot of the kids were monsters. Sometimes it gets very very tricky, but years of practice helps.
I would put it like: positive feedback is most effective used proactively, but still has use in short-term situations-and negative teqhniques appear to be more effective in short term situations, because most of their gains and most of their losses are short and long term, respectively.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Attack from behind the veil:
I never said anyone's opinion was invalid for any reason, which you well know. Man it is easy to lie and manipulate when you know you have admin enforced immunity.
Stone_Wolf: Knock it off please. Rakeesh is responding to an idea currently being discussed, not you specifically. Further, you are continually responding directly to Rakeesh, I don't appreciate it.
If you think I'm being unfair, please PM me.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Sure, this is a discussion of adult behaviors, but my point was this isn't -only a discussion of adult behaviors-. Had my child responded favorably to more recommended methods of behavior correction and stopped being a danger to my other child, I would not have escalated to a more drastic form of correction.
This is bogus reasoning. You might as well just continue it further. "Had my child responded favorably to spanking, I would not have escalated to using a belt."
Which people have done.
It goes back to my question about if you could determine the limitations of your reasoning as underpinned by your experiment.
quote:That's my point, that you might have a leg to stand on when it comes to "beating up on bigots for the good of all" but when it comes to parenting, it is more reactionary to utterly fluid and highly nuanced situations, and taking such a strong black and white view, flat out rejecting all further data just speaks to your lack of real life experience dealing with children.
Just in case all the other valid arguments pointing out the nonsequitorial nature of your attempted dismissal of my opinion as being that of a non-parent:
every single aspect of my position on spanking has been adopted, down to the simplest points, from a parent. And if the parent were here right now, she would be speaking to you much more sternly than me. But you didn't need to know that. That defense of the 'authority' of my statement should have been always irrelevant, and people have explained why.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: The other question is why Good kid behavin in this way?
Shoving to the floor was from frustration, usually when a toy's use was in contention he has learned to seek parental help as a solution.
As to rough housing, they still do, but he now knows to stop as soon as she starts crying. I think the whole face/chest sitting thing was just ignorance, not any real attempt to harm her.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Samp, I've been very clear that it isn't your opinion that I find invalid because of your lack of children, but your approach. You have also never acknowledged neither that I am using spanking in a way -your- study says is ideal and that I have agreed with 90% of your points.
When it comes down to it, you are acting aggressively arrogant and high handed with condemnation about a topic where you are the one who is being a fundamentalist and requiring complete surrender.
What gives you the right to think you have the moral authority to lecture parents so high handedly? Get off your high horse, and try using some gol-ram tact.
It's like someone who has played first person shooters lecturing a war hero on tactics because their friend who served things the same thing.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: What gives you the right to think you have the moral authority to lecture parents so high handedly? Get off your high horse, and try using some gol-ram tact.
It's like someone who has played first person shooters lecturing a war hero on tactics because their friend who served things the same thing.
Hahahahaha oh my god. Listen to yourself. Read your own post to yourself.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Parkour:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: What gives you the right to think you have the moral authority to lecture parents so high handedly? Get off your high horse, and try using some gol-ram tact.
It's like someone who has played first person shooters lecturing a war hero on tactics because their friend who served things the same thing.
Hahahahaha oh my god. Listen to yourself. Read your own post to yourself.
Well, that is actually despite its pointed ironic skewering a solid example of the tone problem, I think.
On topic, though, I'm curious-in what circumstances does the study you referenced describe corporal punishment as ideal?
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
I'm not invested in the scientific part of the great 'should I smack that ass debate.' I just want to die and come back from the dead after the great tone debate is over.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
So there are, in the study you mentioned, circumstances in which corporal punishment is ideal?
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
This might be the passage, from the summary:
"They also identified an optimal type of physical discipline, called conditional spanking, which led to better child outcomes than 10 of 13 alternative disciplinary tactics and produced outcomes equivalent to those of the remaining three tactics.5 Conditional spanking is nonabusive, used when a child responds defiantly to milder disciplinary tactics such as time out (based on research on 2- to 6-year-olds). “Nonabusive” is defined as about 2 open-hand swats to the buttocks when a parent is not angrily out of control. Conditional spanking teaches a child to cooperate with the milder disciplinary tactic, thereby making spanking less necessary in the future."
Apparently, however, the study has already been discredited, according to Samp (see last 2 pages of this thread).
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I'm actually gonna stick up for it some: "discredited" is something that could happen specifically to this report — I think it is more that the idea, upon aggregate review, has failed to show enough demonstrable traction in studies. As in, if there IS a 'proper' way to hit kids, it is notoriously difficult to determine through longitudinal study, and when layman analysis of 'proper' spanking application is studied methodologically, the kids pretty much always turn out worse than the ones in the group whose parents either don't spank on preference, or were asked to not spank to act as a control.
When the methodological study shows a huge quantity of very difficult to avoid complicating and negative effects from incorporating spanking — even by parents who are very sure that they are doing it 'properly' and 'lovingly,' which are completely avoided by not spanking, versus a handful of studies which indicate that there may be very specific forms of spanking which are maybe about as good as most (but not all) non-spanking punishment forms, the APA has only one real course to take. Follow the model, apply the data, make the recommendation based on the data.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
If the APA (AAP? American Academy of Pediatrics?) finds that any form of spanking in any circumstance is at best ineffective and at worst detrimental to the kid's development, then yeah, I'm inclined to go along with them. Like I said earlier, I've spanked my kids on very rare occasions when all other warnings, diversions, getting-down-on-your-knees-and-explaining-the-error-of-their-ways-in-little-kid-terms failed and the behavior needed to end and not be repeated; I'm talking on the level of trying repeatedly to open the oven door when dinner's cooking--they're either ultimately deterred by a swat on the bum followed by a loving yet earnest lecture, or by a serious burn and a trip to the hospital, you take your pick. If there is a better way to deter that rare yet inevitable boneheadedness, I'm all for it.
I'd actually like to see the AAP's recommendations against spanking clearly spelled out in terms parents/guardians can use in a variety of common situations--not to prove them wrong but to have some good "alternative" strategies to try the next time my kids try to kill themselves or each other. Maybe they've published them in parenting magazines we don't subscribe to? We've certainly sought out and tried to adopt the best practices we can find in terms of reinforcing positive behavior and administering discipline.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Advice for robots, that one is easy. Stick them in their room and close the door. Or a playpen, bouncer, crib, whatever contained area there is in your house. If you don't have a contained area, get one.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Well, I don't know how competently I can describe the technique before my questions come back in, but in a situation like that (involving our frequent hypothetical foe, the stove) the mom swept into action immediately, pulled the child back and said NO, you do NOT touch that, it is DANGEROUS. expressly and clearly forbid to the child going near the stove again.
I said "you know he's gonna wander near it again, right?" and she said "yeap." She completely anticipated it. essentially all part of the plan, I guess.
Kid got close again, mom immediately swept up the kid and put the kid in a timeout corner, kid lost it because he really really wanted to be in kitchen with mommy, but mommy watched him and put him back in the corner every time he got out of the seat, without wavering, then at the end of the timeout clock put him on bed and explained stove is no no bad. period. You can come back in the kitchen but if you go near stove you get timeout for twice as long and you can't be in the kitchen with mommy anymore.
the more important second half is the positive reinforcement; it's not sufficient to merely tolerate correct behavior and only act on incorrect behavior, you have to reinforce the correct behavior. So the kid got a sandwich cream thingy when he was good and had been in the kitchen for a whole ten minutes without going near the stove horray! and got told how he was doing the RIGHT thing and that was good.
After a few subsequent reinforcements, stove was really seriously not at issue. Another incident involving the kids trying to climb a trellis-like object in the backyard was more difficult to extinguish but managed in pretty much the identical way.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Also, a lot of your parenting techniques shouldn't be limited to in the moment. I think it was kq who had her kids blanket trained so she just laid out her blanket and the kids knew from like 9 months that they should not leave that blanket.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: Advice for robots, that one is easy. Stick them in their room and close the door. Or a playpen, bouncer, crib, whatever contained area there is in your house. If you don't have a contained area, get one.
not room! timeout bench, eventually becoming timeout corner stand.
this crap, man. this crap.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
We also role play proper responses and have since the kid was three. With my kids being younger, they wouldn't go ten minutes before positive feedback. Bin would get a marble after 30 seconds and then again at like 2 minutes and then after 4. Marbles have changed in value and immediacy since bin was 3 though. At three ten marbles might be a cookie or stickers or something but now at 5, she gets 250 marbles for about $20. It takes about a month but that has been something we built up slowly.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: Also, a lot of your parenting techniques shouldn't be limited to in the moment. I think it was kq who had her kids blanket trained so she just laid out her blanket and the kids knew from like 9 months that they should not leave that blanket.
.. hadn't thought of that. behaviorally, it would be easy to implement. whoooa
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Well, positive reinforcement is one thing. I mean, it definitely works to reward good behavior, and of course we have our own reward systems in place and try to remember to tell them how good they're being, etc. My kids aren't hellions and don't do boneheaded stuff very often. They know better--and sometimes that's the problem. They know better, so now what do we do?
I also appreciate the lesson in giving time outs. Believe me, with kids ranging from baby to 11 years old, I am well-versed in all the variations. Usually the threat of a time out works just fine. Usually in a dangerous situation they understand after you pull them away and give them a short lecture in why we don't do that. I have given many such lectures. Most of the time that time out is enough of a lesson in don't do that. Every once in a while they go right back to it.
Most of the time you can take measures to make the situation less dangerous--closing them out of the room, sticking them in the playpen until they've forgotten whatever perfidy they were up to (if they're small enough), locking the front door so they can't get out and run down the street, putting a fancy plexiglas guard on the stove, whatever. But every once in a while they keep doing it. Sometimes they're just resistant to being reasoned with. Our 2-year-old doesn't quite get "if you do this, I'm going to have to do that" or even "if you can do this, you'll get this reward." Obviously you can train them from a very young age, but kids have such a talent for finding dumb things to do that you just haven't prepared for, and when they really, really want to do it you have to hustle to dissuade them. I still don't deploy the spank unless all other avenues of reason and restraint are exhausted and it's either that or actually watch them get burned, shocked, run over, or whatever horrible thing they're dead set on doing. Then it's a couple of firm pats on the diaper to get their attention, and then a hug and another gentle reaffirmation/lecture.
I mean, I'm inclined to believe what the AAP says because it's backed up by research, and if they had some practical suggestions for incorporating their recommendations I'd certainly give them the time of day. Otherwise, everybody and their brother has a way of getting their kids to behave that works like a charm, if you get what I mean.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: Otherwise, everybody and their brother has a way of getting their kids to behave that works like a charm, if you get what I mean.
Ah, yes, the scorpion gambit. Kids hate scorpions.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I don't get why if you have time to spank kid you can't grab and keep hand from getting burned. It seems to me spanking is a tougher action than grab. I also loved the child leashes. When my daughter couldn't be trusted to be free, she got child leashed. That leash was a very effective tool.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Also, I don't think a person is bad for spanking. I just find that spanking is not a necessary or sufficient tool to parenting. I live in Texas where spanking seems to be the preferred punishment so I am often told there is no way I can raise decent children without swatting. My sister in law even sent me a parenting book on the proper way to spank. Though I also have different goals with my kids. Blind obedience would kinda disgust me.
Posted by ZachC (Member # 12709) on :
So scholarette, you're saying that you're against spanking children because, other, more humane methods are just as effective... but you will attach a rope to your child and pull them along like a common house pet. Please explain to me the logic in that.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Personally, I think both the occasional spank and toddler leashes have their place.
So you can all hate on my parenting methods.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:I don't get why if you have time to spank kid you can't grab and keep hand from getting burned. It seems to me spanking is a tougher action than grab.
Well, that's the thing. I have been grabbing their hand, pulling them away, taking them out of the room, having the serious talk with them, all that stuff repeatedly already, and for some reason they're not getting it. The kid flagrantly violates everything I just told her and starts running for the stove yet again. The spank is to make the lesson sink in a little deeper, for lack of better words. It's the once and for all for something they should not think it's ok to do as a general rule, if nothing else has worked. Getting their fingers burned would be just as effective, but I'm not going to let that happen. I don't want her to think she can just try to do it again as soon as I'm not looking.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Blind obedience--I'm not a huge fan of spanking, despite what I've just said. On the rare occasions I have spanked one of my kids, I did it to get their attention so they'd really listen and hopefully remember what I tell them, lovingly, right after I spank them. I didn't do it to instill fear in them. Letting them know that there are both real consequences for breaking a rule and rewards for following it is not blind obedience; it's the basis of them being able to make good decisions on their own.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: On the rare occasions I have spanked one of my kids, I did it to get their attention so they'd really listen and hopefully remember what I tell them, lovingly, right after I spank them. I didn't do it to instill fear in them. Letting them know that there are both real consequences for breaking a rule and rewards for following it is not blind obedience;...
This.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
For the leash, I use it on my dog to keep my dog safe. I love my children a million miles more so why wouldn't I use it for that. Also, I dont use it to drag them along. I use it so they can't run away and disappear in the store.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I've considered a child leash like that when we're in very crowded places and envied the parents who had them. Just what scholarette said: to keep them safe in certain circumstances. It actually gives them more freedom than they'd have if you were holding on to their hand or arm, and it gives you more freedom as well. If ever we find ourselves at Disneyland or some other such place in the next few years, I'd have them for our two littlest.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Thanks for the response, afr. I forgot to reply earlier and lost the response box text-didn't want you to think I was ignoring what you'd said.
Yeah, I saw that bit too. It does coincide somewhat with what I would expect to be the result of a parent who used corporal punishment 'properly' (i.e. rarely and with a very large degree of restraint). As others have said, though, even that is not really a recommendation for corporal punishment as much as a description of how, if it's going to be used, should be done.
Also, as for the idea of child leashes, I suppose the get a bad rap, but there are many circumstances in which I can imagine they'd be not just unobjectionable but even a good idea. The cosmetic angle of it that ZachC mentioned seems pretty silly to me-parents already are required to treat their children in ways not dissimilar to pets-they regulate when they eat, sleep, where they eat and sleep, *how* they eat and sleep, use overt punishment and reward to modify simple behaviors, even speak in silly voices, so on and so forth.
So if a given parent is going to be in a situation where they can't feel secure enough in their ability to manage just how much roaming exactly their kid is going to do, for whatever reason (hands full, busy, crowded, multiple kids, etc.) then...why not, exactly? Would be my question. It's not as though anyone has suggested staking the kid out in the yard while you're inside visiting...
yet.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: Also, I don't think a person is bad for spanking. I just find that spanking is not a necessary or sufficient tool to parenting.
Correct. I had summarized this up like a long, long time ago .. let me see if I can find the quotes I have stood by the longest.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Most who spank are just trying to get their kids in line and they are going with what they think works.
They probably also work under a belief that it is neglectful to not incorporate spanking as a disciplinary method. In that sense, most who do it are only trying to do what's right for the kiddo. In and of itself, spanking is not something I consider to be a cruel act. I just advocate that it is a misinformed practice that has better alternatives, and this only really contests viewpoints that assert that spanking is a 'necessary' or 'preferable' practice that is integral to parenting.
me in 2007.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
and i wish i hadn't gone back for spankin' threads because they involve characters like malanthrop reminding us that yes, they bred, and they spank their children because it works for dogs right
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
With children who don't speak Chinese, there is no way I would do hong kong without leashes. When they weren't leashed, they were confined to strollers which was a lot less fun and freedom than the leashes. But streets were way to crowded to feel safe without something. Not because of kids behavior but the crowds. My older actually liked the leash because she felt safer.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I am actually entirely for leashes. I got an extremely negative view of leashes, but that was from the early visible examples of use here being terrible parents who had no reasonable control of their children whatsoever anyway, and would just pull them back by the leash over and over again and bark yappy useless shouts at them, so.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
One of my coworkers recently posted on Facebook a quote about how we don't spank our kids ad then complain when they have no conscious. This is the attitude I get at work all the time. Every one of my coworkers believes that if you aren't spanking, you are a bad parent. I also talk about my kids and complain over the stuff they do (well I used to, not so much now) and they all use this as proof that my parenting style is failing. When they were kids, they would never have done the stuff my kids do. Based on my nephews who spank and other kids, mine are angels. And when I was a kid, my parents spanked and I did a lot worse than mine have even considered. I also like the whole raise your daughters rude movement so I will never force my kids to say hug someone f they don't want to. Our number one rule, for which all other rules can be ignored is don't let self get hurt. So if a kid is bullying, she can ignore rules and get herself safe (she once sat there while bullies spit on her for like ten minutes because her teacher said to sit there so we spent a lot of time on defending self). But, I am so tired of hearing how spanking would fix my kids and I am such a bad parent for not.
Posted by GinetteB (Member # 12390) on :
(((scholarette))) for what it's worth, I think you're a great parent not to use spanking, and to help your kid defend itself, and think and act for itself. Just know, if you'd live somewhere else, they'd find the others bad parents and you the good one (and that teacher would be fired). Spanking is just some habit, no habits are necessarily right just because they are habits. And noone would defend a bad habit by saying, 'I do it as a habit' they would come up with some philosophy to defend it. But luckily, in the end people are willing to give up bad habits, as our marvelous human love and intelligence win in the end (I hope).
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
While I use and defend spanking as possibly necessary at times, I in no way think that -not spanking- makes you a bad parent, and from what little I know of your parenting and personality I do not hesitate to say those people criticizing you do not know their rectums from a hole in ground.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
My sister in law actually sent me a parenting book that explains how to spank properly. That book actually kinda made me sick because it was very biblical, original sin kinda stuff. One claim was that if a child disobeys their parent, it should be treated the same as outright defiance of God. It also went on about how even a newborn infant is sinful and evil and it is the parents job to beat the evil out of them.
What I find strange is when I was a stay at home mom, the other moms I hung out with where more anti spanking. Now that I am working, my associates are much more pro spanking. Before my sister in law was just the crazy one and now it is like wow, she is not as fringe as I thought she was.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:My sister in law actually sent me a parenting book that explains how to spank properly. That book actually kinda made me sick because it was very biblical, original sin kinda stuff. One claim was that if a child disobeys their parent, it should be treated the same as outright defiance of God. It also went on about how even a newborn infant is sinful and evil and it is the parents job to beat the evil out of them.
Isn't, in such traditions, the punishment for outright defiance of God supposed to be everlasting damnation in Hell? If so, it wouldn't be surprising to see such an awful and yet also impossible, Hell in such a tradition being so much more cruel than any amount of human effort could accomplish.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: My sister in law actually sent me a parenting book that explains how to spank properly. That book actually kinda made me sick because it was very biblical, original sin kinda stuff. One claim was that if a child disobeys their parent, it should be treated the same as outright defiance of God. It also went on about how even a newborn infant is sinful and evil and it is the parents job to beat the evil out of them.
5 ... 4 ... 3 ...
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
People who tell you that you are a bad parent because you don't spank are in that category of people who need to be shamed and have their opinion burnt out and prevented from passing to new generations.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Delineating between those types and people who like me only use spanking as a last resort, and use it properly is an important delineation, one which requires knowledge of circumstance.
I hope that your last post signifies a dichotomy of your previous absolutist stance.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
My last post doesn't change anything about my Absolutist stance being Absolutely 'you should not spank your kids' — everything I have offered thus far remains consistent to that fact, and right.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Put another way: 'parents shouldn't spank does not equal parents who spank are bad and unloving'. That distinction has been made at least three or four times in this discussion, and usually 'this particular method is wrong' is not read as 'you are doing this entire complicated long term project badly'.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
My point is you should take circumstance into account to know which tactics to use, as parents like myself should not fall into the "people who need to be shamed and have their opinion burnt out and prevented from passing to new generations" category even by your entirely binary moral stance.
While I am utterly acclimated to the simple fact that you will not change your view that "kids should not be spanked" I hope you will wake up to the idea that being a jerk to all on the other side of this argument is at best counter productive to your stated goal.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I hope you will wake up to the idea that being a jerk to all on the other side of this argument is at best counter productive to your stated goal.
My tone is not a factor in whether or not spanking children is a good idea. If someone is unwilling to listen to the evidence on account of my tone, that's a problem with their emotional approach in listening to reason, not with the facts.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:I hope you will wake up to the idea that being a jerk to all on the other side of this argument is at best counter productive to your stated goal.
My tone is not a factor in whether or not spanking children is a good idea. If someone is unwilling to listen to the evidence on account of my tone, that's a problem with their emotional approach in listening to reason, not with the facts.
No, it's a problem for you too *if* one of your aims is to actually be listened to, rather than to preach. But that's an old discussion. And you're right to say that a perceived bad tone doesn't justify rejecting an entire argument, either.
That said, I wonder: how black and white *is* your stance on corporal punishment? Clearly it is black and white to the extent that spanking should not be done because there are other, better parenting tools to hand.
Is it also your view that parents who spank, to any extent and in any circumstances, period, ought to feel ashamed of themselves and be considered bad parents on the question of corporal punishment alone? It seems clear to me that this is not your stance, and more than once you've said things that point in that direction, but I haven't been looking for a fight with you either.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Is it also your view that parents who spank, to any extent and in any circumstances, period, ought to feel ashamed of themselves and be considered bad parents on the question of corporal punishment alone? It seems clear to me that this is not your stance,
If it's clear, why are you asking?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Yeah, that is murky. I should rather say: having read what you have said on a variety of topics in the past, including this one in this thread, I don't think that's your view-therefore you are being this militant (in choice of language, anyway) to have some fun.'
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
No, issues like this are ones I am intently inclined to purposefully not coach in politeness, and state it straightforwardly without any regard for (or probably with the open expectation that)people are going to levy a tone argument and try to turn the argument into "you should be expected to tell me i should stop hitting my child only if you do so nicely!" — I am definitely being listened to on the terms I want by being 'absolutist' or 'militant' about it.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote: I am definitely being listened to on the terms I want by being 'absolutist' or 'militant' about it.
How you figure? How many wayward spanking parents have been converted by your preaching?
And you STILL haven't given any alternative solutions to my situation.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
Sam has actually kept an impressive number of parents from spanking, and actually taught a single mother of two how to do it in person.
Posted by GinetteB (Member # 12390) on :
Specialists oppose the use of corporal punishment both in families as in schools, juvenile facilities, child care nurseries, and all other institutions, public or private, where children are cared for or educated. They claim that corporal punishment is violent and unnecessary, may lower self-esteem, and is liable to instil hostility and rage without reducing the undesired behaviour. They also state that corporal punishment is likely to train children to use physical violence.
By now 32 states have completely prohibited corporal punishment of children, so including spanking by parents, by law. In addition, supreme court rulings prohibit corporal punishment in 2 further states, while another 21 states have officially committed to full prohibition. Countries that have completely prohibited corporal punishment of children by law are, in chronological order:
Sweden (1979) Finland (1983) Norway (1987) Austria (1989) Cyprus (1994) Denmark (1997) Latvia (1998) Croatia (1999) Bulgaria (2000) Israel (2000 Germany (2000) Iceland (2003) Ukraine (2004) Romania (2004) Hungary (2005) Greece (2006) Netherlands (2007) New Zealand (2007) Portugal (2007) Uruguay (2007) Venezuela (2007) Spain (2007) Togo (2007) Costa Rica (2008) Republic of Moldova (2008) Luxembourg (2008) Liechtenstein (2008) Poland (2010) Tunisia (2010) Kenya (2010) Congo, Republic of (2010) Albania (2010) South Sudan (2011).
Artikel 19.1 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child states 'States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child.' This Convention is binding international law for all countries, except for The United States, Somalia and South Sudan, who have not ratified the Convention.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I'll also point out as a gentle aside that many pediatricians, politicians, and other policy makers are themselves parents.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
If you look at daycares and schools, there are tons of kids in there and many don't use any negative discipline at all. Mine is a big believer in distraction and time outs aren't a you were bad, go but a we need a minute to diffuse this situation. More a break than a punishment. If places that deal With large numbers of kids for long hours can do it, I figure me with just two can do it. Though as stated above, I did work tutoring some very badly behaved children with only positive feedback allowed. So, I did get some formal training in discipline methods for kids.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)